-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Re: [E36M3] Turn Signal problem - from Mick
Top
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 21:47:51 -0500 From: Mick <mick@lowdrag.org> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Turn Signal problem * Chad Milam <m_three99@yahoo.com> [030410 21:29]: > Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 19:20:09 -0700 (PDT) > From: Chad Milam <m_three99@yahoo.com> > Subject: Turn Signal problem > > Groupe- > Get a new bulb for the passenger side. -- -Mick mick@lowdrag.org OpenPGP info is in the X-mail headers $A="a";for(0..14689){$A++}print"\U$A"
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Ferodo: A new favorite track pad? - from twisty M3
Top
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 20:55:23 -0700 From: "twisty M3" <twistym3@hotmail.com> Subject: Ferodo: A new favorite track pad? All, Just a little feedback from an "experiment" I did last weekend involving the Ferodo DS3000 race pads. The first real track pad I tried was the Porterfield R4. A fine pad, but they're longevity left a lot to be desired. I'd only get a few weekends out of a set of pads. The second track pad I tried was the Peformance Friction PF97. Great pad!!! Peformance was excellent and I only got them to fade once at Laguna Seca after some pretty hard driving. The longevity was incredible. I bought one set, and it still actually has some life left. Several track weekends on those pads. The downside? Well, that dust is really corrosive. If it gets wet, watch out! I have a set of BBS RKs with a ruined finish, and still have some fine dust on the lower panels of my car that doesn't seem to want to come off. The most recent pad I've tried is the Ferodo DS3000. Only one weekend on them, so I'll refrain from commenting on the longevity, but so far so good. I was warned that I might have to adjust my braking style because of them, and it's true. You can be really easy on them and get as much bite as you would from really working the others. I'd initially give far too much brake input until I got used to them. They also never faded at all and were incredible consistent when warm. Sure, they dust (obviously), but it's less than the PF97s and not corrosive. The car happened to get a little wet because of some rain one night, but the dust still washed off yesterday (when I finally had time to change pads/wheels). It was also a pleasure to have the retaining spring clips on the inboard pads again too... No more rattling around town. ;) They worked suprisingly well at street temps above 60°, but lower than that and it became apparent that they aren't a street pad. Still might be close to doing dual duty, but I have a feeling they'd be a bit hard on rotors (when cold). Anyway, just thought I'd share my experience, but I'll probably report in again after a few events when I see what the longevity is like. Jonathan L. _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. RE: [E36M3] Drivetrain losses - from Jeremy Conners
Top
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 00:00:54 -0400 From: Jeremy Conners <jeremy.conners@comcast.net> Subject: RE: [E36M3] Drivetrain losses <SNIP> Really, the only places driveline losses should occur are places in which the drive angle is changing (ie, the diff). Tire slippage is minor, if any, and if the tires were actually slipping regularly, you'd see that in lost power over the course of the entire dyno plot. You may get some driveline losses through the transmission (since you're using multiple gearsets, with some backlash allowed), but this is generally sub 1%. Same thing applies to driveshafts, CV joints, axles etc....losses are minimal (if any) through them all. <SNIP> Patrick, I think you're missing the big picture: the rotating inertia of the driveline, not just the frictional losses. For example: Why else would a none frictional component like an engaged clutch & lightweight flywheel change the power distributed to the rear wheels? Simple answer: Lower rotating inertia. Jeremy Conners
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Racing Gear Discounts? - from twisty M3
Top
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 21:46:54 -0700 From: "twisty M3" <twistym3@hotmail.com> Subject: Racing Gear Discounts? Listers, I realize that none of our list sponsors sell race gear, but does anyone know of another source that might offer list discounts? ;) I need to get a balaclava, neck brace/helmet support, shoes and new gloves within the next couple of weeks. Already checked the online sources I can think of, and OGRacing seems to be the least expensive so far, but still far from cheap. Any other good sources. Jonathan L. _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: [E36M3] Drivetrain losses - from LoweSeaton@aol.com
