Jump to content

2006 TT RULES published 1-5-06


Greg G.

Recommended Posts

Good job on the rules Greg (and others).

 

I am sure it was as much work as it looked.

 

Overall seems fair and right on target.

 

 

As for me I will be running TTU as I originally thought as I want to run coil-overs and a cam.

 

FYI the Penskes they talk about maybe the single adjustable as I have those. They are all race shocks but they do run in Stock classes in SSCA Solo1 and 2 so go figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Greg G.

    47

  • GAC

    16

  • raysingh

    10

  • firehawkclone

    8

two quick questions:

1. What makes a Bilstein "race" shock (assuming it's non-adjustable)? Is there a specific designation or is it due to some kind of modification?

2. I couldn't find any point deductions for removing a sunroof...is it the same as a convertible top, or did I miss it?

 

thanks,

mark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

two quick questions:

1. What makes a Bilstein "race" shock (assuming it's non-adjustable)? Is there a specific designation or is it due to some kind of modification?

 

 

thanks,

mark.

 

Here you go

DSC00942.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff

Hey John, I'm surprised it doesn't say "+12" underneath "racing shocks" I'm still working on this one guys. I'll let you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey John, I'm surprised it doesn't say "+12" underneath "racing shocks" I'm still working on this one guys. I'll let you know.

 

+5,7, or +12, it won't change my group at all! I'm sure you know this Greg, but you can have "off the shelf Bilsteins Koni's" revalved, and there night and day from the "off the shelf" unit's.

 

 

Hell I get +12 in the tire section alone!

 

+70mm tire width=+5 If i'm guessing right

V710=+7 I should get a discount on Kuhmo's with 36 sessions on them!

 

Greg for 2007 rule's set, Change torque arm +2!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff
...but you can have "off the shelf Bilsteins Koni's" revalved, and there night and day from the "off the shelf" unit's....

Yep. This was probably the hardest mod rule to write. I would say that most of the TT drivers intuitively know what we are looking for in the +12 vs.+7 "coilovers and race dampers". But, putting it in writing so that high-end, low bling stuff doesn't fall through the cracks, and the low-end, high bling stuff doesn't get overcharged is very difficult. It's like the guy who went hunting for the rhinogatorasaurus that got asked, "what's it look like, can you describe it?" And he answered,"No, but I'll sure as heck know it when I see one".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, the static weight of my Spec Neon (95 DOHC coupe) was 2443 with slightly less than 1/2 tank of fuel. Carpet in intereior and trunk were removed. OEM seats removed and two light seats installed in front. A/C removed. Battery weighs about 10 lbs. less than stock. Side glass still in place.

 

By comparison my 95 SOHC (sedan) with A/C in place weighed 2450 with slightly more fuel on board (about 5/8-3/4), and with about 16 extra pounds attributable to the wheels and tires (I had 15" wheels and tires on this car when weighed). Published information that I have seen says 2470 for the 95 sedan. So, that is the number I will use for the sedan.

 

As for the Shelby Lancer, I don't recall ever seeing any published information on this car. Of the 800 made, half were auto tran, and the other half were manual trans. All had A/C as I recall. Again, I know that I can find one to weigh, although mine would not be a proper candidate for establishing curb weight.

Retraction: I have now found other published information that I can cite... says that the curb weight of 95 Neon coupe is 2385 and 95 Neon sedan is 2416. See: http://auto.consumerguide.com/Auto/Used/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/2140/act/usedcarreviewspecs/

 

So, unless advised otherwise, I will use 2416 as the curb weight for the Neon sedan.

 

1) How can the curb weight of the '95 Neon Sedan be 2416, if you own one, and weighed it, and found it to weigh approximately 2430 (after wheel weight correction) with less than 3/4 tank of gas? It would seem that your car must have a curb weight of about 2460-2470 with a full tank of gas, which is also consistant with the prior number that you found.

 

Simple... my Neon sedan is not a base model. According to the rules as Section 6.4 (paragraph 2), “Base classifications are for the standard base model of a vehicle without factory options of (sic) upgrades, unless there is a specific TT base classification being in 6.2 for a non base model.” (Emphasis added in bold.) Assuming for the sake of discussion, that my vehicle did weigh 2470, the difference between that number and the base model without factory options (e.g. A/C) could easily be 54 lbs. (The base model also had less sound deadening material under the carpets, and had slightly lighter seats as well.)

