PDA

View Full Version : ITR Cars



Ron Earp
05-18-2006, 02:54 PM
Here is the list of ITR cars at the moment that are in the ITR proposal. Bear in mind the formatting might be a little off, and, some of the years are wrong (we know which ones) but the final draft/edit has not been done. Personally, I think there are a lot of cars to choose from and don't see any that stand out as perfect class winners, but I do know a few I'd be interested in building!

Acura Integra Type R (98-01) DOHC I4
Acura Legend (91-95) SOHC V6
Acura RXS-S (02-04) DOHC I4
Acura TSX (04-06) DOHC I4
BMW 325i/is (92-95) DOHC I6
BMW 328i/328is (96-99) DOHC I6
BMW 330i (00-04) DOHC I6
BMW 635 (83-84) DOHC I6
BMW M3 (88-91) DOHC I4
BMW Z3 (97-00) DOHC I6
Chevy/Pontiac Camaro/Firebird (97-99) OHV V6
Ford Contour SVT (98-00) DOHC V6
Ford Mustang (99-04) SOHC V6
Ford Taurus SHO (89-95) DOHC V6
Honda Prelude (93-96) DOHC I4
Honda Prelude (97-01) DOHC I4
Honda S2000 (00-03) DOHC I4
Lexus IS300 (01-05) DOHC I6
Lexus SC300 (92-00) DOHCI6
Mazda 6 (02-04) DOHC V6
Mercedes SLK (00-03) SOHC V6
Mitsubishi 3000GT (non-turbo FWD) (91-93) DOHC V6
Nissan 300ZX (89-96) DOHC V6
Nissan Maxima (00-01) DOHC V6
Porsche 911SC (78-83) SOHC F6
Porsche 944S2 (89-91) DOHC I4
Porsche 968 (93-97) DOHC I4
Porsche Boxer (97-99) DOHC F6
Toyota Celica GTS (00-02) DOHC I4
Toyota Supra (87.5-92) DOHC I6
Toyota Supra (93-97) DOHC I6

I also think there will be room for a few other cars (notably the 94-95 Mustang GT, others too) in here but we wanted to be conservative on the first round through.

Best,
Ron

Knestis
05-18-2006, 03:38 PM
Note that you'll see some years here that cheat on the "5 year rule" for eligibility. It is NOT the intention to change that rule for ITR. Those years are included only for planning purposes, where the make/model is known to not change across them.

K

dj10
05-18-2006, 03:49 PM
Here is the list of ITR cars at the moment that are in the ITR proposal. Bear in mind the formatting might be a little off, and, some of the years are wrong (we know which ones) but the final draft/edit has not been done. Personally, I think there are a lot of cars to choose from and don't see any that stand out as perfect class winners, but I do know a few I'd be interested in building!

Acura Integra Type R (98-01) DOHC I4
Acura Legend (91-95) SOHC V6
Acura RXS-S (02-04) DOHC I4
Acura TSX (04-06) DOHC I4
BMW 325i/is (92-95) DOHC I6
BMW 328i/328is (96-99) DOHC I6
BMW 330i (00-04) DOHC I6
BMW 635 (83-84) DOHC I6
BMW M3 (88-91) DOHC I4
BMW Z3 (97-00) DOHC I6
Chevy/Pontiac Camaro/Firebird (97-99) OHV V6
Ford Contour SVT (98-00) DOHC V6
Ford Mustang (99-04) SOHC V6
Ford Taurus SHO (89-95) DOHC V6
Honda Prelude (93-96) DOHC I4
Honda Prelude (97-01) DOHC I4
Honda S2000 (00-03) DOHC I4
Lexus IS300 (01-05) DOHC I6
Lexus SC300 (92-00) DOHCI6
Mazda 6 (02-04) DOHC V6
Mercedes SLK (00-03) SOHC V6
Mitsubishi 3000GT (non-turbo FWD) (91-93) DOHC V6
Nissan 300ZX (89-96) DOHC V6
Nissan Maxima (00-01) DOHC V6
Porsche 911SC (78-83) SOHC F6
Porsche 944S2 (89-91) DOHC I4
Porsche 968 (93-97) DOHC I4
Porsche Boxer (97-99) DOHC F6
Toyota Celica GTS (00-02) DOHC I4
Toyota Supra (87.5-92) DOHC I6
Toyota Supra (93-97) DOHC I6

I also think there will be room for a few other cars (notably the 94-95 Mustang GT, others too) in here but we wanted to be conservative on the first round through.

Best,
Ron [/b]

In a T2 configuration a Boxter turned a 1:12.9 @ Nelson Ledges, that's a 2mile track w/ 13 turns. FYI I see cars with really big brakes.

zracre
05-18-2006, 04:14 PM
Wow I see some cars that in IT trim will be seriously fast!! 968 911 Boxter Supra S2K...nice!!!!!

Bill Miller
05-18-2006, 04:14 PM
In a T2 configuration a Boxter turned a 1:12.9 @ Nelson Ledges, that's a 2mile track w/ 13 turns. FYI I see cars with really big brakes.
[/b]


My '06 GCR says that a T2 Boxster is a Boxster S. That's not what's being considered for ITR.

dj10
05-18-2006, 04:21 PM
My '06 GCR says that a T2 Boxster is a Boxster S. That's not what's being considered for ITR. [/b]

Woops I forgot the S. From the car list I see, the should be as fast as National AS times, maybe faster, if were allowed 17 x 8.5" Wheels.

zracre
05-18-2006, 04:26 PM
Considering S cars go around there in the 14's and A cars in the 15's...should be in line

lateapex911
05-18-2006, 04:48 PM
Of course different cars will do different lap times on different courses, but, we think that the top cars will be in the EP range.

The 911 is my sentimental fave, although it's a pricey choice, and the process doesn't account for the air cooled cars properly. Sad....

Another fave, the RX8 didn't make the cut, for fear of huge rotary gains, but I think the engine is much further along in the development curve, and electronics have vastly improved, which helps eliminate compromises, so we won't see the gains we have in the past. But, as of now, it's not an R car, as we chose the cars to be clear "fits" without setting off alarms.

I envision certain cars left of the list being 2nd round shoe ins, and others getting solid discussion.

