Teach me about ITR 325's

[robits325is]

BMW starting installing these plates in 1994 with the production of the M3. The plates came standard on all M3s and also standard from the factory on the famed 1994 M Technic 325is.

[JeffYoung]

Josh's question remains a good one.

1. Where is the factory TSB authorizing the installation of these plates on an E36 325is?

2. Is there any evidence they came on an E36 325is from the factory?

If neither, then I don't see how the plates are legal.

[DBurke]

To the OP the E36 is likely one of the most fun cars that someone could possibly put together. All the homework is done, it will fit all the tire that you want and there are suspension options out there galore. You can even pick up almost everything you need, right now to have a car as fast as you need it to be to win the ARRC in the bimmerforums classifieds at nearly 50% off. Things that aren't there are front brake pads and tires.

The chassis reinforcements are these: http://www.turnermotorsport.com/html..._ID=4111225649

If I had a week I could likely find the Roundel from over 10 years ago that had a statement regarding this from BMW.

I have no dog in this hunt. I am a BMW guy but when I was ready to buy the ex KVS ITS 325 all the weight/restrictor/dyno unrest was happening so I went another direction.

If I were to consider a car for ITR I would not consider any option other than the BMWs. No need to make life that difficult to go slower.

[Andy Bettencourt]

and also standard from the factory on the famed 1994 M Technic 325is.

Which would actually be a good reason to specifically disallow this car. As it turns out, they are NOT the same as the 325's.

But in the end - who really cares? As long as the owners are 'replacing' per factory specs and not 'reinforcing' per an upgrade, it's no big deal. Each car needs to be policed on it's own merits.

[robits325is]

Which would actually be a good reason to specifically disallow this car. As it turns out, they are NOT the same as the 325's.

But in the end - who really cares? As long as the owners are 'replacing' per factory specs and not 'reinforcing' per an upgrade, it's no big deal. Each car needs to be policed on it's own merits.

Agreed, but following the same logic would the RX-7 get twin piston calipers, trick 5th gear, rear wing and power steering delete? After all, those cars are about a second a lap faster than any other car in ITS.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Agreed, but following the same logic would the RX-7 get twin piston calipers, trick 5th gear, rear wing and power steering delete?

No Rob, that logic doesn't fly at all. With the MT 325, we are talking about a CHASSIS difference from teh cars that are listed on the line.

The RX-7 had many different (both high and low production versions) that make up the ITS RX-7. The big brakes came on many versions, the rear wing on even more and the non PS cars were actually the lower end units. The 5th gear was indeed from the GTUs of which plenty were made in 1989 but just 100 in 1990.

Again, it's not about the bits and pieces that make up the perfect ITS RX-7 because they all have the same chassis. What would be more appropriate to compare would be if the Turbo models came with a reinforced XXX and ITS drivers were using that to justify.

After all, those cars are about a second a lap faster than any other car in ITS.

Maybe up hear in the NE, but not everywhere...

Like I said, we all know what is legal to do to an E36 to make it right. Repair, yes. Reinforcement, no....and it ain't any different for any other car in all of IT.

[JoshS]

I still say no one has answered my question. The deafening silence says to methat no one with these plates has any evidence to present in the event that they are protested.

Everyone has just repeated stuff they read on other forums (they came on with the option package, or BMW has stated that they were produced as a repair to this problem, or Turner says so ...) but no one has any DOCUMENTATION that proves any of it. Don't get me started on the topic of believing what the race part vendors tell you about parts legality. Turner explicitly states that metal brake caliper bushings are legal for SCCA racing. Yeah? Well, not for IT!

I'm a BMW guy and I can't find anything on this subframe mount issue. I'm not sure why Andy is willing to believe that people are "replacing per factory specs" without seeing a factory spec.

I guess I'm just a conservative rules reader. But based on what I know, I would NOT install those plates on my IT car, even as a reactive repair after a failure.

EDIT: one would expect such a document to be in the TIS, right alongside the instructions for repairing a failed shock tower on the 325i. That's a totally analogous situation. If this document isn't there, where would it be?

[Doc Bro]

metal brake caliper bushings are legal for SCCA racing. Yeah? Well, not for IT!

What part of 'bushings are free' am I misunderstanding?

