Okay, so thanks to the valuable input from you guys, I gave up on the idea of running a 99 Si in SSC and H3/5. So, the quest continues for which car will serve me best. All the CRXers say the Rex is best, all the 1st gen Integra-ers (Integers? ha ha) say go with an integra, but what about the 94-95 Civic Si Hatchback runners? Seems like it would be a decent ride for H4 (Power to weight ratio exceeds the Rex, with the Si at only +120lbs min. wt. in H4 than the CRX with 17+ stock HP...I think the stock torque numbers are closer together, though), but does anyone have experience with it in ITS? Almost seems like it should be in ITA with a higher minimum weight, considering most H4's are in ITA.

Please limit your replies to anyone that has had experience here with this car. I don't want alot of "I've never even seen one up close, but I don't think it would be good" posts, as there are such a wide variety of opinions here (which is a good thing, keeps life interesting) but makes it hard for me to narrow down my options.

 

Friend has one that he runs in ITS. It's totally in the wrong SCCA class, very uncompetitive. He hasn't tried NASA yet but will this year due to the situation in ITS. If I were you I'd be looking at the fields for SCCA & NASA in your area. The most fun is the classes with lots of entries. Not much fun being the fastest H2 car if only one other car shows up.

 

I agree completely, Jeremy. That's what I'm trying to avoid.

Anyone have experience trying to get a car changed from being classed uncompetetively in one class to competetively in another? I realize there are so many cars out there with different characteristics that it's damn near impossible to cater to every car.

 

Rolled in ITS. Great for H4.

I think there are EG classed in ITA and ITC. Those might be a better choice. The CX would be ITC/H5. Not sure which ones are ITA.

 

Have you considered a 2nd gen Integra? Great for H4 and ITA.

 

The '96 and newer EX Coupe is already listed in ITA - I did the request and, perhaps surprisingly, it was approved.

The '94-95 version is headed from ITS to ITA at the beginning of 2005. The '94-95 Si is in S but will NOT be included in the move because the wacky SCCA rule process requires that someone actually asks for each change individually, regardless of how much sense it might make to think of similar cars at the same time. For the same reason, the '92-93 Coupes are not currently in ITS, so won't be moved to A since they were never classified in the first place.

All that said, it would not be difficult to get the additions made, since the specs for the various years are identical and the precedent has been set.

One work-around would be to request that the '92-93 EX Coupe be initially listed in ITA. It would not be a move so could happen before 2005 - I think. I don't remember now if the Si built in '92 and '93 but, if it was, it could be poked into A the same way.

K

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by SPiFF &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Rolled in ITS. Great for H4.

I think there are EG classed in ITA and ITC. Those might be a better choice. The CX would be ITC/H5. Not sure which ones are ITA.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

I raced a 92-95 (94) CHB DX in SCCA ITA, and N.A.S.A. H5
I sucked as a driver and am not racing right now. I did not get the car fully prepped to the limit of the rules. I considered myself to be an Alex Yoong of club racing, had enough money to make the scene. I enjoyed it.

In retrospect in Norcal N.A.S.A. H5 I felt I had a fighting chance in H5. I left racing soon after the series started.

 

In Honda Challenge H4, I would still say that the CRX has the advantage over the Civic Si. The CRX can put out 120-122whp in legal trim. There have been plenty examples Civic EX/Si engines that I have seen put down 128-131whp. In H4, weights are 2175 to 2305. That means 130lbs for 8-9whp & a longer wheelbase for the Civic.

As mentioned above, the 2nd Gen Integra is something to look @ for ITA/HC. It doesn't have as good a hp/lb ratio but it has a huge advantage in torque.


Modified by civicrr at 10:28 PM 3/14/2004


Modified by civicrr at 10:29 PM 3/14/2004

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by civicrr &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">As mentioned above, the 2nd Gen Integra is something to look @ for ITA/HC. It doesn't have as good a hp/lb ratio but it has a huge advantage in torque.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Actually ITAIntegraLS on the board runs a 2nd gen in H4 and ITA and while I will not give out his HP (might be secret,but I know), but he has a healthy power to weight ratio advantage (plus torque) over other H4 cars. Of course power to weight is not everything. A bigger car is harder on brakes with increased braking distances and increased wind resistance. Weight is 2480 compared to 2175 for a CRX and 2305 for a Civic SI. More power is not always better.

I race a Civic SI and it can be competitive in H4, but at its current weight will need 135 WHP assuming a CRX is making 120 WHP. It should be competitive in SCCA as long as it is classed in ITA.

