You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Hypothetical 318?
- Thread starter Knestis
- Start date
CrunchyFrog
New member
From recollection you could get either one to 2300 to 2400lbs easily - I have seen e30 M3's at 2200lbs without using fiberglass or perspex...
But the e30 and e36 are very similar weights.
The 1.9 318 e36 motor is a bit of a dog... Though the e36 is a very good handling car, with very good brakes. IMO the 318ti would be very cool too, but doesn't use the e36 rear multi link rear suspension, only the trailing like the e30 had, so you miss out on what makes the e36 really fast. But if it weighed less - hmm...
Other_K
But the e30 and e36 are very similar weights.
The 1.9 318 e36 motor is a bit of a dog... Though the e36 is a very good handling car, with very good brakes. IMO the 318ti would be very cool too, but doesn't use the e36 rear multi link rear suspension, only the trailing like the e30 had, so you miss out on what makes the e36 really fast. But if it weighed less - hmm...
Other_K
James Clay
New member
Either would be easily underweight. 2840 for the ITA 318, and the 318is is in ITS - this seems a little off. I doubt the E30 could do anything in ITS, but the E36 in ITA would be interesting. Possibly competitive at the ARRC if it was completely maxed out, but you would be in for the price of an ITS car at that point...
------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Clay
http://www.bimmerworld.com
Engineered BMW Performance
BMWCCA/SCCA Racecar Rental
Genuine OEM and Used BMW Parts
(540) 639-9648
-----------------------------------------------------------
------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Clay
http://www.bimmerworld.com
Engineered BMW Performance
BMWCCA/SCCA Racecar Rental
Genuine OEM and Used BMW Parts
(540) 639-9648
-----------------------------------------------------------
A
ACKER323
Guest
Is it true that the 318ti is a ITS car because i heard it but i didnt check it in a gcr?????????
I am just wondering because i know a couple guys that will be selling theres in the near future
I am just wondering because i know a couple guys that will be selling theres in the near future
The 318i/is twin cam (90-91) is listed in ITS (at 2600#) and 92-94 318 e36 is listed in A at 2840#. The ti is listed at www.2litre.itgo.com as an appropriate car for the IT2 model but, to the best of my knowledge, it is not officially listed in IT. There is one parked a couple of blocks from my house, in front of a college rental house, that has not moved for a year or more - it has occured to me that they are pretty cool...
Kirk
Kirk
[email protected]
New member
I'm running a '92 E36 318is with the M42 in ITA. The min weight of 2840 is steep, but my attempt to get the comp board to lower it was rejected. Entirely stripped, the car weighed 2400 and change. The cage, seat, ballast, fuel cell and whatnot (plus a 260 lbs. driver) means I can make minimum weight with 4 gallons in the tank.
The power-to-weight ratio seems more appropriate for ITB. That also seems to be where I'm able to run. ITA is a stretch with that weight.
------------------
Andy Banta
The power-to-weight ratio seems more appropriate for ITB. That also seems to be where I'm able to run. ITA is a stretch with that weight.
------------------
Andy Banta
You are the perfect source of information on this, it sounds like. Two questions...
1. How much ballast do you have to run to get to the minimum?
2. Out of curiosity, what was your proposal to the CB (requested weight, if there was one) and what evidence did you provide (that was obviously insufficient for their needs)?
Kirk
1. How much ballast do you have to run to get to the minimum?
2. Out of curiosity, what was your proposal to the CB (requested weight, if there was one) and what evidence did you provide (that was obviously insufficient for their needs)?
Kirk
[email protected]
New member
I'm running 60 lbs. of ballast (lead bolted to the passenger floorboard). I also carry a camera and a data acquisition computer. I haven't removed the ABS controller (though it's disconnected). I run a 15-gallon ATS cell with a steel frame. The cage has well above the minimum number of bars (see www.fizzball.com). And I'm around 260 lbs, as I mentioned. I still need to have about 4 gallons in the tank to be above minimum weight.
I asked for a minimum weight of 2600 from the comp board. Since they refuse to publish how they come up with IT weights, I used a variety of approachs. Tire wear is far in excess of what I saw driving a lighter car on the same tires. I compared stock weight to stock weight of other cars in the class. I compared power-to-weight with other cars in the class. The decision is in the July 2002 FasTrack (page F-149), in response to a request my car builder (Dave Capurro) submitted, stating the weight is correct as stated.
------------------
Andy Banta
I asked for a minimum weight of 2600 from the comp board. Since they refuse to publish how they come up with IT weights, I used a variety of approachs. Tire wear is far in excess of what I saw driving a lighter car on the same tires. I compared stock weight to stock weight of other cars in the class. I compared power-to-weight with other cars in the class. The decision is in the July 2002 FasTrack (page F-149), in response to a request my car builder (Dave Capurro) submitted, stating the weight is correct as stated.
------------------
Andy Banta
Thanks - this is interesting. I am playing with numbers for the IT2 thing that we are working on...
www.2litre.itgo.com
...theorizing about a process to establish minimum weights for some of the orphan cars that exist in the netherworld between A and S. My thinking is that, even though it isn't out of the 2.0 FWD mold, your 318 would be an appropriate addition to the conceptual IT2 grid.
Looking at the numbers, I would wonder how workable it would be to get down to 2600 with a 200# driver but you obviously know more about the feasability of that than I do, since you requested it. I would be interested to know how light you figure you could get your car, completely within IT rules and less driver, if you put it on a strict diet.
My current formula is designed to minimize the variance between stock and race weight among a pile of models, to spread out the ballast and stripping impositions as much as possible. It actually lands your car at almost the exact weight currently spec'd for ITA but, by comparison, leaves the '90-93 Integra RS (the A version) about 400# heavier than it is currently spec'd. The entire scale could, of course, be shifted upward or downward...
I appreciate you getting back to me. If you are interested, we would love to have you consider jumping on the IT2 bandwagon. We don't have a lot of interest on the West coast yet, which kind of surprises me, but your experience with the CB might make you a candidate since a primary cause is the clarification - and consistent use - of a transparent formula for establishing IT race weights.
Thanks again.
Kirk
www.2litre.itgo.com
...theorizing about a process to establish minimum weights for some of the orphan cars that exist in the netherworld between A and S. My thinking is that, even though it isn't out of the 2.0 FWD mold, your 318 would be an appropriate addition to the conceptual IT2 grid.
Looking at the numbers, I would wonder how workable it would be to get down to 2600 with a 200# driver but you obviously know more about the feasability of that than I do, since you requested it. I would be interested to know how light you figure you could get your car, completely within IT rules and less driver, if you put it on a strict diet.
My current formula is designed to minimize the variance between stock and race weight among a pile of models, to spread out the ballast and stripping impositions as much as possible. It actually lands your car at almost the exact weight currently spec'd for ITA but, by comparison, leaves the '90-93 Integra RS (the A version) about 400# heavier than it is currently spec'd. The entire scale could, of course, be shifted upward or downward...
I appreciate you getting back to me. If you are interested, we would love to have you consider jumping on the IT2 bandwagon. We don't have a lot of interest on the West coast yet, which kind of surprises me, but your experience with the CB might make you a candidate since a primary cause is the clarification - and consistent use - of a transparent formula for establishing IT race weights.
Thanks again.
Kirk