-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Re: [E36M3] Dyno'ed my stock 98 ///M3 today... - from vernon@sprynet.com
Top
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 08:32:50 -0500 From: vernon@sprynet.com Subject: Re: [E36M3] Dyno'ed my stock 98 ///M3 today... Chester, I'm almost certain that having the 245/40's on would have allowed me to reach 60mph in second. With the 235/40's, the car would reach 59.x, then slowly back down to 58.x and hold that. I'm guessing that the extra 1% overall diameter would have allowed me to just touch 60 mph enough for the dyno to complete the test. Not a big deal, but it would have been nice. The 5.96 sec 0-60 time with the shift to third would probably have been reduced by a few tenths. It's not really a totally valid test anyway as it has to use an estimated weight (a very educated guess using this summer's coilover corner-weight number, plus the rollbar that I added, plus me), plus it is really difficult to launch on a dyno (no movement of the car plus roller feel is very different than pavement feel). My car is lower due to the coilovers and has 500# springs in the rear; my auto-x launch experience since the suspension mods tell me that I loose a few tenths on launch due to lack of weight transfer. ! ! A 7200 redline will be nice if/when I Shark this thing. Oh well, who really drag races M3's anyway? The 0-60 test result will now just force me to modify this thing and try again in a few months :) The rollers on the dyno did give me a little wheelspin, even in my car. In the 1/4 mile test, I had wheelspin on every upshift, even 3-4. Kent Rafferty's modified Supra (355 rear-wheel HP), had massive wheelspin in the acceleration tests and was unable to get any valid numbers (he had to get into 4th in the 0-60 test, which makes no sense, so the rollers couldn't hold the rear wheels in his car). The dyno was fine in the somewhat steady-state 4th-gear power/torque tests, but not totally valid in the acceleration test. Vern >Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 19:45:26 -0800 (PST) >From: Chester Wong <chester_p_wong@yahoo.com> >Subject: Re: [E36M3] Dyno'ed my stock 98 ///M3 today... > >About your required shift to third in order to reach 60, I believe >that it's >necessary for any stock car since the rev limiter kicks in to >prevent you from >hitting 60 in second. Having the rev limiter bumped up to 7200 >cures that ;) > >Chester >
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Intake and EPA - from Ed Tang
Top
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 06:10:28 -0800 (PST) From: Ed Tang <etangf1@yahoo.com> Subject: Intake and EPA Bora wrote: >Conforti intake is out due to not being smog legal. Are you in Cali? I live in Illinois and passed the smog test with flying colors. I didn't know the standards out there were pretty harsh. I wouldn't think about parting with the JC intake:) Ed Tang 95 Cosmos M3 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Get organized for the holidays! http://calendar.yahoo.com/
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Re: Redline vs. Mobil 1 - from Neil Maller
Top
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 09:24:31 -0500 From: Neil Maller <neil.maller@gte.net> Subject: Re: Redline vs. Mobil 1 on 11/13/00 6:45, E36M3 at e36m3@bmwmpower.com wrote: > Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 20:25:42 EST > From: Mdriver13@aol.com > > To all, > > Saw Mobil 1 ATF at my local auto store yesterday. My question is, does > anyone know how Redline D4ATF compares to Mobil 1 ATF? I'm thinking of doing > a tranny oil change soon. > > Bob Gill > 97 ///M3 coupe > Philly Region SCCA > AS Champion 1997 & 2000 > mov'in to ESP in '01 Bob - don't you know that asking to compare one oil brand to another is likely to set off quasi-religious internet warfare? <g> I've used Mobil 1 ATF in my manual transmission for the last 3 years or so with entire satisfaction. The car sees 20+ track days a year, and is also my daily driver, including during Midwestern winters. I change the fluid once a year on general principle. I have no doubt that Redline also makes good products. But they're expensive and not as readily available. I can buy Mobil 1 ATF or motor oil whenever I need some at any local automotive department. Neil 96 M3
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Re: [E36M3] HP to Rotating Weight Question?? - from Matt Henson
Top
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 06:52:09 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Henson <hensonator@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] HP to Rotating Weight Question?? Tire Rack claims that each pound of wheel/tire weight is worth 7 (?) lbs of regular car weight..but then they are trying to sell wheels. If you do the math you'll find that each lb of wheel/tire weight is worth <2lbs of car weight, at least from a rotational energy/acceleration point of view. Reducing unsprung weight also has benefits for suspension performance that are harder to quantify. You also mentioned flywheel weight. The flywheel spins much faster than the road wheels so any change in mass there will make a much bigger difference. The difference in straight-line acceleration or braking between a 17lb wheel and a 12 lb wheel is probably unnoticable for most people. Worth about 40lb of car weight. Regards, Matt --- "Thomas E. Tice" <tetice@worldnet.att.net> wrote: > Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 09:50:36 -0500 > From: "Thomas E. Tice" <tetice@worldnet.att.net> > Subject: HP to Rotating Weight Question?? > > Hi Gang, > > I have a similarly related question. Are there any > rules of thumb for the > effects of rotating mass (i.e. the recently > discussed wheel weights). A > friend of mine suggested that I should be able to > find some sort of > spreadsheets/calculators available on the web that > could help answer this > question but I have not been able to find anything > relevant. Do any of you > have links for this sort of calculation. > > Ideally