-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Re: [E36M3] Rear Alignment?!? - from Jim Bassett
Top
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 12:12:09 -0700 From: Jim Bassett <jimbassett@attbi.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Rear Alignment?!? At 11:43 AM 9/12/02, twisty M3 wrote: >Oy! Enough stories about this damn car of mine. ;) So, yesterday I go in >for an alignment, and it all goes sour. It's the "old" Hunter machine >that requires the two front bits to "see" each other across the car. Due >to my camber, those two pieces can't get a reading off of one another, so >he tries swapping the back and front pieces to see if that work. Long >story short... No dice. I ended up wasting 2.5 hours of my life AND had >to pay for it. Tell him to take the covers off the front sensors, it helps. BTDT. >1) The alignment guy claimed that the rear camber on our cars couldn't be >adjusted at all (toe only). Is this true?? I could swear that I had the >rear adjusted a couple of years ago. You are correct sir, the rear camber CAN be adjusted. Find a new alignment guy. >2) Would replacing rear shocks require an alignment if nothing else were >replaced. (H&R Sport springs, switching from Koni s/a to Blist.) I don't think so. Jim Bassett
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. New plugs: now missing at idle - from Chris Gant
Top
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 15:20:08 -0400 From: Chris Gant <cgant@cox.net> Subject: New plugs: now missing at idle I recently changed out the spark plugs on my 95M3 with the Bosch F7LDCR's. Now, while idling it 'misses' a little but runs strong while driving around. Is this because of the plugs, or did I do something wrong while replacing them? Could it be the coils? Should I have gone with the NGK BKR6EK plugs? Engine mods: JC chip burned for intake, Euro HFM, LTW flywheel, exhaust. Thanks Chris Gant
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Re: [E36M3] Rear Alignment?!? - from twisty M3
Top
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 12:49:06 -0700 From: "twisty M3" <twistym3@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Rear Alignment?!? >From: Jim Bassett <jimbassett@attbi.com> > >Tell him to take the covers off the front sensors, it helps. BTDT. > haha! Actually, that wasn't it. It would read across when the car was lifted, but with -3° camber, they could only read the floor. > >You are correct sir, the rear camber CAN be adjusted. > Geez! How do I find these losers?!? And this is actually the place that my local dealer used to recommend, until they got their own rack. > >Find a new alignment guy. > Done! Jonathan L. _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Re: Rear Alignment?!? - from Neil Maller
Top
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 14:53:53 -0500 From: Neil Maller <neil.maller@gte.net> Subject: Re: Rear Alignment?!? on 9/12/02 1:53 PM, "twisty M3" <twistym3@hotmail.com> wrote: > Away from the ranting and on to the questions... > > 1) The alignment guy claimed that the rear camber on our cars couldn't be > adjusted at all (toe only). Is this true?? I could swear that I had the > rear adjusted a couple of years ago. You need a new alignment guy, and for more reasons than one, 'cause he's full of it. The outboard pivot bolt of the rear lower control arm is an eccentric. In fact there's a washer with a visible scale on it for heavens sake. The toe, of course, is adjusted by loosening the 3 RTB carrier bolts and tapping the trailing arm in or out. > 2) Would replacing rear shocks require an alignment if nothing else were > replaced. (H&R Sport springs, switching from Koni s/a to Blist.) Only if the Bilstein's gas pressure springing materially affects the ride height. Neil 96 M3
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: [E36M3] Re: MPG - from Zack Steinkamp
Top
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:08:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Zack Steinkamp <edsarkiss@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Re: MPG --- Paul D Agustin <agustin@iaxs.net> wrote: > I also have the LTW wing w/o the > spacers installed, so > my mileage would go up about 1 mpg if it were not > installed. yeah, but you would lose AT LEAST 40 horsepower... -zs
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. e30 m3 CONTROL ARMS - from Tim Ng
Top
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:36:49 -0700 From: "Tim Ng" <s14realm3@peachtreebmwcca.org> Subject: e30 m3 CONTROL ARMS LET SEE, E30 m3 weight=2850# E46 M3 weight=~3300#s. E30 M3 had 15" 205-55-15 tires standard from factory E46 M3 has 18" 225-18" in the front from factory E30 M3=192 h.p. E46 M3=333 h.p. please don't start the E30/e46 thing again. just pointing out the fact that they are very different cars from different ERA. Tim 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. Neil 96 M3 Tim Ng 95 E36 M3 BzznM3 92 E30 325ic M-tech convetible 91 E30 M3 street car 88 E30 M3 Track car 93 Chevy Blazer 2 dr. tow vehicle
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: [E36M3] Re: MPG - from Reid Conti
Top
