96+ Civic EX to ITA

K

Knestis

Moderator
I have officially submitted my request that the CB consider listing the current SSC (non-Si) Civic Coupe in ITA. Feel free to use the links at...

http://www.it2.evaluand.com/itprop.php3

...to contact the CB, ITAC, and/or your area director to voice your opinion. CRX owners can explain that they like this idea WAY more than being tangled up in IT2.
smile.gif


Ciao!

Kirk
 
Shortest story is 127hp, 107#/ft SOHC VTEC; 2483# stock curb wt.; 10" discs, rear drums; 14" wheels; 103" wheelbase.

I specifically requested that it be listed using the same percentage of curb wt. math used on other recent clasifications (Integra, 240, now the Eclipse), so about 2340# (using same-source date for the math).

On paper, the Integra is still a better option, I think, comparing apples to apples (if two different kinds of apples)...

Kirk
 
Kirk,

I sent the letter requesting the re-classification of the Civic EX from ITS to ITA. (Stating that it does not need a comp. adjustment, just re-classified to correct the original classification mistake.)

We'll see what happens!

------------------
Matt Downing
www.downingracing.com
 
That car might have to much motor for ITA.

How much can you change the final drive?

Does the SCCA ever look at that?

Before you flame me, I also agree there should be a class between ITA and ITS for cars with 120 to 150 hp.

Jamie
 
I have to say that I am a firm believer that the Civic EX should be in ITA not ITS...My proof is... Lyonel Kent in Honda Challenge ran a Civic EX in H4, what were his co-racers... ITA CRX's, He won 1 (one) Saturday race the whole season... The rest of the 10 races or so were won by the ITA CRX's... Nuff Said!

Dan Beeson
 
While I agree that the EX shouldn't be in ITS but if they reclass the car for ITA, I would think the CB would be opening the flood gates since cars like VW 2.0 16v, Nissan Sentra SE-Rs would also have to be reclass. This to me would end the competiveness of the current cars in ITA. ....but all good things must come to an end sometime.



------------------
Richy Gonzalez
GB Racing - #24 ITA CRX
Racecar Sponsor: LAMIN-X Protective Films
 
If we take the stock power, and multiply it by the generally accepted IT power increase, and convert to wheel HP, we get about 132 plus WHP. A power to weight ratio of 17.6. If we look at the current big dog, the CRX, and we believe the reports that they make 120 WHP, we get a p/w ratio of 17.8.

So far so good. But if we look at the CRX vs. the other cars that made up the mass of the class, like the RX-7, we see that this p/w ratio is much better than the figure of roughly 20. Most cars, such as the BMW 2002 tii and the rest of the class, are close to this.

Essentially, adding cars at this level further closes the coffin on the old standard bearers.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
 
Apropos of nothing (love to say that), I would buy the later Integra option for ITA, if it weren't important in my plans to have a more contemporary bodyshell.

Additionally, I wouldn't have even bothered to ask for the classification if the 240sx, Integra, and now the Eclipse hadn't established that higher-powered cars with similar wt/power ratios were acceptable.

Kirk

(who is sorry that the request is even necessary, but doesn't hold very high hopes for the national-level political viability of IT2)
 
Originally posted by lateapex911:
If we take the stock power, and multiply it by the generally accepted IT power increase, and convert to wheel HP, we get about 132 plus WHP. A power to weight ratio of 17.6. If we look at the current big dog, the CRX, and we believe the reports that they make 120 WHP, we get a p/w ratio of 17.8.
Click to expand...

How come the "generally accepted" IT power increase has to be used for the EX with the d16a1 motor, while it’s ok quoting 120 whp for the d16a6 crx motor? (I hope I got those engine codes right!) Either stick to the "generally accepted" ratio for both in order to come up with a more equal estimate, or assume the d16a1 EX motor as the same IT power increase potential as its cousin, the CRX Si motor, yielding about 141 whp for the EX.

