ITS Camaro

D

DSeefeldt

New member
I see the 1993 - 1995 Camaro 3.4 V6 has been classified in ITS. The base size wheel for this car was 16x8. So, according to the rules, one could not use the stock size wheels. Is this correct?

Thanks,

Darryl
 
Max wheels size is listed at 16" in the GCR. The problem will be the lack of accessible race rubber for 16" wheels.

I think I wrote the letter to have that car classed in ITS after speaking with a V6 domestic specialist some years ago. I think the car could do well in ITS. We're doing relatively well with the ITS V6 Mustang and the Camaro has some inherent advantages with respect to F/R weight distribution. The cars can handle and I believe with 3.4L of displacement it'll make all the power needed for ITS.

The 3.4L V6 for those years was rated at 160hp and 200 tq, so the car receives a more realistic weight in ITS in comparison to the 150hp Mustang. 2680 lbs probably isn't obtainable, but neither is the Mustang's 2470 lbs. The Camaro does have rear drums which sort of stinks from a maintenance standpoint, but I bet they'll stop the car just fine.
 
Last edited:
Ron:

I think the 3.4 V6 Camaro could do OK as we'll. I'm trying to sort out the wheel rule. The car came stock with 16x8 alluminum salad shooter wheels. So if I show up with these 16x8 salad shooter wheels, am I illegal?

Thanks,

Darryl
 
I remember some time ago when I was scanning the web for information on the 3.4L V6 that I ran across some essentially stock dynojet runs. ~140 rwhp is what I remember, with a cone filter and cat back exhaust. That's pretty impressive for a starting point, albeit I haven't performed any more research on the engine. The 3.4L is pretty well hated by Camaro fans, and justifiably so with many cheap variants of GM V8s to bolt in or if you must use a V6, the higher performance 3.8L V6.
 
Last edited:
Ron:

Back in the mid 80's to early 90' I raced a 2.6L V6 Capri out here in the San Francisco Region. Folks said there was no way that car could beat an RX 3 let alone win a race. We accomplished both in 20+ ITA fields at the time. We met the challenge with a legal car. I guess that's what intrigues me with the 3.4 V6 Camaro. Can it be done successfully? That's the question.

Darryl
 
Well, we just did a similar thing with the ITS Mustangs. The Camaro is essentially the same car, so I think you could make it into an ITS contender.
 
I'm starting to look at a new car, and if I stay in IT it will be ITS.

I looked at the Camaro at length when we were voting on classification. Has smaller frontal area than the Moostang, and probably better basic suspension geometry. Stock power output is good but you will need to make around 60 more to be competitive in ITS which may or may not be an issue with this motor. Tuning was not aggressive, and the earlier cars (93s) had a less restrictive intake tract.

Rear drums are an annoyance.

I think it will handle and stop. I also think it can make the power but there is no guarantee.
 
Get you a mullet and a Bitching Camaro! I'd help build one of those. The front suspension is, if the diagram I have is correct, quite a bit different from the Mustang. The rear has a panhard setup as stock and it can certainly be improved upon for adjustability. The 3.4L is a bit of an unknown though and knowledge is thin on the ground. At least it is a proper 60 degree V6 though.
 
DSeefeldt said:
Ron:

Back in the mid 80's to early 90' I raced a 2.6L V6 Capri out here in the San Francisco Region. Folks said there was no way that car could beat an RX 3 let alone win a race. We accomplished both in 20+ ITA fields at the time. We met the challenge with a legal car. I guess that's what intrigues me with the 3.4 V6 Camaro. Can it be done successfully? That's the question.

Darryl
Click to expand...

I remember that car. Yes, there were some great ITA fields and good racing back then!
 
Ron:

I know the suspension pretty well on 3rd and 4th Gen Camaros from my A-Sedan experience. I think the car could hunt. I have the car. We'll see.

Darryl
 
Guess I'll have to be the dissenting vote on this. IT is a power/weight class, and IMO if you can't get reasonably close to the listed weight you aren't going to be competitive against the top cars in the class. The 4th gen Camaro is going to have a tough time getting under 3,000 lbs in IT trim, much less 2680 (or even 2815 in ITR). If you just want to beat up on your local IT crew, then yeah, maybe. Our ITS cars here in the DC Region just barely outrun our top ITA cars. But in a strong ITS region (like the SE), or at the ARRC, fuggetaboutit. This is why my '02 is now a track day toy and not an ITR car.

And yeah, sucks about not being able to use the stock wheels. I actually sent a request in a couple of years ago to get that allowance in, but it was shot down.
 
erlrich said:
. The 4th gen Camaro is going to have a tough time getting under 3,000 lbs in IT trim,
Click to expand...

I'd like to buy one of these things and try. I'm not a Chevy guy at all, but it'd be interesting to see what could be done with one.

Aw snap, $750 for one in my town and on sale too!! "Must go buy this Sunday"

http://raleigh.craigslist.org/cto/4065302668.html

I bet $400 cold cash gets me a bitching Camaro. Put it on the lift, get some beer, call the boys and take that thing apart.
 
Last edited:
erlrich said:
Guess I'll have to be the dissenting vote on this. IT is a power/weight class, and IMO if you can't get reasonably close to the listed weight you aren't going to be competitive against the top cars in the class. The 4th gen Camaro is going to have a tough time getting under 3,000 lbs in IT trim, much less 2680 (or even 2815 in ITR). If you just want to beat up on your local IT crew, then yeah, maybe. Our ITS cars here in the DC Region just barely outrun our top ITA cars. But in a strong ITS region (like the SE), or at the ARRC, fuggetaboutit. This is why my '02 is now a track day toy and not an ITR car.

And yeah, sucks about not being able to use the stock wheels. I actually sent a request in a couple of years ago to get that allowance in, but it was shot down.
Click to expand...

The listed weight is based on stock hp remember, and 25% gain

If you see some of the gains with teh 3.4 that other large displacement ITS motors have seen (i.e. 40-50% or perhaps even more) then you are good to go because either you are competitive at the higher than listed weight, or the listed weight gets moved up if the ITAC gets asked to reweigh the car based on known power.

So the kicker here is the 3.4. If it can make 195-200 whp at 2700-2800 lbs, it will be competitive. Over that, gravy.
 
it happens, but usually a letter gets written by a member of the AC/CRB so we have somethign to respond to. the new system is pretty rigid like that.

and yeah, per hp/weight, the mustang does well against real, strong ITS fields and after a very short development time (granted, an intense one) from only 1 shop and it's overweight. one of the secrets is a power band you could eat off of. its vast and flat. yeah, it might not peak at the higher hp/weight in the class, but it can scoot off all the midrange stuff and get to it's top speed faster, meaning more time at high speed, and thus lower lap times. torque is your friend, and it's pretty well linked to displacement though there is by no means a fixed tq/displacement ratio.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top