I had wanted to reply to the other post earlier, but didn't have time. I realise that it is now locked, and I intend no disrespect to the board or moderators, but there were a few things I wanted to say.

First, I think that the 3rd generation Integra was a great design. The ITR would not be the car it is had the basic design of the 1994-2001 Integra not been so good to begin with. Yes, there is a lot different between the ITR and other models, but when you get down to it, they are mostly changes in details. Look at all the significant things that were not changed. The suspension mounting points, and the geometry of the suspension arms are the same. Suspension changes are extensive in number, but really they amount to little more than tuning. Things like bushings, wheel bearings, antisway bars, and spring and damper rates are not significant changes even though the result of said changes is. The engine, too, is an area where many changes were made, but often the changes are refinements of what was already there. The car was optomised, not revolutionised.

The ITR is an impressive car. But what I find most impressive is how refining the details made an already-great, long-in-the-tooth design into something that is still competitive today.

I request that this thread does not descend into a flame war, as I don't post much here these days and would like to see this as a discussion, not a brawl.

Thank you.

 

I couldn't agree with you more. That said, I believe that the total package the ITR offers over other teg's is greater than the sum of the individual "refinements."

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Batoutahell &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I couldn't agree with you more. That said, I believe that the total package the ITR offers over other teg's is greater than the sum of the individual "refinements."</TD></TR></TABLE>

I certainly agree. One cannot make an Integra into an ITR.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by MK Ultra &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Yes, there is a lot different between the ITR and other models, but when you get down to it, they are mostly changes in details. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Maybe.... But then again, the difference between our cars and RealTime racings race cars could be seen as just changing a few details too

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by George Knighton &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Something you might want to think about is how the differences between the Integra and the DC2-R compare to the differences between the RSX and the DC5-R, and the EP3 and the CTR.

In point of fact, there are far fewer changes to turn the modern designs into "R's" than there were to change the old design into an ITR.

My EP3, for example, is so rigid that I can't imagine ever buying a strut bar for it, much less having to thicken body panels or install extra bolstering to turn it into a track car.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Yes, and I do see that as a good thing.

In fact, a large part of why I don't understand the hoopla about having a DC5-R over here is that there is not a significant difference between the R chassis and the "lesser" chassis. While one cannot make a GS-R an ITR, I think it entirely reasonable to expect to make an RSX-S just as track-worthy as the DC5-R.

Also, I have to wonder why Honda didn't make all 3rd gen Integra chassis the same way as the DC2-R chassis starting in 1998 or so. Wouldn't you expect that such a move would have made sense? After all, they were making the R chassis at great expense, not so much because it was stiffer but because it was limited production. Had they made them all that way it may have increased the cost of production for a run-of-the-mill Integra, but I can't help but suspect it would have been evened out by the reduced cost of producing the R. And it would have made the Integra a better car.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by MK Ultra &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
In fact, a large part of why I don't understand the hoopla about having a DC5-R over here is that there is not a significant difference between the R chassis and the "lesser" chassis. While one cannot make a GS-R an ITR, I think it entirely reasonable to expect to make an RSX-S just as track-worthy as the DC5-R.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

This is all relative, you have to understand that it all comes down to money. You can change any car into just about anything. The whole idea of having a "typer" or equivalent is to get something that is above the norm for optimum price with Honda OEM quality and testing. I can easily make an ls into a better track car than a dc2-r with a deep pocket. but two things...

1: Its not a "R" and 2: Its only as good as the person/persons who modified the vehicle.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by TypeR 01 886 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I can easily make an ls into a better track car than a dc2-r with a deep pocket. </TD></TR></TABLE>

I'm not so sure about that. If it weren't for the stiffer chassis of the DC2-R, I'd probably agree with you, but there is a significant difference in structure between the DC2-R and DC2/DC4 chassis.

Looking at the potential of the K-series engines combined with equal stiffness in the respective cars' chassis, I don't think there's much reason to get excited about a DC5-R because quite frankly it should be easy to make the DC5-S just as good.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by MK Ultra &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

I'm not so sure about that. If it weren't for the stiffer chassis of the DC2-R, I'd probably agree with you, but there is a significant difference in structure between the DC2-R and DC2/DC4 chassis.

