E46 IN ITS

[BMW RACER]

Hey Guys.

Thinking about this E36 SIR or 300 extra weight stuff.

E46 is looking like a good bet.

SAME: Size motor, compression, valve size, gear ratios, brakes, wheel size etc.

ALMOST THE SAME: Aero, track and wheelbase, weight distribution and general layout.

NO RESTRICTORS AND ONLY 150 LBS HEAVIER! Surely that car was classified correctly?

BUT WAIT A MINUTE!

If you do a good job a build the best one you can and it beats the other cars, SCCA will probably restrict it.

So, maybe I should build one, use a stock motor, tell everyone it's a Stickley motor (Sorry Chuck)

Just thinking.

[lateapex911]

That car was classified under the current process. I understand that it is nearly the same engine, but is missing some power in stock form, )171 rings a bell, but thats off the top of my head) so I would assume that was the reason for the lighter weight.

Also, IF they had gone with weight, we don't know the amount they would have chosen...., the 300# number was just one that was tossed out.

And...we really don't know IF or IF NOT the SIR will be effective...we haven't seen any definitive results yet.

That said, I DO agree that the E46 is a great choice. I think the major issue is the lack of parts, but that should be getting better quickly.

Finally, the ITAC and the CRB will be, I predict, not inclined to adjust cars twice, especially since this car was set under the present administrations process. Of course, that's not set in stone, but my opinion is that I doubt it will see anything in the near, or distant future.

[Bill Miller]

..

[Fastfred92]

The e46 could and would be a great car BUT consider the following: It will require MOTEC or something similar to make any hp and due to double VANOS you will need atleast a M600 or better unit so expect to have north of $6000 in the unit, wiring and tuning alone. Cam profiles on this car are a little mild so peak hp will not reach M50 e36 2.5 levels and rear diffs for this car ( racing lsd type ) are very expensive. I explored this car and even with the ability to do alot of the prep myself I still figured $50k to build..... Then what if the car kick ass and takes names ????????/

[lateapex911]

The e46 could and would be a great car BUT consider the following: It will require MOTEC or something similar to make any hp and due to double VANOS you will need atleast a M600 or better unit so expect to have north of $6000 in the unit, wiring and tuning alone. ...[/b]

May I ask a 'newbie' question? Why does the double vanos require that level of programability?
(And, for giggles, what if the "In the stock box" aspect of the ECU rule were removed?


Then what if the car kick ass and takes names ????????
[/b]

Then the cream has risen....

[Fastfred92]

May I ask a 'newbie' question? Why does the double vanos require that level of programability?
(And, for giggles, what if the "In the stock box" aspect of the ECU rule were removed?

[/b]

Jake, my understanding is that the complex OBD II code in the OEM box can not be expanded enough via flash or otherwise to remap the entire fuel curve for the racing enviroment. I dont know if this is a BMW only thing or common problem with all OBD II setups. If I understand correctly most aftermarket engine management systems are designed to, or not to, trigger additional functions like VTEC or VANOS and with the double VANOS it may need to trigger two? ( Motec guy at PRI said M4, M48 or M400 could not be used to trigger a double VANOS setup, only M600 or higher, read more $$ ) I think if we have this nonsense rule for MOTEC etc. we should elminate the "inside the box" part if for no other reason than to save some money. I think AEM currently offers a plug and play (e36) unit for less than half the MOTEC price but it would not fit inside the OEM box.


And as for the cream rising to the top, well with all due respect to any ad hoc member etc. most of the BMW guys are skeptical about that.

[lateapex911]

. I think AEM currently offers a plug and play (e36) unit for less than half the MOTEC price but it would not fit inside the OEM box.
And as for the cream rising to the top, well with all due respect to any ad hoc member etc. most of the BMW guys are skeptical about that.
[/b]

Good to get data points on the ECU thing, it is clearly a rule nobody is happy with.

On the cream thing, with all due respect to any BMW guy, if you are infering that the BMW guys feel that they are getting penalized for doing a better job, then the facts of the matter, and the process numbers are being completely ignored. As to the SIR, we are all reacting based on one published dyno pull on a poorly running engine.