Top
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 00:58:01 EDT From: LoweSeaton@aol.com Subject: Re: [E36M3] Drivetrain losses jeremy.conners@comcast.net writes: > I think you're missing the big picture: the rotating inertia of the > driveline, not just the frictional losses. > > For example: Why else would a none frictional component like an engaged > clutch &lightweight flywheel change the power distributed to the rear > wheels? Simple answer: Lower rotating inertia. > Jeremy, I beg to differ with you. I think you are talking about something else. Rotating inertia is just that - inertia. It is much like mass. Inertia and mass are simple physical parameters. Inertia and mass do not cause power losses. I'm going to argue with Patrick in another e-mail but lets talk about inertia in this one. You mentioned the lightweight flywheel. Many people install lightened flywheels. Why? Not because it increases engine horsepower - it doesn't. But yet people say their M3 accelerates faster with the lightened flywheel. How can this be? It is because of acceleration. When you accelerate a car, you are accelerating the mass of the car and occupants and you are accelerating the rotating driveline parts such as flywheel and wheels. It takes energy to accelerate an object from rest or low speed to a higher speed. The faster you accelerate, the more energy it takes. But once you reach that higher speed and stop accelerating, it takes less energy to maintain that speed. This is why lightening the car makes it accelerate faster. Or using lighter rims and tires makes the car accelerate faster. Same for lightweight flywheel, it takes less energy to spin it up to speed. The engine is not more powerful. It is just simply more of the engine's available horsepower can be used to move the car forward instead of spinning the flywheel up to speed. If anybody says a lightweight flywheel increases engine power, they are mistaken. It just "seems like" the engine has more power. Correct way to state it is "more of the engine power" is available. A dyno comparison with a standard vs. lightweight flywheel should be identical. They probably won't be but they should because if you kept the engine speed steady at any particular rpm, the flywheel will stop accelerating. Once acceleration stops, everything is equal. In the real world, anything you do to reduce mass or rotating inertia will make the car perform faster. Lowell Seaton '95 M3 Dallas, Texas
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Re: [E36M3] Racing Gear Discounts? - from Mark Dadgar
Top
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 22:36:03 -0700 From: Mark Dadgar <mark@pdc-racing.net> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Racing Gear Discounts? twisty M3 at twistym3@hotmail.com wrote: > I realize that none of our list sponsors sell race gear, but does anyone > know of another source that might offer list discounts? ;) I need to get a > balaclava, neck brace/helmet support, shoes and new gloves within the next > couple of weeks. HMS Motorsport carries most, if not all, of this stuff. If you're actually racing your car, there maybe applicable racer's discounts. HMS is one of those places we should be patronizing. They know BMW's, the owner is active in the BMW CCA, and they care more about our safety than just about any other shop around. > Already checked the online sources I can think of, and OGRacing seems to be > the least expensive so far, but still far from cheap. Any other good > sources. OG Racing is not always the cheapest, but they have customer support that is second to none. Highly recommended. - Mark -- mark@pdc-racing.net
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: [E36M3] Drivetrain losses - from LoweSeaton@aol.com
Top
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 02:10:48 EDT From: LoweSeaton@aol.com Subject: Re: [E36M3] Drivetrain losses patrick@teutonic.ca writes: > Really, the only places driveline losses should occur are places in > which the drive angle is changing (i.e., the diff). Tire slippage is > minor, if any, and if the tires were actually slipping regularly, you'd > see that in lost power over the course of the entire dyno plot. > You may get some driveline losses through the transmission (since > you're using multiple gearsets, with some backlash allowed), but this is > generally sub 1%. Same thing applies to driveshafts, CV joints, axles > etc....losses are minimal (if any) through them all. Patrick, No, I was not referring to tire slippage. I meant real internal tire carcass friction. Friction is easy