Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Fred, the RX-8 is not a 3 rotor. The RX-8 will hit ITR when it is eligible...in 2009!
944 weight reduction, any results
- Thread starter m33mcg
- Start date
Fred, the RX-8 is not a 3 rotor. The RX-8 will hit ITR when it is eligible...in 2009!
Ron Earp
Administrator
Every car has ups and downs about being competitive. The 944 motor costs a lot to build. Well, so does my Jensen Healey (Lotus) motor but I sort of knew that going into the game. At least you have a lot of positives with a 944 that I don't have, and lots of other folks don't have with their IT cars:
*Strong platform to base a race car on
*Good brakes
*Very cheap shell/part/donor cars
*Availability of said above
And, you just might like to look around at other engine builders. It is a relatively simple motor that is quite common, I'm sure someone other than Milledge knows how to make them go. I looked around outside the norm (for Lotus the norm would be Dave Bean & Huffaker) and found a reasonable guy that knows his Lotus 907s inside and out. Maybe you could try the same.
Just trying to offer a couple of suggestions because I don't see the ITAC changing rules of the IT build, or limiting the build, to suit the circumstance that it takes a 100% build for the car to run mid-pack or better. Competitiveness is not guarenteed.
Ron
*Strong platform to base a race car on
*Good brakes
*Very cheap shell/part/donor cars
*Availability of said above
And, you just might like to look around at other engine builders. It is a relatively simple motor that is quite common, I'm sure someone other than Milledge knows how to make them go. I looked around outside the norm (for Lotus the norm would be Dave Bean & Huffaker) and found a reasonable guy that knows his Lotus 907s inside and out. Maybe you could try the same.
Just trying to offer a couple of suggestions because I don't see the ITAC changing rules of the IT build, or limiting the build, to suit the circumstance that it takes a 100% build for the car to run mid-pack or better. Competitiveness is not guarenteed.
Ron
JeffYoung
New member
Fred, I think the issue that you are going to see with the RX8 is not that the gains in IT trim are not the same as other cars (although that appears to be the case). Even if it is, it is irrelevant.
Where I think there is a problem with the RX8 is that the stock numbers Mazda provided are just wrong, way wrong. As much as 15-20 hp high, causing Mazda to lower its published numbers and even offer to buy cars back.
I'm not a Mazda guy, at all, although I do respect (and have learned a lot from) Steve E. Just looking at the raw, provable stock HP numbers, it's pretty clear to me that the RX8 is a good fit in ITR. If it is an overdog when built to the max, the ITAC has a means for a one time fix on weight.
Different issue from the 944 all together in my view. The problem with the 8v is not that the power isn't there, it is just hard to get. 155 whp at 2560 or whatever the weight is plus that suspension and brakes is a decent S car, although I agree it has an uphill battle. At 2750 in A it sure looks strong, especially with the torque that motor makes. Probably a good fit in A at that weight I think, after further (and very limited) consideration.
All that said, the two times I've run NASA I've seen LOTS of 944 cup cars and thought it would be nice to have them in IT. It just needs to happen in a way that doesn't disrupt the ITAC's process.
Where I think there is a problem with the RX8 is that the stock numbers Mazda provided are just wrong, way wrong. As much as 15-20 hp high, causing Mazda to lower its published numbers and even offer to buy cars back.
I'm not a Mazda guy, at all, although I do respect (and have learned a lot from) Steve E. Just looking at the raw, provable stock HP numbers, it's pretty clear to me that the RX8 is a good fit in ITR. If it is an overdog when built to the max, the ITAC has a means for a one time fix on weight.
Different issue from the 944 all together in my view. The problem with the 8v is not that the power isn't there, it is just hard to get. 155 whp at 2560 or whatever the weight is plus that suspension and brakes is a decent S car, although I agree it has an uphill battle. At 2750 in A it sure looks strong, especially with the torque that motor makes. Probably a good fit in A at that weight I think, after further (and very limited) consideration.
All that said, the two times I've run NASA I've seen LOTS of 944 cup cars and thought it would be nice to have them in IT. It just needs to happen in a way that doesn't disrupt the ITAC's process.
Fastfred92
New member
Ok, so I am wrong on the 3 rotor part but I do think it is a similar situation in that the "typical" hp gains for that engine may not be possible, the % gain is not there either for the 944 (Milledge or otherwise). All i am saying is it is at rock bottom weight in ITS and still not a good fit, why not saddle it with some pounds and put it where it has a reasonable opportunity to develop. I see a bunch of 944's joining our club with the switch to ITA. Start it at a high weight and see where it goes.....
If the typical factors say that the 944 is a fit in A at (whatever weight), and if it can't reach its formulaic weight in S, it should be an A car.
