January Fastrack

[Z3_GoCar]

RE: the math - 18% is commonly used for RWD, 15% for FWD or mid-engine as esitimates.

RE: your motor - I would conclude it's soft. 195whp is doable in a freshened motor with just bolt-ons on a 325. Fact proven over and over and over.

I had the head rebuild and new total seal rings. Funny, you'd think my 0.003 over pistons would result in a bit more of a hp bump. Also, I no longer have the 2.5's intake manifold on so it's no longer port matched.

[JeffYoung]

So yours is a 2.8, not a 2.5?

I had the head rebuild and new total seal rings. Funny, you'd think my 0.003 over pistons would result in a bit more of a hp bump. Also, I no longer have the 2.5's intake manifold on so it's no longer port matched.

[Z3_GoCar]

So yours is a 2.8, not a 2.5?

Yes, 300cc more displacement same oem hp.

[JeffYoung]

I've heard the 2.8 doesn't respond as well to IT prep than the 2.5. That may be part of the problem as well.

Didn't the 2.5 come in your car early on? Call Bworld and get a quote on an IT motor for the 2.5. My guess is you will hear 225 whp for an unrestricted one.

Yes, 300cc more displacement same oem hp.

[Z3_GoCar]

I've heard the 2.8 doesn't respond as well to IT prep than the 2.5. That may be part of the problem as well.

Didn't the 2.5 come in your car early on? Call Bworld and get a quote on an IT motor for the 2.5. My guess is you will hear 225 whp for an unrestricted one.

Nope never had it, the early Z3's were all four cylinders, mine's about the earliest six cylinder built (October '96) only avalible with an alloy block 2.8.

Oh, I also forgot I had the block honed for the new rings with a torque plate.

If I were to rebuild this car for STU, I'd definetly not use this motor as a base and it's a former WC motor.

[Ron Earp]

Nope never had it, the early Z3's were all four cylinders, mine's about the earliest six cylinder built (October '96) only avalible with an alloy block 2.8.

Oh, I also forgot I had the block honed for the new rings with a torque plate.

If I were to rebuild this car for STU, I'd definetly not use this motor as a base and it's a former WC motor.

Sounds like a bum motor, bad ECU mapping, or realistically any number of other problems. Folks routinely (used to) purchase built BMW 2.5L motors that turned 210-220 rwhp on a number of Dynojets around the country. Strong motors for IT when built.

[lateapex911]

I've seen around 200 whp with my own eyes on a half built version, with lots of miles. Going all in on those gets you over 210 easy peasy.

[Z3_GoCar]

Sounds like a bum motor, bad ECU mapping, or realistically any number of other problems. Folks routinely (used to) purchase built BMW 2.5L motors that turned 210-220 rwhp on a number of Dynojets around the country. Strong motors for IT when built.

To get those HP numbers requires the cams from the m3 motor. They have the BMW emblem on them, and unless put on a cam machine, you can't tell the difference. For my motor to get these numbers also requires the 2.5 intake manifold. I bet, since you've got the early m-coupe, you already knew this.

I've seen around 200 whp with my own eyes on a half built version, with lots of miles. Going all in on those gets you over 210 easy peasy.

Jake, was that the 2.5? I don't have one of those, mine has a different intake manifold. It's got 300cc more displacement with the same HP.

[JeffYoung]

James, we are to the point where we just have to say you are wrong and leave it at that.

Yes, the 2.5 can make 200 easy, and 215+ with work. Legally. Without M3 cams. BWorld was aware of that cheat and issued a written warning to the other BMW teams in 04 or 05 that they would protest them if it was clear they were running those cams.

From everything I've heard, and seen, the 2.8 is not a good choice for a BMW motor. The 2.5 makes as much or more power, and the 3.0 makes WAY more power.

[JoshS]

From everything I've heard, and seen, the 2.8 is not a good choice for a BMW motor. The 2.5 makes as much or more power, and the 3.0 makes WAY more power.

Agreed for sure if you're talking about the E36's 2.8 (like James'). The jury is still out on the E46's 2.8 (like mine).

[924Guy]

God, I hate the off-season...

I'm going back to the garage and make some more carbon fiber... reading all this makes me forget just how much better IT is than when I started...

[Z3_GoCar]

James, we are to the point where we just have to say you are wrong and leave it at that.

Yes, the 2.5 can make 200 easy, and 215+ with work. Legally. Without M3 cams. BWorld was aware of that cheat and issued a written warning to the other BMW teams in 04 or 05 that they would protest them if it was clear they were running those cams.

From everything I've heard, and seen, the 2.8 is not a good choice for a BMW motor. The 2.5 makes as much or more power, and the 3.0 makes WAY more power.

