-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. RE Headlight film - from Chester Wong
Top
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 21:04:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Chester Wong <chester_p_wong@yahoo.com> Subject: RE Headlight film You need to have patience. The proper way to apply the film is with a 50/50 alcohol/purified water solution. The liquid solution will remove any possibility of sealing in air. You squeegee it out and you have no air bubbles. Now you have to wait for the water/alcohol to evaporate. That's when you get the cloudiness. After a while, it disappears. Chester --- Chris Papademetrious <chrispitude@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Mmmm, I ordered the thinner cut-it-yourself kit with the plain brown paper > > backing. Is has not come yet but I was going to put it on my foglights and > > headlights. > > > > I thought I read somewhere that if it does get cloudy, it would go away > > after a little bit. > > > > Take care, > > Wes > > Wes is absolutely right! I went to check my headlights with the Griots > cut-it-yourself rock guard applied about a week ago, and the cloudiness is > almost gone! I guess it threw me off that when I applied them, they were > crystal clear, THEN they became cloudy a day later, THEN it took about a week > > to clear up (for the most part). > > Maybe they had a warning amidst the packing peanuts and I missed it. :) But > > I'm a much happier camper now. > > (So now, I have an extra pre-cut set of 3M headlight shields for *stock* E36 > headlights with pre-cut spaces for the aiming nubs. If anyone wants 'em, > email me an offer. Thanks!) ===== __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Re: [E36M3] E36 vs E46 drag race - from Chester Wong
Top
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 21:10:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Chester Wong <chester_p_wong@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] E36 vs E46 drag race --- Rob <motor@cadvision.com> wrote: > Was the E46 wearing track shoes? > **No, so I understand the corner comparioson wasn't fair, although A032R's > can't be that much better than Pilot Sports. I beg to differ! Yok A032Rs are DOT legal race tires. These babies grip! I had them on the car for a while a few years ago and it was night and day between grip. Just got back from the Delaware Chapter's driver school at Pocono. Tony Kasser's (sp?) car fitted with Yok A032Rs significantly outhandled my car with Michelin Pilot Sports...no question about it. Of course, Tony might just be a better driver. BTW, I averaged 10.2 mpg today for over 100 track miles. Woo hoo! Our new lightened flywheel kicks *ss!!! Rev matching is sooooo much easier with less rotating weight. If you're turning at 3500 rpms and blips the throttle, it will jump to way past 6000 rpms.....BRRRRAAAAMMMM! Chester ===== __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Re: [E36M3] E36 vs E46 drag race - from Chester Wong
Top
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 21:14:55 -0700 (PDT) From: Chester Wong <chester_p_wong@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] E36 vs E46 drag race > Let me ask you...I dont know if you have any familiarty with supercharged > OBDIIs, but, would you care to venture a guess as to how one would have done > had it been a trio instead of a twosome at your track tests? While we don't have a story about comparing the E46M3 to a supercharged E36 M3, we do have a few comparisons (these were all at speed in 3rd gear): E46M3 vs AA Stage 2 Turbo E36 OBDI M3: Winner - Turbo E36 M3...and the driver wasn't even flooring the pedal) OBDI Turbo E36 M3 vs stock (save for exhaust) OBDII E36 M3: Winner - don't even ask...hahahaha Chester ===== __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Re: [E36M3] E36 vs E46 drag race - from Rob
Top
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 22:55:16 -0600 From: "Rob" <motor@cadvision.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] E36 vs E46 drag race A032R's may be stickier than Pilot Sports but they are no V700's or RA1's! What info do you have on the flywheels? Rob > I beg to differ! Yok A032Rs are DOT legal race tires. These babies grip! I > had them on the car for a while a few years ago and it was night and day > between grip. Just got back from the Delaware Chapter's driver school at > Pocono. Tony Kasser's (sp?) car fitted with Yok A032Rs significantly > outhandled my car with Michelin Pilot Sports...no question about it. Of > course, Tony might just be a better driver. > > BTW, I averaged 10.2 mpg today for over 100 track miles. Woo hoo! > > Our new lightened flywheel kicks *ss!!! Rev matching is sooooo much easier > with less rotating weight. If you're turning at 3500 rpms and blips the > throttle, it will jump to way past 6000 rpms.....BRRRRAAAAMMMM! > > Chester
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. E36 lightening (was E36/E46 drag race) - from Jay G
Top
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2001 21:49:35 -1000 From: Jay G <jguzman@hawaii.edu> Subject: E36 lightening (was E36/E46 drag race) hey rob...what exactly did you do to make your car lighter? Rob wrote: > **I think it is mostly due to the light weigh of my car. I have removed > ~100lbs or more and the car feel very quick on its feet. This means my car > is ~400+lbs lighter than the stock E46 M3 I raced.
