-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. RE:Ground Control Coilover Kit - from Erik
Top
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 08:32:13 -0700 From: "Erik" <Erik@mpactmotorsports.com> Subject: RE:Ground Control Coilover Kit I run what amounts to the race kit on my 95. Caster Camber plates, rsms, shortened shock bodies, and 450/7 and 550/6 springs. The ride is completely tolerable, even for a 2 hour drive to Monterey and back. The car is my daily driver and even with low ride heights (12.60 and 11.50) I have never really bottomed out. I have installed half a dozen BMW GC setups of one variety or another, and all the folks have been happy. I don't think that 375 or 400 front springs aren't enough spring and will tend to lead to bottoming out, especially if they are only 6" springs. I have tried about 20 different spring rates and have settled on the above mentioned rates as optimal for Autocross and street driving. As always, YMMV, but shoot me an email if you are in the Bay Area and want a ride. Erik Lind MPACT Motorsports
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Re: [E36M3] retainers - from Roger Graves
Top
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 11:41:08 -0400 From: Roger Graves <RogRacer@earthlink.net> Subject: Re: [E36M3] retainers Agreed...I don't think "bouncing off the limiter" puts any real additional stress on the retainers....I think it's just the high rpms associated with it that count! -Roger On 8/15/03 11:20 AM, "E36M3" <e36m3@bmw-m.net> wrote: > Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 10:20:27 -0400 > From: "Ron Buchalski" <rbuchals@hotmail.com> > Subject: Re: [E36M3] Retainers > > I think the concept of "bouncing off the rev limiter" needs to be better > explained. This isn't a hard limit, like slamming into a wall. Above max > revs, the engine computer begins to cut fuel to the engine. It's more of a > 'soft' limit. > > But yes, running the engine in the upper RPM range does put additional > stress on the engine. > > > Ron Buchalski > BMWCCA #76387 > 1995 E36 M3 > 1993 E34 525iT > 1999 Mazda Miata > >> Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2003 18:19:51 -0400 >> From: Roger Graves <RogRacer@earthlink.net> >> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Retainers >> >> The stress in the retainers is mainly an rpm-related function. >> Unfortunately, that function happens to go with the square of rpm. >> So, an aftermarket chip with a 7200 rpm redline would put about 25% more >> stress on the retainers than a factory limit of 6500. If you bounce off >> the >> aftermarket rev-limiter on a regular basis...you tell me what you think you >> are doing to the fatigue life of the retainers! >> >> -Roger >> '95M3....early retainers & watching my rev limits!
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. The Road to Schricks - from Steve Klein
Top
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 10:47:58 -0700 From: Steve Klein <klein@robinsonad.com> Subject: The Road to Schricks Hi, Gang- In planning to go into the top end of my 11/95 M3 with 124K on the odo. to replace the lifters and some VANOs components (main actuator was replaced about a year ago), I'm also planning on slipping a bit further down the slope with Schrick cams and the Euro HFM / 24# injectors / J.C. CAI and chip. Since I'll have to break this up into a few stages, my question is: Is it possible to run the engine stock (as it is) with the Schricks installed? Or would I need to chip it at that time? The acquisition and installation of the remainder of the items would happen within a month of putting the cams in, and since I'm eager to quiet the engine I thought it would only make sense to put the cams in while everything was apart. Thanks in advance for your input- Steve
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Re: [E36M3] RE: check engine - from alex.fadeev@verizon.com
Top
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 10:52:35 -0500 From: alex.fadeev@verizon.com Subject: Re: [E36M3] RE: check engine driver8 ///M3 <driver8m3@yahoo.com> wrote: > > thanks for the tips. i filled the gas tank a few days before the CE > light came on. when it came on i was pretty low on fuel...the computer > said i had about 35 miles to go on the current tank. when i got gas > later, the cap was on tight. is it possible that when low on fuel, > if you take a corner hard and slosh the remaining fuel around in the > tank that some air might get sucked in and cause the CE light? Russel, I don't think so. When you suck in the air out of the fuel tank you get a stumbling engine. That may lead to a few CE lights, but not the evap control flow/leak FC/FE codes. I've been fighting a similar problem on my wife's '98 328i. Ever so often, usually between 3/4 and 1/2 of the tank, the car throws those lights. In a few days they clear themselves. Than a few tanks of gas later they resurface. The gas cap is always on tight. I still have not gotten to the bottom of this, but strongly suspect the ODBII gasoline vapor evacuation lines and hoses. Has anyone on this list ever identified the underlying cause of evap CE codes? alex f
