OH MY GOD, V8's in ITR

[Ron Earp]

Jake,

I didn't mean to come off sounding elietist, and I was on the fence initally, maybe skeptical, but on the fence none the less. I've also have experience with spec racing and also multi-class racing. I've run against these cars as American Sedan is in my run group.

James, this is part of the problem - you have NOT run against these ITR Pony cars - V8 Camaros and Mustangs.

You have run against AS cars - a VERY different animal. Have a look at the rules sometime.

Your mistake is a common mistake that people make when considering these cars. AS rules set is far and away from IT - manditory use of 4bbl carbs (awesome potential here), Victor intakes (awesome performance), unlimited valvetrain and cams to 0.500", after market heads that far outflow the stockers in IT prep trim, aftermarket valves, springs, transmissions, high compression not allowed in IT, and so on.

About the only thing the ITR Pony cars share with AS is the names of the cars.

 

[Ron Earp]

the cast-iron logs that GM and Ford call exhaust manifolds on these cars. Performane is probably at the bottom of the list when the molds were made for these. So will the weight be based on a 15% gain, a 25% gain or a 35% gain. If it's 30% or higher then you're talking about classing a 3500lb car and it needs to wait.


James

Actually James, starting with 1985 5L HO Ford motors the engines came with stainless steel tubular exhaust manifolds. This continued to 1995 on the 5L motors before the motor was discontinued in the Mustang. While certainly not a header, they were a unequal length 4 into 1 design that was far better than the cast iron logs you found on the pedestrian Ford 5L motors. I've owned many of these cars and know first hand was used in their production.

Here is a picture of the 1995 engine in question (no exhaust manifold log as you claim):

The 1995 motor is characterized by the much lower intake manifold with a radius curve in the intake. This low performance piece seriously impedes maximum airflow into the motor along with the undersized MAF and throttle body.

If the sorts of misconceptions that you bring up are in the minds of the CRB and ITAC members then it is no wonder that ITR Pony cars won't make it...

Ron

 

[JeffYoung]

Day-um! I bet that thang could lay a wheel 100 feets long!

 

[Knestis]

>> If the sorts of misconceptions that you bring up are in the minds of the CRB and ITAC members then it is no wonder that ITR Pony cars won't make it...

Remember that the ITAC and CRB are made up of SCCA members with all different kinds of experiences and preconceptions, but that means that pretty much ALL of the perspectives have SOME representation.

I'll leave it by saying that, from my point of view, the rationale for inclusion of this limited number of makes/models in ITR are well researched and presented. The decision making process moves on...

K

 

[Ron Earp]

Remember that the ITAC and CRB are made up of SCCA members with all different kinds of experiences and preconceptions, but that means that pretty much ALL of the perspectives have SOME representation.

I'll leave it by saying that, from my point of view, the rationale for inclusion of this limited number of makes/models in ITR are well researched and presented. The decision making process moves on...

K

Agreed, and I should not be so narrow minded to assume these perspectives should, or will, be the same. I think by nature the SCCA attracts folks that are "non domestic V8 minded" and to some extent might have a phobia of these cars.

 

[JeffYoung]

And that is all we can ask for.

I do think the ITAC will give this a fair shake. If they don't come in, I'll be ticked, but it will pass.

Thanks for the time on it guys. Much appreciated.

>> If the sorts of misconceptions that you bring up are in the minds of the CRB and ITAC members then it is no wonder that ITR Pony cars won't make it...

Remember that the ITAC and CRB are made up of SCCA members with all different kinds of experiences and preconceptions, but that means that pretty much ALL of the perspectives have SOME representation.

I'll leave it by saying that, from my point of view, the rationale for inclusion of this limited number of makes/models in ITR are well researched and presented. The decision making process moves on...

K

 

[lateapex911]

It's kinda funny. When this was first brought up, in my mind, i thought "Uh oh...those things are going to KILL down the straights..."

