The best ITB car nobody is racing?

So with all of the 944/951 go-fast parts you are stuck with developing everything yourself? The struts, shocks, bushings, torsion bars, ARB's etc. are not common? Compared with my Volvo 240 you probably have 1000% more aftermarket parts to build an ITB car with. It's definitely not a bimmer, but not without some aftermarket love.

Not sold on the aero, but without complete info it's a moot point. Many would argue that a MacPherson strut and semi-trailing arm are never "excellent." The Porsche engineer's gave you the 924, that in your estimation is a good basis for an ITB car.
 
Many would argue that MacPherson strut and live axle are never "excellent".:(

The Volvo engineers gave you the 240, that in your estimation is a good basis for an ITB car...
so why not get one built and find out?
 
Last edited:
pfcs said:
Many would argue that MacPherson strut and live axle are never "excellent".:(

The Volvo engineers gave you the 240, that in your estimation is a good basis for an ITB car...
so why not get one built and find out?
Click to expand...

Point taken. I personally like the 924 as an ITB car, I just don't know the car well enough to invest in a build and only take issue with some of the reasoning for choosing it (low Cd).

My car build is in progress. The car is currently on the chassis fixture getting the rollcage installed (main hoop is in!). I'm not saying my car choice is "excellent" and I know it is far from it in many respects. My premise is that the Volvo 240 can be as good as the Volvo 140, which is a good ITB car. That and I know the car quite well and had a good donor on the cheap. There are some rule changes in the works that I'm patiently waiting on. My car build is providing some info to the ITCS for the Volvo 240's eventual reclassification.
 
rsportvolvo said:
So with all of the 944/951 go-fast parts you are stuck with developing everything yourself? The struts, shocks, bushings, torsion bars, ARB's etc. are not common? Compared with my Volvo 240 you probably have 1000% more aftermarket parts to build an ITB car with. It's definitely not a bimmer, but not without some aftermarket love.

Not sold on the aero, but without complete info it's a moot point. Many would argue that a MacPherson strut and semi-trailing arm are never "excellent." The Porsche engineer's gave you the 924, that in your estimation is a good basis for an ITB car.
Click to expand...

Yeah, unfortunately while most of the stuff looks the same... it's not. The '24 has basically the early 944 chassis... some of it's the same, and that's great, but there are odd differences... rear swaybar's the same, but the front's not. All the really good shock packages are available for the late 944/951, but don't fit our cars. The biggest obstacle though was the engine - no racing knowledge still around for such a limited prep level, so we did pretty much have to figure that out ourselves.

Can't dispute the 240 aftermarket, no personal knowledge there, just seen a buncha stuff in iPD catalogs, but that doesn't necessarily translate to racing.

Re: the suspension - no, the struts aren't great, we just have to go with the Colin Chapman rule - any suspension can be made to work perfectly well once you stop it from moving! :D The rear suspension is excellent, though. Sure, it's a PITA to work on, not designed for racing, but it gives incredible grip and ability to put power down in the corners, way better than the solid-axle cars we mostly race with. Then again, those also have that crappy Fox-body or whatever front Rustang suspension, so they're double-dammed - just can't get through the corners to save their lives.

I'm still surprised the wedges aren't any better with the aero... ah well... I'm never going back there anyway... ;)

PS - didn't choose it for the aero. I chose it for the worst possible reason - I already had and knew them. Then we got it moved out of ITA and things stopped sucking so bad.
 
Chuck interupts this great discussion on 924s to point out that there is going to be a super IT-B shootout at the Summit Point Double MARRS this coming Labor Day weekend. Great cars and drivers from all over the East coast :023:
 
callard said:
Chuck interupts this great discussion on 924s to point out that there is going to be a super IT-B shootout at the Summit Point Double MARRS this coming Labor Day weekend. Great cars and drivers from all over the East coast :023:
Click to expand...

Shaddup and get back in the garage and finish your P-car... ;)

Yeah, I saw that FasTrack 911 thing. Wierdo. :p

(I really wish I were going to the Labor Day weekend thing - sounds like a good weekend to lay down the smackdown again. But I have my own car to build. :( )
 
Well, if you are picking a car based on availability of spares and junked versions that can be picked up at steep discounts, I'd go with this:

cozy%2Bcoupe.jpg


Gawd knows it can't be any worse than the New Beetle in ITC....
 
jjjanos said:
Well, if you are picking a car based on availability of spares and junked versions that can be picked up at steep discounts, I'd go with this:

cozy%2Bcoupe.jpg


Gawd knows it can't be any worse than the New Beetle in ITC....
Click to expand...

I actually considered that car Jeff - but I'm just not convinced it will make anywhere near the process HP :D
 
jjjanos said:
Well, if you are picking a car based on availability of spares and junked versions that can be picked up at steep discounts, I'd go with this:

cozy%2Bcoupe.jpg


Gawd knows it can't be any worse than the New Beetle in ITC....
Click to expand...
Looks like a new beetle :D
 
I have a few Cozy coupes around here!

But really.. the new Beetle is THAT bad? Huge frontal area, no power, little aftermarket support, but geez.. it is a 2.0L. 2760lbs is a bit large to swallow...

Whaddya all think?

Kris
 
has anyone considered what might be the king of hondas based on the calculated power multiplier (this is what it must be able to achieve based on its assigned weight and assumed process)?

the 1990 era honda crx hf. it was stock with 62 hp from its 8V head. to get to the "process" weight, it must have about a 1.93 power factor and you can run those solid disc rotors for less rotating mass instead of the heavier vented discs.

its weight is 2030 #'s. doing the approximate math would yield something like this to get there:

62 hp x 1.926 power multiplier x 17 #/hp (ITB factor) + 50 (wishbone suspension) - 50 (FWD) = 2030 #'s.

that would be a real sleeper. i have one for a DD and i know i sometimes doze off during the mile i use to get up to 55 on the freeway. and since it can get 60 mpg at 60 mph, this thing should also be considered by the enduro crowd. if you put a 25 gallon cell in this thing, you would have to equip the drivers with Depends to stay out for a ful fuel run....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top