-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Re: [E36M3] Re: I'm Crooked - Alignment Help - from Matt Henson
Top
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 11:33:33 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Henson <hensonator@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Re: I'm Crooked - Alignment Help I think that one could make the argument that as the total camber increases the negative stability impact of everything, including cross camber, will also increase. I'd get some shims and even it out as much as possible. -Matt --- Neil Maller <neil.maller@gte.net> wrote: > Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 08:57:00 -0500 > From: Neil Maller <neil.maller@gte.net> > Subject: Re: I'm Crooked - Alignment Help > > WHOOPS! Correction to my previous post - my bad. > > I just noticed the TIS footnote specifying a max > side-to-side difference in > camber and caster of 30 min. > > So your cross camber at 42 min is in fact slightly > out of spec. Nonetheless > in my experience this is not only typical for used > M3s, but maybe even > better than average. > > Neil > 96 M3 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping. http://shopping.yahoo.com
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Re: [E36M3] Dyno in LA? - from Matt Henson
Top
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 11:41:34 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Henson <hensonator@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Dyno in LA? Can't help you with LA. It's probably safe to dyno it. It's not required to take it to the rev limiter. I think that most M3's max out at like 6500, certainly less than 7K. There's no reason to go higher than that. The dyno operator can probably see when it's over the power peak and stop the test. I'm sure we'd all like to hear how it turns out. -Matt --- Juan Rico <juan_rico@captionsinc.com> wrote: > Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 09:37:05 -0800 > From: Juan Rico <juan_rico@captionsinc.com> > Subject: Dyno in LA? > > > Hi All, > > Anybody know a reputable shop that can dyno my car > in LA? > Sorry to be such an ignorant in this area, but is it > safe to dyno a 140K > mile car? > Does dynoing a car *require* to hit the rev limiter > to get the max power > results? > I've only hit the rev limiter twice on my car over > its lifetime and, > frankly, > I don't want to start doing it now. Why make a 70 > year old man run a > marathon? > Then again, what do I know... > > > Juan. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping. http://shopping.yahoo.com
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. I'm Crooked - Alignment Help - from j.demartino@us.qiagen.com
Top
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 20:19:36 +0100 From: j.demartino@us.qiagen.com Subject: I'm Crooked - Alignment Help "BTW the car feels defiantly different now. May be a hair off (I mean miniscule). I ran down a straight moderate throttle, and hands off and it pulled a bit to the right but I think that it was the road doing it." Hi Robert, This issue was one of my few complaints about my '99M3... and it did irritate the hell out of me!. My 99 M3 always pulled to the right and despite several alignments, sets of tires, strut hat swap, and (camber) washers, I never got rid of the pull. One well reputed shop suggested that castor should be staggered a bit to compensate for the crown of the road but the castor naturally is not adjustable. This may be true, but I would ask how so many cars manage to get it right. My girlfriends Honda Prelude as well as my '99 MCoupe have identical castor readings side to side and do not pull at all. Good luck. John
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Re: Shark - from Neil Maller
Top
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 15:06:36 -0500 From: Neil Maller <neil.maller@gte.net> Subject: Re: Shark on 12/4/01 2:38 PM, "Joseph Bachman III" <josephbachman@hotmail.com> wrote: > I am thinking about sharking my 99 M3/2, and I'm curious if it is in any > way harmful or reduces engine longevity. Mine is a street queen that I would > like to keep forever. If I can get some more umph, great, but I don't in any > way want to comprimise its life span. Am I being ridiculous? Engine longevity, other things being equal, is a function of how hard you beat on it. To the extent that reprogramming the ECU and raising the redline slightly in the upper 3 gears may allow you to beat on it harder, then the answer would technically have to be "yes." In every other practical way, the answer is "no." In addition Jim's reprogramming actually improves everyday drivability. > Also, do I need to worry about where I get one (knock offs)? Thanks for the > help. I know you track junkies must be shaking your heads in disbelief at this > one... Perfectly reasonable questions. Back before OBD-II, when you could still replace an anonymous looking chip, there were reported incidents with knock-offs. With your OBD-II car the ECU is reprogrammed in place using the Shark Injector device, which isn't susceptible to casual piracy. Of course buying it from a respectable vendor such as Eurosport doesn't hurt either. Budget permitting, you might want to consider getting the whole Cold Air Intake/programming package. According to my timed runs Jim's reprogramming principally benefits the low and midrange, but the CAI opens up the top end a bit too. It also makes a glorious noise above 4K rpm at WOT, while remaining discreet otherwise. Neil 96 M3 - Conforti/Eurosport CAI, other goodies.