</TD></TR></TABLE>

Why do you refuse to believe that anyone with a little bit of change can improve the chassis and suspension of a regular DC2 so that it outperforms the DC2R on the track. You make it seem that the DC2R cannot be improved upon any further, so that it is impossible for another DC2 chassis to surpass it

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by MK Ultra &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

I'm not so sure about that. If it weren't for the stiffer chassis of the DC2-R, I'd probably agree with you, but there is a significant difference in structure between the DC2-R and DC2/DC4 chassis.
</TD></TR></TABLE>


This addresses a question I've had for a long long time...WHAT are the ACTUAL differences from say a RS/LS/GSR and an ITR....ASIDE from the sunroof in the GSR/LS; Why couldn't I buy a full ITR suspension, a B18C5 and tranny and have a ITR? Or could I? I've often heard things like "The shell itself is different" but not from sources I would trust....

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JoesTypeS &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">


This addresses a question I've had for a long long time...WHAT are the ACTUAL differences from say a RS/LS/GSR and an ITR....ASIDE from the sunroof in the GSR/LS; Why couldn't I buy a full ITR suspension, a B18C5 and tranny and have a ITR? Or could I? I've often heard things like "The shell itself is different" but not from sources I would trust....</TD></TR></TABLE>

 

As stated, with enough money it could be done. If i really wnated a track ***** then a lesser chassis would be just as good. With seam welding and a weld in cage it would all be the same especially as it would run full track spec suspension and bracing. The Type-R mods would become irrelevent. Having said that Type-Rs are obviously better...

 

Ok so nothing is majorly changed....a ITR = RS with crazy mods....sorta....I know it's not but you get it...right...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by canuck-mx6 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Why do you refuse to believe that anyone with a little bit of change can improve the chassis and suspension of a regular DC2 so that it outperforms the DC2R on the track. You make it seem that the DC2R cannot be improved upon any further, so that it is impossible for another DC2 chassis to surpass it</TD></TR></TABLE>

I don't outright refuse to believe it. But I am skeptical.

IIRC, somebody posted pics here a while ago that revealed one of Realtime's cars was actually a DC4, so that may go some way toward backing up what you say.

However, the reinforcements to the ITR chassis include thicker metal at the suspension mounting points, something no cage or seam weld can reproduce. Chassis rigidity is not simply its resistance to flex end-to-end or side-to-side.

In the end, the ITR does have a stiffer chassis, and while some of that can be reproduced in an all-out track-modified GS-R, I'd be reluctant to believe that all of it can. That doesn't mean I think the GS-R is a lesser car. It just is one area where I see the ITR as having an advantage.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Year One Racing &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">As stated, with enough money it could be done. If i really wnated a track ***** then a lesser chassis would be just as good. With seam welding and a weld in cage it would all be the same especially as it would run full track spec suspension and bracing. The Type-R mods would become irrelevent. Having said that Type-Rs are obviously better... </TD></TR></TABLE>

Then I would Argue that this is not the same car. I can take a Yugo and tear it aparts and seam weld it and add in a tube chasis and a Turbo Charger and a NSX engine and put a Ford Symbol on the front. So What do I have? You're splitting hairs on a debate that has limits to it's Description. With enough money I can get my Teg to fly to the moon.

Point: If you have the entire 3rd gen Integra Line up from LS to R Specs Side by side I think what most are trying to point out is that an ITR is NOT just a Trim Level. Can I change the interior and drop in the drive train and call it an R? The answer to that question is FLAT NO. The Type R is Nice but not flawless and sure one, with the $$$ can take a "lesser" Integra and make some design mods and make it just as track worthy as an R, but by the time you did all that you might as well have purchased a Type R in the First place

IMO: the term "LESSER Integra" is just not accurate. AS I stated in the last post. Each integra is built for a certain Demographic. (Certain Customers in mind) The Type R was designed for the enthusiast. Honda said, "How can we make the integra into a contender?" and there was born the Type R integra.

 

I think what might end this debate is if someone figured up how much $$$ in new parts it would cost to get a GS-R to pull .93 G's, brake in 115 feet, and do the 1/4 mile in around 14.5 seconds.