to find. You have friction any place where you have heat. You are converting one form of energy to heat energy. Some Newton law of physics about conservation of energy. :-) Tire friction is easy to understand. Ever try to push a car? It is really hard to get it moving but lets ignore that. Once you get it rolling [lets say on flat ground] it still takes a good bit of effort to keep it rolling. Why? Because you have rolling resistance from the tires. The tires deform as they rolling and expend energy. They flex and squirm and are actually heating up a tiny bit. What happens if you stop pushing? Car rolls to a stop pretty quick. Same thing is happening on the dyno. Part of the engine's power is used to overcome the rear tires rolling resistance. How much is this rolling resistance? Beats me but it certainly is greater than zero. There are frictional losses everywhere you have a mechanical connection, not just change of angles. Getting back to my heat = friction analogy. The differential certainly gets warm which indicates there is some friction going on. Same for the transmission. You would be surprised how hot the tranny gets. Anytime you have metal to metal contact like gears in a transmission, you have friction. Oil reduces the friction but can never eliminate it. And if you are under full throttle like a dyno run, you are putting a great deal of pressure on the gears. Greater pressure = greater friction. Unfortunately no mechanical gear or chain or CV joint is frictionless. > > Another problem with dyno tests is that operators typically test a > car in 3rd gear (1.67:1), rather than a more accurate 5th gear (1:1). > By testing in 5th gear, you eliminate any change in the moment arm (part > of the torque calculation) and you get a more accurate dyno plot. I hadn't thought of this. I don't know what affect using 3rd or 4th gear vs. 5th (1:1) will have so I better not say anything. > > There are a number of independent shops using some of the newer > hub/bearing based dynos (as opposed to roller dynos) as engine dynos, > with just a blank frame (no transmission), and a 1:1 rear diff to hook > up to. Works pretty well, and they have been using 8-10% as their > driveline loss numbers as well. These units also eliminate any concern > about tire slippage (which I've yet to see) and the more noticeable > problem of a 3500 lb roller not being calibrated for cars other than > 3500 lbs... This is a problem right there. You can NOT use the same loss factor for a hub dyno vs. a roller dyno. I just explained above that there is a measurable rolling resistance from the tires on the roller. 10% may be correct for these hub dynos but then you have to use something higher for roller dynos. > > Remember, Jim makes his money from showing bigger HP gains (per his > chips and Shark Injector), so take some of that information with a grain > of salt. HP sells, and I can't fault Jim for his position, regardless > of it's accuracy. 17.3% driveline losses on a 240 HP car would result > in sub 200 rear wheel HP in an E36 M3, and I don't believe anyone here > is seeing a number like that. No E36 M3 (stock) that I've seen or > tested has come in at anything below 215 rwhp (give or take a HP here or > there), and 215-220 rwhp is the typical range. I've seen many M3's dyno'd. Most weren't stock though. However, all the dyno results I have seen were much below the figures you quoted. Stock '95 3.0L M3's I have seen dyno at 195-205 rear wheel hp. That is 236-248 engine hp using 17.3% (divide rwhp by 0.827). That seems very reasonable if you assume engine hp is 240 hp as stated by BMW. The stock '95 M3 on AA's web page for the track pipe is 199 hp. My totally stock '95 M3 dyno'd 197 rear wheel hp. Your 215-220 rwhp figure is not for '95 3.0L M3's, right? The only stock '95 M3 I have heard of that came anywhere close to that is a local Dallas M3 at 223 rwhp. The owner says it is totally stock. I don't have any reason not to believe him but it is way outside the normal range. Funny thing is he put a Jim Conforti chip in it and lost hp. '96+ 3.2L M3's always dyno higher. Somebody earlier today said 3.2L M3's actually had closer to 250 hp. I remember Jim Conforti stating the same thing. I know BMW rates the 3.2L at 240 hp but I think the real figure is 250 hp too. Stock '96+ M3's I have seen dyno at 205-210 rear wheel hp. Again this equals 248-254 engine hp using the 17.3% loss. The highest stock '96+ M3 I have seen is 223 rwhp. It is well above average but reasonable. > > 17.3% sounds nice for the owner when their car dyno's at 220+ rwhp > stock, but do you think BMW really left 30 flywheel HP off their sales > brochures? I really do think 17.3% is right. I