-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. RE: [E36M3] Resetting the Service lights. - from Mel Silva
Top
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 10:22:30 -0500 From: "Mel Silva" <melsilva@mindspring.com> Subject: RE: [E36M3] Resetting the Service lights. 'check http://www.unofficialbmw.com/e36/electrical/e36_reset_service_lights.html I made this out of stuff I had laying around in the garage (FREE) and it works great. Mel -----Original Message----- From: morris.michael@adlittle.com [mailto:morris.michael@adlittle.com] Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 8:29 AM To: E36M3 Subject: [E36M3] Resetting the Service lights. Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 09:23:55 -0400 From: morris.michael@adlittle.com Subject: Resetting the Service lights. Hello List. Is there a way to reset the oil service lights without having the special tool. Can you just pull a fuse to do it? I vaguely remember someone saying that it can be done without the tool, maybe using a paperclip? Thanks, Mike Morris (with a girlfriend who can design stickers.) **** This is intended for the addressee only and may contain confidential business information. It may not be copied without our permission. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender as soon as possible and delete the material from any computer.**** ************************************************************* List Commands UNSUBSCRIBE - (in subject line) unsubscribes you from the mailing list. DIR - sends a listing of files available in the list's GET directory. GET filename1.ext,filename2.ext - sends the requested file(s). To issue a command/request to the server: Send a message with the command you wish executed as the subject of the message to the email address e36m3@bmw-m.net. *************************************************************
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. E36 cam package - from andy radin
Top
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 09:26:22 -0700 From: "andy radin" <fourfa@mindspring.com> Subject: E36 cam package Josh, How stock was the "stock" run shown in this dyno comparison? I noticed its redline extends up to the Sharked redline of 7200. Did it already have the plain-jane software upgrade? > http://www.eurosporthighperformance.com/cams.html andy r. 98 m3/2
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. RE: [E36M3] E36 vs E46, modified vs stock - from Mel Silva
Top
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 10:44:48 -0500 From: "Mel Silva" <melsilva@mindspring.com> Subject: RE: [E36M3] E36 vs E46, modified vs stock Hey, I'm think along the same lines. Since the 3.2L S52US has more low end torque than the E46 engine (I do not know the spec number), it sounds like an easy proposition. Besides the exclusion of double Vanos and the Euro 6 throttle bodies, what can we do to get the S52's specs to match that of the E46? Or am I just chasing parked cars here? Mel -----Original Message----- From: Burgess, Kim L [mailto:kim.l.burgess@boeing.com] Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 9:39 AM To: E36M3 Subject: [E36M3] E36 vs E46, modified vs stock Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 07:11:11 -0700 From: "Burgess, Kim L" <kim.l.burgess@boeing.com> Subject: E36 vs E46, modified vs stock It was written: "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<snip>~180km/h when the E46 started to edge forward<snip>we had to brake at ~210km/h." looking at http://www.activeautowerke.com/dyno/01%20M3%20vs%2095%20M3%20level2.asp It has been my experience that torque = acceleration (of which the E46 seems short of early in the revs) and HP = speed (revs - which the E46 seems to have a lot of!). How do these engines, the stock 95 vs the stock 2001, compare? How does the stock 96 - 99 3.2L compare? Thanks KLBurgess 99M3/2 How 'bout that new OBII cam kit? ************************************************************* List Commands UNSUBSCRIBE - (in subject line) unsubscribes you from the mailing list. DIR - sends a listing of files available in the list's GET directory. GET filename1.ext,filename2.ext - sends the requested file(s). To issue a command/request to the server: Send a message with the command you wish executed as the subject of the message to the email address e36m3@bmw-m.net. *************************************************************
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. RE: [E36M3] Now RFG II Gas - from Mel Silva
Top
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 10:12:11 -0500 From: "Mel Silva" <melsilva@mindspring.com> Subject: RE: [E36M3] Now RFG II Gas HooRah for Lowell! This is _the_ most intelligent thing I have heard come out of the EPA (well, he did work there at one time) in 15 years! The Norcal-Shelby club (I am still a member) has long been an opponent of the RFG (and MTBE) in California. They are well connected with SEMA and the VMOA (Vintage Mustang Owners Assoc). Maybe it's time for all enthusiasts to join together against the EPA and make them prove to the public what good RFG is doing besides bolstering the economy though false requirements. Apparently the Chemical plant that manufactures MTBE is right here in southeast Houston (opposite side of downtown from me, 'cause I don't want to be smellin' that stink all day) Mel 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 ************************************************************* List Commands UNSUBSCRIBE - (in subject line) unsubscribes you from the mailing list. DIR - sends a listing of files available in the list's GET directory. GET filename1.ext,filename2.ext - sends the requested file(s). To issue a command/request to the server: Send a message with the command you wish executed as the subject of the message to the email address e36m3@bmw-m.net. *************************************************************
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: [E36M3] E36 vs E46 drag race - from Rob
Top
