January Fastrack

Z3_GoCar said:
Yes, to get 300 whp, definetly.

What just got classed in STU:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M52#S52B32

What the RoW got:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M50#S50B30

To put a 30% gain in persepctive:

189hp -> 242hp

That's what I should be seeing, what I've seen is:

189hp -> 220hp

To get to 242hp would, at a minimum, require a change in camshafts and a manifold swap.


[/LEFT]
Click to expand...

Yep - I was pulling my stats of Wikipedia too. I agree with this comment from the site:

"Power from the S52B32US is officially quoted at 240 HP but many[who?] feel that this figure is understated."

But it's not really about the awesomeness of the M3- that's known. I'm Festivusing about the unwillingness to put a competitive Boxster in STU :shrug:

Let's hear from our resident rules experts on what they think regarding the WC M3 cars - we've got folks here in the NE running full on WC cars that can no longer be legal now that the class philosophy has moved away from making this a place for former WC cars. Rules being noted above specific to the M3...
 
My S52 (00 M Coupe) dynoed at 215 whp stock.

Here's another calc for shits and giggles.

TR8 had 138 stock hp, fuel injected, 133 carb.

I make 172 whp with a pretty much full on IT build (FI using MS2).

That's what? Probably 200 flywheel hp? So, a gain of 67 hp or about 50%?

benspeed said:
Yep - I was pulling my stats of Wikipedia too. I agree with this comment from the site:

"Power from the S52B32US is officially quoted at 240 HP but many[who?] feel that this figure is understated."

But it's not really about the awesomeness of the M3- that's known. I'm Festivusing about the unwillingness to put a competitive Boxster in STU :shrug:

Let's hear from our resident rules experts on what they think regarding the WC M3 cars - we've got folks here in the NE running full on WC cars that can no longer be legal now that the class philosophy has moved away from making this a place for former WC cars. Rules being noted above specific to the M3...
Click to expand...
 
How is the car’s aero package figured when going through "the process"? Is the drag coefficient of a car used (along with HP potential) when it is classed and also to establish its minimum weight?
 
It is not....we aren't aerospace engineers..lol...

As someone on this board taught me, CD isn't the real indicator anyway, since you have to factor in frontal area.

There's just no real way for us to include things like aero in a very basic power to weight formula.

Hoof Hearted said:
How is the car’s aero package figured when going through "the process"? Is the drag coefficient of a car used (along with HP potential) when it is classed and also to establish its minimum weight?
Click to expand...
 
JeffYoung said:
It is not....we aren't aerospace engineers..lol...

As someone on this board taught me, CD isn't the real indicator anyway, since you have to factor in frontal area.

There's just no real way for us to include things like aero in a very basic power to weight formula.
Click to expand...

Then why would the 83-84 Rabbit GTI have a minimum weight of 2080 while the 8V 83-88 Scirocco is at 2130... ...the two cars share the same "everything" other then the body?
 
That question has been asked many times.

Send in a letter asking for a correction, and we will consider it.

My personal answer to your question is that there should not be a difference, based on just the information you provided.
 
JeffYoung said:
That question has been asked many times.

Send in a letter asking for a correction, and we will consider it.

My personal answer to your question is that there should not be a difference, based on just the information you provided.
Click to expand...

Back in the first days of V.1, aero was considered. Those two classificiations are the poster children for that. Another item that was pushed aside during the evolution of the process in the non-documentation days. Probably the only classification that had it applied IIRC.
 
yea, aero would be very tricky. As Jeff points out, there are the known figures....which, i some other universe COULD maybe possibly be figured out. But, the deal killer is that IT allows aero mods. So aero is just ignored.

Warts and all.......
 
There are going to be a ton of inconsistencies in teh ITCS right now.

A lot of cars still classed using the "old" way of eyeballing the curb weight.

Some with older versions of the Process.

Some with the Process.

One of the things we had to do last year, and Josh did a great job leading this effort, is push for the ability to correct the old listings. The existing ITCS ruleset didn't allow that, if the change was made to bring older listings in line with the Process.

We have that ability now. Write letters and we will consider corrections.

Thanks.

