A.Wayne

951and944S
Yeah PCA, has him listed in GT3S with a 89 951, but the car no is different in GT3 it is 00. Regardless scott left this info out and if you look at the GT3 lap times over the years his lap times are still 3-4 seconds slower that other 951's. 911 Na's don't stand a chance at Sebring under the old PCA rules....

1.Sebring 951 lap record GT3
2.At road Atlanta it was the same again 951 , P1 lap record for gt3
3. The Glen Roy Chong has the lap record , porsche 951 1.59 GT3
4. Road america Porsche 968 T lap record GT3
5.Mosport , lap record 951 T. GT3
6. Limerock , roy chong , 951 lap record GT3
7. Putnam park Scott Denmark 89 968 RS TURBO lap record GT3

you can see from above that the tracks these cars turn up to and race , they hold the track records for lap times , i will speculate and say for the other tracks the 911 have it , because there where no competition from the turbos. when the turbos turn up the NA don't have a chance, Now for those who could'nt understand the need for the rule change , here it is .

As to your car if you are putting down more than 400 whp + you will run at the point , if your driving is there

333pg333

So if the 951 has an advantage at Sebring does that mean that it has an advantage at all tracks?

951and944S

I think the light cars (911s) go to Sebring too heavily sprung.

From what I've seen, 10-20% softer for Sebring compared to other tracks would pay dividends.

T

Under Pressure Performance

Misleading discourse? C'mon, you are kidding right.

A poster asked to see the results from five races, so I went to the PCA site and took the first five races - I did not take ONLY the races where the 911's did well, I did not spin the results - The final results I posted were straight from the web site.

It is completely irrelevant who turns a faster single lap, it is the end result that matters. Who crossed the finish line first. Again, I did not single out Sebring, it was the first race and I took the first five top to bottom. If you are going to say that 944T lose because of driver error, perhaps it is because his car weighs more, does not brake as well, or does not handle as well overall? And for mechanical failure, well, this could be a result of having to run the engine harder to be competitive.

Let me just say that I acknowledge that 944T's can be a formidable foe at any given track, there is no doubt about it, BUT they are not the threat, and do not have the inherent advantage that you imply. So, I have not, and do not disagree with you that the fully prepared 944T's give the fully prepared 911's something to think about, however, that is what racing is all about.

A car that DNF's a race is not a threat? A car that turns a fast lap during qualifying but cannot hold the lead (for whatever reason) is not a threat. In other words, it is the end result that matters, and part of the problem for some 944 guys is getting across the line at all.

Back in one of my previous posts I eluded to the reliability issues when turning up the wick, and how that is an area that requires serious operating costs for many 944T racers.

Are there tracks where 944T's have an advantage, perhaps, but then you have to pose the argument the other way as well. There are tracks that serve the 911's well too.

Nothing constructive to add? From your perspective you are absolutely correct. Perhaps those on the affected side feel differently? Hopefully I have given some insight and shed some light on how this rule change affects them. Or, perhaps I am wrong, perhaps the 944 crowd has been more greatly benefited by your "constructive" thoughts?

By stating that I misquoted you "again" you imply that I misquoted you previously, which I do not feel as though I have, but to be on the safe side, I figured I would actually quote you post in my reply since it is primarily a response to your post.

That said, I admit, I responded to your post with an inaccuracy. You did write 475 BHP, and for some reason I responded as is you wrote 475 WHP - As such, please accept my sincerest apology.

Where and what do you race, sincerely, I am curious. What tracks do you frequent. Not be be taken as ill intentioned, but have you ever owned/raced a prepared/developed 944T? Also, I am wondering, to what point of development would you say your car is at? Again, I promise the utmost sincerity in these questions, so it would be great if you responded to them.

By the way, as much as this has gone back and forth and as passionate you and I are in our respective positions, I will say that I have enjoyed the exchanges between you and I. <----- Sincerely

Under Pressure Performance

Sorry, I was unaware that this guy does not own a GT3 car and that there must have been a transponder issue.I do not know him personally, so I am not sure how I could have known this beforehand? - But I apologize anyway.

951and944S

Uhm.....when I finally get down to firing it up, I'm sorta counting on someone with DTA experience......!

Ha ha....!

400 whp is my goal, pretty much stock long block except for the ITBs.

Anyways, surely don't mean to divert this thread to another direction.

Just thought I'd point out that Chris's car is E class and nowhere near a 2:15 second car around Sebring just for the sake of this argument.

I tried to find a jpeg of his car in the meantime but the motorsports section of his contractor website is temporarily down, the car is -00- and carries large 'Buckeye Contractors' decals.
My son put the splitter on it while I was fixing a clutch in another Mardi Gras Region member's SP2 car.

Crazy time that weekend was......the guy I normally travel to support accidentally swigged a bottle of blue brake fluid at race time on Sunday, thought it was cranberry juice from the night before cranberry and Vodka drinks.

