G-LOC Brakes
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 21 Dec 2017 01:29 PM by  snakebit8
Move E36 M3 to STX?
 115 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 4 of 6 << < 23456 > >>
Author Messages
The Nebulizer
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:1819


--
22 Sep 2010 12:57 PM

duplicate post...

The Nebulizer
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:1819


--
22 Sep 2010 12:59 PM

Chiketkd wrote:

rp1 wrote:
They have the same tire / wheel clearance issues. You are still talking about a 150-200 lbs difference, as far as I can tell.

Randall,

The difference is actually less than 100lbs between cars. Using Edmunds.com as my source, I got the following data:

1995 325is/325i -- weight 3,087lbs -- 189hp/181tq

1996 328is/328i -- weight 3,120lbs -- 190hp/207tq

1995 M3 (3.0L) -- weight 3,175lbs -- 240hp/225tq

1996 M3 (3.2L) -- weight 3,175lbs -- 240hp/236tq

To verify my data go here: [url]http://www.edmunds.com/used/bmw/ind...;/url]

To the OP: Stock-vs-stock, the M3 has a 88# and 55# weight disadvantage vs the 325 and 328 respectively. All while having a 50hp advantage (and a 20-30tq advantage over the 328 and a 40-50+tq advanatge over the 325). I don't see any possible parity between the 325/328 vs M3. There's no reason a well set-up AND developed STU M3 should be slower than a STX 325/328. Especially when the cars have a similar wheelbase, width, etc.

My e46 weighed 3250lbs at nationals [:(]

jzr
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:1350


--
22 Sep 2010 12:59 PM

I suspect these sorts of discussions will go away soon (2012).  Each ST class was built to cater to a different group of cars, and soon they will do so in a more explicit fashion.  It isn't important which class is faster than the other, only that each class makes solid numbers and groups cars in a way that minimizes course dependency.

You don't hear CSP Miata drivers complaining they can't also run their cars in BSP or DSP, even though times are often similar between the classes.  

everbruin
New Member
New Member
Posts:80


--
22 Sep 2010 01:11 PM

true in sfr/silicon valley area too; i've run w/ bmw ggr and various pca.

ps i look fwd to a reorg where a rwd/m3 won't have to deal w/ awd beasts [that's what i felt when driving an stu evo]

Andy Hollis wrote:
I just have to comment on this.

IMO, SCCA will *never* make a dent in either BMWCCA or PCA members coming to SCCA events. It is not about classing. It is about "marque loyalty" as a club premise versus "sport loyalty". Different mentality. Different focus. Different culture.

Hank
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
22 Sep 2010 01:58 PM
Chiketkd wrote:

rp1 wrote:
They have the same tire / wheel clearance issues. You are still talking about a 150-200 lbs difference, as far as I can tell.

Randall,

The difference is actually less than 100lbs between cars. Using Edmunds.com as my source, I got the following data:

1995 325is/325i -- weight 3,087lbs -- 189hp/181tq

1996 328is/328i -- weight 3,120lbs -- 190hp/207tq

1995 M3 (3.0L) -- weight 3,175lbs -- 240hp/225tq

1996 M3 (3.2L) -- weight 3,175lbs -- 240hp/236tq

To verify my data go here: [url]http://www.edmunds.com/used/bmw/ind...;/url]

To the OP: Stock-vs-stock, the M3 has a 88# and 55# weight disadvantage vs the 325 and 328 respectively. All while having a 50hp advantage (and a 20-30tq advantage over the 328 and a 40-50+tq advanatge over the 325). I don't see any possible parity between the 325/328 vs M3. There's no reason a well set-up AND developed STU M3 should be slower than a STX 325/328. Especially when the cars have a similar wheelbase, width, etc.

I never suggested that a properly setup STU M3 would be slower than a STX 325/328. I agree that it is/should be marginally faster.

rp1
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:219


--
22 Sep 2010 03:12 PM
jzr wrote:

I suspect these sorts of discussions will go away soon (2012). Each ST class was built to cater to a different group of cars, and soon they will do so in a more explicit fashion. It isn't important which class is faster than the other, only that each class makes solid numbers and groups cars in a way that minimizes course dependency.

