e-36 M3 in ITR

[Z3_GoCar]

For all those who thing that the e-36 M3 is way out side of ITR. Here's what you'd see at the wheels of a Stock M3.... (http://bimmer.roadfly.com/bmw/forums/z3/7631715-1.html)

Looks like based on stock flywheel numbers they loose over 45 hp in the drive trans. Now based on these numbers is the M3 can't be that far outside.

James

[JeffYoung]

They were initially in. Due to some anecdotal evidence, we removed them out of the concern for wheel hp in excess of 230 or so in IT trim. I think this was a good decision, for now at least.

Those numbers (199) look VERY low to me -- what type of dyno was involved, etc? It's a 95 too, so it is the 3.0 version whose numbers are a bit lower.

There are a lot of dyno plots for unmodified S52s showing 210 to as much as 220 at the wheels (the CAI might actually be costing that car some power based on what I have seen).

If you would like, start collecting dyno plots and I will work with you on getting this car in the "second wave" of cars to be classed in ITR. E-mail me at [email protected].

Thanks.

Jeff

[Andy Bettencourt]

James,



While I can appreciate the effort, we really need to now a whole lot more.



Compression at each cyl?

Leakdown?



Mine went 196 stock and with a K&N drop in and Borla cat-back, went 206. It was an OBD-1 car (95) with about 36K on it.

At a 25% increase, the E36 would make 300 at the crank. This brings you to 3375 to 'fit' in the class. Hardly an attractive number. The RX-8 is in the same boat IMHO).

AB

[Ron Earp]

My 98 3.2L pulled 220 to 224 rwhp (it was wavy up top, timing or fuel issue up there) stock* (*non-OEM air filter, car was used and might have had ECU altered but retained ALL stock parts including intake, exhaust etc) at 55k miles. Car now belongs to a buddy so we can still dyno it against our current IT cars, although it was dynoed on the same dyno we use for our IT cars - a Dynojet. J

eff had a 3.2 in his M Coupe as well that was quite strong. I'm sure Ed would drag my old M3 over to the dyno to run against our IT cars if someone thinks those numbers are off. Frankly, I didn't buy it either, but after talking with other late M3 owners it is uncommon, but not unheard of - as Jeff mentioned they can turn 210-220 at the wheels. Maybe Gunter's engine building varied a lot from day to day.

The 95 3L always enjoyed a perference, particularily in the day before OBD-II was understood, but now that it is understood I see no reason to prefer that motor over the 3.2. Either can be tuned well.

As far as the board and results go I've found numbers as high as 228 rwhp with a "stock" motor - that is, filter and timing.

With respect to the M3 in ITR I started out thinking it would be one of the mainstays of the class. But, when it became apparent that certain other cars had to fit in ITR it became a hard sell. With it went the V8s (Porsche 928 and Mustang) as well. Personall I think once people see what the developed Z, Supra, 330i, , and Lexus IS300 put down then these cars might come back into the class - V8s too.

[Catch22]

I'll file this in the same file as the ITS E36s that can get *only* 190 at the wheels pre-restrictor.

I can show you a dyno sheet of a fully built ITA CRX Si that pulls 100whp on a dynojet.
1. Does that mean the ITAC just screwed up by adding weight?
2. Does that mean the car should be in ITB?
or
3. Does that mean the car has a 55% leakdown and 155ish compression and badly needs a motor rebuild?

Hint: The answer isn't 1 or 2.

[lateapex911]

4:
It was a Mustang dyno, a bad day, and out of tune, LOL

[Ron Earp]

If that is the case then it explains it, the Mustangs always read low when compared to a Dynojet. Forget about what is "correct", "right", or "accurate" - we're only shooting for compartive values and most dyno numbers cited on this forum come from Dynojets. Which we find to be quite repeatable from Dynojet to Dynojet in our area.

Ron

[JeffYoung]

James, one further point (and again, want to help you with getting the car classed if it is supportable).

I posted the M3 v. 325 in IT trim question on Bimmerforums. The overwhelming response I got back was that the 325 could not compete against the M3 in IT trim even at 2700 lbs. Since part of the reason for ITR was to create a place for the unrestricted 325, this to me anyway was a key factor in the decision to leave out all of the S52 motored cars.

Andy/Ron, I went and found the old sheet from my car (the M Coupe). I did it down in Charlotte as part of a BMW event. 212 to the wheels bone stock (00 M coupe, S52).

Jeff

[Catch22]

I'd bet you a nice cold 12 pack of Sammies that a good engine builder and tuner with Motec could get that car up over 265ish at the wheels.
Torque too. Huge brakes too.
And that number Jeff notes above represents about a 12% driveline loss, which is dead-on to what I've heard from some E36 ITS cars.

Yes Virginia, thats too fast for ITR.

I realize thats all speculative, but thats the best we can do until someone builds a complete IT spec M3 and lets everyone see the unedited results. Since we don't have that, the best that can be done is look at results that are out there for non-IT spec cars, listen to engine builders and tuners, and draw an informed conclusion. In this case the informed conclusion is "Nope."

ITR must be approached on the side of caution. If it happens, it will become the new ITS, meaning that if we accidentally class an overdog, there isn't anywhere for it to go other than SIRs and lots of ballast. As we've learned in ITS, thats a road better left untravelled.

<shrugs> Sorry.
:unsure:

[Knestis]

...which in turn leaves room for ITX - or whatever we&#39;ll call the new class above R.

ITXtreme!!

:)

K

[lateapex911]

...which in turn leaves room for ITX - or whatever we&#39;ll call the new class above R.

ITXtreme!!

:)

K
[/b]


Yeaa.............
Let&#39;s cross THAT bridge after we get this one built! ;)