-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Re: [E36M3] Subframe Bushing Replacement - from Mark Dadgar
Top
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 14:13:52 -0700 From: Mark Dadgar <mark@pdc-racing.net> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Subframe Bushing Replacement Dorffer, Rich at RDORFFER@CleIndians.com wrote: > Mark says > >> You REALLY, REALLY want to weld in the M3 reinforcement plates while you're >> in there. > >> You can see pics here: >> http://www.tcdesignfab.com/E36%20diff%20mount.htm > > This seems to be a fairly common occurrence seeing Jim providing > his...errr..."assistance": > http://www.tcdesignfab.com/mark-2.jpg > > :-) Let me just head this off at the pass by saying that I SWEAR there *is* a seating surface there, even if you can't see it: http://www.tcdesignfab.com/mark-32.jpg :) Got the car out to the track for the first time yesterday. Bimmerworld/Ground Control suspension all around. What a BLAST. Still have a little tuning to do on the suspension, and the interior is, shall we say, still a work in progress. But DAMN, that is one fun car! - Mark -- mark@pdc-racing.net
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. RE: [E36M3] 911 as farm machinery - from Peter H Reinhart
Top
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 17:15:42 -0400 From: "Peter H Reinhart" <reinhart@neuro.duke.edu> Subject: RE: [E36M3] 911 as farm machinery I guess this is why we don't all drive the same car.... Your criticisms of 911s seem to be build quality, pedal feel, and that it's an antique. Seems to me that if you abuse machinery you can make any interior look trashed in short order. Based on average use my experience is that the 964 and 993 interiors are on par with the E36M3s. Some things appear to be of higher build quality in the M3, some in the 911, on average it's a wash. Both have their quality problems, but compared to most other cars I've been in they're solid. Other points are a matter of taste. Had the same reaction as you the first few times I drive the 911. HORRIBLE pedal placement. Now I LOVE it, and find there's no comparison for heel'n'toe-ing the 911 vs the M3. Not sue what the 'antique' refers to. Maybe the body style is dated, but then its so different that its difficult to measure it on the scale of 'new'. Who thinks the 'new styling' that Honda's, Toyota's, Lexi, and yes even the E46 M3s (just getting too big and heavy!) come with is cool? I actually like the snug interior, and no compromise body shape of the 911. I am much less enthusiastic about the 996 than then 964s or 993s for the same reason - too big, too heavy. The car Porsche 'should' be building is a slightly updated '73 911 (don't even pretend there are seats back there) weighing about 2200 lbs, with a 3.8l RSR engine. Or BMW an updated (bit more streamlined) 2002 with the current M3 engine and adjustable coilovers. Can you say 'tossable...'? Cheers, Peter R -----Original Message----- From: Zachary Eyler-Walker [mailto:zwalker@cs.utk.edu] Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 2:49 PM To: E36M3 Subject: [E36M3] 911 as farm machinery Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 15:48:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Zachary Eyler-Walker <zwalker@cs.utk.edu> Subject: 911 as farm machinery > From: "Bruce" <gobuffs93@attbi.com> > Subject: Re: [E36M3] Re: 911 > > The current 911 (coded 996) was introduced in 99. The previous model > to that is the 993 (95-98)- considered the ultimate 911 by > enthusiasts. The That's as may be. However, I drove a 993 C4 the other day, and came away feeling as though I'd just been cruising in a steam tractor or something. Admittedly, a rather fast steam tractor that can stop on a dime. That car is an antique, and I now definitely know what people mean when they say it's agricultural. The interior trim was disintegrating, even though the car has fewer miles than my M3 (meaning fewer than 43k) and is a year newer. Horrible, horrible pedals/pedal box, incredible sounding engine, rock hard brakes, good steering feel. It seemed faster, but didn't knock my socks off. Of course, I don't think the e46 M3 feels all that much faster on the street, either. It would be great on the track, except I'd be worried about screwing up my footwork and wadding the car. I can imagine paying $20k for a 993, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for such a deal. The 996, on the other hand, is fully modernized, and a hell of a car. I could definitely get used to one of those without much trouble. Zach