 

The numbers on the website you posted are sometimes correct, and sometimes not. Obviously, in this case, it is wrong, unless you had 50 pounds of junk in the car when you weighed it.

 

I’m not so sure that they are obviously wrong since my Neon sedan is not a base model. See above. I suppose it is possible that the scales used to weigh my car were off, but I have no specific reason to believe that they were. BTW, the car was weighed on NASA’s official 4 corner scale while at Willow Springs.

 

This same website lists the late model (2000-2004) 4 door Neons as 2559, and shows the SRT4 engine on the same page. If one didn't know better, they might assume that the SRT4 also weighs 2559 (I wish).

 

But, you and I (and probably most of those the own one) know better. Interesting that they lumped the SRT-4 in with the Neon, since Dodge appears to have gone to great lengths to separate the SRT-4 from the Neon even though it is based on the platform. Don’t think any Neon badging appears on any exterior surface of an SRT-4.

 

Now, you happen to get lucky in this case, because we used the coupe's weight to class the SOHC's, and because you have the same hp as the coupe, you get to use that weight also if desired. We figured that most of them that we would see at the track would be coupes. So, the weight for the SOHC is 2376. We used the sedan for the DOHC's because many of them only come in sedan form, and we are more likely to see sedan DOHC's. The weight we used is 2507 for the DOHC (non-ACR).

 

Hate to say it, but you got this one backwards. The Neon sedans generally had the SOHC engines, and the coupes generally had the DOHC. However, when the Plymouth Breeze which also used the 2.0 SOHC engine, was introduced in 1996, there was a shortage of SOHC engines, and thus, many Neon sedans received a free upgrade. After the shortage subsided, Neon DOHC were allowed to delete that engine in favor of the SOHC fo a credit. So, you may see SOHC engines in both sedans and coupes... likewise with the DOHC engine. In contrast, all ACR Sedans were equipped with the SOHC engine in order to maintain the SCCA classifications for Club Racing and autocross. All ACR coupes were equipped with the DOHC engine.

 

2) I take it that the weight you posted on your Spec Neon is with a cage? Otherwise, that car must have a curb weight of about 2550+ (which is close to the weight that we got for the DOHC ACR at 2567). Obviously, your '95 DOHC coupe never weighed anywhere close to the 2385 lbs you found on that website, because there is no way that your cage weighs over 150 lbs. And, it would have to for your car to weigh 2443 with only 1/2 tank of gas, and the weight reduction items you listed.

 

Yes, it had a full cage at the time it was weighed. You have to remember that this car started off as a Neon Sport... even heavier than the Highline model. It had the 4 wheel disc brake option, ABS brakes, and power windows, among other things. BTW, the ACR coupe was closer to the base coupe, except that it had sway bars, Koni shocks and slightly heavier wheel hubs. Most came without A/C. So, I doubt that they weighed much more than the base model (add two sway bars). Same horsepower.

 

3) I'm not really sure why you asked me to class the Shelby Lancer about a year ago, with only 400 cars with manual transmissions ever built. Are you planning on running in TT with one, or was this just an exercise for me to try and find information that as you mention above is about impossible to find? "I don't recall ever seeing any published information on this car" Well, I did find some, but I don't know how accurate it is. And the weight that we used to class it was 3000 lbs. If you, or anyone else brings one of these cars to run in TT, we will weigh it, and determine if it is in the correct base class or not. If it is lighter than 3000 pounds, it may end up in TTE base class.

 

When I first inquired about the Shelby Lancer in the fall of 2004, it was for another interested part, I did not own one at that time. I have since acquired one (I have explained how and why by separate email), and upon looking at the new rules, it appears that it could possibly compete in TTF. Thus, the inquiry. I believe that the 3,000 lbs., you quoted is the same number I had suggested when I firat inquired. It is a number that has always stuck in my mind, but I don’t recall having seen any published information to support this number. If that is what we are going to use, I can live with that number.

 

4) The Shelby Charger turbo is classed in TTE with other cars of similar hp, weight, wt/hp ratio, suspension and handling characterics. Is this another car that we needed to class, but we'll never see?

