-------------------- 1 --------------------
#1. Re: [E36M3] "Brake light circuit" warning? - from Mark D
Top
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:05:00 -0400 From: Mark D <mdlkml@atari-source.org> Subject: Re: [E36M3] "Brake light circuit" warning? Bill and Jan Klemme wrote: > Thanks! It's always nice to know my problems aren't unique. As for > the bulb holders, is it possible to spritz them with WD-40 to make > better contact? My old Volvo 240's always had power window issues > because of poor contact in the switches. An almost infallible fix was > to spray that stuff generously into the rocker switches....don't even > have to take them apart. > Regards, > Bill I'll try that, and as an aside, anyone know if WD40 is a recommended cleaning solution for potentiometers? I have an amp that's acting up due to the gain adjustment. Thanks, Mark
-------------------- 2 --------------------
#2. Fwd: Re: [E36M3] Suspension refresh question - from Jerry Brown
Top
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:55:25 +0100 From: "Jerry Brown" <dotmumble@gmail.com> Subject: Fwd: Re: [E36M3] Suspension refresh question Well, I don't claim to be an expert, but my previous comments were based on information I've recieved. Can you provide facts to back up your assertions? I'm quite happy to be educated, but would feel much better if actual facts and figures were involved, rather than blanket statments. Thanks! Cheers, -jerry On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 06:41:04 +0100, Rich Dorffer <E36M3Digest@gmail.com> wrote: > They aren't stronger, the ball joints are not as robust, the aluminum is > more prone to cracking and they are less stiff than steel E36 M3 control > arms. They weren't designed for the E36 M3 and even when used on the > lighter and less powerful E30 M3, more frequent replacement is > recommended > on the E30 M3 particularly in track usage (more frequent than typically > recommended of the E36 M3 with their stock steel arms). > > Stick with stock E36 M3 Lemforder steel control arms unless a minuscule > amount of unsprung weight savings and more frequent, more expensive > aluminum > arm replacement appeals to you. > > Regards, > > Rich > > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:14 PM, Jerry Brown <dotmumble@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:14:57 +0100, Rich Dorffer <E36M3Digest@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > And the aluminum control arms are an improvent over new control arms >> how? >> >> Stronger, less unsprung weight. Admittedly, not that important to some >> owners. >> >> Cheers, >> -jerry -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
-------------------- 3 --------------------
#3. Re: Suspension refresh question - from Neil Maller
Top
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:21:15 -0500 From: Neil Maller <neil.maller@gte.net> Subject: Re: Suspension refresh question on 3/11/08 8:14 AM, Bill and Jan Klemme <wklemme@gmail.com> wrote: > Does anyone ever simply replace the ball joints in the old arms? The E36 M3 ball joints aren't replaceable. on 3/11/08 8:14 AM, "Jack - Elephant Motorsports" <jack@elephantmotorsports.com> wrote: > As for the ball joint robustness and stiffness of the [E30 M3 aluminum] > arm....I don't think I've ever seen anyone say this, just curious as to where > this comes from. Dunno about the stiffness, although I can certainly imagine that may be so, but I've always heard that the E30 M3 inner ball joint is weaker than the E36 M3. Can't put an authoritative attribution to that though. Anyone ever checked their relative dimensions? However installing a known prone-to-fail part from a lighter car on a much heavier one is a recipe for disaster. And unless you're racing in a class where those last few pounds mean something, it seems pointless for most people. For the really hard core who do want to save those last ounces, the better solution would be the E36 race control arms from Bimmerworld (see Suspension > Solid/Spherical Race Components). These are adapted from the E46 and are clearly a more robust design. They also compensate for the roll centre height problem on lowered E36 cars. Bring your wallet and a generous assortment of high limit credit cards... Neil Fort Wayne, IN 96 M3 - Bastard child 03 525iT - Sterling Grey Metallic 05 Mini - Cooper S with LSD
-------------------- 4 --------------------
#4. Re: [E36M3] Re: Suspension refresh question - from Jack - Elephant Motorsports
Top
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 10:51:12 -0400 From: "Jack - Elephant Motorsports" <jack@elephantmotorsports.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Re: Suspension refresh question > > Dunno about the stiffness, although I can certainly imagine that may be > so, > but I've always heard that the E30 M3 inner ball joint is weaker than the > E36 M3. Can't put an authoritative attribution to that though. Anyone ever > checked their relative dimensions? > Yeah see I don't see where anything about stiffness has ever been discussed or shown. And I don't see any inherent reason why the steel would be stiffer, that's one of the benefits of aluminum is being able to obtain the same or better stiffness vs steel but with a weight benefit as well. One downside, of course, is that aluminum has a fatigue life. As for the ball joints being weaker, again, I don't recall seeing any proof of this so I'm curious. I recall years ago someone did a hardness study but I'm not sure if that included E36 ball joints, I think this was when the E30 steel arms were suspect....and thus the reason for recommending the aluminum arm to begin with. > > > However installing a known prone-to-fail part from a lighter car on a much > heavier one is a recipe for disaster. And unless you're racing in a class > where those last few pounds mean something, it seems pointless for most > people. > Of course my former E36 M3 CM car used the E30 aluminum control arms for years. I *think* (but have no proof either way) that there was a control arm failure at one point but without knowing anything about the circumstances of it even if it did happen it doesn't have any real meaning. From what I've seen prone-to-fail is not a part issue necessarily. I do agree that unless you're racing in a class where you must use ball joints (stock and prepared for example) using the aluminum arms is rather pointless, added cost for no particular reason. Although from a racing perspective the $/lb ratio is not bad considering the cost of FG/CF body panels and other expensive lightening options. We're looking at what, about a 4lb difference and the cost difference is $122.40 (based on 20% off BMW NA list) so that's ~$30/lb. A typical CF hood costs $750 and the weight savings is what, about 30lbs? So that's $25/lb, close anyway. Granted the hood is not a wear item but is the assumption that using the steel arms promotes longer life? How much longer? Again, the aluminum arms are not the cat's ass of upgrades but I also don't think the negatives presented are fact based. Using sphericals with bump steer correction has been done for a long time and is DEFINITELY the better way to go for a multitude of reasons. Cheers. Jack Money
