BMW power cheap

- Here, check out $ 15 000 BMW build-up. This is not Toni Gardemeister M3 car but a good, solid Club level beast with near stock 220hp engine. All are built to "Extreme Cup" rules. "Extreme" is a company sponsoring rally and road racing class for inexpensive 2.5 liter Bimmers.
http://web.mac.com/kim.makynen1/iWeb/5A209038-8079-4616-B9D2-D5D084769E54/BMW-projekti.html (check out all 5 pages)
- I got prices for all parts from these boys and Bimmer's the way to go today if you like RWD action for cheap. They have rally ready cars from $ 7800 to $ 25 000 running in Finland and more on the way.
- Now, how can I convert my stubborn-as-hell friend JVL to start making Bimmer parts? I think this could be better way to feed his growing family than antique X-Ratty stuff with limited customer base. Bimmers have great image, good engines & gear boxes and core cars are pretty cheap.

---

- RWD rocks -

Topi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> - Now, how can I convert my stubborn-as-hell
> friend JVL to start making Bimmer parts?


See, he has a good reason for not making Bimmer parts...the hood goes the wrong way on new ones :-)



john vanlandingham Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> Some people have the foresight, intelligence, and
> dashing good looks to choose superior cars with
> hoods that CAN'T fly up that way.
>
> Like my Saab.
>

Topi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> - Here, check out $ 15 000 BMW build-up. This is
> not Toni Gardemeister M3 car but a good, solid
> Club level beast with near stock 220hp engine. All
> are built to "Extreme Cup" rules. "Extreme" is a
> company sponsoring rally and road racing class for
> inexpensive 2.5 liter Bimmers.
> (check out all 5 pages)
> - I got prices for all parts from these boys and
> Bimmer's the way to go today if you like RWD
> action for cheap. They have rally ready cars from
> $ 7800 to $ 25 000 running in Finland and more on
> the way.
> - Now, how can I convert my stubborn-as-hell
> friend JVL to start making Bimmer parts? I think
> this could be better way to feed his growing
> family than antique X-Ratty stuff with limited
> customer base. Bimmers have great image, good
> engines & gear boxes and core cars are pretty
> cheap.
>
Topi, I even make parts for Sub-a-rats! If I stoop so low that I am below (Sub) a rat, I can't go lower, so naturally I can make stuff for Bowel Movement Wonder.

The big problem with BMWs has always been the owners.
They're always ignorant idiots who think they know a lot yet know less than average, and understand even less.
Really Topi, in this continent, BMW is the perfect example of a victory of marketing hype to a niche.

The cars generally are flimsier ---size for size--than other European cars in all the critical things, but that can be cured with reinforcement and swapping out parts.

But the fucking delusional owners who believe they own "the Ultimate Driving Machine" and that THEREFORE BY EXTENSION THEY ARE "THE ULTIMATE DRIVER", there's no cure for that. (except seriously violent "reprogramming" involving baseballbats, jumper cables, psycho-tropic drugs, and sleep deprivation, maybe!)

Seriously Topi, I have often wondered when talking to BMW owners if they are mentally retarded. Seriously.

So sure, nothing stopping a normal human from choosing a BMW for rally, but I really don't even want to talk to BMW street owner.
They remeind me of Sub-a-rat street boys.

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

You got me thinking.

BMW 328, 3100 lb curb weight. 200 hp stock. Able to be financed and driven as a daily driver until ready to be rallied. Hmmm.

---

Grant Hughes

john vanlandingham Wrote:
> The big problem with BMWs has always been the
> owners.
>...
> But the fucking delusional owners who believe they
> own "the Ultimate Driving Machine" and that
> THEREFORE BY EXTENSION THEY ARE "THE ULTIMATE
> DRIVER", there's no cure for that.

They also think that their rusted out single-cam 318 is still worth $3k because it says BMW on the front.

They'r expensive as all hell to fix but that doesn't mean they are worth it!

- Pete (pissed off, 'cos I'd *really* like a E30 318is)

---

Pete Remner
Cleveland, Ohio

1984 RX-7 (rallycross thing)
1978
Silence is golden, but duct tape is silver.

I think JVL just summed up my problem with BMW as well.

I mean, I want to make a Mercedes rally car, but a BMW? Even i won't go that far.

Here's the difference, mercedes is all about style and class, BMW is supposedly all about engineering. A car that is about style and class, that is also 15 years old, isn't worth jack shit all in it's original niche. A car that is supposedly all about engineering, well people can keep convincing themselves it's worth something forever.

