It's here...

[stevel]

I agree Honda does a good job. I also know there are things that will make them better, they cost money but i think that other 5 HP I mentioned is in there with an expensive header exhaust and maybe a few other IT tricks. I understand the Honda makes its power at high revs and thats the downside to ownign one. But that does not change the fact that they can and if you want to win races you will have to run them that high. The 240z peks out at 7100 RPM and stars breaking the ends off of valve springs at 7300 so you have to rely on torque where we can't run gears to make up for it. It's a toss no matter what you do. I am pretty comforatable saying that with the BMW pulled back the GSR the RX7 and the Z car will be pretty good when you look over 10 different tracks.
[/b]

Joe,

Not doubting your abilities but that extra 5hp is gonna be hard to find. People have been building these engines for a long time and there's tons of parts out there. It's certainly not for lack of trying. Expensive header, yeah there's a few guys that can make you custom headers for these cars with slip fit joints to tune on the dyno. I still think they haven't gotten that extra 5hp. You're limited by the intake manifold first and the cams don't help much either. I don't think that extra 5hp would do much anyways. The power is the least of your worreis. The Acura has never been able to hang with the BMW, so this SIR should help there. Trouble is, it has a hard time staying with the RX7 until the end of the race. So, even if you could get that extra 5hp you're front tires are toasted. I mean think about it. If the RX7 has 50/50 weight distribution and the Acura has 60/40 and we're talking about 2700lb cars here, that's an extra 270lbs on the front end! And most of it is right over the axle with the engine/tranny combo. It's not any wonder why these cars have problems with front tires and brakes.

s

steve

 

[Joe Harlan]

Joe,

Not doubting your abilities but that extra 5hp is gonna be hard to find. People have been building these engines for a long time and there's tons of parts out there. It's certainly not for lack of trying. Expensive header, yeah there's a few guys that can make you custom headers for these cars with slip fit joints to tune on the dyno. I still think they haven't gotten that extra 5hp. You're limited by the intake manifold first and the cams don't help much either. I don't think that extra 5hp would do much anyways. The power is the least of your worreis. The Acura has never been able to hang with the BMW, so this SIR should help there. Trouble is, it has a hard time staying with the RX7 until the end of the race. So, even if you could get that extra 5hp you're front tires are toasted. I mean think about it. If the RX7 has 50/50 weight distribution and the Acura has 60/40 and we're talking about 2700lb cars here, that's an extra 270lbs on the front end! And most of it is right over the axle with the engine/tranny combo. It's not any wonder why these cars have problems with front tires and brakes.

s

steve
[/b]

Steve, The great thing about close racing is every marque feels they are slightly disadvantaged if the rules are working properly. I think you will see a renewed interest in the GSR's once th SIR shows it's effective on the BMW. The issue is when you have an overdog people tend to just accept they are racing for second and quit woeking on them. I have a good friemd with a GSR that has given me very good information over the years. I have seen a reasonbly developed marginally driven GSR rac hard with a few front running 240z's on a HP track out here. I am pretty comfortable that the HP estimates are pretty good. The work is finding the right combo of gearing to take advantage of the ability of that engine to not be out of the cams ever. Not getting out of the cams sometimes is gonna require scaring yourself in certain spots.

 

[stevel]

Steve, The great thing about close racing is every marque feels they are slightly disadvantaged if the rules are working properly. I think you will see a renewed interest in the GSR's once th SIR shows it's effective on the BMW. The issue is when you have an overdog people tend to just accept they are racing for second and quit woeking on them. I have a good friemd with a GSR that has given me very good information over the years. I have seen a reasonbly developed marginally driven GSR rac hard with a few front running 240z's on a HP track out here. I am pretty comfortable that the HP estimates are pretty good. The work is finding the right combo of gearing to take advantage of the ability of that engine to not be out of the cams ever. Not getting out of the cams sometimes is gonna require scaring yourself in certain spots.
[/b]