Just real quick using comptechs website:
brake upgrade: $1600 (on sale)
suspension package: $1300
shocktower bar: $230
sway bar: $400
tie bar: $150
lightweight wheels: $1200
intake: $190
header: $530
Cat: $100
Catback: $700
vafc: $200
flywheel: $450
Clutch $290
limited slip: $800

Total: $8140 and its still not going to do the 1/4 mile as quick, or be as light or as stiff.

My guess is after labor, to get a GS-R to ITR specs would cost over $10,000.

 

Yep, if you look at the cost-to-cost of a stock R vs. a GSR prepared to "R" standards, the R will come out cheaper. And as you said, if you were to take into account every detail, i.e. weight reduction, same power from the engine, etc., that difference just escalates. This is exactly the reason why I waited to get an R rather than getting a GSR sooner and spending loads of money on it.

 

I remember in 97 when the R first came out, SportCompactCar mag did a test, the ITR vs their "project GSR" (it had I/H/E, susp, brakes, wheels, etc), and the ITR trounced it in all measured performance tests. They definitely had more $ in the project GSR....and no 4yr/50k warranty, either

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JoesTypeS &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Ok so nothing is majorly changed....a ITR = RS with crazy mods....sorta....I know it's not but you get it...right...</TD></TR></TABLE>

 

kinda makes me think of Animal Farm. All integras are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Spending mass amounts of cash, you could easily make any DC2/DC4 just as track worthy as an R, but it still would not be a Type-R. It's just like with the factory Cup GT3s you can get from porsche (although on a lesser scale). Sure you can take any 996 911 and build it to be just as good of a track car as the factory race car, but it still will not be the same. And i have to say I would trust the engineering and design put forth by honda on the chassis development a little bit more than my own. I'd much rather have a Type-R, which is why I'm now working on getting one. Sure any integra is great and can be made into one hell of a track car, but I, personally, would prefer to have the R for my starting point. Thats just me though.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Year One Racing &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">As stated, with enough money it could be done. If i really wnated a track ***** then a lesser chassis would be just as good. With seam welding and a weld in cage it would all be the same especially as it would run full track spec suspension and bracing. The Type-R mods would become irrelevent. Having said that Type-Rs are obviously better... </TD></TR></TABLE>

Well put and I agree completely.

I think the whole point though is that the ITR as a complete package is a great "factory race prepped" car you can take to the track and be competitive with if you wanted to...up to a point. Of course you wouldn't be racing wheel-to-wheel racing with your brand new car minus a cage.

-Todd

 

well an m3 is a 330

 

Yes ITR's are better than the other model Integra's, but they're not a totally different car. 1/4 mile and 0-60 times can change very quickly depending on what mods you have. A boosted LS or GS-R can easily take out an ITR. However, we all know tha the chassis of the ITR is better. But like someone had already said, if you have the $$ then you can make any car handle or accelerate better...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by sscguy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">And as you said, if you were to take into account every detail, i.e. weight reduction, same power from the engine, etc., that difference just escalates. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Thats the thing. I mean ****, a GS-R does 0-60 in what 7.2 seconds? The ITR in 6.2... Ask yourself what would you have to do to an ITR to get it 1 second quicker(5.2). Its not easy. The latteral acceleration on a GS-R sucks. The latteral accel on a ITR is better than most ferraris....

 

Just a reminder to everyone to keep it civil, or I'll delete this thread myself.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by jond &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Thats the thing. I mean ****, a GS-R does 0-60 in what 7.2 seconds? The ITR in 6.2... Ask yourself what would you have to do to an ITR to get it 1 second quicker(5.2). Its not easy. The latteral acceleration on a GS-R sucks. The latteral accel on a ITR is better than most ferraris....

</TD></TR></TABLE>

How well do you think the ITR would have done in those instrumented magazine tests had it been wearing the tires that come stock on the GS-R?

Seriously, the GS-R came with terrible tires. Lateral acceleration, braking and even acceleration times suffer simply from that. One of the many reasons I consider such numbers invalid and irrelevant.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by MK Ultra &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">How well do you think the ITR would have done in those instrumented magazine tests had it been wearing the tires that come stock on the GS-R?

Seriously, the GS-R came with terrible tires. Lateral acceleration, braking and even acceleration times suffer simply from that. One of the many reasons I consider such numbers invalid and irrelevant. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Thats a really good point. Had the gsr and Type-R been on the same tires I'm sure the numbers would've been drastically different.