lateapex911
Super Moderator
You are right. I have the plot on my computer. Baseline indicated a power of over 180. To be exact, it was 180.01 at approx 6100 rpm. Torque was 174.69.
Engine was reported to be a Stikley, one race, custom chip.
April SIR ruling
- Thread starter e36its
- Start date
You are right. I have the plot on my computer. Baseline indicated a power of over 180. To be exact, it was 180.01 at approx 6100 rpm. Torque was 174.69.
Engine was reported to be a Stikley, one race, custom chip.
Jake,
Stickley builds one of the best motors. I thought the problem was that all the pro motors where something like 225whp. I'm lost here. Chuck's motors are just as good as Sunbelts. Help us out with the reason for the SIR at all if your findings were a pro built motor producing 180.01 whp. Are you telling us that if I pay Stickley $8,000 for an engine I will end up with motor after SIR producing 161 whp and a car weighing 2850 lbs. That's 20 whp less than an RX7 and over 150 lbs more. BAD TIMING, BAD DECISION.
Greg
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Jake,
Stickley builds one of the best motors. I thought the problem was that all the pro motors where something like 225whp. I'm lost here. Chuck's motors are just as good as Sunbelts. Help us out with the reason for the SIR at all if your findings were a pro built motor producing 180.01 whp. Are you telling us that if I pay Stickley $8,000 for an engine I will end up with motor after SIR producing 161 whp and a car weighing 2850 lbs. That's 20 whp less than an RX7 and over 150 lbs more. BAD TIMING, BAD DECISION.
Greg [/b]
I like where you say you are lost. You are right!
No verification of 225whp has EVER been produced. Pure rumor. We have data from 180-210. I am sure there are lower versions out there - but who cares? The beauty of IT is that you can run your stock motor and have fun until you build to the limit of the class - then, and only then, should you expect to run at the front, should the driver be up to the task.
Did you read DJ's post? 180whp is NOT a good effort for a E36 325 in IT trim. EVERYONE KNOWS THIS.
Your numbers example is a tough one. Is that car competitive? Nope...but it is 25-30whp off the mark right from the start so even if it ran unrestricted, there is no way it could compete with properly built stuff. Get in the game.
seckerich
New member
A good build with a chip only makes 198.6 on a dynojet with SAE correction. I know the owner and trust the numbers. The AF numbers on the sheet posted suck for power so try another example before you cry foul. The power curve is ragged at best before SIR and gets no better after. Total BS to use for any real arguement. I can make a Mazda dyno suck that bad if you want to use equal numbers. AB'S statement about this prep level is correct.
All along we've had this idea that the BMW owners were given a gift with the SIR, right? It'll lop the top off and leave the rest alone. Are we putting that concept to rest as a result of this testing? What I'm seeing is a motor that got leaner and lost HP even though it was (unrestricted) making below the calculated max for the SIR size tested.
With a wry smile I note that losing HP + needing to tune (note the tune got leaner with the SIR in place) + having to come up with new intake + buying an SIR feels like substantially less of a "gift".
tom
semi off topic, something I've been meaning to say for a while:
I dunno if I have to note this, but I am a BMW owner. I am not, nor have I ever, attempted to cast aspersions on the ITAC or their lineage. They are volunteers who (I suspect) are attempting to do what they feel is best for the class. I can't say I agree with the outcome of this process, but I also don't think they're trying to steal my lunch money and kick my dog.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
And that in itself sums you up.
AB,
If 180 whp isn't a good effort for ITS why was the goal set for 180whp with the SIR???????? I know Chuck's engine do produce more than that AB. If I'm Chuck, I'm pissed that you said this engine he built isn't a good effort.
Greg [/b]
Are you serious? An unrestricted 180whp effort is WAY off the mark. Sorry to tell you. If you know Chuck's engines produce more than that, then why are you arguing that the above dyno plot was one of his engines? I don't care who thinks what about that comment, 180whp is NOT the result you are looking for in a all-out effort. Actually, it's about a 15% improvment. You need to be in the 30% range on these cars.
Hello? Bueller?
And that in itself sums you up.
[/b]
LOL. Do you or do you not make money on ITS RX7's?