On a HP track I don't think it will have a problem hanging with the front, it'll be a struggle but not out of contention I don't think. It's the tight twisty tracks where it's gonna have troubles. Again, heating up those front tires and brakes with a lot of twists and turns is gonna kill it's chances. I really never thought that the HP aspect was the problem with these cars. On a side note, I don't even race an Acura in ITS. I just don't think they have a fighting chance. And I do believe that they have been built to the full extent that they could be and they still don't have a chance. I really do believe they need to be lighter than the RX7 for them to be competitive.

s

 

[Joe Harlan]

On a HP track I don't think it will have a problem hanging with the front, it'll be a struggle but not out of contention I don't think. It's the tight twisty tracks where it's gonna have troubles. Again, heating up those front tires and brakes with a lot of twists and turns is gonna kill it's chances. I really never thought that the HP aspect was the problem with these cars. On a side note, I don't even race an Acura in ITS. I just don't think they have a fighting chance. And I do believe that they have been built to the full extent that they could be and they still don't have a chance. I really do believe they need to be lighter than the RX7 for them to be competitive.

s
[/b]

Well in all honesty I don't think either of us have the answer cause I have not seen a fully developed car. I have seen alot of car with off the shelf hopped up street parts. I am pretty convinced when the car have a fighting chance there will be more development, I bet I can stuff an AEM unit into the actory box kind of development. Also please understand I am not a fan of the Mazda so I woldnever want it felt that my thoughts are based on keeping the rotary up front.

 

[stevel]

I am pretty convinced when the car have a fighting chance there will be more development, I bet I can stuff an AEM unit into the actory box kind of development.
[/b]

Yes, you can easily stuff an AEM in the stock box. But, with how popular the honda's are, you don't really need an AEM to get the most out of ECU tuning. There is Hondata, which uses the stock ecu, as well as a number of free editors that will let you do all the things you need and have tons of features and plenty of resolution to do what you need all using a chipped version of the stock ECU. I would say for an IT application, the Hondas/Acuras are probably the only marque where the AEM won't get you anything over the alternatives for an IT build, because there's lots of alternatives. Hondata is a great product, and for an IT car I don't think the AEM can beat it for an IT build. Then there's editors like Neptune, CROME, TurboEdit, Uberdata, etc that all offer a ton of options including wideband support and datalogging. The AEM has advantages when you get into turbo charging and cool things like ditching the dizzy and going with individual coil packs none of which we can do anyways. With the amount of knowledge out there about B series VTEC engines and all the dyno time nationwide these engines have gone thru, with ECU tweaking and dyno tuning these cars are leaving NOTHING on the table in those regards. There are tons of tuners nationwide that only know B series VTEC engines and are great at doing it. I can name at least 5 people in New England (me included!) that have a lot of experience in these engines specifically. It can grow to hundreds (maybe 1000+) when you go nationwide.

s

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

The potential power advantage the GSR balances out the powertrain layout ENOUGH so that no change was warranted in this 'correction'. It's effectiveness will be track dependent - similar to other cars in all classes.

The idea wasn't to adjust 30lbs here or 40lbs there, it was to make sure everyone was within a defined envelope. And, even though some consider it to be an underdog, the fact remains that full-prep versions for IT don't exist except on paper.

This is second hand, but I am pretty sure Serra thinks one can really rock in ITS. An extra 135 pounds with an extra 30hp sound nice? It ain't perfect, but thankfully, this ain't Production - and we aren't trying for 100% perfection, because it's impossible.

