xsboost90

yeah thats true- although i would like to run nasa also. You would think they would check things out before making a rule like that....

M758

Not correct.

944 spec = PCA SP1. Tigher rule set to make the cars more equal. The biggest risk that the turbo tubs might get thicker sheet metal in certain places on the chassis to accomodate the extra hp. If that is the car these cars might be stiffer and better track cars. The tubs are not the same as the 85 and earlier tubs nor the same as the 924S tubs, but all those cars are already allowed in the class.


The biggest risk is not one or two guys with turbo tubs. The risk is that a turbo tub might be found to be better. If so some guys might think to be competitive in class you need to start with a turbo tub. That will drive up costs as converting turbo to an NA is alot of work and in most cases more costly than starting with an NA tub. There are exceptions of course depending on what you have just "laying around".

So rather than risk creating a problem that would hard to stop we err on the side of caution and require them to be all NA tubs from 83 to 89. We do not allow the 924 (2.0L motor) tubs because they are probably different and do not allow later tubs again due to potential upgrades.

You can use a 944S tub or an 89 944 Tub as donor as these are seen as low risk in the case of the 89 tub and the 944S tub has not differences not even in the VIN.

M758

It has been checked and because we do not have the resouces to validate no changes to a turbo tub that make any difference on track we said no to them. Plus there are far more NA tubs laying around than turbo tubs so it just makes little sense for me as rules maker to spend hours validating a configuration that may get use once in 10 years.

BTW... with respect to the 944S SCCA IT racing has in effect validated the tub compare the the NA because some guys take non-S chassis and fit S motors and gearboxes and pass tech. SCCA is very detailed about using only the proper chassis and those work because there are not differences and there no difference in VIN number. Of course it make some sense to use a 87 or 88 NA tub for an 944S build since there were never many S tubs out there.

The 89 tub is mere a motor swap away from being 2.5L car so it makes sense to allow that for guys with built race cars. Just swap out the 2.7L for a 2.5L and you are good.

The turbo needs it stripped down to shell which is alot of work and in general the Turbo tubs are more valuable than an NA tub. Granted alot of that is running gear, but if I am going to build a turbo stating with turbo tub is better as the NA tubs might be missing certain braket and stud locations on the chassis.


Point is I personally have considered Turbo tubs in the 944 spec rules and found them to be a can of worms not worth effort resolve.

xsboost90

parts are coming off the car slowly and im boxing them up to ship and replying to lots of emails and PM's - i'll have to find boxes for some bigger stuff.

thirdgenbird

I will pass on the brale ducts.

I have no proof it works and I need more critical parts.

Thanks anyway!

xsboost90

got a line on a nice 87 to turn to spec...hehehe- and an 88 motor!

shellx

PM'd on the 968 Turbo RS wing

xsboost90

bought an 87 n/a this afternoon, drove it home and its awaiting my part out so i can begin parting it out as well for race car status. ALso picking up an 88 motor complete this week. This means the turbo will be completely parted out if anyone needs a TUb or doors, 968 hatch etc...pick up only. The new car came w/ a reclinable RECARO drivers seat w/ slider that has the big bolsters and upper belt holes in it. I willbe selling this along w/ the leather BURGUNDY console, door panels and dash although the top of the dash is cracked up. Also has funky racey looking steering wheel w/ porsche crest horn button. More pics in another thread later on.

Dimi 944

Congrats on the new toy!...that was quick.

xsboost90

rear coilovers sold- front fenders Un-sold.

xsboost90

added to FS list-

968 cubby w/ boost **** plated bolted into clock area- no boost **** though - $45

burgundy center console w/ shifter surround- no arm rest- $50

67King

Rules are made out of complete and total speculation? Wow.

xsboost90

well my point was that even if the stock tub is stiffer, you are putting a full roll cage in it- which would change that anyway- so really a turbo tub would just be heavier. Anyway- i bought an 87 n/a off craigslist and it'll be slightly parted here after the turbo to make room for the cage etc...should be fun. More fun than parting my beloved turbo...

67King

Not only that, but people will acid dip body panels to make things thinner and lighter - and they can do it because of what you just said, the cage makes the car stiff, not the tub (and yes I understand typical cages don't connect to the front strut towers - though some do, which is the only caveat to that assumption).

My bigger issue is that rules are made that cost people money (like you!) in a series that is supposed to be about affordability due to nothing more than pure speculation. And having spent several years in the industry as an engineer (which may explain my aversion so speculation), I would be shocked if there were anything to it. That Porshces are low volume cars makes some things more feasible - but it also makes some things more impractical, and a unique tub falls into the latter category. A unique set of dies? Reprogramming the welding equipment every time a Turbo comes through? Not going to happen in my opinion.

Part of me is surprised, part of me isn't. I've seen complete speculation dictate rules in some PCA stuff, as well. And in one case, the speculation was completely and totally wrong.

What kills me is that I really like the 944S in Super Cup, with a weight limit of only 2550 lbs (the S2 is 2750, Turbos and 968s are even heavier). Although S2 engine swaps into Turbos is as common as changing wheel size, if that whole VIN checking thing ever spreads beyond Spec, it will impact my long term plans (okay, vision) and several other people.

If there is anything more than speculation to this, I'd be interested in seeing some info. As I've said, I may be wrong, but I have a hard time fathoming the notion of a change in sheet metal thickness between turbos and NAs.

M758, I want to point out that my criticism is by no means personal, or a lack of appreciation for the efforts the largely volunteer sanctioning body representatives. I appreciate, applaud, and thank you for your effort. And like I said, I spent several years as an engineer in the industry, and am accustomed to having the resources to be purely data driven. I just have a difference of opinion in what the "default" should be - I'd be more inclusive unless reason can be found not to be, rather than less inclusive unless a reason can be found to be.

xsboost90

added some things to the list for sale since i am now parting basically the whole car minus what i need for the race car.

SHipped most of the sold items yesterday besides the stuff bolted to the engine, some splitter/batwing stuff and the rollbar. Will do this week. Time to get more boxes!