I would like to know what effect on > acceleration would result from > heavier wheels (1 lbs, 3 lbs, 5 lbs delta etc) given > the typical > weight/HP/torque of a stock M3. If my wheels were 5 > lbs heavier each, that > would be like having a flywheel that was 20 lbs > heavier? That sounds like a > big deal? Even worse it hurts braking performance > as well - at least with > the flywheel all you have to do is push in the > clutch to take that out of > the equation. > > I aquired a set of wheels that I intended to use for > the track but they are > quite a bit heavier than the best in class 17x8s > (approx 17 lbs). Before I > chunk down serious $$$ on more wheels, I'd like to > have a more accurate idea > of what I would be giving up with the heavier ones. > > TIA, > Tom Tice > '98 M3/4 > '99 540/6 > > Paul Agustin wrote: > > > Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 10:42:51 -0600 > > From: Paul Agustin <agustin@iaxs.net> > > Subject: Re: HP to Weight > > > > Jim is right, or really close. It's actually > 7.5lbs equals one HP. So > > those 20lbs that George was talking about is equal > to 2.67 HP, not much > > in the real world. On a track that can be just > enough of an edge though > > to get you in front and stay there. Making your > car 300+lbs lighter now > > that would be awesome, it would get you about 40HP > more in the HPcolumn > > theoretically. OK I'm done babbling and ya'll can > flame away ifn you > > want. > > > > Paul Agustin > > > > > ************************************************************* > > List Commands > > UNSUBSCRIBE - (in subject line) unsubscribes you > from the mailing list. > > > ************************************************************* > > > ************************************************************* > List Commands > UNSUBSCRIBE - (in subject line) unsubscribes you > from the mailing list. > ************************************************************* > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Get organized for the holidays! http://calendar.yahoo.com/
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: HP to Rotating Weight Question?? - from Neil Maller
Top
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 09:53:53 -0500 From: Neil Maller <neil.maller@gte.net> Subject: Re: HP to Rotating Weight Question?? on 11/13/00 6:45, E36M3 at e36m3@bmwmpower.com wrote: > Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2000 09:50:36 -0500 > From: "Thomas E. Tice" <tetice@worldnet.att.net> > > Hi Gang, > > I have a similarly related question. Are there any rules of thumb for the > effects of rotating mass (i.e. the recently discussed wheel weights). A > friend of mine suggested that I should be able to find some sort of > spreadsheets/calculators available on the web that could help answer this > question but I have not been able to find anything relevant. Do any of you > have links for this sort of calculation. > > Ideally I would like to know what effect on acceleration would result from > heavier wheels (1 lbs, 3 lbs, 5 lbs delta etc) given the typical > weight/HP/torque of a stock M3. If my wheels were 5 lbs heavier each, that > would be like having a flywheel that was 20 lbs heavier? That sounds like a > big deal? Even worse it hurts braking performance as well - at least with > the flywheel all you have to do is push in the clutch to take that out of > the equation. > > I aquired a set of wheels that I intended to use for the track but they are > quite a bit heavier than the best in class 17x8s (approx 17 lbs). Before I > chunk down serious $$$ on more wheels, I'd like to have a more accurate idea > of what I would be giving up with the heavier ones. Difference in wheel mass have a couple (heh heh) of effects on performance: 1) Adding any mass anywhere to the car slows acceleration - and as you pointed out, impedes braking. 2) Wheels with a higher moment of inertia will require more energy to spin them up to any given rpm. Wheels of greater mass *may* have a higher rotational moment of inertia. Problem is, you and I can't readily calculate the moment of inertia of a complex shaped object like a wheel. Since the moment of inertia is a function both of mass and the square of its distance from the axis of rotation, a pound of metal in the hub has much less inertial effect than a pound in the rim. In fact 2 pounds in an average hub would have less inertial effect than 1 pound in the rim. Having said which, how much do you, or should you, care? Are you racing professionally? But if you have some $ burning a hole in your pocket, and feel like treating yourself to 4 nice round Xmas presents, then think about buying *strong* wheels. Good forged wheels are stronger than cast, cost more, and are typically lighter as well. Neil 96 M3
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Steering Rack Replacement ? - from Jeremy Warfield
Top
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 07:33:58 -0800 (PST) From: Jeremy Warfield <cosmos95_swa@yahoo.com> Subject: Steering Rack Replacement ? Anyone had the pleasure of replacing the power steering rack? My 95 m3 has recently developed a sizeable leak from the passenger side dust boot which is ultimately due to an internal leak within the rack. I am currently checking prices, but has anyone done this repair, so that i know what i am in for? I have already assumed to have the car aligned afterwards, but am not sure what else. Jeremy- cosmos 95 ///M3 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Get organized for the holidays! http://calendar.yahoo.com/
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Dinan CAI - from dholeman@spooze.com
Top
Date: 13 Nov 2000 07:41:01 -0800 From: dholeman@spooze.com Subject: Dinan CAI Dinan does make a 3.5" CAI for a 95 M3, as I have one. I use it with a K&N filter that came with and the JimC Euro intake chip from Turner and I use the 3.5" euro hfm. This setup has worked extremely well for me. David www.racepad.com
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Sway bars - from DiVincenti, A.J.
