-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. It's a 97, not a 95 - from Christopher Griffith
Top
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 19:46:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Christopher Griffith <ctgriffit@yahoo.com> Subject: It's a 97, not a 95 Rich wrote: > > > >Wow, that I would like to see. 223 rwhp from a > stock '95 M3!! That is something like 265 - 270 > crank hp. They must have handpicked one too many > motors off the line for the LTWs and slammed it into > this stock M3 instead. > > > >:-) > > > >Regards, > > > >Rich > > > >95 - hopes it has 223 rwhp with JC chip/intake and > Euro HFM I think Lowell is referring to my car (Hi Lowell), which is actually a 97 M3 not a 95. When stock it put out 223.8hp and 225.8 lb ft. of torque. This was on the same day as ~30 other M3s were dynoed here in Dallas. Since then, the car has become a Dinan Stage IV car. Essentially, every mod but the supercharger. Plus, a few other tricks. How much does it put out now? I don't know. I went to get it dynoed once, but the check engine light came on. So I didn't get a clean run. My goal is to get it to 240+ before cams in preperation for club racing. Chris G. Dallas, TX with one very quick M3 __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Re: [E36M3] Airbag light - from Andrej Dolenc
Top
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 23:09:19 -0400 From: Andrej Dolenc <adolenc@erols.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Airbag light > Okay, I am on the road . . . again and my airbag light on the dash comes on. > Re-start goes off and then on again. Drove 4 hours (through the north east > Ohio roads - great torque and fun) and no issue. I need to drive that home > again. Any issues before I hit the road again? My 'tool' is at home and no > readout when I hit the check on the computer. > thanks > Paul Smith > 98 M3/4/5 with the guy blowing the bubble light on. I've been corresponding with John Firestone about this issue a bit as I recently had the same airbag idiot light come on. The Peake airbag reset tool read out what I had suspected - drivers seatbelt sensor. The deal here is that the sensor in the seatbelts was suspect, it was known to go bad eventually. Apparently this had been redesigned at some point, so what John was suspecting, and what my findings may back up, is that the connector under the seat where the seatbelt sensor feeds into the car's brain may get jiggled or corrode or something like that. When that happens, the airbag light comes on. It will stay on until it's reset, either by the dealer or with the Peake tool. Like I said, my light came on not too long ago. The tool indicated drivers seatbelt latch. I've already had the whole seatbelt latch replaced 2.5 years ago. So what I figured was this: Reset the airbag light. If the sensor really is bad again, it'll trip the airbag light again. If the sensor is still OK and it was a glitch in the connection, the idiot light should stay off. The light has been off for 2 days now since I've reset it. BTW, if the seatbelt latch sensor is in fact dead, the airbag will still deploy, only it will deploy as if you are not wearing your seatbelt. From what I recall (somebody on the list can verify this) if the sensor is working and you're belted in, the airbags will deploy at a higher impact speed than if you're not belted in. Andrej '97 M3
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Re: [E36M3] Who wants to go in on a 24lb injector buy? - from Bruce
Top
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 22:21:13 -0500 From: "Bruce" <gobuffs93@attbi.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Who wants to go in on a 24lb injector buy? DOH! I remembered some web space I have on ummmm...you'll see. http://members.roadfly.com/slawz3/dyno.JPG Bruce 95 M3 89 M3 2.5 > Looks like no attachments. If anybody wants to see the dyno curve email me. > If I could figure out ATTBI's webpage service I could post it, but I haven't > had any luck yet.
