-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Stock Stereo - from Thissell, Jeremy
Top
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:50:37 -0400 From: "Thissell, Jeremy" <Jeremy.Thissell@USPTO.GOV> Subject: Stock Stereo From what I understand they have to drive the amp to a VERY high level of distortion to achieve the claimed 100 watt output. So the "clean" power is only up to say 30 watts peak (guess). As for the cost, I believe it is about a $500 option for H/K. I think for at least one year, they made the H/K a pkg with the CD changer and they charged about $1000 for it. We've got a 328i with the base stereo and I thought it was pretty good when listening to CD's (the FM tuner sucks), but lacked a bit of highs (giving it a rearward soundstage somewhat) and I found the bass to be kind of boomy at times (not particularly clean). Over all it's pretty good though. Then we bought the M3 which had H/K, and it's definately better. The bass is cleaner and the highs are a bit more evident, giving it a better forward soundstage (relatively speaking). Although it's an improvement, I'm not sure if I would choose it as an option if I bought the car new, since it IS kind of expensive for what you get. Cost no object, I'd definately get it though because I wouldn't want to put anything non-factory in my car and the H/K was all I ever wanted in a car stereo anyways. Jeremy Thissell Patent Examiner Art Unit 3762 US Patent Office > it sounds like 10 watts. maybe less. ;-P it never ceases to amaze me > why > they made such complicated, expensive, powerful (they claim 100 watts) > system that sounds so bad. > > > the hk system sounds a tiny bit better. again, certainly not enough to > justify it's cost. don't they charge you like $1000 for it? for $1000 > you > could replace the whole thing with a good sounding system. > ________________________________________________________________________ >
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Re: [E36M3] Wheel question IFG s weight??? - from Gerry Miranda
Top
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:44:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Gerry Miranda <gerry_miranda@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Wheel question IFG s weight??? i'm also running 8x17 ifg on 235 40 17 a032r, and these are great for the street. they stick great in the dry and WET. it's been raining in chicago lately and i can run faster on these than my old pilot sport. the only negative is the howl between 35-50 mph. its mostly quiet out of those ranges. and the engine loves the lighter weight and smaller tire diameter. i've had a chance to weigh the IFG before i had the tires mounted and they came in at 18,5 lbs for 17x8??? this surprised me since every web site i've visisted and magazines mentioned the 17x9 weighing in at 17.5 lbs. how can the 8s be more than the 9s. the only place else i saw them weigh in at 18.6 lbs was at suzy's gallery from jim powell...can i now consider hardware specs in ths ame category as "claimed" hp gain... anyone has actual weights for these. i know the a032r comes in at 23 1/4 lbs... Gerry --- Donna Seeley <dseeley@infoasis.com> wrote: > Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 21:24:59 -0700 > From: Donna Seeley <dseeley@infoasis.com> > Subject: Re: [E36M3] Wheel question > > Sure I still have the IFGs in the garage - they're > in between the A032's and > the 95's hubs. :) > But I do have a set of Rials with almost-new Pole > Positions in the > basement... I have a feeling I'll never go back to > street tires. > > Donna > ------- > 88 M3, track car > 95 330isA, super-commuter > http://www.stopyoucold.com > > > From: "twisty M3" <twistym3@hotmail.com> > > > > > > On a more serious note, a friend of mine (the > drive of the F1 M3, he he) is > > looking for some decent used forged or other > lightweight type of wheels for > > the track. Preferably 17x8 and under 20 pounds. > Does anyone have any > > sitting around in their garage that they'd like to > get rid of? Donna, do > > you still have your forged wheels sitting around? > (Don't worry my umbrella > > carrying duties won't change if you don't) > > > > Thanks, > > Jonathan L > > > ************************************************************* > List Commands > UNSUBSCRIBE - (in subject line) unsubscribes you > from the mailing list. > ************************************************************* > > ===== Gerry 97 M3/4 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. RE: [E36M3] Wheel question IFG s weight??? - from dave spragg
Top
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 22:04:06 -0400 From: "dave spragg" <dave@spragg.com> Subject: RE: [E36M3] Wheel question IFG s weight??? My 17x8 IFG Integral A2's weighed 17.2 lbs each and still do. Well, maybe a little less now because I have lost some bits of paint and gained some grease and rubber goo. I wonder which weighs more? Dave Spragg dave@spragg.com Natick, MA 99 M3 Sharked -----Original Message----- From: Gerry Miranda [mailto:gerry_miranda@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 8:50 PM To: E36M3 Subject: Re: [E36M3] Wheel question IFG s weight??? Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:44:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Gerry Miranda <gerry_miranda@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Wheel question IFG s weight??? i'm also running 8x17 ifg on 235 40 17 a032r, and these are great for the street. they stick great in the dry and WET. it's been raining in chicago lately and i can run faster on these than my old pilot sport. the only negative is the howl between 35-50 mph. its mostly quiet out of those ranges. and the engine loves the lighter weight and smaller tire diameter. i've had a chance to weigh the IFG before i had the tires mounted and they came in at 18,5 lbs for 17x8??? this surprised me since every web site i've visisted and magazines mentioned the 17x9 weighing in at 17.5 lbs. how can the 8s be more than the 9s. the only place else i saw them weigh in at 18.6 lbs was at suzy's gallery from jim powell...can i now consider hardware specs in ths ame category as "claimed" hp gain... anyone has actual weights for these. i know the a032r comes in at 23 1/4 lbs... Gerry --- Donna Seeley <dseeley@infoasis.com> wrote: > Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 21:24:59 -0700 > From: Donna Seeley <dseeley@infoasis.com> > Subject: Re: [E36M3] Wheel question > > Sure I still have the IFGs in the garage - they're > in between the A032's and > the 95's hubs. :) > But I do have a set of Rials with almost-new Pole > Positions in the > basement... I have a feeling I'll never go back to > street tires. > > Donna > ------- > 88 M3, track car > 95 330isA, super-commuter > http://www.stopyoucold.com > > > From: "twisty M3" <twistym3@hotmail.com> > > > > > > On a more serious note, a friend of mine (the > drive of the F1 M3, he he) is > > looking for some decent used forged or other > lightweight type of wheels for > > the track. Preferably 17x8 and under 20 pounds. > Does anyone have any > > sitting around in their garage that they'd like to > get rid of? Donna, do > > you still have your forged wheels sitting around? > (Don't worry my umbrella > > carrying duties won't change if you don't) > > > > Thanks, > > Jonathan L > > > ************************************************************* > List Commands > UNSUBSCRIBE - (in subject line) unsubscribes you > from the mailing list. > ************************************************************* > > ===== Gerry 97 M3/4 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ ************************************************************* List Commands UNSUBSCRIBE - (in subject line) unsubscribes you from the mailing list. *************************************************************
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. RE: [E36M3] Wheel question IFG s weight??? - from Chester Wong
Top
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 19:18:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Chester Wong <chester_p_wong@yahoo.com> Subject: RE: [E36M3] Wheel question IFG s weight??? Integral A2s? I thought that IFG made only one model--the A5. Where are pics of the A2? Chester --- dave spragg <dave@spragg.com> wrote: > Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 22:04:06 -0400 > From: "dave spragg" <dave@spragg.com> > Subject: RE: [E36M3] Wheel question IFG s weight??? > > My 17x8 IFG Integral A2's weighed 17.2 lbs each and still do. Well, maybe a > little less now because I have lost some bits of paint and gained some > grease and rubber goo. I wonder which weighs more? ===== __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Track Tires/Trailer Hitch - from Thomas E. Tice
Top
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 21:54:18 -0400 From: "Thomas E. Tice" <tetice@worldnet.att.net> Subject: Track Tires/Trailer Hitch Hi Gang, I'm new to this list having just purchased a '98 M3/4 (reference Hunter Johnson's previous note on his cost of ownership). I'll be picking up the depreciation from here on out. I'm not too worried about that but more concerned about having fun with the car. I have lots of questions and hope to sponge off of others' experience with these particular cars but for now will start with questions aimed in 2 general areas. The first question is regarding a trailer hitch. 1) Has anyone had any experience with a trailer hitch on an M3? This would be used for a small trailer to transport track wheels/tires etc. Dylan makes one for the E36 cars and I have the installation instructions (I can forward a .pdf file of this to anyone interested). If you have experience with this, I would really appreciate some close up photos of the installation. The instructions mention a need to trim the rear bumper fascia on the M3 and this concerns me - otherwise it looks to be a fairly straightforward and neat installation. The second area of question involves track tires and wheels. 2) What recommendations do others have regarding track tire sizes (assuming 17" wheels and stock suspension - for now)? Anybody using a 16" wheel (will it clear the brakes) - I know this is going the wrong direction but you could possibly save some $$ on wheels/tires and with the right choice of tires not loose much? Based upon the listings at the Tire Rack, the choices seem quite limited but I am interested in whether most people are having better results with same size front and rear or with a setup like the later years stock configuration of wider in the rear. As background for the tire question, I am a reasonably experienced CCA instructor type (but not extremely hard core). I value having FUN more than attaining absolute maximum speed (I've mellowed over the years). FUN can be defined as driving a less capable car close to or at its limits - yes in the past I have had TOO much fun and that results in the need to clean the dirt and debris from the interior of the car the next time in the pits. My previous track cars were a highly modified '74 2002 (a handful but great learning tool) and a '90 325iS with suspension mods but stock engine. The 325iS was a very neutral (but anemic compared to the M3) handling car that I had a lot of fun with and I hope to have even more with the M3. Cheers, Tom Tice '98 M3/4 '99 540/6
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Re: [E36M3] 0-60 times - from Hunter Johnson
Top
