ITR New Cars and Class Cleanup
- Thread starter JeffYoung
- Start date
pballance
New member
And DAMN good I might add. Looks like I may already have a car in the stable to move up to after some serious seat time......... just add the cage.
BTW, Steve is right on the power and header. Even some catback exhausts have been documented to lose power on the dyno.
12.6 diameter but i don't know the swept area
Thanks guys for working on this!!!
seckerich
New member
320MM front diameter and 300MM rear. That is with a scale on the rotors on the shelf.
Pads are the same size as the second gen RX7. Don't know about the 325. Also note that the BMW's in Grand Am were only allowed the 3.46 or 3.38 gear to help balance the lack of torque for the RX8. It makes the power but is a very steep curve and peaks late. For comparison they run about 1-2 seconds a lap faster than ITS at most tracks. Right in the sweet spot for ITR.
JeffYoung
New member
Uh.....no?
I don't see a down side to adding cars to the class, so long as they are balanced.
The ITR committee stripped down the car list to what we believed would be a non-controversial list; one that would be easier for the CRB to swallow as a concept, rather than a debate about particular makes.
The idea always was, for some of us anyway, to have a follow on "second wave" of ITR cars evaluated for inclusion. That's what we are doing.
BMWs are very well represented in R. Mazdas are not. Nor are Ford and GM. We are trying, if the cars fit, to fill some of those gaps.
I don't see a down side to adding cars to the class, so long as they are balanced.
The ITR committee stripped down the car list to what we believed would be a non-controversial list; one that would be easier for the CRB to swallow as a concept, rather than a debate about particular makes.
The idea always was, for some of us anyway, to have a follow on "second wave" of ITR cars evaluated for inclusion. That's what we are doing.
BMWs are very well represented in R. Mazdas are not. Nor are Ford and GM. We are trying, if the cars fit, to fill some of those gaps.
its66
New member
Jeff,
I'll be happy to help, especially with the pony cars. I'd like to see the 302/305 cars have a place to play. We have some guys down here that used to race ITGT, which was dropped. They are WWAAYY underprepped for A Sedan, or SPO. It would be great to give them something back. I wouldn't mind having my 5 spd 1LE Iroc back if we can make it work.
FWIW,
My ITS car puts more power to the wheels than my RX8 does. The factory now rates the engine at 232 hp, and it is identical to the original 04 engines which had a higher rating. If you strap a car to the dyno you will probably see around 167-170. Rarely, but occassionally I've seen 172.XX That means that either the car is losing 60 hp through driveline loss, or it is still over rated. I have never seen a renesis engine on an engine dyno, but it would be interesting to see the numbers.
You really can not make a 100% accurate comparison between the RX8's in GA cup, and ITR. Although the rules are similar, there are some different allowances that will seriously affect the cars. All rotaries have to stay cool to live.(as do most race cars) If you look at EVERY GA cup RX8, they all have the mazdaspeed front fascia. It has a huge grill opening. This allows more air, and thus the ability to tune it to make more power. Stock nose will neccessitate less hp. Additionally, sound isn't as big a restriction in GA cup. I believe it is 115 db, but I'm too lazy to look it up right now. If you choke it down to 104db, you're going to pull more hp.
Anyone seriously interested should request the dyno plots, and work the math that would make the car comparable to others in the class, like the unrestricted e36. See what weight you come up with. The RX8 probably has a slight aero advantage--it isn't real clean, but has a smaller frontal area. It has good brakes, as does the e36. It will have about 20 hp less than the e36 and around 60 lb/ft less torque. The e36 weight is 2800 lbs. What should the RX8 weigh?
I'll be happy to help, especially with the pony cars. I'd like to see the 302/305 cars have a place to play. We have some guys down here that used to race ITGT, which was dropped. They are WWAAYY underprepped for A Sedan, or SPO. It would be great to give them something back. I wouldn't mind having my 5 spd 1LE Iroc back if we can make it work.
FWIW,
My ITS car puts more power to the wheels than my RX8 does. The factory now rates the engine at 232 hp, and it is identical to the original 04 engines which had a higher rating. If you strap a car to the dyno you will probably see around 167-170. Rarely, but occassionally I've seen 172.XX That means that either the car is losing 60 hp through driveline loss, or it is still over rated. I have never seen a renesis engine on an engine dyno, but it would be interesting to see the numbers.
You really can not make a 100% accurate comparison between the RX8's in GA cup, and ITR. Although the rules are similar, there are some different allowances that will seriously affect the cars. All rotaries have to stay cool to live.(as do most race cars) If you look at EVERY GA cup RX8, they all have the mazdaspeed front fascia. It has a huge grill opening. This allows more air, and thus the ability to tune it to make more power. Stock nose will neccessitate less hp. Additionally, sound isn't as big a restriction in GA cup. I believe it is 115 db, but I'm too lazy to look it up right now. If you choke it down to 104db, you're going to pull more hp.
