The Roaring Season

by **jimdigris** » Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:26 am

conrod wrote:Also of interest is what you mention about the intercoolers on turbo cars. I am helping a friend rebuild an Eggenberger XR4Ti, and through our research we have discovered that the race car had a large front mount intercooler. Now the road car did not have an intercooler at all, and there was no intercooler in the homologation docs. ! It appears all of the Xr4Ti runners were doing this too.
I think the argument may have been that the cooling system was essentially free, and that this was part of the cooling system?

Conrad

Depending on who/what/where really. In Europe the teams saw intercoolers as part of the cooling system as you suggest, and hence ran them, but in Australia it was seen different. Australia saw it as part of the engine system and if the road car didnt have it, then neither could the race car. In 85 at Bathurst the Mitsubishi Starions were presented with intercoolers and a programable engine management and fuel injection system. They were told they could not run the intercoolers because they were not homologated, it was protested but the protest failed. The management system was supposed to have been homologated but due to a paperwork error in Japan it did not happen in time for the September homologation. Despite claims by the Starion teams they couldnt possibly fit the standard system to their race engine they did, but the poor old starions were running like a hairy goat all week. The turbocharger and all its parts were continually the bane of the scrutineers, you could have five sierras lined up from five teams and not one would be the same as the other. Colin Bond actually had the audacity to claim that the turbo was not part of the engine but an accessory and since accessories were "free" he could do anything he liked with the turbo system

by **RSZWEI** » Wed Sep 18, 2013 3:23 am

Steve Holmes wrote:I have a feeling the ATCC was no longer running to Group A rules by 1991? Wasn't it a sort of CAMS created thing that attempted to produce an even balance between the various manufacturers, rather than the more black and white Group A rules? I recall the Skyline's being heavily weighed down with ballast, while the Sierra's were running much narrower wheels. The Longhurst M3's would often start out mid-pack, then pick their way forward as the more powerful cars ran out of tyres. Or did I just imagine all that?

Hey Steve, at the start of this clip (Round 1 of the 1992 ATCC) shows the new CAMS rules for the 1992. The M3 had weight added but was rev free:

http://youtu.be/7jXLJwxzUSA

by **RSZWEI** » Wed Sep 18, 2013 3:18 am

Speaking of E30 M3's, here is Tony Longhurst crash with the John Sax M3 at the Nissan Mobil 500 (Wellington round).

by **RSZWEI** » Wed Sep 18, 2013 3:10 am

jimdigris wrote:At the start of the 88 season FISA announced they would be clamping down on what they called "irregularities" (they didnt call it cheating). First up was turbo cars must run the intercooler homologated on the road car, previously this was in the grey area of the rules. Next was fuel inlet system must be what was homologated on the road car, but with Electronic control systems still free, ie the manifold, injectors or carby, and air inlet ducts must be exactly what was fitted to the road cars. Previously the BMWs ran a very modified air inlet cold air inlet box and a slightly different modified manifold. Previously the only time in Europe in the 87 season any top Group A team was picked up for running non standard fuel systems was at round 1 at Monza when the Texaco team (surprise surprise!) was not allowed to race after scrutineering showed the fuel system was radically different, the BMWs at this point were running the road base system but six were disqualified for illegal body work, mainly carbon fibre boot lids. Later in the season (just before the SPA 24 hour race) a BMW factory approved modified air and fuel inlet system was supplied to most teams, which gave them a jump of 20-30 HP, depending on who you believe. FISA did nothing and the BMW runners ran with it for the rest of the year thinking that it was legal. As it turned out, it wasnt. The Mobil team turned up for the first round of the ATCC with the modified system not knowing it was now deemed illegal. Larry Perkins knew and brought it to the officials attention and PB was eventually allowed to run that one round under a special dispension that all teams had to sign off for. LP was the last to sign but just before he signed he said to Peter "why dont you just go down to the local BMW dealer and buy the correct parts, I know I can go to my local Holden dealer and do that", which brought quite a few chuckles and elbowing in the room. The allowance of Peter and Jim to race was that they would be awarded no points no matter where they finished. The following round the Mobil cars fronted with the correct system and were slower than the previous year. The ruling made the cars nearly 2 seconds a lap slow at big tracks like Bathurst

Wasnt Brocks M3 upgraded to EvoII spec before Bathurst? It was running a 6 speed box by that stage wasnt it?
I think he would have done quite well if he hadnt hit a tyre sitting on Conrod.

