-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Re: [E36M3] Re: Fuel Starvation Kits - from Mark Dadgar
Top
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:14:17 -0700 From: Mark Dadgar <mark@pdc-racing.net> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Re: Fuel Starvation Kits Jim Bassett at jimbassett@attbi.com wrote: >> So now I have to back it up with fact, tough crowd. The early tank is 62L >> on the ETK, 16.12 Gal. The newer tank is 65L/16.99Gal. I am not sure what >> the filler neck capacity is. But, in a car with the older tank, I don't >> think I have ever been able to put more than about 13.5Gal in > > Sorry James, but this complete BS (or you've got your figures wrong). I > know several '95 M3 owners who have put more than 13.5 gals into their > tank. I've personally witnessed it. I could easily put more than 13.5 gallons in my old '95. - Mark -- mark@pdc-racing.net
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Re: [E36M3] Re: Fuel Starvation Kits - from James Clay
Top
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 15:00:09 -0400 From: "James Clay" <james@bimmerworld.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Re: Fuel Starvation Kits Sorry for spreading pure poop - this isn't a sales pitch, just trying to help out. For some reason, some of the 95M3 cars have the late model tank, verified with a part number by me. One was a LTW which should be late production. I said I haven't put more than 13.5 in a 325, but I am fairly sure it was a racecar and could have possibly held more and it has been a while. Because I am not absolutely positive (and was wrong, I posted the 62/65 L volume after I looked it up) I said pull the cover and look for the blue pump to verify. This is an absolute definite ID method. James Clay http://www.bimmerworld.com Engineered BMW Performance 540.639.9648 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Bassett" <jimbassett@attbi.com> To: "James Clay" <james@bimmerworld.com>; "E36M3" <e36m3@bmw-m.net> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 1:44 PM Subject: Re: [E36M3] Re: Fuel Starvation Kits > At 08:30 AM 6/18/03, James Clay wrote: > >So now I have to back it up with fact, tough crowd. The early tank is 62L > >on the ETK, 16.12 Gal. The newer tank is 65L/16.99Gal. I am not sure what > >the filler neck capacity is. But, in a car with the older tank, I don't > >think I have ever been able to put more than about 13.5Gal in > > Sorry James, but this complete BS (or you've got your figures wrong). I > know several '95 M3 owners who have put more than 13.5 gals into their > tank. I've personally witnessed it. > > Plus, according to the ETK, my '93 325is has the same tank as a '95 M3 > (62L). I've *regularly* put more than 13.5 gals at a time into it. > > Jim Bassett > 1998 M3/4 > 1993 325is #44 JP/A5 > >
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Re: [E36M3] Re: Fuel Starvation Kits - from DocWyte
Top
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 12:03:38 -0700 (PDT) From: DocWyte <josh_wyte@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Re: Fuel Starvation Kits 8/95 build date, I put in more than 14 gallons every fill up and usually fill up just when the light pops on. I definately have a 16+ gallon tank. -josh --- Mark Dadgar <mark@pdc-racing.net> wrote: > Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:14:17 -0700 > From: Mark Dadgar <mark@pdc-racing.net> > Subject: Re: [E36M3] Re: Fuel Starvation Kits > > Jim Bassett at jimbassett@attbi.com wrote: > >> So now I have to back it up with fact, tough > crowd. The early tank is 62L > >> on the ETK, 16.12 Gal. The newer tank is > 65L/16.99Gal. I am not sure what > >> the filler neck capacity is. But, in a car with > the older tank, I don't > >> think I have ever been able to put more than > about 13.5Gal in > > > > Sorry James, but this complete BS (or you've got > your figures wrong). I > > know several '95 M3 owners who have put more than > 13.5 gals into their > > tank. I've personally witnessed it. > > I could easily put more than 13.5 gallons in my old > '95. > > - Mark > -- > mark@pdc-racing.net > > > > ************************************************* > 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 > Turner Motorsport http://www.turnermotorsport.com > > DIGEST INFORMATION: > http://www.bmw-m.net/resources/digest_info.htm > ************************************************* > > ===== __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Re: [E36M3] M3 vs 325 Block - from Bill P