My point: more, cheaper, body panels for a 190 than a 318.

done.

gemorris Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's the difference, mercedes is all about style
> and class, BMW is supposedly all about
> engineering. A car that is about style and class,
> that is also 15 years old, isn't worth jack shit
> all in it's original niche. A car that is
> supposedly all about engineering, well people can
> keep convincing themselves it's worth something
> forever.

You're right, few cars depreciated faster than a mercedes.

---

Andrew M
Onterrible
30ish

And if you want to start talking engine power, I'd put my money on a 2.3-16 COSWORTH designed 4 than some straight six that's been tweaked and tuned to the very limit of it's existence.

I mean, BMW didn't drop a V8 in the upcoming m3 just because they wanted more cylinders, they were simply at the absolute reliability/power limit with the straight-6.

The engine really is the primary reason I'll be going MB over Volvo. The volvo has no real N/A options that aren't going to cost stupid money and then get so-so results. If you want Group5 then yeah, go volvo, if you want Group 5 with the option of Group 2/f, and can stand the look of the thing, go Xratty. But other than the MB, I haven't found one good or even recommended car for getting serious power out of an N/A block.

Since I don't have the will or want to look it up right now, what group would an M3 end up in? Wouldn't the displacement put it in 5? I'd imagine it would get spanked by turboed cars up there.

gemorris Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And if you want to start talking engine power, I'd
> put my money on a 2.3-16 COSWORTH designed 4 than
> some straight six that's been tweaked and tuned to
> the very limit of it's existence.

What's wrong with the 2.3 BMW 4cylinder which a\was also a Cosworth head?
>
> The engine really is the primary reason I'll be
> going MB over Volvo. The volvo has no real N/A
> options that aren't going to cost stupid money and
> then get so-so results.

Yeah who could possibly do any results out of a B23 making only 235 bhp?
Far too little for todays Gp2, even if it would be 35 bhp and probaly 40 ft/lbs more than anything else in the class currently.
(Hope you are catching the dripping sarcasm, cause I don't think I can reasonably convince you that as a 2wd NA Powerplant the major reason that Volvos are so immensely popular and successfull in Sweden is because they work so well, make good power and cost 1/3 what building the next most popular motor thru the years, the Opel 2.0 CIH.
Actually the biggest cost difference in any competitive NA motor is going to be a) how many cylinders---you don't need more than 4---- and what does your core motor cost, and 8V or 16v.

What's wrong with the Volvo 16v?


If you want Group5 then
> yeah, go volvo, if you want Group 5 with the
> option of Group 2/f, and can stand the look of the
> thing, go Xratty. But other than the MB, I
> haven't found one good or even recommended car for
> getting serious power out of an N/A block.

Sorry but you just don't know what you're talking about and clearly have no idea what you NEED to do in the class.
I have a fairly certain feeling you're out there in theoretical land and are imagining you could build some BIG BHP motor.

You don't need it, you neeed broad power good close gearing and a seriously short, like 5.0:1 axle ratio.
>
> Since I don't have the will or want to look it up
> right now, what group would an M3 end up in?
> Wouldn't the displacement put it in 5? I'd
> imagine it would get spanked by turboed cars up
> there.
What M3? The only one to consider the 4 cylinder 16v?

That'd be Gp2 legal. NOW.

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

john vanlandingham Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> gemorris Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> What's wrong with the 2.3 BMW 4cylinder which
> a\was also a Cosworth head?
> >

I was talking of the E36 M3s that Topi is pushing, not the E30. I think you've bashed the e30 shells on here and SS enough for me to not even consider that car.


> Yeah who could possibly do any results out of a
> B23 making only 235 bhp?
> Far too little for todays Gp2, even if it would be
> 35 bhp and probaly 40 ft/lbs more than anything
> else in the class currently.

How much money did it cost to build that engine to those output numbers? You can buy a NEW longblock 2.3-16 for 3-4k euros and that will put out 200HP on all stock internals and just some megasquirt tuning. Used ones from the NA market go for 1k-1.5k, but will incur the cost of a rebuild, so you may as well build it up right at that point.


> What's wrong with the Volvo 16v?

You tell me JVL, I've never seen you do anything but shit-talk that head on any forum I've ever seen you post on. Turbobricks, here, SS, etc.


> Sorry but you just don't know what you're talking
> about and clearly have no idea what you NEED to do
> in the class.

admittedly

> I have a fairly certain feeling you're out there
> in theoretical land and are imagining you could
> build some BIG BHP motor.