I always agreed with this. The EX belongs in ITA. And I think the closer its weight is to the G2 integra, the more equal they will be. Regardless, just getting it down to ITA is good. Since I predict it to make about the same power as a G2 teg, but weigh in at over 100 lbs less, it should have a slight edge. Either way, putting the EX in ITA will no doubt add yet another front running competitive car to the mix (240, crx, miata, G2 integra). It will be interesting to see just how far EXs will go once people start building these cars for IT.

------------------
Alex
 
According to OPM, the EX should gain "about 20%" in IT trim, leaving it at about 152hp (engine) - less 18% for drivetrain losses puts it back right about where you figure (in terms of WHP), Alex.

Remember though, weight isn't supposed to be spec'd with consideration toward adjusting competition potential. Even though it SHOULD.
smile.gif


K
 
Originally posted by Hracer:
How come the "generally accepted" IT power increase has to be used for the EX with the d16a1 motor, while it’s ok quoting 120 whp for the d16a6 crx motor? (I hope I got those engine codes right!) Either stick to the "generally accepted" ratio for both in order to come up with a more equal estimate, or assume the d16a1 EX motor as the same IT power increase potential as its cousin, the CRX Si motor, yielding about 141 whp for the EX.


Click to expand...

My math, which could be wrong, came up with a increase from stock quoted power yeilding 152.40 HP.

I spoke to a national Honda shop who suggested that the Honda drivetrain was typically more efficient than the average, so using a figure of roughly 14 to 15% resulted in my estimate of 132 WHP.

I quoted 120 WHP because that is the number I've been quoted by CRX owners. Should I beleive it? I don't know.

If I knew someone with a developed EX, and I had asked them, I would have used that information as well.





------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
 
I agree with that the IT2 proposal is a lot better and fairer way to solve the problem for the non-competitive ITS cars than weight adjustments is. Ps, if they do move the EX into ITA, I recommend that they also move the Civic '92 to 94 Civic Si into ITA too as it has the same engine.

Originally posted by Knestis:
I have officially submitted my request that the CB consider listing the current SSC (non-Si) Civic Coupe in ITA. Feel free to use the links at...

http://www.it2.evaluand.com/itprop.php3

...to contact the CB, ITAC, and/or your area director to voice your opinion. CRX owners can explain that they like this idea WAY more than being tangled up in IT2.
smile.gif


Ciao!

Kirk
Click to expand...
 
True - and the '92-95 EX as well. I didn't actually mention that and it is pertinent. Time will tell but I made my request thinking that, in the current atmosphere, it would be easier to get the '96+ EX listed in ITA than it would be to get the earlier model of the same car moved. The latter requires proof that literally cannot be provided - that it has been fully developed but is still not competitive. Lack of competition is seen as incomplete development so 'round and 'round we go! Whee!

Kirk
 
Kirk, your car choice is interesting. But by the numbers that I have played with, the '96 Civic EX doesn't compare to the 94 Integra. With the Integra's larger engine, more hp and more torque, I would have to select it over the Civic. It will be interesting to see what the numbers will be on any mods to the Civic'c VTEC II's ecu and what those advantages (if any) will be. Now, if you could get the '92 Civic Si HB classed into A, I would definately start building one.
 
Have the request filled out and ready to go in, so you can mail it the minute the '96 EX gets listed.
smile.gif


What's the fable about a camel getting its nose under the flap of your tent?

Kirk
 
Camels are always welcome except when they start to bite! On another note - here in Atlantic Canada, they let us remove the headlights and replace with sheet metal for IT competition. Those headlight assemblies on the '96 Civic are expensive. Has anyone tabled this request to the CB?
 
Sorry - I don't understand the question. Tabled the EX classification or submitted a requested rule change allowing the removal of headlights?

If the former, it was suggested that it might be 3 months or more before any action was taken on my proposal - even if that action is taking no action (tabling the proposal to the ITAB).

WRT the latter suggestion - and here we go off-topic, WHEE! - I understand the logic but personally wouldn't support the idea. Slippery slope thing again...

Kirk
 
So which generation civic is the 96+ EX considered? Is it 4th, 5th, 6th? Are there any popular websites where I can find more non-rice info on these cars? Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top