But for now, it's a great list with lots of great choices!

Ron Earp
05-18-2006, 05:02 PM
Woops I forgot the S. From the car list I see, the should be as fast as National AS times, maybe faster, if were allowed 17 x 8.5" Wheels.
[/b]

I don't doubt that - we've got top drawer (Chet Whittel and others) S cars surpassing some AS times here and there. I'm sure R will beat that.

R

dj10
05-18-2006, 05:12 PM
Considering S cars go around there in the 14's and A cars in the 15's...should be in line [/b]

Check again, AS cars run 1:13- 14 @ Ledges (1:13.1 track record) and 1:38's Mid O.

Ron Earp
05-18-2006, 06:47 PM
In a T2 configuration a Boxter turned a 1:12.9 @ Nelson Ledges, that's a 2mile track w/ 13 turns. FYI I see cars with really big brakes.
[/b]

Isn't that okay? New cars have much bigger brakes than cars of old. Yep, and the S was in there but had to be removed due to power and weight concerns. It couldn't wear enough weight and it was far higher than the class hp ceiling.

R

DBurke
05-18-2006, 07:23 PM
E46 BMW 328, the first year or two before the 330ci and 330i... I don't know exactly which years but I want to say 99-00

Bill Miller
05-18-2006, 08:21 PM
Jake,

I think you're going to see the top ITR cars 1-3 seconds faster than the top EP cars.

Geo
05-18-2006, 09:03 PM
E46 BMW 328, the first year or two before the 330ci and 330i... I don't know exactly which years but I want to say 99-00
[/b]

You are correct with the years. I have a 2000 328i for a road car.

alexands
05-18-2006, 09:42 PM
This is exciting. i see a Z32 300Zx in my future :D My daily driver is a Lexus IS300, so that might be cool too.

Z3_GoCar
05-18-2006, 10:47 PM
Jake,

I think you're going to see the top ITR cars 1-3 seconds faster than the top EP cars.
[/b]

Maybe, but I doubt that it'll be faster than either B or D Production :D

I wrote my e-mail to the CRB :cavallo: Have you? :024:

James

RSTPerformance
05-19-2006, 12:20 AM
Maybe, but I doubt that it'll be faster than either B or D Production :D

I wrote my e-mail to the CRB :cavallo: Have you? :024:

James
[/b]

yup :happy204:

rob22
05-19-2006, 07:02 AM
The Mustangs and Camaro's listed in the proposal would have a hard time being competitive in ITA, much less ITR. There needs to be more thought given to domestic models. I hope there will be at a later date.

Ron Earp
05-19-2006, 07:27 AM
The Mustangs and Camaro's listed in the proposal would have a hard time being competitive in ITA, much less ITR. There needs to be more thought given to domestic models. I hope there will be at a later date.
[/b]

I agree to a point - you have not seen weights. I am an advocate for a couple of domestic V8 models that I think will indeed fit quite well in this bunch, but they were left out on the first round. See the ITR Mustang (SN95 model, Jeff made a mistake with Fox platform and the drum brake cars) thread here, but let's not turn this thread into "in or out" because this is definitely a second round process.

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...topic=7818&st=0 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7818&st=0)

Regardless, there is a fine selection of cars on the list and I think the class will draw some folks interested in running there!

R

Banzai240
05-19-2006, 08:08 AM
Nissan Maxima (00-01) DOHC V6
[/b]

I'm curious... why only the 2000-2001 Maxima? The '89-'94, and '95-'99 versions out there are fairly potent as well...

the '89-'94 were a SOHC Cast Iron 3.0L V6, about 195hp stock... (might be better in ITS at the weight these things are...) I think the '95+ versions got a DOHC aluminum 3.0L V6 and had closer to 225hp or so...

I know the earlier cars are plentiful and donor cars are CHEAP (< $2500 in many cases...)

Just curious...

rob22
05-19-2006, 09:10 AM
Ron, you are right, there is a fine selection of cars, and all the hard work by the folks involved is appreciated. My point on the camaro and mustang V6&#39;s are that you couldn&#39;t legally get enough weight out of them to make them competitive, and I don&#39;t think those motors lend themselves well enough to legal mods to make up the slack. I agree there are some V8 cars that could be classed in here. I think the Porshe&#39;s, BmW&#39;s, the S2000 and possibly the 90-96 Z cars will be tough.

Bosco

DavidM
05-19-2006, 12:28 PM
Cool list. Several 4-door as well as higher HP FWD cars which should make for an interesting class. I think most of the newer cars are going to take a good amount of $$ to prep, but that&#39;s to be expected. Seems like several people are looking at the Z32 300ZX (I have a twin-turbo), but I gotta wonder about its brakes. The stock brakes are tiny for its porker weight. They&#39;re the biggest problem the car has in stock form IMO. This should be a fun class to watch develop. Maybe I&#39;ll move up once I&#39;ve been driving for a few years.

David

tnord
05-20-2006, 12:12 AM
darin i noticed the same thing. i used to have a maxima, my dad bought a new 97 when i was working for nissan that my sister now drives, so i&#39;m fairly familiar with them.

the 89-91 had a 3.0l 170hp V6. i think VG30DE was the engine code.

the 92-94 was the same body style but had the VQ30DE (same as the NA Z32 300ZX) at 190hp.

the 95-99? maxima had the same VQ30DE but i think was 195hp in the new body style.

the 00-03? maxima had the same VQ30DE cranked up to 222hp in the new body style, and was now available with a 6sp.

i don&#39;t remember the specific weights of the various models, or their respective suspension designs or brake sizes. some of my years could very well be off a bit.

given that these are all FWD, i would probably chose the 95-99yrs since they would likely have a lighter weight than the 6sp high hp model.

Stan
05-20-2006, 09:12 AM
...given that these are all FWD...[/b]
Really? I didn&#39;t know that. IIRC, the Nissan V30-series engines are quite large and were first installed in RWD cars. What is their orientation in the Maxima?

Andy Bettencourt
05-20-2006, 09:27 AM
Really? I didn&#39;t know that. IIRC, the Nissan V30-series engines are quite large and were first installed in RWD cars. What is their orientation in the Maxima? [/b]

All the Maxima&#39;s being discussed are FWD.

