-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Re: [E36M3] E36M3 Service II / what to do? parts? - from matthew c. mead
Top
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 22:19:00 -0400 From: "matthew c. mead" <mmead-bmw@goof.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] E36M3 Service II / what to do? parts? On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 11:47:12AM -0700, Jim Bassett wrote: > Check the water level in your battery. Yeah, I omitted that as it's in the standard list. > >I noticed from 94 to 95 the interval on O2 > >sensors jumped from 50k to 100k. Should I replace them at 52k? > I wouldn't unless you have a Check Engine light indicating they're bad. Nothing of the sort. Cool. > >www.performancemotorcars.com (through eAuto) lists Bosch FGR 8 > >KQC spark plugs at $5.29 each. Are these the ones to get? > For a 3.2L M3? Yes. Ordered them. > > At > >52K on the clock, should I bother with wires? > There are no "wires" - each spark plug has it's own coil. No need to > replace them unless they are cracked or otherwise not in good condition. > And I'm not sure, but the coils may need to replaced as a set of 6. $$$$ Yeah, that looked expensive so I'll wait. > >www.performancemotorcars.com also lists a Mahle fuel filter for > >the M3. Is this a decent filter? > That would be a stock-brand filter. Coola - ordered it too. And the local dealer wanted $600-700 to do an Inspection II. I asked about their lead time (3 weeks) and said, "Thanks for your time." -matt -- matthew c. mead 97 Dakar M3/4 - sharked, xbraced 97 White GS-R/4 - stock (wife's) 92 Black Miata - dropped, dampened, headed towards SM http://www.goof.com/~mmead/
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Re: [E36M3] Re: Re: Negatives to E30M3 Control Arms? [Long] - from Chester Wong
Top
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:25:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Chester Wong <chester_p_wong@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Re: Re: Negatives to E30M3 Control Arms? [Long] > That would be extremely interesting to know. You'd think/hope that the > designs would have improved with successive car generations. It's > interesting that the E46 aluminum arm some 54% more massive than the > equivalent E30 part. I managed to crawl under a E46 a few months ago and the control arm is completely different than that for the E36/E30. It's much, much longer. Chester ===== __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! News - Today's headlines http://news.yahoo.com
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Re: [E36M3] Some random thoughts/responses/questions - from Chester Wong
Top
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 19:27:24 -0700 (PDT) From: Chester Wong <chester_p_wong@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Some random thoughts/responses/questions Last I knew from a friend's direct experience, yes...they cover it. Chester > Does anyone know State Farm's stance on DE claim pay outs? I looked over > my policy carefully and didn't find anything that seemed to bear on the > matter, but it looks to me like maybe I don't have the complete policy > terms. ===== __________________________________________________ Yahoo! - We Remember 9-11: A tribute to the more than 3,000 lives lost http://dir.remember.yahoo.com/tribute
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Re: [E36M3] Re: [uuc] E36M3 Service II / what to do? - from Mdriver13@aol.com
Top
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 23:05:11 EDT From: Mdriver13@aol.com Subject: Re: [E36M3] Re: [uuc] E36M3 Service II / what to do? In a message dated 9/11/02 6:55:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, melsilva@mindspring.com writes: > My mileage did go up a little when I sharked my '97 which > is also a sedan. I noticed the same thing as Mel, when I sharked my '97 coupe. I'm somewhere between 20-23mpg for the most part. I think the varied mpg thing is like oil consumption, some s52(is this right?) motors drink it, while others sip. My mpg isn't that high, but I don't burn a drop of oil (knock on wood) between 3,000 mile oil changes. Anyway, if I wanted high mpg, I'd a bought a Honda Civic! There, I think I beat Jim to the punch line ;-)) my two cents, Bob Gill 97 ///M3 coupe Philly Region SCCA AS Champion 1997 & 2000 BSP Champion 2001
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: [E36M3] 2002 SCCA Solo II Nationals - SM Class won by E36 M3 - from Peter Guagenti
Top