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 16:10:36 -0700 From: Reid Conti <reid@conti.net> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Re: MPG this depends SO much on speed. Coming back across the mountains from eastern washington, I probably pulled 27-28mpg in my 95. Of course, I had the cruise set on 70 (in a 70 zone) because cops were EVERYWHERE and I'm paranoid after lots of tickets recently.. Bumping it up to 75 or 80 will KILL your mileage. Even not using cruise will hurt you. If you cruised at 60mph you could destroy the 30mpg barrier in your m3 I bet.. And this has almost nothing to do with gas. The mileage on a non-chipped car on 91 octane gas versus 94 octane Sunoco would be nil. For fun, download the DOS-based cartest program. Look at vehicle mileage versus speed/gear.. it's incredible. - reid On Thursday, Sep 12, 2002, at 11:43 US/Pacific, Paul D Agustin wrote: > Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 09:31:38 -0500 > From: Paul D Agustin <agustin@iaxs.net> > Subject: Re: MPG > > Wow Rich I'm envious! My 95 M3 just turned 35,000 and I only get 20-21 > mpg. Granted my drive is 8.5 miles and over half of that is city stop > and go driving. I also have the LTW wing w/o the spacers installed, so > my mileage would go up about 1 mpg if it were not installed. My cross > country trip to bring the M3 home I got a little over 24 mpg. I was > averaging 77 miles an hour so I wasn't really pushing her at all and I > still can't attain your mpg. Like I said I'm completely envious. :) > > Paul > > > ************************************************************* > 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. > ************************************************************* > >
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: [E36M3] re: E36M3 Service II / what to do? parts - from Reid Conti
Top
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 16:15:06 -0700 From: Reid Conti <reid@conti.net> Subject: Re: [E36M3] re: E36M3 Service II / what to do? parts how did you manage 55-60 to eastern washington? Wow! I could only keep it to 70 on the way back from the gorge because it was dark! 28 even sounds a bit low for those speeds, but you had a full car. I once drove to Chelan from Seattle in my 95 M3, got 27mpg (over 3 mountain passes!). Next week did it in my GF's E46 328Ci 5spd (no sport, so narrow tires), got 33mpg! I think you get good mileage on that drive because of the relatively low average speed (probably around 60-65 with all of the 2 laners). - reid On Thursday, Sep 12, 2002, at 11:43 US/Pacific, Burgess, Kim L wrote: > Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 09:18:06 -0700 > From: "Burgess, Kim L" <kim.l.burgess@boeing.com> > Subject: re: E36M3 Service II / what to do? parts > > Just recently I traveled with the wife two children and all our gear > for a > weeks vacation from Seattle out I-90 to mid Washington State - > traveling in > a stock car @ 55-60 w/cruise I got 28 for the three hour cruise across > the > Cascades. The trip home however, a different route w/more aggressive > driving, I averaged 22. Throttle input, tire width (hysteresis), tire > pressure (hysteresis-again), ambient temp., altitude, fuel quality, > etc., > etc., all play a roll in mileage, most notable though are the right > foot > input (or lack thereof) and steady state (reasonable) speed. > > Kim Burgess > > > ************************************************************* > 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] Bumpstops are [not] springs! - from Jeff A
Top
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 18:41:37 -0500 From: "Jeff A" <aabel@austin.rr.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Bumpstops are [not] springs! Just wanted to update the misinformation in this exchange. I indeed = took the previously posted text from the H&R website as accurate = information. Guess what folks? It is. I talked with the H&R tech guys today. While lighthearted, the = article is technically accurate. I was also told that the term = 'bumpstop' is really being phased out from use, as even OE manufacturers = call these things 'elastomer springs' or 'foam spings' to me more = accurate. Also, I got some measurements from a bone stock 99 M3. OE front = suspension gets 3/4" of free travel from static ride height before = contacting the bumpstops. The rear gets 1 1/4" for free travel before = contact. (my setup in the rear gets just over 2" of free travel) So, in the end, I suggest trimming bumpstops *if you know what the = heck you are doing*. In this regard, I took the time, working closely = with GC, to optimize my setup. When I talked with the H&R tech guys, I = was told that they indeed suggest trimming (not removing) OE bumpstops = when using their Sport and Race spring sets, according to specific = parameters (springs designed for a certain bumpstop length). Finally, I was informed why Lowell wasn't bottoming out in the rear = with removed bumpstops. OE spring perches are actually secondary = bumpstops, "Oh Sh!t" bumpstops if you will. Those remain intact even = after removal of the shock bumpstops (these should have been reused by = Lowell with the Dinan springs). Jeff, with properly functioning bumpstop springy elastomer = proggressive foamy thingies 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=20
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Re: [E36M3] Bumpstops are [not] springs! - from NickG
Top
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 20:39:44 -0400 From: "NickG" <nick@tech-nick.net> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Bumpstops are [not] springs! > I was also told that the term = > 'bumpstop' is really being phased out from use, as even OE manufacturers = > call these things 'elastomer springs' or 'foam spings' to me more = > accurate. Out of curiousity, I checked the TIS and it refers to them as 'Absorber'. Nick