Yes, you CAN get 280 N/A HP out of a 2.3-16, it has been DONE, just like the volvo motor you cited, what is the cost to do that? Hell MB themselves got over 320hp but that's a factory team and does not count. You can also turbo the damn thing and get much much more. Are you going to argue that the volvo 16v head is better than the cosworth 16v MB head, or that you just don't need 16 valves? There is no volvo head that was originally designed by a racing company that I know of. The 2.3-16 engine was a detuned homoligation racing engine. SOUNDS LIKE A DAMN GOOD STARTING POINT TO ME. Rather than a tuned up tractor engine, i.e. b23/b230.

>
> You don't need it, you neeed broad power good
> close gearing and a seriously short, like 5.0:1
> axle ratio.

Yes, and I am asking on the right forums where and how much for rear end gearing options, I'm not going to start a build until I know where and how much for key components like rear diffs. Big brakes are easy for the 190, e420 and 500 brakes bolt right up.

> What M3? The only one to consider the 4 cylinder
> 16v?

Really? because the instigator of this post was considering the straight six one, so that's what I was talking about. I'm not even going to consider the e30 one for sake of argument because you and others have bashed that idea for years.

gemorris Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> john vanlandingham Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > gemorris Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> >
> > What's wrong with the 2.3 BMW 4cylinder
> which
> > a\was also a Cosworth head?
> > >
>
> I was talking of the E36 M3s that Topi is pushing,
> not the E30. I think you've bashed the e30 shells
> on here and SS enough for me to not even consider
> that car.
E things W that, I was referring to the engine. They aren't bad, I've raced against a BMW E30 with the 230016V thing, and they beat me too, by about 2m 40s (Total time BMW 16v M3 2h 13.82m--Me 1969 Saab 1730 pushrod V4 2h 16.3m)
pretty good for the late 80s BMW stuff to be able (in summer) to beat my old Saab.
(Pretty funny in the winter following to catch the same car starting a minute ahead in approx 6 miles.))
>
>
> > Yeah who could possibly do any results out of
> a
> > B23 making only 235 bhp?
> > Far too little for todays Gp2, even if it
> would be
> > 35 bhp and probaly 40 ft/lbs more than
> anything
> > else in the class currently.
>
> How much money did it cost to build that engine to
> those output numbers? You can buy a NEW longblock
> 2.3-16 for 3-4k euros and that will put out 200HP
> on all stock internals and just some megasquirt
> tuning. Used ones from the NA market go for
> 1k-1.5k, but will incur the cost of a rebuild, so
> you may as well build it up right at that point.

I keep saying that a big part of the popularity in Swedens GpH is it costs approz ONE THIRD what it would cost to build the next most popular serious motor.

I can guarantee you a Volvo 8v motor will cost less to do than a Mercedes or BMW.
Come on for discussion sake find what full gasket sets cost for some of these Nazi-mobiles, and I'll post what a Volvo gasket set costs (and then a Ford 2300 OHC, too)
>
>
> > What's wrong with the Volvo 16v?
>
> You tell me JVL, I've never seen you do anything
> but shit-talk that head on any forum I've ever
> seen you post on. Turbobricks, here, SS, etc.

OK, its an annoying two piece design, and if a guy is not using hydraulic lifters, then the cost shoots way up for solid lifters (approx GBP 16 each)(AND there's 16 of the fuckers.) and the time to do the shimming shoots up.
I'm building a 2.5 16v for a guy in NC just now but he's wisely not trying to go crazy in the head, instead relying on BEeEEWST.
And turbo and gearbox.
>
>
> > Sorry but you just don't know what you're
> talking
> > about and clearly have no idea what you NEED
> to do
> > in the class.
>
> admittedly

OK, and my point was that AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS in North American Rally in Gp2 nobody NEEDS very much at all to have decent results.
Our friends here in the PNW Derek Bottles and Nate Tennis who routinely finish in front5 of most of the blue hordes of Subarus, both have/had very moderate motors, indeed, Tennis is more or less the same stuff I showed his Uncle Sean 14 years ago (bush the rods for 22mm, deck the block 020-024, use these pistons)---the fawker is still on K-jet fer fucks sake)
>
> > I have a fairly certain feeling you're out
> there
> > in theoretical land and are imagining you
> could
> > build some BIG BHP motor.
>
> Yes, you CAN get 280 N/A HP out of a 2.3-16, it
> has been DONE, just like the volvo motor you
> cited, what is the cost to do that? Hell MB
> themselves got over 320hp but that's a factory
> team and does not count. You can also turbo the
> damn thing and get much much more. Are you going
> to argue that the volvo 16v head is better than
> the cosworth 16v MB head, or that you just don't
> need 16 valves?