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 21:37:50 -0700 From: Peter Guagenti <peter@guagenti.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] 2002 SCCA Solo II Nationals - SM Class won by E36 M3 on 9/11/02 1:53 PM, cteague@cox.net at cteague@cox.net wrote: > The results are up on the SCCA web site: > http://www.scca.org/amateur/solo2/nationals/2002/results/sm.html > > It looks like for the second year in a row, > the SM class was one by an E36 M3, this time > a 95 driven by Jeff Reitmier. The difference here is the blower in the '95. The 3.0L motor lets you run forced induction, something not allowed in SM beyond 3.0L of displacement. Makes the M3 the overdog of the class if you have the $$$ to spend. Glad to see so many Bimmers in the top 10. -p
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Not the Diff. Back to the RSM's - from Steve Klein
Top
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 00:07:34 -0500 From: Steve Klein <klein@robinsonad.com> Subject: Not the Diff. Back to the RSM's Hello again- It's not the rear diff. or sub-frame. Now, I'm looking for the correct part# for the E46 RSM's. In searching the digest, I came across this: <. . .> There are actually two rear shock tower mounts on the E36 one of which is also being used on the E46s. For ///M or heavy duty application it is 33 52 1 137 972. For lighter duty and even the E46s they use 33 52 1 092 362. Of course we all know how well the 972s hold up. There is also a TIS bulletin 33 01 96 particular to Z3s for rattling rear shock tower mounts. It says in part: "The correct number on the mount should read 1 137 971. If the number on the mount reads 1 092 362, the mount MUST be replaced with part number 33 52 1 137 972, along with a new gasket, part number 33 52 1 128 734, and a new plate, part number 33 52 1 091 427. Wipe the inside of the rubber boot that goes on top of the upper mount to remove any excess assembly soap solution left from production. Reinstall upper mount to body, and tighten nuts to 22Nm." </. . . > Is the '972 the correct number? I'd like to pick some up from the dealer at lunch tomorrow if possible. I had the VANOS replaced today and had them thoroughly inspect the entire rear end. I brought the Powerflex rear subframe bushings just in case, and I got a quote for 8 hrs. labor to replace them, but according to their look-over, everything is in good shape and solid enough not to make the noises I'm hearing. I had them test drive with the SM in the back seat and he's convinced it's up high, from the shock mounts. Since the TC Kline monoballs were a recent addition, they're the next wild card I'm going after. And for the record, Koni SA's, H&R OE Sports and Untrimmed poly-celular-pneumatic-linear-spring-progressivity-assistance spongie things. Thanks again, Steve
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: Not the Diff, just a doof. - from Steve Klein
Top
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 00:17:22 -0500 From: Steve Klein <klein@robinsonad.com> Subject: Re: Not the Diff, just a doof. Sorry. I should have looked harder. <. . .> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 10:22:41 -0700 (PDT) From: Chester Wong <chester_p_wong@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Part #'s for E46 RSM's and Z3 plate... 33-52-6-754-096 E46M3 RSM 33-52-1-128-734 Gasket 31-33-1-092-887 Self locking hex nut (2) 33-52-1-137-360 Self locking hex nut (1) 51-71-8-413-359 Z3 reinforcement plate </. . .> Once again, thank you Cester. Fastest Fiche in the West. Steve On another note: What part(s) of the VANOS wear and and are the noisemakers? I asked them to save my old one so I could play with it, so I've disassembled it to marvel at the solution to the aspiration problem. The only loose fit I found was where the spindle of the aluminum 'diaphragm' passes through the main housing, but one is enough, right? Just curious about my new desk sculpture. Also curious about some rattling noises that persist in the upper front of the engine. Upper chain tensioner? I've replaced the lower recently. It is quieter, but not as quiet as I remember. Cheers, Steve
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: [E36M3] Not the Diff. Back to the RSM's - from Jeff A
Top
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 23:57:42 -0500 From: "Jeff A" <aabel@austin.rr.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Not the Diff. Back to the RSM's > snip> Since the TC Kline monoballs were a recent addition, they're the next wild card I'm going after. And for the record, Koni SA's, H&R OE Sports and Untrimmed poly-celular-pneumatic-linear-spring-progressivity-assistance spongie things. > > Thanks again, > Steve FYI, the slightest of play in solid heim-joint type monoball bushings can cause Nasty Rattling Sounds. I know, I had a defective one; it was horrible. Easy to check by jacking the car and checking for lateral play in the trailing arm. I had less than 1mm of free play in mine. Jeff