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Now RFG II Gas - from LoweSeaton@aol.com
Top
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 04:29:51 EDT From: LoweSeaton@aol.com Subject: Now RFG II Gas rbuchals@hotmail.com writes: Lowell, it's time for your EPA rant again! ;-) -rb OK, since you asked. :-) I worked for the EPA for 11 years. Enjoyed it for about 6 years then the stupid bureaucratic mindset drove me up the wall. Re-Formulated Gas (RFG) was part of it. Basically RFG was started 20 years too late and should have been stopped years ago. RFG is "oxygenated" gas. It has added O2 molecules. MTBE is the most common (i.e., cheapest) way to add the oxygen. Some Midwest states use Ethanol. The purpose is to ensure the gasoline burns more completely with the additional oxygen. Well, guess what?? All modern automotive engines have sophisticated engine computer management, fuel injectors, O2 sensors, etc., to do what?? To ensure that the proper amount of oxygen/fuel is delivered so the gas burns as completely as possible. RFG is redundant!! Not needed!! It doesn't do a damn bit of good for newer cars!!! Basically any car with electronic ignition and fuel injection has the basics required to make RFG unnecessary. So why did EPA require RFG? For carbureted cars!! Any of you guys old enough to remember carburetors? <grin> Trivia question? Please tell me the last car sold in the US with a carburetor. What was it? 20 years ago? 25? I can't think of it. Maybe a Mexican Beetle? 3/4 ton Chevy truck? Some old AMC model? There hasn't been a carbureted car sold in 20+ years yet EPA came out with a new cleaner gas just for carburetors 8 years ago. Sorry. Too late. OK, better late than never right? Not with the EPA. Who wants to guess how many carbureted cars are STILL LEFT on the road today that would benefit from RFG? I don't know. 1 in 50? I don't even think 2% of cars are carbureted. I can drive all day in north Dallas and not see a 20 year old car. You will see more older cars in the poorer areas but then they don't drive as much, hence the cars can last 20+ years. EPA should now be ENDING the RFG program since there aren't a significant number of cars on the road that would benefit from RFG. Instead, EPA has implemented Phase II of the RFG program!!!! :( Now even more areas of the country are required to use the special blended gasoline and for longer periods. Remember gas hitting $3.00 per gallon in some areas of Illinois and Wisconsin summer of 2000? And higher priced gas in general during the summer? RFG is more expensive to make and some of the older refineries are not able to produce it. I'm sure the oil companies milked it for all it was worth but bottom line RFG does cost more. EPA got called on the carpet last year about the RFG program and I thought it might phase it out. But doesn't look like it. Other negatives to RFG? Lots. EPA claims there is only a 1% loss in gas mileage with RFG. Bull shit!! I lose about 5-8%, even up to 10%. And that is about what everybody else says. I see it very dramatically every time I drive home to my parents in Iowa. I always fill up in Dallas. My next stop is in Joplin, Missouri. I used to make it even farther. But from then on, my gas mileage jumps up because I am out of the RFG II gas areas. My car runs better, stronger all the way to Iowa and back. Newer cars that don't need RFG end up burning MORE gas and polluting MORE than what the few carburetor cars reduce. Stupid. Then there is the MTBE in the groundwater problem in California. I don't blame MTBE directly. The oil refineries and gas stations should not be leaking gas into the groundwater in the first place but MTBE makes it much much worse of an environmental problem. I get pinging with the RFG but not with straight gasoline. Plus I don't like how the crap smells. Yeah - I can rant. LOL Can you defend the EPA? Oh ... some. Air quality is getting much worse in most large cities. Why? The historical major sources of air pollution have largely been reduced. You don't have large industrial plants belching out pollution. In most cities, cars were the biggest source of pollution. But cars have dramatically improved the last 30 years. A 2001 car is probably 10,000X cleaner than a 1971 model. Honda and somebody else even have a California certified "zero emission vehicle" gas engine. Zero is zero. You can't get any cleaner than that. No way to improve on it. But cars are still a big source of air pollution in cities because there just are TOO MANY on the road every day. I know. I cuss at about 80,000 of them every day to work. :) What is EPA doing about it? Well, implementing things like OBD-II on cars and RFG gasoline. There is what? 6 oil companies and 10 car makers? It is fairly easy to make 20 or so entities comply. The alternative is to simply REDUCE the number of cars on the road. How? That is not so easy. It would require people like you and I to carpool or use mass transit or bike/walk to work. And not make short car trips every time you need a 6 pack of beer or a newspaper. Basically it would require all 300 million people to comply. It is so politically