Fun discussion to read! All I can say is that having seen the on track speed of an ITA NX vs the mostly Honda competition last year, I can understand Greg’s optimism towards these changes.
And at the same time, being in the same boat as Evan and the other Honda drivers who are now looking for any good sales on 110+ lbs of lead, I understand this point of view as well.
To continue on this fun integra vs nissan futile discussion, here's my contribution. For a long time now, I've learned to throw dyno HP #s I see posted on the internet out the door. Assuming they are true, they are extremely relative - from foremost the type of dyno used to, to the conditions, and to the calibrations of the dyno - to be of any use. What doesn't lie however is straight line speed out on the track. Going by this, there is no way imo that a 2nd gen ITA integra B18 would put out as much power as an equally well built 2.0L SR20DE on the same dyno, on the same day. However perhaps the heavier 2630 lbs DC (3rd gen) integra could get close to matching it. RPMs are pretty much insignificant to take into account, as long as the motor puts out the power it needs to, but since it's been brought up, the SR20DE's stock redline is 7.5K rpm (stock rev limiter is most likely higher), while my shift points in the ITA car come at a good 500 rpm or so below the nissan's stock redline. Bottom line, both power and torque are the Nissan's advantages.
Moving on, not an accurate comparison by any means, but my street car ('95 Talon Awd) with the strut suspension design does indeed behave differently, especially over bumps, than the double wishbone-d integra Type R I autox. So no question I believe that there is some performance difference to be had from a better suspension design. Advantage Honda.
A 5 mm difference in brake rotor size is there, but the 80 lbs of extra weight the DA and extra 115 lbs the DC have to carry around might just make it now an advantage for the Nissans.
Generally speaking, it's no question that the Hondas benefit from better aftermarket support. (Although we still run a fully custom made rear sway bar and header among other things.) Unfortunately, lack of such support can only be countered by spending a lot more money and time, but in the end it can still yield very good results - the two fastest ITA Saturns in the country, as well as an ITA 240SX's performance during the last few years are good examples that come to mind. This demonstrates that lack of support does not limit absolute performance, but just makes it a lot more expensive to achieve. If I had a money tree, there would be nothing more I'd love to do than pick some rarely built cars (and right now in ITA is filled of so many such cool cars) and give them an honest shot. The RWD 1.8L 2600 lbs BMWs and Miatas, the FWD Neons, 2305 lbs Civic EXs, and even lighter Proteges among others, all come to mind.
Other than some general comments on what it takes into account, I've yet to see the details of the "process" currently used posted anywhere. Although I may like to question it, my opinion of it is a positive one because even if it doesn't benefit me directly, the end result is that it does offer more choices of competitive cars in IT and that is certainly a good thing. ITA never looked so good.
In short, we all see things from our own perspectives, or in other words the way we want. But it doesn't hurt to keep an open mind and consider everyone else's, too. Plus for most it's still the off season, so more time for the internet forums.
Originally posted by lateapex911@Jan 26 2006, 03:19 AM
In the end, bringing the top cars back a bit, and trying to help the bottom feeders makes more sense.
This does make sense. The wildcards that this particular statement does not take into account however are all the new cars added to ITA within the last couple of years. A good argument can be made to reflect the earlier sentiment on here about the danger of making too many changes at once. Only time will tell, so lets hope for the best.