New Weight for E36 325 ITS?

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by snowmann@Oct 31 2005, 09:03 PM
Not to sound too bias'ed but the newer motors have a higher hp... they call it the m44... (whats in the 1.9 z3) so really seeing as how the z3 shares e30 chassis components id almost assume that the e30 should weigh as it does in ITS...2600

[snapback]64158[/snapback]

I think all the people racing the M44 would agree that it doesn't have the potential that the earlier engines had. Try tuning the two piece intake manifold that's not allowed to be matched in the middle, seems like and instant power drain right there. Also from experience I can tell you it doesn't like WOT below 4k rpm but will bog down when excess throttle is applied. I think Noam said it best when switching from his Honda Civic, that he wasn't used to the lack of power from the M44. Or you could be in the e-36 318i which is at 2840 lbs or TEN pounds less that the ITS e-36 325

James

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 1 2005, 03:03 AM
IIRC, the 318is (1991) was recommended for a change to ITA. Darin can verify but if not, a letter would get the process rolling. Seems like a no-brainer. Betting it would be around SE-R/NX2000 weight.

AB

[snapback]64153[/snapback]

Even though I haven't been able to find it in my notes (I was looking in 2005, and apparently it's in 2004...), I checked with SCCA Tech and here is the response:

Darin,
This was in the 2004 recommended items:

Item 1. Based on recommendations from the IT Advisory Committee, the Club Racing Board is recommending that the 1990-91 BMW 318i/is be reclassified from ITS to ITA.



Regards,


John

I'll go back and look to see exactly when this was recommended, and what the recommended weight was... I think it should show up in the 2006 ITCS...

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 1 2005, 05:14 PM
I'll go back and look to see exactly when this was recommended, and what the recommended weight was... I think it should show up in the 2006 ITCS...

[snapback]64187[/snapback]

OK, I just received a note from John concerning this. The 318i/is Twin-Cam 90-91 was recommended for reclassification from ITS to ITA at it's ITS weight of 2600lbs... That happened to be the correct weight, based on the IT classification process...

Hope this helps! (in more ways than one! )

Should be competitive now!

[snowmann]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 1 2005, 06:48 PM
OK, I just received a note from John concerning this. The 318i/is Twin-Cam 90-91 was recommended for reclassification from ITS to ITA at it's ITS weight of 2600lbs... That happened to be the correct weight, based on the IT classification process...

Hope this helps! (in more ways than one! )

Should be competitive now!

[snapback]64195[/snapback]

Is this going to be in affect in 06? Would like to get m. council in on this as well

[MikeBlaszczak]

Originally posted by dj10@Oct 30 2005, 06:19 PM
The people that are using illegal cam timing, valve springs and bores, or what ever. Are these the cars that the ITAC or CRB are getting their numbers from? Some people will interpret to suite themselves knowing they are over the border line of being legal. Are these the people that will beat you?

I notice that almost all the posts in this thread are from people on the east coast -- not even just east of the Rockies; east of the Mississippi. So I'm worried that they are.

My car dynos at the rear wheels for far less than the 225 number being thrown around. I'm not even sure my street E36 M3 makes that much power at the rear wheels! I can't imagine getting the car up to that level of performance -- not for club racing.

I'm at 2900 pounds with my fat ass and a half tank. If, in addition to the restrictor plate that suddenly appeared at the beginning of this season, I have to get the car up over 3000, I'm not even sure how I'd do it. Get a stock gas tank and fill it with lead?

My times are getting better. I had great racing this year; tenths of seconds between me and the 240 Z cars at PIR. The Integra whooped my butt at Mission.

I can't help but thinking that a bunch of cheaters back east are making the car look better than it is and causing other drivers to challenge the rule book instead of protesting the car itself.

I, for one, don't have "the data" that everyone thinks is so obvious. To me, that information would need to include what protests and inspections were done on the cars that are so obviously overdog. As far as the data I know about -- my own races, with other E36es, with Integras and 240Z's -- I can't imagine putting the extra weight into the car.

Why not take weight out of the other cars?

There should be little doubt that the E36 is a great car. It's being compared to cars that are actually 15 years older than it is, or using technology that's even older. ITS is not a vintage class -- it's for modern sports cars.