 

[Gary L]

The idea wasn't to adjust 30lbs here or 40lbs there, it was to make sure everyone was within a defined envelope.[/b]

Speaking of which, I thought I read in one of the threads on this subject, that cars were not adjusted if they were less than 100 lbs from target. But if you bounce the adjusted weights against the previous weights, there are 4 or 5 cars that were adjusted significantly less than 100 lbs; as little as 25 lbs in one case. Can you shed some light on this? No complaint... just curious as to why those particular cars were fine-tuned.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Speaking of which, I thought I read in one of the threads on this subject, that cars were not adjusted if they were less than 100 lbs from target. But if you bounce the adjusted weights against the previous weights, there are 4 or 5 cars that were adjusted significantly less than 100 lbs; as little as 25 lbs in one case. Can you shed some light on this? No complaint... just curious as to why those particular cars were fine-tuned.
[/b]

Sure can. I think you are referring to a BMW on the 25 pounds. That BMW was lumped into a 'group change' that brought a bunch of cars with the same drivetrain and the same or REALLY similar suspension all together. It seemed to make more sense to get them all in line instead of leaving one car hanging out there for no reason.

Another example is the 94-99 Integra gaining 65 pounds. That change was neccessetated by the 115 pound increase to the 90-93 car that put it over the spec weight of the 94-99 so that car had to run through to have the two cars make sense within the category. Same with the CRX/Civic Si.

AB

 

[Gary L]

Sure can. I think you are referring to a BMW on the 25 pounds. That BMW was lumped into a 'group change' that brought a bunch of cars with the same drivetrain and the same or REALLY similar suspension all together. [/b]

Got it... Thanks!

 

[zracre]

Yes, you can easily stuff an AEM in the stock box. But, with how popular the honda's are, you don't really need an AEM to get the most out of ECU tuning. There is Hondata, which uses the stock ecu, as well as a number of free editors that will let you do all the things you need and have tons of features and plenty of resolution to do what you need all using a chipped version of the stock ECU. I would say for an IT application, the Hondas/Acuras are probably the only marque where the AEM won't get you anything over the alternatives for an IT build, because there's lots of alternatives. Hondata is a great product, and for an IT car I don't think the AEM can beat it for an IT build. Then there's editors like Neptune, CROME, TurboEdit, Uberdata, etc that all offer a ton of options including wideband support and datalogging. The AEM has advantages when you get into turbo charging and cool things like ditching the dizzy and going with individual coil packs none of which we can do anyways. With the amount of knowledge out there about B series VTEC engines and all the dyno time nationwide these engines have gone thru, with ECU tweaking and dyno tuning these cars are leaving NOTHING on the table in those regards. There are tons of tuners nationwide that only know B series VTEC engines and are great at doing it. I can name at least 5 people in New England (me included!) that have a lot of experience in these engines specifically. It can grow to hundreds (maybe 1000+) when you go nationwide.

s
[/b]

I agree there is not much left on the table for HP for us honda guys...Hondata and similar units are pretty optimised now. That makes power gains that much harder. Even if you get the additional 5hp, it will probably be at expense of torque...There are a few full effort GSR's out there, they just are not seen because the cars simply can't hang with the big cars (for long). I really think the GSR and Prelude should get weight breaks (even if they are minimal) to bring them at least alittle closer. I also think Torque should be a factor in determining weight

 

[stevel]

I have not seen a fully developed car.
[/b]

They are out there. They haven't won much.

The potential power advantage the GSR balances out the powertrain layout ENOUGH so that no change was warranted in this 'correction'.
[/b]

Potential power advantage over what? An RX7. I thought we established they're about as idential as you can get as far as power, torque and the overall powerband. I think because of this and the detriment that it's powertrain layout has it warrants a decent weight break.

The idea wasn't to adjust 30lbs here or 40lbs there, it was to make sure everyone was within a defined envelope. And, even though some consider it to be an underdog, the fact remains that full-prep versions for IT don't exist except on paper.

[/b]

Exactly. I think it needs about an 80lb break.

This is second hand, but I am pretty sure Serra thinks one can really rock in ITS.
[/b]

There are several guys in the country that have tons of knowledge on these motors. And the motor Serra brought to the ARRC last year, I believe wasn't built by him. And it's not a huge secret who it is. And even that guy isn't gonna break 180hp to the wheels. The VTEC motor is topped out. The non-vtec variant that he's been able to get so much gains from leaves a lot more on the table, and actually has a much better torque curve. Though again, I don't think power output has ever been the problem.