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. RE: [E36M3] Re: Shark - from jim.bassett@alloptic.com
Top
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 12:31:14 -0800 From: jim.bassett@alloptic.com Subject: RE: [E36M3] Re: Shark > In addition Jim's reprogramming actually improves everyday > drivability. This is definitely one of the plusses that tends to get passed over. The power delivery is smoother, and when lifting off the throttle in first gear (like in stop-n-go traffic), the injectors turn off much smoother as well, making it less "jerky". > Budget permitting, you might want to consider getting the > whole Cold Air > Intake/programming package. According to my timed runs Jim's > reprogramming > principally benefits the low and midrange, but the CAI opens > up the top end > a bit too. It also makes a glorious noise above 4K rpm at WOT, while > remaining discreet otherwise. I whole-heartedly agree! There's nothing quite like the look you get from passing someone with that CAI at full roar at WOT :-) Cheers, Jim Bassett 1998 M3/4 - Sharked & Intaked, among other things 1993 325is #44 KP - Sharked, Intaked, Cammed, etcetcetc :-)
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Re: [E36M3] Retainer "float" (was Cam timing) - from RogRacer@aol.com
Top
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 16:28:27 EST From: RogRacer@aol.com Subject: Re: [E36M3] Retainer "float" (was Cam timing) When this subject first arose many years ago, Brett Anderson made the following observation: If the retainers were bent to any significant degree, then the idle behavior would be extremely poor, and you'd be complaining about that long before any loss of horsepower. Not sure if this is true- there may be other experiences- but Brett was adament about it. Next, the "improved" retainers had, if I recall correctly, an extra 10 microns of nitriding. This is a surface hardening treatment that has no real benefit to the bending strength of the retainer...which is the typical descibed failure mode. Lastly, defunct IMSA Street Stock teams discovered in 1994-1995, the hard way, that improved overrev protection was obtained through higher rate valve springs....not the retainers at all. The theory was, and the one which I believe, is that valve float at rpms over 7.3Krpm (or so) would cause the pistons to hit the valves and therefore "punch" the retainers into plastic deformation. At the time, and I haven't really heard any convincing stories to the contrary in the years since, that the "classically described" retainer failures are a result of simple mechanical overrev. If new information has come to light, I'd like to hear it. TIA, -Roger RogRacer@aol.com '95 M3...early retainers...no overrevs...smooth idle.
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Extended warranties again - actual experiences - from Josh Criswold
Top
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 13:33:11 -0800 (PST) From: Josh Criswold <g_force_alt@yahoo.com> Subject: Extended warranties again - actual experiences I remember back in August we did a group buy for Warranty Gold. I wasn't ready for an extended warranty then, but am now. Putting aside for the moment who has the best coverage, who has the best price, and whether an extended warranty is a financially prudent move, I would like to know: Who has had good/bad experiences with their extended warranty? what particularly was good/bad? how is the claims processing? who did you buy the warranty from? I've searched the archives on Suzy's web page and seen many responses, but most center on the initial cost outlay rather than whether they'll pay when it comes time. Also, BTW a search of Warranty Gold on google.com brings up several posts from various forums of people having problems with WG (within the past year). Presumably, more that a few of us have Warranty Gold warranties. I want to know if those who have the WG warranty have had bad experiences, or is the fact that I can find posts like this just b/c there are a lot of people out there with WG warranties and you can't please all of the people all of the time. Thanks Josh G '98 M3 Cosmos '72 2002tii Polaris __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping. http://shopping.yahoo.com
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: [E36M3] Extended warranties again - actual experiences - from David Bauer
Top
