ITS e36 BMW

[bamfp]

In just this two-page thread, I've seen 215, 220+ and 230 quoted as the "known" horsepower level for an E36.

The discussions I've had with others who used to, but no longer, run an E36 325 said 215 was the top dog number, and those engines were only capable of that for a short period of time.

Is there legit, non-marketing-based dyno data floating around that can put THIS portion of the discussion to rest?

I worked for Sunbelt turning this time period. The average hp for these was 215whp. The most I ever saw was 227whp. But dyno varies.

[lateapex911]

I worked for Sunbelt turning this time period. The average hp for these was 215whp. The most I ever saw was 227whp. But dyno varies.

The ITAC 'settled" on about 217-220 as a 'mainsteam' real deal number.
And don't forget, they had tq, esp compared to the RX-7.

The thing was they were rated artificially low from the factory, (The "Process" didn't really exist and there was no easy "fix" for that), and the ECU rule allowed "anything that could fit in the box", which, in that cars particular case, meant a read deal ECU, AND the thing made big gains, compared to 90% of the rest of the ITCS cars on an ECU change.

It was a perfect storm that tested the system that was in place, and the REAL solution was to get the f outa ITS, but...there was no place to put it. Hence ITR was birthed...it was needed and under consideration anyway, but SCCA was loath to add classes. The E36 helped illustrate the need. Necessity is the mother of invention.

[chuck baader]

I would support removing the car from ITS altogether.

[gpeluso]

Chuck,
I have a 1999 323i with a standalone .... Got a few other engine options for the car too... You are welcome to purchase all... Ran the car in NASA and scca with a m54 325 motor in ITR ... But have M52tu 328 and 323 motors ...top notch cage ...

I give u REAL #'s. m52tu motors Suck ! M50 makes more power and better. The car belongs in ITS and I believe at 2900..

I am currently having my rx7 motor rebuilt .

Greg

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think we can safely use 215whp for a top build on a 325. If you wanted to drop the SIR in ITS, you would be looking squarely in the eye at 3380lbs.

In ITR, the car is VERY aggressively classed, potentially to a fault. That same 215whp should be 2950lbs. Classed using a 30% multiplier gets you to 2765lbs and a target of just 201whp.

[Xian]

Yeah, I've often thought that it's pretty aggressively classed versus some of the other stuff in ITR... it weighs only 5# more than the FWD Acura TSX. As much of a Honda fanboi as I can be, I know which one of the two that I'd pick (and it wouldn't have a stylized "A" on the nose).

[JeffYoung]

Anybody know why it wasn't classed at "what we know" rwhp in ITR?

I do not.

[Xian]

Anybody know why it wasn't classed at "what we know" rwhp in ITR?

I do not.

WAG? So that the E36 owners weren't pissed off... again.

Edit:
Wasn't Giles involved in some of the ITR stuff way back when?

[Bill Miller]

Edit:
Wasn't Giles involved in some of the ITR stuff way back when?

I forget who exactly was on the ITR 'committee'. I know it was Kirk, myself, Jake, Jeff Young, Ron Erp, George Roffe, Andy Bettencourt, and I think Greg Amy. Beyond that, I can't recall.

[gt40jim]

I am not worried about telling our numbers. Dan Jones car (ITR spec e36 with a handful of lap records) BEST ever was 208 rwhp with aftermarket ecu and single vanos. Again dynos DO vary. Doc is a touch lower due to exhaust system. NO bullshit. 220 P.S. Gregs e46 is nice Chuck...

[JeffYoung]

Dynos vary, and so do the quality of engine bills. Emoticon all you want, but you just had one of Sunbelt's engine builders post here saying 215 was average and 227 best.

Christian, ITR essentially came about this way. Folks had talked about a class above ITS, but more because of the Z32 300zx than anything, which the CRB/ITAC had refused to class.

But that was mostly talk. The guy who actually got things going was Ron. Over Christmas in 2006 I think, he put together a spreadsheet with the first listing of ITR cars, and then I added some and also wrote the ITR proposal doc.

At that point, someone decided that an ad hoc committee on this board would be a good idea, so we on our own put one together. I think Bill's list above is correct on members, although Scott was on it too.

Best committee I've ever been on. We motored through the list, made some decisions on various cars and got the shit done. Sent it in to the ITAC, and then the CRB/Bod and approved.

The only hitch was the process was in its infancy and the way final weights were set - including the E36 -- was inconsistent and never clear to me (I was not on the iTAC at the time).

