-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1.Michelin MXX3 245/40/17 - from Dorffer, Rich
Top
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 18:21:38 -0400 From: "Dorffer, Rich" <RDORFFER@CleIndians.com> Subject: <WTB> Michelin MXX3 245/40/17 Does anyone have any Michelin MXX3 tires in 245/40/17 (50% tread or better)? I would be interested in buying one or two of them. Regards, Rich
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. RE: [E36M3] M3 vs 325 Block - from Burgess, Kim L
Top
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 15:49:20 -0700 From: "Burgess, Kim L" <kim.l.burgess@boeing.com> Subject: RE: [E36M3] M3 vs 325 Block Chester wrote: Why stop at 3.2L? <vbg> ....however if you were to obtain the alloy block from the M-Roadster/Coupe there might not be _any_ reason to go larger with the weight savings (power-to-weight) <VBG>^3 KLB
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. For Sale: Left Fog Lamp - from Henry Wu
Top
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 19:54:24 -0400 From: "Henry Wu" <hw711@hotmail.com> Subject: For Sale: Left Fog Lamp I have a used left fog lamp for sale(broke my right one and bought a new pair). It came from my 95 M3 so it's 8 years old and I don't know if it worth any money at all. But just in case any of you broke yours and don't want to buy a brand new pair (you can't really just replace with a new lamp since one old lamp and one new lamp together look ridiculous), make me an offer (any offer) in the next few days. I can send you pictures if you want too. Henry _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. M3 vs 325 Block - Correction on Emissions issue - from nabli@earthlink.net
Top
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 19:58:46 -0400 From: <nabli@earthlink.net> Subject: M3 vs 325 Block - Correction on Emissions issue That is not correct. Emissions regulations, in the states that actually impose any such regulations, refer to the manufacturing date of a vehicle. They usually state: "Motor vehicles manufactured before (or after) XXXX." Federal regulations may refer to "engines used" (Actually I have not checked the Code of Federal Regulations lately to verify that) but of course individuals (i.e., private citizens) are NOT subject to federal emissions requirements. I'll spare you the extended constitutional law lecture and just give you a blurb. For the most part, the Feds use their enumerated "commerce power" to regulate vehicle emissions. This basically means that they have the exclusive power to regulate all foreign & interstate commerce; which includes goods/vehicles between states & even intrastate activity that affects commerce in other states. That's why the feds can impose regulations such as emissions and FMVSS on car manufacturers. The feds do NOT have the constitutional authority/power to regulate purely intrastate activities! That's why you (the private peewee) have to comply/pass "state emissions testing" and not federal. So you DO have to comply with your particular state's emissions requirements. OH! What if your state (or the particular region/county) within your state does not require any emissions testing? :-) Unless prohibited by a specific state law, it would seem that if you are not in the business of selling cars in "commerce" then you just might be able to rip those damn cats out! Very interesting indeed! LOL! Cheers, Jim E. -----Original Message----- From: NickG [mailto:nick@tech-nick.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 5:31 PM To: E36M3 Subject: Re: [E36M3] M3 vs 325 Block 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
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. DAMNED Airbag Light... - from Steve Grigory
Top
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 17:36:52 -0700 From: Steve Grigory <sgrigory@pacbell.net> Subject: DAMNED Airbag Light... Need help with diagnosing/fixing the airbag light. It stays lit when you start the car and turns off a minute or so later. I've not been on the digest in a long time but I have a distant memory that this is usually caused by some sensor somewhere but I don't know which one or where it is. Any help would be appreciated, private replies especially. The car is a '95 M3. steve
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Re: [E36M3] M3 vs 325 Block - from Frank & Kirsten
Top