-Del-

[Charlie Broring]

what are the 27 cars in line for the next conference call? i am not asking to hold anyone accountable as i do not think it likely that all 27 can be discussed in a single call but i would like to know.

also, if changes are are recommended for the 27, when would changes be likely to show up in Fastrack for on-track.

27 cars! Could this be the realignment or ITB and ITC that is rumored to be coming? Let me ask a hypothetical question about what would better serve the club membership. If a number of older classifications are run through the Process and found to be significantly heavy by this formula, how should we deal with this?

1) Reduce the weight of these older classification. Consider that substantial weight reductions will be expensive or impossible within the IT rules.

2) Achieve balance by increasing the weight of a small number of newer classifications. Consider that this would indicate that the Process formula would need some revision in order to account for these weight changes and maintain consistency in the future.

Which would make for the greatest number of competitive cars and happy drivers in the effected classes?

[JeffYoung]

Are you talking about in IT or in STwhatever?

In IT, we aren't going to make manifold allowances for any cars.

If your car was classed at 30% and it can't make it, send us dyno sheets and build specs and a request to reduce the gain in the Process will be considered.

If you expect the M52 to make the same gain as the M50, then give it the M50 intake manifold, so that we can port match. Otherwise I'm just spinning my wheels trying to pull hp out of a small runner manifold with a smaller plenum that can't be port matched.

If the process hp is reduced to a level that is even close to doable, say 20%. Then I can't make weight, because the car will only get down to about 2650lbs, without composite panels.

[JeffYoung]

I'm not aware of any realignment of ITB or C proposed/coming.

We do now have the rule authority to run all cars through the Process. I personally think the intent now is to do that on a car by car basis as requests come in.

Point 2 is very problematic. Any time we segregate out a small number of cars for special/different treatment, we have run into huge problems (see ITS E36).

If the proposed weight reduction for an older classification is not possible, then the right move in my view is to move that car down a class. So some of running old cars through the Process might have the effect of repopulating ITC with viable race cars. The ITB Daytona is an example of that.

Special rules/weights for a very few cars? That jus screams trouble to me.

27 cars! Could this be the realignment or ITB and ITC that is rumored to be coming? Let me ask a hypothetical question about what would better serve the club membership. If a number of older classifications are run through the Process and found to be significantly heavy by this formula, how should we deal with this?

1) Reduce the weight of these older classification. Consider that substantial weight reductions will be expensive or impossible within the IT rules.

2) Achieve balance by increasing the weight of a small number of newer classifications. Consider that this would indicate that the Process formula would need some revision in order to account for these weight changes and maintain consistency in the future.

Which would make for the greatest number of competitive cars and happy drivers in the effected classes?

[Chip42]

James,

If you have good evidence that the motor doesn't make gains, submit it to the ITAC. not just a statement of your power, but all of your mods, dyno plots, anything else you have, and get others with the same motor to do the same.. expert opinion might help, too. no one wants you to cheat, nor to spin your wheels. IT is a good category for that reason. you might never have a pointy-end car, some just don't fit in well. but they are good guys and honest brokers and will do what they can if you give them the info they need to do so.

[JeffYoung]

Chip said it better than me. Thanks man.

[gran racing]

I personally think the intent now is to do that on a car by car basis as requests come in.

Really? So nothing is being done with the list of cars there were previously discussed? I'm sorry, but you guys are making this extremely confusing and a bit frustrating. Or could someone at least list what cars are under consideration and being run through the process? At this point is sure sounds like many people are thinking that various cars are on the list to be reviewed but in reality that isn't the case. So what exactly is the deal?

Why not publish what current cars are under consideration in Fastrack. That way people will know what's in progress and ensure there's no miscommunication. It would be a shame if people are being patcient and wait even longer just to find out there car isn't even on the list.

Btw, this is NOT just a Dave centric viewpoint about my beloved Golf or Prelude. We all know there's a sizeable list of cars that deserve to be looked at.

Charlie, I think there are certain cars that need to be run through the process and weights adjusted upwards. One example of this is the Golf III (& IV). Instead of moving all other ITB cars down in weight, that car just needs some on it. So in effect like you just stated. There still are plenty of B cars that should have a weight reduction even based on the target that ITB has been using now for a while. I also don't many (any?) changes will be "massive". I know that's a relative term but thinking 300 lbs as my definition.

[Andy Bettencourt]

And I can't restate enough that requesting a weight reduction based on 25% when you KNOW your car makes more is just as much cheating as adding cams or anything else that raises HP outside the rules.

[JoshS]

Guys ... we have 27 outstanding letters from members.

We *also* have a list of existing cars to assess weights/classifications of based on those that have been discussed over the last few years (like the MR2).

Not to worry.