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Re: [E36M3] 911 as farm machinery - from Mark Dadgar
Top
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 14:25:39 -0700 From: Mark Dadgar <mark@pdc-racing.net> Subject: Re: [E36M3] 911 as farm machinery Peter H Reinhart at reinhart@neuro.duke.edu wrote: > I actually like the snug interior, and no compromise body shape > of the 911. I am much less enthusiastic about the 996 than then 964s or > 993s for the same reason - too big, too heavy. The 996 actually weighs slightly less than the 993. But otherwise, I agree! - Mark -- mark@pdc-racing.net
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Re: Hard-wiring radar detector - from Mike Frank
Top
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 16:58:51 -0500 From: Mike Frank <mfrank28@comcast.net> Subject: Re: Hard-wiring radar detector Neil, great job explaining the circuit. Couple of questions. Are you measuring +12.00V with the accessory power on AND the V1 connected/switched on (but no display)? Explain "The unit blinks then goes dark" in more detail. Does it make any noise? Does it complete the POST routine then go dark or just a quick flicker? Have you tried powering up the unit using the cig lighter adapter just to make sure it works? BTW, you might try measuring the voltage at your +12V supply with the map light(s) on (V1 off). This should tell you where you're at in the circuit. If not, then Neil must have explained the circuit incorrectly :) FYI, the V1 manual says it needs 11.0-16.0V. I think I wired into the sunroof motor supply for my V1. I can't remember for sure though, it's been a while. Mike Frank 97 M3 > -------------------- 10 -------------------- > Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 14:23:00 -0500 > From: Neil Maller <neil.maller@gte.net> > Subject: Re: Hard-wiring radar detector > > Virtually all the BMW accessories, including the map light, work by > supplying +12V (controlled or not by the ignition switch) directly to the > load. The on/off switch is on the ground side. > > So the circuit goes: > o +12V to first bulb terminal > o Bulb terminal one to bulb terminal two via filament > o Second bulb terminal to switch > o Switch to ground. > > With the lamp switch off, but accessory power on, a meter will read +12V > at > *either* bulb terminal. A good meter has very high resistance, and draws > so > little current that the voltage drop due to the filament resistance is > unmeasurable. So you can't tell which side is which without a visual > check. > > If your V1 has its positive feed connected to the *second* bulb terminal, > then the filament will serve as a series dropping resistor, reducing > voltage > to the point where the V1 won't work, even though the meter says you are > connected to +12V. > > Solution: Check your circuit, and make your connection to the correct side > of the bulb. One way to ID this is to follow the PCB trace back to where > it > should be fed by a violet/white wire. See Bentley page E-217. > > Or, it could be something else... > > Neil > 96 M3
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: fuel starvation - AGAIN?! - from bs
Top
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 18:18:55 -0400 From: bs <m3bs@comcast.net> Subject: Re: fuel starvation - AGAIN?! This one has always been a mystery to me as well. I have a 3/94 car, and just got back from a weekend at CMP. I ran 2 laps after the light came on, and still had no problems in the carousel. It took 15 gallons to fill it. > for those that know me, > my 1995 M3, 9/1994 production, > will run all the way down to the reserve light. > I am driving the car HARD, and can turn laps > faster than most others....... > so it has nothing to do with how fast you are driving.