Stan
05-20-2006, 10:28 AM
Yes, I understand that they&#39;re FWD. What I am wondering is the orientation of the engine (and drive train). Is the engine longitudinal with an Audi-like FWD, or transverse with the conventional FWD layout?

Thanks! Stan

Andy Bettencourt
05-20-2006, 10:42 AM
Yes, I understand that they&#39;re FWD. What I am wondering is the orientation of the engine (and drive train). Is the engine longitudinal with an Audi-like FWD, or transverse with the conventional FWD layout?

Thanks! Stan [/b]

It&#39;s the &#39;wrong&#39; way powering the &#39;wrong&#39; wheels! :)

Transverse and conventional.

AB

Stan
05-20-2006, 10:56 AM
Oh, darn...but thanks for the info! :D

ITANorm
05-22-2006, 01:06 AM
the 00-03? maxima had the same VQ30DE cranked up to 222hp in the new body style, and was now available with a 6sp.[/b]

00-01

The &#39;02-&#39;04 cars have the 3.5L, rated at 255HP. My wife has an &#39;02, and even with an automatic it needs traction control if you have an injudicious right foot. One of the sleepers - don&#39;t tell anyone! :unsure:

shwah
05-22-2006, 07:01 AM
That looks like an exciting list. A lot of different flavors to choose from. My only comment is to review the list for clones and include both marques. The 3000GT - Dodge Stealth was the one that jumped out at me.

mustanghammer
05-22-2006, 11:18 AM
I agree to a point - you have not seen weights. I am an advocate for a couple of domestic V8 models that I think will indeed fit quite well in this bunch, but they were left out on the first round. See the ITR Mustang (SN95 model, Jeff made a mistake with Fox platform and the drum brake cars) thread here, but let&#39;s not turn this thread into "in or out" because this is definitely a second round process.

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...topic=7818&st=0 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7818&st=0)

Regardless, there is a fine selection of cars on the list and I think the class will draw some folks interested in running there!

R
[/b]

Aren&#39;t the V6 Mustangs on the list OHV 3.8L V6 cars? The SOHC 4.0L came out in 05.

Z3_GoCar
05-28-2006, 10:43 PM
Ron,

Here&#39;s a hypothetical question....

If you list the &#39;99-&#39;00 Z3&#39;s with mine, do I get to install the double VANOS system :D

Or how about the different rear sheet metal from the &#39;00?

BTW, those two years ( &#39;99-&#39;00) came with 193 hp, where mine came with 189 hp. I think these changes coincide with the introduction of the e-46 328 vs. the e-36 328, but the Z3 was the last of the e-36 varients.

Also, you should also consider classing the &#39;01-&#39;02 Z3 3.0l at 225hp.

James

Ron Earp
05-29-2006, 06:55 AM
Ron,

Here&#39;s a hypothetical question....

If you list the &#39;99-&#39;00 Z3&#39;s with mine, do I get to install the double VANOS system :D

Or how about the different rear sheet metal from the &#39;00?

BTW, those two years ( &#39;99-&#39;00) came with 193 hp, where mine came with 189 hp. I think these changes coincide with the introduction of the e-46 328 vs. the e-36 328, but the Z3 was the last of the e-36 varients.

Also, you should also consider classing the &#39;01-&#39;02 Z3 3.0l at 225hp.

James
[/b]

A lot of that will be worked out on the VTS sheets. I imagine that we&#39;ll try to keep it simple, so with minor changes cars would be on the same line.

Ron

Z3_GoCar
05-29-2006, 11:49 AM
Oh, Ok, Sure......

But would you consider changing from variable intake cam only to both cams being variable a minor change? BTW, I can understand ignoring the sheet metal/tail lights.

James

JeffYoung
05-29-2006, 03:52 PM
These are good points. We frankly are not as knowledgeable about the various iterations of BMW motors and bodies as we should be. I&#39;ve sent the spreadsheet with weights to Dan Jones. Why don&#39;t you guys take a look at it and give us a corrected list of the BMWs you think should be on an ITR class list.

Z3_GoCar
05-29-2006, 07:12 PM
Hey Jeff,

Here&#39;s a web site that might be illuminating as far as the engine designations and hp availible:

http://www.bmwworld.com/repairs/codes/engines.htm

The only issue I would have with this site is that the hp numbers listed are for the sedans, which have a better exhaust due to space limitations. So the Z3 2.8l (97-98) single vanos is 189hp, Z3 2.8l (99-00) double vanos is 193hp, and Z3/Z4 3.0l (01-on) double vanos is 225hp. Some of this is listed on other pages.

James

ilateapex
06-04-2006, 10:05 AM
Suprised to see the BMW 635 on the list. I can not see it competitive in IT trim with the other cars on the list. I have a euro spec model and can&#39;t get it to the 3027 weight of the BMWCCA CR JP class with a 190# driver. NO way to get it much lower with IT legal stuff. With the Euro motor, Bigger brakes, and a good suspension I can&#39;t keep up with a decent driven E36 in IT trim. Best I did was 1:45 at Mid-ohio and I can get in the low 1:47 with my ITS E30. I have improved my driving some but not enough to get in a US spec car and keep up with an M3 unless the M3 weights in at 4000lbs.

Michael

BMW E30 325 ITS/GTS1/KP
BMW E24 635 Euro JP
BMW E36 M3 street

dj10
06-04-2006, 12:20 PM
Ron,

Here&#39;s a hypothetical question....

If you list the &#39;99-&#39;00 Z3&#39;s with mine, do I get to install the double VANOS system :D

Or how about the different rear sheet metal from the &#39;00?

BTW, those two years ( &#39;99-&#39;00) came with 193 hp, where mine came with 189 hp. I think these changes coincide with the introduction of the e-46 328 vs. the e-36 328, but the Z3 was the last of the e-36 varients.

Also, you should also consider classing the &#39;01-&#39;02 Z3 3.0l at 225hp.

James [/b]



James,

Give me the years that are different and I&#39;ll add them to the list, with accurate data for the board to review. BTW if these are IT rules you are allowed to update complete units.

Dan

Andy Bettencourt
06-04-2006, 12:37 PM
BTW if these are IT rules you are allowed to update complete units.