An extra 135 pounds with an extra 30hp sound nice?
[/b]

Hmmm, sounds like a detriment to me. Let's see. The guys running the ITA version of the 94-99 chassis are already saying how the extra weight they're gonna have to run now is gonna be hard to keep the brakes until the end of the race. And I don't think that's gonna be unfounded. Now, you've got 135lbs more and you're going to be trying to slow down from a higher speed with the extra power you've got with the same size brakes as the ITA car. Yup, sounds like the GSR doesn't have a chance to me to keep up with the pack the whole race.

Time will tell and I know you can't balance it on the head of a pin, but if you compare this car to the RX7, I don't see how you can say that the GSR DOESN'T deserve a weight break.

All IMHO.

s

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Steve,

We know each other and I respect you but what's with 80lbs? A SWAG? Tell me what you base your calculations on. The ITAC process may not be perfect, but at least it is the same for everyone. An arbitrary 80 here or there smacks of old-school comp-adjustments.

Using the procees, a 170hp VTEC 1.8 SHOULD make more power than a 13B in full IT prep. We go by the process. Until somebody shows us dyno sheets and descriptions and contact info from top builders disputing our numbers (like for the 944 and CRX, etc), that is what we have to go on.

The problem is that serving up your 10/10ths dyno sheets put people in a tough spot. If the numbers are high, people fear corrections. If they are low, they need to be detailed so as to understand why they are low.

The process ain't perfect, but it has to make sense.

I'll show you my numbers:

170*1.25=212.5 * 12.9 = 2741.25 before adders. FWD is a minus, double wishbone is a plus.

You are asking for 2610? Debate away!

AB

 

[Jeremy Billiel]

Steve,

We know each other and I respect you but what's with 80lbs? A SWAG? Tell me what you base your calculations on. The ITAC process may not be perfect, but at least it is the same for everyone. An arbitrary 80 here or there smacks of old-school comp-adjustments.

Using the procees, a 170hp VTEC 1.8 SHOULD make more power than a 13B in full IT prep. We go by the process. Until somebody shows us dyno sheets and descriptions and contact info from top builders disputing our numbers (like for the 944 and CRX, etc), that is what we have to go on.

The problem is that serving up your 10/10ths dyno sheets put people in a tough spot. If the numbers are high, people fear corrections. If they are low, they need to be detailed so as to understand why they are low.

The process ain't perfect, but it has to make sense.

I'll show you my numbers:

170*1.25=212.5 * 12.9 = 2741.25 before adders. FWD is a minus, double wishbone is a plus.

You are asking for 2610? Debate away!

AB
[/b]

Andy - I gave you two dyno sheets. One being my car that Steve tuned and one of Zsolt's car in Georgia. 185WHP is darn hard, if not impossible. How many HP do stock ITR's put to the ground? I doubt the GSR will even hit those numbers. The GSR head and intake manifold is the motors limitation and Honda does a fantastic job of getting the most out of its engines. It been proven time and time again. With that said, I am a believer, along with Steve, that if the RX7 and GSR are the exact same on paper the GSR should see some break for the sole reason of FWD vs. RWD.

The other thing that amazes me is the GSR listed weight in the GCR is 2690 where on edmonds.com the curb weight is 2529lbs. If you eliminated everything else out of the argument, this alone is a good one. Why should I have to add 160lbs from the curb weight?

http://www.edmunds.com/used/1995/acura/int...8405/specs.html

 

[stevel]

Steve,

We know each other and I respect you but what's with 80lbs? A SWAG? Tell me what you base your calculations on.
[/b]

I respect you also and this is just a healthy debate. I just like to see more cars that can have a chance. That and the fact that it's a Honda doesn't hurt. Ok, the 80lbs isn't by any scientific method. It needs a weight break due to the front tire/brake problems it has. I realize to keep with fairness that it can't be too much because then it will outpower the RX7, which isn't fair. So, 100lbs is too much. I don't think 30-40lbs will do much for the front tire/brake issue. Maybe 50lbs on the low end would help. I dunno, all things aside how much of a weight break do you think a car would need to remedy the problem? It's not a loaded question. But how would you figure that out? I figured somewhere between 50-100lbs would help it. Right in the middle? How about 75lbs? There isn't much of a scientific method for this.