I kept my mouth shut, and looked at the numbers.

It's funny because I am often one of the first guys to poke fun at the crap that comes from Detroit, and my biggest pet peeve is their lazy engineering philosophy that relies on the "bigger is better" theory.....yet my first reacton was one of fear. Fear born of years of reading about how fast these big old muricun V8s are....

We've all been browbeaten by the automotive press from the muscle car days into thinking that Detroit builds ground pounding fast cars. But a critical look at the numbers shows thats often not the case. Lots of those muscle cars of legend struggled to break 6 or 7 second 0 -6- times.....times that tons of cars do today. Like BMW 3 series. I'm a little chagrined that my just purchased 2003 M3 barely outruns a garden variety 3 series of today. Ack, the cars are quick!

I think this preconception is clouding our judgements. This proposal is about specific cars, and is well researched. The limitations of the motors are well documented, and IT prep won't result in releasing fire breathing dragons.

That said, the ITAC is, of course, doing it's due diligence.

 

[dj10]

It's kinda funny. When this was first brought up, in my mind, i thought "Uh oh...those things are going to KILL down the straights..."

I kept my mouth shut, and looked at the numbers.

It's funny because I am often one of the first guys to poke fun at the crap that comes from Detroit, and my biggest pet peeve is their lazy engineering philosophy that relies on the "bigger is better" theory.....yet my first reacton was one of fear. Fear born of years of reading about how fast these big old muricun V8s are....

We've all been browbeaten by the automotive press from the muscle car days into thinking that Detroit builds ground pounding fast cars. But a critical look at the numbers shows thats often not the case. Lots of those muscle cars of legend struggled to break 6 or 7 second 0 -6- times.....times that tons of cars do today. Like BMW 3 series. I'm a little chagrined that my just purchased 2003 M3 barely outruns a garden variety 3 series of today. Ack, the cars are quick!

I think this preconception is clouding our judgements. This proposal is about specific cars, and is well researched. The limitations of the motors are well documented, and IT prep won't result in releasing fire breathing dragons.

That said, the ITAC is, of course, doing it's due diligence.

What I worry about is using me for a damn brake.

Congrats Jake on your E46 M3, hope you have as much fun with your as i do with mine. Had mine up to 155 (no speed limiter) and it was still pulling stong. The 2 cars I did pass looked like they were chained to a pole.

 

[Ron]

Stop with the using me as a brake and they can't turn. As I have said in the past I run a 87 mustang in ITB that many would feel is "heavy and under braked" and I have never used other cars as brakes. I run the car because it is inexpensive to run, can be made to handle o.k., and makes tons of power. The car is easy to work on and simple to run. I am far from the redneck Detroit car owner that most of you fear. I have a classic 1974 3.0 cs in the driveway, and my co-driver dad, drives a 2005 Porsche GT-3 every day. My crew chief and engine builder owns a 1957 Porsche speedster and an E-46 BMW. Is that enough proof that we do know what a "real" car should be?
I just get the sense that those that fear the V-8 hate the fact that it will be cheap to build and run compared to the import stuff they run, and that it might be competitive. Yes you all sound like snobs.

 

[dj10]

Stop with the using me as a brake and they can't turn. As I have said in the past I run a 87 mustang in ITB that many would feel is "heavy and under braked" and I have never used other cars as brakes. I run the car because it is inexpensive to run, can be made to handle o.k., and makes tons of power. The car is easy to work on and simple to run. I am far from the redneck Detroit car owner that most of you fear. I have a classic 1974 3.0 cs in the driveway, and my co-driver dad, drives a 2005 Porsche GT-3 every day. My crew chief and engine builder owns a 1957 Porsche speedster and an E-46 BMW. Is that enough proof that we do know what a "real" car should be?
I just get the sense that those that fear the V-8 hate the fact that it will be cheap to build and run compared to the import stuff they run, and that it might be competitive. Yes you all sound like snobs.