[/b]



Assuming they make it onto the same spec line, which I doubt they will.



AB

billf
06-04-2006, 02:57 PM
I know I&#39;m being picky :018: ...just my nature, I guess. But here goes:


From a post by Bill Miller:
"In a T2 configuration a Boxter turned a 1:12.9 @ Nelson Ledges, that&#39;s a 2mile track w/ 13 turns. FYI I see cars with really big brakes."


Nelson has numbered corners that don&#39;t correspond to a strict number scale, i.e.

1 and 2 are joined and driven as one turn) known as "turn one", turn 1), followed by turn 3, the infamous 4 (also previously known as "Oak Tree"), 5 or 6 (carousel), an unnamed very slight bend on the main straight, then the "kink", or turn 11, followed by 12 (left hand) and turn 13 which leads onto the pit straight. Out of this I count seven turns (not counting the "slight bend" noted above.

Many times the numbers are referencing flag stations.

It is however, a very fast track regarding the average speed per lap.

Bill :024:

Z3_GoCar
06-04-2006, 03:17 PM
James,

Give me the years that are different and I&#39;ll add them to the list, with accurate data for the board to review. BTW if these are IT rules you are allowed to update complete units.

Dan
[/b]

Hey Dan,

There are basically three engine series that are delt with in the 2.8l/3.0l Z3. They go like this:

&#39;97-&#39;98 M52B28 Single Vanos on Intake cam, 189hp at 5300rpm, 203 ft-Lbs at 3950rpm

&#39;99-&#39;00 M52B28TU Double Vanos on both Intake and Exhaust cams, 193hp at 5500rpm, 206 ft-Lbs at 3500rpm

&#39;01-&#39;02 M54B30 3.0l Double Vanos, 228hp at 5900rpm, 221 ft-Lbs at 3500-4750rpm

Then to complicate matters there&#39;s the issue of the different rear fender sheet metal from Sept &#39;99 on. Basically, it takes the buldging 930 Turbo looking fender and makes it more classic Cobra with a ridge over the rear tires. Along with the new sheet metal the tail lights changed, so that instead of the classic square shape it&#39;s now more like an L shape. I&#39;d recomend that the motor changes need to be dealt with, but the sheet metal can probably be ignored.

dj10
06-04-2006, 05:43 PM
I know I&#39;m being picky :018: ...just my nature, I guess. But here goes:


From a post by Bill Miller:
"In a T2 configuration a Boxter turned a 1:12.9 @ Nelson Ledges, that&#39;s a 2mile track w/ 13 turns. FYI I see cars with really big brakes."


Nelson has numbered corners that don&#39;t correspond to a strict number scale, i.e.

1 and 2 are joined and driven as one turn) known as "turn one", turn 1), followed by turn 3, the infamous 4 (also previously known as "Oak Tree"), 5 or 6 (carousel), an unnamed very slight bend on the main straight, then the "kink", or turn 11, followed by 12 (left hand) and turn 13 which leads onto the pit straight. Out of this I count seven turns (not counting the "slight bend" noted above.

Many times the numbers are referencing flag stations.

It is however, a very fast track regarding the average speed per lap.

Bill :024: [/b]



It&#39;s the fastest 2 mile track in North America.

Bill Miller
06-04-2006, 05:53 PM
I know I&#39;m being picky :018: ...just my nature, I guess. But here goes:
From a post by Bill Miller:
"In a T2 configuration a Boxter turned a 1:12.9 @ Nelson Ledges, that&#39;s a 2mile track w/ 13 turns. FYI I see cars with really big brakes."
Nelson has numbered corners that don&#39;t correspond to a strict number scale, i.e.

1 and 2 are joined and driven as one turn) known as "turn one", turn 1), followed by turn 3, the infamous 4 (also previously known as "Oak Tree"), 5 or 6 (carousel), an unnamed very slight bend on the main straight, then the "kink", or turn 11, followed by 12 (left hand) and turn 13 which leads onto the pit straight. Out of this I count seven turns (not counting the "slight bend" noted above.

Many times the numbers are referencing flag stations.

It is however, a very fast track regarding the average speed per lap.

Bill :024:
[/b]


If you&#39;re going to quote me, please do so accurately. That post was originally dj&#39;s. I quoted it, pointing out that the T2 Boxster that he referred to, was a Boxster S, and not the model being considered for ITR.

ERIC THOMPSON
06-06-2006, 04:56 PM
i submitted this request to the scca(printed in june fastrack) back in march in order to classify my clubrally spec 1988 celica alltrac turbo in a class of similar cars(evo,sti,eclipse,323 gtx)instead of in ITE. so now looking at the list i dont see my car or any similar cars. can anyone shed some light on this??? please!!!

thanks

JeffYoung
06-06-2006, 05:17 PM
Unfortunately, turbo cars are verboten in IT club racing. They are not on the proposed list for ITR. Maybe some day....

ERIC THOMPSON
06-06-2006, 05:46 PM
then why would fastrack state that the crb is developing a proposal for new classes?? i submitted the request!!


original email and reply:

HI. MY NAME IS ERIC THOMPSON. I OWN A CLUBRALLY OPENCLASS CELICA ALLTRAC THAT I AM CONVERTING INTO A REGIONAL ITE COMPETITOR. WHY NOT MAKE A CLASS THAT COULD ENCOMPASS ALL 4CYL, AWD CARS, REGARDLESS OF AGE. PERFORMANCE COULD BE GOVERNED WITH INTAKE RESTRICTORS AND MINIMUM WEIGHT REGULATIONS. IT SEEMS LIKE A VERY POPULAR SEGMENT FOR THE YOUNGER CROWD(AWD TURBO CARS). AND WOULD BE CHEAPER THAN RALLY. SEEMS LIKE A GOOD IDEA AND PLENTY OF OTHER MEMBERS HAVE AGREED. AND IT WOULD CERTAINLY ATTRACT NEW, YOUNG MEMBERS.

THANKS, ERIC

Thank you. I&#39;m keeping my fingers crossed. i think a class for these type of cars would be great for the scca. at least on the regional level.

eric
----- Original Message -----
From: Terry Ozment
To: Eric Thompsen
Cc: John Bauer
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 12:11 PM
Subject: RE: AWD 4CYL CARS


Hi Eric.