Jeff

Hoof Hearted said:
Apparently not in the VW MkI case... or ...a 2 second scan of the ITCS of ITB cars shows that the 81-82 Toyota Celica II 2.4 has two weights: 2470 for the coupe and 2510 for the hatchback; same cars other than shape.
Click to expand...
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
30% gain on the 189hp E36 325 would ONLY be 201whp. The ITAC had dyno sheets from an E36 driver who had a fresh head, stock bottom end, bolt ons and stock ECU at 195whp. And a crap-ton of first hand knowledge of 210whp and up.

We have 323's up here making 200whp.
Click to expand...

Sorry, your math is off:

189 * 0.30 ~ 242 * 0.85 ~ 209 whp


If there's no way to reach the target, people will either leave or cheat. That's the lesson from the MR2, and it will be repeated by all in the same position.
 
Not to sound rude, but there are plenty of 2.5 BMW motors in the SEDiv that make 215whp plus. Legally.

Call up Sunbelt or BWorld and get one.

Z3_GoCar said:
Yes, to get 300 whp, definetly.

What just got classed in STU:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M52#S52B32

What the RoW got:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M50#S50B30

To put a 30% gain in persepctive:

189hp -> 242hp

That's what I should be seeing, what I've seen is:

189hp -> 220hp

To get to 242hp would, at a minimum, require a change in camshafts and a manifold swap.


[/LEFT]
Click to expand...
 
Hoof Hearted said:
Apparently not in the VW MkI case... or ...a 2 second scan of the ITCS of ITB cars shows that the 81-82 Toyota Celica II 2.4 has two weights: 2470 for the coupe and 2510 for the hatchback; same cars other than shape.
Click to expand...

sometimes other differences exist... For example the Saturn SL2 is listed at a higher weight than the SC2. I've been told that wheelbase and/or Aero was a factor in that... However, my understanding is that in this case, the Sedan was actually rated slightly higher in HP. This was due to a factory header, which of course has no bearing on the IT power, because exhaust is free... But the numbers are the numbers.:blink:

Speaking of the Saturns... Did I hear someone say you can change weights now? or is this restricted?
 
JeffYoung said:
Not to sound rude, but there are plenty of 2.5 BMW motors in the SEDiv that make 215whp plus. Legally.

Call up Sunbbelt or BWorld and get one.
Click to expand...

But, I don't have a 2.5, I've got a M52 2.8 alloy block. I wonder if Sunbelt doesn't automaticaly install their hot cams to get that HP.
 
JeffYoung said:
No, they do not. Legal 2.5.
Click to expand...

I know for a fact that my motor wasn't legal, (technically it's still not legal, but I dont feel like recutting the ring grooves for the top ring.) The head's from a S-50 with the attched intake manifold and S-50 cams. I swapped our the S-50 manifold for a M-52 along with the RC-30lb injectors. With the S-50 manifold, cams, missing MAF, custom ECU, and 30lb injectors I had a wapping 190hp at my rear wheels. Now what would you conclude?

So to be IT legal, I installed the correct manifold ( that can't be port matched because it abs, from one that perfectly matched the ports ) correct injectors, and a MAF, still connected to the custom ECU. and lost 12hp and the peak power rpm dropped from 5938 to 5705.
 
Last edited:
Unforutnately that you aren't getting the power that others have legally gotten out of the 2.5.

I'm not going to rehash years of argument and discussion about this, but there were many 2.5 cars here in the SEDiv legally making 210+ whp.
 
Z3_GoCar said:
I know for a fact that my motor wasn't legal, (technically it's still not legal, but I dont feel like recutting the ring grooves for the top ring.) The head's from a S-50 with the attched intake manifold and S-50 cams. I swapped our the S-50 manifold for a M-52 along with the RC-30lb injectors. With the S-50 manifold, cams, missing MAF, custom ECU, and 30lb injectors I had a wapping 190hp at my rear wheels. Now what would you conclude?

So to be IT legal, I installed the correct manifold ( that can't be port matched because it abs, from one that perfectly matched the ports ) correct injectors, and a MAF, still connected to the custom ECU. and lost 12hp and the peak power rpm dropped from 5938 to 5705.
Click to expand...

RE: the math - 18% is commonly used for RWD, 15% for FWD or mid-engine as esitimates.

RE: your motor - I would conclude it's soft. 195whp is doable in a freshened motor with just bolt-ons on a 325. Fact proven over and over and over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top