240z

Slowwpoke Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've been lurking here long enough to know that
> JVL's advice is both wise and frequent. Consider
> your advice heeded.
>
> I know power isn't the biggest factor in rally
> racing success, but I noticed the 240z has the max
> displacement for an OHC motor. Thats just for RA.
> Not sure what NASA is...

The old Gp2 max cc thing has been revised to a weight per cc deal.
So a 2300 OHC motor must weigh xxxxlbs and a 2400 xxxx lbs
So that's not a big deal anymore.

>
> That led me to believe it would have a decent
> chance.

A car still needs to handle, and long 6 cylinder motors in short wheelbase cars never really had a chance even as far back as 1960 when 3.0 OHC Austin Healeys and Mercedes 300 on asphalt events started getting their asses whupped by 850cc Saabs pretty consistently.

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

Slowwpoke Wrote:
I know of a 1st gen
> Celica "liftback"gt I might be able to get my
> hands on...
> What do you think?
> Isn't the celica is a couple hundred pounds
> heavier than the corolla?

I think they're more than a few hundred pounds more, and really you just don't see them that frequently at the "Rally spare parts storeage facilities" know to the uncouth as "junk yards".

Last time i was at Lynwood Pull a Part there were 11 240s, only one with a dent.

The other thing with a celica is: What motor?

The 22R is strong but that huge open combustion chamber with those canted over valves means making compression a hard thing, and you will want compression on a normal aspirated motor.

Now a 3GSTE in north south in the right Celica could be a pretty awesome home made GpB 2wd car.
Is it TA64?

Look here for an idea of the body shell mods you might think hard about doing:
http://www.mat.fi/project1984toyotacelicaturbo.htm

> The old Gp2 max cc thing has been revised to a
> weight per cc deal.
> So a 2300 OHC motor must weigh xxxxlbs and a 2400
> xxxx lbs
> So that's not a big deal anymore.


Ya, I've been wondering about that...

So in the instance of a 2.4L Z the car must weigh no less than 2271lbs. This seems obtainable from the 2400lbs they were from the factory.

And a 240 volvo with 2.1L must weigh no less than 2138lbs. But they were sold at 2840lbs (according to the infallible wikipedia).

How much weight is it possible to shed?? Am I obsessing over this power/weight ratio too much? The 240 volvo is obviously more than a capable rally car...

Is this a better or worse idea than the 240z?

http://phoenix.craigslist.org/car/576069671.html

Slowwpoke Wrote:

>
> Ya, I've been wondering about that...
>
> So in the instance of a 2.4L Z the car must weigh
> no less than 2271lbs. This seems obtainable from
> the 2400lbs they were from the factory.

Yeah but there's no room inside sports cars. Even "Sporty" cars like the Eclipse things people say "I hate it inside, I bang my head and get a crook in the neck" and that's not even mentioning the poor outward visibility when you're sitting on the floor and have a long snout, or the car has a long snout, your snout id your business.

Then there's the extreme rarity and associated expense of a L24 head.
There hain't any in the bone yards, and long ass heads love to warp a lot more than short heads, so since 2.4 is do-able in 4 cyliders---and everything being equal, the 4s make moar torques, why fuck with 6s? Specially INLINE 6s?

>
> And a 240 volvo with 2.1L must weigh no less than
> 2138lbs. But they were sold at 2840lbs (according
> to the infallible wikipedia).

HooooKay what does a Volvo with a 2.3 sposed to weigh?
I see Swedish cars between 1100-1200 kg
And since the onliest difference tween B21 and B23 is 4mm more bore, why not go B23?
>
> How much weight is it possible to shed?? Am I
> obsessing over this power/weight ratio too much?

Yeah probably specially when you consider you are yet rallying.
Have you considered a high roughage diet?
A good dump before each stage and you'll save a lot of dead weight.

If you're not "regular" you could do a "high colonic" cleansing enema.

> The 240 volvo is obviously more than a capable
> rally car...

And as cheap and common as the cars and parts are, and how easy the upgrades are, and how basically good the dimensions, the weight balance, the strong motors, I really think they should be North America's Ford Escort MkII.

