Teach me about ITR 325's
- Thread starter ekim952522000
- Start date
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
The 1986-1988 NA RX-7's all had 146 stock hp. The 89-91 NA RX-7's all had 160 stock hp - regardless of model. They are many mechanical differences in the motors. Nobody runs a 146hp motor in ITS.
And half a point less compression. Though the stock numbers show the same, that engine has a lot less potential than the '93 and later units. Except for the BMW stigma, the '92 might be a good fit without the SIR at near the current weight. I'm certainly not holding my breath though.
robits325is
New member
If the 86 is 146hp and the 91 is 160hp then why are they on the same spec line?
And, if they were split out, then they'd also not have the bigger brakes, the rear wing, and the trick 5th gear, yes? Their only "parts bin" advantage versus the current ITS rocket is the lack of power steering.
Honestly, at the right weight, I think that would be a fine addition to ITA. And, it would give members the opportunity to race the 2nd-gen car competitively with minimal changes. A win-win as far as I'm concerned, and a great illustration of why it's a bad idea to put significantly different cars on the same spec line.
Same reason as the ITA 1.8L Miatas, and the E36s, and several other cars are: someone thought it was a good idea, that it would make for simplicity. In the end all it does is force preparation to the highest level in order to be competitive.
And that's not really what Improved Touring is supposed to be about.
GA
Seems to me that a pretty good argument can be made in both of these examples (2nd-gen RX7 and the e36 325) to have multiple spec lines. But the simplicity argument has merit, too. Looking at first principles, which way do we think the scales tip? I ask because others might agree with Greg's contention of "what IT is supposed to be about..."
(FWIW, I personally tend to agree with his thesis, even if ITAC practice typically leans the other direction.)
KK
(FWIW, I personally tend to agree with his thesis, even if ITAC practice typically leans the other direction.)
KK
JeffYoung
New member
Anybody have any idea how many cars have different hp ratings on the same spec line?
I tried to think of others besides the ITA Miata and RX7, and can think of only one. Mine -- 133 for the carb car, 137 for FI.
Just trying to understand how big of a universe we are dealing with.
I tried to think of others besides the ITA Miata and RX7, and can think of only one. Mine -- 133 for the carb car, 137 for FI.
Just trying to understand how big of a universe we are dealing with.
Jeremy Billiel
New member
I will have to go back and look, but the 2nd gen Interga in ITA had various hp numbers, tranny ratios, etc.
robits325is
New member
The only problem with simple is that Frankenstein cars are created that exceed the classified model. The sum of the parts becomes greater than intended and an over dog is potentially created.
shwah
New member
As long as the desireable systems are considered during classifications (and they are - though I wish my car was classed at the lower 1985 Golf GL power level...), they don't exceed the classified model capability, because they ARE the classfied model.
Please show me one instance of an overdog created within the rules this way.
Please show me one instance of an overdog created within the rules this way.
JeffYoung
New member
I don't believe the 2nd Gen RX7 is an overdog in ITS, at all. I've seen top flight ones get beat by ITS Miatas, 190Es, 944S, 240zs, etc.
But the only point I would make in line with Rob's is that I think the earlier chassis were lighter, and that if you can make an S4 chassis work with the S5 engine etc. you get the "best" version of an RX7 that never came from the factory. GTUs gears, wing, brakes, etc. all in the 146 hp package.
It's probably a marginal advantage, but I'd be interested to hear the RX7's guys take on this, because I may be wrong.
But the only point I would make in line with Rob's is that I think the earlier chassis were lighter, and that if you can make an S4 chassis work with the S5 engine etc. you get the "best" version of an RX7 that never came from the factory. GTUs gears, wing, brakes, etc. all in the 146 hp package.
It's probably a marginal advantage, but I'd be interested to hear the RX7's guys take on this, because I may be wrong.
Gary L
New member
I would think the ITB Volvo 140 series might be the poster child for this situation. Six model years are covered on one line entry. All six have the same basic engine, but the listing encompasses three factory engine designators (B20B, B20E, B20F), two different dual carb setups, two different Bosch injection systems, two short blocks and two heads. There is approximately 15% horsepower differential across the bunch.
The chassis for all six model years are essentially the same, but everyone that builds one of these simply uses the '71 B20E engine long block assembly and matching Bosch D-Jet injection. That particular engine is singularly the most powerful of the bunch, before and after IT tweaks. Bottom line - everyone ends up with what is essentially a '71 142E.
dickita15
New member
Well in the case of the RX7 that is not true, everything you want is on the GTU model, highest HP, better 5th gear, alum hood and spoiler. Even if they were broken out without the VIN number rule the cars would all be built to that spec.
There are no Frankenstein just all built to the best year.
JeffYoung
New member
Chris, I agree, it's a nit I should not have picked. At least in the case of the 2nd Gen RX7, I think it is a perfect example of a well classed, well developed, very competitive NON-overdog car.
I'm I guess a bit of an IT "modernist" and the added simplicity of having all years of the 2nd Gen model on one line outweighs what little incongruity there is in it.....so, consider this nit dropped.
I'm I guess a bit of an IT "modernist" and the added simplicity of having all years of the 2nd Gen model on one line outweighs what little incongruity there is in it.....so, consider this nit dropped.
JeffYoung
New member
Gary, since you have a lot of experience wtih this, in your opinion, is that a good or a bad thing, to have six different model years with varying induction systems and power outputs on the same line?
Or would the lower power cars be better served on a different line in C?
The flip side is that having the option to build any 140 into an ITB 140E opens up the number of actual chassises available to you, correct?
Interested in your thoughts, because I agree, that car looks like the poster child for this "issue" (if it is one).
Or would the lower power cars be better served on a different line in C?
The flip side is that having the option to build any 140 into an ITB 140E opens up the number of actual chassises available to you, correct?
Interested in your thoughts, because I agree, that car looks like the poster child for this "issue" (if it is one).
That's not actually the case - simply by definition. The "classified model" is defined by the spec line, not by some year/model/trim level that the manufacturer designates.
And as was pointed out, where the ITAC knows about substantial differences in performance among specs within a line, we try to set the race weight based on the "best" combination. We just went through this conversation with old Volvos, for Pete's sake.
Now, the question of whether we should list SEPARATELY year/model/trim level/whatever different than the "best" option is a VERY good one. But let's not get lost here.
K
Gary L
New member
Jeff - I would be of the opinion that we're doin' fine, just the way we are. If you break all those engine/chassis combinations out to separate line entries, IMO you most likely will not end up with significantly more 40 year old Volvo's in IT than you have today. 
Kirk - Does your "old Volvo" reference mean you guys (ITAC) finally discussed my letter on the 142/144 "Notes" entry in the ITCS? I had almost forgotten about it to be honest.
Kirk - Does your "old Volvo" reference mean you guys (ITAC) finally discussed my letter on the 142/144 "Notes" entry in the ITCS? I had almost forgotten about it to be honest.
JoshS
New member
Gary, we haven't met since you and I spoke on the phone after the last meeting. We meet monthly.Jeff - I would be of the opinion that we're doin' fine, just the way we are. If you break all those engine/chassis combinations out to separate line entries, IMO you most likely will not end up with significantly more 40 year old Volvo's in IT than you have today.
Kirk - Does your "old Volvo" reference mean you guys (ITAC) finally discussed my letter on the 142/144 "Notes" entry in the ITCS? I had almost forgotten about it to be honest.