Also, the coming to grips of other teams running RS500 in 1988 didnt help Brocks effort at all.

by **Steve Holmes** » Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:34 am

conrod wrote:

Interesting though, that when Frank Gardner/Tony Longhurst switched back to the M3 in 1991, they ran what was almost a full DTM spec. car, with slide throttles and 8 injectors, as well as the otehr freedoms allowed in DTM, such as raised innner wheelarches etc. These were a much quicker car than a proper Gp.A car.

Conrad

I have a feeling the ATCC was no longer running to Group A rules by 1991? Wasn't it a sort of CAMS created thing that attempted to produce an even balance between the various manufacturers, rather than the more black and white Group A rules? I recall the Skyline's being heavily weighed down with ballast, while the Sierra's were running much narrower wheels. The Longhurst M3's would often start out mid-pack, then pick their way forward as the more powerful cars ran out of tyres. Or did I just imagine all that?

by **Steve Holmes** » Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:30 am

jimdigris wrote:the two pics above are perfect to highlight the difference in the aero package between the M3 EVO2 and the M3 EVO3. I never did like the look of the EVO3's rear spoiler.

Its interesting that only the original M3 bodywork appears to have been eligible for Super Touring when it was introduced in 1991, and not the EVO bodywork.

by **Steve Holmes** » Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:29 am

jimdigris wrote:At the start of the 88 season FISA announced they would be clamping down on what they called "irregularities" (they didnt call it cheating). First up was turbo cars must run the intercooler homologated on the road car, previously this was in the grey area of the rules. Next was fuel inlet system must be what was homologated on the road car, but with Electronic control systems still free, ie the manifold, injectors or carby, and air inlet ducts must be exactly what was fitted to the road cars. Previously the BMWs ran a very modified air inlet cold air inlet box and a slightly different modified manifold. Previously the only time in Europe in the 87 season any top Group A team was picked up for running non standard fuel systems was at round 1 at Monza when the Texaco team (surprise surprise!) was not allowed to race after scrutineering showed the fuel system was radically different, the BMWs at this point were running the road base system but six were disqualified for illegal body work, mainly carbon fibre boot lids. Later in the season (just before the SPA 24 hour race) a BMW factory approved modified air and fuel inlet system was supplied to most teams, which gave them a jump of 20-30 HP, depending on who you believe. FISA did nothing and the BMW runners ran with it for the rest of the year thinking that it was legal. As it turned out, it wasnt. The Mobil team turned up for the first round of the ATCC with the modified system not knowing it was now deemed illegal. Larry Perkins knew and brought it to the officials attention and PB was eventually allowed to run that one round under a special dispension that all teams had to sign off for. LP was the last to sign but just before he signed he said to Peter "why dont you just go down to the local BMW dealer and buy the correct parts, I know I can go to my local Holden dealer and do that", which brought quite a few chuckles and elbowing in the room. The allowance of Peter and Jim to race was that they would be awarded no points no matter where they finished. The following round the Mobil cars fronted with the correct system and were slower than the previous year. The ruling made the cars nearly 2 seconds a lap slow at big tracks like Bathurst

Tis is really great info Jim! Thanks for posting.

by **conrod** » Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:09 am

thanks for the explanation jimd, thats very interesting! I have owned a couple of "Gp.A" throttle bodies, and they always struck me as being a bit illegal. As you said, the Gp.A intake system (from the throttle butterflies from memory) had to remain standard. The Gp.A throttle bodies were a different casting, with a different part number. They were much thicker in the casting at the point it bolted to the cylinder head, which meant it could be ported out much larger than the road car throttle bodies. The butterflies remained at 46mm, but were knife eded, and the throttle shafts were streamlined as well. I would bet a dollar that this is the item of contention mentioned in your post. This must be why BMW homologated the EVO2 during 1988(?) with 48mm throttle butterflies and the thicker casting. This mod was also included on the Sport Evo (EVO3) in 1990 with the 2.5 engine.

