Grafton,
This isn't questioning you, but if that dyno sheet is publicly available, I'd like to see it. Taking ITR out of the equation, and not being a smart A$$, I'd like see what actually works on these. I have one as a daily driver, and would love to find 32 more HP to enjoy.
Thanks.
Either:
I would say use 232 stock hp (which is what Mazda advertises now AFTER upgrades to the ECU).
The SAE changed the measurement method before that number was released.
At the time Grafton I did not have permission to release them to anyone but the ITAC. I was upset that I allowed them to go further. I will be more than happy to fax whatever sheets you want to look at now.The sheets I have, I got from Jeff Young. I believe Jeff got them from Steve Eckerich. Steve was not happy when I got them, which I can completely understand since he and I are not in the same camp regarding this car. Steve probably knows as well as anyone what works, so I'd start with him.
Grafton
I'm glad to see the 2nd Gen Neon has been classified. Is the weight listed for the ACR and R/T a typo thought? 2780 seems way excessive for that car. Its over 100 lbs higher than the SSC weight and 130 lbs heavier than the 1st Gen DOHC Neon which has the same stock HP rating.
Either:
I would say use 232 stock hp (which is what Mazda advertises now AFTER upgrades to the ECU).
We're classing a 2004 RX-8, not a 2008 RX-8. It had 238hp.
Steve - does Grand Am allow any work that IT does not?Sheets I provided to ITAC (or so I was told)
196.68 rwhp on dynojet in full Grand Am trim (motec, exhaust, etc.
Those are crank numbers based on 240*1.3, not whp numbers.
Oh, how I love Fastrack release time! Off to work on the race car..if #$%@&$# JEGS would get my order right!
Maybe after all of this teeth gnashing, a lot by me, the ITAC did the right thing. Stick with known numbers and run the process.
I do think the 232 number is the number to use though.
I'm only gonna post once about the '95 M3, cuz let's face it...nobody give a rat's ass.
You guys are leaving out several factors re: this car and using a 30% gain as was done with the 325 is ludicrous.
The '95 ('95 only not 96-99 3.2) uses the same injectors as the 325 and ALL heads are identical (ignoring sensors) for 93-00 325, 328, M3, MZ3....severe limiting factor there.
The HFM (MAF) is identical as well...limiter #2 for M3's.
Trackday M3's (that you read about all over the intraweb) making good power have Schrick cams, 24# injectors (not 17.5#), and a 3.5" HFM.
All that remains for the IT car is a .040 bump.
The only other difference is the cams and the .5l.
Other than that you have slightly larger brakes (frankly we don't have brake issues anyway).
Also remember that we are talking about a flying brick with no aero allowed and not some of the newer (more) slippery designs of the S2000 and RX.
Oh well...
I hear ya man. My crankcase evacuator kit just showed up......a day after I found the section in the main GCR making it illegal....
What's silly is suggesting that we should class with anything other than the manufacturer's published HP number for the car in question. The car in question is a 2004 Mazda RX-8, and Mazda says that a 2004 RX-8 has 238 horsepower. It's really simple!Actually, I think Mazda initially said north of 250 right? Should we use that?
Or should we use the Mazda corrected numbered of 238?
That was then again corrected for essentially the same motor by SAE down to 232?
Don't play games man, that's just silly.