So about these Pony Cars for ITR...

lateapex911 said:
Guys, with all due respect, every argument I hear is ill informed. You're arguing against something because you fear it will make power...but you have no facts. Not to mention, have you driven one of these? Live rear axle? Choked motors? big weight?

If you're cool with the Porsche, you should be REALLY cool with these....

just sayin-
Click to expand...

Jake, the AS rules started out the same as IT, they are as they are because of the Pony cars and keeping the balance between the GM and Ford. I also have a GM Power Book, so when I find it, I can tell you some of the tricks and factory parts to make a Camero or Firebird class dominate. Finally the Porsche doesn't have the huge displacement. Also you're forgeting that the Camero and Firebird had tuned port on the 5liter motor as an option, so they weren't as choked as you think. For brakes there was the 1LE option....
 
cjb25hs said:
I feel very strongly about the above statement. All of the V8 pony cars have a place to run currently in AS or SS or IT as far as on a regional level. Why are they even being considered for ITR. I believe that it will just disturb the class structure.

If you take a say 1979 to 2002 fox body mustang and prep it for ITR, how much difference would there be in lap time performance versus an ASedan car. Probably less than second. Of course that would really depend on what the weight the car was set at in ITR.
Click to expand...

What kind of car do you run?
 
1. Just because the GM power book or SVT offers a cam for a car doesn't mean it's legal for IT. Come on guys, it's just as easy for 'you' to put in a better cam as it would be for these guys.

2. AS did start out like IT. The rules crept to where they are now because the cars didn't handle and they didn't stop. Since it's effectively a spec class (F-body and Fox platform), changes can be made to accomodate the members easily.

3. READ THE AS RULES. These cars are making HUGE power and have brake and suspension mods that put them WAY OUTSIDE IT spec. Talk with any V* engine builder with the IT rules in your hands and ask him for an estimate on HP for this genre of motor...all you will have to do is say these words: stock intake manifold, stock throttle body, stock cam, stock fuel injection.

4. Yes, these cars will have big torque. They won't rev, they won't stop and they won't turn. I am in favor of classing stuff the membership wants, but these just won't be good choices IMHO. Not at the 3200+lbs they are being considered at.

5. Stop with the 'they have other classes to run' arguement. We all do. The reason I asked what car was being run above is because I was going to point out all the OTHER classes it could be run in too. Almost all of us could go to Prod if we wanted too. I run IT because I like the RULES. Let me run there as long as you class me like everyone else. Not a rediculous request really.

If you are afraid of these cars in ITR, bring some data to the table. We have done the research and we have a lot of information on power etc.
 
James, if you are afraid of power potential, instead of innuendo, plesae give us FACTS. What "factory parts" are you talking of?

The 928 is 4.5 or 4.7 liters correct?? How is not nearly the equivalent -- with EFI, dual overhead cams, etc. -- of a 302 or 305 with either a carburetor or archaic FI?

Instead of of sending the V8 proposal to everyone piecemeal, I'm cutting and pasting it below. These cars make a LOT of torque. We acknowledge that, and the proposed weight is therefore high. When responding to this thread, please, let's stay away from "Bill Joe had a Camaro and he ran XXXXX at XXXX track." Take a look at the numbers set forth below and tell me where we are wrong.

Note: I've bought a Z32 300ZX to build into an R car. I would personally LOVE to race with the ponies.
 

