Teach me about ITR 325's

I suppose my comment should be for a rules thread, not wholehearted support for building 325 ITR/S cars and making them safer. These bimmers are great and I've always flirted with racing one. Drove a bunch on the track and it's tops.

So to the issue on the rear subframe mount (which alone sounds terrifying to somebody not familiar). To the extent this is a safety issue where its known to fail and one of our friends and fellow racers gets hurt because they didn't make repair, know how to inspect or didn't know about the issue. Wouldn' all of us feel like shitheads?

Selfish perspective mode on - I'm now firmly in the Porsche camp and the known ball joint/control arm failure issue exists for the 944/968 cars. I know three SCCA drivers involved in serious wrecks in top cars because of this. I can't do anything for that other than the planned rotation of two sets of stock control arms and detailed inspection. What a pain in the ass that'll be!

How would you guys feel if I got hurt because despite my rigor in maintaining and inspecting the control arms and ball joints on my new 968? I'd prefer to replace the stock with arms with the aftermarket units that provide no advantage but are designed for the lowered height of a race car. That'll never happen. I do hallucinate alot but not that bad...


In my opinion fellow racers should forgiving of a known safety issue. It will be clear to a reasonable person if a competition advantage is being sought and gained. Like using fully adjustable control arms in replacment of stock....
 
This is going to sound cold, but it's not meant that way.

I have intermitten complete brake caliper failures despite changing calipers 3-4 times a season. What a pain in the ass that is! Should I be allowed altenative calipers and big vented discs as a result?

The front wheel bearing on my car, outer, is maybe the size of a silver dollar. It fails. I change them pretty much every 2 weekends. I still on occasion have them fail, and I lost a hub at CMP (and all brakes as it "kicked the pads back" as the hub/rotor flailed around) and nearly went into the turn 14 wall. What a pain in the ass that is! ShouldI be allowed a better hub and bearing assembly (easily available) as a result?

My transmission routinely - every 18 months or so -- loses all gears except 5 (I break shift pins). I try to change trannies every 18 months or so, what a pain in the ass that is!

Ben, always liked your posts and look forward to meeting you, but your statements below -- what a pain in the ass maintenance is! and give me an allowance because I might get hurt -- are the precise reason we CANNOT do what you suggest.

Make your car choice knowingly. Deal with teh warts. We can all have trouble on track, and that is not a reason to give any car a "safety" allowance when pain in the ass! maintenance will resolve MOST of the safety issues.

benspeed said:
I suppose my comment should be for a rules thread, not wholehearted support for building 325 ITR/S cars and making them safer. These bimmers are great and I've always flirted with racing one. Drove a bunch on the track and it's tops.

So to the issue on the rear subframe mount (which alone sounds terrifying to somebody not familiar). To the extent this is a safety issue where its known to fail and one of our friends and fellow racers gets hurt because they didn't make repair, know how to inspect or didn't know about the issue. Wouldn' all of us feel like shitheads?

Selfish perspective mode on - I'm now firmly in the Porsche camp and the known ball joint/control arm failure issue exists for the 944/968 cars. I know three SCCA drivers involved in serious wrecks in top cars because of this. I can't do anything for that other than the planned rotation of two sets of stock control arms and detailed inspection. What a pain in the ass that'll be!

How would you guys feel if I got hurt because despite my rigor in maintaining and inspecting the control arms and ball joints on my new 968? I'd prefer to replace the stock with arms with the aftermarket units that provide no advantage but are designed for the lowered height of a race car. That'll never happen. I do hallucinate alot but not that bad...


In my opinion fellow racers should forgiving of a known safety issue. It will be clear to a reasonable person if a competition advantage is being sought and gained. Like using fully adjustable control arms in replacment of stock....
Click to expand...
 
JeffYoung said:
This is going to sound cold, but it's not meant that way.

I have intermitten complete brake caliper failures despite changing calipers 3-4 times a season. What a pain in the ass that is! Should I be allowed altenative calipers and big vented discs as a result?