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 15:53:15 -0600 From: David Bauer <dbauer@blkbox.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Extended warranties again - actual experiences Josh, I haven't had to use my Warranty Gold warranty for my truck yet but I did get a letter the other day saying they had sold it to another servicing company. I hope that isn't anything to worry about... My M3 has a warranty the PO purchased from the dealer and I haven't had any problems with claims on it. Dave Josh Criswold wrote: > > Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 13:33:11 -0800 (PST) > From: Josh Criswold <g_force_alt@yahoo.com> > Subject: Extended warranties again - actual experiences > > I remember back in August we did a group buy for > Warranty Gold. I wasn't ready for an extended > warranty then, but am now. Putting aside for the > moment who has the best coverage, who has the best > price, and whether an extended warranty is a > financially prudent move, I would like to know: > > Who has had good/bad experiences with their extended > warranty? what particularly was good/bad? how is the > claims processing? who did you buy the warranty from? > > I've searched the archives on Suzy's web page and seen > many responses, but most center on the initial cost > outlay rather than whether they'll pay when it comes > time. Also, BTW a search of Warranty Gold on > google.com brings up several posts from various forums > of people having problems with WG (within the past > year). Presumably, more that a few of us have > Warranty Gold warranties. I want to know if those who > have the WG warranty have had bad experiences, or is > the fact that I can find posts like this just b/c > there are a lot of people out there with WG warranties > and you can't please all of the people all of the > time. > > Thanks > Josh G > > '98 M3 Cosmos > '72 2002tii Polaris > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping. > http://shopping.yahoo.com > > ************************************************************* > 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. > *************************************************************
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Re: [E36M3] Retainer "float" (was Cam timing) - from Matt Henson
Top
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 13:56:49 -0800 (PST) From: Matt Henson <hensonator@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Retainer "float" (was Cam timing) A I understand it, the steel retainers are a fairly significant portion of the total mass in the recipricating portion of the valve train. Therefore, replacing them with Ti would increase the resonant RPM and therefore the point at which float begins. Even bigger gains could come from the lighter solid lifters. It's pretty easy to find the LTW Ti retainers but I've yet to locate any stiffer springs for the M3. I'm sure that you can get them if you know the right people but it's not clear where they can be had on the internet. From the sound of it all those folks with the hot cams would probably love another few hundred RPM. I'm sure that the SC guys would as well. I believe that the key to making a 400++HP turbo system without killing the driveline is through a higher RPM limit ( and the hardware to take advantage of it). -Matt --- RogRacer@aol.com wrote: > Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 16:28:27 EST > From: RogRacer@aol.com > Subject: Re: [E36M3] Retainer "float" (was Cam > timing) > > When this subject first arose many years ago, Brett > Anderson made the following observation: If the > retainers were bent to any significant degree, then > the idle behavior would be extremely poor, and you'd > be complaining about that long before any loss of > horsepower. Not sure if this is true- there may be > other experiences- but Brett was adament about it. > > Next, the "improved" retainers had, if I recall > correctly, an extra 10 microns of nitriding. This > is a surface hardening treatment that has no real > benefit to the bending strength of the > retainer...which is the typical descibed failure > mode. > > Lastly, defunct IMSA Street Stock teams discovered > in 1994-1995, the hard way, that improved overrev > protection was obtained through higher rate valve > springs....not the retainers at all. The theory > was, and the one which I believe, is that valve > float at rpms over 7.3Krpm (or so) would cause the > pistons to hit the valves and therefore "punch" the > retainers into plastic deformation. At the time, > and I haven't really heard any convincing stories to > the contrary in the years since, that the > "classically described" retainer failures are a > result of simple mechanical overrev. > > If new information has come to light, I'd like to > hear it. > > TIA, > -Roger > RogRacer@aol.com > '95 M3...early retainers...no overrevs...smooth > idle. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping. http://shopping.yahoo.com
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. UGH! - from Mark Radelow
Top
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 21:59:00 +0000 From: "Mark Radelow" <radelow@hotmail.com> Subject: UGH! My car went into the shop to replace the Vanos unit and they found coolant in the oil. So I guess I have a bad headgasket which is weird because the car has never been overheated (at least since I owned it). The car has 65k miles. Anyone else have this happen and have any idea the cost to replace? My shop quoted me $1200. fAIR? Mark _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp