IS300 in ITS?

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Bruce Shafer@Sep 19 2005, 04:24 PM
The 195 rwhp number was before the restrictor plate. It's probably more like 185 now. It did make a difference.

[snapback]60588[/snapback]

Ok Bruce, just how much did YOUR lap times change w/ the restrictor? And you guys don't like HP guesses, well, that cuts both ways. Go get the thing dynoed again, w/ the restrictor, and then quote numbers. And as far as 'parts catalog' or 'parts counter' cars, just how much custom development work did you get Bimmerworld (or anyone else) to do for you?

[mlytle]

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Sep 19 2005, 08:43 PM
If you guys (the BMW guys) don't like the dyno numbers being bandied about here, do something very simple. Go to a dyno. Get results. Post them here.

[snapback]60593[/snapback]

did you read my post a few pages ago? been to the dyno several times. upper 180's with the restrictor plate baby, yeah feel the power!

oh wait...that is like 30hp less than the itac claims of what i should be getting. ah crap!

lets get back to the itr discussion...it is much more interesting.

clip the top few car from its, add more fast ones and make itr. lighten up the top ita cars and move them up to its. do the same between itb and ita. itc, well just accelerate it's slow death a little..... :P

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bruce Shafer@Sep 19 2005, 08:39 PM
When did I ever admit my car was "over the counter"? More of the BS around here. Make up what ever you want to help your argument, the it.com policy.

[snapback]60592[/snapback]

Make up??

Mr. Shafer, I have in front of me your letter to the CRB with your Dyno sheets... Do I have your permission to post this on this site??

Additionally, would you please decribe in sufficient detail the development work that you, or your tuner, have done to your car. Include with this all the team support your tuner has provided at the track to help develop setups, any prototyping they/you have done for exhaust developement, etc., as well as any other custom development you may have done. Any other information that might be useful in helping us all determine the level of prep your car enjoys would also greatly be appreciated...

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by mlytle@Sep 19 2005, 09:26 PM
clip the top few car from its, add more fast ones and make itr. lighten up the top ita cars and move them up to its.

[snapback]60601[/snapback]

If that would help get all these underpowered, backmarker ITS BMWs out of the way, then I'm all for it as well...

[mlytle]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Sep 19 2005, 09:13 PM
Ok Bruce, just how much did YOUR lap times change w/ the restrictor? And you guys don't like HP guesses, well, that cuts both ways. Go get the thing dynoed again, w/ the restrictor, and then quote numbers. And as far as 'parts catalog' or 'parts counter' cars, just how much custom development work did you get Bimmerworld (or anyone else) to do for you?

[snapback]60598[/snapback]

ok guys, here is some fodder for misquote's....

i went a lot FASTER this year with the restrictor! yeah!

fine print: i had just built the car last year. only did half a season and was working out a bunch "bugs". had tons of shock and brake problems. couldn't drive it worth beans. to take jeff's comment a little farther, the problem was the car AND me!

valid data? i think not....

marshall

[JeffYoung]

Marshall, if you could, can you post the dyno plot for your car? I'd love to see it. Mine is under the Specific Models section. I'm most interested in the torque numbers, where they peaks are and the shape of the curves -- more so than the peak numbers themselves.

Thanks.

Jeff

[mlytle]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 19 2005, 09:32 PM
If that would help get all these underpowered, backmarker ITS BMWs out of the way, then I'm all for it as well...

[snapback]60603[/snapback]

[Bill Miller]

Here's a novel idea. Since the E36 is an obvious overdog in ITS, and there's no class above ITS (for now) to put it in, and per the BMW folks, it's unsafe to put enough weight on it to make it fit w/in the ITS parameters, why not just declassify it?

What? That's not fair? But leaving it as an overdog is fair to the rest of the class?? Now who was it that made the comments about entitlement??

[Bruce Shafer]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Sep 19 2005, 05:13 PM
'parts catalog' or 'parts counter'

These terms are used as subtle attempt to diminish the relevancy of the (unpopular) data that I submitted to the SCCA. I'd like to see any popular make of car being raced that is not buying off the shelf performance parts when they are available and the best.

just how much custom development work did you get Bimmerworld (or anyone else) to do for you?

Bimmerworld didn't do any of the custom work on my car. The cage, interior fabrication, differentials, dyno tuning, setup, etc. were all either done by myself with help from friends and family or I have had local shops here in Florida do the work.

Now in the finest it.com tradition, someone will come back and tell me that doing the work myself is not good enough or will say that so and so [insert BMW tuner here] must do the work for it to be valid.

[Bruce Shafer]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 19 2005, 05:31 PM
Make up??

Mr. Shafer, I have in front of me your letter to the CRB with your Dyno sheets... Do I have your permission to post this on this site??

No problem, post the dyno sheets and the letter if you like!

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bruce Shafer@Sep 19 2005, 09:59 PM
These terms are used as subtle attempt to diminish the relevancy of the (unpopular) data that I submitted to the SCCA.