Top
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 15:35:12 -0400 From: "Bill P" <billpanop@suscom.net> Subject: Re: [E36M3] M3 vs 325 Block OK from the link I see that the 325i block is the same as my M3 block other then mine has a larger bore. So if I take the 325i block and bore it to the specs of a 1996+ block and add the 1996+ internals (crank, pistons, rods) then I will have a 3.2 correct? I know of people that have taken a 325 to 3.2 liters so it can be done. Also regarding the crank and rods. I was also told that the crank in the 1996+ was forged but the rods were not, does anyone have info on this? Getting a 3.2 motor might be easy but converting it to OBDI is not and illegal (I think). Plus the heads and intake on the 3.0 breath a whole lot better from what I am told. Thanks in advance. Bill P -------------------- 6 -------------------- Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 21:15:44 -0400 From: "nabli" <nabli@earthlink.net> Subject: RE: [E36M3] M3 vs 325 Block -----Original Message----- From: NickG [mailto:nick@tech-nick.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 8:41 PM To: E36M3 Subject: Re: [E36M3] M3 vs 325 Block Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 20:39:30 -0400 From: "NickG" <nick@tech-nick.net> Subject: Re: [E36M3] M3 vs 325 Block > Here's a start: http://bmw-m.net/techdata/95m3.htm > > > >Also is the crank and or rods in the 1995 M3 forged? Are the they > forged in > >the 1996+ M3 Engine(S52)? > > Yes. Yes. >Actually, it's No, Yes. As stated in the link you gave above, the S50 >engine uses a cast iron crankshaft. I do believe the S52 crank was forged >though. Was referring to the 3.2. Not used to talking about the 3.0 and Bill seems to be focused on getting to the 3.2 mark. :-) The 3.2 crank is about 4 pounds lighter. > >If I do this would it be better to use my 1995 M3 block or the 325 > Block? > >Using the 325 block means LESS downtime which is good. > > Neither block will get you to 3.2L >Actually, the 3.0L block can be easily bored out to accomodate a 3.2L >piston. Not sure if the 2.5L block can. Ok I'll be more specific: Neither block (in stock form) will get you to 3.2L If you want to get to 3.2 then find a wrecked 96+ M3. There are loads of 'em. Cheers, Jim E. -------------------- 7 --------------------
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: [E36M3] M3 vs 325 Block - from Chester Wong
Top
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 12:43:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Chester Wong <chester_p_wong@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] M3 vs 325 Block Why stop at 3.2L? <vbg> --- Bill P <billpanop@suscom.net> wrote: > Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 15:35:12 -0400 > From: "Bill P" <billpanop@suscom.net> > Subject: Re: [E36M3] M3 vs 325 Block > > OK from the link I see that the 325i block is the same as my M3 block other > then mine has a larger bore. So if I take the 325i block and bore it to the > specs of a 1996+ block and add the 1996+ internals (crank, pistons, rods) > then I will have a 3.2 correct? I know of people that have taken a 325 to > 3.2 liters so it can be done. > > Also regarding the crank and rods. I was also told that the crank in the > 1996+ was forged but the rods were not, does anyone have info on this? > > Getting a 3.2 motor might be easy but converting it to OBDI is not and > illegal (I think). Plus the heads and intake on the 3.0 breath a whole lot > better from what I am told. =====
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Re: [E36M3] M3 vs 325 Block - from DocWyte
Top
