SCCA ITR class proposal

[emcon5]

The new June Fastrack has a proposal for a new Improved Touring class above ITS, ITR. If this comes to pass, there will be another place for some types of Porsches to race.

http://www.scca.org/_FileLibrary/File/06-7-fastrack.pdf

It appears the inclusion of the 928 on that list is a mistake, so ignore it.

Model Year/Stock HP/Eng Type/Displace/Est IT HP/Rounded Spec Weight


Boxster 97-99 201 DOHC F6 2.5 251 2830
911SC 78-83 180 SOHC F6 3.0 225 2630
944S2 89-91 208 DOHC I4 3.0 250 2810
968 93-97 236 DOHC I4 3.0 271 3055
944S 87-88 188 DOHC I4 2.5 226 2540

It does look like at least the SC will be an underdog, if they think that IT legal mods will get 225HP at the flywheel.

[tc-sacto]

I'm with you Tom. I think the Toyo 911 cars with 1 5/8 headers and 40id webers are making 215-210 flywheel hp. all other internals unchanged. good luck getting 225 without none IT legal changes such as cam change or other exotic internal changes....(twin plug..etc)


Also the boxster at 250 IT hp...no way!!!! I make 247 at flywheel with a super charger....certainly not IT legal

[jluetjen]

You need to also take a look at the other cars. The SCCA's HP estimates may be just as good for them -- or not.

[GDSOB]

So what can we expect for the HP increase for IT Prep?

Here's what I see allowed:

.040 overbore
Port matching only, no porting
.5 compression increase
Free exhaust
Intake free upto fuel system
Ignition free - no crank fire

Not sure about FI changes

I was thinking 10 hp increase on my 2.2E would be about it.

[jluetjen]

The 2.2E is in ITS if my memory is correct. You're right, I doubt that you'll gain much from making any changes except for taking advantage of the CR increase. If you had a 2.4E, you might gain a little top end by "port matching" the intake ports, but with a 2.2 I doubt that it will get you much.

SC's will benefit from backdating the exhaust or using SSI's, and mildly from the CR increase. From what I've seen of 911 intake ports, port matching isn't going to get you much.

Looking at the total list, I'm thinking that the "hot picks" will be the BMW's based on their success in ITS. But then look at the HP handicap they're giving those cars, more then the estimated 45 HP increase that was imparted on the 911SC.



Now if you re-sort the list in terms of lbs/est. HP, you can start to see what the SCCA's doing. It looks like ~11.3 lbs/hp is the target for non-FWD cars. The SC seems to be marginally heavy in the lbs/HP category. But then take a look at the estimated HP increase for each car. The 45 HP gain for the SC is actually in the lower half of the distribution, with the BMW's, Lexuses and Supras presumed to gain over 60 HP from IT spec tuning.


So, all in all the 911SC may not be a bad deal, but I wonder if the Boxster may be a better option. Especially when compared to the Honda S2000 which will be dragging around a whopping 1.5 tons with it's little 2 liter engine! The 944S 2.5 on the other hand will be the lightest RWD car (although, I believe that this car was included as a mistake). The 911SC is the second lightest RWD car. So there may be some opportunities for Porsches with the new class.

[tc-sacto]

I'd be betting on the Acura Integra type R for that class

[jluetjen]

For comparison, here are the Speed GT and Speed WC weight tables.

[GDSOB]

Thanks John, yes I was referring to my 2.2E in ITS.

Good to see the SC's have a place to race.

I thought the way the ITR concept came to be was very interesting. Alot of racers wanted to classify faster cars in IT without restrictor plates. From what I can tell, a group of guys hashed out the details on the improved touring web forum and then submitted the final proposal the SCCA comp board. It truly is a club.

Now, on to D Production...

[Geo31]

Y'all would be surprised what a quality race engine builder can do with IT prep. Jon Milledge gets 185 bhp from the 2.5 liter 8v 944 engines. That's a figure most folks here and and Rennlist believe to be impossible. Yet, Jon does it. And that is without a MoTeC.

As one of the people involved with the ITR proposal and a member of the ITAC along with Jake Gulick who also frequents here (and owns a 911 and a 944S2), I can assure you that every car was classified with the intent on all cars having the same chance.

[armandodiaz]

[i]It appears the inclusion of the 928 on that list is a mistake, so ignore it.