Interesting though, that when Frank Gardner/Tony Longhurst switched back to the M3 in 1991, they ran what was almost a full DTM spec. car, with slide throttles and 8 injectors, as well as the other freedoms allowed in DTM, such as raised innner wheelarches etc. These were a much quicker car than a proper Gp.A car.

Also of interest is what you mention about the intercoolers on turbo cars. I am helping a friend rebuild an Eggenberger XR4Ti, and through our research we have discovered that the race car had a large front mount intercooler. Now the road car did not have an intercooler at all, and there was no intercooler in the homologation docs. ! It appears all of the Xr4Ti runners were doing this too.
I think the argument may have been that the cooling system was essentially free, and that this was part of the cooling system?

Conrad

by **jimdigris** » Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:53 pm

the two pics above are perfect to highlight the difference in the aero package between the M3 EVO2 and the M3 EVO3. I never did like the look of the EVO3's rear spoiler.

by **jimdigris** » Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:05 pm

At the start of the 88 season FISA announced they would be clamping down on what they called "irregularities" (they didnt call it cheating). First up was turbo cars must run the intercooler homologated on the road car, previously this was in the grey area of the rules. Next was fuel inlet system must be what was homologated on the road car, but with Electronic control systems still free, ie the manifold, injectors or carby, and air inlet ducts must be exactly what was fitted to the road cars. Previously the BMWs ran a very modified air inlet cold air inlet box and a slightly different modified manifold. Previously the only time in Europe in the 87 season any top Group A team was picked up for running non standard fuel systems was at round 1 at Monza when the Texaco team (surprise surprise!) was not allowed to race after scrutineering showed the fuel system was radically different, the BMWs at this point were running the road base system but six were disqualified for illegal body work, mainly carbon fibre boot lids. Later in the season (just before the SPA 24 hour race) a BMW factory approved modified air and fuel inlet system was supplied to most teams, which gave them a jump of 20-30 HP, depending on who you believe. FISA did nothing and the BMW runners ran with it for the rest of the year thinking that it was legal. As it turned out, it wasnt. The Mobil team turned up for the first round of the ATCC with the modified system not knowing it was now deemed illegal. Larry Perkins knew and brought it to the officials attention and PB was eventually allowed to run that one round under a special dispension that all teams had to sign off for. LP was the last to sign but just before he signed he said to Peter "why dont you just go down to the local BMW dealer and buy the correct parts, I know I can go to my local Holden dealer and do that", which brought quite a few chuckles and elbowing in the room. The allowance of Peter and Jim to race was that they would be awarded no points no matter where they finished. The following round the Mobil cars fronted with the correct system and were slower than the previous year. The ruling made the cars nearly 2 seconds a lap slow at big tracks like Bathurst

by **Steve Holmes** » Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:55 pm

Here are pics of some of the M3's racing at this years Silverstone Classic. The blue Labatt's car is the one raced by Tim Harvey, whose team mate Will Hoy won the BTCC the first year the championship was run for Super Touring in 1991.

[ATTACH]21527[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]21526[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]21528[/ATTACH]

by **Steve Holmes** » Tue Sep 17, 2013 8:31 pm

Wow Jim, that is great info, and something I've been wondering about for 25 years! From the outside, the JPS BMW team always appeared to be Franks team, while the Freeport/B&H team always appeared to be Tonys team, so I always assumed it was Tony who started the Freeport/B&H team, but had never read that this was the case. Thanks for your response.

by **conrod** » Tue Sep 17, 2013 8:04 pm

Very interesting information jimdigris! I was not aware of the whole Freeport deal. Do you know any more details about what the M3's were running in 87 as far as inlet manifold and airbox etc? I had heard the story about Mezera. I bet the whole 87 Bathurst/Eggenberger protest debacle was a messy one!.....

