Sorry for the blanket statement. My car is an early 944 with a 2.7 and all the inside sound deadening material removed. The underside is still fully undercoated. I have a late (86) model roller that has the same situation (no sound deadening, with undercoating). I am building it as a 2.5L and will let you know what it weighs when I'm done. If anyone wants, I can take some pictures of the early car showing what was done to lighten it.

Dave, thanks for the 50lbs, I don't think it will make me competitive, but every little bit helps.

RL, I disagree with your interpretation of the SCCA ITS rules. You will note that the 83-88 944 is on a separate line from the 89 2.7l 944. The chassis are not all the same with regards to weight and weight distribution. (85.5 and up cars are heavier in front) For the update backdate rule to be utilized the cars must be on the same line. Your logic would allow the 240Z guys to install the 2.8l fuel injected engine into the 1970 Z that came with a 2.4l and just add weight to the rear of the car. I can assure you this is not allowed in SCCA. I dont mean to stir things up, I just recognize that the perception might be that an early 83 car like Eric Ruperts with a 2.7 would be the car to build for Cup with equal power to weight ratios because of the torque. I think there is enough data now for DD to do a good job of creating parity between the 2.5 and 2.7l cars, but I dont think anyone would argue against the fact that they were initially dominant. Greg F

I'm not saying that this is justified by the SCCA update/backdate rule. I realize the 2.5, 2.7 and I assume the Z cars you mention, have separate pages in the GCR.
I think the IT comp board changed the rule because of member input about cost and availablity of some of these old cars and that the requirement was really unenforceable when you can take ID plates from one chassis and put them on another.

So I don't think the Scrutineers that are up on the newest GCR would penalize someone using a chassis from another page(if it could be proven) as long as the car meets all specs and weight for the declared make and model, and while you might protest someone for illegal update/backdate I don't think it would hold up.

Of course that's just my opinion!

I am interested in what you said about weight distribution though. Does the factory documentation show a different weight distribution for early versus late? Now if you had that a protest could be upheld. Other than the '83 with out PS and bumpers both of which are legal backdate mods, what would substantially affect this?

As I said, the front half of the 85.5 and later cars are between 45lb and 55lb heavier than the early version. I was repairing a crashed car and weighed both sections before welding it onto the tub. Greg

What has been your experience with the performance difference in engines Greg? I know the 2.7 has a few more HP and TQ but do you think that is what made them dominant in 44Cup?
A similiar old thread here said that the best drivers were the ones running the 2.7s and that they'd be the fastest with either engine.
I had a 2.7 and recall it Dyno'd at 140HP and 138TQ. I'm going to try to find those sheets.

I had one on the dyno that was more like 158hp and 166ft lb of torque. It had a cat back exhaust, cone type air filter and a generic, store bought chip. I think the 2.7 should be an option for the later cars that cannot get to weight for whatever reason. The best 2.5l here is right at 144hp with J&E pistons, iron liners, full balancing and blueprinting, cut head, etc. My 88 engine (158hp)makes 143hp with standard size, stock pistons. The lowest HP engine we have is around 137hp and is based on an 84. (143hp) All of these engines are prepared to the ITS rulebook with no fudging of the rules.
My assumption is that if I built the 2.7 to the ITS rules I would be making 160-165hp with torque in the high 150's. There is one 2.5l 16V running in the area making just over 200hp at the ground using RS SCCA rules. Car was very fast at 2850lb, and I think now he is running at 2650lb. Greg

I own Eric Rupert's old 2.7L engine. When he had it it was 153 HP and 153 FT/LBS of torque on race fuel. I think his success was based more on his driving skill than out horse-powering the field. He held the track record at VIR until this year.

I know Eric pretty well, I helped him with the set up on his car a great deal. I remember him telling me how much better the car came off the corners with the 2.7, no wonder with 10 more HP than my ITS car. Even when the weight was added the car was still pretty competitive. Greg F