What's the chassis??

[Chip42]

I'm not clear what Christian Horn....er, James is trying to get away with, mostly 'cause I don't know jack about the BMWs. But divorce yourself from what engine came in what chassis/make/model; it's irrelevant.

I completely understand what you WANT to allow, but I agree with James that IF chassis X had 2 body styles or varients - say a coupe and a wagon - and the coupe came with a larger TB on what is otherwise the same engine as the wagon, the rules as written might allow him to swap a motor into the wagon (not the factory installed type) and use the TB/intake from the coupe, being as it's the same chassis.

I think "your" definition of chassis is more inline with the IT concept of year (range)/make/model/body style while the general term "chassis" is often synonymous with "platform" and James is exploring that definition (to a non-absurd degree IMHO). define chassis, close potential loophole. btw, it's a stupid rule if he can't have the coupe TB in an othwerwise identical wagon to continue my example. it would deserve a line item allowance at minimum.

[Greg Amy]

...IF chassis X had 2 body styles or varients - say a coupe and a wagon - and the coupe came with a larger TB on what is otherwise the same engine as the wagon, the rules as written might allow him to swap a motor into the wagon (not the factory installed type) and use the TB/intake from the coupe, being as it's the same chassis.

The regs do allow that. Explicitly. Unless I'm totally missing what you're trying to say...and in the end, so what?

GA

[jhooten]

You do realize, don't you that the STO spec line for the e36/46 is the M3 not the Z3. Use a 3l or smaller and run in STU at 3300#.

[Greg Amy]

You do realize, don't you that the STO spec line for the e36/46 is the M3 not the Z3. Use a 3l or smaller and run in STU at 3300#.

We're adding the Z3. Z4 too, probably, and any other BMW you may have an interest in racing in STO against the Vipers, Corvettes, and Porsche 996tt. - GA

[jhooten]

We're adding the Z3. Z4 too, probably, and any other BMW you may have an interest in racing in STO against the Vipers, Corvettes, and Porsche 996tt. - GA

And hopefully soon this slow POS:

[Chip42]

The regs do allow that. Explicitly. Unless I'm totally missing what you're trying to say...and in the end, so what?

GA

I think his example is Z3/3XX series car with 2 different motors with 2 sizes of TB. he wants one car, the TB from another, motor from a 3rd. "chassis" as in "platform" is the same between those cars. up until the above comment, I believed your intent was that a Z3 and 3 series were different by rules, so this would NOT be allowed.

"in the end," the STCS places restrictions on component swaps for some sort of regulation ability. I get that even if I disagree with it (should be displacement/cam/compression etc.. and go). but all it means is that certain combos can't play or that 2 otherwise equal engines are held back by chassis choice. I don't see how that's a win for anyone.*

* and I see where a Z3 might be seen as a superior platform to a wagon, and performance balanced accordingly with all else being equal. but that's not the topic here, it's part swaps within a platform that might not be "legal" by some readings of the rules, and a request for clarification.

[Greg Amy]

I'm confused, but I just don't know these cars. But, as far as I am concerned, a BMW 345 wagon is the same car as a BMW 345 sedan is the same car as a 345 coupe, so you're free to swap parts all you like between them. The tuning philosophy of Super Touring allows - encourages - that. - GA

On edit: personal commentary, the BMW Z4 really isn't a good platform for this kinda stuff. I remember getting up close to Rob's ITA Z3, and that rear suspension is pretty basic; comes from the E30 chassis, doesn't it? The E36 was a much better rear suspension as I recall, and I'm sure the E46+ is even better...but I'm waiting for Eric to jump in here and clarify this muddiness...

[Chip42]

I'm confused, but I just don't know these cars. But, as far as I am concerned, a BMW 345 wagon is the same car as a BMW 345 sedan is the same car as a 345 coupe, so you're free to swap parts all you like between them. The tuning philosophy of Super Touring allows - encourages - that. - GA

On edit: personal commentary, the BMW Z4 really isn't a good platform for this kinda stuff. I remember getting up close to Rob's ITA Z3, and that rear suspension is pretty basic; comes from the E30 chassis, doesn't it? The E36 was a much better rear suspension as I recall, and I'm sure the E46+ is even better...but I'm waiting for Eric to jump in here and clarify this muddiness...

yes Z3 = updated E30 but Z4 I think is E46 gen 1 and E92 gen 2. I'm sure james knows the part in question, I was just trying to clarify what I believed his point was, as I don't think it's very clear either. of course, I'd have never put a VW engine in a 944, so...

[Greg Amy]

... of course, I'd have never put a VW engine in a 944, so...

Ugh, that one still sticks in my craw. Not that I disagree with our response - I'm generally ok with VW and Porsche being "same family" - but I see that whole thing in hindsight as us falling prey to someone's cruel prank. We avoided that pitfall with some subsequent letters this year (Toyota engines in Loti, Chevy engines in some British crap, etc) but unless someone shows me a Golf-engined Porsche 944 entered in STU somewhere I'll wear away more of my teeth each time I see that reference... - GA

[Ron Earp]

Ugh, that one still sticks in my craw. Not that I disagree with our response - I'm generally ok with VW and Porsche being "same family" - but I see that whole thing in hindsight as us falling prey to someone's cruel prank.

How about relationships that used to be? Ford owned the majority stake in Mazda for many years then sold that off. Ford motor in a Mazda legal? Mazda motor in a Ford legal? Ford owned Volvo. Volvo motor in a Ford okay? VW/Porsche are the "same family now", but what if Porsche suddenly sold off VW? Or Audi? How long does the "in the same family" last after the companies diverge?

Personally I believe the "in the family" rule to be a bunch o shit. Want to run a 2L Mopar in your Honda? Do it up. The class has displacement/weight rules, who cares what company makes the engine?

[JS154]

I'm confused, but I just don't know these cars. But, as far as I am concerned, a BMW 345 wagon is the same car as a BMW 345 sedan is the same car as a 345 coupe, so you're free to swap parts all you like between them. The tuning philosophy of Super Touring allows - encourages - that. - GA

On edit: personal commentary, the BMW Z4 really isn't a good platform for this kinda stuff. I remember getting up close to Rob's ITA Z3, and that rear suspension is pretty basic; comes from the E30 chassis, doesn't it? The E36 was a much better rear suspension as I recall, and I'm sure the E46+ is even better...but I'm waiting for Eric to jump in here and clarify this muddiness...

E36 and E46 are pretty much the same multilink rear suspension as I understand.
Z3, E30, and E36 Bobtail Ti all use the same semi-trailing arm rear suspension.

remember that:

The rules require that the:

Intake manifold must be from either the installed engine or the chassis. (allowed for motor swaps*)
and
Chassis must be/ have been available through the US dealer network
and
Engines must have been available in North America.

the S54 engine, installed in the E46 M3 Chassis, had ITB's
The S50B30, installed in the Canadian market 1994 E36M3, had ITB's.

So if someone wanted to run ITB's on their 2.5L egine, they could theoretically run an M54 (E46 325 engine) in an E36 M3 chassis.
If the ITB from the S50B30 are to be used it would have to be as a complete engine at 3.0L regardless of which chassis it's installed in.
Since the M54 came in the E46 chassis, the stock ITM would have to be used.

Also note the S54 engine is 3248cc, which is larger then the 3.2L limit of the class.

Note I am NOT saying this IS LEGAL, not am I saying it IS NOT or it SHOULD NOT be legal. I am saying that's how it looks like the rules read to me.