NASA's New GTS Rules For 2011....
#46
Rennlist Member
the WCGT motor is a little more than the map and headers. I cant remember the details , but it was heads, compression, valves, cams, etc.
I was told that the ex GMG world challenge car taht won GTS5 at Nats pulled a hair over 450 rwhp...That motor is basically a 2010 3.8 motor with headers and a killer map from PMNA.
A real unrestricted 4.0 RSR type motor should pull a good bit more than that I would say. I know the 2-ring 3.8 RSR engines built up using ~2005 type rsr components make somewhere in the 480-500 rwhp range.
A real unrestricted 4.0 RSR type motor should pull a good bit more than that I would say. I know the 2-ring 3.8 RSR engines built up using ~2005 type rsr components make somewhere in the 480-500 rwhp range.
#47
Rennlist Member
check out the pic of the GS car on the dyno. 350rwhp
hey, you were the one that told me you have never beaten a 1:38 at laguna seca, but did 1:35s last time you were there on new slicks! that sure seems like a big difference, more than .5 point. bring some DOTs and race me next time!
hey, you were the one that told me you have never beaten a 1:38 at laguna seca, but did 1:35s last time you were there on new slicks! that sure seems like a big difference, more than .5 point. bring some DOTs and race me next time!
New motor seems just fine. I did run at BW and won class both days (3rd overall) but I was slower than I'd been there last June on the same course. I'll dyno it early next year but it's not any different than the old motor....
I think the .5 point for slicks is about right. I'm not much slower on fresh Hoosiers vs. slicks. I think slicks last longer which is opposite of what most folks think but I use the harder compounds....
My 997 Koni racer friend says they get 330 rwhp from their .30 over souped up motors with tuning, etc....
I think the .5 point for slicks is about right. I'm not much slower on fresh Hoosiers vs. slicks. I think slicks last longer which is opposite of what most folks think but I use the harder compounds....
My 997 Koni racer friend says they get 330 rwhp from their .30 over souped up motors with tuning, etc....
#49
Rennlist Member
you can make up for a lot of weight, with set up and tire sizes. the 928 is very wide and if you get some REAL big tires on there, you can make up for a lot of the weight disadantages. I agree though, its always better to go lighter in my opinion. im on the fence with my car, and its a tough call. lots of light cars are very very fast, but then the higher p/w cars are faster still. sometimes its jsut easier to add the weight and get some bigger tires.
#50
Rennlist Member
They can be. the problem is the correction factors, thats why I always like to see the raw data (uncorrected). But at altitude where there is so much correction that is tough. but at sea level and just different days, you can get an idea of what you got. I always get two dynos a year. one in winter and one in summer. remember, the dynojet is just seeing how fast you accelerate the drums! no other factors! so, its pretty consistant on a similar day (temp pressure)
James S. commented on another thread that they got 410 rwhp on their Mustang dyno and he was surprised by the 450 reading at Miller on the Dynojet 244. I went from 270 to 282 on that same Dynojet and wasn't happy. Dynos are great for tuning, not so great for compliance policing.....
The 4.0's are built by Loren @ 911 Design and I'm sure he can tweak them up or down as needed. He'll have to next year to stay in POC's GT2 class which had the same basic parameters as NASA's GTS5 (6.5-9). We raised the minimum 1/2 point to 7 for 2011....
The 4.0's are built by Loren @ 911 Design and I'm sure he can tweak them up or down as needed. He'll have to next year to stay in POC's GT2 class which had the same basic parameters as NASA's GTS5 (6.5-9). We raised the minimum 1/2 point to 7 for 2011....
#51
Rennlist Member
I did say, at any same vehicle speed. Yes, you are absolutely correct, and this is exactly the reason why they average torque and HP to give the HP to weight ratio. they assume (GTS rule makers) that a higher torque than HP value, will point to an engine that has a flatter HP curve, which would have advantages at all points other than peak HP. so, your "better torque" curve, really is a better HP curve. However, there are still flaws with this technique. one I know well would be the BMW e30 (torquer low reving engine). it has 170rwt but has only 120hp. to average it out to 145hp, is a little unfair. (in otherwords, this car would have to compete against another 145peak hp curve engine, that might have an average of 120hp if it was very peaky over its usable range. obviously, the e30 might be less than 100hp in this example, so it clearly is getting dinged unfairly. But aside from this example, it works well enough for the series .
#52
Rennlist Member
How do you get that? His torque way exceeds his hp ( according to his notes on his signature) and it depends on what dyno that was run on.