Ron,
Unless you have a ITR prepared American car, keep your snob comments to yourself please. Your running around in a ITB car and your going to lecture us, the people that have been hit by big AS cars because they can't stop or brake properly! I'm so happy for you that your dad and crew chief have cars with good brakes. I'll sleep better knowing that.

 

[Ron Earp]

Ron, I’ve basically come to the conclusion that there are those that don’t want domestics in the class, regardless if they fit the process or not. The red herrings trotted out boil down to these:

• The cars have too much torque – Refuted. It has more torque than the others, but about the same as a recent ITR 300zx at 252 rwtq on a dynojet. Besides, the Pony cars get a weight modifier for high torque.
• The cars have a place to race now – Refuted. There is no comparison between IT and AS prep. There are many folks that would build ITR Pony cars but want nothing to do with AS prep levels or national racing.
• The cars will make too much power – Refuted. Fits process and linear regression analysis for ITR perfectly. The motors are low-revving air pumps, rather crude ones at that, and if one cared to look they have inherit characteristics that prevent them from making huge horsepower numbers.
• The cars race differently from my Borgwald Mobile – Sure they do, this is IT, a mixture of cars racing on the same track, with similar prep levels, and classed accordingly. There are lots of spec classes in the SCCA and NASA if that is what you are after.
• The cars can’t brake – Refuted. There are plenty car cars racing now with less swept area per ton and inferior equipment, like my solid disc rear drum 1969 technology 260Z for example. Brakes fine. Not like a Miata, but it brakes fine.
• The cars will break – Refuted. All cars break. Mustangs and Camaros are raced all over the country with stock suspension pieces and do just fine. One thing is for certain, they be less expensive to fix than most IT cars.
• There are many misconceptions around the cars. Such as the “log exhaust manifold”, the “seat of pants feel” of a motor designed to produce maximum torque from 1500-3500 RPM, and similar items. These cars do not exceed the performance of other cars in ITR and is most cases fall short of them.

I’m not sure why some “hate” the idea of including the cars in IT. Are we attracting “undesirables” to IT if we include Pony cars in IT? Are domestic lovers to be shunned?

If the IT classification process is correct, and all indicates point to it being pretty good, and the cars fit well with the model, and it seems they do, then class the Pony cars.

 

[dj10]

Ron, I’ve basically come to the conclusion that there are those that don’t want domestics in the class, regardless if they fit the process or not. The red herrings trotted out boil down to these:
If the IT classification process is correct, and all indicates point to it being pretty good, and the cars fit well with the model, and it seems they do, then class the Pony cars.

Ron Earp,
If the cars fit the class, lets do it. I can make my BMW as wide as any chevy or ford.

 

[JLawton]

Ron,
Unless you have a ITR prepared American car, keep your snob comments to yourself please. Your running around in a ITB car and your going to lecture us, the people that have been hit by big AS cars because they can't stop or brake properly! I'm so happy for you that your dad and crew chief have cars with good brakes. I'll sleep better knowing that.

Maybe ITB isn't ITR......But AS is NOT ITR.

The car I've been hit the most by?........Miata's!! In fact, I've had them use me as brakes. Maybe we shouldn't allow them to run with IT cars??

It has nothing to do with the car and EVERYTHING to do with the driver. There are people in every class that drive with their head up their ass. That's the problem. I understand that I have to drive my ITA Saturn differently than I did my old ITB Rabbit and different than my old ITS 944. People need to understand how to drive the car they're in. Plain and simple.

I just don't get why some people have a problem with it............. Is it ignorance? Snobbery? Jealousy??

Here are some options for people who are afraid to run with Pony cars:

- Run with PCA
- Run with BMWCCA
- stamp collecting
- Time trials
- Track days
- Dress making





Maybe I don't understand because I drive one of those POS American made cars.....

 

[lateapex911]

A plastic fantastic one at that Jeff!

