Toyota Corolla ITA or ITB?

So far as I know, nobody has any data on a "real" IT 2.0 VW engine yet.

The car that I've just acquired is one of the early ones, with the forged crank, so it's going to be the basis for the build. It won't be anything exotic but at least all of the cylinders will have more than 155 pounds of squeeze.

K
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
So far as I know, nobody has any data on a "real" IT 2.0 VW engine yet.

The car that I've just acquired is one of the early ones, with the forged crank, so it's going to be the basis for the build. It won't be anything exotic but at least all of the cylinders will have more than 155 pounds of squeeze.

K
Click to expand...

I do believe that Tim Mullen's car up here in the NE has a full-bore Shine Racing Services effort. A call to them may bet you the info you need.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
2500 lbs would chew up brakes and rotors (at least on an MR2)???
rolleyes.gif


------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si
 
The 2500 pounds of Golf we drag around for hours isn't hard on brakes. I drove the car home from SP on the pads that went the distance at the 12 hours. I'll probably get at least a couple more regionals out of them.

That said, I don't know how big the rotors are on the Toyotas. Ours are 256mm front, 226mm rear.

K
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
The 2500 pounds of Golf we drag around for hours isn't hard on brakes. I drove the car home from SP on the pads that went the distance at the 12 hours. I'll probably get at least a couple more regionals out of them.

That said, I don't know how big the rotors are on the Toyotas. Ours are 256mm front, 226mm rear.

K
Click to expand...

244mm F, 239mm R
or
257mm F, 262mm R

AND a much better weight distribution for braking...Jake will tell you his car is PRIMO under braking...

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
Oh, wah. 130# won't mean squat, then.

Is someone going to make me sorry that I support this idea? It really bugs me when people play the safety card when arguing for their own competitive advantage.

K
 
For the record I hadn't meant to imply a safety concern. At least at 2500lbs it wouldn't be a safety issue. Something like another 100lbs to the spec weight of the RWD Toyotas would probably be a prudent move, and move them from being a "tweener" to a no-brainer ITB car.
 
Originally posted by Jake:
For the record I hadn't meant to imply a safety concern. At least at 2500lbs it wouldn't be a safety issue. Something like another 100lbs to the spec weight of the RWD Toyotas would probably be a prudent move, and move them from being a "tweener" to a no-brainer ITB car.
Click to expand...


Jake,

This is what I tried to get done w/ the Rabbit GTI. I suggested adding 170# to it, and moving it to ITC. The response was that it fell w/in the performance parameters of the class. I actually laughed out loud when I read that. IIRC, even some of the ITAC members have said it's a 'tweener' car.

Be interesting to see what the response to my request for publishing the performance parameters of the class is.


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
why won't my post refresh?? errr...it's on the second page...sorry...
wink.gif


------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited June 20, 2005).]
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
Performance parameters for ITB:

Too slow for ITA and too fast for ITC.

tongue.gif


AB
Click to expand...

Hey Andy, aren't the SM folks calling you?
biggrin.gif




------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Bill, to be honest I haven't been following your GTI issue, but at 2350lbs and 90hp it sounds like a good fit for ITC. Especially considering that the 914 1.7L was just moved from ITB to ITC at 2080lbs and 80 hp which is a better power to weight ratio. And that car is mid-engined, rear wheel drive, and has four-wheel disks - all that is is worth like an extra 25-50 hp!
smile.gif


On the other hand, the 1st gen CRX Si has similar weight and power and only recently moved from ITA to ITB. I would imagine putting nearly 200lbs on most cars would make them candidates for a move down.

[This message has been edited by Jake (edited June 20, 2005).]
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
How much "weight" do you think we put on it?

smile.gif


It's a factor, but not huge. But in a class made up of predominantly FWD, when you add RWD and mid-engine, you get an animal that must be considered VERY closly before you let it free in the ITB woods.

AB
Click to expand...

What about the volvos? They arent FWD, and are just as fast as any Toyota I've seen in ITA....
 
Originally posted by Jake:
LOL - The Jake's with 1.6 and 1.3 liters aspire to the displacement of a 2-liter bottle of cola. Thanks for chiming in Kirk - too bad the IT2 think didn't happen - probably would have solved this stuff quicker.

And yes - making us weeney 112hp cars run with much over 2500lbs would make us mid-pack ITB cars that now chew up tires and brakes - probably not an improvement.

BTW - a few of us were talking about the Hummer H3 - amazed at how GM thinks 220hp is sufficient to cart around 4750lbs. What a pig! Trying to brainstorm ANY other vehicle with that poor of a power to weight ratio, we could only think of one - My MR2
frown.gif
Click to expand...

The Hummer is a pig? You would love the Touareg that I tow the Corolla to the track with.. 220hp and 5086lbs! I'd kill for the hummers P/W!

Actually, its just fine towing the 'Rolla at speed in 6th gear with little loss of economy
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
"AND MID-ENGINED"

AB
Click to expand...

OK - don't make me do research! FWIW, the August 85 issue of Consumer Reports tested an MR2:

weight: 2375, braking from 60mph: 150ft

The July 87 issue tested an FX16:

weight: 2365, braking from 60mph: 145ft

The October 89 issue tested a CRX Si:

weight: 2170, braking from 60mph: 140ft
 
If you really want I can get that data for you. (need to go through some archives) But I wouldn't say KILLS. To tell you the truth, at the last LRP race I couldn't outbrake anyone - at least into big bend. I need to get all my braking done before the first apex or the thing swaps ends. FWD cars can do the better line by slowing through the first apex. That's not to say that in a straight line I don't have some advantage - but there isn't the advantage you may think in all situations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top