[Tristan Smith]

Well knowing what my car makes HP wise, and reading the numbers here for the E36, there needs to be a shit-metric-ton of weight put on that car, or weight taken off mine.

But since there are not a lot of places to take weight off of mine, throw some lead at that thing.

[JeffYoung]

By the numbers it certainly looks like it.

[Bill Miller]

Dynos vary, and so do the quality of engine bills. Emoticon all you want, but you just had one of Sunbelt's engine builders post here saying 215 was average and 227 best.

Christian, ITR essentially came about this way. Folks had talked about a class above ITS, but more because of the Z32 300zx than anything, which the CRB/ITAC had refused to class.

But that was mostly talk. The guy who actually got things going was Ron. Over Christmas in 2006 I think, he put together a spreadsheet with the first listing of ITR cars, and then I added some and also wrote the ITR proposal doc.

At that point, someone decided that an ad hoc committee on this board would be a good idea, so we on our own put one together. I think Bill's list above is correct on members, although Scott was on it too.

Best committee I've ever been on. We motored through the list, made some decisions on various cars and got the shit done. Sent it in to the ITAC, and then the CRB/Bod and approved.

The only hitch was the process was in its infancy and the way final weights were set - including the E36 -- was inconsistent and never clear to me (I was not on the iTAC at the time).

Hard to believe it was that long ago Jeff. I guess that's why I forgot about the Nissan. I think there were some other cars that got turned down because the exceeded the performance envelope of ITS, but I'm not totally sure. Some flavor of the 944 IIRC.

And I agree, it was a great group to work with. For the most part, there was no BS, and we all were on the same page, and just got shit done. I was even more impressed at how fast it got through the system and was approved. I guess we did it right.

[JeffYoung]

It was a great experience Bill. Shows what a small focused group in ABB can do if given some leeway to do it.

[Ron Earp]

Well knowing what my car makes HP wise, and reading the numbers here for the E36, there needs to be a shit-metric-ton of weight put on that car, or weight taken off mine.

But since there are not a lot of places to take weight off of mine, throw some lead at that thing.

I believe ITR needs to be realigned. Probably not a popular opinion, but I believe that the class was somewhat crippled from the start by using the E36 as a benchmark for the class. I also think a couple of cars received estimated power levels that were too high.

I'll have to look through some of the early ITR spreadsheets I have and see what the initial power estimates looked like on the ITR E36. It could be they were the figures that were adopted in the end, hard to say.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I believe ITR needs to be realigned. Probably not a popular opinion, but I believe that the class was somewhat crippled from the start by using the E36 as a benchmark for the class. I also think a couple of cars received estimated power levels that were too high.

I'll have to look through some of the early ITR spreadsheets I have and see what the initial power estimates looked like on the ITR E36. It could be they were the figures that were adopted in the end, hard to say.

I can tell you. 30% was used on all the I6's and the 300ZX in ITR. The 325 was classed VERY aggressively at 30%. Nobody on the CRB was willing use 40%, which is about 216whp.

[JeffYoung]

But they would use it for implementing an SIR on the car in ITS? Inconsistent it seems to me.....

Ron is right about the E36. We took a car with 190 stock horsepower, or at the very bottom of the ITR "curve" and used it as the baseline for the class.

If the power to weigh multiplier of ITS is adjusted down then the car may fit back in S.

[Andy Bettencourt]

But they would use it for implementing an SIR on the car in ITS? Inconsistent it seems to me.....

Ron is right about the E36. We took a car with 190 stock horsepower, or at the very bottom of the ITR "curve" and used it as the baseline for the class.

If the power to weigh multiplier of ITS is adjusted down then the car may fit back in S.

It will never fit in ITS. Even if you placate those who don't believe the Sunbelt/215whp number and use 210whp, it's 3305 today at 12.9 or 3140lbs at 12.25 like I suggested above. It's simply too much hp for ITS for those driving them to be comfortable with adding that much weight.

Using 210whp in ITR gets you to a more reasonable 2880lbs which is still light by some peoples math. Using the 'what we know' rules in the Ops manual and given how we have sliced and diced 1-2whp lately, it could easily get reclassed at 215whp or 2950lbs.

[JeffYoung]

And at 12.0 it would be closer to 3000, and probably very raceable at that weight.

I don't buy the "won't race" at those weights. The Z32 got stuck with a big weigt and a few folks are racing them, at essentialy the same wheel hp as the 2750 E36.