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. Re: [E36M3] Question about replacing rear, lower control arms - from alex.fadeev@verizon.com
Top
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 11:00:02 -0500 From: alex.fadeev@verizon.com Subject: Re: [E36M3] Question about replacing rear, lower control arms on 93 325 with "Chamberlain, Jesse" <jchamb06@harris.com> wrote: > > I have a 93 325i that I am in the process of replacing all the rear end > parts with M3 parts, and all new bushings in the subframe and control arms. > > I have a question about pre-loading, or the height that the rear control > arms should be at, when torque'ing the inner bolt (to the subframe) to > 57ft lbs. If they are left hanging in the air (therefore they are at > almost a 45 degree angle with respect to the subframe), and I torque them > down, it seems like when I lower my car off the jack stands, there will > be a lot of pre-load on the rubber bushings, causing them to wear out > faster. Is there a specific height that the arms should be at when I > torque the bolts? Jesse, The arms wont be hanging in the air. Just about the only way to install them is within 10 degrees of the position they will be in when everything is bolted back together. When I did mine, I bolted them finger tight on both ends and than torqued down both ends. BTW, all E36 share the same rear lower control arms. If your are not bent or damaged, there is no reason to 'upgrade' them. Double so since getting to the diff side mounts will require unbolting the rear sway bar to get to the diff bushings to shove the diff way up in the trunk to get control arm bolt to come out. > PS. as a side note, those GC RTAB shims are a TIGHT fit!! Yep, I had to shave 0.5-1.0mm off them just to get them in the bracket! > I can see how much of a difference they will make. I hope you are right. alex f
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Part number for M3/4 splash panel - from Chan, Larry M
Top
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 10:41:45 -0600 From: "Chan, Larry M" <larry.m.chan@lmco.com> Subject: Part number for M3/4 splash panel I need a part number for the splash panel for a 97 M3/4. I ordered a splash panel for my 97 M3 sedan but was send a panel for the 2-door (p/n 51-71-2-250-643). When I try to return it they told me that's the part number they show for the 4-door. I took the panel off my car but the section with the p/n is the section that was broken off. I try to get the p/n from another 97 M3/4 by looking through the grill. The number I got 51-71-3-156-209 or -239 (it was very hard to see) was checked by the dealer and was told it is not a good number. Thanks, Larry 97 M3/4
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Machining Original Flywheel vs. Aluminum Flywheels - from Roy Kao
Top
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 12:57:24 -0400 From: "Roy Kao" <bimmerphile@hotmail.com> Subject: Machining Original Flywheel vs. Aluminum Flywheels Hello Digesters, I'll be replacing my clutch soon and wanted to take this opportunity to consider some weight saving measures. After seeing all the postings about the lightweight flywheels offered by the various vendors, my shop actually suggested machining and balancing my existing flywheel to reduce the rotating mass. Has anyone done this before? If so, have you had any problems? I realize that the machinist used by the shop must be excellent and it is only a few pounds I'll be saving, unlike the aluminum versions, but I don't really trust investing the money right now in the lightweight flywheels after seeing the stories that range from unreliable parts to excessive vibration. My shop has told me that I will notice more vibration from the transmission after machining the flywheel but it won't be comparable to the vibration generated by the aluminum flywheels. He trusts the engineers at BMW to have created the right part and wants to lessen the weight on it rather than replacing it. Any for and opposed arguments would be welcomed. You can post your answer privately or on the digest, others may be interested in this method versus buying the lightweight wheel. Thanks in advance for your collective thoughts and wisdom. Cheers, -Roy '99 M3 (About to get a new clutch and some new coil over legs...) _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. UPDATE: Coolant leak found and fixed - from Robert S. Hatrak II
