12 replies to this topic

[Flyntgr]

Lots of folks going with '99s. I have a 1.6 with 116 hp, adjustable fuel pressure and A/F meter.

Would it be worth buying a 1999 with 123 hp Pro motor if: at 180lbs, I am 40lbs (without cool suit setup) over the minimum weight limit in the 1.6, but would be 37 lbs under the minimum weight limit in the '99?

40 lbs=5 hp I am losing by being over minimum weight in the 1.6, or now down to 111hp effective hp. If the '99 comes in at minimum weight, the difference would be:123-111=12 Effective hp gain in the '99.

So, assuming (big assumption, I know; driving is as important or more important than hp) I am able to wring out the full advantage of the hp gain in going with the '99 over the 1.6 [1990], how much difference would there be between the two cars? Would there be enough advantage of the '99 over the 1.6 to be significant? I'm talking: enough to go from midpack to the front few, with that assumption? It seems to me that 12 hp effective difference is a LOT, and worthwhile to spend $20K to gain the results. What say YOU?

[Tom Hampton]

You haven't done all your math right. In order to compare hp like that you need to compare the weight difference between the cars not between the weight spec for each car.
The other consideration is that at 180 you should need ballast in a 1.6 to make weight. You still have excess weight in the 1.6 car. I weighed 190 when I had my 1992 scaled. I was 40 lbs under with 1 gallon of gas.

Finally.... oh, boy.... here we go again!

[Flyntgr]

You haven't done all your math right. In order to compare hp like that you need to compare the weight difference between the cars not between the weight spec for each car.
The other consideration is that at 180 you should need ballast in a 1.6 to make weight. You still have excess weight in the 1.6 car. I weighed 190 when I had my 1992 scaled. I was 40 lbs under with 1 gallon of gas.

Finally.... oh, boy.... here we go again!

Maybe the better question would be, "Which car should be faster at Barber Motorsport Ranch in Birmingham?"

I bought the '90 car used. It weighs 2133 with 2 gallons of gas, including cool shirt set up but without water/ice. The new car will require ballast to make weight minimumweight with driver,assuming minimum weight with driver is 2350 lbs. As for the '90, I have removed everything I can legally remove from it. The roll cage apparently is very good, but heavy. I can't lose 38lbs of body weight.
As to "here we go again", I'm trying to remove the variables: driver competence, comparison of 1.6 vs 1.8, weight penalty, track differences,dyno variance, and so forth. For purpose of the question: assume same dyno, Barber track, same day, same humidity, same temperature, etc, etc. I think, IMHO, the racing weight is what counts-not the weights of the cars without the driver-as far as comparisonpurposes are concerned. The '99 vs the '90, with respective hp/torque, at actual racing weight is what I think matters in comparing the CARS. If it's an unanswerable question-assuming all other parameters equal-I'll withdraw the post.

[James York]

Maybe the better question would be, "Which car should be faster at Barber Motorsport Ranch in Birmingham?"

I bought the '90 car used. It weighs 2133 with 2 gallons of gas, including cool shirt set up but without water/ice. The new car will require ballast to make weight minimumweight with driver,assuming minimum weight with driver is 2350 lbs. As for the '90, I have removed everything I can legally remove from it. The roll cage apparently is very good, but heavy. I can't lose 38lbs of body weight.
As to "here we go again", I'm trying to remove the variables: driver competence, comparison of 1.6 vs 1.8, weight penalty, track differences,dyno variance, and so forth. For purpose of the question: assume same dyno, Barber track, same day, same humidity, same temperature, etc, etc. I think, IMHO, the racing weight is what counts-not the weights of the cars without the driver-as far as comparisonpurposes are concerned. The '99 vs the '90, with respective hp/torque, at actual racing weight is what I think matters in comparing the CARS. If it's an unanswerable question-assuming all other parameters equal-I'll withdraw the post.