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 09:31:57 +0100 From: "Hunter Johnson" <HJOHNSON@dbmail.debis.de> Subject: Re: [E36M3] 0-60 times Matt says: >If I recall correctly, although the stock 95 M3 could reach 60 MPH in 2nd >gear, the LTW's 3.23 rear end limited its acceleration time by necessitating >an upshift to 3rd to achieve the same speed. I would expect the LTW's 0-50 >time to be a number more representative of the performance its power:weight >ratio delivers. 0-60 times generally mean nothing to me, and they probably shouldn't to most people who track their car -- exactly when during a hot lap are you going 0 mph? The 30 to 70 mph time is more representative of what the car can do than 0-50 or 0-60. It is calculated by subtracting 0-30 from 0-70, and typically it is around the published 0-60 times. Even more telling is the 50 to 100 mph time, which covers perhaps 80-90% of the speeds seen on the track. Hunter
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: [E36M3]- from Jonathan Reiser
Top
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:35:36 -0700 From: "Jonathan Reiser" <jreiser@home.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] <E46 M3> I have been out of town for quite a while and have not had the opportunity to go through the 3 or 4 thousand digests I have missed - so I apologize if my question has already been covered. I was wondering if any of you chaps who are #1 or #2 on your dealer's E46 M3 waiting list have been able to configure your cars yet and/or have been given a solid delivery date. Anyone know the options which will be available for the first run? Also as a side note I read in the current European Car magazine that the E46 M3 Convertible will be available Spring 2001. They are apparently working on a retractable hard top version similar to the MB SLK for the 2002 model year. This latter model will (according to European Car) replace all 3 Series 'verts. Interesting I thought...... Jon '97 328ic '95 ///M3
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: [E36M3]- from Ben Liaw
Top
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 06:01:15 -0400 From: "Ben Liaw" <ben@shortshifter.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] <E46 M3> > I was wondering if any of you chaps who are #1 or #2 on your dealer's E46 M3 > waiting list have been able to configure your cars yet and/or have been > given a solid delivery date. Anyone know the options which will be > available for the first run? nope...haven't had any info yet. from what i hear, the first ones coming in will NOT be configurable. no choices of color, either. you get what you get...or you pass it up. > Also as a side note I read in the current European Car magazine that the E46 > M3 Convertible will be available Spring 2001. They are apparently working > on a retractable hard top version similar to the MB SLK for the 2002 model > year. This latter model will (according to European Car) replace all 3 > Series 'verts. Interesting I thought...... ohmigod that will weigh a ton. at a reported 3425 lbs., isn't the E46 M3 portly enough? ben liaw uuc motorwerks.
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. M3 vs. Z 0-60 - from Jeremy.Thissell@USPTO.GOV
Top
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:21:13 -0400 From: Jeremy.Thissell@USPTO.GOV Subject: M3 vs. Z 0-60 Besides the exhaust and of course the weight, one other major difference I can see between the MZ3/MCoupe and the M3 is that the Z models have a lower center of gravity. Now I don't know if this helps or hurts 0-60 times, but it IS a major difference between the models. I would be willing to bet that the M3 rotates on it's central axis (read: squats) more during acceleration than the Z models, just because of it's high center of gravity (relatively speaking). Now I would think that this would actually HELP acceleration, ala. the 911's having good acceleration due to heavier rear end and good weight transfer back there. But who knows, maybe something about keeping the car flatter (less squat) HELPS acceleration. Maybe on launch the energy is transmitted into linear movement rather than rotational movement. In other words, if the M3 does squat more, the first split second of the launch will rotate the wheels relative to the chassis, but the tires remain stationary whereas the chassis is actually rotating about the axle. In the Z cars (assuming they squat less) the wheels rotate relative to the chassis, and the chassis stays still rotationally. This means the wheels' rotation causes the car to move forward. This difference might be small, but we're only talking about a couple tenths of a second. This is all a guess though. I'd be interested to here what other subscribers think about this theory. Regards -Jeremy Jeremy Thissell Patent Examiner Art Unit 3762 US Patent Office > -------------------- 9 -------------------- > Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 19:20:07 -0400 > From: "Paul Elliott" <pelliott@rcn.com> > Subject: Re: : [E36M3] Re: 0-60 times > > > somethings' got to be > accounting for the 1/2 - 3/4 sec difference usually reported that exhists > between the models! > > _____________________________ > Paul Elliott > '99 Alpine White M3; <15000 mi; Forged M dbl-spokes; Rotex pads; Dinan > Stage > II Supercharger > >
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Re: [E36M3]- no info - from John Stoj
Top
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 06:49:40 -0700 (PDT) From: John Stoj <John_Stoj@excite.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] <E46 M3> - no info I haven't had any news on the E46 M3 yet either. I was at the dealership yesterday though to get a gas cap and have them try to fix my clutch pedal slop (the tech said there was a repair kit for that that he would order - anyone know anything about that?) and I spoke to my salesman who mentioned that I could have an M5 now for "only" $10k over MSRP instead of $15k. I told him I'd continue to wait for the M3, but if 1) I can't test drive it and 2) I have to pay more than 10% over it's not happenning. - John '97 M3 _______________________________________________________ Get 100% FREE Internet Access powered by Excite Visit http://freelane.excite.com/freeisp