The front wheel bearing on my car, outer, is maybe the size of a silver dollar. It fails. I change them pretty much every 2 weekends. I still on occasion have them fail, and I lost a hub at CMP (and all brakes as it "kicked the pads back" as the hub/rotor flailed around) and nearly went into the turn 14 wall. What a pain in the ass that is! ShouldI be allowed a better hub and bearing assembly (easily available) as a result?

My transmission routinely - every 18 months or so -- loses all gears except 5 (I break shift pins). I try to change trannies every 18 months or so, what a pain in the ass that is!

Ben, always liked your posts and look forward to meeting you, but your statements below -- what a pain in the ass maintenance is! and give me an allowance because I might get hurt -- are the precise reason we CANNOT do what you suggest.

Make your car choice knowingly. Deal with teh warts. We can all have trouble on track, and that is not a reason to give any car a "safety" allowance when pain in the ass! maintenance will resolve MOST of the safety issues.
Click to expand...


Lol... S*&t man, you are lucky that's all driving a british car! We pays our money and takes our chances... IT is way too rule crazy.
 
Spinnetti said:
IT is way too rule crazy.
Click to expand...


You think so??? Go onto the Prod sites. That whole thing is insane!!

It really isn't crazy, it's just that people try to twist the rules to fit their need. Yeah, there's some silly things but they're all meant to keep IT from turning into Prod.



The bottom line on the original request: The BMW is a great car. Solid, reliable, proven winner, lots of good information and lots of after market support. You won't be kicking yourself in two years becasue the car is uncompetative.




.
 
JLawton said:
You think so??? Go onto the Prod sites. That whole thing is insane!!

It really isn't crazy, it's just that people try to twist the rules to fit their need. Yeah, there's some silly things but they're all meant to keep IT from turning into Prod.



The bottom line on the original request: The BMW is a great car. Solid, reliable, proven winner, lots of good information and lots of after market support. You won't be kicking yourself in two years becasue the car is uncompetative.
.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm thinking about one too actually after decades trying to stay up front with a non-front running type car. Almost seems a sellout to run what everybody else does though! I saw several comments about VANOS - is it 93 and up or 94 and up I should be looking for?

As to rules, I'm contrasting IT where people complain if a windshield washer nozzle is aimed at 5 vs. 6 degrees to the "Lemons race" where anything goes, yet somehow, the competition is still pretty even.. believe it or not, I've been finding Lemons more fun, and am doing two events this year.
 
i'd run one, i think.

before i did it i would want to find out just how long one can expect to go before the subframe mounts need to be cut out and new pieces welded in. i'd want to know what that costs, and how hard the necessary parts (OEM factory installed!!!!) are to come by. if it's reasonable, i would then move on to finding the weight/power balance i thought was best for ITR. i know the thread title says "325" but i'd look very hard at what the 328 weight is, and find out what the restriction point is in both motors. the 325 should be easier because the development has been done for ITS, but the extra displacement of the 328 might provide a torque advantage that suits your local tracks better.

my final question would be....what line of work are you in that you're building a new ITR BMW right after an ITR Prelude, and are you hiring?!
 
tnord said:
i'd run one, i think.

before i did it i would want to find out just how long one can expect to go before the subframe mounts need to be cut out and new pieces welded in. i'd want to know what that costs, and how hard the necessary parts (OEM factory installed!!!!) are to come by. if it's reasonable, i would then move on to finding the weight/power balance i thought was best for ITR. i know the thread title says "325" but i'd look very hard at what the 328 weight is, and find out what the restriction point is in both motors. the 325 should be easier because the development has been done for ITS, but the extra displacement of the 328 might provide a torque advantage that suits your local tracks better.

my final question would be....what line of work are you in that you're building a new ITR BMW right after an ITR Prelude, and are you hiring?!
Click to expand...

