AWD in ITR or ITS?

StephenB

StephenB

New member
So I haven't done a ton of research But I have started the thought process... I absolutly love driving in the rain and driving AWD :026: Driving in the snow and doing rally cross stuff feels like my roots and my passion so bringing AWD to IT is very exciting for me! My initial thoughts is that I would like to build this car with my brother and another buddy to help cut the costs and allow us all to utilize it. Most likely Run Enduros together and then run in the regionals in ITR/S, ITE, SPO, or whatever classes it may fit in to get the most track time for all of us. With all that being said what would you suggest for a car to run in ITR or possibly ITS? Does anyone have any idea what the HP and weight goals would be for each of those classes?

Thanks,
Stephen

PS: so far I am most interested in the 2006 to present 3.0 Audi A4 or possibly the 2002 to present 3.0 Jaguar X-type
 
Rough stock HP targets for you to look at:

ITS: 160-180hp
ITR: 180-225hp

The Subaru 2.5RS is a car people love. 164 HP. Remember, no forced induction.

2207965711_b46200911f.jpg
 
the Audi A4 3.0 220hp would probly fit into ITR not sure about the jag, a audi 2.8 190hp i think might get into ITS the 06 and newer audi's are 3.2s and my have to much power for ITR since it has 255
 
Marcus Miller said:
Based on what Andy said above, both the 3.0 and 2.8 would be ITR cars...
Click to expand...

It really just depends on what weights the process comes up with for each class and whether those weights are achievable.

Does anyone have a feel for how light a fully-prepped-for-IT instance of each of these cars would be?
 
the audi 2.8 makes the same hp as the 328i e36 but is a heavyer car thats why i said might get in to ITS. i current am employed at an Audi dealer and own 3 bmw 86 325e 96 328 and 98m3 2 are racecars. i think it would be challenging to get a 2.8 audi to be fast in ITS if only i had the money i would try just to try
 
The 2.8 Audi would not fit in S. Curb weight is not considered in classifying a car, other than if the car can't get down to its "process" weight. That would not be an issue with a car with 190 hp stock.

The E36 325 at 189 was just a tad too much and has to run a restrictor in S, something that I think/hope won't happen again.

Can the 2.8 Audi get down to approx. 2700 lbs or so?
 
JeffYoung said:
The 2.8 Audi would not fit in S. Curb weight is not considered in classifying a car, other than if the car can't get down to its "process" weight. That would not be an issue with a car with 190 hp stock.

The E36 325 at 189 was just a tad too much and has to run a restrictor in S, something that I think/hope won't happen again.

Can the 2.8 Audi get down to approx. 2700 lbs or so?
Click to expand...

Sure it is Jeff. If it has a 3500lb curb weight, we would be looking at ITS. If it had a 3000lb curb weight, we would be looking at ITR.

In ITS that car would be about 3065 and in ITR it would be about 2670. I bet it's more of an ITS car based on those weights.
 
See what I wrote -- we don't look at curb weight until we run the car through the process and see if it can make weight in it's "natural" class. Here, at 190 stock hp, it's just over the normal ITS threshold. There are no other ITS cars with 190 stock hp, 189 being the closest on the restricted E36.

You are probably right though that the car may not be able to make weight in ITR. But I don't know. The 2.8s were vintage 96/97/98, and may, like an E36, be able to get down into the 2700s. If so, I suspect any potential builder would want to run at the lower weight in R versus the higher weight in S.
 
JeffYoung said:
See what I wrote -- we don't look at curb weight until we run the car through the process and see if it can make weight in it's "natural" class. Here, at 190 stock hp, it's just over the normal ITS threshold. There are no other ITS cars with 190 stock hp, 189 being the closest on the restricted E36.

You are probably right though that the car may not be able to make weight in ITR. But I don't know. The 2.8s were vintage 96/97/98, and may, like an E36, be able to get down into the 2700s. If so, I suspect any potential builder would want to run at the lower weight in R versus the higher weight in S.
Click to expand...

<cough> New Beetle <cough>
 
JeffYoung said:
You are probably right though that the car may not be able to make weight in ITR. But I don't know. The 2.8s were vintage 96/97/98, and may, like an E36, be able to get down into the 2700s. If so, I suspect any potential builder would want to run at the lower weight in R versus the higher weight in S.
Click to expand...

I strongly doubt they can get that anywhere near that light. We're talking about the V6 Quattro here. All of that equipment adds hundreds of pounds to the car that you can't remove in IT. They weighed something like 3250 lbs stock. You are theorizing that they could lose 600+ lbs while gaining a cage (3250-650 = 2600; 2600 + 180lb driver = 2780). To get to Andy's weight they'd have to lose 800 lbs!

I think it's likely to turn out to be a much better fit and more realistic build in ITS. But then, we haven't yet determined what sort of process to use for AWD cars so I'm not sure where Andy got his weights.
 
only info ive found is that on the newer 2.8 5 valve motor (190hp) not 2 valve (172hp) which is in the 1996, the 97-01 A4 curb weight would be around 3384 quattro and manual one thing that would need to be looked at for the first classing of a newer audi is they do not have front camber adjustment you would either put in an aftermarket adjustable upper links or try and mismatch from another audi to gain or reduce camber.
 
and the 02-05 A4 comes with the 3.0 (220) would be an ITR car but they came with 5speed trans or a 6speed trans along with the same issue of no camber adjustment in the front as the older 96, 97-01 A4s did. ive only been able to find that this chassis starts at 3583 so maybe both cars can play in ITR there better be a good weight difference between them though just my thought
 
I would be totally and completely against any exception for adjustable upper control arms to allow th car gain camber though. Thatose types of one-off exception should not be allowed in IT.
 
and what about drive train loss? will that be estimated for AWD cars? or is it looked at at all now?

and not allowing them to have some adjustablity with front camber when every other strut car can have caster caber plates sounds unfair to me
 
I own a European repair shop, I bought a 2000 A4 Q 1.8T for $700 it was trashed...I have been peicing it back together, I found a set of sport Bilsteins/H&R springs used, 12.4 in rotors from an A6 w/carriers(calipers are the same). My ITB 84GTI has a full tilt suspension, Spherical C-arm brgs, groupe 1 bilsteins, weld in camber plates bla bla bla........ The Audi Gains neg camber in the out side front wheel in a turn, -1.0 static, turns in to -4ish....The suspension geometry is the coolest thing i have ever, casterish...seen....Quallity is not that cool.....The car will out handle my ITB car with balled fusion HRIs Any day of the week, Wet or dry, mud etc..... I have not weighed the audi guessing 3700lbs w/cd changer, heated leather seats, sunroof......It could loose 800lbs easy!8-10 air bags, seats, exaust is 150lbs, 2nd air pump, built in tools/first aid/ 6disk cd changer/cd&tape in the stereo, amplified speakers, maybe loose 1000lbs!

The thought has gone through my mind, make it a race car, Wife wont let me.....Nicest car I have ever owned she says......Most fun car I have ever owned!!!!!!Dents and all!

The 2.8 is a good engine, vc gaskets/timing chain tensioner gaskets leak all the time, 3.0L coils suck, 8 control arms in the front, Tie rods, wheel brgs, All go bad often, drive line is bullet proof! Subi has a WEAK 2.5L Junk in my opinion, 325IX or XI is a good car, lots of part around, Volvo has some good stuff, weak side gear/transfer case....
Sorry for the long winded opinoin.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top