I've said this before, but if I classed cars based on hits gotten, we'd have HALF the Hondas in the ITCS as we do know.

And we'd have twice the number of American cars listed, since I've never once gotten as much as a scratch from anything American.

(OK, I am smart enough to give Lawton a wide berth, but, I digress... )

Here's another fact. I BOUGHT a car to run ITR....a Porsche 944S2. I sold it because I didn't want that much cash tied up in an asset that can disappear in an instant. I have the cash...could have done the build, but decided against it. But, I am watching this with interest...I might just go the pony car route if these are listed. Why? because I can stomach throwing away the investment much easier at that level.

I'd also consider an RX-8, because Mazda is such a great firm to race with.

Now, am I a driver you fear? Am i going to hit you? Am I a different person if I drive a Mustang than I am if i drive a 944? You all know me....

No, I'm the same guy. And I'm just as likely to hit you in a 944S2 as I am in a Mustang.

Fear the driver, not the car.

(In Dan's defense, he HAS said, "Class them properly, and I'll race 'em")

 

[Rabbit07]

The car I've been hit the most by?........Miata's!! In fact, I've had them use me as brakes. Maybe we shouldn't allow them to run with IT cars??

Amen Brother!

What is wrong with classing them and then adjusting them if there is an issue. If the car is too fast put a restrictor on it! Although I think Ford already did that with the intake manifold.

 

[JeffYoung]

Dan's been one of the reasonable ones in discussing this -- much appreciated.

Can anyone on the "negative" side give us hard data to suggest that the numbers Ron used as the basis for his proposal are wrong? Are we just off on the expected hp/tq gains?

 

[Ron Earp]

Ron Earp,
If the cars fit the class, lets do it. I can make my BMW as wide as any chevy or ford.

Hey Dan,

I'm glad to hear some ITR folks have that attitude. I mistook your earlier writing for being against the cars. Sorry about that.

If classed I don't think they'll be the cars to have for ITR. Not that my choice means anything, I've got my eye on another car in ITR to build despite my support for the Pony cars in the proposal. But I think a lot of folks would build the V8s and make them somewhat competitive. That'd be great for ITR, and it'd be great to have some domestic cars racing in a growing class. I feel the ITR ranks would be bolstered for sure.

I think smart money would ride on the BMWs and the Porsches in ITR, as well as one of those Nissan 300zxs. But, you never know, a Pony car might sneak a win off now and again at the right track. And that'd be good racing and would mean we've got the classed balanced right.

 

[dj10]

Hey Dan,

I'm glad to hear some ITR folks have that attitude. I mistook your earlier writing for being against the cars. Sorry about that.

If classed I don't think they'll be the cars to have for ITR. Not that my choice means anything, I've got my eye on another car in ITR to build despite my support for the Pony cars in the proposal. But I think a lot of folks would build the V8s and make them somewhat competitive. That'd be great for ITR, and it'd be great to have some domestic cars racing in a growing class. I feel the ITR ranks would be bolstered for sure.

I think smart money would ride on the BMWs and the Porsches in ITR, as well as one of those Nissan 300zxs. But, you never know, a Pony car might sneak a win off now and again at the right track. And that'd be good racing and would mean we've got the classed balanced right.

No problem Ron, I've been mis-understood all my life. Anyone that know's me will tell you, if you have 4 wheels and are on the track with me your going to get a race if me and the car can keep up. I believe in the ITAC & CRB to class cars correctly and the people who will race them to make and keep them legal as I do.

 

[pimpm3]

... I stop paying attention to the forum for a week and this thread goes crazy.

Bring on the V8's, I look forward to pitting my torque-less high revving 4 cylinder against them. Light makes right!

 

[lateapex911]

Folk, this is a controversial one. let the CRB know your thoughts, pro or con now. Tell 'em who you are, what you race, and why, or why not the idea is good. And be honest. don't cloak your comments in false logic.