know it seems high but it is surprising how inefficient machines are. I'm spouting off the top of my head but I remember reading about the efficiency of gasoline engines. If you compared the total BTU energy value of gasoline to engine output you have something like 40% of the gasoline energy going out the tail pipe, another 20% is lost due to internal engine friction like pistons and bearings, another 20% is lost to the radiator/coolant system and another 10% is lost to radiant heat of the engine to air. Turns out only 10-15% of the gasoline energy ever gets used. No wonder scientists are working on more efficient engines. > > For an interesting read on some dyno inaccuracies... > http://www.sdsefi.com/techdyno.htm > Another thing to remember is you can't compare one dyno result to another. They should be accurate but they won't be. It would be like you weighing yourself on your bathroom scale and me weighing myself on my scale. Would we truly know the difference in our weights? Nah. Your scale or mine or both could be off. We would have to use the same scale to get an accurate measurement. Enough of my comments. Bottom line? Enjoy your car. You can't drive it on the dyno. Lowell Seaton '95 M3 BMW CCA #131505
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. RE: [E36M3] Drivetrain losses - from Patrick Buthmann
Top
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 08:28:29 -0400 From: "Patrick Buthmann" <patrick@teutonic.ca> Subject: RE: [E36M3] Drivetrain losses Lowell, Yes, I agree that there are frictional losses due to rolling resistance, however, consider your example of rolling resistance in pushing a car. When you're pushing a car, you need to break both the rolling resistance of the tires, AND generate enough force to move the mass (chassis) forward. On a dyno, the chassis isn't moving at all, and the only thing you're dealing with is rolling resistance. Of course, this also brings up the point of the inaccuracies of chassis dyno's, as the car has no need to break wind resistance. You ARE however, accelerating the mass of the roller, which is generally 3500 lbs. Unless your car weighs 3500 lbs, you're not accurately measuring the car's true output (Mustang and Dynojet dyno's both tend to read low on lighter weight cars, and high on heavier cars). Think of it as a huge flywheel attached to the wheels of your car. Roller dyno's calculate torque based on the acceleration times of a known mass, and don't actually measure torque. This is simply a flaw in dyno design however, and a topic for another day. A simple way to test this is to use two different sets of drivewheels on a dyno test, one a set of 245/40/17s, and one a set of 205/50/16s (same revs per mile). For simplicity sake, let's assume wheel weights / tire weights are nearly identical. The Honda guys have been trying this for years, and the most they ever see is a 1 or 2 HP difference (which is WELL within the limits of statistical error on a dyno). Of course, this logic also means we'd need to standardize on tire compounds as well, as this will have a significant impact on rolling resistance. Also, I don't disagree on the fact that wherever you have friction, you have drivetrain losses. However, it's NOT as significant as most dyno operators (and aftermarket tuners) would like people to believe. If your tranny was consuming 5% of the overall output of your engine, you'd be going through transmissions pretty quickly; they're simply not built to take that much heat. The differential DOES generate a significant amount of heat (partly due to LSD operations), but it's also built to survive such heat as well, unlike the transmission. Basically, I'm saying 10-12%, and Jim C is stating 17.3%. I have to question how Jim came up with a specific number like that, without pulling an engine, dynoing it, and then putting it into a car, and dynoing that as well. Even then, it's specific to one chassis only, and really only valid on the single day in question. We'll never agree on the 17.3%, because unless you pull an engine and test it on an engine dyno, you really have NO idea what it's putting out. Along with that, take RWHP measurements with a grain of salt as well, as I agree that unless two changes are dyno'd on the same day, under the EXACT same conditions, you're unlikely to get really valid results. It's one of the reasons I still hold little faith in most CAI's, as every test I've seen on them have shown a 1-2 HP gain / loss when used without any software. Again, well within the range of statistical error on a dyno. As to M3's we've tested, they've typically been 3.2L units, or the 3.0L Euro cars (which we got here in Canada). 