You don't hear CSP Miata drivers complaining they can't also run their cars in BSP or DSP, even though times are often similar between the classes.


fsmtnbiker
New Member
New Member
Posts:19


--
22 Sep 2010 06:17 PM
The Nebulizer wrote:

Another (albeit single) datapoint that I think is pretty interesting, Christopher Mayfield drove an M3 in STU at the 2009 nationals and finished 29th (another SCR team built M3 like this year's 22nd place e36 M3). This year he switched to an Evo in SM and is the 2010 National Champion.

Yes - I would also suggest not showing up to Nationals on tire you suspect are on their way out. It makes it hard to compete. :)

I drove my E36 M3 in STU for 3 seasons - In my opinion, the car *can* be competitive in STU, given the right course, and a great driver.

My car was *much* faster when I ran 285 Neova's, but the fender rolling rules in STU make fitting them questionably legal. Once again - In my opinion - if the fender rolling rule was written to allow fitting those tires, the E36 M3 would be just as quick or quicker than an equally prepped/driven STi or Evo and it would become very course dependent as to who won. West course? I'll take an M3. East course? tossup... Lots of sweepers, couple of big acceleration spots. I think a well-driven E36 could have trophied this year just like Mark did last year. Mark is an outstanding driver (note his finish this season in BSP, in the WET on day 2) and just got into the trophies last year. The car was very well prepared and was a (relatively rare) non-sunroof car as well.

I will be driving something on street tires next season, at least locally. Hoosiers cost a lot and the Evo kills them pretty fast. I'd love to drive my M3 again... I'm excited/interested in this re-org.

Hank
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
23 Sep 2010 05:56 AM

fsmtnbiker wrote:

My car was *much* faster when I ran 285 Neova's, but the fender rolling rules in STU make fitting them questionably legal. Once again - In my opinion - if the fender rolling rule was written to allow fitting those tires, the E36 M3 would be just as quick or quicker than an equally prepped/driven STi or Evo and it would become very course dependent as to who won. West course? I'll take an M3. East course? tossup... Lots of sweepers, couple of big acceleration spots. I think a well-driven E36 could have trophied this year just like Mark did last year. Mark is an outstanding driver (note his finish this season in BSP, in the WET on day 2) and just got into the trophies last year. The car was very well prepared and was a (relatively rare) non-sunroof car as well.

I will be driving something on street tires next season, at least locally. Hoosiers cost a lot and the Evo kills them pretty fast. I'd love to drive my M3 again... I'm excited/interested in this re-org.

I, along with others, wrote letters to ask that the fender rolling rule be clarified. They did, by removing the part about its intent to fit the maximum allowed tire. :(

splash
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts:960


--
23 Sep 2010 07:42 AM

^^ They sort of HAVE to do it this way... Rolling the lips is one thing, but pulling IS flaring, and flaring is Street Prepared territory. So far, almost all the mods allowed in ST* are relatively easy to undo if you wanted to return to stock and sell the car easily. Allowing fender flares of ANY variety removes this ability.

As far as what they removed from the rules, they needed to do that too. Intent is useless in a rule book.

The Nebulizer
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:1819


--
23 Sep 2010 08:10 AM
splash wrote:

^^ They sort of HAVE to do it this way... Rolling the lips is one thing, but pulling IS flaring, and flaring is Street Prepared territory. So far, almost all the mods allowed in ST* are relatively easy to undo if you wanted to return to stock and sell the car easily. Allowing fender flares of ANY variety removes this ability.

As far as what they removed from the rules, they needed to do that too. Intent is useless in a rule book.

Agreed. I would never roll my fenders and if that were allowed in the class I would have to just settle for being poorly prepared. Also, it removes an important and difficult to define variable of car performance and I speculate this will be accompanied by the removal of defined tire and wheel width restrictions in the ST reorg. Just speculating though. When is this proposal coming? I am really curious.

Hank
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
23 Sep 2010 08:54 AM
splash wrote:

^^ They sort of HAVE to do it this way... Rolling the lips is one thing, but pulling IS flaring, and flaring is Street Prepared territory. So far, almost all the mods allowed in ST* are relatively easy to undo if you wanted to return to stock and sell the car easily. Allowing fender flares of ANY variety removes this ability.