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Re: [E36M3] Bumpstops are not springs! - from LoweSeaton@aol.com
Top
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 01:02:47 EDT From: LoweSeaton@aol.com Subject: Re: [E36M3] Bumpstops are not springs! aabel@austin.rr.com writes: > you ask where this ludicrous idea of bumpstops > being an active component of a suspension system. Well, how about directly > form the H&R website! Here's the full text: > <snip> > The bumpstop has been replaced by a > supplemental, active foam rubber spring, which is one of the essential > components in the suspension. Ah! I was hoping nobody brought this up. I've seen this, read it, laughed. Very well written. Jeff - ever hear the term "somebody is pulling your leg"? I think H&R is having a little harmless fun. You can't believe everything you read ;-) My argument against the bumpstop being an active, essential part of the suspension is based upon material property and longevity. Car parts have to be durable. They have a pretty hard environment to live in - hot, cold, wet, dry, dirt, 100,000+ miles, 15+ yr life expectancy, ... Ever seen a 4 or 5 yr old bumpstop on a car with 80,000 miles? It is likely to be a hard, dry, cracked, crumbling piece of foam. It might fall apart in your hands if you are not careful handling it. If the bumpstop were truly an active, essential part of the suspension, then it would not last very long. After a couple of years, it would lose its "springy" properties or break to pieces and fall off. If it is so essential, wouldn't your handling go south when that happened? I don't hear people complaining about their handling changing after a few years, hence my argument that the bumpstop is non-essential. Another quick argument. If the rear bumpstop carried any of the "sprung" weight, that would mean the rear shock mount and shock tower would get the load. We have heard of several guys with cracked rear shock towers. The rear shock towers are not made to carry the car's weight. If the bumpstops loaded up the rear shock towers, we would all have cracked shock towers. Since there are relatively few cracked shock towers, I'll argue the shocks are NOT loading the shock towers. No, bumpstops are just that. If you have a full load or hit a very large bump, the bumpstops cushion the blow to the chassis. They are rarely used. Lowell Seaton '95 M3 BMW CCA #131505
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Motons in an E36? - from Rob
Top
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 23:17:00 -0600 From: "Rob" <motor@cadvision.com> Subject: Motons in an E36? The Moton name, as well as JRZ, gets throw around all the time in Club Racing circles as well as other enthusiast circles. Does anyone have any experience with them in an E36? Price aside, are they a possible option for a street/track car? What advantages could one expect to gain from running these in a Solo I or II environment? I understand that they are double or triple adjustable, but so are modified Koni's. TIA, Rob
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Re: [E36M3] More bumpstops functionality [was Klunk Found] - from LoweSeaton@aol.com
Top
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 01:20:53 EDT From: LoweSeaton@aol.com Subject: Re: [E36M3] More bumpstops functionality [was Klunk Found] aabel@austin.rr.com writes: > FWIW, I get exactly 2 7/8" of rear shock travel until spring goes to full > block. I have enough bumpstop now that the last 3/4" of travel is into the > bumpstops <snip> > > When I was running H&R coilovers, before the GC setup, I was certain that I > was into the bumpstops quite a bit. Lowell, I'm not sure of the reason why > your car is immune to bumpstop setup, Oh! This is easy to explain. I have a lot longer springs! You have coilovers. You are using Eibach 2.25" diameter springs right? What length on the rear? 6"? 7"? I've got Dinan OEM replacement springs. My rear springs are almost 10" long. Stock OE rear springs are about 10.5" long. I don't know how I would measure it with the springs in but I'm sure I have way more than 2 7/8" of travel before my Dinan springs bind up. > but my H&R setup and my current GC > setup are sensitive enough to bumpstop length that dramatic difference in > ride quality and handling can effected with proper length bumpstops. I don't want to argue since I don't have a better solution but technically, you should redesign your rear suspension so you are not relying on the bumpstop for that last 3/4" of travel. It is just the price you pay for lowering the car. Sounds like you have figured out a workable solution. Not ideal, but it works OK. Be sure to watch the bumpstop and replace it when it starts to disintegrate. Lowell