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 10:17:27 -0600 From: "Rob" <motor@cadvision.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] E36 vs E46 drag race Josh wrote: " 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." **This sounds about right to me. My car did a bit better against the E46 than Josh reports but maybe I have a 'lucky' M3, maybe the E46 was built late on Friday or maybe it was my driving vs his. "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;-)" **Yes I know that one day we will see very fast E46 M3's but I was only talking about the stock one I raced. "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." **I agree. I am not E46 M3 bashing, but with all the talk about hype around how fast the 333HP new version is I thought people might like to hear about one isolated race against the 'ol dawg!. Now if only I could ship my E36 over to the 'Ring for my trip in a month we could compare lap times :) "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." **Josh, can you speculate for a minute as to why the E36 M3's didn't come with this type of cam from the factory?. It doesn't appear to give up any low end torque or HP yet makes way more on top. Are these really magic sticks?. My only guess is emissions related. For those who asked how my E36 was lightened. No spare, no cruise, Konig seats (saved 25lbs ea), no air bags, no carpet in trunk, 17" BBS RC's. Regards, Rob
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Re: Now RFG II Gas - from Ron Buchalski
Top
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 14:46:17 From: "Ron Buchalski" <rbuchals@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Now RFG II Gas I knew you'd have a few words on the topic. Thanks! -rb >From: LoweSeaton@aol.com >To: rbuchals@hotmail.com, e36m3@bmw-m.net >Subject: Now RFG II Gas >Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 04:29:51 EDT > >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. <snip excellent rant> >OK. Better stop ranting before I burst a blood vessel. > >Lowell Seaton >'95 M3 _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: E36 vs E46 drag race - from Ron Katona
Top
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 11:01:14 -0400 From: "Ron Katona" <rkatona@bellatlantic.net> Subject: Re: E36 vs E46 drag race Josh wrote: > 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. Of course the big point that you make is that a stock to modified comparison is a crap shoot. We'd all have our butts kicked by the X5 "SAV" that lapped Nurburgring faster than any other BMW ever... and almost any other production based car barring a couple of Porsche race cars. OK, it had a 700 hp race motor and a guy named Stuck driving, but who's counting? The torque curves depicted on that dyno run really do tell a story though. It's obvious that with the weight advantage there are certain areas of the torque curve, in certain gears, at certain speeds, that a properly modified E36 M3 can certainly be faster than a stock E46 M3. The nice thing for us E36 M3 owners is that we're talking an "off the shelf" upgrade rather than an enginge swap or forced induction. We can upgrade our cars to hang with the new iron for a couple K rather than shelling out the 50K for the new model. Yeah, when the E46 guys start to modify (and especially lighten) the new car, it will be formidable... but not so much that the E36 will be uncompetitive in things like the local autocross. One thing to notice though is how close the power to weight ratios become when you look at RWHP on a modified E36 vs. the stock E46. Assuming both cars have about a 15% driveline loss, the E46 is losing much more power from flywheel to rear wheel. If you have a lightened E36 M3 (2950 lb is easy to achieve) then add 200 lb for a driver and some essentials, you've got a 3150 lb car. If you can make 250 hp at the rear wheels (~295 at the crank), you've got 12.60 lb/hp at the ground. With the E46, Josh shows 286 RWHP. That car with the same 200 lb load weights in at what... 3600 lb? Hmm... that's 12.59 lb/hp! The E46 is supposedly a more slippery shape than the E36, bit it's also bigger meaning the Cd is potentially offset by greater frontal area. IOWs, a lightened, ~300 hp E36 M3 should be able to hang with the E46 M3 in a straight line all day long - any difference would be in gearing. Plus you have the handling benefits of the lighter car. OTOH, you can also say that you have to remove 200 lb from the E36 and add 50-60 hp just to make it competitive with the new car. Different perspectives... > 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. Can't wait to see them! -- Ron Katona
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. E36: Window regulators - from Anthony Le
Top
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 10:42:07 -0500 From: Anthony Le <anthony.le@wcom.com> Subject: E36: Window regulators Anyone ever have problem with their window going up and sticking at various point then finally GRINDING (krrr) when it gets to the end like it doesn't know where to stop? I lubed all the regulator joints and adjusted the window but no change. Any idea what's wrong? thanks, anthony
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Re: How do you people fit w/ Helmets? - from Daniel Snyder
Top
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 09:36:29 -0700 From: "Daniel Snyder" <m3ltw@msn.com> Subject: Re: How do you people fit w/ Helmets? > From: "Hank Wallace" <hwallace@ebimmer.com> > Subject: How do you people fit w/ Helmets? > > > I put the helmet on tonight and squeezed into the M3, > but had to slouch just to get in. How do you people do it? I am 6'1'' - > there must be others my height with this issue.. > > Are the power seats in my M3 causing this issue? Do the manual seats sit > lower? > > Hank Wallace I offer two alternatives from a 6'3" perspective, well three: 1) slouch more and lean the seat back (but pull it forward so you can reach the wheel-knees around your chin) 2) buy a racing seat (1 piece, of course, 12 lbs), and swap them for every event,... get sick of that and just leave the darn thing in all the time,... but also your 5 point harness since you also lost the seatbelt buckle which mounts on the stock seat. Then, buy another, since it matches the driver's seat.... 3) rip out the seat mounts and make a custom bracket that allows you to mount your seat (racing or otherwise) anywhere you want (so as to clear that new cage that takes up even more headroom)...and keeping your body-weight (which is allot in my case) lower in the car....gosh the stupid things we (I) do for racing! Any other questions that you need simple answers to? Dan S.
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Re: Now RFG II Gas - from Mark Kelly
Top
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 10:52:39 -0400 From: Mark Kelly <mark@garden.net> Subject: Re: Now RFG II Gas I don't know which car was the "last" model year to be sold with a carb in the U.S., but the Jeep Grand Wagoneer was sold up to 1991 (some argue 92) with a Carb!! Chrysler didn't want to design a new F.I setup for the old AMC 360. mark >-------------------- 6 -------------------- >Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 04:29:51 EDT >From: LoweSeaton@aol.com >Subject: Now RFG II Gas >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.