944 weight reduction, any results

Dammit, I was gonna build me a Pig-out.

This is a healthy debate. I think we have the questions nailed down:

1. The question for tweeners is which weight can the car make, the lower weight in the higher class or the higher weight in the lower class.

2. The policy question is, in which class would the car be better off (assuming of course that it would be at its process weight in both classes)?

What drives the policy question seems to be two fold: (a) what is best for the class; and (B) what iteration of the vehicle would attract more drivers? Subpoint (a) seems suspect as someone mentioned above -- if the car weight is correctly set by the process, then "best for the class" is really irrelevant. So, (B) is the most salient point.

On that, a 944 at "process weight" in ITA is 2850??? That seems like it might scare off the 944 Cup guys in NASA even more than the prospect of racing against BMWs, Mazdas and (my God!) V8 Triumphs.

We are all kind of dancing on the head of a pin here. Maybe someone (me?) should post on the RennLIst or PCA boards and see what the 944 Cup guys think? Both about the ability of the car to get to 2575 and the practicality of racing the car at 2850 lbs.

How much torque does this thing make by the way anyway? 2.5 liters is a lot of displacement. Quite a bit more than most anything else in the class except for the turd AMC and GM motors. Is that accounted for in the process?
 
How much torque does this thing make by the way anyway? 2.5 liters is a lot of displacement. Quite a bit more than most anything else in the class except for the turd AMC and GM motors. Is that accounted for in the process?
[/b]
Click to expand...
You mean like those monster 2.3L ITB Fords? Isn't the 240SX a 2.4L car, anyway??? And then there's the substantial drivetrain loss (at least, seems like the FWD cars lose less - correct?)...

I know I could readily (and legally) race my 924 at 2575 (only 25# than its currentl limit)... not sure just how much more the 944 should really weigh... FWIW, I have had my street, completely stock 924 Turbo on the scales, it's just shy of 2800# with everything in it, 1/2 tank gas, etc - listed curb weight on that puppy is 2779 per the owner's manual.

Listed curb weight on the 924 (2.0L) is 2623 (per factory manual).

Listed curb weight on the 944 (2.5L) is 2779 lbs (per factory manual).

2.5L engine weight dry is 366lbs. 2.0L NA engine weight dry is 313lbs. 2.0L Turbo engine weight is 364lbs.

Based on the above, plus the fact that my car (readily a 9/10ths build - not dipped, but most undercoating removed) is right at spec weight with no ballast (I run a 40# brick of lead to make sure) and that I only weigh 155# - I have a hard time believing it'd be possible to get a 944 much below 2700# even.
 
So Vaughan, if I am reading you correctly, you're saying that the 924 would weigh about 2630 or so with a 180 pound driver?

And the math looks like this:
2623 stock curb, plus cage, (80lbs?) plus driver (180 lbs), = 2883, less "stuff" = 2630.

And the "Stuff" then has to be about 253 pounds.

So, if we take your numbers and solve for the 944, it would work out like: 2779 +80 +180 =3039 Then subtracting the same "stuff": 3039 - 253 = 2786.

Did I follow you correctly? You think the car needs to have an additional 100+ pounds of removable stuff to make minimum?

Which would mean the entire amount of additional weight on the 944 vs 924, except the engine, would have to be removable to be close to minimum.
 
Joe, I asked you a very specific question and you replied in post #103 that you would leave the car that didn't fit the process in the higher class.
If car X and car Y have the exact same specs - except one can make weight and one can't, I think they should be in different classes. If the 240SX can make it's ITS weight, it again, has NOTHING to do with this discussion.



I fail to see how the SIR on the E36 and the new ITR class have anything to do with this philisophical debate. I respect you a ton Joe, but your local results are based on such a small sample size (like 3 ITS cars and 3 ITA cars and nothing else to speak of in IT) that I think it creates a fear of the 944.

Having looked hard at the process for the 944 in ITA, it really would need to be 2850-2900lbs. I don't think anyone likes it at that weight...I bet most would rather try and get as close to 2575 as they could and stay in ITS...and THAT is the core issue with a TWEENER.
[/b]
Click to expand...


Andy don't be silly. I am not just looking at my small sample in local SCCA, I also have actual Dyno data in hand on several of these cars to back up what I say. The real issue is if you apply the formula the same way to all cars then the 2.5 liter car comes out as an S car. I think you guys are applying actual dyno numbers from one source and that's how the issue gets sideways. Please post the actual numbers used for the 240z,e30,e36,944,rx7, and 240sx....I would really like to see the actual process in play...
 
...still gives me the willies, since it moves from the presumption that we won't know if a "mistake" has been made untils someone races them. [/b]
Click to expand...

Kirk,

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see on-track performance used to influence PCA's any more than you do. But, you have to validate models w/ actual data. To throw something out there, and never look at how could the data 'fit the curve', doesn't make sense.

And I don't know what the big resistence to DC is, especially for the tweener cars. You guys are talking about <300# difference between ITS and ITA for the 944 in question. Look at the lower classes, and I think you'll see an even narrower margin. Use the process, trust the process, DC the cars, and let the normal PCA model play out.
 
Maybe dual classification is the way to go, on a limited basis. Where I think it gets unworkable is if we have 300 cars all classed in more than one place. Simple things then become difficult like tring to figure out if the car in front of me is an S car that I am racing for position or an A car that I am not. I also think there would be significant resistance from corner workers and tech folks.

But I digress.

Vaughan, that is valuable data. Do you know if the 944 curb weight changed over time? I've heard (rumors only, no real data) that the early cars weighed less and might make 2575. Thanks again for posting this.I agree there are some potential other torque monsters in A, Fiero, Monza, AMC, etc. But the class leaders are all 2.0 liters or less. Hell, maybe throwing a big heavy torque monster that CAN compete in there might be fun (if the process works! if the process works!).

Vaughan were do the NASA 944 racers hang out on the web? I'd like to ask them some questions about where they would prefer to run the cars (weight wise). I still think that the 944 at 2850 is not going to bring those guys over because the weight will be a problem for them.
 
Andy don't be silly. I am not just looking at my small sample in local SCCA, I also have actual Dyno data in hand on several of these cars to back up what I say. The real issue is if you apply the formula the same way to all cars then the 2.5 liter car comes out as an S car. I think you guys are applying actual dyno numbers from one source and that's how the issue gets sideways. Please post the actual numbers used for the 240z,e30,e36,944,rx7, and 240sx....I would really like to see the actual process in play... [/b]
Click to expand...

Joe,

You know exactly how the process works an what I am saying has NOTHING to do with power. The issue at hand is that the 240SX can make weight in ITS and the 944 potentially does not. If it can, it should sty in S, if it can't, it needs consideration for A.

Now, the process for the 944 does take into account KNOWN crank numbers (which is what the process uses). It equals about a 20% increase over stock power. Some cars like the RX-7 and the E36 in your question use 30% because we know those motors make more. The 240SX we use the standard 25%. We use info we know (when we know it) so overdogs don't appear. If Rotories used the standard 25%, all hell would break loose, etc.

I love you to death Joe, but we are not talking about the same thing here. I don't care one bit about the 240SX in ITS - becasue it can make weight. It's an issue of being able to fit into a class. And that is with this debate is about re: the 944.
 
Joe,

You know exactly how the process works an what I am saying has NOTHING to do with power. The issue at hand is that the 240SX can make weight in ITS and the 944 potentially does not. If it can, it should sty in S, if it can't, it needs consideration for A.

Now, the process for the 944 does take into account KNOWN crank numbers (which is what the process uses). It equals about a 20% increase over stock power. Some cars like the RX-7 and the E36 in your question use 30% because we know those motors make more. The 240SX we use the standard 25%. We use info we know (when we know it) so overdogs don't appear. If Rotories used the standard 25%, all hell would break loose, etc.

I love you to death Joe, but we are not talking about the same thing here. I don't care one bit about the 240SX in ITS - becasue it can make weight. It's an issue of being able to fit into a class. And that is with this debate is about re: the 944.
[/b]
Click to expand...
Andy, You keep saying it can make weight but you have offered no proof that the 240 can legally make weight and I have seen no proof that the 944 can't. You also made my point that the process uses an average percentage gain to classify and you are now using a single data point dyno number on the 944. The process is not being used equally then.

The 240SX may be able to make weight but it does so at a cost. 4 lug hubs and small rotors 4 lug wheels ect. You have to give up advantages the car has to get it down to weight. I think the 944 may have similar options that are not being taken advantage of. Building a front runner as you know is not cheap or easy.