All three can be competitive. But what the CRX has going for it is the fact there are many people using them, and this collective testing by many different drivers over many years has yielded a very developed race car. With a CRX you have this development at your disposal.

With a Civic or Integra you will be the odd man out (at least for now) so if you like a challenge and don't want to follow the pack, either car is a good choice. You should check out a race (see WCHC and SCCA schedules) and talk to some of the drivers about their cars.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by civicrr &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">As mentioned above, the 2nd Gen Integra is something to look @ for ITA/HC. It doesn't have as good a hp/lb ratio but it has a huge advantage in torque.</TD></TR></TABLE>

The 2nd gen Integra pencils out with a superior Hp/Wt ratio over the CRX.

ITA min weight for the CRX is 2140 and with the quoted 130whp that equates to nearly 16.5lbs/hp.

An Integra only needs to see a 7.5% greater whp number over the factory Hp quote to achieve the CRX (with 24% whp increase) power weight ratio.
ITA required min weight is 2480 and listed stock Hp is 140.

Hmmm...Is it really just paddock/kegger legend that the spendy IT Integra engines are seeing the same percentage increases as the CRX. I hope to find out soon.

CRX and Civics will win the braking duels though.

Rick

 

Sorry. My post above wasn't very clear. HP & weights were comparing the CRX Si & 5g Civic Si/EX motors. I have edited the post to be more clear.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Knestis &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">One work-around would be to request that the '92-93 EX Coupe be initially listed in ITA. It would not be a move so could happen before 2005 - I think. I don't remember now if the Si built in '92 and '93 but, if it was, it could be poked into A the same way.K</TD></TR></TABLE>

One thing. I don't know what the weight would be listed as. When the 94 EX Coupe moves to ITA, it will have a weight of 2305. The 96-98 EX and the 94-95 DX are both listed at quite a bit more weight for ITA... Might be worth waiting and having the existing spec line expanded for those years AND/OR get the SI on the same spec line as the EX!

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by turfer &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
CRX and Civics will win the braking duels though.

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

I'd be surprised if there was any big difference in braking between the CRX and Integra (aside from pad availability) - I don't think the CRX has very good brakes even with its light weight (or at least the one I have been driving doesn't seem to for long - not sure about the Civic). The CRX (going by the SCCA GCR) specs out with a 9.5" front disk, rear drum/9.4" rear disk vs. the Integra with 10.3" front and the 9.4" rear. I would only think it would be problematic on a very brake-intensive track. I think that tires will be the bigger concern (in comparison to the CRX) due to the weight rather than the brakes. We had a very quick G2 Teg here in the SE for half a season during my first year and when they weren't destroying tires, they were pretty much hauling the mail. I think they are probably one of the best ITA cars out there and as for brakes, I think we all take a back seat to ITA Miatas (except for maybe a lap or two if destroying a set of pads is optional).

JMO

 

I agree the Teg brakes are superior to the marginal CRX brakes but one still has woe down 340 additional pounds and turn in with the same size tire. Which is why you reference the destroying of tires .

Rick

 

I have just a little experience with your dilemna, having had my *** handed to me running ITS in 2001 in my 95 civic ex. It sometimes takes the SCCA a while to come around and see the light. That is why I have converted to NASA racing. They seem to do things that just make sense sometimes. Anyway, I feel that even though I have trouble even matching the hp of a well prepped ITA crx, with no lack of effort on my part, apparantly the car is very well suited to H4.

Lyonel
2003 ECHC H4 Champion

 

Well, with a few words of encouragement and careful guidance from Dr. Kirk, I am embarking upon a journey, well fraught with danger. A journey so vast, the ever reaches of my destination lay only in my minds eye. A travel into the unknown, where only my thoughts, intuitions, and the ramblings of my fellow H-Ters are my companions. A venture so perilous, nary few have ever tread its path, a journey to....

DAH, DAH, DAAAAAAAAAA!

Edit Get the 94-95 Civic Si Hatch reclassed in ITA.

Yep, sent off the request tonight. Based on the fact that Kirk has already gotten approval to move the pre-96 EX to ITA, therefore, the same-engined, same drive-trained Si should follow, naturally. But, SCCA only responds to specific requests for specific models, so even though it would seem correct to move the Si with the EX, a separate request had to be made on its behalf. I'll let you fellow Si'ers know the outcome......