What that particular engine will or won't make, in terms of IT-prep power gains, is one factor that gets considered when choosing what car to race - but should NOT be when setting its weight. Using different math because nobody has made one make the expected power (or because it costs a bundle to do so) is a problematic approach to managing the category - EVEN IF it puts this particular car at a disadvantage in this respect.
The 944 should handle and stop great and as mentioned, there's a parts supply line and knowledge base for this chassis. Should a model with an inherently bad weight distribution get a break? Should someone running something that requires expensive, handmade, custom bits run at a lighter weight because it's inherently harder to make it competitive?
(Understand here that I'm not a big fan of the hair-splitting "struts vs. A-arms" details that are getting applied. I think they may go a step too far, in and of themselves - even if they are applied by physical attribute rather than to individual models.)
Three steps down that path and we're there, guys - adding and subtracting weight, and making model-specific allowances ("...limit power to 140 rwhp??" - yikes), and based on what? Lap times? Finishing positions? It's not a good trade-off.
K
EDIT - the more I think about this, the more worried I get by the evidence that we are collectively getting sucked into this. I've seen suggestions this winter of things like "the ECU is impossible to tune" get floated as factors that should be considered when classing and spec'ing new cars. Danger, danger, danger.
What that particular engine will or won't make, in terms of IT-prep power gains, is one factor that gets considered when choosing what car to race - but should NOT be when setting its weight. Using different math because nobody has made one make the expected power (or because it costs a bundle to do so) is a problematic approach to managing the category - EVEN IF it puts this particular car at a disadvantage in this respect.
The 944 should handle and stop great and as mentioned, there's a parts supply line and knowledge base for this chassis. Should a model with an inherently bad weight distribution get a break? Should someone running something that requires expensive, handmade, custom bits run at a lighter weight because it's inherently harder to make it competitive?
(Understand here that I'm not a big fan of the hair-splitting "struts vs. A-arms" details that are getting applied. I think they may go a step too far, in and of themselves - even if they are applied by physical attribute rather than to individual models.)
Three steps down that path and we're there, guys - adding and subtracting weight, and making model-specific allowances ("...limit power to 140 rwhp??" - yikes), and based on what? Lap times? Finishing positions? It's not a good trade-off.
K
EDIT - the more I think about this, the more worried I get by the evidence that we are collectively getting sucked into this. I've seen suggestions this winter of things like "the ECU is impossible to tune" get floated as factors that should be considered when classing and spec'ing new cars. Danger, danger, danger.
944-spec#94
New member
I posted that 140 rwhp number for a reason.
If the goal is to get 944 guys to run IT then it is probably the most effective method. However it does not follow the ideals IT was found ong.
Why 140 rwhp? Well in my experince racing the 944 in NASA mid 130's are good numbers for typical builds. These are not the Milledge build, but builds that a simple and easy to achieve. If your goal is to build numbers of certain cars in class you need to look at stuff like this. Problem is that IT IS a Comp Adjustment!
Now I think you will never see the kind of 944 driver numbers in IT at any weight or class for a simple reason.
1) Cost to build a competitive IT motor
2) Other options were that competitive IT motor is not required.
Right now you can race 944 with sub 140 hp motor and be competitive in NASA (2 spec classes, 2 mixed Mfg classes), PCA (3-4 classes) and POC(2-4 classes). Heck even on the West coast you can run a 944 in SCCA 944 only class and win with 135 rwhp.
Point is while the 944 chassis has alot going for it that makes it cost effective to run in IT takes alot $$$ in the motor and when you have other places to race, but not need that $$$$ motor it will take away alot of the casual racers. IT is great since it is place race a toyota whatever. Not many other places you can race one of those wit competition.
Here in Arizona for example I can race my 944 with its 134.2 whp motor 3-4 weekends per month with less than 6 hr tow and be competitive. None of those are in ITS. So why should I built a IT motor when I can lots of fun and track time without one.
This is not to say racing IT is bad, but it is a large factor in why you may never see lots of 944 in IT. As I said before if you chose to race a car that does not have as many classes to race in IT looks alot better.
Fastfred92
New member
Kirk et al
My argument is that this is not a slippery slope, per Jake, Andy and the other important guys we know the 944's numbers, why else was the process weight adjusted in ITS? Problem lies with the "process" weight is at the very bottom of a hypothetical curve for that car and is just not realistic without illegal weight removal. Why not adjust the weight up that curve to make a better fit in the next class down?? I think most folks here admit the 944 is a tweener so why punish it and err torwards the higher class. There is boatloads of these cars out in race track land, why not capture their entry fees? The lowly P 914 has slid all the way down the IT scale without dire results as has your MkIII, lets move on the 944 for 07
My argument is that this is not a slippery slope, per Jake, Andy and the other important guys we know the 944's numbers, why else was the process weight adjusted in ITS? Problem lies with the "process" weight is at the very bottom of a hypothetical curve for that car and is just not realistic without illegal weight removal. Why not adjust the weight up that curve to make a better fit in the next class down?? I think most folks here admit the 944 is a tweener so why punish it and err torwards the higher class. There is boatloads of these cars out in race track land, why not capture their entry fees? The lowly P 914 has slid all the way down the IT scale without dire results as has your MkIII, lets move on the 944 for 07
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Well, feel free to write a letter and request it.