(and the Xratties, which are better cars I call "the 510 of the 00ies"

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

Slowwpoke Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is this a better or worse idea than the 240z?

Better. But still the problem of an inline 6.
At rebuild or upgrade time there are 50% more of everything to buy and zero more torque return.
50% more pistons, bearings, valves, srings guides, rockers, rocker shafts etc.

All to get not moar torques!

We want moar torques!
>
>

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

john vanlandingham Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Have you considered a high roughage diet?
> A good dump before each stage and you'll save a
> lot of dead weight.


I like it, faster AND healthier.

So today I have learned that the best Group 2 car is a 240. I'll be on the lookout for a good 2.3 240 henceforth.
Assuming the talented 240 did not exist, what would you choose for a RWD g2 car? Crane seems to love the toyotas...

Slowwpoke Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So today I have learned that the best Group 2 car
> is a 240. I'll be on the lookout for a good 2.3
> 240 henceforth.

Don't worry about the motor, they swap easily.

> Assuming the talented 240 did not exist, what
> would you choose for a RWD g2 car?

Gp2?
I personally have been pushing hard the idea that Gp5 cars are cheaper to go fast in because you don't HAVE to do much in the motor if you don't want.
HENCE why I push Merkur XR4Ti and 240 Volvo Turbo.

Both will make more TORQUE stock than the hottest 2300 NA you can make.

The big broad torque curve means you can let the motr pull or rev it and it means you don't have to face the cost of a close ratio box because, as you stick with a car and progressively built it and make the NA motor hotter eventually, inevitably the powerband narrows. Narrower powerband, need smaller gaps between the ratios.

OK you make up for lack of torque in the engine by using a VERY short final drive, like 5:1 for a bigger motor or 5.3 with a little 1.6 or 1.8, and the gear multiplies the torque, but if you eventually hop up that NA motor you'll need to think about some gearbox with a first gear around 2.3 or when you shorten the rear axle ratio you'll have a useless 12 mph first gear.

So think about the turbo option.
(They are fun)
And ya know, Dave La Tourette has this caged Xratty shell, with just a huge pile of fun parts waiting for somebody with $2500, he's just up in North Bend.
Some assembly required

And remember, anything you can say about the 240 applies equally well to Xratties.
Both need the same things, some things are a little easier on the one, some things easier on the other, both are around for just a few hundred.
Parts are the exact same parts for both so it comes down to stuff liek
Do you like IRS, or like Derek say "I know they work good but Xratties are just too ugly".




Crane seems to
> love the toyotas...

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

Hey, wait a minute, your name is Dave Clark? How can you be Dave Clark when I'm Dave Clark? How dare you have my same name! Or more importantly, how dare you have my same name and have your nickname as Slowwpoke? People may get confused and think I'm not fast and can't spell!

Oh, and welcome to the forum, the other Dave Clark. Your official name is now The Other Dave Clark. (I can do that since I am a moderator.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2008 11:37PM by Doivi Clarkinen.

The situation has been remedied.

john vanlandingham Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>or like Derek say "I know they
> work good but Xratties are just too ugly".

I am currently the proud owner of an 86' 5.0 mustang. The Xratty looks GOOD by comparison. I'll buy it if YOU help me finish it!

Ok look man. 240 turbo for g5. Corolla for g2. Or a merkur for g5.

Or shit, rally the mustang. The v8 ought to have some grunt to it.

---

Welcome to the cult of JVL drink the koolaid or be banned.

Dazed_Driver Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Or shit, rally the mustang. The v8 ought to have
> some grunt to it.

Mustangs are terrible cars (no offense other dave clarke). I'm trying to think of a generation that doesn't suck horribly... hmm the first wasn't so bad.. The new ones look nice.

---

Andrew M
Onterrible
30ish

hudson Wrote:
> Mustangs are terrible cars (no offense other dave
> clarke). I'm trying to think of a generation that
> doesn't suck horribly... hmm the first wasn't so
> bad.. The new ones look nice.

Oh ya? I'll race you! In a straight line, of course. On dry pavement. Oh and with no corners. And provided I don't need to stop abruptly.

Pshh, mustangs are GREAT cars.