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Re: [E36M3] It's a 97, not a 95 - from LoweSeaton@aol.com
Top
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 23:53:18 EDT From: LoweSeaton@aol.com Subject: Re: [E36M3] It's a 97, not a 95 ctgriffit@yahoo.com writes: > I think Lowell is referring to my car (Hi Lowell), > which is actually a 97 M3 not a 95. When stock it put > out 223.8hp and 225.8 lb ft. of torque. This was on > the same day as ~30 other M3s were dynoed here in > Dallas. Hi Chris! No, actually I was referring to Bruce's Alpine White/black leather interior '95 non-luxury package M3/2. Which just happens to be exactly the same as my M3. I have yet to see it in person but I am drooling over it. I plan to distract Bruce and then switch keys with him. He will never know the difference! ;-) However, you are right. I did have your Bright Red '97 M3/2 in the back of my mind. I'm very impressed by your M3 too. You had the dyno champ until Bruce came along with his monster. Lowell Seaton '95 M3 - measly 219 rwhp with JC chip/Euro HFM/K&N cone filter Dallas, Texas
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: [E36M3] It's a 97, not a 95 - from Christopher Griffith
Top
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 20:59:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Christopher Griffith <ctgriffit@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] It's a 97, not a 95 Maybe Bruce and I should schedule a pull off . . . er, wait a minute. I think that involves a 1000hp tractor of some sort. ;) Chris --- LoweSeaton@aol.com wrote: > ctgriffit@yahoo.com writes: > > > I think Lowell is referring to my car (Hi Lowell), > > which is actually a 97 M3 not a 95. When stock it > put > > out 223.8hp and 225.8 lb ft. of torque. This was > on > > the same day as ~30 other M3s were dynoed here in > > Dallas. > > Hi Chris! No, actually I was referring to Bruce's > Alpine White/black leather > interior '95 non-luxury package M3/2. Which just > happens to be exactly the > same as my M3. I have yet to see it in person but I > am drooling over it. I > plan to distract Bruce and then switch keys with > him. He will never know the > difference! ;-) > > However, you are right. I did have your Bright Red > '97 M3/2 in the back of > my mind. I'm very impressed by your M3 too. You > had the dyno champ until > Bruce came along with his monster. > > Lowell Seaton > '95 M3 - measly 219 rwhp with JC chip/Euro HFM/K&N > cone filter > Dallas, Texas > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Re: Who wants to go in on a 24lb injector buy? - from Neil Maller
Top
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2003 23:01:28 -0500 From: Neil Maller <neil.maller@gte.net> Subject: Re: Who wants to go in on a 24lb injector buy? on 4/9/03 6:03 PM, "Patrick Buthmann" <patrick@teutonic.ca> wrote: > Without pulling the engine (and testing on an engine dyno), there is really > no way to guarantee that ANY E36 M3 is actually producing 240 flywheel HP. > So, I'd suggest taking RWHP and using it just as that, proven RWHP. Good advice from Patrick Buthmann. Flywheel horsepower doesn't move your car. Rear wheel horsepower does. Unless you are, say, Cosworth Engineering doing engine design and development, then flywheel horsepower is just an abstraction. Neil 96 M3
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. RE: [E36M3] Airbag light - from Jeremy Conners
Top
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 00:33:35 -0400 From: Jeremy Conners <jeremy.conners@comcast.net> Subject: RE: [E36M3] Airbag light <SNIP> ....if the sensor is working and you're belted in, the airbags will deploy at a higher impact speed than if you're not belted in. <SNIP> Actually, the delay before firing will be longer due to the seatbelt slowing occupant motion. The stage delays can also be different to change the stiffness of the airbag. Jeremy Conners 97 M3 - Driver inner buckle replaced 07/01 thanks to premature failure due to a can of Country Time lemonade and a foolish engine test engineer trying to use the worthless stock cupholder. I was paying attention to the road through the side window. Thanks Dan N.
