Pony Car Proposal for ITR

[EDIT



I'd be curious to know why you have this expectation, Steve...[/quote]

Simple Kirk. I know that some that are fully aware of the actual numbers a RX8 makes in IT trim think it is cute to stick to the process and screw the car. I know the numbers of HP and torque both the E36 and the 944 make and their weight. Find anyone who can make more than 200-205 whp in a RX8. Now I will show you 10 that can make 210 plus out of the E36 and 25% more torque. You guys have a tough job but I can back up my numbers with real world data. I am biased and have a vested interest in seeing the car classed. I want to race one. I have a RX7 that was classed by "known data" instead of the process or it would be 150 lbs lighter. That would be wrong and so would classing the RX8 by unobtainable numbers. The CRB has full access to the numbers for this motor--they do put these in pro formula Mazda. Did you even bother to ask?? I'm good either way, I have other cars to race. I will understand if you guys played conservative. You will not see me post either way after it is published. Just judge your work by how many get built.:023:
 
>> I know that some that are fully aware of the actual numbers a RX8 makes in IT trim think it is cute to stick to the process and screw the car....

If there are ITAC members with that motivation, they sure didn't make themselves known in our conversations. I'm still new enough, with enough naiveté, that I'd call them on that kind of crap and I'm confident that I wouldn't have been alone. If those "some" are members who are writing letters, that's a separate issue and we just have to continue working to sort the signal from the noise of member input.

I share your concerns with "known data." The problem is that we can have four people who are all equally sure that they "know" something tell us four different things. The MR2 question got terribly mired down when we tried to do the right thing and started actively looking for "real-world data." We were sure it could make ITA weight, sure it couldn't make ITA weight, sure it would respond to IT engine improvements comparable to other cars, and sure there was no way it could. Heck, we were sure that people wanted it moved and sure that people didn't.

Thanks for sharing your perspective on this and one way or another, I for one would respect and like to hear your thoughts re: the final outcome.

K
 
seckerich said:
[EDIT



I'd be curious to know why you have this expectation, Steve...
Click to expand...

Simple Kirk. I know that some that are fully aware of the actual numbers a RX8 makes in IT trim think it is cute to stick to the process and screw the car. I know the numbers of HP and torque both the E36 and the 944 make and their weight. Find anyone who can make more than 200-205 whp in a RX8. Now I will show you 10 that can make 210 plus out of the E36 and 25% more torque. You guys have a tough job but I can back up my numbers with real world data. I am biased and have a vested interest in seeing the car classed. I want to race one. I have a RX7 that was classed by "known data" instead of the process or it would be 150 lbs lighter. That would be wrong and so would classing the RX8 by unobtainable numbers. The CRB has full access to the numbers for this motor--they do put these in pro formula Mazda. Did you even bother to ask?? I'm good either way, I have other cars to race. I will understand if you guys played conservative. You will not see me post either way after it is published. Just judge your work by how many get built.:023:[/quote]

Steve, like you I'd love to see the RX8 get into ITR, it would be great for the class, SCCA and I'm sick of racing against all BMW's right now (although I've had some good races). If I wanted to join & race the BMW club I would have done so a long time ago. :) You mentioned 205 hp, is the crank or rear wheel? Jeff sent me a dyno chart and if I remember correctly it showed 160 rwhp. Which is correct? I do believe the ITAC and CRB have to verify the potential of any car just to make sure it will fit, don't you think? Aren't the other factors like areodynamics, brakes and suspension also evaluated? If you haven't, I would suggest you submit the weight you think the car should race at and the dyno sheets and get the ball rolling.
Let me know if I can help.
 
dj10 said:
Steve, like you I'd love to see the RX8 get into ITR, it would be great for the class, SCCA and I'm sick of racing against all BMW's right now (although I've had some good races). If I wanted to join & race the BMW club I would have done so a long time ago. :) You mentioned 205 hp, is the crank or rear wheel? Jeff sent me a dyno chart and if I remember correctly it showed 160 rwhp. Which is correct? I do believe the ITAC and CRB have to verify the potential of any car just to make sure it will fit, don't you think? Aren't the other factors like areodynamics, brakes and suspension also evaluated? If you haven't, I would suggest you submit the weight you think the car should race at and the dyno sheets and get the ball rolling.
Let me know if I can help.
Click to expand...

Steve provided a ton of info already. 205hp at the wheels is what his documentation said is absolute max. Years of GAC (with MoTec) and Formula Mazda (with MoTec) was the foundation for his information.
 
I am pretty sure that 205hp is crank - unless he means race trim rear wheel hp.

The dyno shop we frequent here in Durham had an RX7/RX8 club by last year. When Jeff and I were there with the Z and TR8 last week I asked to look at a few of the old plots showing RX8s. Sure, these cars were in street trim with expensive bolt ons but the results were disappointing - around 130-140 tq or so, about 155-165 rwhp. I only saw two plots but they were both about the same. I suppose more can be had in race trim, but Steve E would be the best source for that knowledge.