R

[Greg Amy]

What part of 'bushings are free' am I misunderstanding?

The part about them being under the category rules for suspension...?

Of course, if we're agreeing that any bushing that suspends anything is free, let me know...'cause you ain't gonna like the results...just sayin'...

GA, who's really hoping our BMW friends are not replacing their rubber caliper bushings with anything non-rubber...

[Z3_GoCar]

Josh,

Something completly analouguos, that I know about. Does the TIS for the Z3 have the factory proceedure for fixing a cracked differential mount? I know that I've seen several where the dealer will weld a second mount over the first. However, it seems the dealer has to bring in an rep to tell them how to perform the repair, thus avoiding the documentation and resulting liability if something goes wrong with the repair. Maybe it's a similar kind of situation... non-documented dealer/factory repairs.

James

[JoshS]

Josh,

Something completly analouguos, that I know about. Does the TIS for the Z3 have the factory proceedure for fixing a cracked differential mount? I know that I've seen several where the dealer will weld a second mount over the first. However, it seems the dealer has to bring in an rep to tell them how to perform the repair, thus avoiding the documentation and resulting liability if something goes wrong with the repair. Maybe it's a similar kind of situation... non-documented dealer/factory repairs.

James

I've never seen any acknowledgement by BMW for the diff mount/trunk floor problem, just like I've never seen anything for the E36 problem.

Therefore, such a dealer-installed repair would not be legal in IT, even if a verbal agreement with a BMWNA employee allowed BMWNA to pay for the repair.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The RX-7 had many different (both high and low production versions) that make up the ITS RX-7. The big brakes came on many versions, the rear wing on even more and the non PS cars were actually the lower end units. The 5th gear was indeed from the GTUs of which plenty were made in 1989 but just 100 in 1990.

It has been pointed out to me offline that I may have inferred that ITS RX-7 drivers were creating a model that didn't exist by cherry-picking the best stuff from different models. What I was trying to do for Rob was to show him that the items he listed for the most part, were not low production stuff and indeed available on all RX-7's.

The model that is being created is the 89-90 GTUs. The desirable part from this model is the 5th gear ratio (.76 instead of .71). And even at that number, it is worse than most everything in ITS.

[robits325is]

It has been pointed out to me offline that I may have inferred that ITS RX-7 drivers were creating a model that didn't exist by cherry-picking the best stuff from different models. What I was trying to do for Rob was to show him that the items he listed for the most part, were not low production stuff and indeed available on all RX-7's.

The model that is being created is the 89-90 GTUs. The desirable part from this model is the 5th gear ratio (.76 instead of .71). And even at that number, it is worse than most everything in ITS.

My opinion is when you can change so many pieces and create a parts room model that exceeds the model that was classified then there should be a re-evaluation. I think that some of these RX-7 models should be on an individual spec line just like the 92 325i should be on a different spec line from the 93-95 325i

[JeffYoung]

Rob, on the BMW, is that due to OBDI v. OBDII? Or is it some other fundamental differences between the two different groups of model years?

I'm just curious, didn't realize there were differences in the E36 run.

Thanks.

Jeff

[Andy Bettencourt]

My opinion is when you can change so many pieces and create a parts room model that exceeds the model that was classified then there should be a re-evaluation.

But you are infering by saying 'parts room model' that what is on track never existed when in fact, peple are creating the 1989-1990 GTUs. Here are some facts for you:

It has no more HP than ANY other 89-91 RX-7
It has the SAME brakes as the GXL
It has the same rear wing as the GTU and GXL

The differences were a 4.30 viscous (vs 4.10 open) and the slightly upgraded 5th gear of that the only thing applicable to IT racing is the transmission...and oh yes, it did have an aluminum hood that it shared with the convertible.

And it wasn't limited production like the MT 325. Only about 1100 were made but that was due to lack of demand, not a limited production run. It was a fully documented model in the brochures.

[dickita15]

My opinion is when you can change so many pieces and create a parts room model that exceeds the model that was classified then there should be a re-evaluation. I think that some of these RX-7 models should be on an individual spec line just like the 92 325i should be on a different spec line from the 93-95 325i

All that would do is split out the 86-88 Rx7s which would have to be at a lower weight due to the lower horsepower.