Vehicle Eligibility

#1

Hi Guys,

I’m a potential Spec E30 newby. My name is Kevin Butler. Some of you know me from THSCC HPDEs.

I have recently purchased an '85 325e. Basically it’s a straight, clean chassis with a good(I think) tranny. It is my intent to upgrade the engine and remainder of the drive train from an '87-'91 donor car. The upgrade will include wiring harness and ECU as well. Before I go spend time and $$$ on a Spec E30 treatment of this car, I would like to clarify some of the basic rules regarding Eligible Vehicles.

I know I’m ok with line item 7.3.1 - I got an E30. However, line item 7.3.2 states, “Eligible vehicles and their associated class are listed in Appendix A. Vehicles with automatic transmissions or four wheel drive are not eligible.” When I go to Appendix A, the earliest listed vehicle I see is 1987…but I got an '85.

Am I to interpret the rules literally as saying I must have an 1987 or later E30 without auto tranny or 4 wheel drive? Or am I to interpet the rules as saying if I have an E30 that matches one of the configurations, engine and differential wise due to swaps, as listed in Appendix A it will be eligible for competition? Does that mean if I follow through with the earlier mentioned upgrades, I will meet those requirements?

I hope I’m not coming across as a rules Nazi, that’s not my intent. Thinking about rules makes my head hurt. :frowning: I just want to make sure I don’t go off in the wrong direction because I’m poorly informed or don’t understand. By the way, I have searched on this subject and was unable to find any real clear discussions on the matter, hence my inquiry.

Thanks in advance for your replies and (hopefully)support.

KB

#2

Hi Kevin,
These rules stipulate that if you swap in an engine from a later car, your 85 will be classed as if it were an '87 or later. Have fun building.
cheers,
bruce

9.3.2.1. Cars that do not have an original type engine, (e.g. the engine was not available in the model, chassis and year of the car), shall be classed based upon the vehicle for which the engine was original.
9.3.2.2. The car shall meet the weight minimum of the chassis, model and year for which the engine was originally available in the chassis of a US model, (e.g. it will assume the characteristics of the donor car).

#3

KB, check for ABS. Does the old 85 have it?
You’ll want to have it.
You’ll find that there are some wiring problems going from the square connector to the round connector of the post '87 i engines.The wiring can be done, but I can’t remember how.

For the lack of ABS and the cost to wire-in the engine, I would find a different chassis.

Regards, Robert Patton

#4

Ok, I kept digging around and found the thread about the ABS. I know that it was not standard in '85. I need to check to see if it was possibly equipped with it as an option.

How many of you guys actually run with your ABS on? I’m finishing my 4th year of HPDE’s & lapping days plus 6 years of AutoX. I’ve done them all without ABS in a Miata (mostly) and I think I’d be fine in a E30 without as well. Actually, I’d prefer not to run ABS

It would make it easier on me if the '09 rules were to be revised to make ABS optional. :slight_smile:

I’m going to have to gut the tub to do the engine/harness/ecu swap. Adding ABS at that time won’t be a big deal.

#5

Pretty sure you need different front hubs/strut assemblies just to pile on… Don’t remember the rear setup, but it’s going to be the same issue.

#6

Running without ABS is liable to end up being a rules issue because that would be a big loophole otherwise. There’s no way that a non-ABS car is going to be perceived as rules compliant.

It took me a while to get my ABS working. While it was goofed, I ruined several tires by flat spotting them. I had assumed that I’d be able to detect the onset of lockup. But what I learned is that I couldn’t always detect it immed. I burned thru several hundred $$ worth of tires before I spent $25 for a relay and connected a dash bulb to fix the ABS system.

#7

:huh:
Thats news to me. I run with ABS but I know of several guys who have it disconnected…

The rules have nothing under brakes (9.3.10).

Something else to clarify over the winter?

#8

allenr wrote:

:huh:
Thats news to me. I run with ABS but I know of several guys who have it disconnected…

The rules have nothing under brakes (9.3.10).

Something else to clarify over the winter?[/quote]

The issue doesn’t need to be clarified. If the rules say you can disable an element of the braking system then you can. In the absence of such a rule, you can’t disable it.

The rules can’t cover every negative. Otherwise we would have 10,000 rules telling you every single part that you can’t remove. And a hundred thousand rules for each conceivable mod that you “can’t do”. Instead the rules say “if the rules say you can do it, fine. Otherwise you can’t”.

#9

Ranger wrote:

My ABS system was not ‘disabled’ during my build, but does not work. Where does that leave me? :huh:

I sent a marked-up copy of the rules to Carter with some requested clarifications. ABS was on my list.

Steve D.

#10

[quote]The issue doesn’t need to be clarified. If the rules say you can disable an element of the braking system then you can. In the absence of such a rule, you can’t disable it.

The rules can’t cover every negative. Otherwise we would have 10,000 rules telling you every single part that you can’t remove. And a hundred thousand rules for each conceivable mod that you “can’t do”. Instead the rules say “if the rules say you can do it, fine. Otherwise you can’t”.[/quote]

I understand, but so many people have already overlooked it that it would make sense to have an official “reminder”.

#11

Steve D wrote:

[quote]Ranger wrote:

My ABS system was not ‘disabled’ during my build, but does not work. Where does that leave me? :huh:

I sent a marked-up copy of the rules to Carter with some requested clarifications. ABS was on my list.

Steve D.[/quote]

It leaves you non-compliant.

I agree that there’s a difference in intent between “disabled” and "doesn’t work’, but there’s no difference in endstate functionality. It came from the factory working ('87-91), so it needs to come to the track working.

The spirit and intent of the rules is clear. There are honest grey areas that need some elaboration. But ABS isn’t one of them.

#12

I think I’d have to agree with Scott. All SO class cars would have been delivered with ABS and since it isn’t listed as something that can be removed, the ABS must be intact and operational.

In this particular case, you’d have to retro-fit the car with ABS since it will take on the characteristics of the later cars that had ABS because of the engine swap.

#13

I don’t think you want to start with an 85, because the entire wiring harness is different. I can’t imagine trying to fit ABS to an 85 and getting the wiring to work.

The actual ECU rectangle-to-round connector to make the car run isn’t too hard. I used to have an 85 with a 325i motor in it and I still have the connector/adapter laying around somewhere.

86’s are much better to start with because they have the later harness and the ABS built in. If you’re building a SpecE30 race car, I would look for a newer shell.

#14

Hah! This just got easy. I checked the VIN code and it turns out the car is in fact an '86 and the presence of ABS has been verified. That makes one less update to worry about.

#15

rrroadster wrote:

Good deal. Now we can move forward before this becomes an ABS discussion.

Scott’s reading of the rules is correct.However, should your system NOT function, I can’t imagine others would have a problem with a car that has less performance.

Regards, Robert Patton

#16

Dont assume- I’ve always heard that a very skilled driver can brake slightly later and get better rotation without ABS.

Theoretically, someone could come to the track with it disabled thinking none will care, win the race, get protested for it, then raise hell about it.
Just theoretical of course ;).

The rules are clear but so many people have overlooked it. I personally dont care if someone is running without it, but I think there needs to be an official reminder (read warning) before it turns into a problem.

Just my opinion… and it was my turn to do the hijacking :wink: .