unpopular to regulate and control the general public that EPA can't do it. So the EPA falls back on the major industries and does what it can. How many of you would be happy if EPA required more than 1 person to a car during rush hour? Or required you to take the bus? I'm as bad as the next guy. I do some mass transit or riding my bike to work but I want the convenience of getting in my car all by my lonesome and going where I want. You know another huge source of air pollution? Small gas engines like lawn mowers, leaf blowers, weed wackers, hedge trimmers, small boats, etc. Again, it is politically difficult to regulate everybody's lawn mower. Make everybody buy a $500 lawnmower or pay $100 per month for a professional to do it? And EPA always looks at how the lower class will be impacted. EPA won't do anything that lower class people can't afford. So EPA regulates a few large industries with stupid requirements. Not a good excuse but that is the result. OK. Better stop ranting before I burst a blood vessel. Lowell Seaton '95 M3
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: [E36M3] E36 vs E46 drag race - from Josh
Top
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 02:34:41 -0600 From: Josh <eurosprt@xmission.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] E36 vs E46 drag race I checked out the dyno chart at the link below and am still rubbing my eyes. I don't know what was wrong with the E46 M3 that AA was testing but it clearly had some serious problem or wasn't dyno'ed correctly. I realize that the Mustang dyno reads differently than a Dynojet, but that still doesn't explain the small difference in hp between the two nor does it explain the max hp @ 7250rpm of the E46 M3. Friday I emailed a dyno chart to those who are on the cam list to give them an idea of the naturally aspirated potential of their E36 M3's and even speculated in the email that my guess was that a E36 M3 sporting one of our cam kits would be a very close match for the stock E46 M3. In fact, I speculated that an E36 M3 with the cam kit would likely out accelerate a stock E46 M3. We will soon find out as the person who's E36 M3 sporting our upcoming cam kit created the dyno chart at the link below will go head to head with my stock E46 M3 in an acceleration test comparison (BTW both of our cars are the ones compared in the dyno runs). I have personally done acceleration tests with my E46 M3 against moded E36 M3's and have found that both an 1995 E36 M3 with Conforti Euro HFM intake & software minus 400-600lbs (I don't know the exact weight of the car, but it was completely stripped) was able to keep up with my M3 until we hit third gear at which time my car began to pull away at a healthy rate. I recently did an acceleration test with my M3 against a 1998 3.2L M3 with the Shark Injector, standard intake, 9lb flywheel, that weighs in at 2950lbs w/o driver that was also able to keep up with my M3 until 3rd gear. You might want to check out a dyno chart that more accurately paints a picture of the E36 vs E46 M3. This dyno chart shows a stock 1997 M3 vs 1997 M3 with cam kit vs a stock E46 M3. AA's dyno chart is showing the E46 M3 as putting out ~247hp to the rear wheels ?????? yea right they may want to figure out what was wrong with the car they tested because my M3 is putting out 286hp at the rear wheels est. ~246hp @ crank. They might also want to try to figure out how they ended up with an E46 M3 that was generating a hp peak at 7250rpms??? www.eurosporthighperformance.com/cams.html Josh Eurosport At 10:38 AM 10/7/2001 -0500, you wrote: >-------------------- 9 -------------------- >Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 09:41:33 -0500 >From: "The Abels" <aAbel@austin.rr.com> >Subject: Re: [E36M3] E36 vs E46 drag race > >Wow, stock gearing, 'standard' bolt-ons, and you did more than hold your >own! > >Was the E46 wearing track shoes? > >Why was he short shifting? When you look at a dyno comparing a modded E36 >and a stock E46, the real advantage of the E46 is above 6500 rpm. > >http://www.activeautowerke.com/dyno/01%20M3%20vs%2095%20M3%20level2.asp
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. E36 vs E46 drag race - from Josh
Top
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2001 03:05:10 -0600 From: Josh <eurosprt@xmission.com> Subject: E36 vs E46 drag race Rob, Take a look at the dyno runs of a stock E46 M3 vs a stock E36 M3 and then paint a picture in your head of a modified E36 M3 vs a modified E46 M3 (it really wouldn't be that hard to extract 400lbs out of an E46 along with adding another 30hp) and then place your bet cause I am ready to take your money;-) Really without taking too much of your bait, my point is that it wouldn't be very hard to take a modified E30 M3 and compare it to stock E36 M3 and get the same result/similar conclusion. If you want to see things in a vacuum you can. In fact if you want to see an E30 M3 whoop ass on an E36 M3 just head on over to most any BMW club race cause it happens all the time. Either way, this fact really doesn't mean much as the heritage of all of the M3's is well established in competent engineering