No I'm going to state flatly that fixating on the head, or for that matter the motor is fundementally wrong.
YOU don't need a kick ass motor making 260- 280.
Cause then you'd NEED a real close ratio box and very short gearing---5.0 or shorter.
And you would actually HAVE TO DRIVE WELL to keep it cooking.

Just like the rest of us guys, we aren't used to serious power with its narrow and brutal delivery.



There is no volvo head that was
> originally designed by a racing company that I
> know of. The 2.3-16 engine was a detuned
> homoligation racing engine. SOUNDS LIKE A DAMN
> GOOD STARTING POINT TO ME. Rather than a tuned up
> tractor engine, i.e. b23/b230.

See Glen this is one of those things I've really been trying to refine exactly the correct answer to crystalise why statements like that or not helpful , even retrograde and yet so common.
OK here goes:
While it is true that no Volvo head was designed by a "racing" company, and the 2.3 16v IS a nice motor, the significance of that true statement is miniscule.
It's like the guys yakking about which block is ultimately stronger, Volvo or Ford 2300 OHC and then the B23 or B230.
Well there IS more meat in the Ford block at the main webs, and there is MUCH fatter main caps---hell the 2.0 Cossie block is meatier and their caps are wider---BUT IN REALITY, while true, NOBODY IS BLOWING UP VOLVOS FROM TOO MUCH POWER even in turbo form so the SIGNIFICANCE of the truth is a bagatelle.

That's sorta what's behind my wrinking of the nose at the Volvo 16v, sure its better than any stock 8v head, but especially as a turbo motor, stick a better 38mm exhaust in the 8v head and TURN UP THE BEEEEEWST, and suddle it makes no difference.

>
> >
> > You don't need it, you neeed broad power
> good
> > close gearing and a seriously short, like
> 5.0:1
> > axle ratio.
>
> Yes, and I am asking on the right forums where and
> how much for rear end gearing options, I'm not
> going to start a build until I know where and how
> much for key components like rear diffs.

Why would there even be a short ring and pinion for the MB diff?
Why waste time searching?


Big
> brakes are easy for the 190, e420 and 500 brakes
> bolt right up.

And weigh a TON, and likely don't fit under 15" wheels.
>
> > What M3? The only one to consider the 4
> cylinder
> > 16v?
>
> Really? because the instigator of this post was
> considering the straight six one, so that's what I
> was talking about. I'm not even going to consider
> the e30 one for sake of argument because you and
> others have bashed that idea for years.

OK fair 'nuff, but Topi has to remember thaty aside from the blue Subaru crowd, not many people are spending much dough on 2wd cars IN THIS COUNTRY.

That's sorta why I say get something you can find and find spares for:doors glass, hoods, hubs etc.
Sure that inline went like stink but its twince what's needed to win here.
And probably cost 4 times at least what a winning motor here would cost--2 more cylinders does that...
>

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

gemorris Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The engine really is the primary reason I'll be
> going MB over Volvo. The volvo has no real N/A
> options that aren't going to cost stupid money and
> then get so-so results. If you want Group5 then
> yeah, go volvo, if you want Group 5 with the
> option of Group 2/f, and can stand the look of the
> thing, go Xratty. But other than the MB, I
> haven't found one good or even recommended car for
> getting serious power out of an N/A block.

I believe the volvo original cup guys make around 160bhp and the Group H cars make around 260 plus

Don't the Original Cup guys have to use OEM-spec camshafts?

If so, 160 is pretty impressive...

---

Pete Remner
Cleveland, Ohio

1984 RX-7 (rallycross thing)
1978
Silence is golden, but duct tape is silver.

Volvo made lots of cams the VOC guys use the H cam wich is 12in 11.5ex Dur 272in 268ex

Pete Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't the Original Cup guys have to use OEM-spec
> camshafts?
>
> If so, 160 is pretty impressive...
Go here and read.
Wrong language but numbers are numbers
http://www.rallyrace.net/jvab/spgm/gal/Volvo/vassvolvo3.JPG


>
>
>
> Pete Remner
> Cleveland, Ohio
> 1985 RX-7 rallycross rustbucket/experimentation
> thingus
> 1984 RX-7 reshell
> 1978

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/15/2007 10:57PM by john vanlandingham.