The dyno guy had a chuckle (they are a huge GM LS/LT shop) about the results as well. They did show us a 2nd Gen with a LS1 motor installed, now that is the way to go!
 
Last edited:
Andy Bettencourt said:
Steve provided a ton of info already. 205hp at the wheels is what his documentation said is absolute max. Years of GAC (with MoTec) and Formula Mazda (with MoTec) was the foundation for his information.
Click to expand...

Andy, what's the hold up with the RX8 then? Is it just the weight issue? I apologize if you have to be redundent.
 
To be clear, the numbers I have seen are:

205 whp for a fully developed Grand Am cup car motor.

anywhere from 155 to 190 whp for street motors.

Take the two together and you have a mess. There are some who swear the 230ish crank number from Mazda is total BS and they have 155 to 160 whp stock dyno plots to back that up. There are some who say that this was an easily correctable ECU fix, and that after the fix, you saw 180 to 190 easy.

Then, there are Steve's full build numbers which suggest you get next to nothing out of the motor by doing "IT things" to it.

Again, this is why I'd like to know what the ITAC looked (and in particular if they looked at the Pro Mazda motors), what stock dyno sheets, what information on the ECU, etc. Because it is critical to resolve this controversy to get the actual hp right.



Ron Earp said:
I am pretty sure that 205hp is crank - unless he means race trim rear wheel hp.

The dyno shop we frequent here in Durham had an RX7/RX8 club by last year. When Jeff and I were there with the Z and TR8 last week I asked to look at a few of the old plots showing RX8s. Sure, these cars were in street trim with expensive bolt ons but the results were disappointing - around 130-140 tq or so, about 155-165 rwhp. I only saw two plots but they were both about the same. I suppose more can be had in race trim, but Steve E would be the best source for that knowledge.

The dyno guy had a chuckle (they are a huge GM LS/LT shop) about the results as well. They did show us a 2nd Gen with a LS1 motor installed, now that is the way to go!
Click to expand...
 
Is that a "Thank you for your input."?

I'm kidding Andy. It's all good. But you and both know this one could be a damn time bomb either way.
 
I am 100% sure that the RX-8 guys won't be happy and the non-RX-8 guys won't be happy. Like Kirk said, the range of weights this car 'needed' to be to be correct was around 400lbs based on member input... :0
 
JeffYoung said:
Is that a "Thank you for your input."?

I'm kidding Andy. It's all good. But you and both know this one could be a damn time bomb either way.
Click to expand...


you're right, it could be. but can we at least hold off on the bitching until AFTER the spec line is released? :blink:
 
tnord said:
you're right, it could be. but can we at least hold off on the bitching until AFTER the spec line is released? :blink:
Click to expand...

Travis, I agree with you at this point. I'm confident that if the CRB & ITAC has all the correct info it will be classed correctly.
 
Guys, not trying to stir up trouble, but that is the point. I just want to know what info was used to set the weight. On this car, stuff is all over the board.
 
Jeff's done a good job of illustrating why we struggle with "what we know." We looked at all that stuff and more but the big challenge becomes how much weight to give often conflicting evidence. Everyone is absolutely POSITIVE of their numbers and rationale, so they all speak the Truth, right? :)

AND remember that more than a few of us see a primary part of our ITAC mission as preventing the entire operation from getting sucked into the dynamic that many (most?) of the folks around here think poisoned the Production/GT well. By even ENGAGING in discussions about dyno sheets, the effect of different chips, aero drag and other minutiae, the category gets pulled that leeettle bit closer to trying to balance performance on the head of pin, and to competition adjustments (bleah!).

K
 
True dat. I'm hoping this one car is a total exception and on others we just use the process. Cause on this car, I just don't know what to believe. I see the case for 3000 lbs. I see the case for 2700 lbs. The stuff over 3000 lbs is crap though and just designed to torpedo it.

Knestis said:
AND remember that more than a few of us see a primary part of our ITAC mission as preventing the entire operation from getting sucked into the dynamic that many (most?) of the folks around here think poisoned the Production/GT well. By even ENGAGING in discussions about dyno sheets, the effect of different chips, aero drag and other minutiae, the category gets pulled that leeettle bit closer to trying to balance performance on the head of pin, and to competition adjustments (bleah!).

K
Click to expand...
 
Knestis said:
Can we tell them about the dart board then?

K
Click to expand...
Damn, I though all you high-tech types would at least be making use of computer technology for this stuff...you know, random number generators, internet polls, that kind of thing...
 
JeffYoung said:
True dat. I'm hoping this one car is a total exception and on others we just use the process. Cause on this car, I just don't know what to believe. I see the case for 3000 lbs. I see the case for 2700 lbs. The stuff over 3000 lbs is crap though and just designed to torpedo it.
Click to expand...

5700/2= 2850 :shrug: how hard is that?:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top