Modified by FormulaIntegra at 4:59 AM 3/17/2004

 

uh....the '96 model year was the first year for the 6th gen Civic.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by FormulaIntegra &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Get the 95-96 Civic Si Hatch reclassed in ITA.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Good work! However, there is no 1996 Si hatch. 1992-1995 are the years in question.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by FormulaIntegra &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Get the 95-96 Civic Si Hatch reclassed in ITA.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Change that to 92-95

 

You are all, of course, correct. It was late. I was tired. I have freshened myself with some sleep and edited that post.

 

Why 94-95?

Why not 92-95? Specs are all the same, right?

RJ - who thinks this is a good idea

 

I don't have my GCR here at the office but, in fairness to the "1995-96 Si" issue, I think that's how it's listed in the ITCS ITS spec line. That is among the, um, irregularities in the list but problems arise...

** The request to move an existing S car into A is ONE proposal.

** The request to add additional years or trim levels to an existing spec line is a different one.

** Correcting inaccurate information (e.g., 1996 Si) is yet another proposal - or proposals, one for each spec line that is a problem.

** Getting unlisted years of a model already listed in S initially listed in A (e.g., the 1992-93 EX Coupe) would be yet another completely different thing.

If Darren asks that the 1992-1995 Si HB be moved from S to A, I can ASSURE you all that the answer will be - "Request denied. The 1992-94 Si is not currently listed in S so cannot be moved."

This situation arises over, and over, and OVER again in this organization, since the system assumes that each entrant is going to pursue his own little issue and there is no mechanism in place to look at the big picture: If I had a 1995 Kia Sephia in my driveway, I could ask to have it listed in ITA. If my proposal were written that narrowly and was accepted, it makes NO difference that there are other identical, eligible years available - only my 1995 would be listed and a 1996 would be illegal.

The REAL tactical conundrum is that, if more than one of the above Civic-related proposals were written into one request letter, if one is turned down the entire thing is "denied." This issue of "severability" might have been a problem in my IT2 proposal, where I asked that (a) a new class be created and, if that were deemed appropriate that (b) a weight-specification process be defined for it. Feedback suggested that the second aspect was less palatable than the first and might have led to its death...

K


Modified by Knestis at 10:57 AM 3/17/2004

 

Actually, Kirk, the guys are partially right. I was mixing numbers up, as the 96 is the following generation hatchback (I should know, I owned a 97 DX HB for 5 years). But, as I was talking to RJ off-thread about, the different model years are, in fact, split into two separate lines in the ITCS. One is the 92-94 Honda Civic Si, and the next line is the 94-95 Honda Civic Si VTEC. From what RJ was telling me, they are, indeed, the same car. I'm guessing two different people made two separate requests for the same car, different years, and they were processed, classed, and listed separately.

So, with even further enlightenment from you, it appears to get this issue straightened out, I may need to submit several requests just to consolidate said car onto the same ITCS line, like it should be.

 

Geez, the ITCS is a fustercluck...

ITS - Civic Si (92-94), valves 29/25mm, 14" wheels, brakes 262/201mm, 2330#

ITS - Civic Si VTEC (94-96), valves 30/26mm, 15" wheels, brakes 240/239mm, 2305#

ITA (2005) - Civic EX Coupe VTEC (94-95), valves 30/26mm, 15" wheels, brakes 240/239mm, 2305#

ITA - Civic EX Coupe (96-98), valves 30/26, 14" wheels, brakes 262/201mm, 2450#

Someone please tell me that the first two cars are not the same in real life and that ANY of these cars came with 15" wheels. Note that the "1996 Si" is indeed listed here. I have faith in the last set of numbers because I had to look the damn things up. Here's the list (all in separate proposals)...

1. Request that the 92-94 Si be moved to A - at the current weight! (If you ask for a weight change, it will be rejected out of hand because it isn't allowed)

2. Request that the 94-96 Si be moved to A - ditto on the weight, even though they are different. Let the powers-that-be sort that out if they want, accepting that they may end up on different spec lines in A for now.

3. After the dust settles, request that specs for both be corrected under "errors and omissions."

4. Someone else can request that the 92-93 EX Coupe be added to the existing IT spec line. I thought that someone was going to do this but I haven't seen it - unless it was included in the pending move to A?

5. Finally, request correction of the earlier EX specs and the world will be at peace with itself.

Kirk

(who reminds you that the '96+ car has a 9.6:1 CR vs. 9.2 for the earlier one)

 

Jesus Christ that's retarded.