[snapback]60611[/snapback]

BS... and in the cow...

YOU are the one that made that leap... What I HAVE said is that your car is an example of an "over the counter" BMW race car... That is NOT and was NEVER MEANT to be a slam of any sort... It was meant to mean that yours can NOT be considered "fully developed"... You can spin that however you'd like, but I have nothing to gain by trying to discredit you... All I'm trying to do is establish that, while you may feel as though yours is "the" example of BMW performance and development, it is not... I don't think you can really argue against that, based on what you have stated...

Now, being that as it is, there are no cars out there who can simply "bolt parts on" and win... I do everything myself as well, so I have no problem with that, but I also understand my limitations enough to know that I haven't thought of everything... I doubt you have either...

The "TOP" cars out there that we are referring to are those on which the parts you buy off the shelf and bolt on are being developed ON... If you are buying it over the counter, and the vendor is still actively racing/developing... chances are good that you DO NOT have the TOP pieces... the latest and greatest, etc...

Case in point... Your dyno sheets state "Bimmerworld Chip"... You yourself have said that you do NOT have a Motec... You simply have a programmed chip from Bimmerworld and that's good enough for you... Well, I can tell you from direct experience with Nissan and Wolf chips that you are leaving HP on the table... It may only be 5, or it may be 10, but either way, you are talking about HP that you aren't showing... 5hp is nearly 75lbs in classification weight...

Bruce, this isn't about you or how developed your program is... It's about trying to establish some parameters from which to make some educated decisions from... You have given us a valid data point, and we have combined that with others...

Whether you guys choose to believe it or not, we ARE working with valid data... I feel I've shown our train on thought on this data well enough to validate our position to this point...

Again, based on the data you have provided, from a car that can be considered an "over the counter" example of a BMW E36 ITS car (not a team, factory backed, car... or rather, something any one of us could build/buy... The "average BMW", if you will...)... the car is currently classified at LEAST 250lbs too light to be properely classified in ITS... It should weigh at LEAST 3100lbs, based on YOUR data...

Nothing "hokey" about it...

By the way, your HP figures show roughly a 25% increase with IT prep... So, if your numbers are valid, then BMWs offer one of the WORST %-increase-with-IT-Prep of any other 4-Valve car in IT... Another point that would be HIGHLY unlikely to actually be true, and another reason why we are skeptical when hearing how "little" HP you guys are getting...

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bruce Shafer@Sep 19 2005, 10:06 PM
No problem, post the dyno sheets and the letter if you like!

[snapback]60612[/snapback]

Here is the letter then:

Thursday, 11/11/2004

SCCA Club Race Board

RE: E36 HP Potential

To All on the Club Race Board,

I am writing this letter to try and set the record straight or at least establish a baseline regarding the horsepower potential for the 1992 to 1995 BMW 325i (E36).

For the record, I have an E36 325i. I have had some limited success as well frustration and disappointment with this car (that’s racing!). Prior to the E36 I ran an E30 in ITS, so it should be clear that I am partial to BMW’s.

The E36 is enjoying success in certain regions of the country, most notably the Mid-Atlantic area from Road Atlanta to Summit point. In my experience, this is due primarily to the fact that several notable E36 builders are geographically located within this region. The Mazda RX7 is the dominant car in both Florida regions primarily because several of the best RX7 builders are located within Florida.

The exaggerated claims of the E36 horsepower figures have become so loud on one Internet Forum that I can no longer sit back and remain silent. On 11/04/04 I posted to the Forum that I would be taking my car down to a reputable tuner in Miami on Tuesday, 11/09/04 for a dyno run, and that I would make these numbers available to the CRB. I have been told through the Forum that I set a lap record for the short course at Sebring the weekend of 10/23/04, with a lap time of 1:18.210. The car was exactly as it came off the track at Sebring with the exception of a new water pump, thermostat, and fuel pump.

The dyno runs were done at Active Autowerke in Miami, a renowned BMW tuner. The brand of the dynamometer is Mustang. I would be happy to supply any other information to verify that I was there at the date and time stated and with my #41 BMW E36 ITS racer. I understand that there are variances between the different dynos and different weather conditions, but here is a baseline with some real world numbers. Attached is the data from the 11/09/04 dyno run.

From this information, I believe the power to weight ratio for the E36 is in line with other ITS cars. Please understand that the E36 is a great car, most any IT legal performance part is available from numerous manufacturers, and it is a blast to drive. This is the reason we are seeing many of the best IT drivers in the country gravitate to this car and why the car is winning.

To summarize, I believe the E36 is classified correctly in ITS. If it is deemed that the E36 needs to receive additional weight or some other penalty, I ask that it be levied discriminately, based on facts, numbers, and results from all regions of the country, not on hype and conjecture. I hope I have been able to help in either regard.