Now as far as adding extra weight to the 944 to fit it into ITA. If the cars are not getting down to weight then I would venture to say that the 300lb add every body is talking is really only about 150lbs, We all know how well weight worked to slow the BMW down in the past. Weight alone is not an effective tool and the first person to fully get after a 944 with prep. and driving skill will have an overdog out of the box.

PS. I do trust the process because I had a hand in developing the original. I am just concerned you all are trying to use to fine a comb though this deal. One misataken overdog will do more harm to a class than anything else.
 
Yes, Jake, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Jeff - yes, I've seen the rumoured data about the early years of 944 (83-84, maybe 85) being closer to the 924 weight. I don't believe it, as I saw it on the 924/944/968 online FAQ; the numbers I gave above are directly for the factory manual, and if anything, they are usually only correct for the first few years, updates to later cars come as supplements. I'd also very much expect the early 944 to weigh the same as my '82 924 Turbo since practically the only difference is the engine, and they do apparently weight the same with the turbo and all that extra plumbing added. The body construction is very much identical to the late turbos like mine, so the same gains for building, etc.

The bulk of the 944 racers are over at NASA; they're split 3 ways somewhat geographically in 3 different classes. There's the 944Cup guys on the east coast, who actually run a mix of IT-prepared and PCA-prepared cars; the GTS Challenge guys (mostly midwest) who run a mix of IT, PCA, and GTS-prepped cars, and the 944 Spec (started on the Left Coast, but spreading eastward) with their own rules. The latter is the biggest, most coherent group, but they prefer to run fairly stock engines at low weight - IT min weight, but through non-IT-legal means. So they're not likely to have any interest in crossing over to IT - their cars are already too far gone. You've got to go after the PCA, 944Cup, and GTS Challenge guys.

All of those above, except maybe the PCA-only guys, can be reached through the NASA forums. Hate to say it, but I think that, given their druthers, they'd rather be given special (non-standard for IT) ways to remove weight out of the cars to run them in ITS than throw in ballast. Like fiberglass bumpers (which, believe it or not, are legal in PCA Stock classes, as is lexan), etc. Of course, they'll still be slow because they don't tend to run the cars that hard, prep them so hard, etc., and still mostly come off unsatisfied. Bottom line, I wouldn't place too much stock in what they say they want, because what many of them really want is an engraved invitation/special pass to go win ITS with a half-fast car. I say this having been involved for many years in writing the GTS Challenge rulebook to appeal to as many of those guys as possible.

I still think the appeal will be to provide enough of a numbers fit that it looks good on paper - enough to get them into a race and see how much more fun IT is. Once they see, many will decide yeah, this is where I wanna go, and make the switch. And many won't.

While I think running it as a heavy ITA car makes more sense for IT and being competitive with a 944, I don't know that it would convince anyone to come over that isn't already. Maybe just the PCA Stock class guys. So I'm not sure we want to put too much weight, in this discussion, on specifically hunting those guys down. They do already have 3 series targeted directly to them!

Hmm, you know, for 944Cup IT-prepped 924S and 944's are required to make a min weight of 2800# (2.5L 8V motor)! Their PCA-prepped brethren are required to make 2650 or 2750 by comparison. So maybe that helps provide some weight, no pun intended, behind the idea of adding weight to the car for ITA. Here's the link:
http://www.44cup.com/info.shtml

Sorry for the long post, kinda rambling a bit here...

Andy, You keep saying it can make weight but you have offered no proof that the 240 can legally make weight and I have seen no proof that the 944 can't.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Sorry, while I respect the counterpoint you're providing on this discussion Joe, I have to take issue with this statement with respect to logic, mathematically speaking.

You can't prove a negative.

How would any of us prove, to you, that this is not possible?

Would the only acceptable method be to actually go and build a car, 10/10ths, with your supervision? I think you can recognize that such cannot be done simply for the purposes of this discussion. Can you suggest exactly how else we would go about proving such a negative, strictly for the purposes of this discussion?
 
Now as far as adding extra weight to the 944 to fit it into ITA. If the cars are not getting down to weight then I would venture to say that the 300lb add every body is talking is really only about 150lbs, We all know how well weight worked to slow the BMW down in the past. Weight alone is not an effective tool and the first person to fully get after a 944 with prep. and driving skill will have an overdog out of the box.