I am copying John Bauer on your message so he can get your requested logged for attention by the Club Racing Board.

Thanks for your input.



Sincerely,



Terry



Terry Ozment

Director of Club Racing

PO Box 19400

Topeka, KS 66619

tozment@scca.com

800-770-2055 X 304

785-232-7214 fax

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Thompsen [mailto:ET@lqautos.com]
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 10:20 AM
To: Terry Ozment
Cc: mailto:bcohn@scca.com; mailto:jthoennes@scca.com; mailto:hduncan@scca.com
Subject: AWD 4CYL CARS




" Improved Touring
1. IT - Create an ITR class (Earp/Thompson). Thank you for your input. The CRB is developing a
proposal for new classes."

what new classes then??? ITR seems like only one class. it seems the scca is beyond frustrating :bash_1_:

thanks again

Z3_GoCar
06-06-2006, 08:35 PM
Eric,

Here&#39;s the proposal to create a new IT class above ITS (called ITR because R is before S as A is before B.) You&#39;ll note that this is a "conventional" IT class in that no major parts of the GCR&#39;s need to be changed. This class has been in the making for almost a year and a half, and many of the cars on the list currently are about to be aged out of T-2 and SSB, or are only avalible for regionally listed classes like Honda Challenge, ITE, and Radial Sedan. Some of the cars on your list are already doing well in ITE, in the San Fran region ITE was won last year by an Evo. It&#39;ll be awful hard to reign in a car making 300hp stock, and an easy 450hp by a change of the boost.

James



With a lot of excitement, and some trepidation, I am posting in its entirety (sans spreadsheet of cars) the proposal for the creation of a class (ITR) above ITS in Improved Touring for everyone&#39;s comment. This proposal is now with the ITAC for presentation to the CRB shortly (rough outlines of it have already been sent to the CRB). Initial feedback from the powers that be (we have a CRB member as part of our working group) have been very positive. No promises, no guarantees in SCCA land (and there shouldn&#39;t be) but my personal belief is it is likely we will see ITR running next year, 2008 at the latest.

Please give this a look and fire away with comments.

Of course, the "big" debates will come on proposed vehicle weights. We have a spreadsheet developed with those weights and I truly want to relese it but I am very afraid it will turn into the nasty tit for tat fights about car weights, potential and "bias" that I&#39;ve seen here in the past.

So how to avoid that? Here&#39;s my "grand" idea. We "annoint" one board/forum participant to "represent" their manfucturer in the discussions with the spreadsheet. Maybe say, Tristan Smith or KThomas for Nissan, Marshall or DJ for BMW, Steve E. for Mazda, Scott Giles for Honda, etc. I&#39;ll send the sheet to them and they can give constructive comments on issues they see with the weighting/classing of their manufacturer&#39;s cars.

Make sense? Thoughts?

Here is the written proposal:

Proposal for Restructuring of Improved Touring’s Faster Classes

Submitted to the Improved Touring Advisory Committee for consideration

I. The Past, the Present and the Future

Improved Touring has thrived as a regional class since its inception, and is the “point of entry” for most new SCCA Club racers. It draws large fields in most Regions, and new cars are being built each year. In many ways, it is the bread and butter of SCCA Club Racing and is critical to the survival of most Regions across the country.

While IT is healthy now, it is aging. A class above ITS is needed to fill the pipeline of new cars and drivers for the future. An increasing number of requests have been denied from members asking for higher horsepower cars to be classified. A quick look at old SSA cars, T2 cars and T3 cars shows a plentiful supply of cars in race trim searching for a home. This problem needs to be addressed to keep ITS healthy and vibrant.

II. “ITR”

Several SCCA members, working with some members of the Improved Touring Advisory Committee, would like to propose a solution to the issue of IT aging. This is the creation of an Improved Touring classification “above” ITS in terms of performance potential, to give those cars from 5 to 20 years old with 190 to 230 stock horsepower (there are many, see attached spreadsheet) a place to race (note that some former SSA, existing SSB, T2 and T3 cars will be eligible). These cars are more available, and in our opinion, more exciting to the generation currently deciding on what racing series to build a car for and participate in. Many of them currently appeal to the “tuner” enthusiast who, at this point, has very few real options in Improved Touring.

The list of cars that we believe fit the class is extensive, and could grow over the years. It will open the door to many new cars going SCCA racing. We think we may see new cars running SCCA that currently run with Honda Challenge, BMW CCA and Porsche Club of America and other sanctioning bodies.

We realize there will be resistance. We anticipate those evaluating the merit of this proposal to have the following (legitimate) questions:

• Will it help or hurt ITS?

We believe ITR will, in the long run, result in ITS flourishing. It is our perception that very few new ITS cars are being built, and some chassis retired, due to the belief that the BMW E36 325i/is is the only car to have, and that the only other two cars with any real chance of success are the RX7 and Datsun 240Z. ITS should not be a “three-chassis” class, and in our view, over the last three years, the perception that it is has hurt ITS. The BMW E36 325i/is fits perfectly in ITR without an SIR and will bring back the ITS drivers who have left based on any past engine restrictions. We believe that opening up ITS to many competitive chassis will result in an influx of new cars, and new drivers/members, to the class.

• How will Regions deal with it?

Member retention and development of new membership is always at the top of the lists for Regional goals. This class kills both birds with one stone. It will bring parity back to ITS while drawing entries from Honda Challenge, NASA, Porsche Club and BMW CCA club racing. Since each Region runs their Club Racing program differently, it would be up to them to slot ITR in where appropriate for car counts in that region. For some regions, running ITR with ITS until numbers dictated a split should be easy. For other regions, ITR may more realistically fit with T1/T2/SPO/SPU. In any event, high car counts should not be an unsolvable problem. Anytime a Region has too many entries, it is a good problem to have.

• Safety concerns with higher speeds

Since this will be proposed for 2007, it should fall in line with the re-organization of the cage rules category-wide. We request Touring car-level cages be required.

• Concerns with making “IT” a more expensive class.