I can't tell you if the SIR is right or wrong from a sizing point of view, but to state that it is wrong is pure conjecture at this point.

[dj10]

Good to get data points on the ECU thing, it is clearly a rule nobody is happy with.

On the cream thing, with all due respect to any BMW guy, if you are infering that the BMW guys feel that they are getting penalized for doing a better job, then the facts of the matter, and the process numbers are being completely ignored. As to the SIR, we are all reacting based on one published dyno pull on a poorly running engine.

I can't tell you if the SIR is right or wrong from a sizing point of view, but to state that it is wrong is pure conjecture at this point. [/b]

All I can say is that if I'm spending all this money to make my car get slower, if I get beat by a E46 323 Hans Stuck or Boris Said better be in that damn car! :D

I'll bet you a dollar someone comes out with a race version of the E46 ECU.

[Fastfred92]

Jake, No fight here! I can tell you that many in the BMW community feel slighted ( right or wrong can be debated ) but the e36 guys feel as slighted as the RX7 guys did when the e36 was first classed. Everyone wants an advantage.... But spend 50k plus on a e46 and visions of SIR's and lead surely would go dancing thru your head!

[lateapex911]

All I can say is that if I'm spending all this money to make my car get slower, if I get beat by a E46 323 Hans Stuck or Boris Said better be in that damn car! :D
[/b] naaaa...Stuky is old.....now Bill Auberlin...that might be the guy!



I'll bet you a dollar someone comes out with a race version of the E46 ECU.
[/b]

Nope...my dollar is safe in my pocket....it's only a matter of time.

[e36its]

I can't tell you if the SIR is right or wrong from a sizing point of view, but to state that it is wrong is pure conjecture at this point.
[/b]
<gentle prodding>
Quite true, Jake... but for me to state that it works at this point would be pure conjecture as well since nobody&#39;s seen fit to release representative test results and can&#39;t get my hands on a 29mm SIR just yet.
</gentle prodding>

tom

[lateapex911]

<gentle prodding>
Quite true, Jake... but for me to state that it works at this point would be pure conjecture as well since nobody&#39;s seen fit to release representative test results and can&#39;t get my hands on a 29mm SIR just yet.
</gentle prodding>

tom
[/b]

[impatient agreement]

I know...you&#39;re preaching to the choir, I&#39;m frustrated too, although my car is in so mnay peices right now I wouldn&#39;t know what to do with an SIR if it was handed to me, LOL (Of course, with 130HP and 106 ft lbs of tq, I&#39;d be just fie with the size, LOL)

[/impatient (not with you) agreement]

[bldn10]

I know I&#39;ll sound like an old fuddy-duddy but at least I&#39;m consistent. What can E46s be bought for? I submit to you that that car should NOT be classified in ITS at this time at any weight because it is inconsistent w/ the class philosophy of "low cost," "inexpensive" cars. 17.1.4.A-B. If you don&#39;t like that, urge the CRB to change the philosophy. Sure, it is all relative but a car that starts out in the $18,000 range prior to ITS prep IMO does not fit the bill. ITR maybe.

[Fastfred92]

bldn,

Just so you know I came very close to buying a 99 323i last year for this very reason. ( build for ITS ) It had 130k and in decent running order and was sold for $8600 at a local auction. I am glad ( for multiple reasons now ) I did not buy because I have seen several since in the $7500 range with a few more miles..

[bldn10]

Well, Fred, that shows you what I know about Bimmers. I was thinking E46 was 2001+ for some reason. :wacko: Still, that does not come close to the fact that right now I can buy a running &#39;89 RX-7 GXL for $600. Now that&#39;s what IT is all about!

[Fastfred92]

Still, that does not come close to the fact that right now I can buy a running &#39;89 RX-7 GXL for $600. Now that&#39;s what IT is all about!
[/b]

I agree with that but when some people are cuttin checks to Speedsource for $30-40k on top of that $600 it kinda throws the economical part of IT out the window as well !!!!! Maybe we should come up with a $10k claimer rule :P

[bldn10]

"but when some people are cuttin checks to Speedsource for $30-40k on top of that $600 it kinda throws the economical part of IT out the window as well !!!!!"