As of this writing SCCA’s Improved Touring R class has been in place for almost one year. The class has had a positive impact on Improved Touring (IT) as many popular, higher power sports cars and sedans that were previously not classed in IT can now participate under the IT rules set. For only being in existence for on year, ITR participation has been significant, and is growing (compared to say, for example, BP and DP). There are a significant number of ITR cars racing and many more under construction. Cars that are known to fall into these two categories include the BMW Z3 2.8, BMW 325, BMW 328, BMW 330, Nissan 300zx, Honda S2000, Acura Integra Type R, Porsche 944 S2, Porsche 968, Porsche Boxster, and the Toyota Celica GTS.
Thus, it appears ITR has been well received by the majority of IT racers and the momentum for the class is growing.
However, there is a void in ITR with respect to "V8 Pony Cars" – V8 Ford Mustangs and V8 Chevrolet Camaros are notably absent. We believe that filling this void will simply add to the momentum that ITR is experiencing.
Certain popular, lower powered versions of these cars can fit into ITR easily and there is a distinct need for them in the class. The reasons we believe support their inclusion are (at least) the following:
They fit into ITR based on IT horsepower production.
They fit into ITR based on torque, but will need weight modifier for torque/displacement. We propose 100 lbs.
Their inclusion provides a low-cost (IT) rules set to race a modern domestic fuel injected V8.
Their inclusion provides an alternative to costly SCCA National American Sedan racing for domestic V8s.
Their inclusion may attract racers from NASA which does provide classes for modern fuel injected domestic V8s and a similar class for AS-type cars.
An informal internet survey has shown that the cars already have a large amount of support in the IT community among racers who would like to build a V8 ITR Pony Car.
Horsepower
The original grouping of ITR cars were classed by weight and this was based on horsepower, chassis/suspension, brakes, and other factors. Clearly horsepower plays (and should play) a fundamental role in the classification process.
The standard ITR power classification would be made based on an IT modifier for power increase and a target power to weight ratio for the ITR class. A stock 1994/1995 Mustang GT (A target car we’ll use as an example in the discussion) has 215hp, the standard IT modifier is 25%, and the target power to weight ratio is 11.25 to 1. Using the standard formula would result in a weight classification of:
215hp x 1.25 x 11.25 = 3023 lbs​
If a plot is made of classed ITR car weights versus stock horsepower for the upper echelon horsepower cars in the class, the following plot will be observed (Figure 1).
Figure 1​
A linear regression analysis can be performed on the dataset and it results in a fairly linear relationship between stock flywheel horsepower and ITR class weight. The regression result (IT Weight = 9.95 * (Stock HP) + 890.8) can be used to calculate a rough estimate for ITR class weight for any potential ITR candidate car.
In the case of a 1994/1995 Mustang GT with 215hp stock we would arrive at an estimated class weight of approximately 3023 lbs without any subjective adders or subtractors. This is in agreement with the process IT weight of 3023 lbs.
IT Trim Horsepower Gains
Naturally careful estimates have to be made of how much of a horsepower gain will be realized with a particular engine in IT trim. A standard percent gain is often quoted at 25% and in many cases this estimate seems to fit well. However it may be necessary to modify this gain based on an individual engine configuration from the factory. If one were to look at expected horsepower gains for some ITR candidates the following data chart can be produced:


Car
IT Trim HP
Classed Weight
BMW 325i
240
2765
BMW 328
250
2850
Camaro
250
2815
944 S2
250
2850
Maxima
275
3040
300zx
280
3250
Supra
280
3220
BMW 330
275
3290
968
265
3055​




Some of these expected IT horsepower figures are simply 25% gains with rounding. Others are estimates based on empirical data. The following plot shows ITR class weight versus predicted IT trim horsepower, again a very linear relationship is shown. In Figure 2 the horsepower figure is shown as the first data label followed by the car model.

Figure 2​
The 5L 1994/1995 Mustang GT is commonly known to be able to produce approximately 250 to 275 flywheel horsepower in a rough "street" approximation of IT trim, or up to a 25% increase. This seemingly low result based on displacement is due to a number of factors: a pushrod two valve per cylinder design, an undersized mass air flow sensor, an undersized throttle body, a special intake for the low 1994/1995 hood lines that is extremely constricted compared to 1985-1993 manifolds, and Ford E7 head castings with a poor exhaust port design which cannot be rectified in IT trim.
The linear regression analysis performed for the ITR class weight versus predicted IT horsepower returns an equation of (IT Weight = 12.49 * (Predicted IT HP) – 276.0). Assuming the 1994/1995 Mustang GT can produce 270 hp we have an estimated ITR weight for the car of 3105 lbs. This figure is in close agreement with the 3023 lbs predicted using the stock flywheel horsepower model and the 3023 lbs suggested by the IT process.
These three analysis methods show the 1994/1995 Mustang GT can fit into ITR with respect to horsepower. Indeed, the 5L V8 in the Mustang is simply an air pump and with its’ pushrod two valve per cylinder design, a relatively crude one at that.
Torque
Horsepower alone does not determine the suitability of inclusion for a car into ITR. Another figure of merit that must be evaluated is torque production. The 1994/1995 Mustang GT has a absolute torque advantage over other cars in ITR.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Car
Stock Torque
Torque / Liter
BMW 325i
181
72
BMW 328
207
74
Camaro V6*
225
59
944 S2
207
69
300zx
198
66
Supra
220
73
BMW 330
215
72
968
225
75
Mustang*
285
57​

*Two valve motors have significantly less torque per liter displacement than four valve designs.
Somewhat surprisingly a plot of ITR class weight versus stock torque does not produce a linear relationship at all, The R² value for the regression model is less than 0.07 which reflects almost zero correlation. It would appear that a relatively subjective process was used when considering torque production in respect to classed ITR weight. Be that as it may, we would strongly suggest that a 1994/1995 Mustang GT receive a weight modification based on displacement of the engine and torque production. Figure 3 contains the ITR weight versus torque data.