[/b]
Click to expand...


Joe I have to call BS again my man, as was posted already ( don't give me the crap about on track data ) show me a 944 at todays ITS weights ( or as close as can be ) that is a frontrunner in a good ITA field. Hell Chris C would have finished like 3rd at the ARRC in ITA and his car is a well driven 100% build 944S, not standard 944. There is not one shred of ontrack evidence that the 944 at 2800 or 2850 would be a overdog in any respect in ITA. I have my personal doubts that even as close as you could get to the ITS wieght you still would not have a overdog.. 2.5 liter means nothing if it is a maxed out tractor engine with a cam and intake from a mini van and little room for legal improvements....... i bet the 1.8 hondacura guys already put down close as much rwhp down as any 944...
 
Andy, You keep saying it can make weight but you have offered no proof that the 240 can legally make weight and I have seen no proof that the 944 can't. You also made my point that the process uses an average percentage gain to classify and you are now using a single data point dyno number on the 944. The process is not being used equally then. [/b]
Click to expand...

First off, nobody has submitted a letter to the CRB asking for the 240SX to be moved down becasue it's minimum weight is unrealistic. That and the fact the best one in the country that was for sale DID make weight, makes me think they can. Your arguments have always been about this car 'looks like' the 944 so if it gets moved so should IT...

Now as far as adding extra weight to the 944 to fit it into ITA. If the cars are not getting down to weight then I would venture to say that the 300lb add every body is talking is really only about 150lbs, We all know how well weight worked to slow the BMW down in the past. Weight alone is not an effective tool and the first person to fully get after a 944 with prep. and driving skill will have an overdog out of the box.[/b]
Click to expand...

Joe, the E36 BMW never got weight to slow it down, it got an SIR, remember? Besides, it wasn't about slowing it down as it was making it fit the process for ITS - in which it was either way to light or way overpowered for it's weight. All we want of for cars to fit this process, at an achievable weight - and teh chips will fall where they may.

PS. I do trust the process because I had a hand in developing the original. I am just concerned you all are trying to use to fine a comb though this deal. One misataken overdog will do more harm to a class than anything else. [/b]
Click to expand...

And that is a valid concern, however there are mechanisms in place to correct overdogs. And if you think making an attempt to place a car into a class where it can actually make the weight we tell them they need to be in order to 'fit' with other cars, so be it. I just see it as the right thing to do. Will a 2850lb 944 ruin ITA? I don't think so. Especially knowing that they have 30hp less than the 944S already in ITS, at 2850.
 
Joe I have to call BS again my man, as was posted already ( don't give me the crap about on track data ) show me a 944 at todays ITS weights ( or as close as can be ) that is a frontrunner in a good ITA field. Hell Chris C would have finished like 3rd at the ARRC in ITA and his car is a well driven 100% build 944S, not standard 944. There is not one shred of ontrack evidence that the 944 at 2800 or 2850 would be a overdog in any respect in ITA. I have my personal doubts that even as close as you could get to the ITS wieght you still would not have a overdog.. 2.5 liter means nothing if it is a maxed out tractor engine with a cam and intake from a mini van and little room for legal improvements....... i bet the 1.8 hondacura guys already put down close as much rwhp down as any 944...
[/b]
Click to expand...


Feel free Fred, You prove that the car in question has been gutted hand stripped and reassembled from the a raw tub and that it doesn't have 100lbs of extra tubing in it. I have nothing to prove other than to say the process is not being applied equally and Andy even stated that when he said they were using a known HP figure. The process uses an estimated gain from OE numbers and that's how all the other cars have been classified. So this car is getting special consideration.....Period!
 
I guess east coast 944s must be heavier than west coast cars cause we have guys still racing them with power windows and passenger seats and doing quite well.


I know you don't want to here the SIR word but that's the only way that you could even get close to a fair argument for 2.5 liters to be moved to ITA. [/b]
Click to expand...

First, "Doing quite well" isn't really a hard data point, is it..

And as far as "a close to fair arguement for a 2.5L car going to A", well do you think the owners of the 2.8 and 3.7 litre ITA cars will like the idea of a SIR? Becuase following your logic, then thats the route we'll have to go to make sure they're not overdogs too.