There is a subtle but very important distinction at work here, Fred. The philosophy of IT is to offer a place where you CAN run a "low cost" "inexpensive" car - but you don&#39;t HAVE to. You can put a legal ITS RX-7 on the track for <$5000. You absolutely CANNOT do that w/ an E46 (or E36 for that matter). Any car that costs so much to start w/ that w/ minimum required equip. exceeds what at the time is deemed to be "low cost/inexpensive" should not be classified.

I also wish there was a way to establish an upper limit to exclude "high cost/expensive" cars but I don&#39;t know how to effectively and fairly do it.

[lateapex911]

"but when some people are cuttin checks to Speedsource for $30-40k on top of that $600 it kinda throws the economical part of IT out the window as well !!!!!"

There is a subtle but very important distinction at work here, Fred. The philosophy of IT is to offer a place where you CAN run a "low cost" "inexpensive" car - but you don&#39;t HAVE to. [/b]


EXACTLY! And you CAN do that...! By getting an RX-7! Or a ITA RX-7, or an ITS Z car, or nearly any ITB car, and so on.

The idea, is to try and ensure that the expensive choices aren&#39;t forced on competitors by clasifying them as overdogs.

[snowmann]

The philosophy of IT is to offer a place where you CAN run a "low cost" "inexpensive" car - but you don&#39;t HAVE to. [/b]

Precisely what you just said, and that is also the reason why a E46 CAN be run in ITS... There is a provision in the rules that dates back years that allows for a car only having to meet the appropriate age... so if its in the rules isnt it the philosophy of IT?

Look at the RX7... when it met the appropriate age it too couldnt be had for dirt cheap...

Things change

Im sure there were people with there first gen 7&#39;s complaining about guys buying these new updated cars and having an &#39;edge&#39; and saying it didnt meet the idea of the IT rules...

If people want to keep things the way they are shouldn&#39;t they be vintage racing?

If we don&#39;t want to progress and give people new engineering possibilities shouldn&#39;t we also be racing vintage?

Im not attacking, but ponder these ideas... They must make sense to a degree

[lateapex911]

Im sure there were people with there first gen 7&#39;s complaining about guys buying these new updated cars and having an &#39;edge&#39; and saying it didnt meet the idea of the IT rules...


[/b]

I agree with your points, but...

1st gen drivers complained NOT about the "udated" aspect.....but about a car, the CRX, having the same or more power and more torque, and weighing nearly 300 pounds LESS when classed.

THEN they complained when the ECU rule was enacted POST classification, giving all ECU cars an unobtainable leg up.

The 5 year rule exists to help defray the expense of one aspect of an IT build, and probably (back in the original days) to provide a "retirement home" for aged out SS cars.

[bldn10]

"There is a provision in the rules that dates back years that allows for a car only having to meet the appropriate age... so if its in the rules isnt it the philosophy of IT?"


W/ all due respect, the notion that the 5-year rule means that ANY 5 year old car has a right to be classified in ITS is patently absurd. In fact, MOST cars are not classified.

In 1993 I bought my first 2nd gen. RX-7 ITS car and I think I paid $7000. In 1995 I bought a very-well prepared S5 (&#39;89) car for $10,000. In 2002 I sold a decent S5 car w/ trailer for $8000. Ex-SpeedSource cars can be had today for $10,000.

[Knestis]

I don&#39;t know how we get all the way to "patently absurd."

The fact that more cars aren&#39;t listed is STRICTLY a function of the fact that additional listings are not requested. In talking with non-members interested in SCCA racing, they are terribly put off with the idea of submitting paperwork to a national organization, as a newbie member, requesting that the car that interests them be reviewed and added to the rules. "That&#39;s stupid" was one pretty unequivocal response, of someone who had come to a NASA race to spectate and see if there was a place to race his Korean econobox.

