What would you build?

And just because this is a Honda Website, don't just jump on the Honda bandwagon. Actually apply some thought to it. Like "What Car is the most competitive (potentially in some cases), reliable, and budget friendly?"

For example, you can buy old SSC Neon ACRs all day long that already have cages (custom welded in some cases), hardened hubs, KONIS, and quick steering racks for about the same price as a decent, rust free undamaged 90ish Integra LS. BUT, the Neon is uncharted IT territory for the most part.
Is it worth it???

 

I would petition to get the second generation MR2 moved from ITS into ITA, but then again, I'm pretty biased.

 

I'd buy an SSC Neon for ITA. That's a pretty damned good deal in racing right now if you axe me. Only thing is, I'd almost want to redo the cage once the interior is out for the extra clearance. I should sit in an SSC neon to be sure of this.

 

Just got the 95 Civic Ex Coupe back from the cage builders, and boy, does it look sweet!!!

I guess that would be my vote, since I'm already halfway through the build.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by FormulaIntegra &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Just got the 95 Civic Ex Coupe back from the cage builders, and boy, does it look sweet!!!

I guess that would be my vote, since I'm already halfway through the build. </TD></TR></TABLE>

pics of the cage?

 

94-95 Integra.

RJ - who's thinking... will probably think well into next year about it too... and possibly keep on thinking past that.

 

I'd be pretty torn between an ACR coupe or a B13 Se-R.

Neons are pretty cheap to run (parts wise) and having the option of buying a SSC neon complete with cage relay lowers the cost of preparation.

 

HAHAHAHAHHAHHAAAAA!!!!

ITA Car?

"Whatsa matter? ITC car not fast enough?"

Scott, who knows there's probably a reasonable explanation...I just couldn't resist the opportunity to be an *** to you.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Catch 22 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Actually apply some thought to it.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

In that case, were I to start over today with plans for a new ITA car, I would still start with an 88 CRX Si. You didn't ask "what's the best ITA car right now." You asked "What would you build?"

My reasons for running the 88 CRX Si are the same now as they were two years ago when I started this build. First, there is enough support in the aftermarket that there aren't many unavailable parts. This includes both race applications (hardened hubs, headers, trick bearings, air dams, etc.) as well as more general applications (suspension parts, safety parts, etc.). Not to mention the huge (albeit diminishing) number of junkyard parts and cheap OEM replacement parts. All in all, this makes for an easy budget to keep.

Second, there is a history to the CRX Si in ITA that I won't discount. There's something to be said for individuals who can single handedly sort a racecar in uncharted waters, but there's also something to be said for being independently wealthy with a lot of time on your hands. The money I saved following the crowd for major decisions (suspension settings and parts, motor building tricks, and others) put me out on the track a lot more during my first year. That means more seat time for me without always thinking "what if I have all the wrong parts?"

Finally, this is a damn fun car to drive. I have tracked a number of DC2's and while the top end power is fun to have and the longer wheel base makes for a more stable rotation, there's something I can't quite explain about how the CRX handles itself. I'm still not very good at driving it and I have had more than my share of pucker moments with the shorter wheelbase, but I wouldn't trade it for anything at this point.

 

I would suggest to someone building an ITA car right now a 1st Gen Miata, 2nd Gen Integra or 2nd Gen CRX Si. I would want to see how much actually comes out of the newly classed cars before I jumped in there. Methinks the Neon is going to be pretty portly and the Nissan (NX or SER) doesn't have enough go-fast parts right now (maybe just biased by what they do in ITS).

 

I think I'd agree with RJ - that newer Integra. I'd want something that wouldn't be "old" too soon. That said, there are a LOT of good options.

K

 

Phatty - Ran out of space before I got the Miata in there. Since 99% of them end up in SM, I skipped it.

And the SOHC Neon won't be portly IMO. Around 2350lbs with 132 factory HP and 2 liters of torque. Its also got the Mopar Performance catalog behind it, where you can find things like crate motors built to IT spec and $85 adjustable sway bars.
On paper, this would be my first choice. The only thing that would hold me back is the lack of development, but if I could get a good enough deal on a nice SSC car, I'd go for it.

My 2nd choice would be the 2nd gen Integra. I think its about to become hard to beat and there are people out there that have done/are doing the legwork. But I fear that build/operating costs for this car would approach the ITS area on the ledger.

The 94 and up Integras... Too heavy and WILL be nearly as expensive to operate as an ITS car. Weight and velocity are what costs money. The 2nd gen cars will be putting down just as much power and be significantly lighter.
Weight kills.

Rinde... I have no current intention of building an ITA car. But if I were building a car right now it WOULD be an ITA car. The results of this pole so far shows why. ITA is about to explode with lots of competitive cars and fast drivers. Maybe in a few years... Just enough time for Eric Heuschel to draw a map for the Neon build .