26 ponies. Nice work!
dj10
New member
Thanks for clearing this up on that car, Jake & AB. I would caution everyone when associating Chuck's name with this engine, as Plumbo said he might get ticked off
, because there is no way in hell that's one of Chuck's engines. 
What ever it is, is not what I would call a good baseline race car in which I would rely on it's data. Everyone needs to keep a clear head and not jump to any conclusions. Now we know what we have to use, I'm sure we will get other reports shortly. I just ordered my 29 mm SIR today. I know, at least for me I want to give it a try. If it doesn't work for some reason, I have other options.
I would of liked the SCCA to give us instructions on how to mount this SIR. It should be manditory to mount it a certain way.
dj
seckerich
New member
Everyone on this board has an opinion and I guess has a right to express it. We may not agree and have arguements--but it is just differing points of view. You on the other hand are way out of line and give this forum a very bad rep with your personal attacks and insults to the ITAC and others. If you have problems with Andy or others a PM is the way to go. Otherwise the Wannabee in your signature I hope holds true forever. We can do without people like you in IT.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Actually, I have never pocketed one dollar. Someday, maybe. FOM is a part time business for all of us that is 90% Miata's and 10% RX-7's. Neither Nick or I own or race an RX-7 as of late 2005.
Your assertion that I am bias can be disputed by any ITAC or CRB member.
Was it nice work? You bet your ass it was.
AB
Back when I was a junior high school teacher, I had a kid announce in front of the class that I was discriminating against him because he was black. I gave him a pass to see the principal, so he could file the official greivance with the district, warranted by that kind of treatment. He didn't do it, came back to class, and worked harder.
The moral as it applies here?
If you honestly believe that any ITAC or Board member is letting a vested interest influence his/her/their club business decisions, you have an obligation to either (a) make an official complaint to SCCA, or ( shut the hell up.
K
The moral as it applies here?
If you honestly believe that any ITAC or Board member is letting a vested interest influence his/her/their club business decisions, you have an obligation to either (a) make an official complaint to SCCA, or (
shut the hell up.K
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Thanks for clearing this up on that car, Jake & AB. I would caution everyone when associating Chuck's name with this engine, as Plumbo said he might get ticked off
What ever it is, is not what I would call a good baseline race car in which I would rely on it's data. Everyone needs to keep a clear head and not jump to any conclusions. Now we know what we have to use, I'm sure we will get other reports shortly. I just ordered my 29 mm SIR today. I know, at least for me I want to give it a try. If it doesn't work for some reason, I have other options.
I would of liked the SCCA to give us instructions on how to mount this SIR. It should be manditory to mount it a certain way.
dj [/b]
DJ,
The validity of this data, solid or not, is exactly why the CRB and ITAC didn't slowly leak the info piece by piece. Assumptions and conclusions would be based on a lack of complete info. Again, the BMW guys, the rest of ITS and all of SCCA are due the conclusions and results...I will push to get them out asap.
Thanks for your patience and level-headedness on this.
AB
Singletrack1
New member
That is in direct contradiction to what David Finch told me when I told him about my dyno results. He stated it has to be in FRONT of the HFM to make the full 180HP. When I told him about my car and the other car not running past 3k with it in front of the HFM, he stated we need to do more development.
Why can't the CRB tell us how they got the car to run 180HP with the SIR in front of the HFM and give us the results of this final test where they tested SIR's up to 33mm?
This is in direct contradiction to what the ITAC and CRB told us the effect of the SIR would be. I can quote your post and others that state that the SIR only caps HP and it should not have affected my 180HP baseline.
Yes, my car was lean and it has since been corrected.
So, the story changes - it went from "unless you have a full build making 200+HP, you won't be affected" to "YOU MUST DO A FULL BUILD INCLUDING MOTEC TO GET THE TAGETED 180HP".
It doesn't matter to me in the end as I will be moving on to NASA and BMWCCA. You guys can accuse me of taking my ball and going home and so be it. But, I can say I got kicked in the nuts and decided it was better to go home, than continue to get kicked in the nuts.
I have no interest in fighting for position with drivers that I should be dominating.Yes, I did get the track record by .1 second, but I thought track records didn't matter?
I am tired of all this and had made racing no fun at all. This is a great reminder of why I quit national SOLO II competition.
Bill Kim