It's here...

Originally posted by dj10@Jan 24 2006, 07:07 PM
Joe,
You talk about cheating with a rp!?
[snapback]71985[/snapback]​
Click to expand...
No secret, how about a tapered spacer block to blow through the restrictor. The moment I saw the spacer allowed I knew the plate was made worthless. The taper is why the SIR requires a smaller opening to restrict air. so if you engineered your flat plat right you had little to no effect and maybe even picked up midrange in your power curve.

As far as the 2.8 stuff goes I think we need to takes some heads off from time to time and I don't care that it costs a few bucks. I can remember the days when a region would pull the heads off all the IT cars at the end of a weekend. I am all for compliance and I will gladly help anyone with a protest if there is solid evidence of a wrong.
 
Shoulda' gone with the lead, instead. We are going to look back on this as the first step down a long road to an IT fustercluck.

K
 
You're talking about cheating...pure and simple...regardless of a restrictor plate (flat plate...what were you gonna mess with exactly?) or a make/model of car. The spacer was to be max .25" and was to be the same size as the TB with NO TAPER. You're not talking creative engineering...you're talking cheating...and unfortunately...I think we could find examples of E36's, RX-7's, 240z's, et al cheating.

2.8 crank (or 3.0 or 3.2 for that matter) and M3 cams (don't blame me...I'm non-VANOS ;) ) well that's another story...but...again...there will be examples of this across marques (ported housings, etc.).

None of this has anything to do with the average honest IT racer...Us E36 guys included in case you were wondering!

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 25 2006, 03:16 AM
No secret, how about a tapered spacer block to blow through the restrictor. The moment I saw the spacer allowed I knew the plate was made worthless. The taper is why the SIR requires a smaller opening to restrict air. so if you engineered your flat plat right you had little to no effect and maybe even picked up midrange in your power curve.

As far as the 2.8 stuff goes I think we need to takes some heads off from time to time and I don't care that  it costs a few bucks. I can remember the days when a region would pull the heads off all the IT cars at the end of a weekend. I am all for compliance and I will gladly help anyone with a protest if there is solid evidence of a wrong.
[snapback]72007[/snapback]​
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by buldogge@Jan 24 2006, 09:44 PM
You're talking about cheating...pure and simple...regardless of a restrictor plate (flat plate...what were you gonna mess with exactly?) or a make/model of car.  The spacer was to be max .25" and was to be the same size as the TB with NO TAPER.  You're not talking creative engineering...you're talking cheating...and unfortunately...I think we could find examples of E36's, RX-7's, 240z's, et al cheating.

2.8 crank (or 3.0 or 3.2 for that matter) and M3 cams (don't blame me...I'm non-VANOS ;) ) well that's another story...but...again...there will be examples of this across marques (ported housings, etc.).

None of this has anything to do with the average honest IT racer...Us E36 guys included in case you were wondering!
[snapback]72020[/snapback]​
Click to expand...
Mark there are other ways to get to the same thing. My point is the SIR is not something thats gonna get cheated and thats the best part of it.

I know other marques cheat and I don't believe that all BMW's are cheated up any more than any other marque. the deal with the flat plate restrictor is it was not effective cause folks found a way around it.

As far as SIRS go I am pretty comfortable saying Kirk won't be correct on this.
 
This whole thread has vacillated between logical and insane.

<Steward hat on>

If you're not willing to file a protest against a car that you KNOW is illegal - quit your bellyachin' about illegal cars. Each of you probably knows WAY more about what is going on in your respective class and make and group than we (as stewards) do (or can). I, personally, know ONE make / model of car inside out - mine, the MR2. I know one engine inside out, the 4AGELU. If you suspect one of those is cheating, ask me to look at / watch it - and I can probably tell you not only if it's illegal, but if so what the cheat probably is.

I also know how to port an RX engine, and how to test for it (cheaply and easily), but I'm no RX-* guru.

In short - don't expect the officials to catch all the cheaters. Especially if you're not even willing to help them. It's kind'a like calling the cops after you've seen somebody steal your stuff, but being unwilling to give them a description - and then whining loudly to all who will listen that there are too many thieves out there!
 
I also believe that maybe 1 in 30 or 40 bmw's have near that kind of hp (220) and I know one of best engine builders in the business. That HP is definately motec. Like I said 1 in 30+.
You talk about cheating with a rp!? How about the guys that are running 2.8L bottom ends.LOL When did anyone check a bottom end of any IT car? Whole different subject.
Click to expand...

dj,

189 -> 220 is a slightly more than 16% gain w/ an IT tune. Are you trying to tell us that you need MoTec to get that much? Please see my earlier comment about ears and rain!