 

I also asked about the Shelby Charger for another interested party, back in the fall of 2004. . Although I do own one, I hadn’t even considered running it in TT at that time. Towards the latter part of ‘05, I started considering the possibility, but haven’t taken any affirmative steps to prep this car. Under the current rules, I don’t think it would be competitive. I believe that I had suggested that it weighed around 2,500 lbs., and has about 150 hp., although I hadn’t seen any published material that I could remember. The numbers are close to the DOHC Neon, but the car doesn’t handle as well. As of this writing, I have a copy of Hot Rod (May, 1985) which states that the car weighs a shade under 2,500 (whatever a “shade” is), and has 150 hp. Now, the 1987 Shelby Charger GLHS has 175 hp, and is equipped with Koni shocks. The 87 model year was the only year this one was produced.

 

5) I've already explained once why we are not publishing the database of car weights, I'm not sure why the question keeps coming up. If each driver sticks to their own vehicle(s) that they will be running in TT, I and the other TT Directors will be happy to assist them if they have questions about their car's classification. There have been over 12,000 models of cars (by year) produced over the past 50 years. If we have 1000 TT drivers this year (and many of them driving the same, late model cars), we don't need to waste our time on the more than 11,000 other cars out there--Unless drivers would like to start paying a $100 surcharge per year for running in TT so we can research more cars that we will never see at the track--didn't think so?

 

“Base classifications are for the standard base model of a vehicle without factory options of (sic) upgrades, unless there is a specific TT base classification being in 6.2 for a non base model.” (Emphasis added in bold.) Thus, it would not be necessary for you to list the other 11,000 cars. In fact, I had not asked you to class either the Shelby Lancer or the Shelby Charger under the new rules. In any event, there are numerous other cars that are unlikely to participate in TT... the Toyota Prius comes to mind as well as the Geo Metro and the Corvair 95 just to mention a few.

 

6) While our research spanned probably about 4-5 thousand cars, in some fashion, we have only about 600 model "groups" listed in our base classifications. Our database lists a typical weight and hp for a car in that group. It does not list the weight and hp for every car by year in that group. (That would bring us back to the extra $ for research issue.) My estimate is that there are over 350 hours of research put into our base classes between this year and last year's work. It would have doubled or tripled that time to document all of the info investigated, and list every possible year, subtype, upgraded version, etc. At times, we were able to investigate every other year or a model that has been produced for 25 years and look for any substanial changes, then focus in on the year between if needed.

 

“Base classifications are for the standard base model of a vehicle without factory options of (sic) upgrades, unless there is a specific TT base classification being in 6.2 for a non base model.” (Emphasis added in bold.) Thus, by rule, the only model that really counts for purposes of establishing curb weight is the base model, unless the car happens to be one of those special non base models.

 

There are many models classed, and grouped together under the single model name, that had gradually increasing hp and weight at the same time over the years, but the wt/hp ratio remained relatively constant. The cars were otherwise substantially unchanged in regard to suspension/aero. In those cases, we will have one hp, weight, and wt/hp ratio listed in our database for the slew of them. Often it will be the car with the highest hp (and therefore the highest weight), but not always. So, that is why each driver needs to investigate their own car's curb weight if they wish to use the alternate method. Most non-caged cars will not see any benefit from using the alternate method unless the parts they removed were lighter than a "usual" part of the same type. Cars with cages may benefit. Often the car's curb weight is listed in the car's manual. So, if a driver that wishes to use this method presents us with their curb weight, we can check to make sure it jives with our numbers. If not, it may just be that they have a higher or lower hp version of one of the cars listed, and we can check for them. If it is a matter of a car model that hasn't varied in hp, and we just have different numbers, then we will use our numbers (which are probably the correct ones anyway). But, as you can see, if we just start sending out weights, it will confuse more than help.

 

“Base classifications are for the standard base model of a vehicle without factory options of (sic) upgrades, unless there is a specific TT base classification being in 6.2 for a non base model.” bold.) Thus, it makes no sense for me to use the curb weight from a heavier optioned model within the line while another person uses the curb weight from a base model, particularly when both are using the same engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff

OK Dave, I'm done. John Anderson, the NorCal TT Director, who is one of the mildest mannered guys that I know, has already told you that he is done answering your questions. You obviously can't read or comprehend anything without trying to form a rebutal position. This is not a debating society. I'm sure there are such places on the Internet, but I wouldn't know, because I'm not interested in debating.