Only someone experienced with club racing is likely to pursue that option and then there&#39;s a good chance that he/she is already commited to a make/model that already listed. THEN, there&#39;s really only an GOOD incentive to request that a new model be listed, if it looks likely to be significantly better than existing options.

Recipe for stagnation. Most people already running something are going to be reluctant to help add cars that might beat them, in the Club Racing mindset.

K

EDIT - because I have the numbers handy, the price of a base VW Golf increased from $6400 to $15000, between 1983 and 2001 - that&#39;s from the "beginning of IT" through a newly eligible year. Even adjusted to the Consumer Price Index, that still represents a 2001-dollar rise in cost of about 29%.

[bldn10]

"The fact that more cars aren&#39;t listed is STRICTLY a function of the fact that additional listings are not requested."

Says who? Are you seriously suggesting that if enough people wanted some 2001 Ferrari in IT, the CRB would have to classify it? You can guess what I think about that. :P

17.1.4.A. simply states in the negative that "Cars from the previous four (4) model years and the current model year will not be eligible." What does that mean? It means only that cars have to be at least 5 model years old in order to be eligible for classification. In no way does that imply that all such cars will in fact be classified if there is enough interest.

[Fastfred92]

Bill,
I don&#39;t think any of us needs to worry too much about the might e46, my guess is they will be few and far between..... I think the few you might see will be underdeveloped for some time to come and the guys who could fully develop them right away will play elsewhere. Just my .02

[Knestis]

... Are you seriously suggesting that if enough people wanted some 2001 Ferrari in IT, the CRB would have to classify it? ... [/b]

Of COURSE not. You are talking not about the NUMBER of cars classified but about their performance envelope. There are two issues at play here. I was responding to the "most are not classified" comment, as it was presented as support for your point about performance. Or price. Both? The two have nothing to do with one-another, except in instances where the CRB actually says, "No - that car is too fast and we won&#39;t list it."

K

[bldn10]

I guess I haven&#39;t clearly stated my position because I have said nothing about performance - of the E46, Ferrari, or any other car. I simply mean that in order for a car to be appropriately classified in IT it has to meet the age requirement AND the class philosophy of "low cost/inexpensive" racing. "This class is intended to allow a variety of popular, inexpensive cars to be eligible; however, those determined by the Club to be outside these parameters will not be classified." 17.1.4.B. So, actually, while I absolutely disagree w/ snowmann&#39;s notion that ALL 5-year old cars must be classified if there is demand for them (even if they are expensive), I conversely do not think that otherwise appropriate cars should be excluded based on their inherent or potential performance envelope. They should just be classified w/ enough weight or other restrictions to make them fit in.

[lateapex911]

I......I conversely do not think that otherwise appropriate cars should be excluded based on their inherent or potential performance envelope. They should just be classified w/ enough weight or other restrictions to make them fit in.
[/b]

The bottom line here is that the car must first:

- Be able to fit a class in the category, and race well with the other cars in the class. So it&#39;s performance characteristics must fit the envelope for the class. If it has too much potential, the restrictions needed will become too invasive in some manner, and the class will be better without the car, as the car wouln&#39;t be appropriate for racing

- It has to be 5 yrs old.

- It needs to be available enough to build examples of, and have proper documentation for effective policing.

- If it were the only car in the class it would need to be a reasonable build financially. If there are other options that are reasonable already in the class, that range of reasonability can open up.

All of the above is dependent on the car being classed appropriately.

In other words, the worst outcome would be a car that is too fast for the class, gets improperly restricted, and is an expensive build, as you have now created an overdog .....a "must have", that is expensive.

But having more expensive options....that are not overdogs...isn&#39;t such a bad thing, and allows those that choose to, the option of diversity.

The bottom line is that the cost to be competitive shouldn&#39;t be unduly expensive in any class, and that the category as a whole, have inexpensive options. But let&#39;s not kid ourselves, as the term "reaonably inexpensive" could be stretched to include prep allowances thet require labor. There are lots of rule change requests that woudn&#39;t have improved competition, but would have increased the cost for every one.

So the financial policing of the category isn&#39;t just about the cars chosen.