A.Wayne

Chris ,
I have never seen a pole position 951 lose a race unless it was for mechanical purposes, they usually have the pace to lead and win from pole , of course poor driving is poor driving , you can lose from that also. i agree with the weight effect ,but you will still have the TQ to control the race from the front , 18 inch tires are a must . I had suggested turbo inlet restrictors and a lower weight limit , for this very reason, it would be better for everyone involved, a 2750 lb car will feel like a truck.

warpedrotor

A. Wayne just so we can better understand where you are coming from will you tell us what kind of car you drive and what tracks you frequent.

BBailey

Warpedrotor, I'm curious how it would effect the veracity of the comments provided by A. Wayne if you were to get an answer to your question? His comments would seem to have no more or less truth to them should he own and race a 951, 911, M3, Lotus, or whatever else he wished to drive.

The simple fact is that the 1.3 multiplication factor that PCA previously used to equate forced induction engines(turbocharged) to normally aspirated engines was laughable and needed an adjustment. PCA took a stab at it and added in minimum weights at the same time, which should be a welcome addition to anyone thats ever raced a 944 chassis and knows how hard it is to shed weight from one (its not impossible, but it is difficult).

If anyone thinks that a 3.2L normally aspirated engine can produce more bhp than a 2.5L turbo then I have some beachfront property in Arizona that you might be interested in.

And for what its worth, I have owned and raced a GT3s 951, though that makes my above comments no more or less true.

A.Wayne

Brian ,
Thanks, could not have said it any better myself....

But to satisfy the curious , i drive a twin turbo Wartburg B9, sometimes my single turbo Peel or my 20v trabant, When in the states , I mostly do HSR events.

M758

YEP!!!!


Guys,
Here is my take... This was a MAJOR change in PCA. In the old days there were a few displacement brakets and that was all turbo cars had displacment multipler. You modded cars to fit that. Any chassis that could be really light had and advantage since weight was not checked. The only classing disctinction was displacement.

Now having a superlight chassis vs a heavy chassis takes aways some of the advantage of the light car. Also now there is a realization that every Porsche motor will not make the same hp levels for a given displacement.

Just try making 2.5L 8 valve 944 NA motor make as much hp as 2.5L 911 motor. Now there is a clear understanding of this reality. My old 944 NA would be classed in GT4 in the old days at 2600lbs with driver and 130 whp. I would compete with 300 hp 2.8L 911's at 2000 lbs. Not chance at all.

Now that same 2600lbs 944 would be in GT6 or so and not in the same class as the 2.8L 2000lbs 911 or 914. Of coruse my 130 hp may not be enough in strong field at least no I would not be so far off the pace.

There are two issues I do see in the new classing.

1) hp/liter estimates. Are they the right numbers to use? I think PCA did their best, but more data should allow for adjustements to balance the estimates.

2) Class cut off's. There clearly could be some issues where the point indexes are set at. I think that over the course of the year PCA needs to evaluate these numbers and possibly make some changes. I see as little 50 pts one way or another car balance the fields if needed.

Landjet

Yes it would make a difference. Anyone who has watched a race and never done it themselves does not know the dynamics of what it takes to get a competitive car of any kind around the track. Bench racing is much easier than the real world. On paper more hp does the trick. I deal with engineers all the time in the aircraft industry that say well it works on paper but not in the real world. Without slaming anyone here for there ideas pushing some figures on paper that say this should work and you have never put that in perspective behind the wheel in head to head competition sorry stick to your bench racing and let those that have or are doing it tell you the real story.

A.Wayne

Confucius says:

This is the real story

1. Man should be more direct with put downs...
2. If feelings get hurt, get medication.
3. Big willie go deeper than little willie , just more lag.
4. Every idea starts with a little bull **** , then a piece of paper ....
5. Man who need help talk to engineer.
6. Engineer that need help talk to man with Idea.
7. Man with Idea need man with piece of paper.
8. Man with piece of paper need a little bull**** to sell idea.
9. Man with bull**** idea don't need engineer.
10.Man who talk to engineer get bull**** idea.

It is the way my Friend

Landjet

I think confucious smoking something.

951and944S

F1 engines made 900+ at 3.0 liter and now at 2.4 are probably knocking on 800.

100 bhp per liter is an excellent achievement I think you'll be forced to agree in light of the figures thrown out as "maximum development" of the 3.2, 3.4 flat sixes, etc.....my question is, do you think 200 bhp per liter is fair for the 944Ts...?

Instead of 130% as the old rules stated, now it's 200%......!?!?

T

A.Wayne

200 bhp/ L for a turbo is very , very fair ...... you have NA 4 cylinder engines making 150 BHP/L top tier closer to 170 /L.
A top tier turbo motors 700 bhp /L can be expected, for a sprint engine , 500 bhp/L for an enduro engine . i would say 200 BHP /L for a club race engine is very reasonable. In the FIA series they are making 270 bhp/L, with a 52 mm INLET RESTRICTOR. on a turbo 4 cylinder engine.
With practice, a Qualy session , 2 , 40 min race heats per weekend , 7- 8 races weekends per year and the engines go all season....

Jeff Lamb

If the normally aspirated engines were allowed to run a pneumatic valvetrain like the F1 engines run, then, yes, I would agree that significantly more rpm and horsepower could be produced.

Regarding a 2.5 liter 944 turbo engine, I absolutely believe 500 bhp is relatively easily possible.

Jeff

Jeff Lamb

That little blue car with three wheels is hilarious!! If you put a turbocharged chainsaw engine in it, you would probably be in the GT3 class with the low weight to hp ratio!!

Jeff

951and944S

Fair enough, the point was, like Scott, it's hard to believe that 100 hp/liter is the cieling of development of the 3.2 and 3.4 liter sixes.

An RSR engine makes 485 at 3.795 liters, that's 128 hp/liter.

Apply the same technology to a 3.4 liter and you're at 435 hp.

944 turbo engine tuners didn't stop with what Porsche achieved with the 8v or 16v inline turbocharged four as a benchmark, they pressed farther.

The 944T's that some here would say enjoy the advantage surely aint running around the country's tracks using mid-80's KKK compressor and Bosch Motronic technology.

I'm not speaking for Scott Gomes but I think the point he was trying to make earlier (no disrespect for his attempts) was that there's more to be had in the NA engines while the 944s have had massive development over the past few years instead of while the NA engine development seems lazy and stagnant by comparison.

Respectfully,

T

A.Wayne

Not so , remember the GT3 911's are 2 V engines and they have a lower specific output VS the 4 V RSR engines, I would say 120 bhp/L is on the very high side for an old 2 V aircooled engine. that would equate to 408 BHP for a 3.4 or 346WHP... this would be for a top tier , 20-30 Hr Sprint engine. I must say, i have never seen one make 400 BHP, Scott was eluding to 400 whp for a 3.4L , no can do on that one .

951and944S

By the way, if you commented, I missed it.

What's your take on the first 5 national PCA race results as posted by Scott...?

Can you look at those results and honestly explain the urgency, much less drastic level of the changes...?

T