Maybe some of the rules should be updated to allow the more antiquated cars a better shot at development to meet current technology. For example, if I can reprogram my ECU -- what does a 240Z driver do?

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 1 2005, 02:48 PM
OK, I just received a note from John concerning this. The 318i/is Twin-Cam 90-91 was recommended for reclassification from ITS to ITA at it's ITS weight of 2600lbs... That happened to be the correct weight, based on the IT classification process...

Hope this helps! (in more ways than one! )

Should be competitive now!

[snapback]64195[/snapback]

Darin,

I just looked at an '02 GCR (just happened to be the one on the desk), and it's got the '92-'94 318 (E36) DOHC listed in ITA, at a weight of 2840#. It didn't say "318is", but all the specs look the same. Oddly enough, there were no valve sizes given for the ITS version or the ITA version. I'm not a BMW guy, so I don't know there is a difference between the '90-'91 cars, that are slated to move to ITA, and the '92-'94 cars. If the '92-'94 car is one of the ones that's part of the 'mass PCA adjustment', I'll just be quiet, and go back to reading my VW Bentley manual. :P

Mike,

The fact that some of those top E36 cars have survived ARRA post-race tech, notwithstanding, you might want to re-think your above comments. You are, in pretty much so many words, calling a LOT of folks cheaters. That's a pretty serious allegation, and something that shouldn't just be casually thrown around. I have no idea what the prep level of your car is, or who built it, but unless it's a 10/10ths effort, it's pretty disingenuous to hint that the top guys are cheating. And if you think that restrictor plate 'suddenly appeared' this year, you haven't been following this site much.

As far as how to get the weight up, you just add lead. The 100# max ballast rule has been lifted.

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 2 2005, 06:35 AM
Darin,

I just looked at an '02 GCR (just happened to be the one on the desk), and it's got the '92-'94 318 (E36) DOHC listed in ITA, at a weight of 2840#. It didn't say "318is", but all the specs look the same. Oddly enough, there were no valve sizes given for the ITS version or the ITA version. I'm not a BMW guy, so I don't know there is a difference between the '90-'91 cars, that are slated to move to ITA, and the '92-'94 cars. If the '92-'94 car is one of the ones that's part of the 'mass PCA adjustment', I'll just be quiet, and go back to reading my VW Bentley manual. :P

[snapback]64264[/snapback]

Bill, the 90-91 318i is an E30. The 92-94 318i is the little E36 that looks like it was rear ended by a cement mixer (no trunk).

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Geo@Nov 2 2005, 08:02 AM
Bill, the 90-91 318i is an E30. The 92-94 318i is the little E36 that looks like it was rear ended by a cement mixer (no trunk).

[snapback]64268[/snapback]

The hatchback was the 318ti of E36 vintage. The 318is that we are talking about as Geo said, is the E30 version. The E36 318i is a 4-door 4 cyl.

AB

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 05:16 AM
I notice that almost all the posts in this thread are from people on the east coast -- not even just east of the Rockies; east of the Mississippi. So I'm worried that they are.

My car dynos at the rear wheels for far less than the 225 number being thrown around. I'm not even sure my street E36 M3 makes that much power at the rear wheels! I can't imagine getting the car up to that level of performance -- not for club racing.

I'm at 2900 pounds with my fat ass and a half tank. If, in addition to the restrictor plate that suddenly appeared at the beginning of this season, I have to get the car up over 3000, I'm not even sure how I'd do it. Get a stock gas tank and fill it with lead?

My times are getting better. I had great racing this year; tenths of seconds between me and the 240 Z cars at PIR. The Integra whooped my butt at Mission.

I can't help but thinking that a bunch of cheaters back east are making the car look better than it is and causing other drivers to challenge the rule book instead of protesting the car itself.

I, for one, don't have "the data" that everyone thinks is so obvious. To me, that information would need to include what protests and inspections were done on the cars that are so obviously overdog. As far as the data I know about -- my own races, with other E36es, with Integras and 240Z's -- I can't imagine putting the extra weight into the car.

Why not take weight out of the other cars?