This isn't just about litres, or nameplaes....
 
First, "Doing quite well" isn't really a hard data point, is it..

And as far as "a close to fair arguement for a 2.5L car going to A", well do you think the owners of the 2.8 and 3.7 litre ITA cars will like the idea of a SIR? Becuase following your logic, then thats the route we'll have to go to make sure they're not overdogs too.

This isn't just about litres, or nameplaes....
[/b]
Click to expand...

Yah jake lets use a couple worthless data points as an example. The AMC is never going to be built in any quantity that will ever matter. Was that car moved from ITS to ITA? Think not. Was it run through the process? Think not. and when you take the engine ability of that car based on the same IT type gains OHV verses the non-existant brakes and handling it is probably an ITC car. But the point is back to the 944 jake. Run the process in public on the list of cars I asked for and show me that the 944 is not an ITS car!
 
I have nothing to prove other than to say the process is not being applied equally and Andy even stated that when he said they were using a known HP figure. The process uses an estimated gain from OE numbers and that's how all the other cars have been classified. So this car is getting special consideration.....Period!
[/b]
Click to expand...


Joe I don't question the fact that you think you have valid concerns but i beg to differ with your view of the "process". The way I understand it if the board has valid data for a given car / powerplant they can use that info to adjust the generic process a la e36, gen II RX7 and yes the 944. My guess is that a 100% prep 240sx motor is within the boards process calculations and thus does not warrant any additional adjustment and as you have admitted here it can make minimum weight. The 944 can't make the 2006 ITS weight without a: illegal mods or b: a 90 lbs out of work jockey for a driver, period. Now question for you Joe is would you rather see the 944 gain process weight and move to A or would you favor special allowances for otherwise illeagl weight removal ( i know it is not an option but )
 
Joe I don't question the fact that you think you have valid concerns but i beg to differ with your view of the "process". The way I understand it if the board has valid data for a given car / powerplant they can use that info to adjust the generic process a la e36, gen II RX7 and yes the 944. My guess is that a 100% prep 240sx motor is within the boards process calculations and thus does not warrant any additional adjustment and as you have admitted here it can make minimum weight. The 944 can't make the 2006 ITS weight without a: illegal mods or b: a 90 lbs out of work jockey for a driver, period. Now question for you Joe is would you rather see the 944 gain process weight and move to A or would you favor special allowances for otherwise illeagl weight removal ( i know it is not an option but )
[/b]
Click to expand...
Then lets see the data? Is there a reason not to post the list of cars here that I suggested? The Dyno information is likely 1 source.

What wheels are on these cars that can't make weight. How much sound deading is still in play. How many cars still have power windows in them lets get all the information and maybe even photos of a car that we are basing this on.

The deal is validate that the process is being applied the same and I will go away.

Fred I also suggested that to make weight you had to run the less than optimum configuration on the 240sx and expensive light weight wheels. SCCA has lots of cars in lots of classes that can't make their spec weight. Until you fix it for everyone I see it as a common problem many of us have.
 
Sorry, while I respect the counterpoint you're providing on this discussion Joe, I have to take issue with this statement with respect to logic, mathematically speaking.

You can't prove a negative.

How would any of us prove, to you, that this is not possible?

Would the only acceptable method be to actually go and build a car, 10/10ths, with your supervision? I think you can recognize that such cannot be done simply for the purposes of this discussion. Can you suggest exactly how else we would go about proving such a negative, strictly for the purposes of this discussion?
[/b]
Click to expand...

This seems to have gotten missed - Joe, I'm awaiting comment on the above questions.
 
This seems to have gotten missed - Joe, I'm awaiting comment on the above questions.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Sorry I missed it. First let the ITAC prove the process be being equally applied to the cars I have asked for. Second I don't need to see it being built to know a good car or not somebody must have a fully prepped and developed car out there or we are making changes for no specific reason at all. Funny in racing we are forced to prove a negative everytime we ask for a change in classification or modification to the rules.

It has been admitted that the process was fudged from what was used on other cars so lets see what the process actually does.
 
Joe, I tend to agree the 944 is an S car, but I think Andy did answer your question about the 944 and the process. The 944 gets less of an adder for hp due to the (in my view) proven limitations on the ability to get power out of the 2.5. Milledge says 180 at the crank, for big $$$, and everyone seems to accept that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top