 

This is a forum for information exchange between the hundreds of drivers that compete in the NASA TT series across the country. Long rebutal posts like the preceding one provide absolutely no useful purpose on this forum. In fact, they tend to be deleterious, as most TT drivers do not want to read them, and then many unsubscribe from the thread, which may have useful information to follow. I do not have the time to waste reading (or responding) to them either. I appreciate that you are enthusiastic about the rules and TT. I hope that you will come out to more than the 2 days you have participated in the last 1 1/2 years. I will be happy to answer any questions you have about your vehicles, or their classification by e-mail. I will be happy to sit down, have a drink, and talk about Neons, or Shelby's, or whatever the next time we are at the track. However, I will use the moderator power of this forum to delete further posts that are repetative, confrontational, or excessive. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

two quick questions:

1. What makes a Bilstein "race" shock (assuming it's non-adjustable)? Is there a specific designation or is it due to some kind of modification?

 

 

thanks,

mark.

 

Here you go

DSC00942.jpg

 

Hey guys, I believe that the bilstein shock in this picture should be classified in the +12 "race" category. It is nitrogen-charged and rebuildable in the sense that there are local race shops who can perform a rebuild and dyno for the customer. Not to mention that it is much lighter than conventional aftermarket shocks. I believe the one pictured comes from Unbalanced Engineering, Jason Swindel's company. The bilstein shocks that Jason sells in his CMC kits are a departure from the Penske 7500's that got Nick's car kicked out of CMC, but still use the same technology. The Penske 7100 is similar to the Bilstein shock pictured, but I can assure everyone here that similar performance can be obtained by these "lesser" shocks.

 

In the spirit of competition I believe that all gas-charged shocks should receive 12 points.

 

Greg, YGM back regarding this subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...but you can have "off the shelf Bilsteins Koni's" revalved, and there night and day from the "off the shelf" unit's....

Yep. This was probably the hardest mod rule to write. I would say that most of the TT drivers intuitively know what we are looking for in the +12 vs.+7 "coilovers and race dampers". But, putting it in writing so that high-end, low bling stuff doesn't fall through the cracks, and the low-end, high bling stuff doesn't get overcharged is very difficult. It's like the guy who went hunting for the rhinogatorasaurus that got asked, "what's it look like, can you describe it?" And he answered,"No, but I'll sure as heck know it when I see one".

 

Thanks for the picture...clear as day!

 

Greg,

 

Didn't understand if you were agreeing to the re-valving comment and providing some feedback on the points assessed for a revalved shock? Seems like to +5 for a non-adjustable and the +7 for an adjustable (assuming coilovers) is the way to go to avoid having to put shocks on a dyno to figure out if someone modified them no? Just my $0.02...

 

Also, any feedback on the sunroof removal?

 

thanks,

mark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg,

First good job overall on the new rules. The new format for engine mods is particularly commendable.

 

Now with some base classing issues.

 

Honda S2000 TTD

This car is rated in the same class as a Ford F-150 lighting, TTD with no stars.

How is this possible? The S2K is obviously a faster car stock. I would imagine adding it to TTC or at least 2 stars.

 

Acura NSX TTC*

Lets make a simple comparison in this case with a car that was rated with one additional star, E46 M3 or Evo 03. With only a single star, it means that the NSX with only DOT slicks is *slower* than both of the cars above. base TTC * 7 + DOT slicks 7 = 14 pts vs TTC ** = 15pts

 

Thanks for your time,

-random

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff

Greg,

 

Didn't understand if you were agreeing to the re-valving comment and providing some feedback on the points assessed for a revalved shock? Seems like to +5 for a non-adjustable and the +7 for an adjustable (assuming coilovers) is the way to go to avoid having to put shocks on a dyno to figure out if someone modified them no? Just my $0.02...

 

Also, any feedback on the sunroof removal?

 

thanks,

mark.

Mark,

I was agreeing that I'm aware that they can be re-valved. I haven't made any comments yet on how we are going to deal with this issue. Your point about either having adjustment or not is well taken, but the bottom line is that even in the more simple +2 point case above, there will be an advantage for the guy with more $ that can afford to have different (or re-valve) struts for different tracks, instead of having adjustments on them. This problem is amplified at the +7 vs +12 point level. I think we can all agree that having high-end gas charged (with and without a reservoir) shocks/dampers that have been valved (or adjusted) correctly for a given track is worth an extra 5 points over someone with basic "high performance street" coilovers (maybe more than 5 points). The guy that pays over $8000 for just his dampers is definitely getting "something" for his money. The guy that pays $10,000 for two sets of non-adjustables is getting the same thing if he only runs at two tracks, and gets them built correctly. I'm still working on this I would definitely not put it past some to have a NASA Nationals Mid-Ohio set of dampers/shocks if they can save 7 points on them for other mods.