Top
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 09:53:58 -0600 From: "DiVincenti, A.J." <ADiVin@lsuhsc.edu> Subject: Sway bars Lowell commented that, "Smaller front/larger rear will greatly reduce understeer." So do I understand that the Eibach bars 26/24 will not greatly reduce understeer. They will reduce body roll, but not address understear since the front bar is larger than the rear? aj >>>> The one item I don't know about is the front sway bar. I think the '96+ front sway bar attaches differently and won't fit on a '95 M3. Somebody else will have to answer this one. But I do know that Dinan has a different philosophy on sway bars. Everybody else enlarges both the front and rear sway bars. Dinan actually makes the front sway bar SMALLER and make the rear bar larger than stock. Yep! I'm pretty sure of this. This is not as bad as it sounds. Smaller front/larger rear will greatly reduce understeer. This is the desired result so Dinan may have the best combination? A.J. 95
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Re: [E36M3] HP to Rotating Weight Question?? - from Rob Hatrak
Top
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 09:31:44 -0800 From: "Rob Hatrak" <Hatrak@ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] HP to Rotating Weight Question?? FWIW - When I switched from the factory Contour wheels to 17x8 BBS RC wheels, I could really feel a difference. The car seemed to accelerate a bit easier. The difference surprised me so much that I mounted the factory wheels back on to see if I was imagining things. Nope. The car felt a touch more "sluggish" with the heavy shoes. I've been very happy with the wheel purchase ever since. Rob
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Re: [E36M3] 97 components to a 95 for suspension - from BobTunnell@aol.com
Top
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 12:54:43 EST From: BobTunnell@aol.com Subject: Re: [E36M3] 97 components to a 95 for suspension In a message dated 11/13/00 4:48:01 AM, Lowell Seaton writes: >OK, your Dinan camber plates. I'm sure they will bolt right on. However, >based on postings by other list members (Bob Tunnell and Ron Katona), I think >the '97 camber plates will give you 0.5 degrees LESS camber if you install >them on the correct sides. Close, but not quite. <g> You can get an extra 1/2-degree negative camber if you use the *stock* upper strut mounts from a 96+ car on a 95, but don't swap sides with Dinan camber plates. Use them on the side they're designed for. Other than that, I think Lowell's advice is spot on. --BT
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Re: [E36M3] Intake and EPA - from Bora Akyol
Top
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 10:12:52 -0800 From: Bora Akyol <akyol@pluris.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Intake and EPA Fails visual inspection (open air filter). I am sure emissions are fine. Bora Ed Tang wrote: > Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 06:10:28 -0800 (PST) > From: Ed Tang <etangf1@yahoo.com> > Subject: Intake and EPA > > Bora wrote: > > >Conforti intake is out due to not being smog legal. > > Are you in Cali? I live in Illinois and passed the > smog test with flying colors. I didn't know the > standards out there were pretty harsh. I wouldn't > think about parting with the JC intake:) > > Ed Tang > 95 Cosmos M3 > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Calendar - Get organized for the holidays! > http://calendar.yahoo.com/ > > ************************************************************* > List Commands > UNSUBSCRIBE - (in subject line) unsubscribes you from the mailing list. > *************************************************************
-------------------- 12 --------------------
#12. Re: [E36M3] Weight on the track vs. enjoyment on the street....why not have both? - from Sean Hester
Top
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 10:16:21 PST From: "Sean Hester" <seanh_race@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Weight on the track vs. enjoyment on the street....why not have both? >If you are so worried about weight, why not build an amp rack and sub box >that is removable? I take it out for autocrosses and at the track. I >build >one out of 1" MDF (needed since I have a 12" BA Sub run by a 1000 watt mono >amp. I build the box, sealed it, installed the sub, tested it, then build >an raised "floor" on the top and sides out of 1/8" hard board which was >raised 3/4" so all the wires are under the "floor". One amp is mounted on >the top and one on the side with all wires hidden. The power and ground >distribution boxes are mounted behind the fold down seat along with the >Alpine Digital Signal Processor. When I want to remove the box, I simply >disconnect the speakers to the front and back (< 2 minutes) the power and >ground from the distribution box, and the RCA comming from the head unit. >Takes less than 15 minutes and removes the 50+ pounds of electrical >compontents. I do not get too concerned over the wight of the MB Quarts >and >their crossovers. > >Just an idea.... i second this... i built a removable sub system for my M3. when i did it, it was before i'd ever thought of going to the track, but it was for when i really needed the extra trunk space. i set it up so that i could play the system without the sub system in there. i even set up the EQ with a special "no sub today" setting. imagine my glee when i started going to the track and could get all my heavy stereo stuff out of the trunk. ;-) _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.