[/B]

Doubt it, did you ever drive an old 928? Dogs, and at 3080lbs it's a sledge. I agree the VTECs should have an advantage, but it as always, in the end, it's up to the driver.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by armandodiaz
Doubt it, did you ever drive an old 928? Dogs, and at 3080lbs it's a sledge.

don't tell Mark Anderson that...

[emcon5]

Originally posted by armandodiaz
Doubt it, did you ever drive an old 928? Dogs, and at 3080lbs it's a sledge. I agree the VTECs should have an advantage, but it as always, in the end, it's up to the driver.

No, the 928 was a mistake (as was the weight of the RSX-S), as reported by the guys who made the list on the Improved Touring forum. SCCA somehow included an early draft of the list with the fastrack.

Todd, are you talking about Mark Kibort? His car is prepped a bit beyond IT I believe. His car is set up to Speed World Challenge GT specs.

He has a highlight video up here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2935357979005483067&q=video+928+racing

Tom

[armandodiaz]

Tom, I didn't want to start a 928 war, but it wouldn't have surprised me to see the 928 on the list. It did state 78-82, which sounds about right especially @ 3080lbs.

As for the video, it's an S4 (totally different beast).
What sanctioning body is that? Is it club racing or bumper cars I want to make sure I stay away, I can't afford to go to the bodyshop every month

[nostatic]

No, Mark Anderson:

http://www.928intl.com/race/index.htm

Yeah, it's just a tad prepped

[emcon5]

Originally posted by armandodiaz
Tom, I didn't want to start a 928 war, but it wouldn't have surprised me to see the 928 on the list. It did state 78-82, which sounds about right especially @ 3080lbs.

It wouldn't suprise me either. I am just trying to make it clear that the guys who made the list are saying the 928, for whatever reason, shouldn't be on it. SCCA screwed the pooch and instead of including the final proposed list in Fastrack, published an early draft. I honestly don't care either way.

As for the video, it's an S4 (totally different beast).
What sanctioning body is that? Is it club racing or bumper cars I want to make sure I stay away, I can't afford to go to the bodyshop every month

I think most of that was from the Speed World Challenge GT series, although some of it was SFR SCCA, where Mark runs ITE.

Tom

[Geo31]

Originally posted by emcon5
It wouldn't suprise me either. I am just trying to make it clear that the guys who made the list are saying the 928, for whatever reason, shouldn't be on it.

As a) one of the guys involved with making the list, and b) one of the guys on the committee that is recommending the proposal to the Club Racing Board, I can tell you right now that a final decision has not been made regarding the 928. I've made my recommendation, but nothing is final at this point.

[addictionMS]

just an FYI 3.0 Toyo Cup Cars are getting between 240 and 260 at the flywheel with 1.5 inch headers and 46mm webers.

Jim

[emcon5]

Originally posted by Geo31
As a) one of the guys involved with making the list, and b) one of the guys on the committee that is recommending the proposal to the Club Racing Board, I can tell you right now that a final decision has not been made regarding the 928. I've made my recommendation, but nothing is final at this point.

My statement is based on comments here:
http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8334
And the list here:
http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8126

Tom

[Geo31]

Originally posted by emcon5
My statement is based on comments here:
http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8334
And the list here:
http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8126

Tom

Tom, I'm quite familiar with the IT Forum. If you'd rather listen to what you read there, that's fine. I'll stop posting. But as I said, I was involved with the proposal and am on the IT Advisory Committee, i.e., an insider. The ITAC just had a conference call on Monday where this topic was discussed. The status of the 928 is not settled at this time.

[jaydubya]

A couple of questions for those of you familiar with SCCA rules and IT rules:

Can the intake system be completely replaced? For instance, on an SC, can fuel injection or carbs be substituted for the CIS?

For the weights, are those with driver and gas, or just gas?

Someone should show "them" the list that jluetjen posted and ask why the SC is at 11.69 lbs/HPest while all the other non-FWD cars are around 11.25.

My guess is that you could get 215 hp at the crank with headers and carbs on the SC. Not sure you could get 225 though. The other changes that might help (overbore, compression increase) are expensive and would require me to take apart a perfectly good motor.

I'm wondering about the feasibility of setting up a car that could run in both PCA stock classes and SCCA ITR. I guess adding carbs would move you up two classes in PCA to E.

If someone could point me to a link for SCCA IT rules that would be very helpful. Wondering about brake upgrades, etc.

Cheers,

Jeff