Anyone seriously interested should request the dyno plots, and work the math that would make the car comparable to others in the class, like the unrestricted e36. See what weight you come up with. The RX8 probably has a slight aero advantage--it isn't real clean, but has a smaller frontal area. It has good brakes, as does the e36. It will have about 20 hp less than the e36 and around 60 lb/ft less torque. The e36 weight is 2800 lbs. What should the RX8 weigh?
Z3_GoCar
New member
Hey Jeff,
I want an ugly BMW roadster. What about the Z4? The 2.5 should probably be about the same weight as the 2.8-Z3 as it's got the much better rear suspension, and it's either 191 or 180 hp.
M-54 motors
Also the 03's are five years old.
James
Z3_GoCar
New member
Hey Dan,
I've been using the carbon hood that came on the car since I bought it, and also it's running a stand-alone TEC-3 ecu. I know someone who'll sell me a steel hood, but I need to straighten the car out, and next year the ecu won't be a problem. So we'll see if I can make it out next year in ITR.
As for your second question. I suspose that it should have the same wieght gain as the sedan has over the Z3, as both the sedan and the Z4 have the same rear suspension.
James
I've been using the carbon hood that came on the car since I bought it, and also it's running a stand-alone TEC-3 ecu. I know someone who'll sell me a steel hood, but I need to straighten the car out, and next year the ecu won't be a problem. So we'll see if I can make it out next year in ITR.
As for your second question. I suspose that it should have the same wieght gain as the sedan has over the Z3, as both the sedan and the Z4 have the same rear suspension.
James
JeffYoung
New member
James, good point. Z4 should be in. I'll help you with the proposal; maybe we double that one up with teh RX8 to have one Mazda model and one BMW model in my proposal. Shoot me an e-mail at [email protected] and I'll send you what I've done for the RX8.
Jim, let's get all the dyno information we can on the RX8 and get that information to the ITAC. It is in NO one's best interest for the RX8 to be classed either too heavy, or too light. With the right information -- and I'm not sure I fully understand the dyno plots I do have -- we can get this right, but we've got a year, so let's do so. Dan, others, let us know (constructively! Ed!) what you think.
Appreciate it guys.
Jim, let's get all the dyno information we can on the RX8 and get that information to the ITAC. It is in NO one's best interest for the RX8 to be classed either too heavy, or too light. With the right information -- and I'm not sure I fully understand the dyno plots I do have -- we can get this right, but we've got a year, so let's do so. Dan, others, let us know (constructively! Ed!) what you think.
Appreciate it guys.
JoshS
New member
In addition to adding in some older cars to ITR, a few cars were introduced for the 2003 model year that we should consider listing in IT for 2008.
ITR:
BMW Z4 2.5
Mazda6 6-cyl
ITA:
Saturn Ion
Mazda6 4-cyl
For 2009, we can look at cars introduced in 2004. Here are some good candidates:
ITR:
Acura TSX
Mazda RX-8
ITS:
Mazda3
ITB:
Scion xA/xB
ITR:
BMW Z4 2.5
Mazda6 6-cyl
ITA:
Saturn Ion
Mazda6 4-cyl
For 2009, we can look at cars introduced in 2004. Here are some good candidates:
ITR:
Acura TSX
Mazda RX-8
ITS:
Mazda3
ITB:
Scion xA/xB
ed325its
New member
Jeff,
The class, and any new class, needs a stable rule set and classifications to grow. I am concerned that making changes so quickly will cause uncertainy in those considering to join the class. What car should he build? Should he wait to see what cars are classed next year or the year after? Examples of this class instability include;
seckerich's sarcastic elitest comment deserves no reply.
The class, and any new class, needs a stable rule set and classifications to grow. I am concerned that making changes so quickly will cause uncertainy in those considering to join the class. What car should he build? Should he wait to see what cars are classed next year or the year after? Examples of this class instability include;
- You state the second phase or grouping of cars were not included last year because they were too controversial. Nothing has changed to make them less so now. Why introduce controversy into a 1 year old class?
- You state this is the second phase of the agenda. What is phase 3 or phase 4?
- These forums have stated that the later model year 3.5l Maxima's and 3.0l/3.2l M3's are outside the envelope of the class. Yet now it is suggested that 5.0 liter V8's should be in the class. How does this provide class stability and equality against a 1.8l Acura. Ford and GM are already classed in V6 form.
seckerich's sarcastic elitest comment deserves no reply.