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: [E36M3] Oil selection follow up - from LoweSeaton@aol.com
Top
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 01:01:20 EDT From: LoweSeaton@aol.com Subject: Re: [E36M3] Oil selection follow up james@bimmerworld.com writes: > -10w40 was the worst conventional oil out because it tried to accomplish too > much - heat range was too wide. I don't know enough about synthetics in > street applications, but I think they are more stable and this isn't an > issue anymore. I might investigate before I used a 5w50 though - not > saying > it is bad, just raises a flag for me. > I agree 100% with James. 10W40 conventional oil (i.e., dino oil - NOT synthetic) was poor. Good marketing, but poor engineering. Like James said, 10W40 tried to do too much and ended up doing nothing well. 10W30 dino oil is better for almost all cases. I think synthetic oils are a whole other ballgame though. A wide viscosity range is not detrimental. I would not be afraid to use 5W50 or 10W60 synthetic motor oil. But know what you are getting. Our local BMW club had a tech session where we tested various brands and weights of oil. The best performer was a 75W90 synthetic gear oil and second best was a 20W50 synthetic motor oil. One of the worst was Castrol Syntec 5W50 synthetic. However, I don't think the test was fair to the lightweight 5W50 Syntec. The test really favored a heavyweight oil. Hence the 75W90 gear oil won. You could argue then that a heavyweight oil is best and we all should be running 80W140 gear oil in our engines. However, that ignores the fact that you have to have oil at the point of contact in order to do any good. No heavyweight oil is worse than some lightweight oil. A light viscous oil is better at flowing on initial start up. Bottom line? It is a compromise. Do you go for a heavy thick oil that lubricates better or a thin light oil that flows quickly? It sort of depends on your usage. If you run your engine 24/7, then go for the heavy oil. If you do dozens of restarts each day, then go for the light oil. For example, my M3 is a weekend warrior and used for long trips. I go overboard on the heavyweight oil. I've been known to run straight 60W oil which I know is crazy. Didn't somebody say oil recommendations are like a**holes? Everybody has one. ;-) Lowell Seaton '95 M3 BMW CCA #131505
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Re: Track guys - interest in Front splitter? - from Jim Mihal
Top
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 22:19:46 -0700 From: "Jim Mihal" <jmihal@jt-designs.com> Subject: Re: Track guys - interest in Front splitter? Could it have been #96 in the Mazda? Ha Ha Ha I'd have to take off my shoes to count the splitter repairs I made on that and the 88 car last year. These do take all the abuse, but done right they are worth the trouble. Best Regards, Jim Mihal (sights on Baja, no more world challenge for me) > -------------------- 3 -------------------- > Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 19:25:00 -0400 > From: "James Clay" <james@bimmerworld.com> > Subject: Re: Track guys - interest in Front splitter? > > Minor fabrication. The splitter will mount on standoffs so it will not be > physically attached to the bumper cover. This is important to us because > either the bumper cover or the splitter can be ripped off while leaving the > other in place. I have seen a couple of these in action on other car models > and they are amazingly strong - a Mazda went over the curbing and bounced > along off track and the splitter clung on. You will probably need to weld > two pins to the subframe to secure the rear and 3 brackets off of the front > bumper, similar to the factory lightweight supports - still working on that. > > > James Clay > http://www.bimmerworld.com > Engineered BMW Performance > 540.639.9648
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Drivetrain losses - from LoweSeaton@aol.com
Top
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 01:35:45 EDT From: LoweSeaton@aol.com Subject: Drivetrain losses patrick@teutonic.ca writes: > Actually, it's more like 245-250 HP at the crank. A lot of people wildly > overstate driveline losses, but at best, the rear diff on a BMW is worth > 8-10% driveline losses. The tranny losses are minimal (sub 1%). Bosch > automotive manuals support these statistics as well (and Bosch is probably > one of the largest builders of engine and rolling dyno's in the world). Interesting. I remember Jim Conforti stating on this e-mail list that the drivetrain losses for almost all manual transmission BMW's is 17.3%. That means you divide the measured rear wheel horsepower/torque by 0.827 to get flywheel values. Patrick - do you need to count the tire friction loss in your figure too? Maybe if you add up tire, CV joints, differential, drive shaft, and transmission losses you would get the commonly used 17% figure? Lowell Seaton '95 M3 Dallas, Texas