E36 thoughts? (man!, not much traffic here)...

[Knestis]

I wasn't involved, but I don't think that's true.

Looks to me like 193hp (double vanos engine) * 1.3 (30% multiplier) * 11.25 - 25lbs adjuster (no idea why, the other Z3s got -50 lbs) comes out to 2798, rounded to 2800, which is the listed weight.

If I start with 189hp (single vanos engine) I can't come up with any math that comes out to 2800.

Hmmm.

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

[Z3_GoCar]

Hmmm.

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.)

I got lost a bit in the spec line one-upsmanship So, lets say I want to run ITS (apply same logic to ITR).

> Is there a best year of the E36? e.g. 94 better than 92?
> Am I better off with a 325 or 328? (competitiveness, parts cost, other?)
> Is a 4dr better or worse than a 2dr?

325s are fairly falling off the trees here (92 4 doors especially), so getting a high mileage example that is fairly straight is cheap enough, but which one?

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.

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.

[JoshS]

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.)

Guys, it's not that simple.

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.

[Knestis]

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.

[Z3_GoCar]

Guys, it's not that simple.

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.

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.....

[JeffYoung]

When we were classing these cars we had no idea of the difference.

Is it significant?

[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.

[Z3_GoCar]

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....

[GKR_17]

Hmmm.

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

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).