Reggie,
I'll second Tom's opinion. I think your math is off. If we want to compare apples to apples, meaning top shelf 1.6 vs. 99 (that is what you are asking correct?; if your car is not top, then of course any "better" prepped car will be faster); Then we must base the decision on:

1) Compare the minimum race legal weights. At 180# you should be able to make minimum weight in either (prep your car). And as a note, I think your weight/hp assumption is off. If that was the rule of thumb my 99 should be 20hp more than a 1.6 to make up the weight difference, which it is not even close to that value. I'd like to have 145 hp.
2) Let's assume the numbers we read on-line are true; top shelf 1.6=125hp; 99=128hp (You didn't mention torque which is probably more important, especially at NPR, although it has a lot of micky mouse back and forth stuff where the 99 weight wouldn't be as good)
3) Let's also assume that the cars are equel (even though views are about split as left vs right in politics)

Which would you be faster? I would say four factors most influence.
1) Track
2) Weather
3) Skill
4) Style

A tight twisty track with a lot of back and forth transition favors the lighter car (1.6L). One that has medium speed corners broken apart by decent straigts (lot of acceleration) favors the 99.

The 99 likes cold/cool weather. It makes more power and can keep the tires under it. In the heat of the summers, it is very easy for a 99 to run the tires off the car. The weight difference here. The 99 eats tires.

Skill. I have to agree with most that the 99 is easier to drive quick. To drive at the same limit in a 1.6 requires more skill in my opinion. Harder to do lap after lap in a race without making a mistake versus a 99.

Style. Some people just prefer the toss it around style of the 1.6 versus the neat and tidy 99 drive. I know of one driver who sold his 99 and went back to his 1.6, giving up since he couldn't change his driving style enough. When I swapped, my ultimate speed was a tiny bit less in the 99, but over a race distance I was much quicker with far fewer mistakes.

Would you be faster at Barber? I can't say since I have never been. Would you be faster in a 99 in general? Probably. You're not a kid, your reflexes are shot (mine too btw), you only just started SM, you didn't race go-karts and you came from high horsepower cars. So if you got the money to drop on a 99, I think you would be faster. How much and is it worth it? I don't know but it can't really be worth it. After all, all you get is a piece of wood. But I know logic doesn't apply to racers.

[dmathias]

Is Barber the only track you plan to race?

[Jason J Ball]

Your math is fuzzy! Power to Weight is pretty much equal 116 HP/2285 LBS = .0507 HP/LB in a 1.6L,
123 HP/2390 Lbs = .0514 HP/LB in a 99' (NASA). What matters is setup and the nut behind the wheel! If I had your motor and an extra $20k I'd spend it on lots of track time, coaching, setup, and Data. Your motor is pretty good. If that fails to get you closer to the front A $50K car won't help you

[Bench Racer]

Not knowing how/where the 1.6 116 hp came about that hp will take you no where near the front.

[MPR22]

Reggie,
I'll second Tom's opinion. I think your math is off. If we want to compare apples to apples, meaning top shelf 1.6 vs. 99 (that is what you are asking correct?; if your car is not top, then of course any "better" prepped car will be faster); Then we must base the decision on:

1) Compare the minimum race legal weights. At 180# you should be able to make minimum weight in either (prep your car). And as a note, I think your weight/hp assumption is off. If that was the rule of thumb my 99 should be 20hp more than a 1.6 to make up the weight difference, which it is not even close to that value. I'd like to have 145 hp.
2) Let's assume the numbers we read on-line are true; top shelf 1.6=125hp; 99=128hp (You didn't mention torque which is probably more important, especially at NPR, although it has a lot of micky mouse back and forth stuff where the 99 weight wouldn't be as good)
3) Let's also assume that the cars are equel (even though views are about split as left vs right in politics)

Which would you be faster? I would say four factors most influence.
1) Track
2) Weather
3) Skill
4) Style

A tight twisty track with a lot of back and forth transition favors the lighter car (1.6L). One that has medium speed corners broken apart by decent straigts (lot of acceleration) favors the 99.