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Re: fuel starvation - AGAIN?! - from Neil Maller
Top
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 17:23:40 -0500 From: Neil Maller <neil.maller@gte.net> Subject: Re: fuel starvation - AGAIN?! on 4/29/03 1:51 PM, RFKoby@aol.com at RFKoby@aol.com wrote: > here we go again. > yes, there is a definite tank change > from 95 to 96 model cars. Yep, I certainly don't want to start another "doesn't happen to me/you must not be driving fast enough ya wimp!" thread! But I did want to point out some objective differences that had escaped at least my notice, and point out some fix options. > for those that know me, > my 1995 M3, 9/1994 production, > will run all the way down to the reserve light. > I am driving the car HARD, and can turn laps > faster than most others....... > so it has nothing to do with how fast you are driving. And I do know Bob and he does drive plenty fast. Well, when his car isn't disassembled, anyhow. ;) > there is also some very subtle difference > in the fuel pump, return lines, and transfer line. Exactly. I think there may be two sets of variables in play: 95 and earlier vs. 96+ cars, and car-to-car production/assembly variances. One point to note is that 96+ cars require Bimmerworld's Stage II fix, whereas earlier cars can go with the cheaper Stage I. Gee, my car has to have the more expensive solution, now there's something new and different... Neil 96 M3 - loves expensive parts
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. RE: [E36M3] Re: Battery vent tube - from Mel Silva
Top
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 17:25:03 -0500 From: "Mel Silva" <melsilva@mindspring.com> Subject: RE: [E36M3] Re: Battery vent tube Specifically the battery vapors are hydrogen. Mix this with oxygen and a spark and you'll have an M3 Hindenburg. The act of charging the battery produces this hydrogen which if left in an enclosed area like your trunk... you get the point Mel -----Original Message----- From: Ron Buchalski [mailto:rbuchals@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 3:49 PM To: E36M3 Subject: [E36M3] Re: Battery vent tube Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 16:35:48 -0400 From: "Ron Buchalski" <rbuchals@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Battery vent tube The vent tube is used to vent battery vapors to the atmosphere. If you don't, the vapors could build up in the trunk, to an explosive quantity! Ron Buchalski BMWCCA #76387 1995 E36 M3 1993 E34 525iT 1999 Mazda
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: [E36M3] Re: fuel starvation - AGAIN?! - from Chester Wong
Top
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 15:32:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Chester Wong <chester_p_wong@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Re: fuel starvation - AGAIN?! I've gotten the fuel starvation problem and I don't even drive that hard :) --- Neil Maller <neil.maller@gte.net> wrote: > Yep, I certainly don't want to start another "doesn't happen to me/you must > not be driving fast enough ya wimp!" thread! > > But I did want to point out some objective differences that had escaped at > least my notice, and point out some fix options. =====
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. RE: [E36M3] 911 as farm machinery - from Mel Silva
Top
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 17:54:43 -0500 From: "Mel Silva" <melsilva@mindspring.com> Subject: RE: [E36M3] 911 as farm machinery My $0.02, having driven all of two 911's in my life. As far as the pedal thing, I felt the pedals awkward not because of their mounting points, but that they were shifted to the left from center to accommodate the left front wheel arch. Maybe this is because I'm used to being screwed up the other direction to accommodate a transmission tunnel? I got used to the floor mounted pedals within about 15 minutes but I kept crushing the wheels arch expecting to find the clutch. The other impression I got was that the 911 felt like a go-cart compared to the M3. Every control felt as if you were connected to it without any power assist, steering, brakes, throttle, even the suspension felt like it was attached after a couple of punches to the kidneys (the '90 Carrera 2 993 was converted to coil-over with very high rate H&R's). I could feel every tire slip or scrub, every crack in the pavement, and that melodious exhaust, ohh... It was great fun for the week I had it and I didn't want to give it back, but the owner had my M3, so... Mel
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Re: [E36M3] 911, farm machinery, multi-response, long, semi-off - from Zachary Eyler-Walker
Top