Figure 3​
It is believed that a stock 1994/1995 Mustang GT generally produces around 235 to 245 ft-lbs of rear wheel torque on a Dynojet dynometer. This will result in approximately 290 ft-lbs of rear wheel torque if one assumes a standard IT gain of 25%. In reality the gain is actually less than 25% with "street" IT-like builds producing in the neighborhood of 275-280 ft-lbs. The car is highly optimized for torque production from the factory due to small volume ports, high port velocity at low RPM, and small cam thus 25% improvements are hard to realize.
The point is that the 1994/1995 Mustang GT has torque capacity that is certainly within the performance envelope of ITR and should not be discounted because of class leading torque figures.
Other V8 Mustangs
The discussion thus far has focused on the 1994/1995 Mustang GT with a 5.0L OHV 2 valve per cylinder design. The car fits into the ITR framework quite well. However there are other V8 Pony cars that could fit into the class – earlier V8 Ford Mustangs and 3rd Generation GM V8 Camaros and Firebirds (3rd Gen F-Bodies).
The earlier Fox boded Mustang V8s, from 1982-1993, had a large variety of horsepower ratings due to changes in induction and cams over the years. The lowest horsepower model in this range is 165hp and the highest is 225hp. The cars are cheap and plentiful and, like the 1994/1995 Mustang GT, could be classed in ITR at approximately the same weight. But, none of these cars had rear disc brakes and each one would almost require a separate spec line in the GCR due to induction differences. For example the following is an incomplete list of horsepower and induction based on year:

Year
Horsepower
Induction
1982
165
2 bbl carb
1983-1984
175
4 bbl carb
1985
210
4bbl, roller cam
1986
200
EFI, Speed Density
1987
225
EFI, Speed Density
1988 (49 State)
225
EFI, Speed Density
1988 CA
225
EFI, Mass Air Flow
1989-1993
225
EFI Mass Air Flow​

The cars would need to be specified at the same weight as the 1994/1995 V8 Mustangs, or, possibly at a higher weight. The 225 hp cars have better intakes and cams than the 1994/1995 V8 Mustangs and can produce slightly more power in IT trim.
If the cars were to be included we could simplify the years and models to the following:

Year
Induction
1989-1993 Mustang GT
EFI, MAF​


This would provide the "best" Fox 3 ITR platform with the most power, torque, and strongest rear end. They have brakes that are inferior to the 1994/1995 cars, but they can produce more power than the 1994/1995 V8 Mustangs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.gt40s.com/images/Z/ITR%20Pony%20Cars%20Version%202.0%2012-16-071web.doc


GM Pony Cars – Camaro and Firebird
GM has produced 3rd Gen F Bodies that fit well into the ITR class. The 1987 through 1992 LB9 powered 3rd Gen F Bodies with the five speed manual transmission were rated:
1987 LB9 215hp@4400 / 295lbft@3200
1988 LB9 220hp@4400 / 290lbft@3200
1989 LB9 230hp@4600 / 300lbft@3200
1990 LB9 230hp@4400 / 300lbft@3200
1991 LB9 230hp@4200 / 300lbft@3200
1992 LB9 230hp@4200 / 300lbft@3200​

The 3rd Gen F Bodies also have four wheel disc brakes and a solid rear axle, just as the 1994/1995 Mustang GT does. Power gains for these motors will be somewhat hampered by camshaft, but even if a 25% gain is assumed they can still fit within the confines of ITR.

