ITAC News.

Let not one person on this forum complain again that the ITAC works behind closed doors in smoke-filled rooms... :)

There's a reason you don't want to watch sausage being made. ;)
 
JeffYoung said:
Ditto. However, while I have not checked, I'm pretty sure the first v8s were run through at either 30 or 35%.

We did the Vette at 25% since we don't have any real build data for it, but I suspect that number is low.
Click to expand...

I suspect the Pony car gains are speced too high.

At 30%
94/95 Mustang 3144 lbs, spec of 3195. Looks like 50 lb tq adder.
96-98 Mustang 3290 lbs, spec of 3390. Looks like 100 lb tq adder.
87-92 Camaro 3363 lbs, spec of 3465. Looks like 100 lb tq adder.

At 35%
94/95 Mustang 3265lbs, spec of 3195.
96-98 Mustang 3417lbs, spec of 3390.
87-92 Camaro 3493lbs, spec of 3465.

So, 30% seems like where they were speced and it looks like torque adders were inconsistent and axle deducts were not applied at all, neither was a strut deduct.
 
JeffYoung said:
Ditto. However, while I have not checked, I'm pretty sure the first v8s were run through at either 30 or 35%.

We did the Vette at 25% since we don't have any real build data for it, but I suspect that number is low.
Click to expand...

The first camaros, etc, (thanks for the work on those Ron and Jeff...(for those that don't know, Ron was very ehlfpul with the data and provided a proposal to get these cars into ITR)) was, as you know, hotly contested.
There were those on the committee who thought they'd make huge power. or they didn't belong because they'd be too easy to cheat up, etc. OR that they should get a 40% factor because they'd all be cheated up and impossible to police. Sheesh, it was crazy, LOL.

In the end, they got what I thought was an aggressive factor, either 30 or 35%. Andy?
 
Amen bro. And more and more making the freaking sausage ain't much fun.

Driving the sausage is.

Greg Amy said:
Let not one person on this forum complain again that the ITAC works behind closed doors in smoke-filled rooms... :)

There's a reason you don't want to watch sausage being made. ;)
Click to expand...
 
Ron Earp said:
Well, I thought it was 11.25 and did the calculations but they are even more off. I convinced myself it was 11.5.

If it is 11.25 then:

215 x 1.25 x 11.25 = 3023 lbs. Spec weight is 3195, so the difference is 172 lbs. Where did the 172 lb adder come from? And the other V8 cars have trouble too.

1996-1998 Mustang at 225 stock hp, the weight is 3164. But it is listed in the ITCS at 3390 lbs! Where did the 225 lbs adder come from?

87-98 Camaro, 230 stock hp, the weight is 3234 lbs. Listed weight is 3465 lbs, a 230 lb adder. What for?

All there of these cars are off weight calculated using standard procedures. I got a feeling there is more wrong in ITR than just double wishbone cars.
Click to expand...

First, we have established through the history that there is nothing wrong with the DW classifications - except the Vette. There is no DW adder in ITR.

Second, there is no strut deduction in ITR for RWD cars. Just FWD cars. Also established.

All those V8's were done at 30%. The CRB was NOT going to let them in without that number. Sucked but we said we would do it and then change it when we had numbers to back us up.

215 @ 30% with a 50lb torque adder is right on.
225 @ 30% with 100lb torque adder is right on.
230 @ 30% with 100lb torque adder is right on.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
215 @ 30% with a 50lb torque adder is right on.
225 @ 30% with 100lb torque adder is right on.
230 @ 30% with 100lb torque adder is right on.
Click to expand...

And a Vette:

205 @ 30% with 150lb torque adder, 3150 lbs, much lighter than some of the Pony cars. That doesn't pass the smell test. I seriously doubt that 350 inch motor won't see higher outputs than the 302/305 Ford/GM twins, plus it has better brakes, aero, and suspension (things we don't worry about in IT).
 
Ron Earp said:
And a Vette:

205 @ 30% with 150lb torque adder, 3150 lbs, much lighter than some of the Pony cars. That doesn't pass the smell test. I seriously doubt that 350 inch motor won't see higher outputs than the 302/305 Ford/GM twins, plus it has better brakes, aero, and suspension (things we don't worry about in IT).
Click to expand...

Just based on cubic inches? Come on. The car was 205 stock vs. much more for those cars. The simple addition of the TPI manifold in 1985 bumped power 25hp!!! That's over 350lbs in ITR weight.

292mm brakes bro. That ain't that big. Take a stroll through the ITR ITCS...

If you were to class those Pony cars today (I would be writing my letter now), they would use 25%, COULD use a -50 for solid axle, and COULD use a deduction (or addition) for brake size.
 
Last edited:
The cubes suggest big power.

Tell me what that intake flows and with your cam specs I can give you a pretty close estimate of theoretical max hp (need the throttle body diameter too).

Like I said in a PM, you push 417 CFM through that manifold at even 80% VE you are looking at 240 ish whp.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
Just based on cubic inches? Come on. The car was 205 stock vs. much more for those cars. The simple addition of the TPI manifold in 1985 bumped power 25hp!!! That's over 350lbs in ITR weight.
.
Click to expand...

At some point common sense has to be used.

Interestingly enough, this isn't unlike my Mustang build. 1998 Mustang, 150hp. 1999 Mustang, 190hp with the only apparent change being the intake. However, digging deep into it things are not as they seem. And I suspect the situation is the same for the 205hp C4 Vette.
 
Ron Earp said:
At some point common sense has to be used.

Interestingly enough, this isn't unlike my Mustang build. 1998 Mustang, 150hp. 1999 Mustang, 190hp with the only apparent change being the intake. However, digging deep into it things are not as they seem. And I suspect the situation is the same for the 205hp C4 Vette.
Click to expand...

Or at some point actual research has to be done instead of guessing based on other completely different motors. :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top