And how about the guys that are running 2.8 bottom ends? If you guys (the bmw drivers) know about these cars, and don't do anything about it (hang paper), you've got absolutely no room to bitch. You almost make it sound like you want somebody else to police the class for you. :unsure:
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 25 2006, 07:01 AM
And how about the guys that are running 2.8 bottom ends?  If you guys (the bmw drivers) know about these cars, and don't do anything about it (hang paper), you've got absolutely no room to bitch.  You almost make it sound like you want somebody else to police the class for you. :unsure:
[snapback]72039[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

OMG, Bill. You and I are agreeing on something??? :119:

Your avatar must have something to do with it.
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller@Jan 25 2006, 07:01 AM
dj,

189 -> 220 is a slightly more than 16% gain w/ an IT tune.  Are you trying to tell us that you need MoTec to get that much?  Please see my earlier comment about ears and rain!

And how about the guys that are running 2.8 bottom ends?  If you guys (the bmw drivers) know about these cars, and don't do anything about it (hang paper), you've got absolutely no room to bitch.  You almost make it sound like you want somebody else to police the class for you. :unsure:
[snapback]72039[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

What post number do you want me to look at?
You are talking about rwhp correct? And if you are, there is no way you will get 220rwhp with a programable system......period!
 
Originally posted by dj10@Jan 25 2006, 04:36 PM
What post number do you want me to look at?
You are talking about rwhp correct? And if you are, there is no way you will get 220rwhp with a programable system......period!
[snapback]72163[/snapback]​
Click to expand...
I'd bet 205 to 210 WHP is a realistic number though. With dual Vanos I bet the torque curve is no loner a curve....likely flat as a pool table....
 
Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 25 2006, 11:57 PM
I'd bet 205 to 210 WHP is a realistic number though. With dual Vanos I bet the torque curve is no loner a curve....likely flat as a pool table....
[snapback]72166[/snapback]​
Click to expand...
I am not aware of any E36 ITS car with double Vanos. IIRC, double vanos was not introduced until post '95MY. My car is a '95 and runs single vanos. I am also not aware of any one using M3 cams. That difference is significant and easily questioned and caught. I am also not aware of anyone using 328 cranks (likely little to gain from this mod). Nor do I know anyone using an improper TB/RP spacer. So, I have policed the ranks of my small corner of ITS and found no cheaters.
 
Ok, this has predictably become an E36 thread.

But let me ask if the following response is accurate, judging from this thread.

General approval for the changes across the board, with the excepption of:

-The E36 guys, who think they are being punished.
-And Kirk, Ron, and jeff, who think the philosophy was shortchanged.
-And Bill, who agrees and thinks they should be houlin 250 or 300 pounds of lead in the wunrdekars.

What surprises me is such a one make focus.

I'd be interested to hear, just out of curiosity, about thoughts on the rest. Will the scales of balance tip? Get more even? Did one car get screwed? Or is there one car that escaped unscathed?

To start it off, in private conversation, I have heard the following comments.

The CRX didn't get enough. (This from a Honda tuner)
The Miata is going to clean up
The 'Tegs won't notice the weight, most run heavy now.
And, The RX-7 needed a little more help.

All A cars..
Thoughts?
 
I felt the ITA 240SX was fair enough on the surface compared to other ITA changes - that view could change if the there is no effect on the Teg though. I assumed that front runners were getting there having made weight.

On paper I have been expecting ITA to be much more competitive with some race long battles and variety on the podium as result. I would be disappointed if the changes were made knowing that the effect wouldn't translate on track for the front runners of a model.
 
I have a lot of faith - seriously! - in the new system that the ITAC has implemented, so I'm not going to theorize based on on-track observations about what's going to be faster than what. It doesn't matter, since math made the decisions.

I wonder about that 2200 pound Mazda - it looks like a goof. I don't think that the 1st-gen Integra can get as light as it needs to be in A, but figure that it couldn't go to B because they would need new cages. That's how it happens sometimes.

In all - a good thing.

K
 
Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Jan 25 2006, 06:57 PM
I'd bet 205 to 210 WHP is a realistic number though. With dual Vanos I bet the torque curve is no loner a curve....likely flat as a pool table....
[snapback]72166[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Joe,
Trust me, those numbers could be achieved with a programable system only (E36 Single Vanos). That is why I am against motec's and alike in IT racing. But on the other hand what about the RX7 in the NE for sale and is advertised at 181+rwhp? That's a lot of hp.
 
Darin,
Does anyone have numbers from any testing of the sir on a E36? I hope this is not some perveted SCCA experiment. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top