There should be little doubt that the E36 is a great car. It's being compared to cars that are actually 15 years older than it is, or using technology that's even older. ITS is not a vintage class -- it's for modern sports cars.

Maybe some of the rules should be updated to allow the more antiquated cars a better shot at development to meet current technology. For example, if I can reprogram my ECU -- what does a 240Z driver do?

[snapback]64259[/snapback]

Don't worry about the 225hp that gets mentioned but never backed up. We see high numbers and we see low numbers. 195-210 are the core. A standard IT-prep improvement of 25% (which this car is VERY capable of - 236 CRANK HP) makes this car a 3050-3100lb car in ITS. Remember - this is WITHOUT the restrictor.

The math is simple, there is no witch hunt. This car is at the front of the pack and has never been run through the process. It is not unique in the fact it needs weight...ITA has some issues as well, which we hope to address. All we want is for all the cars to be based on the same process so we can defend the structure/classifications.



AB

[MikeBlaszczak]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 2 2005, 11:35 AM
Mike,

The fact that some of those top E36 cars have survived ARRA post-race tech, notwithstanding, you might want to re-think your above comments. You are, in pretty much so many words, calling a LOT of folks cheaters. That's a pretty serious allegation, and something that shouldn't just be casually thrown around. I have no idea what the prep level of your car is, or who built it, but unless it's a 10/10ths effort, it's pretty disingenuous to hint that the top guys are cheating. And if you think that restrictor plate 'suddenly appeared' this year, you haven't been following this site much.

As far as how to get the weight up, you just add lead. The 100# max ballast rule has been lifted.

[snapback]64264[/snapback]

Hi, Bill.

What's ARRA? American Road Racing Association? Another back-east local org, aren't they? Why is their tech inspection relevant to a car's legality for SCCA ITS competition?

I would have hoped you had read my note as carefully as I had written it. I'm not calling a lot of folks cheaters; I'm suggesting that a few folks are runining outside the rules, knowing it or not, and upsetting the balance for the rest of us.

That is, I wonder if this problem is local to several of the regions back-east regions. Out here, there's no issue. I went back two years and I can't find any lap times for for a BMW in an SCCA ITS race in the Oregon region. I found a few BMW times for the Pacific Northwest region, but that car was unopposed in the races I found.

So as I mentioned, I'm not really sure the "data is obvious". If it's obvious, let's trot it out into the bright sunshine and see if it survives a peer review. Meanwhile, this comes off as ranting buy guys who haven't posted times in a while, people who are protecting business interests, and those who can't stand technological change.

To put a finer point on it, repeating "it's obvious!!1!" isn't helpful. Providing some discussion points and hard data would be.

Indeed, I don't follow this forum for rule changes; I read about them in the FastTrack, which made no mention of considering a restrictor plate for the E36 until it was announced as required in the January, 2005 issue. Prior to that, they'd solicited input once and discussed only weight changes. To me, that's sudden: I don't know whe I would have been able to offer input or response to the competition board.

That brings up one of my questions, though; who are the "we" and "us" that Darin keeps referring to? Am I really to trust this stale old website for official news about ITS rules in SCCA?

It's good to hear the ballast restriction has been lifted -- I guess it had to be done, if these adjustments really have to be made. The difference for me is 150 pounds; I'm sure it's more for other cars and drivers. If my calculations are right, 150 pounds of lead at a density of 11.3437 g/cm^3 has a volume of about 6 liters, or just less than a gallon and a half.

Even if I were to stipulate that the E36 is an overdog, I think undermining the car is the wrong idea. It seems to me that the older and less advanced cars in the class should be retired to a lesser class where they're more competitive. Any other proposal makes me wonder about the longevity of the solution. The problem is that the SCCA hasn't ever made good competition equality adjustments in these classes; it wasn't a part of the class charter until recently. The problem won't be fixed by overloading one of the more modern cars in the class.

[MikeBlaszczak]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 2 2005, 12:19 PM
Don't worry about the 225hp that gets mentioned but never backed up. We see high numbers and we see low numbers. 195-210 are the core. A standard IT-prep improvement of 25% (which this car is VERY capable of - 236 CRANK HP) makes this car a 3050-3100lb car in ITS. Remember - this is WITHOUT the restrictor.

