Logic - If X is in A, Y should be in S

[Knestis]

I think Darin sort of asked this question in the Thread That Ate IT.com but here's a chance to present those logic bomb classification oddities, wherein two cars with essentially the same specs are in different classes - or where a car with evidently inferior specs is in a higher class.

The question can be asked either way of course - the lower-classed being a rationale for moving the higher-classed one or vice-versa.

I'll start with the '94+ non-GSR Integra. If the earlier model is OK for A, it's nothing but anxiety about the newer body style that keeps it in S.

I KNOW there are more...

K

 

[itracer]

I'll bite-- (not A/S; but still relevant?)

If ITB VW Scirocco (1.8) is going to ITC next year; why not 1.8 VW Rabbit GTI?

Same car, different body.

------------------
Jason
ITB 17 (NER SCCA)
VW Scirocco

[This message has been edited by itracer (edited May 20, 2004).]

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by itracer:
If ITB VW Scirocco (1.8) is going to ITC next year; why not 1.8 VW Rabbit GTI?

I don't know where you got this impression... No one that I know has recommended that the 1.8 VWs get moved to ITC... Only the 1.7s...


There are quite a few cars that have yet to be announced in Fastrack as being considered/recommended for reclassification... We have discussed numerous Honda/Acura classifications, and If I recall correctly... the 94-95 Integras were amongst them...

Here's mine... The MR-2, when the CRB sees fit to move it's cousin, the FX-16, to ITB... Does anyone REALLY believe that a car that makes 110hp stock, and MIGHT be able to get 140hp in IT trim, that weighs 2300+ lbs, is going to be competitive with cars making 140+ stock HP, 175+ in IT trim and only weight 100lbs more??? The argument keeps going back to handling... but NO amount of handling is going to overcome this kind of wt/pwr difference...

Simply my opinion, of course...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited May 20, 2004).]

 

[itracer]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
I don't know where you got this impression... No one that I know has recommended that the 1.8 VWs get moved to ITC... Only the 1.7s...

Thanks for the clarification. Eithier I read it wrong, or the FastTrack was vague.

~Jason

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by itracer:
Eithier I read it wrong, or the FastTrack was vague.
~Jason

No, you didn't read it wrong... it IS vague... It only says the '82-'84 VW Scirocco... The Fastracks seem to be running about 2-months behind some of these recommendations, and I'm certain we've recommended that all of the 1.7L VW ITB cars be reclassified to ITC.



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

 

[dickita15]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Does anyone REALLY believe that a car that makes 110hp stock, and MIGHT be able to get 140hp in IT trim, that weighs 2300+ lbs, is going to be competitive with cars making 140+ stock HP, 175+ in IT trim and only weight 100lbs more???

oh for minute I thought you were back to
the Rx7, but it does not make that much power.
dick

 

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
No, you didn't read it wrong... it IS vague... It only says the '82-'84 VW Scirocco... The Fastracks seem to be running about 2-months behind some of these recommendations, and I'm certain we've recommended that all of the 1.7L VW ITB cars be reclassified to ITC.

Well Darin, if they're moving the '84 Scirocco to ITC, that would mean they're moving the 1.8 version, as the '84 Scirocco never came w/ a 1.7. And, while I'm not 100% sure, I don't think the '83 did eiher. IIRC, the only year of the Mk II Scirocco that came w/ a 1.7 was the '82. But, I pointed out this error in the ITCS specs a while ago.

And, from the way the comment in FasTrack went, the 1.8 cars would be moved, so long as there was a legal way to adjust the weight. Which by the way, is already in place, and does not need to wait for PCA's to be implemented. But, you already knew that!!

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

 

[Jake]

Obviously I'm with Darin - I think all the Toyota 4AGE cars should follow the FX16 at the same weight. AE86 and MR2 to B @ 2445 is fine by me.

If the 94-95 Civic EX coupe moves from S to A, the 92-94 Si should move as well, considering it has a higher classed weight and the same engine.

Talking about ITS and MR2's, I honestly think the 2nd Gen MR2 would a great canditate to move from ITS to ITA. At 130hp and a 2545lbs spec weight, it seems like a great fit in the new ITA.

Also, if the 87 Prelude Si moves from A to B, the 86-88 LXi should as well. It has the same power and is speced heavier.

 

[Geo]

Originally posted by Jake:
Talking about ITS and MR2's, I honestly think the 2nd Gen MR2 would a great canditate to move from ITS to ITA. At 130hp and a 2545lbs spec weight, it seems like a great fit in the new ITA.

I agree it's a fit with the new ITA. I'd have to look at the weight a little closer. Off the top of my head that weight seems fine, but I'd want a closer look. The car looks like an ITA car to me though.

My own personal controversy is the 944 now looks like an ITA car. It has nearly the same spec as the ITA 240SX. The 944 is a 2.5 while the 240 is a 2.4. Both are SOHC. The 944 has a little bigger brakes, but the 240 has a better rear suspension. To top it off, the 944 is already significantly heavier and it's in ITS at the moment.

I know some folks will think I'm smoking something or just trying to get my car a good deal, but that is NOT the case. On paper it's a good match. I think for those subjective, intangible things the ITAC talks about in setting weights, the 944 should be a bit heavier.

If you look at the power/weight of the 944S and the 944 (exact same chassis) the 944 doesn't seem to fit ITS anymore with the move to making it a bit faster class with the new cars coming along. Only one 944 seems to do well with any consistency (Chris Camedalla's).


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Geo:
It has nearly the same spec as the ITA 240SX. The 944 is a 2.5 while the 240 is a 2.4. Both are SOHC. The 944 has a little bigger brakes, but the 240 has a better rear suspension. To top it off, the 944 is already significantly heavier and it's in ITS at the moment.