JeffYoung
New member
Ed, thanks for this response. This I can answer and respond to.
I don't see adding cars to ITR as being instability or a change to the ruleset. We have a ruleset, and we simply add cars within the performance envelope to that ruleset. This should not affect "the which car should I build" because a particular car is an overdog. Although, I do agree, as new cars are classed, folks with different interests might build different cars.
However, I want to state this as firmly as I can. I see NO down side to classing cars within the ITR performance envelope.
Phase 3 or Phase 4 are up to us, as a group. Whatever cars people have an interest in, and fit the envelope, they can ask to class.
The V8 issue is just that -- do the pony V8s (which make about the same hp as the V6s for the ones we are loooking at proposing classing) fit the envelope? Some believe yes; some no. If you think no, weigh in and let us know why. I suspect it will be an uphill battle getting them classed, which is fine.
Let me know what you think.
I don't see adding cars to ITR as being instability or a change to the ruleset. We have a ruleset, and we simply add cars within the performance envelope to that ruleset. This should not affect "the which car should I build" because a particular car is an overdog. Although, I do agree, as new cars are classed, folks with different interests might build different cars.
However, I want to state this as firmly as I can. I see NO down side to classing cars within the ITR performance envelope.
Phase 3 or Phase 4 are up to us, as a group. Whatever cars people have an interest in, and fit the envelope, they can ask to class.
The V8 issue is just that -- do the pony V8s (which make about the same hp as the V6s for the ones we are loooking at proposing classing) fit the envelope? Some believe yes; some no. If you think no, weigh in and let us know why. I suspect it will be an uphill battle getting them classed, which is fine.
Let me know what you think.
seckerich
New member
I'm not the one who doesn't want anyone else to get classed and I'm elitest.
I was however being sarcastic. Every IT class gets new cars classed as they meet the age and performance limits. Why should ITR be different? People are just beating the door down to build the cars on the list now right? If people want to build cars and they fit the class get on with it. Otherwise it will die a slow death in the next few years. Do it fair but get it done.
ed325its
New member
We're talking about stability in the class and not adding a new bunch of controversial cars in the classification. How do you translate and personalize that to say "doesn't want anyone else to be classed"? I am advocating not adding "controversial" cars that arguably may exceed the performance and weight envelopes of the class.
This is about cars and providing a stable performance envelope in ITR so that people will build cars and join the class.
I would like to build an '02 Nissan Maxima, but know it would be too powerful for the class in IT trim.
This is about cars and providing a stable performance envelope in ITR so that people will build cars and join the class.
I would like to build an '02 Nissan Maxima, but know it would be too powerful for the class in IT trim.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Ed,
I have a feeling that ITR will be the class with the most influx of new cars over the years. It's where the performance envelope of cars people want to drive is currently. Understand that each car coming into the class will be measured by the same stick as your E36.
I also submit that in order for ITR to flourish, we have to keep the doors open to cars people will want to race.
On the Maxima (or any car really): Any car over 230-240 stock hp is VERY close to being outside the envelope...and most certainly will be heavy.
I am one of the guys who was against the V8 cars for the first wave. I needed to learn more. V8's are VERY rare in IT - and where they exist, they make BIG gains. I just don't have a handle on what the 215hp V8 Ford can make in IT trim. One other issue is the history of A-Sedan. It evoloved from pretty much IT-rules to what they have now because they wanted to 'fix' the shortcomings of the cars - like brakes, reliabilty, etc. I do think they fit, but people on the committee know more than I on the topic.
"Phasing" is just a loose term. Figure each year, as cars become eligible by age, they will be classed in ITR - just as they are in ITS, ITA, ITB and ITC as appropriate.
I have a feeling that ITR will be the class with the most influx of new cars over the years. It's where the performance envelope of cars people want to drive is currently. Understand that each car coming into the class will be measured by the same stick as your E36.
I also submit that in order for ITR to flourish, we have to keep the doors open to cars people will want to race.
On the Maxima (or any car really): Any car over 230-240 stock hp is VERY close to being outside the envelope...and most certainly will be heavy.
I am one of the guys who was against the V8 cars for the first wave. I needed to learn more. V8's are VERY rare in IT - and where they exist, they make BIG gains. I just don't have a handle on what the 215hp V8 Ford can make in IT trim. One other issue is the history of A-Sedan. It evoloved from pretty much IT-rules to what they have now because they wanted to 'fix' the shortcomings of the cars - like brakes, reliabilty, etc. I do think they fit, but people on the committee know more than I on the topic.
"Phasing" is just a loose term. Figure each year, as cars become eligible by age, they will be classed in ITR - just as they are in ITS, ITA, ITB and ITC as appropriate.