The 99 likes cold/cool weather. It makes more power and can keep the tires under it. In the heat of the summers, it is very easy for a 99 to run the tires off the car. The weight difference here. The 99 eats tires.

Skill. I have to agree with most that the 99 is easier to drive quick. To drive at the same limit in a 1.6 requires more skill in my opinion. Harder to do lap after lap in a race without making a mistake versus a 99.

Style. Some people just prefer the toss it around style of the 1.6 versus the neat and tidy 99 drive. I know of one driver who sold his 99 and went back to his 1.6, giving up since he couldn't change his driving style enough. When I swapped, my ultimate speed was a tiny bit less in the 99, but over a race distance I was much quicker with far fewer mistakes.

Would you be faster at Barber? I can't say since I have never been. Would you be faster in a 99 in general? Probably. You're not a kid, your reflexes are shot (mine too btw), you only just started SM, you didn't race go-karts and you came from high horsepower cars. So if you got the money to drop on a 99, I think you would be faster. How much and is it worth it? I don't know but it can't really be worth it. After all, all you get is a piece of wood. But I know logic doesn't apply to racers.

James, as usual, is pretty dead on.

I have found tracks that have off camber slidey turns prefer the 1.6 to the 99.
The 99 absolutely eats tires compared to the 1.6. The tires also go off faster in the heat (99).
The 99 is easier to make up for small mistakes because the torque(the real number you should be looking at) is much higher. It has better handling charactersitics in bumpy turns becasue of the better suspension geometry.


1. If you have an unlimited budget own both.
2. If you have a healthy budget but not unlimited buy a 99. (Tires, Tires, Tires)
3. If you are just doing this to have fun drive the 1.6 like you stole it.

If you are doing this and want to be top 3 in SE or SW Divisions you must start with a big ass budget and more talent than most.

[Flyntgr]

Great information, guys. I run mostly at No Problem Raceway in LA, though Barber is the nearest thing to NPR that I have run at-motorcycle track with some sharp turns, though not as many as NPR. I don't expect to run podium in SCCA/NASA, but to be pretty competitive-midpack or faster. I have run at TWS, Road Atlanta and MSR Houston, too. At my home track, there are 3 excellent drivers who are going to 99s, and they are fast, already. I want to compete with them, but they are faster on the straights than my car. The corners are for ME to figure out, and I'm there or almost there in the sharp turns where I can hold my own. Therefore, h.p. and torque come to mind. I could add 3-5 hp with a new 1.6, or could go with the 1.8. Obviously, new engines are much cheaper. Trying to decide which is best to do. Thanks.

[davew]

Way too many variables to say anything for sure. BUT:

40 pounds will cost you no more than 1/4 second. I have played with weight just to see what it really costs.
8 horsepower will gain you about 1/2 second. Equivalent to removing a restrictor on a 99 car.

Using your math, losing 40 pounds and gaining the 8 horsepower you are down, should get you about 3/4 second.

And that assumes you have the skill to take advantage of these improvements. Only you can say.

And take advantage of them on every lap, not just your fastest lap. Front runners can do lap after lap within a couple tenths of their best lap. Can you?

Will 3/4 second get you from "mid pack to the front few" ? Only you can say.

[Tom Hampton]

Would you be faster at Barber? I can't say since I have never been. Would you be faster in a 99 in general? Probably. You're not a kid, your reflexes are shot (mine too btw), you only just started SM, you didn't race go-karts and you came from high horsepower cars. So if you got the money to drop on a 99, I think you would be faster. How much and is it worth it? I don't know but it can't really be worth it. After all, all you get is a piece of wood. But I know logic doesn't apply to racers.

Yeah but....its a SHINY piece of wood.

[JayF]

What about the redheaded step child NA 1.8's???

[Flyntgr]

Yeah but....its a SHINY piece of wood.

My present car is shiny, too.

Attached Files

•  Flying Tiger pics June 26 2011 002.JPG   160.09KB   33 downloads
•  Flying Tiger pics June 26 2011 005.JPG   159.06KB   32 downloads