The ITAC won't ....and can't be concerned with the cost of building a motor to the same limits that other cars build to. If cost is the reason you think the car should be moved, that aint gonna happen, for the reasons listed above. (And I am very aware that a 944 ITS motor from Milledge will run over $20K with Motec. Gag...)
Limiting power isn't something that the ITAC likes either. Heck, when the CRB (sorry gus) decided that the E36 needed an SIR, I called Jeff and Ron and said..."So, lets talk about that list of cars you have for a class above ITS...think the E36 would fit in there with no restrictions, big wheels and less weight?" Yup....nobody likes artificially limiting HP in IT land. Maybe we're just old fashioned...
The ITAC tried very hard to create performance envelopes for each class, and have them be close enough to each other for seamless classing. But it wasn't easy as the structure was existing, and we tried to be very careful with the moving of cars and weight adjustments...
Which brings us to weight....if the letter writer suggests, and research backs the claim up, that the car just can't make it's process weight, then the ITAC has to take a serious look and consider options.
Other related comments:
-The process and the formula: The process does take into account the physical attributes of the car and it's engine. Major factors are considered, (FWD vs RWD), and engine type is too. However, it's not so fine a process as to spit out different numbers for air cooled 6 and water cooled inline 6 cylinder engines, for example. Which is too bad, in a way, and why you'll probably never see a Porsche 911 in IT.
The rotaries have, over the years, proven themselves as overacheivers. Now, if we applied standard process to them, they'd clean up. So clearly the process must take into account such factors. But.....it mustn't assume that just because the engine is a rotary, that it will yeild the same gains as it's brethren from 20 years ago.
So, yes, to some degree, where there is only one model of a particular physical attribute, there will be model specific process applications...until another car comes along with the same attributes.
The ITAC won't ....and can't be concerned with the cost of building a motor to the same limits that other cars build to. If cost is the reason you think the car should be moved, that aint gonna happen, for the reasons listed above. (And I am very aware that a 944 ITS motor from Milledge will run over $20K with Motec. Gag...)
Limiting power isn't something that the ITAC likes either. Heck, when the CRB (sorry gus) decided that the E36 needed an SIR, I called Jeff and Ron and said..."So, lets talk about that list of cars you have for a class above ITS...think the E36 would fit in there with no restrictions, big wheels and less weight?" Yup....nobody likes artificially limiting HP in IT land. Maybe we're just old fashioned...
The ITAC tried very hard to create performance envelopes for each class, and have them be close enough to each other for seamless classing. But it wasn't easy as the structure was existing, and we tried to be very careful with the moving of cars and weight adjustments...
Which brings us to weight....if the letter writer suggests, and research backs the claim up, that the car just can't make it's process weight, then the ITAC has to take a serious look and consider options.
Other related comments:
-The process and the formula: The process does take into account the physical attributes of the car and it's engine. Major factors are considered, (FWD vs RWD), and engine type is too. However, it's not so fine a process as to spit out different numbers for air cooled 6 and water cooled inline 6 cylinder engines, for example. Which is too bad, in a way, and why you'll probably never see a Porsche 911 in IT.
The rotaries have, over the years, proven themselves as overacheivers. Now, if we applied standard process to them, they'd clean up. So clearly the process must take into account such factors. But.....it mustn't assume that just because the engine is a rotary, that it will yeild the same gains as it's brethren from 20 years ago.
So, yes, to some degree, where there is only one model of a particular physical attribute, there will be model specific process applications...until another car comes along with the same attributes.
Bildon
New member
>> One of the things I don't understand is how the RX-7s just go faster and faster
Perhaps I can safely say this in the P-car forum without being run over.
I've had guys come up to me and tell me how easy it is to port the RX7 motors slightly to get big gains. Oh and then they go on to say how no tech inspector will ever see it... It's actually weird how many times I've been told this. Now, I have no experience with rotary motors, but if this is true, it may explain how some RX7s continue to go faster.
You know, kinda like when all the Volvos stopped braking valve springs and started going faster as a result. 
Perhaps I can safely say this in the P-car forum without being run over.
I've had guys come up to me and tell me how easy it is to port the RX7 motors slightly to get big gains. Oh and then they go on to say how no tech inspector will ever see it... It's actually weird how many times I've been told this. Now, I have no experience with rotary motors, but if this is true, it may explain how some RX7s continue to go faster.