and comparing a lightened/modified one against the other isn't really a comparison. Personally, I am happy to drive any of 'em and that includes the fabulous US E36 M3. oh yea the dyno charts BTW take a look at the torque curve or rather torque flat of the E46. And check out how amazing the torque improvements are of the E36 w/cam kit and how for a moment @~4300rpms the E36 torque curve is able to meet the E46 M3 stock torque output. www.eurosporthighperformance.com/cams.html Josh Eurosport I will likely have the results of the stock E46 M3 vs E36 3.2L M3 with cam kit acceleration tests later today and will post them to the list. At 10:38 AM 10/7/2001 -0500, you wrote: >-------------------- 2 -------------------- >Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2001 21:40:15 -0600 >From: "Rob" <motor@cadvision.com> >Subject: E36 vs E46 drag race > > Oh I just know I should stop right now before I start a war but I'll >recount my tale from today anyway. > >Spent a great day at the track burning off the last shreds of sticky rubber >before the snows go on and a senior instructor friend of mine had his new >E46 M3 there, and with 10,000km it was finally broken in, so... >The track was almost empty so we decided to go out for a few all-out fun >laps to see how the cars compared (my '95 3.0L, JC Euro HFM, AA exhaust, >coil-overs, bars, 100lb lightened, etc) around the course. The new car was >good but honestly didn't seem to have anywhere near the grip or body control >of my modifed E36, and while he understeered, oversteered, and tried to >finesse the car around the track I drove 10ft behind him wondering when it >was going to take off from my old machine, but it never did. We did a few >laps and everytime we entered the back straight (100km/h) the cars stayed >almost dead even all the way to the braking zone (180km/h) but I know he was >short-shifting by a few hundred RPM's.After a cool down in the pits we >decided it would be fun to stage a rolling drag race on the long straight. >We lined up at about 30km/h in 1st gear and I let the E46 have the "heads >up" start (he hit the gas and then I had to react). My E36 got almost 1 car >length right off the punch, 1 more lenght through 2nd and 3rd and at about >160km/h (100mph) the gap stayed even until ~180km/h when the E46 started to >edge forward but was still not able to pull even with my car when we had to >brake at ~210km/h. Yes I know the these are not drag cars but it was fun to >try and I am pretty happy with the 'ol E36. Can't wait to get the Schricks >and big injectors in there!. >Flame away with how fast the E46 is (I do admit it is an amazing car!) but >I'll put my money on my light E36 to 100mph anyday :) > >Rob
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Re: E46m3 vs E36m3 - from John Genereux
Top
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 05:25:23 -0700 (PDT) From: John Genereux <white98m3@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: E46m3 vs E36m3 I have had a similar experience with the New beast. While up at the Circuit Mont Tremblant I was chasing abd passing an E46 wearing A032R's and upgraded sways. My car is a 98m3 with all the bolt-ons(except coil-overs). This car was being slid all around the track(he was driving like he stole it) However he couldn't shake me. Even on the straight he could only SLOWLY pull away. Gained maybe 1 car length to 130. I would easily catch him in the braking zone as I had Cool willy's and ducts. I have in car video to prove this btw. They are a very nice car however, I can't see the huge cost difference on the track. OT. the Z06 is one crazy track car, I have video of that cat walking away like I was driving a civic !! John 98m3 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month. http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Re:How do you people fit w/ Helmets? - from Jonathan Evans
Top
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 08:57:00 -0400 From: "Jonathan Evans" <jonathanevans@hotmail.com> Subject: Re:How do you people fit w/ Helmets? I'm also a hair over 6'1" and have a bit of problem driving with a helmet. The trick is to get into your best seating position, then tilt the seatback back a little farther. You'll fit fine. I'm not sure about hours of racing in this position, but I didn't feel contorted after an hour of track time. I happen to love the Vader seats and the M3 driving position EXCEPT for the fact that I was not lucky enough to get an earlier 95 with the tilt steering wheel. I'd like it angled down about 15 degrees or so. But that would obscure the top of the tach and speedo, so it's a gave and take. Not sure whether I want to install the retrofit since I've yet to sit in an M3 with a tilt wheel. That being said, my seating position is the classis "Italian Style" with my knees in the dash. Friends of mine who are 5'7" don't have to adjust the seat in my car, and vice versa. Some people make fun of my driving position with statements like "You use BOTH hands to steer all the time?! Ha Ha!" Of course I show them why, and they usually end up nauseous and apologetic. :) -Jonathan 95 M3 with sunroof