American Sedan
When ITR was being developed by the ad hoc ITR committee the V8 Mustangs and Camaros were discussed. Some people felt the car fit the ITR classing process and should be included. Others had objections against the cars, one of them being that they already had a place to race in American Sedan (AS).
Any investigation at all into the AS rule set will show that AS prep is far and above IT prep. Among the fundamental differences that alienate many IT racers are some of the AS prep details: the mandatory use of carburetors, expensive advanced engine preparation including alternative cylinder heads, open cams and valve train, expensive car preparation beyond IT builds, alternative driveline components, low mean time between failure on many parts, and so on. In sum, an AS car is very different from an IT prepped Mustang and Camaro, and we feel that there will be little if any crossover between racers interested in one rule set or the other.
Additionally, we firmly know there are racers who would prefer to race their pony cars against different makes and models, and with a more stable and restricted ruleset than American Sedan. Club track days are full of Mustangs and Camaros running non-competitive track day events with full cages and other race prep. Many of these cars would be, in our view, likely to cross over to IT if given the opportunity to do so.
Improved Touring Forum Support
The ITR V8 Mustang proposal has been aired on the internet forum for Improved Touring located at http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/. The proposal has generated interest among racers and currently there are ten racers who would build a V8 Pony Car if classified. These racers do not have any interest in the AS class.
ITR Classification Recommendations
The recommendations are based upon the following criteria for the V8 Pony Cars:
Horsepower output that is near the top of the class. Low RPM limit.
Torque production that will be the highest in class by 10-15%. The cars will need a weight modifier beyond process weight.
Brakes that are inferior to the majority of cars in the class (even with the four wheel disc brakes on the Camaros). Swept area per ton will be in the bottom 10% of the class if the car weighs near 3200 lbs.
Solid rear axle on all of the proposed cars (I am aware that the ITAC has not previously used a modifier for this "feature", however, I think that would be an error in judgment on a 240-250 rwhp car in a race class full of independent rear suspensions)
Shown below is the process weight at a power to weight ratio of 11.25:1 for each car in the proposal. Following the process weight is our recommended class weight with a subjective torque modifier of 100 lbs added to the process weight.

Car
IT Process
Recommended Weight
94/95 GT
3023
3120
89-93 GT
3164
3260
F Body
3234
3330​

Classifications
1994/1995 Ford Mustang GT at 3120 lbs (exclude Cobra).
1989-1993 Ford Mustang GT and LX 5.0L at 3260 lbs (Exclude Cobra)
1987-1992 Chevrolet Camaro at 3330 lbs (exclude 1LE & BC4 Package).
1987-1992 Pontiac Firebird at 3330 lbs (exclude 1LE & BC4 Package).

Summary
Classification of V8 Pony Cars into ITR will meet the needs of IT racers and expand the ITR class. For the first time a low-cost SCCA class will be available for domestic Pony Car enthusiasts to road race their favorite vehicles.
Authors
Ron Earp, SCCA Member 345404
Jeff Young, SCCA Member 304971
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In my mind, if I were an ITR driver, what would I consider?

The cars have a crap-tastic suspension.
The cars have crap-tastic brakes.
They don't rev for snot.
Is 25% really the power level they can achieve?
Is 100lbs of 'adder' enough to offset the 300ft/lbs they will produce?

IMHO, a legal version of these cars will be mid-pack at best. The ITAC will IMMEDIATLY and FUNDAMENTALLY REJECT any and all marque specific requests to improve these cars by spec line (ie: brake upgrade, subframe connectors, aftermarket suspension upgrades like Griggs, etc).

Again, take a look at the rules in AS and take away all the differences - and about 150hp. Then bring your concerns.
 
Jeff and Ron, nice job. While trying not to offend anyone, the A Sedan argument is absurd to me. AS prep levels have little in common with IT and I dare to say the IT rules set is one of the reasons so many of us are devoted to these classes. That plus the idea of racing against cars that have different strengths and weakness make IT racing a winner in my mind.
If I was a current ITR driver I would be looking at the facts about intakes, cams and head design for the particular models and years being discussed as that will be the factors that limit pony car performance in ITR.
 
That proposal was 95% Ron -- he did the hard work.

I think I can fairly say he agrees with you. The hard work here is making sure the correct combinations get classed.

I don't get the AS argument either. Completely different set of rules. I also don't get the "they don't race like us" argument. IT is full of different cars that race differently.
 
Great thread! Awesome work and a great look inside the classing process and required research. This illustrates a rules classification proceedure that is professional, comprehensive and frankly makes me glad I race in IT.

Pony cars - bring 'em on. When I looked at them I concluded that the AS times don't make me want to build an American ITR V8 - even if they do get classed. They can't make the same power as the AS ruleset and the brakes really do suck that bad. No brakes and really fat = sloppy driving day at the track.

Now a 928 V8 - don't go making me pissed I bought a 968! Do I need to slow-up on the build?
 