by **jimdigris** » Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:54 am

oh and for those that dont know how bad the politics were, Ford believed Frank's protest had cost them the WTCC so they black balled him, he could not get any Sierra parts through official channels. Now even the top teams found it hard to get parts but being on the black list made the Freeport venture a non starter, but wiley Frank had an ace up his sleeve. The Ace was a little known driver in Europe that Frank had helped and that driver was recruited to secure the parts the team needed. The driver was rewarded for his work with a drive at Bathurst that year, which he went on to win

by **jimdigris** » Tue Sep 17, 2013 11:43 am

Steve Holmes wrote: I knew Gardner had gone over to run the Longhurst Freeport/B&H RS500s, but had always just assumed it was Longhurst himself who had set up this team, and that he employed Gardner to run it. It never occurred to me Gardner simply switched from BMWs to the Sierra. I wonder why Jim Richards went to the Brock team?

Officially a very tired and ill Frank Gardner retired at the end of 87, putting the team up for sale, disalusioned by the politics of Bathurst87 after being made a scapegoat for his name was on the protest against the Texaco team. This left Ol Jum and TL out of a drive. TL took on the Freeport (same parent company as JPS and later B/H) sponsorship as he had secured some stakes in it through his fathers considerable business interests. It was TL's fathers money that paid to get the Freeport team up and running but the Freeport sponsorship was under the provision of being run as a top tier team so Tony talked Frank out of retirement. Brock only wanted the cars and associated spares etc, ol Jum driverless but he and PB had history so a deal was struck. What PB didnt know was FIA was going to clamp down on the M3 and make them run what they should have run in 87, the original intake and injector manifold, and air inlet tract. This "robbed" the little screamer of 20-30HP, making them an also ran on the power circuits. Why FIA never enforced it in 87 is a mystery to this day

by **conrod** » Mon Sep 16, 2013 9:38 am

Steve Holmes wrote:Conrad, the period photo of Paul Morris with the Diet Coke car. Is this your car?

yes it is, very "80's" colour scheme huh?

I also like the Bastos livery, so much that I did my first Gp.A car as a replica. Nobody over here cottoned on to the fact it is cigarettes, otherwise I might have been given a hard time

by **conrod** » Mon Sep 16, 2013 9:34 am

Steve Holmes wrote:Conrad, the period photo of Paul Morris with the Diet Coke car. Is this your car?

yes it is. "Interesting" colour scheme/livery huh?

by **Steve Holmes** » Mon Sep 16, 2013 12:47 am

Conrad, the period photo of Paul Morris with the Diet Coke car. Is this your car?

by **Steve Holmes** » Mon Sep 16, 2013 12:46 am

Awesome pics and info guys. I love that Bastos livery. It looked great on everything it was applied to.

Thanks for the info on the JPS team following the 1987 season. I knew Gardner had gone over to run the Longhurst Freeport/B&H RS500s, but had always just assumed it was Longhurst himself who had set up this team, and that he employed Gardner to run it. It never occurred to me Gardner simply switched from BMWs to the Sierra. I wonder why Jim Richards went to the Brock team?

by **librules** » Thu Sep 12, 2013 10:34 pm

Re the Brock Mobil M3s, they were basically run by the same Brock team that had run Holdens up to that point. I remember going to a public day at their workshops in Port Melbourne prior to the season and they were very upbeat. One of the crew claimed they were planning to extract some more horsepower as they'd found a tweak which the JPS team hadn't cottoned on to. It struck me as dubious at the time and and proved to be so as the year unfolded. Regardless, the M3 is one of my all-time favourite homologation tourers and I'd love to have a road-goer in my garage. I think they may have had some minor BMW backing but not to the level of Frank's team.

The Roaring Season

Article: BMW M3

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Article: BMW M3

Re: Article: BMW M3

Re: Article: BMW M3

Re: Article: BMW M3

Re: Article: BMW M3

Re: Article: BMW M3

Re: Article: BMW M3

Re: Article: BMW M3

Re: Article: BMW M3

Re: Article: BMW M3

Re: Article: BMW M3

Re: Article: BMW M3

Re: Article: BMW M3

Re: Article: BMW M3

Re: Article: BMW M3

Re: Article: BMW M3

Re: Article: BMW M3

Re: Article: BMW M3

Re: Article: BMW M3

Re: Article: BMW M3

Re: Article: BMW M3