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 18:07:10 -0700 From: "Frank & Kirsten" <FranKirsten@msn.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] M3 vs 325 Block What I'd like to know is what is that extra .2L displacement really going to get you in real world numbers. Not begin critical, just wondering what real gains are to be had by such an endeavor. Frank 95 M3 3.0L ;')
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: [E36M3] M3 vs 325 Block - from NickG
Top
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 21:22:11 -0400 From: "NickG" <nick@tech-nick.net> Subject: Re: [E36M3] M3 vs 325 Block You have a point Frank. In actuality, it's only a increase of .15L, which equates to a 5% increase over the original 3.0L. Of course, if I had the option of doing a 3.2L vs a 3.0L, I'd opt for the 3.2. Providing, of course, that it wouldn't cost substantially more than the 3.0. Nick > Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 18:07:10 -0700 > From: "Frank & Kirsten" <FranKirsten@msn.com> > Subject: Re: [E36M3] M3 vs 325 Block > > What I'd like to know is what is that extra .2L displacement really > going to get you in real world numbers. Not begin critical, just > wondering what real gains are to be had by such an endeavor. > > Frank > 95 M3 3.0L ;')
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Fwd: Re: [E36M3] 3.2L engine swap - from Rex Tener
Top
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 18:45:41 -0700 From: Rex Tener <rex_tener@yahoo.com> Subject: Fwd: Re: [E36M3] 3.2L engine swap I posted this in February.... Rex >At 03:26 PM 2/5/2003 -0600, Juan Bruce wrote: >>I've run across a good deal on a 3.2 motor from a low mileage '99 M Coupe. >>I was thinking about swapping this into my early '95 M3 (pre EWS). I >>assume I can just keep my OBD I intake manifold, computer etc. and all I >>would need is a custom chip. Is there more to this swap? Does someone >>sell a kit? > >Hi Juan, > >I ran across this last night on bimmerforums, it looks like the >information that you are looking for: > > <http://homepage.mac.com/aceves/OBD_ONE1.html> > > >-- >Rex Tener >rex_tener@yahoo.com
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Re: Cooling problem? - from K. Bishop
Top
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 21:10:01 -0500 From: "K. Bishop" <kbishop371@attbi.com> Subject: Re: Cooling problem? Hi, Bill. Thanks for the note. Your comment about overheating not being normal is what some other friends have told me, so I'm going to have to at least stay in the "key an eye on it" category. I think I walked by your car -- with a big pool of coolant under it -- a couple times. Did you have a garage space close to the grid? Hope you have luck in getting this sorted out. Kevin > Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 23:13:28 -0500 > From: "Bill Kim" <billkim@texas.net> > Subject: Cooling problem? > > I was at TWS a few weeks ago in my 95 M3 and had serious overheating > problems.(I think it was the same event) > > My car would boilover at the end of the session if I drove hard. I had the > water pump and thermostat and flushed the system when it boiled over at MSR > a few weeks before. The system was also pressure tested for leaks. It is > now looking like a head gasket problem. > > From what I have heard, it is not normal for an M3 to overheat, even in > those conditions. > <snip> > > Bill
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Re: Cooling problem? - from K. Bishop
Top
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 21:20:12 -0500 From: "K. Bishop" <kbishop371@attbi.com> Subject: Re: Cooling problem? > Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 10:47:08 -0400 > From: "Dorffer, Rich" <RDORFFER@CleIndians.com> > Subject: Cooling problem? > >> Don't worry, your car did the same as mine has done whenever it is that hot >> @ the track. > > Maybe it is just me, but knowing how the stock water temp gauge works, I would > be interested in finding out why the temp was rising to the 3/4 mark. These > gauges don't move much off the center point unless they are getting hot. > Yeah, your oil temps are reasonable at 240F (higher, but reasonable > considering the ambient temps) but the water temps were up there and the stock > water temp gauge is a sorry excuse for a gauge so it isn't the best indicator > of actual temps. > > I would suspect your cooling system (how old is the fluid), the thermostat, > etc.? > In my case the cooling fluid is ~18 - 19 months old, the thermostat is original. Actually, everything in the cooling system is original other than the fluid. I'm debating over just how much to do before the next track event in Sep... Thanks for your help, Kevin > Regards, > > Rich >