While some of the cars in this class are more expensive, this is not a reason to limit the current class structure by eliminating cars that can be or are affordable to many in the racing industry. Affordable “used” cars are available from the T1, T2, T3, SSA, SSB and SSC ranks. Additionally, many of the cars listed on the attached spreadsheet can be had for between $3-6k – the price of a decent Prelude, E36 or Integra GSR ITS shell these days. Additionally, ITR may reduce the cost of racing in ITS as many cheap, presently non-competitive chassis, will now have a chance in ITS and may actually be built by members now that they are potentially competitive.
III. The Ruleset

We propose no changes to the Improved Touring ruleset to accommodate this class, other than the following:

1. ITR maximum wheel width is 8.5 inches.

2. Cage rules should be in line with SCCA Touring classes.

3. AWD and forced induction cars will not presently be classed in ITR.

IV. The Proposed ITR Class

Attached is a spreadsheet with over 30 cars representing our first pass at the cars that should make up in the initial classification for ITR in the ITCS along with anticipated race weights using the ITAC’s classification process. Manufacturers represented include BMW, Porsche, Honda, Acura, Nissan, Audi and others.

We all stand ready to answer any questions you may have about this proposal. The goal would be an approval from the ITAC / CRB / BoD in time for a 2007 implementation.

V. Conclusion

1. ITR will increase the number of cars available to members for building and racing. Furthermore, it will allow Improved Touring to showcase the automotive technology of the last five to 20 years.

2. ITR will bring peace to E36 325 BMW owners and tuners. They will have a place to run unrestricted, and at a reasonable weight. It is also anticipated that many of the “tuner” crowd will build and race Acuras, Hondas and other imports in ITS, as moving the 325 to ITR dispels the notion that you have to have a 325 to win in ITS. ITR will also be a viable venue for BMWCCA and PCA racers to race cars currently under competitive in their clubs and/or allow them to race at a higher level of preparation.

3. ITR will increase membership and participation in IT racing. Many of the competitive cars in ITS are presently older than members (and potential members) in their 20s. We hope to make available to them some of the popular models of the last five to 20 years in the hopes that they will build and race these cars.

4. We do not believe that ITR will unnecessarily “crowd” regional race weekends. ITR appears perfectly suited to run with either Big Bore closed wheel or ITS as it sits. When the class gains momentum, Regions will make space as needed.

5. ITR will provide a venue for several ex-SSB and T2/3 cars to race, once they are no longer eligible to run in SS or T.

This class will freshen Improved Touring, draw new members and retain ones that are seeking other outlets. It’s a win-win!
[/b]




Here is the list of ITR cars at the moment that are in the ITR proposal. Bear in mind the formatting might be a little off, and, some of the years are wrong (we know which ones) but the final draft/edit has not been done. Personally, I think there are a lot of cars to choose from and don&#39;t see any that stand out as perfect class winners, but I do know a few I&#39;d be interested in building!

Acura Integra Type R (98-01) DOHC I4
Acura Legend (91-95) SOHC V6
Acura RXS-S (02-04) DOHC I4
Acura TSX (04-06) DOHC I4
BMW 325i/is (92-95) DOHC I6
BMW 328i/328is (96-99) DOHC I6
BMW 330i (00-04) DOHC I6
BMW 635 (83-84) DOHC I6
BMW M3 (88-91) DOHC I4
BMW Z3 (97-00) DOHC I6
Chevy/Pontiac Camaro/Firebird (97-99) OHV V6
Ford Contour SVT (98-00) DOHC V6
Ford Mustang (99-04) SOHC V6
Ford Taurus SHO (89-95) DOHC V6
Honda Prelude (93-96) DOHC I4
Honda Prelude (97-01) DOHC I4
Honda S2000 (00-03) DOHC I4
Lexus IS300 (01-05) DOHC I6
Lexus SC300 (92-00) DOHCI6
Mazda 6 (02-04) DOHC V6
Mercedes SLK (00-03) SOHC V6
Mitsubishi 3000GT (non-turbo FWD) (91-93) DOHC V6
Nissan 300ZX (89-96) DOHC V6
Nissan Maxima (00-01) DOHC V6
Porsche 911SC (78-83) SOHC F6
Porsche 944S2 (89-91) DOHC I4
Porsche 968 (93-97) DOHC I4
Porsche Boxer (97-99) DOHC F6
Toyota Celica GTS (00-02) DOHC I4
Toyota Supra (87.5-92) DOHC I6
Toyota Supra (93-97) DOHC I6

I also think there will be room for a few other cars (notably the 94-95 Mustang GT, others too) in here but we wanted to be conservative on the first round through.

Best,
Ron
[/b]

billf
06-08-2006, 03:34 AM
Bill Miller,

Sorry...as you are right. I read your post where you quoted someone else, and just jumped SO fast as to mix up the signatures. My mind was WAY ahead of my fingers.

My only interest was the reference to Nelson and its configuration, as I&#39;m sure you knew.

Sorry for showing my clumsiness.

Good racing.

Bill :024:

Bill Miller
06-08-2006, 05:36 AM
Bill Miller,

Sorry...as you are right. I read your post where you quoted someone else, and just jumped SO fast as to mix up the signatures. My mind was WAY ahead of my fingers.

My only interest was the reference to Nelson and its configuration, as I&#39;m sure you knew.

Sorry for showing my clumsiness.

Good racing.

Bill :024:
[/b]


No sweat Bill, good racing to you!

dj10
06-13-2006, 12:44 PM
Has anyone given any thought how to address the cars with BIG 4 PISTON BREMBO BRAKES & ROTORS? Just wondering. :D

Ron Earp
06-13-2006, 02:24 PM
Has anyone given any thought how to address the cars with BIG 4 PISTON BREMBO BRAKES & ROTORS? Just wondering. :D
[/b]

Use them and enjoy them? The cars in ITR for the most part all have good brakes, no matter if they say Brembo on the side. Brakes were taken into account when classing the cars.

Ron

lateapex911
06-13-2006, 07:18 PM
Has anyone given any thought how to address the cars with BIG 4 PISTON BREMBO BRAKES & ROTORS? Just wondering. :D
[/b]
Have you found a favorite???

The process tkes into account outstanding strrengths and weaknesses per car and folds that into the classification procedure, as Ron pointed out.

That said, the IT philosophy isn&#39;t going to attempt to balance the entire class on the head of a pin, Prod style.