Hi, Andy.

Who is the "we" you're referring to?

I'm about ten percent shy of that "core number" at the wheels, what with my junkyard motor and club-racing budget. Where can I read more about this "standard IT-prep" you're talking about?

Thanks for your help!

[Knestis]

The rules have to be written such that parity results among makes/models built to the hilt - to the maximum allowed by the rules. I totally understand your philosophy - and share it, actually - but there's no way that weight specs can be established based on junkyard motors. I ran one of those for the last two years and accepted that I was not going to be allowed up front.

K

EDIT - ARRA was, I think, a typo of ARRC (American Road Racing Championships), arguably the premier gathering of IT cars in the country. It's kind of significant because they tear down the podium finishers even if there isn't a protest.

[benspeed]

Be kind to Mike - he's new on the site and doesn't have the multi-year history of following this site. When I first started posting here I was promptly trashed.

Mike - this site is really the best resource for all things related to IT racing. It's kept pretty current IMHO.

Long has this E36 debate raged and many of the gentlemen who advise the club in an official capacity provide info and take abuse on this site - be kind to those guys since they volunteer and take a reasonable amount of crap (although things have been WAY to civil lately) These guys are seeking fairness in classification.

My concern is that many E36 drivers are getting chased off because of the restrictions placed on the car. I like racing with a bunch of good cars, but not with a total overdog. The performance potential of the E36 IMHO is significantly higher than that of the other cars in the class and the advisory committee is taking measures to create a methodology to properly class cars taking into account the performance tier of each vehicle. This is based on guys who are building very high quality cars. Mike - guys in the east and the south will drop $10K on a motor as part of winning a championship. But even other E36 front runners have been competitive with junkyard engines and restrictor plates.

The level of ITS competition is very high in our region (NE) and in the south. Several folks who recently returned after racing sebaticals have commented that it's approached semi-pro levels of investment and talent in the last few years. That being the case the folks are taking steps to make sure that inherent performance advantages don't carry the day. And if that means some adjustments to the RX7 then those drivers will have to take it and not be whiners.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 05:17 PM
Hi, Andy.

Who is the "we" you're referring to?

I'm about ten percent shy of that "core number" at the wheels, what with my junkyard motor and club-racing budget. Where can I read more about this "standard IT-prep" you're talking about?

Thanks for your help!

[snapback]64312[/snapback]

Mike,
If I may... I think the "we" that is getting referred to is the Improved Touring Advisory Committee... or ITAC...

Since you are here in my region (NW and Oregon), you can feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions about what's going on... send me an e-mail if you are interested and I'll give you the contact info from there...

As for the output numbers for the BMW... to summarize what's been hased out here... The ITAC estimates the output for the E36 at around 235 to 240hp at the flywheel, or about 195-200 at the wheels... This is backed up with multiple dyno sheets sent to the CRB by E36 drivers, one that shows 195whp and the other that shows 205 whp (might have been 210... I'll have to go back and look)... There have been rumors that more is achievable, but there have also been rumors that these are using illegal cams, etc...

Either way, the IT classification process pretty much predicts the output that is validated on the dyno sheets...

NOW, knowing that you can't always trust dyno sheets, we still have multiple sources that indicate that they are making "a little less" than the 225 whp or so that is mentioned above, plus the actual data we have in the form of the dyno sheets mentioned, so we feel we have a pretty good handle on where this car is from a performance potential standpoint... Please note, that I made no mention of on-track performance, or results in any way... They are a secondary consideration... The primary focus is to get cars classified based on their specifications and performance potential... not based on how Joe-Blow did with model X at such-and-such a track... Too many variables in that to get an accurate assessment...

So, when we talk about making adjustments to the E36, or it needing adjustments, etc... this is the standpoint and basis from which we (the ITAC) are coming...

Look at the E46 (172hp stock) and other recently classified cars, and you'll see the trend... The push now is to get the existing classifications in line with this trend, which should give IT a baseline to build from in the future, and should prevent additional classifications from being "overdogs" or the new "flavor of the month" cars...

I need to get back to work but I hope this gives you and everyone else here paying attention a little more insight into this particuar issue... perhaps even to other classification questions as well...