Ummmm... The stock HP for the 240SX is 140, and the stock HP for a 1987 or so 944 is more like 157 or 163... depending on which spec sheet you are reading... Kind of a significant difference...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

 

[TBreu007]

I know it's tough if not impossible to factor this into a classification since there are so many differences in the level of prep on IT cars, but the ITA 240sx sees a significant HP improvement when fully prepped. Even with just the basics like intake, header and ecu the single cam 240 makes more HP than a stock 944. The 944 will not see the same HP gains with the same level of prep.

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by TBreu007:
The 944 will not see the same HP gains with the same level of prep.

How do you qualify this statement? What factors of the 944 keep it from making the gains?

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited May 21, 2004).]

 

[Geo]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Ummmm... The stock HP for the 240SX is 140, and the stock HP for a 1987 or so 944 is more like 157 or 163... depending on which spec sheet you are reading... Kind of a significant difference...

The early 944 makes 143 bhp stock. Late makes 158 bhp.

The 944 weighs almost 200 lbs more than the 240SX (SOHC) and the 944 is in ITS while the 240SX is in ITA. I already said the weight should be looked at, but the 944 would come in with most of the additional weight it would need.

Lastly, I'll be a Sunbelt or Rebello KA24 crate motor will put out pretty close to a Jon Milledge 944 crate motor. The 944 has negative cam overlap making it pretty unresonsive to headers. The flapper door AFM chokes the intake. Also, the Milledge crate motor uses unobtanium 0.040" pistons which are NLA according to a conversation I had with him a year and a half ago.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com


[This message has been edited by Geo (edited May 21, 2004).]

 

[Tristan Smith]

Well as a owner of 240sx with a Sunbelt built motor, I can tell you that we are still not making more hp than the 944 with any improvement from the IT motor treatment. The torque rating may be better, but I don't know what the 944 makes. What's the rev limit on the 944? I know we are just making noise once we hit 6000+ rpms.
Like all things there are so many things that look the same on paper, but in reality may not translate to equality.

------------------
Tristan Smith
Buffalo's Southwest Cafe
ITA Nissan 240sx #56

 

[Geo]

Originally posted by Tristan Smith:
Well as a owner of 240sx with a Sunbelt built motor, I can tell you that we are still not making more hp than the 944 with any improvement from the IT motor treatment. The torque rating may be better, but I don't know what the 944 makes.

I know this is going to sound snotty, but I assure you it's not meant to be.... If you don't know what the 944 is making, how can you tell if you're making more or less? That's not flip, but I'm really curious what you are basing it on.

Originally posted by Tristan Smith:
What's the rev limit on the 944? I know we are just making noise once we hit 6000+ rpms.
Like all things there are so many things that look the same on paper, but in reality may not translate to equality.

The rev limit of the 944 is about 6500, but most raise it to 7000. That's pretty much the same as the KA24 IIRC. And like the KA24, there's no additional power being made above 6000.

BTW, Jon Milledge advertises 183 bhp, but that's with pistons that are NLA. And you can't just use aftermarket pistons with the 944 because the block is not sleeved so the pistons must have an iron oxide coating. So, figure a few bhp off that figure.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

 

[Tristan Smith]

Well actually George, you stated what it made.

"The early 944 makes 143 bhp stock. Late makes 158 bhp."

If you made absolutely no improvements with a built up IT Late 944 Porsche motor then we would be close. But since I think that there would be some improvement, you got me beat. And if the following statement is true, well then, you are kicking my butt with horsepower.

"Jon Milledge advertises 183 bhp, but that's with pistons that are NLA. And you can't just use aftermarket pistons with the 944 because the block is not sleeved so the pistons must have an iron oxide coating. So, figure a few bhp off that figure."

The fact remains, money being no limit, that you COULD get that kind of power out the 944. If the 944 were classed in "A" and became a winner there, I guarantee someone will spend what ever it takes to make that kind of horsepower. I mean, heck I would.

------------------
Tristan Smith
Buffalo's Southwest Cafe
ITA Nissan 240sx #56

[This message has been edited by Tristan Smith (edited May 22, 2004).]

 

[Geo]

Originally posted by Tristan Smith:
If you made absolutely no improvements with a built up IT Late 944 Porsche motor then we would be close. But since I think that there would be some improvement, you got me beat. And if the following statement is true, well then, you are kicking my butt with horsepower.

Well, something is wrong then. If a Sunbelt KA24 only makes 158 bhp, something sounds very wrong. A JWT ECU (IT tune for race gas) and Hotshot header should get that in an otherwise stock engine.

I've been in the same race with Bob Stretch where he was duking it out for the overall lead (with an ITS car). So, if we want to take the best 944 engine, we need to take the best 240SX engine.

And I agree that the 944 can make nearly 180 bhp (since the 40 over pistons are NLA, 183 is not possible). Also, don't forget the 944 is nearly 200 lbs heavier than the ITA 240SX already.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

 

[Bill Miller]

George,

I don't understand the .040 over pistons being NLA. Can't you get ones from Weisco or JE (or any of the other custom piston vendors)?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

 

[Greg Amy]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...Stretch...was duking it out for the overall lead (with an ITS car).</font>

What, and who, was the ITS car? I've beaten an occasional E36, that don't make my NX2000 a better car than the BMW...

And, fact remains, pistons are available for the 944, just not "off the shelf." You can have pistons made in any design and specification you want.

If "off the shelf" race parts were a prerequisite for classifications, me and my NX2000 would be in ITC...

 

[JeffYoung]

Seems to me that if we moved all cars with 160-180 hp weighing in the 2400 to 2800 lb range to ITA, we'd have what, 3 cars left in S -- BMW, Mazda and Datsun?