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 19:47:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Zachary Eyler-Walker <zwalker@cs.utk.edu> Subject: Re: [E36M3] 911, farm machinery, multi-response, long, semi-off topic, sorry. On Tue, 29 Apr 2003, E36M3 wrote: > From: Chester Wong <chester_p_wong@yahoo.com> > > Isn't the interior of a 996 still rather ugly? I mean, I think the E36 > interior is nicer. Then again, I don't think the E46 interior was much > of an improvement over the E36. I think they say the next gen 911 will > have a better interior... I dunno. I thought the 996 was rather nice inside. I love the e36 m3 interior, though, even the vaders (Well, their appearance and general driving comfort. I still can't figure out, given the way they look, how the lateral support can be as poor as it is). > From: Mark Dadgar <mark@pdc-racing.net> > > Oh yes. It's a cross between a laser scalpel and a UPS truck. > > > It seemed faster, but didn't knock my socks off. Of course, I don't > > think the e46 M3 feels all that much faster on the street, either. > > The E46 M3 is probably faster on the track, but it's WAY WAY less rewarding > to drive fast. Yeah, I'd be surprised if the E46 M3 wasn't. > The pre-996 911 is truly one of the few cars I've ever driven that feel > better the faster you drive them. They are kind of awkward at very slow > speeds but absolutely MAGICAL when they speed up. It needs to be > experienced to be believed. That I can believe. It was quite cumbersome at slow speeds but driving it through some faster turns it did start to come alive somewhat. Like I said, I can definitely see it being a great track toy. > From: "john_stoj@excite.com" <john_stoj@excite.com> > > Wow. I've kept out of this one as it's pretty much off the E36 topic, > but I've got to disagree with the interior trim comment. Hey, it's sort of on topic. These are the cars that lots of us first compare to our BMWs, and they're cars you'll see a lot of on the track. Thus far I've spent most of my track time passing Porsches, but I suspect that will change as I move into faster run groups. > I've owned two > 911's (one 911 - sold, and one 993 - current) and one E36 M3. The > interiors of both 911's, while dated, were/are of distinctly higher > quality than my M3. I can't imagine what was the issue with the car you > drove. I have had the opportunities to drive/ride in many BMW's and > Porsche's and when it comes to the pre-996 911's, quality was at the > very least on par with BMW, and almost certainly (IMHO) better. In the 993 I drove, the headliner was sagging or detached at the back near the rear window. The whole thing basically had the air of a late 70s BMW interior, or, to be more charitable, say, an e30 M3. It's nothing like any other car from the 90s I've been in. The e36 is thoroughly modern. Just about everything falls right to hand/foot and I just like the looks of it. The 993 seems like a refugee from the 70s/80s. Which it is. > Pedal placement is a learned thing. You will find plenty of Porsche > drivers who'll tell you how perfect they are. No doubt. In fact, I had less of a problem with the brake pedal than the clutch. I don't know if it's my imagination, but pedal pads seemed to be on pivots at the end of the brake/clutch arms, which didn't add to their positive feeling. Finally, what's up with the pedal box being so small? There's hardly anything up there to interfere with them, other than the suspension. The wheel base could probably stand to be stretched, anyway. > As for comping E36/E46/911 on the street, I don't think you'll notice > anything much in terms of performance differences (I certainly can't - > I'm not that good a driver). Well, I definitely wasn't talking about ultimate grip or anything like that, just raw straight line power. You can tell a few other things, though: The brakes are obviously better in the 911, and the steering feel is notably better. For steering in the BMWs and P-cars I've driven, it's 993, 996, e36, e46, in that order. Finally, Peter R writes: > The car Porsche 'should' be building is a slightly updated '73 911 > (don't even pretend there are seats back there) weighing about 2200 lbs, > with a 3.8l RSR engine. Or BMW an updated (bit more streamlined) 2002 > with the current M3 engine and adjustable coilovers. Can you say > 'tossable...'? Well, there are those pesky crash tests and stuff, making it tough to keep the weight that low. In my opinion, what Porsche should be making is a 996 on a diet with the literally unusable rear seats tossed and the engine moved up into their place. IOW, take a boxster, put a good motor in it and swap the hideous body for the beautiful 911 (Which I would say is more classic than antique, btw. I was referring to the interior look and feel as antique in my original post). That would be worth $75k, but I'm not really convinced about the current 996. Cheers, Zach