THE BACK ROOM or ....

Knestis said:
Sorry - I got that from Jeff's post about choices. Fix the [whatever Volvo] or address the ITB multiplier to "fix the class." Others seem to be advocating for the latter (e.g., Jeff J.) as well.

K
Click to expand...


I just assumed that the comment about the 142 was true.
 
lateapex911 said:
Oh, just WAIT until you start discussing Hondas! Your brain will split over the Civics!

"Oh, the rounded rear Civic?"
"No, the squarer back one"
"Ah, yes, it had a 120 hp engine"
"No, that one had the G67 C engine, it's 120, this is the G67 F engine with 119. COMPLETELY different cylinder head."
"Oh, yea, it's called the TX"
"No, that nomenclature was used in the 4th generation for a year, but it was part of the WX series."

There are only like 15 generations of Civics, in 5 different body styles with 8 different alphagram models, and elenvty billion different alphabet soup with numbers thrown in engine designations, LOL
Click to expand...

dude it's just not that confusing... 3 body styles plus the CRX/Del sol which are just civics, 4-7 trims per generation(S/DX/LX/EX/Si plus HF/VX/CX). you look at what, 5 generations now? it's not THAT bad :p. at least the nomeclature is consistant.
do y'all need someone who speaks honda on the ITAC? (I'm not volunteering)

re: ITB - I like the end part of this discussion. add the 50lbs back on the VW(s?) "fix" the 142, done. Oh, and move 4AGE toyoters down to a base 2270 (15% published 116chp)+ adders for driveline configuration. a 2320# MR2? sounds about right.
 
About 10 minutes after we get the MR2 right, I anticipate that Andy is going to get serious about finding a Corolla GTS. :)

K
 
Chip42 said:
dude it's just not that confusing... 3 body styles plus the CRX/Del sol which are just civics, 4-7 trims per generation(S/DX/LX/EX/Si plus HF/VX/CX). you look at what, 5 generations now? it's not THAT bad :p. at least the nomeclature is consistant.
do y'all need someone who speaks honda on the ITAC? (I'm not volunteering)

re: ITB - I like the end part of this discussion. add the 50lbs back on the VW(s?) "fix" the 142, done. Oh, and move 4AGE toyoters down to a base 2270 (15% published 116chp)+ adders for driveline configuration. a 2320# MR2? sounds about right.
Click to expand...

Compared to the Mazda rotaries:

l ....................................really ancient
l................................. /
l ........................ small
l ......................../.......\
l ....................../.......... ancient
l ..................../
Mazda rotaries
l....................\
l.....................\.............Old
l......................\......... /
l........................large -- Same as Old, but a little better
l............................... \
l................................. Current




I remember going over the early Porsche 911s for the ITAC
3 sizes over 6 years: 2.0 2.2, 2.4, each with three states of tune: T, E and S. So a total of 9, all logically laid out. You'd think I was trying to explain particle physics and quantum energy, LOL.

It's all about what you're used to...
 
Last edited:
lateapex911 said:
I remember going over the early Porsche 911s for the ITAC
3 sizes over 6 years: 2.0 2.2, 2.4, each with three states of tune: T, E and S. So a total of 9, all logically laid out. You'd think I was trying to explain particle physics and quantum energy, LOL.
Click to expand...

And none of them can make 25% more power whether DIN or SAE. And I used a Stuska.
Chuck
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lateapex911 said:
An article by Road and Tracks engineering editor comparing the different hp standards around the world. Other systems were discussed in it, but those weren't pertinent. <snip> I just don't see a need to rebuild ITB.
Click to expand...

This is as close as I can get to something authoritative at the moment.

http://www.ehow.com/how_5845776_convert-din-hp-sae.html

The R&T guy just got it wrong, IMO.

Now as for the part about not needing to rebuild ITB, we agree completely.
 
Chip42 said:
the end part of this discussion. add the 50lbs back on the VW(s?) "fix" the 142, done. Oh, and move 4AGE toyoters down to a base 2270 (15% published 116chp)+ adders for driveline configuration. a 2320# MR2? sounds about right.
Click to expand...

Nope. That ultimately relegates all of the older ITB cars to backmarkers, not because they are backmarkers, but because the more recently classified cars use the 1.25 default and the originally classified cars used multipliers pulled from somewhere.
 
There is an easy answer to that. We reprocess the old cars to correct any errors.

The 2002 is close as is anyway. The CRX loses weight, as it should. The 142 too (now that I cleared the brain fart and understand which car we are talking about).

It's looking more and more to me like this issue got way more complicated than it really was.

jjjanos said:
Nope. That ultimately relegates all of the older ITB cars to backmarkers, not because they are backmarkers, but because the more recently classified cars use the 1.25 default and the originally classified cars used multipliers pulled from somewhere.
Click to expand...
 
callard said:
And none of them can make 25% more power whether DIN or SAE. And I used a Stuska.
Chuck
Click to expand...
Just count your blessings they don't have four valves! Wait, that would only hurt them in ITB, LOL.
As for making the factor, neither do other cars, like the MR2, so don't feel alone.
 
jjjanos said:
Nope. That ultimately relegates all of the older ITB cars to backmarkers, not because they are backmarkers, but because the more recently classified cars use the 1.25 default and the originally classified cars used multipliers pulled from somewhere.
Click to expand...

eeyore.jpg


Gets to the point sometimes, Jeff, where I really think you just want so bad for it to suck, that it can help but sucking.

;)

Now that the Process is on the loose, we RUN THEM AGAIN.

K
 
Knestis said:
Gets to the point sometimes, Jeff, where I really think you just want so bad for it to suck, that it can help but sucking.

;)

Now that the Process is on the loose, we RUN THEM AGAIN.

K
Click to expand...

Kirk, sometimes context matter. My post was in response to this...
"the end part of this discussion. add the 50lbs back on the VW(s?) "fix" the 142, done. "

I imagine there are a lot of people who would be happy with that and the MR2 thing, except this has to be a binary. Either EVERYONE gets rerun using the process or nobody in ITB uses it, including the newer cars, and it all gets done ad-hoc the old way.

Can't be both fish or fowl, it needs to be one or the other.
 
...and finally, all we have to to is ask and a car gets done.

Tactically, if I had one of those "1.3" cars, I would *not* request that it get re-run, until I'd made a heck of an effort to get that addressed. Otherwise, if I had a car that I thought needed to have old foul-ups resolved - or were racing against one that needed "fixing" - I'd have already written my letter.

I'm not a fan of a total do-over. If nobody cares enough to request a particular car be addressed, it's not worth spending the time.

K
 
THAT is an important point Kirk. A lot of those old weird cars in ITB have less than available and believable specs , and running them isn't as simple as a 2004 Honda Civic Si.. It will take time and it will involve some difficult work...and decisions...on the ITACs part. Run the cars that matter. Those who write in get first dibs. After that the ITAC should be proactive. I'm SURE ALL the ITAC members are racing and at the track, so they should be taking notes of what they see, and the cars they see running in ITB that haven't been processed should GET processed.
Other than that, they have better things to worry about.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top