Again, e-mail me if you'd like to talk in person: [email protected] and I'll send you my contact info...

Otherwise, keep asking and participating and we'll (Those ITAC members that are here...) will continue to try to keep you all informed...

Sincerly,

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by MikeBlaszczak@Nov 2 2005, 01:17 PM
Hi, Andy.

Who is the "we" you're referring to?

I'm about ten percent shy of that "core number" at the wheels, what with my junkyard motor and club-racing budget. Where can I read more about this "standard IT-prep" you're talking about?

Thanks for your help!

[snapback]64312[/snapback]

Darin said it above, the ITAC.

As far as "standard IT-prep"...check the ITCS under "Authorized Modifications"...

I can't state this enough...with a 25% increase over stock with IT-Prep (which is easily attainable in these cars - backed up by info provided by BMW owners), the car needs to weigh around 3100-3150 to be classed using the same parameters as the rest of the class. Fair? I don't see how anyone could think it wasn't. The same process, the same standards...

BTW: congrats on being within 10% of the number with little-to-no prep. :119:

[BMWE46ITS]

Originally posted by Banzai240+Nov 2 2005, 02:22 PM-->

As for the output numbers for the BMW... to summarize what's been hased out here... The ITAC estimates the output for the E36 at around 235 to 240hp at the flywheel, or about 195-200 at the wheels... This is backed up with multiple dyno sheets sent to the CRB by E36 drivers, one that shows 195whp and the other that shows 205 whp (might have been 210... I'll have to go back and look)... There have been rumors that more is achievable, but there have also been rumors that these are using illegal cams, etc...

[snapback]64322[/snapback]

[/b]

Darin if you are going to throw out numbers PLEASE tell us what type of Dyno these #s are on.





<!--QuoteBegin-Banzai240@Nov 2 2005, 02:22 PM
Look at the E46 (172hp stock) and other recently classified cars, and you&#39;ll see the trend... The push now is to get the existing classifications in line with this trend, which should give IT a baseline to build from in the future, and should prevent additional classifications from being "overdogs" or the new "flavor of the month" cars...

[snapback]64322[/snapback]

1999 E-46 323i stock HP is 170 not 172 please make a note.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by BMWE46ITS@Nov 2 2005, 04:32 PM
Darin if you are going to throw out numbers PLEASE tell us what type of Dyno these #s are on.
1999 E-46 323i stock HP is 170 not 172 please make a note.

[snapback]64344[/snapback]

Hell hath no fury like a BMW driver scorned...

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by BMWE46ITS@Nov 2 2005, 08:32 PM
Darin if you are going to throw out numbers PLEASE tell us what type of Dyno these #s are on.
1999 E-46 323i stock HP is 170 not 172 please make a note.

[snapback]64344[/snapback]

OK, 170hp is noted...

As for Dynos... I&#39;ll have to go look for the other sheet at home, but I&#39;ve posted this one previously, with the permission of the owner of the car in question (don&#39;t know the dyno type):

E-Mail me if you still need to see the dyno results... I&#39;ll send you a copy... Minus Mr. Shafer&#39;s address and phone number!

[Banzai240]

While I&#39;m still here at work, I&#39;ll add that we have another E36 competitor who wrote in recently and says that his car "has a professionally built Sunbelt motor and has in the low 190s (whp w/ restrictor)"... (IT Letter 05-066)

Just one more data point to work from... "Low 190s" in whp terms is what the process predicts, and what at least two data points seems to indicate...

We have additional info that 205-210whp is being achieved, but we are not using that for calculations since it&#39;s not "officially" submitted to the CRB... The numbers we have were officially submitted to the CRB, so we feel more comforatable using them as data points... It&#39;s harder for the other BMW drivers to complain that we are "making this stuff up..."

[zracer22]

Originally posted by charrbq@Oct 24 2005, 04:42 PM
I&#39;m sure NASA like to hear of such things. It gives them another class...BMW challenge?

[snapback]63363[/snapback]

Actually, it&#39;s called GTS Challenge and we&#39;ve just completed our 3rd season. Come and race with us, we&#39;ll be glad to have you.