#53
Rennlist Member
so, he does have a stout HP curve (higher torque vs HP would indicate this)
so, his HP gets adjusted to 222rwhp. which at 3200lbs, is 14.4:1. this means he has to either kill some torque, and power, which is the smart thing to do, or go up to GTS3, which he will get killed in that class. that car would be just as fast with a passenger in it, so I vote to just dump some power and put 100-200lbs of ballast in it and call it a day. its tough to drive a overweight car fast, but doable. remember randy pobst and galatti running 275lbs of rewards weight at road america and still running 2:14s!! ??????
so, his HP gets adjusted to 222rwhp. which at 3200lbs, is 14.4:1. this means he has to either kill some torque, and power, which is the smart thing to do, or go up to GTS3, which he will get killed in that class. that car would be just as fast with a passenger in it, so I vote to just dump some power and put 100-200lbs of ballast in it and call it a day. its tough to drive a overweight car fast, but doable. remember randy pobst and galatti running 275lbs of rewards weight at road america and still running 2:14s!! ??????
#54
Burning Brakes
It's GTS....
Modify the HP and Torque curves how you want them.
Locate the weight where it is most advantageuos.
Run whatever size tire/wheel combination you desire.
Modify your body for less drag and better aerodynamics.
Add all the downforce aero you can handle.
Modify the HP and Torque curves how you want them.
Locate the weight where it is most advantageuos.
Run whatever size tire/wheel combination you desire.
Modify your body for less drag and better aerodynamics.
Add all the downforce aero you can handle.
#55
The rules now allow for the stock 2010 3.8 cup engine which is factory rated at 450hp. They can do headers and ECU flash. That is what Sofronas told me...
#56
Rennlist Member
Yep, sorry, I was talking about the older 3.6 motors. Yes, the new 2010 are beasts. I cant believe the power that the '10 cup motors make. amazing!
I got the same story from Sofro.
I got the same story from Sofro.
Not for the 2010 spec 3.8 motors. The old world challenge rules for the 3.6 were compression bump, 2 ring pistons, different cams...
The rules now allow for the stock 2010 3.8 cup engine which is factory rated at 450hp. They can do headers and ECU flash. That is what Sofronas told me...
The rules now allow for the stock 2010 3.8 cup engine which is factory rated at 450hp. They can do headers and ECU flash. That is what Sofronas told me...
#57
Rennlist Member
and is active Aero banned?
#58
Rennlist Member
In fact, I believe we might see more cars running both NASA GTS and PCA GT classes. They'll just have to have two engine maps (one for maximimum horsepower for PCA and one retarding the timing above some RPM range for NASA GTS).
#59
Rennlist Member
I'll stir the pot a bit as well as it does appear to me that this is exactly where the GTS series is migrating. Not a criticism, as the GTS series seams to attract guys that like to develop their cars, and the rules certainly have spawned a lot of tight competive racing in this region. However, the concept that it is a cheaper option than PCA GT class racing is really not accurate. I predict that in order to have a competitive car (in the very near future), you'll have to build a monster engine and then "detune" to create a completely flat HP curve at the exact threshold for your HP/weight class.
In fact, I believe we might see more cars running both NASA GTS and PCA GT classes. They'll just have to have two engine maps (one for maximimum horsepower for PCA and one retarding the timing above some RPM range for NASA GTS).
In fact, I believe we might see more cars running both NASA GTS and PCA GT classes. They'll just have to have two engine maps (one for maximimum horsepower for PCA and one retarding the timing above some RPM range for NASA GTS).
The simple rule started as a way to please everyone and "run what you brung" as many people felt left out from PCA or BMWCCA b/c they had minor mods that made their cars ilegal in the Stock/Prepared classes. However, unrestricted rules in the long run promote the build up of cars way beyond the limits of current GT (in PCA) or M (in BMWCCA) classes.
Having the GTS3 winner at Nationals lap 4secs faster pero lap than the rest of the fields is a clear testament to that, and I dont thin anyone is even close to the limit of what can be done. Therefore, IMO, it is a ill advised decision to build a racecar mainly for GTS if you dont intend to go all the way (unless you dont care about trying to win at all)
#60
Nordschleife Master
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Vacuuming Cal Speedway
Posts: 7,306
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
5 Posts
Having the GTS3 winner at Nationals lap 4secs faster pero lap than the rest of the fields is a clear testament to that, and I dont thin anyone is even close to the limit of what can be done. Therefore, IMO, it is a ill advised decision to build a racecar mainly for GTS if you dont intend to go all the way (unless you dont care about trying to win at all)
Perhaps as the series evolves your fears may be realized, but not so much out West.....