I am sure some cars will prove stronger in certain areas, and tracks, and have weaknesses in certain areas and tracks. Thats what makes it intersting!

dj10
06-14-2006, 11:02 AM
Have you found a favorite???

The process tkes into account outstanding strrengths and weaknesses per car and folds that into the classification procedure, as Ron pointed out.

That said, the IT philosophy isn&#39;t going to attempt to balance the entire class on the head of a pin, Prod style.

I am sure some cars will prove stronger in certain areas, and tracks, and have weaknesses in certain areas and tracks. Thats what makes it intersting! [/b]



I&#39;m glad to hear that. Now here&#39;s another question. We are suppose to get 17" Wheels, Bigger tires are suppose to help but the only advantage is tread width correct? Are we allowed to roll body work to allow for the wider tires?

Banzai240
06-14-2006, 11:42 AM
Bigger tires are suppose to help but the only advantage is tread width correct? [/b]

That&#39;s up to you to decide... ;)



Are we allowed to roll body work to allow for the wider tires?
[/b]

Standard IT rules... There shouldn&#39;t be a need for most cars on the list to make any major modifications to fit the allowed wheels...

Heck... I was able to fit a 16x10" wheel in the STOCK wheel-wells of my 1976 Trans-Am, which was lowered several inches, including moving the body down over the subframe... Just have to get the offsets right and fit the tires correctly for the wheel... :023:

lateapex911
06-14-2006, 05:57 PM
I&#39;m glad to hear that. Now here&#39;s another question. We are suppose to get 17" Wheels, Bigger tires are suppose to help but the only advantage is tread width correct? Are we allowed to roll body work to allow for the wider tires?
[/b]
Direct answer is Yes, that is allowed in the ITCS. AS Darin points out, it might not be needed...esp in a 70s Trans Am. :D

But....there is NO guarantee that every car will be able to run the limit at both ends..thats also part of the "Do your homework" mantra in choosing an IT car.

As far as advanteges, there are cases where narrower, or smaller diameter setups are better, but again, it&#39;s part of the research project.

BEJAY1
06-22-2006, 11:09 PM
i don&#39;t remember the specific weights of the various models, or their respective suspension designs or brake sizes. some of my years could very well be off a bit. given that these are all FWD, i would probably chose the 95-99yrs since they would likely have a lighter weight than the 6sp high hp model.
[/b]
Just wanted to jump in with some stock Maxima trim figures for anybody considering.
95-99 190h/205t ~3000lbs
00-01 222 & 227h/217t ~3200lbs

Engines are strong and reliable; unlike tranny. Both share 11" single piston front brakes. Front geometry, roll centers, etc. is problematic when lowering. Multi-link beam in rear. Limited aftermarket support compared with Sentra and Z families.

BudMan
06-23-2006, 10:30 AM
I&#39;m just glad we are making progress for this class, so I can race this:

http://www.nocoastracing.com/garage/BudMan/RacePhotos/04022006_FrontStraight-HPT_small.jpg

In something a little less difficult than this:
http://www.nocoastracing.com/garage/BudMan/RacePhotos/040206-HeartlandPark/DSC_1490_after.jpg

I can&#39;t wait to see this class come together. It would also save me from having to build a monster motor to get a podium.

Nice work to everyone involved.

Tom A
06-26-2006, 07:50 PM
The 911 is my sentimental fave, although it&#39;s a pricey choice, and the process doesn&#39;t account for the air cooled cars properly. Sad....
[/b]Just curious, what is the "Estimated Flywheel IT HP" based on?

In the case of the 911SC in particular, the engine in my 82 911 SC street car is modded hell and gone beyond what is IT legal (compression/cam/displacement)and I am way below that. Remember, those cars are Bosch K-Jet CIS, there isn&#39;t much you can do with the injection system. Porsche didn&#39;t leave much power on the table with those engines.

Tom

JeffYoung
06-26-2006, 10:46 PM
Well, we just roughed it out. Those numbers are guesstimates that are open to revision if good evidence to the contrary is presented.

Roughly speaking, we generally thought that most cars would see +25% gain in IT trim. Some do better (my car for example, with an old Rover 215 V8). Others, like the S2000, seem optimized from the factory and probably do worse.

If you have real world data on the 82 911 SC motor, meaning lists of mods and dynojet dyno sheets, would love to look at them and adjust the numbers if needed. What information do you have?

Tom A
06-27-2006, 02:03 AM
I sent you a PM, keep this thread on topic.

Tom

BobsAuto
07-04-2006, 08:09 AM
I thought that the ITR introduction paragraph in Fasttrack said the list included Audi&#39;s. I don&#39;t see a single one on the list. Does anyone know what is up?

Ron Earp
07-04-2006, 08:50 AM
I thought that the ITR introduction paragraph in Fasttrack said the list included Audi&#39;s. I don&#39;t see a single one on the list. Does anyone know what is up?
[/b]

We put it out there for flame bait!

Seriously, I&#39;ll check but I don&#39;t remember that in the proposal.

What Audis do you consider suitable for ITR or would you like to see? Remember, one of the core cars for this class is a 222hp Z car, naturally aspirated, as well as numerous BMWs >200hp, and some Jap FWDers with around 200hp at a light weight.

Ron

lateapex911
07-04-2006, 10:48 AM
And turbos, and AWD are no nos.

JeffYoung
07-04-2006, 02:26 PM
I too thought the 190 hp FWD (and normallyaspirated) 2.8 Audi A4 was on there. I&#39;ll double check when I get back to Raleigh and have reliable internet access.

mlytle
07-06-2006, 11:09 PM
maybe i can&#39;t see too well in my old age...did the REAL itr classification spreadsheet ever get posted anywhere? looking through the fastrack one shows some inconsistencies (like the z3 data) just looking for the real info.

thanks!

marshall
marrs itr #64

lateapex911
07-07-2006, 02:11 AM
My understanding is that the correct version will be printed next month.

mlytle
07-07-2006, 08:49 PM
My understanding is that the correct version will be printed next month.
[/b]

no advance copy from the itr committee??????

Knestis
07-07-2006, 09:41 PM
It&#39;s probably pretty important that any further dissemination of info come from the powers-that-be. Having more, potentially different versions floating around won&#39;t do anyone any good.

