Printable View
Hmmm.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshS
Accepting that I don't know squat about these cars, if there are indeed two substantively different engines available in the Z3 (double, single Vanos) - particularly with different quoted stock power - it seems like they should probably be on different spec lines. To my mind, that might constitute "different generations" of the same car.
K
Kirk, since this is off the OP's topic, I'll respond to you first. Not only are the motors different, the body panels around the rear finders, trunk and tail lights are different too. I argued for a split between single and double Vanos cars because of major differnces between the heads and intake manifolds, but in the end it was decided that it would open up the parts avalibility. Actually, they're both the same motor designation, just the DV is a "Technical Update". Splitting them would result in about 18K North American bound 97-98's and 7.5K 99-00's, so you can see we're dealing with relitively small numbers. If Josh's coupe were its own spec line it wouldn't meet homolgation numbers with less than 900 made, (Splitwise, it's one of the ~7.5k.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Knestis
What's going to narrow your search is looking for one with a manual. They are more common with manuals than most luxuary cars, but still a fair number are automatic's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spinnetti
Since the M-50 and M-50tu are on the same spec line, you can start out with a fixed timing and change to a single Vanos later. In the end a good motor build will get you more power than starting with either motor.
Guys, it's not that simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Z3_GoCar
Just breaking it down the Z3s:
'97-'98 2.8 Roadster -- 189hp, old body
'99 2.8 Roadster -- 193hp, old body
'00 2.8 Roadster -- 193hp, new body
'01-'02 3.0 Roadster -- 225hp, new body
The Coupe bodies are mechanically identical to their roadster counterpart in any given year, but there was only one body type, and it ran from '99-'02.
Okay, now how many spec lines do you need?
I say it was done right. All of this nonsense (4 roadster variants, 2 coupe variants) managed down to two spec lines, based on engine size.
The philosophy is class by the best drivetrain, and let the others update/backdate. Body style of the rear fenders seems largely irrelevant.
As I admitted, I don't know the cars. And that would be a lot of spec lines.
However (speaking academically) I worry a little about situations that open the door for Frankencar solutions that might prove to be particularly good - even within the constraints of the existing update/backdate rule.
I don't know enough to trot out a good example to support my concern...
K
EDIT - ...and it's been a LOOONG damned time since I even thought about the "How many?" question. We worried a lot about that back in the Olden Days but it's largely fallen off the radar.
The E36 is a similar case. Same spec line for 92-95 models (ITS or ITR), but the 92 engine is non-VANOS with half a point less compression (though same quoted hp). The only way to go is with the later engines. An unrestricted 92 engine may actually be right on target for ITS at the current weight (but we'll never know).Quote:
Originally Posted by Knestis
Except if it's split along the single/dual vanos line and using the same process the '97-'98s come out at 2739lbs. That's like 60lbs less.....Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshS
When we were classing these cars we had no idea of the difference.
Is it significant?
I don't think it's significant, and I don't think we want yet another spec line either. I understand where James is coming from since he has a 189hp car, but frankly, I'm not sure that the 189hp version doesn't have more ultimate potential. The E36 engines are certainly a lot better known and undersstood than the E46 engines.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffYoung
My main issue is it's 60 more pounds I have to bolt on the floor. Oh, and then there's the ultimate performance issue to deal with too. I understand that the tu and M-54's aren't as developed as the M-50/52, how they will ultimatly respond to a good build up is anyones guess. I guess is it'll be at least 4hp more ultimatly, but that's a swag.
Sorry about the hi-jack OP....
Dang. 29 posts and nobody can answer my question? Are BMW guys always like this? Maybe I'm looking at the wrong car after all!
Bueller? Anyone?
which year if it matters and why, 2 or 4 door, 325 or 328? I know I need a manual, what is most competitive?
I have two very nice E36's that are ready to race. Why build...?
Because in general, (a) most of us seem to think we can build race cars for less than they actually cost, and (b) most of us getting rid of race cars try to sell them for more than they are actually worth... :)
K
Hire me....give me the money and I'll get you a turn key winning car. Don't worry what kind it will be, winning depends on the driver.:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Spinnetti
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spinnetti
Stright answer...
E36 325 (92-95) in ITS is handicapped by that POS inlet restrictor. Still competitive but a lot of work to make it a winning car. If considering ITR choose the 328 (96+) as its minimum weight is only marginally more than the 325. If the proposed VIN delete rule becomes reality the you can use any of the E36 chasis and choose the 2.5 or 2.8 liter variants. 2-door or 4-door doesn't matter.
email me off line and I'll share more and not try to sell you my car.
Item 1. Effective 1/1/09, change section 9.1.3.C by deleting the fifth paragraph as follows:
The Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) shall correspond with the automobile classified, and will determine the model and type for competition purposes. A minimum of two (2) VIN plates and/or stampings is required.http://www.scca.com/documents/Fastra...strack-oct.pdf
K
Thank god, a real reply! What's the hot ticket in ITS these days? I like the bimmers and always wanted one, which is why I was thinking that direction. I'm not in any huge hurry, just interested. If the right donor street car comes along, I'll snag it, thanks for the info. I'm not sure SCCA is the end all it used to be for me, so BMW or NASA or some other club might be an option too. I want to build one, because that's what I do... Racing is fun, and I'm pretty good at it, but knowing I built the car that's going fast under me is the fun bit. Besides, my tig welder and machine shop gotta get used for something!Quote:
Originally Posted by ed325its
Thanks....
ITS? Only one option. TR8. Well, maybe Jensen-Healey.
Seriously, ITS is a great class right now and the 325 can be competitive. Yes it takes work but so do all front running S cars.
Right now, I'd say, the Miata, the E46 323, the 2nd Gen RX7, the 240/260/280z, the 280zx, the 300zx, the 944s, the Integra GSR and the TR8 all have a shot at winning.
The Miata, RX7 and 240z are probably the most reliable/most easy to build and develop, with the 325 right behind if you can sort the SIR.
Jeff is right about the competitiveness of ITS cars currently. If I were to build a BMW for ITS I would suggest the E46 323; 2.5l, dual vanos, no SIR, bigger brakes, and only 150lbs. more weight compared to the E36.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gpbmw
No!! Don't buy them! I'm saving my money to try to buy them myself. :)
Seriously, you couldn't build for what's being asked for either car.
And one won the ARRC.
Tom
"Seriously, you couldn't build for what's being asked for either car.
And one won the ARRC."
Yeah, but I'm in it for the engineering as much as the driving. I wouldn't get much thrill in winning in what somebody else built. I did that once, and later totaled the car. When I then built my own replica with my own ideas, it was faster yet, and that was much more satisfying :)