The black McDonald's car #492 had previously been in a heavy impact.
He had the 944 "Euro" engine rebuild soon after we swapped all his drivetrain from the wrecked chassis to another.
The shop didn't notice the torque tube flange had bent and the disc shredded in 20 minutes track time. Drove 13 hours to get there from Louisiana at midnight.
Started the tear down (long tube header has to come off) at 8:30am and had the driver on track for 11:20.

Ah well......back on topic.

T

A.Wayne

Scott race victories have a lot of variables , the fastest lap times or pole position lap times tell the full potential of the car, the 911 have larger entries, if you had at least 3 competitive 951's at every race , it would be a cold day in hell for a 911 NA to win a race, they win due to better track preparation , that's it . The new rules level the playing field a bit , again with an unrestricted turbo , boost is your friend..

951and944S

T

A.Wayne

DTA experience , Ok, Haa, Haa,

Yeah 400 whp is entry to the club , it will put you at the point for GT3.
WOW your guy drank super blue , WOW! is he alright ? are you doing Sebring ?

951and944S

The only thing I have capable currently is a street 951, maybe the DE....

I usually drive to the track and it's a pretty big haul if I lay a connecting rod on the track so far from home.

I should be there as mechanical support for some of the Mardi Gras guys and yes, the driver that swigged the brake fluid was debating to get his stomach pumped out when I drove into the track Sunday morning but was confident he spit it all back up.....ha ha...!

I'll let you know as time draws near, maybe we can meet up.
I was trying to drum up credentials to check out the trade show at the convention center but got too busy to go anyway.

T

Under Pressure Performance

Which is the very point of many frustrated 944T owners - Since there are not at least three competitive 944T's running any given grid, then a rule change to even the playing field seems unnecessary.

As I have said, I acknowledge there are fast 944T's, however, at some events you may have one, or two that have a chance at the top five, and at other event, where the track may favor the characteristics of the 944T, it has a more likely than not chance of placing top three, and perhaps taking the checker first, but again, these are the exceptions and only a handful of these cars really pose a threat.

From what I gather, the rule change was almost a preemptive strike, just in case the 944T community up-rises to dominate the field.

Some tracks favor the 911, some favor the 944T. As a whole, the 944T has more potential at the expense of some reliability. The 944T cars as a whole are heavier even in modestly prepared form, which results in reduced braking performance and cornering, which contributes to driver error. So, when everything gets shaken out, the best prepared 944T's do run strong, but they are not a shoe-in at any given event. As you mentioned, race victories are the result of many variables - We can agree on that.

You write that with the turbo being unrestricted, boost is your friend. While there is some truth to that, but also true is that boost can be the enemy too.

m42racer

I think it's time that we get back on tarck here and discussthe real issues here. If someone wants to believe with passion that certain engines make a certaian amount of RWHP then let it be.

I am sorry if I offended you in anyway. I do not know of you (Scott) and have never heard of you until this thread. So what, I don't know alot of people in this world. Building these engines is nothing special. Building new parts for them is not either. I am sure there a lot of builders out there that have never built one of these engines that could do a good job. Do they want to is the question. So lets be thankful there are some out there that do and offer some really good parts.

I am all for the delay of the new rules, not for myself, but for others here. If the request is denied, then heads down and lets get to work. We have to focus on the task at hand.

A.Wayne

Haa, i have always held boost as a friend , RPM is a bigger enemy to a 951 engine than boost , 1.5 -1.6 bar as race boost is reasonable for that engine, without reliability issues , it will be enough to put you at the front of GT3 ......


agreed , as mentioned before a collective effort is necessary to make this happen and it has to be done now ...

Under Pressure Performance

m42racer,

No offense taken. My response was in jest. (although it may not have read that way)

To be frank, I am not sure much can be done to sway the powers that be. Even before the change came down it was pretty much determined a few years ago that something was going to be done. The behind the scenes negotiating has been ongoing for quite some time. There was a big push last year for a rule change, but PCA decided to hold off so it could do some more homework. So, it is was after much consideration and some debate that these changes were put forth.

Does that mean a delay is not possible? There is only one way to find out, but it will take an overwhelming number of affected racers to act as one and demonstrate that it is unreasonable to ask an entire segment of club racers to change class, re-develop, rebuild, or do whatever they need to do in such a short period of time.

Since this has been a debate for some time, PCA should have addressed these changes no later than mid-year in order to have them in effect for 2008 - Otherwise, I agree the rules should become effective 1/1/09

Either way, those affected have changes to make, now or later.

The timing of 11/15/07 to establish the rules for 2008 seems a bit unreasonable.

Chris White

I have to dissagree a little here - one of the reasons a 951 can run 1 fast lap is the extra weight we carry - if we drove every lap like that the tires would be toast in no time. This is why the inherently lighter weight of a 911 is a good deal for them. They can be consistant without pushing the tires / brakes too hard (or the engine for that matter). Turbos also have the qualifing advantage of running 'qualifing' boost levels. Sure, we can get a better grid position but then we have to turn in back down to race level or get a DNF.

I don't think fast lap or qualifing time shows the true potential of a race car, just the true potential of 1 fast lap. The finish postion tels the story best - after all - isen't that the point of racing?