Sorry I didn't chime in sooner Steve, but I've been away on business and testing the Rolex car in preparation for the Utah race next week.
Let me give a little history on the ITA MR2 that folks are saying can make weight (or at least get close). I did not build it. Mark Chaplin (was running a CRX in Production last I talked with him and qualified for the Runoffs once with it) did. The cage was custom built by Mark and was "ahead of it's time" with door bars and the rear strut tubes (unique to MR2s and Del Sols last time I checked the ITCS). I happen to believe that removing/running without the factory glass (driver and rear) for both those cage items is much lighter. I did have to add another short harness bar when the shoulder harness angle rule changed a bit. The only things I did to lighten the car was to remove all the undercoating and remove the passenger seat (when that rule change kicked in). That being said, the only legal way I know of to make Steve's car lighter is to remove what is left of the factory wiring harness that is not necessary. I have read in more than one place that the 1985 AW11 chassis were the only ones that could get close to min weight. I don't know any specific reasons for the later years to be heavier. Steve's car/my former car is an '85.
As for the prep of the motor currently in Steve's car and making 109 rwhp, it was done at great expense by a professional builder in Ontario (TED). He did not fill me in on all the details of the build (most pro engine builders won't), but emphasized that he would keep it legal and push it to the max that the rules allowed. The only thing I think on that motor that has not been done/explored for more power is the ECU. It has been re-flashed/re-worked for a higher rpm limiter, but no fuel/ignition map changes. I did get access to a factory Firehawk ECU once (before the TED build) and the rev limit change was the only noticable difference, but I did not get a chance to dyno the Firehawk ECU. I would also point out that Steve's car is one of the few ITA MR2s I've seen that did not bend the "no mods to the intake downstream of the AFM". Most have changed the tubing just upstream of the throttle body so as to fit the AFM at the throtle body and a free-flow cone filter to the AFM. I found the only way to retain the factory tubing between the AFM and the TB, was to use a short HKS mushroom free-flow filter.
If I still had the car, I'd happily add some weight to get into ITB (which was being tried when I bought the car in 1997). I will say, however, that the single biggest lap time gain I made with the car was switching from the 14X6 rims I got with the car, to 14X7 rims and a slightly wider rear tire (same front tire size).
Let me give a little history on the ITA MR2 that folks are saying can make weight (or at least get close). I did not build it. Mark Chaplin (was running a CRX in Production last I talked with him and qualified for the Runoffs once with it) did. The cage was custom built by Mark and was "ahead of it's time" with door bars and the rear strut tubes (unique to MR2s and Del Sols last time I checked the ITCS). I happen to believe that removing/running without the factory glass (driver and rear) for both those cage items is much lighter. I did have to add another short harness bar when the shoulder harness angle rule changed a bit. The only things I did to lighten the car was to remove all the undercoating and remove the passenger seat (when that rule change kicked in). That being said, the only legal way I know of to make Steve's car lighter is to remove what is left of the factory wiring harness that is not necessary. I have read in more than one place that the 1985 AW11 chassis were the only ones that could get close to min weight. I don't know any specific reasons for the later years to be heavier. Steve's car/my former car is an '85.
As for the prep of the motor currently in Steve's car and making 109 rwhp, it was done at great expense by a professional builder in Ontario (TED). He did not fill me in on all the details of the build (most pro engine builders won't), but emphasized that he would keep it legal and push it to the max that the rules allowed. The only thing I think on that motor that has not been done/explored for more power is the ECU. It has been re-flashed/re-worked for a higher rpm limiter, but no fuel/ignition map changes. I did get access to a factory Firehawk ECU once (before the TED build) and the rev limit change was the only noticable difference, but I did not get a chance to dyno the Firehawk ECU. I would also point out that Steve's car is one of the few ITA MR2s I've seen that did not bend the "no mods to the intake downstream of the AFM". Most have changed the tubing just upstream of the throttle body so as to fit the AFM at the throtle body and a free-flow cone filter to the AFM. I found the only way to retain the factory tubing between the AFM and the TB, was to use a short HKS mushroom free-flow filter.
If I still had the car, I'd happily add some weight to get into ITB (which was being tried when I bought the car in 1997). I will say, however, that the single biggest lap time gain I made with the car was switching from the 14X6 rims I got with the car, to 14X7 rims and a slightly wider rear tire (same front tire size).
My car is definitely a 'tweener'. It wasn't that way a few years ago but has now become one. With the Acura being moved from ITS and the Hondas getting faster the car has been moved down the field in ITA. Despite trying to get my car to go faster (spending $$$$), losing part of the extra 100 lbs that it has been given (thanks but we can't make the weight legally) and learning to drive even better; it is still losing ground. I'm not surprised this has happened as the car is now 25 years old and running against new technology. I have great races with the ITB cars (upper mid pack) in sprint races and the only way I can win in ITA is by running 12 hour enduro's waiting for the others to break. Make no mistake the car is very well developed and we continue to improve it every week. Now as no surprise either Mazda has discontinued the 12a engine parts. Unlike piston engines we can not legally under IT rules repair our housings unlike piston engines can with a reboring of the cylinders. I bring this fact up as future options for this car will be for me to run a 13b engine and change to ITS. At this point the 1st gen ITS car is out classed just like the ITA car in the field. I'm now at the point of: Do I continue to try and develop this car and change classes down the road just to be in the same position I'm in now? Not very good incentive, so I would like to have some options of classes available to me, adding weight is indeed easier and cheaper in the long run. This also allows us older and over weight drivers to continue to eat and drink beer. 
I don't expect to be up front but I would like to have a choice to drink real beer rather than light beer ....that would definitely change my perspective on continuing to wrench on my elderly car. My vote for the future would be to let us make the choice on weight. I see nothing wrong with the formula; cars just naturally become slower to the field with time. I would also suggest that from time to time (if this isn't already being done) for the ITAC to look at the potential 'tweeners' and see if it's time for them to move. 
Yes, I crossed the line but the line is SO close to the ITA MR2. Not said with a 
, said with a 
.