 

As far as sunroofs are concerned, you may remove them and cover the hole for free (no points). We will assume that all models have a base class that does not come with a sunroof. (assume as in an interpretation of the rules--Please don't start listing cars that only came with a sunroof, if there are any )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff
Greg,

First good job overall on the new rules. The new format for engine mods is particularly commendable.

 

Now with some base classing issues.

 

Honda S2000 TTD

This car is rated in the same class as a Ford F-150 lighting, TTD with no stars.

How is this possible? The S2K is obviously a faster car stock. I would imagine adding it to TTC or at least 2 stars.

 

Acura NSX TTC*

Lets make a simple comparison in this case with a car that was rated with one additional star, E46 M3 or Evo 03. With only a single star, it means that the NSX with only DOT slicks is *slower* than both of the cars above. base TTC * 7 + DOT slicks 7 = 14 pts vs TTC ** = 15pts

 

Thanks for your time,

-random

 

We have some experience with the S2000 from last season, and it did seem to be classed appropriately. From what I've seen, the car needs at least one class worth of tire and suspension mods to make it a decent TT car--I think it would compete well in TTC with those mods, and I, as a TTC driver, welcome the challenge. The BMW E-30 M3, Porsche Boxster, and '78-'89 911's are all in TTD (no *). I think those are comparable cars. Whether or not the S2000 deserves a 7 or 15 point handicap in TTD is a possibility. For 2006, let's see how they do. Perhaps the F150 Lightening is classed to high, but it has 380 hp, and we need to be careful classing high hp cars (trucks ) too low, or we will find them cleaning up a class once they have tires, lowered suspension, weight reduction. I doubt that we will see any F-150s out there, but I really doubt we would see one that wasn't very tricked out and slammed.

 

Regarding the NSX, we did move it up by one * this year. Take a look at the other TTC* cars. Almost all of them have a better wt/hp ratio than the NSX. The NSX obviously has some great aero characteristics. Our experience with the NSX in '05 was that it was competitive in TTC, but not overly competitive. I think that the list of cars that flank it are comparable. The system isn't necessarily designed to try to equalize a modded car with a stock car. NASA TT competitors and HPDE 4 drivers in general, do not tend to have stock cars. Many of the double ** cars are classified as such, because once you put R-compound rubber on them, they would destroy the class they are in. However, should someone decide to drive one relatively stock, without R-compound tires, they would get destroyed in the higher class. Thus, the ** level of the two cars you mentioned.

 

Attempting to class just about every sportscar or sedan produced in the past 30-40 years for TT competition is a very tricky business. There is no single formula that leads to the "right answer". So, undoubtedly, with only 10 TT classes, there are going to be cars that all of us could directly compare to each other and say that one is better than the other. So, that is where the up-classing system comes in, hopefully to try to equalize the cars once they are in their competition trim. If we find a car that is clearly over-classed or under-classed, we change it the next year.

 

Thanks for your support.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guy that pays over $8000 for just his dampers is definitely getting "something" for his money. The guy that pays $10,000 for two sets of non-adjustables is getting the same thing if he only runs at two tracks, and gets them built correctly.

 

$8000...damn ...my car with all it's mods isn't worth that much...even with new tires, pads and rotors, an oil change, and a professional detailing, i'd still have to throw a bag of cash in the trunk.

 

i was more concerned about just revalved bilsteins or koni high performance shocks...not the Lindsey-type bad-ass stuff. i think you can get custom-valved bilstein hd shocks for <$200 ea.

 

i agree with you on the high-end gas charged stuff, be it adjustable or not...my shallow pockets and i will stay in tte...unless i can convince my kid to give up his birthday and christmas...

 

thanks,

mark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guy that pays over $8000 for just his dampers is definitely getting "something" for his money. The guy that pays $10,000 for two sets of non-adjustables is getting the same thing if he only runs at two tracks, and gets them built correctly.

 

$8000...damn ...my car with all it's mods isn't worth that much...even with new tires, pads and rotors, an oil change, and a professional detailing, i'd still have to throw a bag of cash in the trunk.