95's are as rare as hen's teeth here, so I haven't seen any of those tested here. As to frictional losses in the CV joints, u-joints, guibo etc, I'd be surprised if you could measure how insignificant those losses are. Altogether they are less than 1%. Transmission, diff and rolling resistance are the significant factors, of which, the diff accounts for the vast majority of it. Pat -----Original Message----- From: LoweSeaton@aol.com [mailto:LoweSeaton@aol.com] Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 2:11 AM To: patrick@teutonic.ca; e36m3@bmw-m.net Subject: Re: [E36M3] Drivetrain losses patrick@teutonic.ca writes: Really, the only places driveline losses should occur are places in which the drive angle is changing (i.e., the diff). Tire slippage is minor, if any, and if the tires were actually slipping regularly, you'd see that in lost power over the course of the entire dyno plot. You may get some driveline losses through the transmission (since you're using multiple gearsets, with some backlash allowed), but this is generally sub 1%. Same thing applies to driveshafts, CV joints, axles etc....losses are minimal (if any) through them all. Patrick, No, I was not referring to tire slippage. I meant real internal tire carcass friction. Friction is easy to find. You have friction any place where you have heat. You are converting one form of energy to heat energy. Some Newton law of physics about conservation of energy. :-) Tire friction is easy to understand. Ever try to push a car? It is really hard to get it moving but lets ignore that. Once you get it rolling [lets say on flat ground] it still takes a good bit of effort to keep it rolling. Why? Because you have rolling resistance from the tires. The tires deform as they rolling and expend energy. They flex and squirm and are actually heating up a tiny bit. What happens if you stop pushing? Car rolls to a stop pretty quick. Same thing is happening on the dyno. Part of the engine's power is used to overcome the rear tires rolling resistance. How much is this rolling resistance? Beats me but it certainly is greater than zero. There are frictional losses everywhere you have a mechanical connection, not just change of angles. Getting back to my heat = friction analogy. The differential certainly gets warm which indicates there is some friction going on. Same for the transmission. You would be surprised how hot the tranny gets. Anytime you have metal to metal contact like gears in a transmission, you have friction. Oil reduces the friction but can never eliminate it. And if you are under full throttle like a dyno run, you are putting a great deal of pressure on the gears. Greater pressure = greater friction. Unfortunately no mechanical gear or chain or CV joint is frictionless. Another problem with dyno tests is that operators typically test a car in 3rd gear (1.67:1), rather than a more accurate 5th gear (1:1). By testing in 5th gear, you eliminate any change in the moment arm (part of the torque calculation) and you get a more accurate dyno plot. I hadn't thought of this. I don't know what affect using 3rd or 4th gear vs. 5th (1:1) will have so I better not say anything. There are a number of independent shops using some of the newer hub/bearing based dynos (as opposed to roller dynos) as engine dynos, with just a blank frame (no transmission), and a 1:1 rear diff to hook up to. Works pretty well, and they have been using 8-10% as their driveline loss numbers as well. These units also eliminate any concern about tire slippage (which I've yet to see) and the more noticeable problem of a 3500 lb roller not being calibrated for cars other than 3500 lbs... This is a problem right there. You can NOT use the same loss factor for a hub dyno vs. a roller dyno. I just explained above that there is a measurable rolling resistance from the tires on the roller. 10% may be correct for these hub dynos but then you have to use something higher for roller dynos. Remember, Jim makes his money from showing bigger HP gains (per his chips and Shark Injector), so take some of that information with a grain of salt. HP sells, and I can't fault Jim for his position, regardless of it's accuracy. 