AWD in ITR or ITS?

Knestis said:
Duh - the e30 325ix would be interesting...!
Click to expand...

There is no way that the 325ix is a better car than the RWD 325i unless it was very wet. It's much heavier and much more complex. Lots of drivetrain loss. I guess you could have a rain car, all set up with AWD and a nice soft suspension. Race the RWD car in the dry and the AWD car in the pouring rain, otherwise, no thanks.

The tradeoff isn't as obvious when the 2WD variant is FWD though, as in the Audis. The early A4 FWD cars had the VW beam axle in the rear too, not the fancier rear suspension in the quattros.
 
on the e30 xi /ix car would it be classed the same weight as the rwd? if so you could just add to the line thats already there for the rwd
 
>> ...I guess you could have a rain car, all set up with AWD and a nice soft suspension. Race the RWD car in the dry and the AWD car in the pouring rain...

Well, yeah. That's precisely the idea, Josh!

K
 
Andy told me yesterday he knows of a third-gen ITR Supra out there somewhere. Ohio, was it?

I'm pretty much of the mindset that any car that's not an attractive racer in 2WD trim - regardless of the end doing the motivation - is very likely not going to be attractive in 4WD, possibly not in rain, either. And anyone that tries to build one with the hopes of winning in the rain while simultaneously ignoring its dry foibles, will spend a lot of money and likely be frustrated.

GA
 
Greg, I think I saw vid of one down at Texas World, from the late 90s -- weren't you down that way back then?

I've also seen vid of one out West racing against a Z car in the mid 90s.

But, I think the weight stopped any of the top prep shops from building one in teh NEDiv or teh SEDiv.
 
JeffYoung said:
Greg, I think I saw vid of one down at Texas World, from the late 90s -- weren't you down that way back then?
Click to expand...
We talking Supra? No, I moved to CT in '92. Dammit.

That's a big car; it'll need some serious torques and great handling to be competitive. It'll look good, but damn that's a long row to hoe...
 
Greg Amy said:
Andy told me yesterday he knows of a third-gen ITR Supra out there somewhere. Ohio, was it?

GA
Click to expand...

Not sure if this is 3rd gen or not, but Eric Van Cleef and his brothers race their ITR Supra in SEDIV. He has helped me a bunch on setup of my car and in discussion he thinks the car is too heavy as it currently sits.
 

Attachments

  • EVC supra.jpg
    EVC supra.jpg
    77.4 KB · Views: 24
pballance said:
Not sure if this is 3rd gen or not, but Eric Van Cleef and his brothers race their ITR Supra in SEDIV. He has helped me a bunch on setup of my car and in discussion he thinks the car is too heavy as it currently sits.
Click to expand...
in the pic is a fourth gen. a bmw e46 330xi would be an option in ITR in my mind hmm
 
another car that may get chosen to run in ITR would be the vw R32 with 240 the same as the s2000 that is an ITR car although the audi TT would not since it was rated at 250
 
R32 would be awesome... :026:
TT is turbo until a year ago I think, already looked at that one :(

Stephen

Still lurking and looking at options :024:
 
2003 mazda 626 awd for ITS or ITA i guess. 4 cylinder was rated at 159hp or is that car to new. the suzuki sx4 is awd and 143hp theres an ITA?
 
Last edited:
ericblois said:
another car that may get chosen to run in ITR would be the vw R32 with 240 the same as the s2000 that is an ITR car although the audi TT would not since it was rated at 250
Click to expand...

Weren't all of those cars turbos?

Anyway, there's no hard limit on horsepower in ITR (or in any class). A 300hp car could be in there as long as it was heavy enough. But we're not going to add a car to ITR that has to carry silly amounts of ballast to make process weight. A car like that would be just too fast for ITR and will need to wait until the club is ready to add a faster class.
 
ericblois said:
the TT had a vr6 3.2 option but is 250hp started in 2002/2003 i think
Click to expand...
Yes, but that was just a computer change plus a couple other things that are legal to change in Improved Touring (exhaust, intake routing). Thus, the ITAC will classify it using the lower horsepower rating.

Right...?

JoshS said:
Weren't all of those cars turbos?
Click to expand...
R32? No, they were all the 3.2L VR6 normally-aspirated. Or do you mean the TT (see above...)
 
I curious what folks consider silly amounts of ballast - I've just finished adding more weight to my car to offset the lightweight rims - I'm carrying 85 pounds in the footwell. hardly fits!
 
benspeed said:
I curious what folks consider silly amounts of ballast - I've just finished adding more weight to my car to offset the lightweight rims - I'm carrying 85 pounds in the footwell. hardly fits!
Click to expand...

You need to buy lead and you aren't limited to the footwell anymore...
 
benspeed said:
I curious what folks consider silly amounts of ballast - I've just finished adding more weight to my car to offset the lightweight rims - I'm carrying 85 pounds in the footwell. hardly fits!
Click to expand...

Dude, go down to Hoboken and get yourself a hooker, starve her a bit and throw her in the trunk! Better weight distribution FTW!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top