PS - ACRs have tall roof lines and no sunroof. An SS cage would still be fine assuming it was a good one in the first place.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Catch 22 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The 2nd gen cars will be putting down just as much power and be significantly lighter.
Weight kills.</TD></TR></TABLE>

1995 RS - Curb Weight - Manual (lb.) 2529
1993 RS - Curb Weight - Manual (lb.) 2557

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by phat-S &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I would suggest to someone building an ITA car right now a 1st Gen Miata</TD></TR></TABLE>

That is my vote.

 

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

1995 RS - Curb Weight - Manual (lb.) 2529
1993 RS - Curb Weight - Manual (lb.) 2557 </TD></TR></TABLE>

Who cares. Its the spec line in the ITCS that counts.
The 2nd gen car is currently listed at 2480lbs. I'll bet you an ice cold sammy right now that the 3rd gen car will be listed at 2600 or more.
Its currently listed in ITS at 2550. That should be a pretty glaring hint. No way its moving down a class without getting some lead.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Catch 22 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">No way its moving down a class without getting some lead.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Considering that its grossly outclassed in ITS as it is, and has the same power output as the 2g cars, why would it grow in weight?

 

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

Considering that its grossly outclassed in ITS as it is, and has the same power output as the 2g cars, why would it grow in weight?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Silly little RJ...

 

The DOHC Neon was discussed somewhere near 2600 lbs. and the two Nissans got 90 lbs. bumped from their ITS listed weight no? I really know very little about the Dodges but I have heard a lot of good stuff about the cars (aren't they a big block to push through the air though ??). I personally would just wait a year or two and let some other folks figure them (these newly moved cars) out but that's me.

 

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

Considering that its grossly outclassed in ITS as it is, and has the same power output as the 2g cars, why would it grow in weight?</TD></TR></TABLE>

I find it rather unlikely that the car can drop a class at its current weight. Just because a car is unable to run up front in its current class wouldn't preclude it from out running the class below it - they are mutually exclusive benchmarks IMO.

Also, and someone correct me if I am wrong here, the 2G and 3G Integras are not the same cars, suspension, motor and otherwise. Simply because they have the same power from the factory doesn't mean they will respond to IT prep the same nor does power alone account for a car's potential (this all of-course is just my opinion).

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by phat-S &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> (aren't they a big block to push through the air though ??)..</TD></TR></TABLE>
Can't tell you much about the aero but even with a good set of Konis or any otehr good damper, they are one of the most "suspensionally challenged" cars I can think of. "Cab Forward" design means "who forgot to put in the suspension stroke?" Without IT being able to make more radical changes to the suspension, I wouldn't touch it until other people did the developement work and found how to solve this critical issue.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by phat-S &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> the 2G and 3G Integras are not the same cars, suspension, motor and otherwise. Simply because they have the same power from the factory doesn't mean they will respond to IT prep the same nor does power alone account for a car's potential (this all of-course is just my opinion).</TD></TR></TABLE>

No they are not the same from the factory. The rear suspension is nearly identical, but the front 2g uses radius rods while the 3g does not. I have no idea whats better.

The power output of the 92-93 B18A1 is 140hp, while the 94+ B18B were 142hp. Both are OBD1 and I think the power output at IT prep is going to be the same.

But who knows what the SCCA will turn out.

 

barring the GSR, all non-vtec 2g and 3g engines are the same, with only minor differences (mostly in the cam profile, methinks)

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by phat-S &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">the Nissan (NX or SER) doesn't have enough go-fast parts right now (maybe just biased by what they do in ITS).</TD></TR></TABLE>

the b13 chassis is a pretty proven chassis, and there is 2 pages of parts listed for it in the nismo parts catalog I have on my lap right now, not to mention stillen and other companies. You can find motors and trans's for these cars for free or dirt cheap as well.

I don't know what weight they list for the se-r, but they are a bit heavy stock.

I don't follow IT racing though, so my comments don't mean much here.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by carl_aka_carlos &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">all non-vtec 2g and 3g engines are the same, with only minor differences (mostly in the cam profile, methinks)</TD></TR></TABLE>

There were changes in the ECU, Intake Manifold, Cam profiles, Head castings, emissions gear, and all the OBD-0 and OBD-1 stuff between 91-92 (130hp) and 92-93 (140hp). There were fewer differences between the 92-93 and 94-95 engines.

 

Looking at the 03 GCR, appears to be different gearsets, differing wheelbase, same engine specs, same brake sizes (same calipers??) but even at its ITS weight, the 94-95 Teg is 75 lbs. more than the 90-93. I did think the front suspension was different (that z-rod or something traction arm thread). Personally, unless the suspension is worth the weight (even now at its ITS weight) I think the 2G Teg is a easy pick. JMO

Gotcha Lee. I have heard much good about them in SS trim I guess (or perhaps it was auto-xing) but nothing w/ regard to how they'd do in IT (well, actually was told they were porky turds the other day from a friend but don't know the state of the car in question).

I do think that the SER/NX with enough Amy's out there will become a player of a car. I have always thought the 240 SX was just a badassed ITA car but would think the weight would run me out of tire money quick-like (why I think the Miata is such a good car).

Surprised no-one's mentioning the Fiero V6 ... or the early Protoge.