Using the procees, a 170hp VTEC 1.8 SHOULD make more power than a 13B in full IT prep. We go by the process. Until somebody shows us dyno sheets and descriptions and contact info from top builders disputing our numbers (like for the 944 and CRX, etc), that is what we have to go on.

[/b]

On paper yes, it SHOULD. But, in reality it just doesn't. No, I don't have a dyno sheet in front of me to prove it. But, that 1.8 motor would be hard pressed to make 180WHP tops. It would never hit 185WHP. Like Jeremy pointed out. The cylinder head is very optimized for breathing and could put out more, but the cams and manifold are going to limit it. Especially with the secondary butterflies in there, I don't think they're helping and they can't be removed legally.

I'll show you my numbers:

170*1.25=212.5 * 12.9 = 2741.25 before adders. FWD is a minus, double wishbone is a plus.

You are asking for 2610? Debate away!
[/b]

Ok, so 212.5 at the crank. What do you guys use for a correction for FWD cars? 12% loss seems to be typical for the hondas. So, 212.5 * 0.88 = 187hp to the wheels. A good 7hp too high. Again though, I can't prove it. But, i don't have a GSR nor do I race in ITS. I am just a fan of competition and also the Honda marque and would just like to see this car have a chance.

Ok, so here's my numbers. RX7 - 50/50 weight distribution. GSR - 60/40 weight distribution. At 2700lbs, that's 270lbs more on the front end! With the same front tire size and the same sized brakes! Oh, and the GSR has the crappiest 5th gear ever! Those are my arguments. Yes, it's all based on the RX7 but I think it's a great argument given how close the specs are on paper. How much of a weight break to give? I dunno. But I think it needs to be at least 50lbs less than the RX7, and since the GSR is spec'd at 10lbs higher currently. I say a 60lb weight drop would be a good start. Though I think it would need to be more for the point of the weight break to be effective.

Ok, so ASSuming dyno sheets could be provided that a fult tilt motor only gets 180 to the ground. The weight numbers get tweaked a little based on that. So, less weight based on less HP potential, FWD is a minus, double wishbone a plus. Crappy 5th gear, a minus. Shitty weight distribution, another minus. What's that get us to?

s

 

[Joe Harlan]

Andy - I gave you two dyno sheets. One being my car that Steve tuned and one of Zsolt's car in Georgia. 185WHP is darn hard, if not impossible. How many HP do stock ITR's put to the ground? I doubt the GSR will even hit those numbers. The GSR head and intake manifold is the motors limitation and Honda does a fantastic job of getting the most out of its engines. It been proven time and time again. With that said, I am a believer, along with Steve, that if the RX7 and GSR are the exact same on paper the GSR should see some break for the sole reason of FWD vs. RWD. The other thing that amazes me is the GSR listed weight in the GCR is 2690 where on edmonds.com the curb weight is 2529lbs. If you eliminated everything else out of the argument, this alone is a good one. Why should I have to add 160lbs from the curb weight?

http://www.edmunds.com/used/1995/acura/int...8405/specs.html
[/b]

I don't believe curb weight has anything to with the process and this has been stated many times. I would really be interested to see a dyno sheet with A/F mixture. One thing is for sure. It's not likely that the car is gonna get adjusted so why not go after building more torque.

 

[Jeremy Billiel]

Joe - Here are my cars specs, which I admit are not at the limit since the guts have not been modified in any way.

1995 Integra GSR
*Bone stock motor - Never been open up
*77,000 miles
*DC JDM 4-1 2.5" Header
*2.5" exhaust into a 18" resonator and downturn before the gas tank
*B&M fuel pressure regulator
*Comptech icebox setup
*Chipped ECU
* Tuned for 4 hours by Steve

 

[stevel]

I would really be interested to see a dyno sheet with A/F mixture.
[/b]

These cars seem to like 13.5:1. I went all the way from 12.5:1 to 14:1. Played with the timing. Ran race fuel. With the current setup, this is all I could get. For another few hundred dollars in injectors and an fpr and gauge, another few horses could be squeked out. But, this is a stock motor.

