Thanks for the additional link, Andy!
My initial data came from : http://www.artglenn.com/bmwm3/ (choose
'Engine')
0-60: 6.9
1/4: 15.2@92
A link there shows 7.1 and 15.4 (from European Car magazine)
Weight indeed appears more than the 26xx that I'd seen. Still one of the
lighter cars in the class :-)
BTW, I see that in the April Tech Bulletin
(http://www.scca.org/news/tech/seb/0400.html):
ITEMS REFERRED TO THE APPLICABLE COMMITTEES
SCAC: Move the BMW M3 (E30) from AS to GS (Slater, ref. 00-011)
Did I miss the chance for input, or is it just the case that some cars are
moved w/out it (not that that is entirely bad, btw.)
Kevin McCormick
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew_Bettencourt@kingston.com
> [mailto:Andrew_Bettencourt@kingston.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 8:57 AM
> To: Kevin McCormick
> Cc: team.net
> Subject: RE: Stock class reclassings
>
>
>
>
> From : http://www.bimmers.com/m3/spotter/dimensions.html
>
> E30 M3 specs
> Weight: 2735
> 0-60: 7.6
> 1/4: 15.7
>
> AB
>
>
>
>
>
> Kevin McCormick <ktm@unify.com> on 07/06/2000 11:07:31 AM
>
> Please respond to Kevin McCormick <ktm@unify.com>
>
> To: "team.net" <autox@autox.team.net>
> cc: (bcc: Andrew Bettencourt/FIELD SALES/Kingston)
>
> Subject: RE: Stock class reclassings
>
>
>
>
> Given that the E30 M3 is listed in Stock 5 (and is moving to
> GS next year -
> does anyone remember when that was put up for member input? -
> I must have
> flaked and not seen that) I think that will be even faster
> than the Type-R.
>
> Just from gathering info from the web (however accurate that
> is :-) it looks
> like the E30 M3 is missing the one thing that all G-Stock
> cars have - an
> Achiles heel. Follow me for a second:
>
> Type-R - FWD, No torque, narrow wheels.
> DSM cars - Narrow wheels, heavy.
> E36 BMW, Audi A4 - Heavy, big (relatively)semi-soft.
> Prelude Type-SH - FWD, heavier than a Type-R.
>
> The E30 M3 has:
>
> RWD
> 192 hp, 170 torque.
> 0-60 in 6.9, but that requires a shift since second is good
> only for 56.
> 15x7 wheels.
> Weight - 2500-2600 as far as I can tell.
>
> Was it several years ago that Bob Tunnell beat all the MR2
> Turbo, 944, etc.
> at Wendover in one of these critters?
>
> And indeed I _am_ biased, but at least I admit it!
>
> Kevin McCormick
> 1997 GS Integra Type-R
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeff Cashmore [mailto:cashmo@spec-rx7.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2000 6:07 AM
> > To: team.net
> > Subject: Re: Stock class reclassings
> >
> >
> > > I think that if the classing goes through there are gonna
> > be alot of neons
> > > going up for sale. Looking over last year's results the
> > only neon that
> > > posted a faster time than the type R was Mr Mark Daddio.
> > The rest of us
> > > mortal neon drivers would get creamed.
> >
> > So it's ok to get creamed by Mark Daddio in a Neon but not
> > Bob Endicott in a
> > Type R? What's the difference?
> >
> > > Also keep in mind that there is still more speed to be had
> > out of that ITR
> > > while the neon has had all of it's development. Maybe I'm
> > wrong but there
> > > are alot of neon drivers out there who are not going to be
> > served by this
> > > reclassing.
> >
> > And if the new Neon is faster than the old you're not going
> > to be served by
> > Chrysler either. I'm getting the idea that the SCCA likes to
> > shake things up
> > every 5 yrs or so. The Rx7tt had it's day in the sun and so
> > has the 95-99
> > Neon. I like them both because they're relatively cheap and
> > they'll still be
> > competative.
> >
> > Jeff Cashmore
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
|