If there are any questions, please feel free to contact me at the following numbers:

xxx-xxx-xxxx
xxx-xxx-xxxx

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely

R. Bruce Shafer

SCCA National Competition License #xxxxxxx

I'll have to wait until I get home to do the dyno sheet, as it's an image, not text...

I see nothing in this letter which indicates that this car has the developement necessary to say it's a "prime" example of an E36... If you guys do, please point it out and I'll correct myself and appologize...

[Bruce Shafer]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 19 2005, 06:41 PM
By the way, your HP figures show roughly a 25% increase with IT prep... So, if your numbers are valid, then BMWs offer one of the WORST %-increase-with-IT-Prep of any other 4-Valve car in IT... Another point that would be HIGHLY unlikely to actually be true, and another reason why we are skeptical when hearing how "little" HP you guys are getting...

Nobody should be surprised at this percentage. That engine is optimized at the factory. This has been covered many times on this forum.

[Ron Earp]

Before the graph hits or numbers are shown, I know what some Bruce's differences in ITS BMW numbers come from the fact that Mustang dynos are consistently lower reading than DynoJet dynos, the numbers that most of us are used to and throw around. Don't think so, search on Google and read all about it.

Typically most folks think a Mustang dyno reads anywhere from 8-18% lower. very common knowledge, so, if you comparing Mustang numbers to Dynojet values then yes, you're going to think there is no way in heck you'll ever make 220 rwhp, or 210rwhp.

[lateapex911]

And the plot thickens...................

loved the avatar, had to swipe it for a post or two...it's too ideal.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by DoubleD@Sep 19 2005, 02:33 PM
Bill,

Please don't ask me to disprove dyno numbers that can not be made public because they don't exist. That's like asking me to prove that the government doesn't have black helicopters hovering over ITAC member's homes.
-Dave

[snapback]60576[/snapback]

Actually, it would be EASY to prove the government does NOT have black helecopters over our houses. A few cams, an auto switcher, some web stuff and you can all watch my house all day and night....

I'll have to bring the non existant dyno numbers in thru the secret basement tunnel.....


So now the numbers are complete fiction? We just made them up? Look, critique the results and the math, debate how the numbers were reached, but don't tell me I am fabricating lies.

[Eagle7]

Originally posted by Catch22@Sep 19 2005, 12:03 PM
Stock Rated Crank HP...
RX7 - 150

Typical ITS WHEEL Horsepower...
RX7 - 175

[snapback]60559[/snapback]

Actually, the RX7 is 160 stock HP (146 in '86-'88).

Not sure what you mean by "typical". From what I've heard, 175 is a very well-developed car. I need another 29 HP to get there.

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Sep 19 2005, 11:48 PM
And the plot thickens...................

Plot might thicken, but that is fact. If he has been getting say 174 Mustang Dyno rear wheel numbers and he's looking at the rear wheel dyno numbers thrown around here from the Dynojet at 210-220 rwhp I can see how he'd say "no way in hell". But, that isn't an apples to apples comparison.

But, if he took his same 174 rwhp Mustang Dyno car to a Dynojet he'd find that hey, that might not be so far away now. His numbers would be around 10-15% higher and it'd look more in line with a moderately developed car, which in my opinion it is, since it isn't sporting all the bells and whistles that some of the top runners are.

I've had the experience a couple of years ago to being part of a dyno trial with the three Dynojet dynos in the triangle area where we live with the same car. The %CV of the car used when measured on all three dynos was only 3.2%, perfectly acceptable to me indicating that quality control and calibration, at least on the Dynojet dynos, was pretty decent.

But in this case it looks like we've been comparing Mustang numbers to Dynojet numbers and that does not work, the Mustangs always read lower than the Dynojets.

Ron

[seckerich]

Originally posted by Eagle7@Sep 20 2005, 12:02 AM
Actually, the RX7 is 160 stock HP (146 in '86-'88).

Not sure what you mean by "typical". From what I've heard, 175 is a very well-developed car. I need another 29 HP to get there.

[snapback]60623[/snapback]

You are correct that 175-178 (Dynojet) is a FULLY developed ITS RX7 with Motec or a well optimized stock ecu. My last dyno pull was 172.8 and this is with motec and all the "well developed goodies" and lots of tuning time. Some motors just act different when built the same but 180 is rare but quoted. Most that I know have a really cool "lope" next to me on the grid that are faster But I just love the cool breeze I get as the BMW's that qualified 4 spots back blow by on the start
Steve Eckerich
ITS 18 Speedsource RX7

[Andy Bettencourt]

So...

I will ask an 'independent source' to run the numbers.

Ron L,

Using 195 on a Mustang dyno and 18% driveline losses, what crank HP would you estimate?

If I use the CONSERVATIVE side of the facts you lay out, I get:

195whp Mustang x 1.08 = 210.6whp Dynojet

Hmmmm. What say you Bimmer boys?

AB