I understand that I am in the minority here, but I would consider flaring. The E36 is the only car that I know of in STU that would require rolling to fit 285s.

splash wrote:

As far as what they removed from the rules, they needed to do that too. Intent is useless in a rule book.

Agreed that intent is useless in the rule book, but I was hoping that they would rewrite the rule to allow fitting the maximum allowed tire. I didn't expect that, but I hoped.

Orthonormal
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
23 Sep 2010 09:14 AM
Bronxbomber252 wrote:

Id argue that since the 89si is lightyears faster than the rest of ST

Just like it was light years faster than the rest of ST in 2005, before Jason Rhoades built a 240SX and won the Solo and ProSolo championships in it?

Orthonormal
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
23 Sep 2010 09:25 AM
splash wrote:
So far, almost all the mods allowed in ST* are relatively easy to undo if you wanted to return to stock and sell the car easily. Allowing fender flares of ANY variety removes this ability.
Can you tell me how to un-roll fenders? The irreversibility of rolling fenders was a sticking point when I considered setting up my S2000 for STR. It would be especially problematic with a Miata, where the rear fenders also have to be rolled. The Miata's rear fenders are an integral part of the unibody (at least, they were on the '99-2005), so you can't just buy new ones and bolt them on.
BRODA
New Member
New Member
Posts:41


--
23 Sep 2010 09:59 AM
Why would you want to unfold that tiny lip on the inside of the fender? I can't see that a rolled fender lip would deter anyone from buying the car, if they even noticed. Perhaps your concern is that this would affect a leased car?
Chiketkd
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
23 Sep 2010 10:26 AM

Hank wrote:
Agreed that intent is useless in the rule book, but I was hoping that they would rewrite the rule to allow fitting the maximum allowed tire. I didn't expect that, but I hoped.

Personally, if it ever made it to member comment, I'd support a rule revision allowing fender rolling in ST* (no cutting). Why? There's no weight advantage to rolling fenders and it could bring some more parity to the class (2wd vs awd).

Who am I to decide whether someone should roll their fenders or not to keep the re-sale value of their car??? We're talking about an E36 M3 that's over 10 years old where '95 models can be bought for 8K or less. If I bought an 8K car, I wouldn't think twice about doing a full fender roll *if it was allowed* (a 25K+ used E46 M3 is a another story though - but that car doesn't need a fender roll to fit 285's)

John V
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:1854


--
23 Sep 2010 11:13 AM
Uhm... rolling fenders isn't already allowed?
Chiketkd
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
23 Sep 2010 11:24 AM

John V wrote:
Uhm... rolling fenders isn't already allowed?

I think the OP was referring to rolling the fenders to the point where they are flared. Obviously, this isn't allowed under the current rules.

John V
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:1854


--
23 Sep 2010 11:31 AM
Chiketkd wrote:

John V wrote:
Uhm... rolling fenders isn't already allowed?

I think the OP was referring to rolling the fenders to the point where they are flared. Obviously, this isn't allowed under the current rules.

Okay, so let's call it flaring, or pulling.

If someone is concerned about rolling fenders due to resale value, they probably shouldn't be autocrossing.

splash
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts:960


--
23 Sep 2010 11:46 AM

Orthonormal wrote:
Can you tell me how to un-roll fenders? The irreversibility of rolling fenders was a sticking point when I considered setting up my S2000 for STR. It would be especially problematic with a Miata, where the rear fenders also have to be rolled. The Miata's rear fenders are an integral part of the unibody (at least, they were on the '99-2005), so you can't just buy new ones and bolt them on.

You don't have to. If you have done a legal ST lip roll, you can't tell unless you get under there and look.

However, some SP flares look like something just short of what you'd find in IMSA, or at least a Formula D event...

Hank
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
23 Sep 2010 12:14 PM
To be clear, I meant rolling to the point that each car can fit there maximum tire size. Are there cars other than the E36 that have trouble fitting their allowed maximum?
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 4 of 6 << < 23456 > >>


SPS 88x31 Button Woodhouse Motorsports
Vorshlag 88x31 Button G-Loc Button
Sunoco 88x31 Button

Advertise on SCCAForums.com and reach thousands of visitors per day!

SafeRacer FREE SHIPPING over $99

Shop for Pirelli tires at Tire Rack. blank




Sunoco Bottom 468x60 Banner