 

i was more concerned about just revalved bilsteins or koni high performance shocks...not the Lindsey-type bad-ass stuff. i think you can get custom-valved bilstein hd shocks for <$200 ea.

 

i agree with you on the high-end gas charged stuff, be it adjustable or not...my shallow pockets and i will stay in tte...unless i can convince my kid to give up his birthday and christmas...

 

thanks,

mark.

 

See Mark, Money will force you to stay in TTE

I think the TTE class is going to be fun this year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

two quick questions:

1. What makes a Bilstein "race" shock (assuming it's non-adjustable)? Is there a specific designation or is it due to some kind of modification?

 

 

thanks,

mark.

 

Here you go

DSC00942.jpg

 

I'm working on Koni to get them to (re)name this series of shocks as the "+12." That should eliminate the confusion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I have been looking all over the web for an accurate curb weight for a 95 firebird. I came up with 3311lb, but the car weighed 3450lb(w 3/4 tank no driver) last year at WSR. With 150lbs removed from the car all ready.

 

EDIT:GVWR is 4239 max passenger load is 701, So 3538lb is my curb weight?

 

One more ? on tire width, my car came with 245/50/16 im running 315/17 so thats a 70mm increase in width, which is +5 right?

 

 

John "+12" Wheeler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff
And I have been looking all over the web for an accurate curb weight for a 95 firebird. I came up with 3311lb, but the car weighed 3450lb(w 3/4 tank no driver) last year at WSR. With 150lbs removed from the car all ready.

 

EDIT:GVWR is 4239 max passenger load is 701, So 3538lb is my curb weight?

One more ? on tire width, my car came with 245/50/16 im running 315/17 so thats a 70mm increase in width, which is +5 right?

John,

NHTSA says that your car has a curb weight of 3408 lbs. Edmunds says it is 3373. We used 3408 lbs to classify it, so use that as your curb weight for calculations. Also, if your car weighed 3450 with some gas missing and already 150 lbs of weight reduction, I would check under the fenders and in the quarter panels. You may have a family of racoons living in that beast.

 

You have the tire width mod points correct. +5 for going from 245's to 315's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • National Staff
Hi Greg,

 

Could you please tell me what you used for vehicle weight for a 1992 Nissan 240SX. Thanks.

2700 lbs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg,

 

An NX2000 friend of mine in Ohio found what looks like a part of the rules in need of further clarification. He has a header (+2) as well as a catback (+1). Ostensibly, this would give him a +3, but the rules show that an exhaust system that goes from the header back is +2. What's in question is the exhaust piping from the cat to the header here. The headers for our cars come as a primary and a secondary and bolt right up to the cat. Does that mean he would take +2 for the header AND +2 for catback because the header actually goes all the way to the cat? I originally thought it was simply +3, but after further reading, some clarification would be helpful. Thanks!

 

EDIT: If you had two cats and went to one, would you take a single point, or no points because you still have a cat?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Greg,

 

Could you please tell me what you used for vehicle weight for a 1992 Nissan 240SX. Thanks.

2700 lbs.

 

How about for the 95-96 240SX?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I have been looking all over the web for an accurate curb weight for a 95 firebird. I came up with 3311lb, but the car weighed 3450lb(w 3/4 tank no driver) last year at WSR. With 150lbs removed from the car all ready.

 

EDIT:GVWR is 4239 max passenger load is 701, So 3538lb is my curb weight?

One more ? on tire width, my car came with 245/50/16 im running 315/17 so thats a 70mm increase in width, which is +5 right?

John,

NHTSA says that your car has a curb weight of 3408 lbs. Edmunds says it is 3373. We used 3408 lbs to classify it, so use that as your curb weight for calculations. Also, if your car weighed 3450 with some gas missing and already 150 lbs of weight reduction, I would check under the fenders and in the quarter panels. You may have a family of racoons living in that beast.

 

You have the tire width mod points correct. +5 for going from 245's to 315's.

 

You may want to check a little more on this Greg(I'll try to) becuase these car are known to weigh well over 3600lbs My car should run with 70% of the interior removed(+4 to +8) which should put me at 3300lbs. Now if i go with the weight option, i could only have a +1 or 2 point total for a gutted car.

 

This would not change my class but it could make it unfair for other's! Just an FYI

 

Thanks Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...