K

Zodiac
07-10-2006, 07:35 PM
Wow this is great news! Does anyone know when we may start seeing finalized rules, or at least a final list of eligible cars. I&#39;ve wanted to build a Porsche 968 for a few years now but it would be overmatched in ITE.

lateapex911
07-10-2006, 07:57 PM
The BoD will vote in August, and my guess is that it will be appoved, as 90% of what i read and hear is most positive, and the 10% is non categorical objections.

If it&#39;s approved, ITR will follow IT rules, except for wheel size.

Get that 968 out on the track in 07!!!!

Zodiac
07-12-2006, 12:13 AM
I&#39;ll try my best! Hopefully I can have it ready for late 07, but 08 for sure at the latest.

JeffYoung
07-12-2006, 01:04 AM
Zodiac illustrates the practical problem with "ITR 07" -- no cars. No one wants to buy a shell and get started at this point, with the class not actually approved. While a pro shop can build a car in a few months if ITR gets the green light in August or Sept., the reality is that most of us will have to spend a year finding a shell, the time and teh money to build a car.

So, BMW guys, looks like ITR is all yours next year. Maybe some other cars are easy converts? 944 S2 from PCA? Other 3.0 and 2.8 BMWs?

Zodiac, the 968 looks good for ITR (its on the list) but for the damned high cost of a shell. Still, I think it will make a fantastic race car. Where are you located by the way?

lateapex911
07-12-2006, 01:19 AM
jeff, I see the issue with the ramp up, but I think if the BoD gives the okie dokie in August, the guys many northern parts of the country have a good six months.

Some cars can be moved up from ITS. And as you point out, theres "converts" possible from other clubs, like the huge cache of 944s, and Integra Rs. And in a new class, there&#39;s no crime in taking a car out thats not fully developed.

I hope we can publish good news after the BoD meetings.

JoshS
07-12-2006, 01:26 AM
Zodiac illustrates the practical problem with "ITR 07" -- no cars. No one wants to buy a shell and get started at this point, with the class not actually approved. While a pro shop can build a car in a few months if ITR gets the green light in August or Sept., the reality is that most of us will have to spend a year finding a shell, the time and teh money to build a car.[/b]
Certainly not too many are going to even start until the class is approved. But I predict that if it were announced that ITR would be included at National events in &#39;07 and eligible for Runoffs in &#39;08, that you&#39;d get quite a bit of additional interest in &#39;07 ...

I&#39;m personally lobbying for this, as I don&#39;t think it does any harm* and it makes the class a possibility for those of us who like to run National races and the Runoffs. I think it would be good for the National community at large also, as it alleviates some of the concerns that have been going on in Showroom Stock and Touring.

* Yes, I&#39;ve read the threads here with concerns that National status would bring big money to the class. But I just don&#39;t buy that there&#39;s a huge problem with that. Most National drivers I know don&#39;t spend a lot of time at Regional races, and in many regions, the cost escalations are already there. Certainly this class is already going to be more expensive than other IT classes just from the list of cars eligible.

Knestis
07-12-2006, 10:03 AM
Lobby away but it doesn&#39;t fit the bigger picture - or the rules - for ITR to go straight to National status in one year. There are guidelines for that process and they should be followed.

K

Z3_GoCar
07-12-2006, 10:46 AM
Zodiac illustrates the practical problem with "ITR 07" -- no cars. No one wants to buy a shell and get started at this point, with the class not actually approved. While a pro shop can build a car in a few months if ITR gets the green light in August or Sept., the reality is that most of us will have to spend a year finding a shell, the time and teh money to build a car.

So, BMW guys, looks like ITR is all yours next year. Maybe some other cars are easy converts? 944 S2 from PCA? Other 3.0 and 2.8 BMWs?

Zodiac, the 968 looks good for ITR (its on the list) but for the damned high cost of a shell. Still, I think it will make a fantastic race car. Where are you located by the way?
[/b]

Jeff,

I&#39;d start the class at the beginning of the year, but I&#39;ve got some de-tunning to perform. An example is I&#39;ve had a drivers side head light assembly on order for a month now, and I&#39;ll also need a new hood as CRP won&#39;t fly, not to mention a new engine harness and computer amoung others. I could run but I&#39;d be illegal as he!!, and don&#39;t want to start off with the rep of a cheater, so for me mid-season makes a lot of sense.

James

Zodiac
07-13-2006, 08:36 PM
Zodiac illustrates the practical problem with "ITR 07" -- no cars. No one wants to buy a shell and get started at this point, with the class not actually approved. While a pro shop can build a car in a few months if ITR gets the green light in August or Sept., the reality is that most of us will have to spend a year finding a shell, the time and teh money to build a car.

So, BMW guys, looks like ITR is all yours next year. Maybe some other cars are easy converts? 944 S2 from PCA? Other 3.0 and 2.8 BMWs?

Zodiac, the 968 looks good for ITR (its on the list) but for the damned high cost of a shell. Still, I think it will make a fantastic race car. Where are you located by the way?
[/b]

I&#39;m located in Clifton, New Jersey. Though once I get everything ready I&#39;d like to make a few trips to some distant tracks.......VIR, Mid-Ohio, maybe even Road Atlanta.

Hehe your right on that cost issue and to tell you the truth it will definitely take me some time to develop it to a point where it could be competitive.
The reason is because like most of us I&#39;m not made of money and on top of that my workshop space is VERY limited.
I&#39;m pretty much running this out of my garage with a bit of help from my friends.
However the 968 is my favorite car from my favorite marque, and now I can race it in ITR, NASA Supercup and PT, and also PCA. Should be fun.

Bill Miller
07-16-2006, 10:14 AM
Lobby away but it doesn&#39;t fit the bigger picture - or the rules - for ITR to go straight to National status in one year. There are guidelines for that process and they should be followed.

K
[/b]

Agreed Kirk, but that camel got his nose in the tent a long time ago (see T3)!

dj10
07-16-2006, 04:04 PM
It&#39;s probably pretty important that any further dissemination of info come from the powers-that-be. Having more, potentially different versions floating around won&#39;t do anyone any good.

K [/b]



A little bit of an understatement. :D