I ended up lowering VTEC down to 4200. It's not shown here.

One thing is for sure. It's not likely that the car is gonna get adjusted
[/b]

Well, I'm laying out my reasons why seeing if an adjustment has any chance and/or validity. I don't wanna discount this yet.

so why not go after building more torque.
[/b]

I still don't think it's going to help the real issues with this car which is brake and tire wear at the end of a race. I never thought power/torque was a problem with these cars and wouldn't look for a weight adjustment based on that, but if there power estimates are higher than what can be achieved, it bolsters the argument for a weight break.

s

 

[Joe Harlan]

These cars seem to like 13.5:1. I went all the way from 12.5:1 to 14:1. Played with the timing. Ran race fuel. With the current setup, this is all I could get. For another few hundred dollars in injectors and an fpr and gauge, another few horses could be squeked out. But, this is a stock motor.

I ended up lowering VTEC down to 4200. It's not shown here.
Well, I'm laying out my reasons why seeing if an adjustment has any chance and/or validity. I don't wanna discount this yet.
I still don't think it's going to help the real issues with this car which is brake and tire wear at the end of a race. I never thought power/torque was a problem with these cars and wouldn't look for a weight adjustment based on that, but if there power estimates are higher than what can be achieved, it bolsters the argument for a weight break.

s
[/b]

OK so lets get down to this. What are you running for pads and fluid. How much cooling are you providing the brakes. WHat is the suspension setup. Right now we are arguing facts that are not facts I see a dyno sheet and its for an admitted stock bottom end. Whats been done to the head? What header is and exhaust is this car running. How much experience does the driver have in this car? These are all important questions. When you say you played with the A/F where you on the dyno or data logging at the track?

Edit: OK I see we have a header and a couple of goodies. 170 stock flywheel HP less 14% drive loss 146.2 So with your header and tuning you are roughly 9.5% better than stock? Corret my math if needed but pretty close. You are telling me that on a 77k motor you won't find more? I bet I could get a real gain out of a head alone. To make peak HP on a Z we have to freshen the head every 3 races. Now granted you can run them all year long but for a big race or a close championship the head comes off. What size tubing on the DC header? Merge collector and a stepped exhaust will provide some torque in the middle.

 

[stevel]

OK so lets get down to this. What are you running for pads and fluid. How much cooling are you providing the brakes. WHat is the suspension setup.

[/b]

He hasn't run the car. And neither have I. Yeah, I know you may say, "why are you arguing?". So no, I don't have personal experience with this car. But the pitfalls are well known and talked about. Most people have to run a new set of pads/rotors every race weekend (a double race weekend) along with a new set of front tires.

ou are telling me that on a 77k motor you won't find more?
[/b]

Nope, not saying it can't be done. I could find more. You asked for a dyno sheet, so he put up his. This is what he's got and what he's running for now so that's what I tuned. He could get some more just out of sending the injectors out for blueprint/balance and having an adjustable FPR to up fuel pressure and some more dyno tuning.

I bet I could get a real gain out of a head alone.
[/b]

A good valve job will increase flow a little. But honda does a damn good factory valve job. I think the cylinder head only has marginal gains left in it. To get gains people start pulling some cheater stuff on the head which is damn hard to find but it helps. Like having a valve job that sinks the valve way into the head and then trimming off some of the valve stem tip to get a little more lift on the valve. But, that's not legal so shouldn't be counted. But, not a lot of gains in the head. The IM/TB and cams limit you. Most of your gain will be found in header/exhaust and tuning.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