17.3% driveline losses on a 240 HP car would result in sub 200 rear wheel HP in an E36 M3, and I don't believe anyone here is seeing a number like that. No E36 M3 (stock) that I've seen or tested has come in at anything below 215 rwhp (give or take a HP here or there), and 215-220 rwhp is the typical range. I've seen many M3's dyno'd. Most weren't stock though. However, all the dyno results I have seen were much below the figures you quoted. Stock '95 3.0L M3's I have seen dyno at 195-205 rear wheel hp. That is 236-248 engine hp using 17.3% (divide rwhp by 0.827). That seems very reasonable if you assume engine hp is 240 hp as stated by BMW. The stock '95 M3 on AA's web page for the track pipe is 199 hp. My totally stock '95 M3 dyno'd 197 rear wheel hp. Your 215-220 rwhp figure is not for '95 3.0L M3's, right? The only stock '95 M3 I have heard of that came anywhere close to that is a local Dallas M3 at 223 rwhp. The owner says it is totally stock. I don't have any reason not to believe him but it is way outside the normal range. Funny thing is he put a Jim Conforti chip in it and lost hp. '96+ 3.2L M3's always dyno higher. Somebody earlier today said 3.2L M3's actually had closer to 250 hp. I remember Jim Conforti stating the same thing. I know BMW rates the 3.2L at 240 hp but I think the real figure is 250 hp too. Stock '96+ M3's I have seen dyno at 205-210 rear wheel hp. Again this equals 248-254 engine hp using the 17.3% loss. The highest stock '96+ M3 I have seen is 223 rwhp. It is well above average but reasonable. 17.3% sounds nice for the owner when their car dyno's at 220+ rwhp stock, but do you think BMW really left 30 flywheel HP off their sales brochures? I really do think 17.3% is right. I know it seems high but it is surprising how inefficient machines are. I'm spouting off the top of my head but I remember reading about the efficiency of gasoline engines. If you compared the total BTU energy value of gasoline to engine output you have something like 40% of the gasoline energy going out the tail pipe, another 20% is lost due to internal engine friction like pistons and bearings, another 20% is lost to the radiator/coolant system and another 10% is lost to radiant heat of the engine to air. Turns out only 10-15% of the gasoline energy ever gets used. No wonder scientists are working on more efficient engines. For an interesting read on some dyno inaccuracies... http://www.sdsefi.com/techdyno.htm Another thing to remember is you can't compare one dyno result to another. They should be accurate but they won't be. It would be like you weighing yourself on your bathroom scale and me weighing myself on my scale. Would we truly know the difference in our weights? Nah. Your scale or mine or both could be off. We would have to use the same scale to get an accurate measurement. Enough of my comments. Bottom line? Enjoy your car. You can't drive it on the dyno. Lowell Seaton '95 M3 BMW CCA #131505
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. RE: [E36M3] Drivetrain losses - from Patrick Buthmann
Top
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 08:29:38 -0400 From: "Patrick Buthmann" <patrick@teutonic.ca> Subject: RE: [E36M3] Drivetrain losses For just a cam kit? That's an awful lot of RWHP gain for the cam kit alone...I'd say you got your money's worth on that one. Pat So the big debate about drivetrain loss. It's almost like asking about the best BBK or best oil to use. My car bone stock dynoed at 202.8. Using a 17.3% conversion loss, I end up with 245 crank hp. Seems about right to me. Not to mention I hear that the 3.2 was under rated anyway and put out more like 250ish mark. Which seems about on par with a lot of people dynoing at 210-215 range. In the end, the difference is the important figure. With the cam kit, I went from 202.8 to 245. steve
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. RE: [E36M3] Anyone know the steering wheel diameter? - from Patrick Buthmann
Top
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 08:33:33 -0400 From: "Patrick Buthmann" <patrick@teutonic.ca> Subject: RE: [E36M3] Anyone know the steering wheel diameter? Chester, Stock BMW steering wheel is 365mm. Pat -----Original Message----- From: Chester Wong [mailto:chester_p_wong@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 11:16 AM To: E36M3 Subject: [E36M3] Anyone know the steering wheel diameter? Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 08:15:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Chester Wong <chester_p_wong@yahoo.com> Subject: Anyone know the steering wheel diameter? Wondering what the diameter of the stock 3 spoke steering wheel was. Also, has anyone retrofitted anything newer? I was wondering about dual stage vs. single stage issues. The E36M3 has single stage, correct? Thanks, Chester ===== ************************************************* Please help support the E36M3 list by visiting our sponsors: Taylor Autosport http://www.taylorautosport.com Rogue Engineering http://www.rogueengineering.com BMW M3 Specialties http://www.jt-designs.com Bimmerworld http://www.bimmerworld.com DIGEST INFORMATION: http://www.bmw-m.net/resources/digest_info.htm *************************************************