Guys, have a read of the complete proposal with graphs. You'll need MS Word to view, I don't have Acobat Distiller on my computer.

http://www.gt40s.com/images/Z/ITR%20Pony%20Cars%20Version%202.0%2012-16-071web.doc

Drop the AS thing - AS prep has nothing to do with IT prep - ANY cam to 0.500 lift, single plane intakes, race Holley carb, 10.5:1 compression - AS and IT are not alike at all.

And laptimes - if you want to use those for your argument against the pony cars have a look at NASA Factory Five Cobra challenge cars. These are IT build 5L V8s in a very LIGHT package, much lighter than the ITR cars. The FFR Cobras use factory suspension, IT build motor with stock cam, intake, etc. Have a look at the laptimes those cars turn, at the hands of the champions of the class, for your favorite track. Scared now? Remember, this challenge car is far lighter than an ITR Mustang or Camaro will be.
 
Last edited:
The resistance to the proposal has been really odd in my mind. Some people have rejected it based purely on "They don't belong on the same track with a BMW". I was ASTOUNDED when I heard that....and I'm a freaking E46 M3 vert owner! LOL. We class cars. We don't class by nameplate.

Trabant? You request, we class (if it was available for sale, bla bla bla...)

As for the "You can get XYZ part/option/factory doo dad"...well, the models have been chosen specifically, for their makeup. If you want to run one of these cars and put that doodad in, by all means, go for it. Just be prepared to rip it apart in the paddock while a Steward watches....just like you should be prepared to with any car. And vice versa. if somebody is cheating, it is your job to call them out. Seriously. Cheating is cheating. Simple.

And I'll repeat what i said earlier, and others have backed up.
IT is about the RULESET, the RULESET and finally, the RULESET.

It's mixed marque racing.

As for the Porsche V8, it's funny that it doesn't get the same horrified response a craptastic Ford does, as it's got better brakes, suspension, and nearly the same displacement but with much better architecture (there's some bait there, let's see if anyone takes it).

Ben, you want to race a 928? Request away my friend, but check your wallet first, i imagine they might be a bit spendy to build.
 
Last edited:
I would like to add a perspective that has not been addressed. Size and weight. Out here in Midiv, all I.T. run in one group. I do not like being on the track in my slow and light ITB with fast and heavy ITE Vipers and Corvettes and Mustangs. When I ran circle track, all the cars in the group were of similar weight. There was a reason for this. I know that we are not supposed to make contact with each other, but s**t happens. Incidental contact between two 3200 lb cars would have no result, but between a 3200 lb and a 1900 lb and the little car is going to the weeds. It only gets worse as the accident does. If I had a say in anything (which I don't) I would vote against putting V8 pony cars in IT.
 
nsuracer said:
, but between a 3200 lb and a 1900 lb and the little car is going to the weeds. It only gets worse as the accident does. If I had a say in anything (which I don't) I would vote against putting V8 pony cars in IT.
Click to expand...

Hate to say it but that is something of a red herring. The argument doesn't hold water - there are ALREADY 3200 lbs cars in ITR:

Supra 3220
300zx 3250
IS300 3145
SC300 3290
BMW Z3 3L 3240

lateapex911 said:
It's mixed marque racing.

As for the Porsche V8, it's funny that it doesn't get the same horrified response a craptastic Ford does, as it's got better brakes, suspension, and nearly the same displacement but with much better architecture (there's some bait there, let's see if anyone takes it).
Click to expand...

Jake, I've said it for years - there is a bias toward domestics in the SCCA. It is unspoken but it is there. Some folks don't want to be wheel to wheel with a Ferd or Chebby. And I remember when ITR was being birthed an offical who was in the decision making process of ITR and against the domestic Pony cars made the comment:

"They will spoil the look of the class".
 
Last edited:
I've heard hints of the bias that Ron mentions, even in internal conversations among ITAC members. It's not something we can ignore or avoid - we just have to work through it.

K
 
Ron Earp said:
Guys, have a read of the complete proposal with graphs. You'll need MS Word to view, I don't have Acobat Distiller on my computer.

http://www.gt40s.com/images/Z/ITR Pony Cars Version 2.0 12-16-071web.doc

Drop the AS thing - AS prep has nothing to do with IT prep - ANY cam to 0.500 lift, single plane intakes, race Holley carb, 10.5:1 compression - AS and IT are not alike at all.