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:08:45 -0700 (PDT) From: DocWyte <josh_wyte@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] M3 vs 325 Block All you need is the 3.2 block. Nothing to convert to OBD1. As long as your car is OBD1, you can put in the updated (newer) block and be perfectly legal. It'll also be way cheaper than trying to build one. -josh --- Bill P <billpanop@suscom.net> wrote: > Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 15:35:12 -0400 > From: "Bill P" <billpanop@suscom.net> > Subject: Re: [E36M3] M3 vs 325 Block > > OK from the link I see that the 325i block is the > same as my M3 block other > then mine has a larger bore. So if I take the 325i > block and bore it to the > specs of a 1996+ block and add the 1996+ internals > (crank, pistons, rods) > then I will have a 3.2 correct? I know of people > that have taken a 325 to > 3.2 liters so it can be done. > > Also regarding the crank and rods. I was also told > that the crank in the > 1996+ was forged but the rods were not, does anyone > have info on this? > > Getting a 3.2 motor might be easy but converting it > to OBDI is not and > illegal (I think). Plus the heads and intake on the > 3.0 breath a whole lot > better from what I am told. > > Thanks in advance. > > Bill P > > > > -------------------- 6 -------------------- > Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 21:15:44 -0400 > From: "nabli" <nabli@earthlink.net> > Subject: RE: [E36M3] M3 vs 325 Block > > -----Original Message----- > From: NickG [mailto:nick@tech-nick.net] > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 8:41 PM > To: E36M3 > Subject: Re: [E36M3] M3 vs 325 Block > > Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 20:39:30 -0400 > From: "NickG" <nick@tech-nick.net> > Subject: Re: [E36M3] M3 vs 325 Block > > > Here's a start: http://bmw-m.net/techdata/95m3.htm > > > > > > >Also is the crank and or rods in the 1995 M3 > forged? Are the they > > forged in > > >the 1996+ M3 Engine(S52)? > > > > Yes. Yes. > > >Actually, it's No, Yes. As stated in the link you > gave above, the S50 > >engine uses a cast iron crankshaft. I do believe > the S52 crank was > forged >though. > > Was referring to the 3.2. Not used to talking about > the 3.0 and Bill > seems to be focused on getting to the 3.2 mark. :-) > > The 3.2 crank is about 4 pounds lighter. > > > >If I do this would it be better to use my 1995 M3 > block or the 325 > > Block? > > >Using the 325 block means LESS downtime which is > good. > > > > Neither block will get you to 3.2L > > >Actually, the 3.0L block can be easily bored out to > accomodate a 3.2L > >piston. Not sure if the 2.5L block can. > > Ok I'll be more specific: Neither block (in stock > form) will get you to > 3.2L > > If you want to get to 3.2 then find a wrecked 96+ > M3. There are loads of > 'em. > > Cheers, > Jim E. > > > > > > -------------------- 7 -------------------- > > > > ************************************************* > 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 > Turner Motorsport http://www.turnermotorsport.com > > DIGEST INFORMATION: > http://www.bmw-m.net/resources/digest_info.htm > ************************************************* > > ===== __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: [E36M3] M3 vs 325 Block - from David Bauer
Top
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 15:19:24 -0500 From: David Bauer <dbauer@blkbox.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] M3 vs 325 Block I thought (at least in Texas) that they base the emissions requirements on the block. I know of Cobra kit car people down here altering the serial numbers on their blocks because of this. Maybe kit cars and production cars are apples and oranges, the regulations are a little cryptic. Dave 95 M3 DocWyte wrote: > Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:08:45 -0700 (PDT) > From: DocWyte <josh_wyte@yahoo.com> > Subject: Re: [E36M3] M3 vs 325 Block > > All you need is the 3.2 block. Nothing to convert to > OBD1. As long as your car is OBD1, you can put in the > updated (newer) block and be perfectly legal. It'll > also be way cheaper than trying to build one. > > -josh > >
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: [E36M3] M3 vs 325 Block - from DocWyte
Top
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 14:25:47 -0700 (PDT) From: DocWyte <josh_wyte@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] M3 vs 325 Block I've never been to a smog station where the tech has taken the time to look at the serial number of the block. They read the VIN, hook the car up to the smog stuff and go. For kit cars I'm sure they're a whole lot more interested in what's powering it... -josh --- David Bauer <dbauer@blkbox.com> wrote: > Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 15:19:24 -0500 > From: David Bauer <dbauer@blkbox.com> > Subject: Re: [E36M3] M3 vs 325 Block > > I thought (at least in Texas) that they base the > emissions requirements > on the block. I know of Cobra kit car people down > here altering the > serial numbers on their blocks because of this. > Maybe kit cars and > production cars are apples and oranges, the > regulations are a little > cryptic. > > Dave > 95 M3 > > > DocWyte wrote: > > Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:08:45 -0700 (PDT) > > From: DocWyte <josh_wyte@yahoo.com> > > Subject: Re: [E36M3] M3 vs 325 Block > > > > All you need is the 3.2 block. Nothing to convert > to > > OBD1. As long as your car is OBD1, you can put in > the > > updated (newer) block and be perfectly legal. > It'll > > also be way cheaper than trying to build one. > > > > -josh > > > > > > > > ************************************************* > 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 > Turner Motorsport http://www.turnermotorsport.com > > DIGEST INFORMATION: > http://www.bmw-m.net/resources/digest_info.htm > ************************************************* > > ===== __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Re: [E36M3] M3 vs 325 Block - from NickG
Top
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:26:12 -0400 From: "NickG" <nick@tech-nick.net> Subject: Re: [E36M3] M3 vs 325 Block That's incorrect. Emissions regulations go along with the engine used. So technically, if you're installing an OBD2 engine into an OBD1 chassis, you have to install the corresponding emissions equipment from the new engine to keep the feds happy. Nick > Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:08:45 -0700 (PDT) > From: DocWyte <josh_wyte@yahoo.com> > Subject: Re: [E36M3] M3 vs 325 Block > > All you need is the 3.2 block. Nothing to convert to > OBD1. As long as your car is OBD1, you can put in the > updated (newer) block and be perfectly legal. It'll > also be way cheaper than trying to build one. > > -josh
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Re: [E36M3] M3 vs 325 Block - from DocWyte
Top
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 14:41:26 -0700 (PDT) From: DocWyte <josh_wyte@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] M3 vs 325 Block Yeah, but the blocks are the same with the exception of the internals. I see the point if you're installing the complete long block, but not a short block. Regardless, there's no way the smog tech is going to know if I put a 3.2 block in my '95 M3 without crawling around for the serial number on the block. There's no real reason for them to do that... -josh --- NickG <nick@tech-nick.net> wrote: > Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:26:12 -0400 > From: "NickG" <nick@tech-nick.net> > Subject: Re: [E36M3] M3 vs 325 Block > > That's incorrect. Emissions regulations go along > with the engine used. So > technically, if you're installing an OBD2 engine > into an OBD1 chassis, you > have to install the corresponding emissions > equipment from the new engine to > keep the feds happy. > > Nick > > > Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:08:45 -0700 (PDT) > > From: DocWyte <josh_wyte@yahoo.com> > > Subject: Re: [E36M3] M3 vs 325 Block > > > > All you need is the 3.2 block. Nothing to convert > to > > OBD1. As long as your car is OBD1, you can put in > the > > updated (newer) block and be perfectly legal. > It'll > > also be way cheaper than trying to build one. > > > > -josh > > > > ************************************************* > 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 > Turner Motorsport http://www.turnermotorsport.com > > DIGEST INFORMATION: > http://www.bmw-m.net/resources/digest_info.htm > ************************************************* > > ===== __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Re: [E36M3] M3 vs 325 Block - from David Bauer
Top
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 16:57:29 -0500 From: David Bauer <dbauer@blkbox.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] M3 vs 325 Block Josh, Yeah, I was responding to the legality issue. I agree that the odds of someone looking at the engine serial number in a production car are pretty slim. Dave DocWyte wrote: >I've never been to a smog station where the tech has >taken the time to look at the serial number of the >block. They read the VIN, hook the car up to the smog >stuff and go. > >For kit cars I'm sure they're a whole lot more >interested in what's powering it... > >-josh > > >