Top
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 10:09:01 -0700 From: "Robert S. Hatrak II" <rshatrakii@earthlink.net> Subject: UPDATE: Coolant leak found and fixed I just wanted to offer up a big thank you to everyone that helped me get my car back on the road. Thanks to Alex, Mike, Rick, Chester, and Kirk for tech. assistance and advice. Thanks to Chris for the wrench help and the two near concussions. :) Only after replacing the radiator, water pump, thermostat, metal thermostat housing, all belts, tensioners, pulleys, hoses, and expansion tank did I find the leak. The leak turned out to be at the small hose that leads to the expansion tank. The nipple that the hose attaches to broke off and allowed the leak to occur. And of course this was the very last item that I R&R'd...it would have been too easy to find the leak on the first part removed! My only regret about the whole ordeal is that just two days after the project was wrapped up, Mark announced the S54 radiator from the M-Roadster would fit the E36 M3. Doh! I wish I knew that a week earlier! Anyway...Thanks again for everyone's help. Rob
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. UPDATE: 95 E36 M3 Knock Sensor #2 replaced - from Robert S. Hatrak II
Top
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 10:16:33 -0700 From: "Robert S. Hatrak II" <rshatrakii@earthlink.net> Subject: UPDATE: 95 E36 M3 Knock Sensor #2 replaced This last weekend, my friend Patrick showed me how to replace the knock sensors in my M3. The top one was a piece of cake. The #2 sensor was a bit more difficult. As I mentioned in an earlier post, Patrick said it wasn't necessary to remove the intake manifold to replace the #2 sensor, and he was right. In a matter of just over an hour, he had dropped the tranny mount, jacked the trans up about 1/4 inch, removed my X-Brace, removed the clutch slave, removed the starter, and removed the #2 sensor...all from underneath the car on jackstands. It was quite impressive to see it done this way, and we were both really glad that we didn't need to tear the manifold off. If anyone else attempts this procedure, be sure to disconnect the battery first, as the starter has some serious voltage going to it. Thanks to everyone who offered tech. advice and encouragement! Rob
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. RE: [E36M3] Part number for M3/4 splash panel - from Jim Bassett
Top
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 10:17:17 -0700 From: Jim Bassett <jim@jimbassett.com> Subject: RE: [E36M3] Part number for M3/4 splash panel > I need a part number for the splash panel for a 97 M3/4. I'm not at home to look on my ETK (maybe someone else can help), but the splash panel for the M3 Sedan is the same for the non-M E36's (they at least appear to be the same on my M3/4 and 325is). Try asking for that part, maybe you'll get the right one. Hope that helps, Jim Bassett 1998 M3/4 1993 325is #44 JP/A5
-------------------- 11 --------------------
#11. Torque wrenches - from Barrett Nicholas
Top
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 10:23:46 -0700 (PDT) From: Barrett Nicholas <barrettn@swbell.net> Subject: Torque wrenches When I was researching what brand of torque wrench to buy, I was told by a torque wrench repair and calibration company (Team Torque http://www.teamtorque.com/) that many of the more common torque wrenches share common "guts" made by one company, and that then Sears or SK put their own handles, ratchet head, etc. to their specs. The clue is in looking at the engraving for the torque markings on the barrel - they all look identical. From what I remember, SnapOn, Hazet, Facom, and a few others make their own, but SK, Craftsman, K-D, Matco are all made by this one company - I want to say the company is JS Technology, but I don't remember for sure. hth, Barrett
-------------------- 12 --------------------
#12. RE: [E36M3] Machining Original Flywheel vs. Aluminum Flywheels - from Robert S. Hatrak II
Top
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 10:23:51 -0700 From: "Robert S. Hatrak II" <rshatrakii@earthlink.net> Subject: RE: [E36M3] Machining Original Flywheel vs. Aluminum Flywheels My understanding is that you couldn't/shouldn't machine a dual mass flywheel. Others will have more information on this than I do. Rob