You know, kinda like when all the Volvos stopped braking valve springs and started going faster as a result.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Mazda guy here...
I'm not saying that porting is, or is not the reason,....
But, as a point of info, a little porting goes a long way.
As far as I know, I have never heard of a rotary tear down occuring in the past 10 or so years anywhere in the country. Maybe it's happened, but it's news to me if it did.
As far as tech inspectors finding porting, I have to think that if I were to be called on a ported motor at the only place where they do such checks, I'd scream foul, and insist on a full teardown with the Region/officials posting the bond. Why?? because I don't think that sticking your finger in and probing around is conclusive in any way.
They Atlanta region uses a "go/no go" guage to check exhaust ports, and pulls the intakes off for a finger prope test for the intake ports. This is on the 12A engine (ITA/7) only. From what the tech officials told me, there is no guage availabe for the 13B, so those are left unexamined.
So, is porting easy in a 13B? yes...and it appears it's pretty easy to get away with too.
The only real way to find out and clear the air is for an ITS guy to post the bond and have a look.
That said, I'm not all that suspicious that the gains that people see are either there in the first place, or if they are there, that they're due to porting.
I'm not saying that porting is, or is not the reason,....
But, as a point of info, a little porting goes a long way.
As far as I know, I have never heard of a rotary tear down occuring in the past 10 or so years anywhere in the country. Maybe it's happened, but it's news to me if it did.
As far as tech inspectors finding porting, I have to think that if I were to be called on a ported motor at the only place where they do such checks, I'd scream foul, and insist on a full teardown with the Region/officials posting the bond. Why?? because I don't think that sticking your finger in and probing around is conclusive in any way.
They Atlanta region uses a "go/no go" guage to check exhaust ports, and pulls the intakes off for a finger prope test for the intake ports. This is on the 12A engine (ITA/7) only. From what the tech officials told me, there is no guage availabe for the 13B, so those are left unexamined.
So, is porting easy in a 13B? yes...and it appears it's pretty easy to get away with too.
The only real way to find out and clear the air is for an ITS guy to post the bond and have a look.
That said, I'm not all that suspicious that the gains that people see are either there in the first place, or if they are there, that they're due to porting.
Bildon
New member
>> because I don't think that sticking your finger in and probing around is conclusive in any way.
Exactly what I was told.
>> the gains that people see <not> due to porting.
To be clear, I'm no rotary guy, I'm not accusing anyone or even suggesting the fast guys cheat. From what I've seen the fastest car are all VERY well prepared. You'd see beaters running up front if it was that easy to make them fast. I'm just throwing the info out there for general consumption.
If a whole group knows they have an engine that has an easy HP bump available and that is very hard to police, you know there are those that will take advantage. Similar to the 2L problem we have in ITB with VW Golf mk2s. Crank are $200 on Ebay. It's just too easy. This is why I was crying for tear downs earlier in the year.
Exactly what I was told.
>> the gains that people see <not> due to porting.
To be clear, I'm no rotary guy, I'm not accusing anyone or even suggesting the fast guys cheat. From what I've seen the fastest car are all VERY well prepared. You'd see beaters running up front if it was that easy to make them fast. I'm just throwing the info out there for general consumption.
If a whole group knows they have an engine that has an easy HP bump available and that is very hard to police, you know there are those that will take advantage. Similar to the 2L problem we have in ITB with VW Golf mk2s. Crank are $200 on Ebay. It's just too easy. This is why I was crying for tear downs earlier in the year.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Interesting. I missed that. I have also heard today about another teardown of a 13B at the ARRCs a few years ago.
I wonder how the teardowns were actually handled.
It seems to me that pulling it apart is step one. Procuring a stock side plate from Mazda directly, then creating a mold or template would be the most definitive method of deciding legality.
Anyone know how it actually went down...?
I wonder how the teardowns were actually handled.
It seems to me that pulling it apart is step one. Procuring a stock side plate from Mazda directly, then creating a mold or template would be the most definitive method of deciding legality.
Anyone know how it actually went down...?
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Fred,
Your point/request has merit. The 944 classification 'correction' was done using known best of breed numbers (Milledge) so it really does fit in ITS - HOWEVER, if it can't get to the new weight, it should be moved to ITA at a new weight. Would people drive these in ITA at 2800?
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Did any 944s in that spec run at Lime Rock? Times?
Fastfred92
New member
Andy
My guess is you would see increased participation by the hordes of NASA, PCA, et. etc 944 guys. My gut feel is that 2700 or so would be closer to right given whats already know about this car, I am still of the opinion that the suspension ( t bars ) is more of a handicap than anybody has given credit for.
Start at 2800, that would be fine.... thats what 200 lbs over the Acura guys and my guess is that they can get pretty darn close hp #'s, just going to be short in the torque department.
Has anybody submitted this to the board???????