I respect you also and this is just a healthy debate. I just like to see more cars that can have a chance. That and the fact that it's a Honda doesn't hurt. Ok, the 80lbs isn't by any scientific method. It needs a weight break due to the front tire/brake problems it has. I realize to keep with fairness that it can't be too much because then it will outpower the RX7, which isn't fair. So, 100lbs is too much. I don't think 30-40lbs will do much for the front tire/brake issue. Maybe 50lbs on the low end would help. I dunno, all things aside how much of a weight break do you think a car would need to remedy the problem? It's not a loaded question. But how would you figure that out? I figured somewhere between 50-100lbs would help it. Right in the middle? How about 75lbs? There isn't much of a scientific method for this.[/b]

OK, so we can agree that these are just your thoughts. What you are proposing is a comp adjustment.

On paper yes, it SHOULD. But, in reality it just doesn't. No, I don't have a dyno sheet in front of me to prove it. But, that 1.8 motor would be hard pressed to make 180WHP tops. It would never hit 185WHP. Like Jeremy pointed out. The cylinder head is very optimized for breathing and could put out more, but the cams and manifold are going to limit it. Especially with the secondary butterflies in there, I don't think they're helping and they can't be removed legally. [/b]

Jeremy did submit dyno sheets - and we thank him for it, but they prove nothing. The motor is far from built. Nicely tuned for what it is but come on, the data is irellevant, no?

Ok, so 212.5 at the crank. What do you guys use for a correction for FWD cars? 12% loss seems to be typical for the hondas. So, 212.5 * 0.88 = 187hp to the wheels. A good 7hp too high. Again though, I can't prove it. But, i don't have a GSR nor do I race in ITS. I am just a fan of competition and also the Honda marque and would just like to see this car have a chance. [/b]

I use 14% but it's not germaine to the process as it operates on crank numbers. If you want to use 180 as the pinnacle and 14% correction - guess what??? 209.3 crank hp. Smack dab in the wheelhouse of the process.

Ok, so here's my numbers. RX7 - 50/50 weight distribution. GSR - 60/40 weight distribution. At 2700lbs, that's 270lbs more on the front end! With the same front tire size and the same sized brakes! Oh, and the GSR has the crappiest 5th gear ever! Those are my arguments. Yes, it's all based on the RX7 but I think it's a great argument given how close the specs are on paper. How much of a weight break to give? I dunno. But I think it needs to be at least 50lbs less than the RX7, and since the GSR is spec'd at 10lbs higher currently. I say a 60lb weight drop would be a good start. Though I think it would need to be more for the point of the weight break to be effective.[/b]

The issue over the course of the race (how long is too long?). The Integra is also one of the best handling FWD car on the planet. On to the brakes. Do you know what was a very competitive ITS car before the E36 325i/is obsoleted it? The E30 325i/is. Same sized front brakes, 2750lbs. You are gonna find a LOT of cars at a higher weight with the same sized or smaller brakes. Yes, the car is FWD but how can we quantify the issues? And your 5th gear comment holds no water. Take a look at the RX-7 5th gear. WORSE. RX-7 is .76 and GSR is .79. 15 cars in ITS have a equal or worse fifth gear.

Ok, so ASSuming dyno sheets could be provided that a fult tilt motor only gets 180 to the ground. The weight numbers get tweaked a little based on that. So, less weight based on less HP potential, FWD is a minus, double wishbone a plus. Crappy 5th gear, a minus. Shitty weight distribution, another minus. What's that get us to?

s [/b]

We don't count FWD and weight distribution twice (unless it's something OBSCENE), your 5th gear is moot, and the crank hp is equal to 180whp already...so we have the original two - do they cancel out? I don't think so. But if you subtract 50lbs for a net loss, you get within 1lb of it's spec weight.

Class dismissed... Just kidding Dog!

And AGAIN, curb weight has little to NOTHING to do with spec weight...only a sanity check to make sure someting can GET to spec weight.

In the interest of full disclosure, Steve called me on his way home from work and we busted each others chops - and he knows all of this is here. Good debate - like I said, the system may not be perfect for everyones car but it is the SAME imperfect system.

AB