Does the 328 have the same rear subframe issue? f it does the 325 makes more sense to me if it does not then maybe the 328 is the way to go. Used version of each can be found for close to the same price.
 
ekim952522000 said:
Does the 328 have the same rear subframe issue? f it does the 325 makes more sense to me if it does not then maybe the 328 is the way to go. Used version of each can be found for close to the same price.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does. Same chassis, same issues.

The 328i has more torque but worse top-end because of a lousy intake manifold.
 
tnord said:
i'd run one, i think.

before i did it i would want to find out just how long one can expect to go before the subframe mounts need to be cut out and new pieces welded in. i'd want to know what that costs, and how hard the necessary parts (OEM factory installed!!!!) are to come by. if it's reasonable, i would then move on to finding the weight/power balance i thought was best for ITR.
Click to expand...

they don't all do this. what drives the subframe failure is not replacing bushings when they wear out. the stock bushings are rubber. when they get old they loosen up and allow the subframe to move a little. this movement gradually flexes the mounting studs at the passeger side front first. the constant flexing causes the metal in the chasisis around the stud to fail. if you get a car that shows no signs of failure and put solid/urethane bushings in, you are good to go. if the flex has started, repair is needed. the repair is the installation of the factory plates that weld on around where the mounting studs/bolts go into the chassis. the plates are readily available at any dealer or place like bimmerworld. they are cheap too, like $20. the cost comes in labor to drop the subframe and weld the plates on, if you don't do this yourself. it really isn't that hard. nor is it necessarily required.
 
mlytle said:
if the flex has started, repair is needed. the repair is the installation of the factory plates that weld on around where the mounting studs/bolts go into the chassis. the plates are readily available at any dealer or place like bimmerworld. they are cheap too, like $20. the cost comes in labor to drop the subframe and weld the plates on, if you don't do this yourself. it really isn't that hard. nor is it necessarily required.
Click to expand...

Marshall, I'm genuinely curious -- what document makes this repair legal on an IT 325i?

FYI, the Z3s have a different rear suspension design altogether, but have a very similar failure. When the bushings get worn, the rear subframe moves around a lot and can basically destroy the trunk floor. It's really ugly, much uglier than the E36 failures, when it happens. However, unlike with the 3-series, there is no reinforcement available from another BMW model. There is reinforcement available in the aftermarket ... of course, that reinforcement would be totally illegal in IT.
 
JoshS said:
Marshall, I'm genuinely curious -- what document makes this repair legal on an IT 325i?

FYI, the Z3s have a different rear suspension design altogether, but have a very similar failure. When the bushings get worn, the rear subframe moves around a lot and can basically destroy the trunk floor. It's really ugly, much uglier than the E36 failures, when it happens. However, unlike with the 3-series, there is no reinforcement available from another BMW model. There is reinforcement available in the aftermarket ... of course, that reinforcement would be totally illegal in IT.
Click to expand...

the 325 reinforcement is not "from another model" it is for repair of the non-m3 e36's. the m3's came from the factory with reinforcement standard..they don't need it, nor can they use it.

yep, the z3's got the suspension from the e30's. rips in a difficult place. e36's rip in a place that is easily fixable with a plate.

i gotta stop here...this is a really dead horse being kicked.
 
mlytle said:
the 325 reinforcement is not "from another model" it is for repair of the non-m3 e36's. the m3's came from the factory with reinforcement standard..they don't need it, nor can they use it.
Click to expand...

I hear people saying this a lot, but I'm asking ... why does everyone believe it? Seems like it's become common knowledge with no official basis. What BMW document says that what those parts are for?

And if you do a parts search for those part numbers, they come up as M3 parts (and not any other E36).
 
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.
 
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.
 
robits325is said:
and also standard from the factory on the famed 1994 M Technic 325is.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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/detail.asp?PRODUCT_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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
robits325is said:
Agreed, but following the same logic would the RX-7 get twin piston calipers, trick 5th gear, rear wing and power steering delete?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top