And laptimes - if you want to use those for your argument against the pony cars have a look at NASA Factory Five Cobra challenge cars. These are IT build 5L V8s in a very LIGHT package, much lighter than the ITR cars. The FFR Cobras use factory suspension, IT build motor with stock cam, intake, etc. Have a look at the laptimes those cars turn, at the hands of the champions of the class, for your favorite track. Scared now? Remember, this challenge car is far lighter than an ITR Mustang or Camaro will be.
Click to expand...

As far as lap times, I would say that the NASA CMC cars are probably a better comparison than the FFR cars. The top FFR cars at M-O turn around a 1.40.2, The best results could find for ITR was Dan Jones at a 1.41.5. The fastest CMC car was 1.43.6. Keep in mind that the NASA cars are running Toyo's and if you put Hoosier tires on them at a track like M-O I would estimate at least a 3/4 to 1 second improvement. Of course the weight of the CMC cars is based on Dyno output but the lowest weight for a Mustang from 79 thru 2004 with 230hp or lower and 300 ft lb or lower torque is 3100lbs.

Based on the above, I still beleive that you put a well built pony car in the hands of a good pony car driver and they will be at the front.

The craptastic brakes and suspensions that everyone keeps speaking of are yes inferior to what elese is in the class, but keep in mind that when comparing the pony cars to everything else the driving style and technique is way different. In an ITR s2000, Type R or Prelude, these cars are going to be a smooth momentum style where the BMW's for example fall somewhere in between.

I do fully understand the rules, I have been in and out of the Club Racing scene for many years since the mid 80's as a spectator, crew member, worker and driver. There are already places for these cars to play so why do we need to make another.

If I wanted to run on a regional level and run a Pony car, I would run a mild build AS car which in turn would be similar to what an ITR build would be. I know that you can go crazy with motor builds, but if you go mild build with the right year 5.0 and develop the rest of the car, brakes and suspension right you will have a boat load of fun and be winning races. Of course there are not that many AS cars at the usual weekend like maybe 1 or 2 if you are lucky.
 
Knestis said:
I've heard hints of the bias that Ron mentions, even in internal conversations among ITAC members. It's not something we can ignore or avoid - we just have to work through it.
K
Click to expand...

It definitely shouldn't be ignored, it should be eradicated. If an ITAC member can't divorce themselves from their subjective opinions on a topic I would hope they would have the ability to admit that and step out of the discussion.

Everyone sees different things when they look at a car. A lot of the guys on the AutoX board see a Type Arrgghhh Acura or Honda Fit and say "RACECAR!". I see the same thing and thing "WTF?!?!?!?!?!". But to each his own. This is a club by the members for the members, if a member wants to race it and it isn't a danger to the structure of the club or the members then I think we're obligated to try to make it happen.

Just for the record I've owned many Mustangs over the years. While I did author the V8 Pony car proposal and firmly think the cars should be in ITR I am not going to build one. Now that V6 2005 model, I might build one of those when classed....
 
Last edited:
nsuracer said:
I would like to add a perspective that has not been addressed. Size and weight. Out here in Midiv, all I.T. run in one group. I do not like being on the track in my slow and light ITB with fast and heavy ITE Vipers and Corvettes and Mustangs.
Click to expand...

So if you're already running with these cars, what's the big deal if we add Mustangs?? :confused:

Look at enduros. How many different weights and speeds are there??

You can always run Spec Miata if that makes you nervous..................
 
I think you're picture of these cars is colored by the cheap base models that run tuned barrel induction. How do you account for the lb9/1LE made from 88-92, It had an aluminum driveshaft, 12.86" front rotors with twin piston calipers. 12.86" (326mm) is bigger than the 330i! And what other car in ITR gets an optional aluminum driveshaft?

This is only topped by the equiptment on the 93 Cobra-R, with 13" (330mm) front rotors with twin piston calipers. Better than that a motor with C-R parts on it will put out 260hp with only an ECU tune. It's got special heads, a special camshaft with higher ratio rockers, and 26lb/hr injectors. All of this is legal on the GT beause the Cobra-R is a sub-model. The real horror is that updating/backdating will result in even more power option, like removing the MAF to opperate in Speed-Density mode. Both the f-bodies and Fox-bodies came with Speed-Density injection at some point.

As for the 928, the only version you should be classing would be the 79-82 4.5 liter making 229hp. I doubt there'll be more than one or two of those run, the numbers are just not there to support a big number for development to the level that the Pony cars already have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top