-------------------- 5 --------------------
#5. RE: [e36m3] Fwd: Re: [E36M3] Suspension refresh question - from Marco Romani
Top
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 08:13:29 -0700 From: "Marco Romani" <marco@corsa-na.com> Subject: RE: [e36m3] Fwd: Re: [E36M3] Suspension refresh question BMW<space>CCA Club Racing requires at least inspection if not replace of aluminum control arms after a specified period. While yes the AL ones are lighter they are not as robust at track events, especially if you have a habit of jumping curbs ;-) <ask me how I know> I've bent AL ones multiple times but the steel ones tend to put up with the abuse. Also the geometry of the Al and Steel ones are not identical if that matters. Best regards, Marco -----Original Message----- From: Jerry Brown [mailto:dotmumble@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 7:05 AM To: E36M3 Subject: [e36m3] Fwd: Re: [E36M3] Suspension refresh question Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 14:55:25 +0100 From: "Jerry Brown" <dotmumble@gmail.com> Subject: Fwd: Re: [E36M3] Suspension refresh question Well, I don't claim to be an expert, but my previous comments were based on information I've recieved. Can you provide facts to back up your assertions? I'm quite happy to be educated, but would feel much better if actual facts and figures were involved, rather than blanket statments. Thanks! Cheers, -jerry On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 06:41:04 +0100, Rich Dorffer <E36M3Digest@gmail.com> wrote: > They aren't stronger, the ball joints are not as robust, the aluminum is > more prone to cracking and they are less stiff than steel E36 M3 control > arms. They weren't designed for the E36 M3 and even when used on the > lighter and less powerful E30 M3, more frequent replacement is > recommended > on the E30 M3 particularly in track usage (more frequent than typically > recommended of the E36 M3 with their stock steel arms). > > Stick with stock E36 M3 Lemforder steel control arms unless a minuscule > amount of unsprung weight savings and more frequent, more expensive > aluminum > arm replacement appeals to you. > > Regards, > > Rich > > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:14 PM, Jerry Brown <dotmumble@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:14:57 +0100, Rich Dorffer <E36M3Digest@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > And the aluminum control arms are an improvent over new control arms >> how? >> >> Stronger, less unsprung weight. Admittedly, not that important to some >> owners. >> >> Cheers, >> -jerry -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ ************************************************* Please help support the E36M3 list by visiting our sponsors: Bimmerworld http://www.bimmerworld.com Turner Motorsport http://www.turnermotorsport.com Eurosport High Performance http://www.eurosporthighperformance.com Rogue Engineering http://www.rogueengineering.com Treehouse Racing http://www.treehouseracing.com Elephant Motorsports Inc. http://www.elephantmotorsports.com DIGEST INFORMATION: http://www.bmw-m.net/resources/digest_info.htm ************************************************* No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.518 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1324 - Release Date: 3/10/2008 7:27 PM
-------------------- 6 --------------------
#6. Re: [E36M3] Suspension refresh question - from Rich Dorffer
Top
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:20:48 -0400 From: "Rich Dorffer" <E36M3Digest@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Suspension refresh question If failures were due to installation, this would occur whether it was aluminum or steel, I haven't heard of nearly the failures with steel as aluminum. The volume of aluminum in the aluminum control arms is about the same as the volume of steel in the steel control arms, it doesn't take much to figure out that the steel arm is far more robust than the aluminum (at the expense of weight of course). The ball joints in the E36 M3 control arms are solid and heat treated versus the E30/E36 control arms having rubber lined ball joints that are not as large. I can't confirm whether this holds completely true for the E30 M3 aluminum control arms, maybe I need to cut one apart. Club Racing recommends the aluminum E30 M3 arms over the E36 M3 arms? I guess this wouldn't be the first time I disagreed with Club Racing's position. Where do they make that recommendation? Regards, Rich On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Jack - Elephant Motorsports < jack@elephantmotorsports.com> wrote: > Actually from what I've been able to determine the reason for frequent > replacement recommendation is based more on failures due to improper > installation rather than part degredation. At least I'll say there is more > evidence/proof that is the case. Seems a lot of people like to overtorque > them. It's interesting that CR recommends replacing stock arms with the > aluminum arms, both E30 and E36, but again, I've seen no real evidence it's > necessary. > > As for the ball joint robustness and stiffness of the arm....I don't think > I've ever seen anyone say this, just curious as to where this comes from. > > Cheers. > > Jack Money > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 1:44 AM, Rich Dorffer <E36M3Digest@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:41:04 -0400 > > From: "Rich Dorffer" <E36M3Digest@gmail.com> > > Subject: Re: [E36M3] Suspension refresh question > > > > They aren't stronger, the ball joints are not as robust, the aluminum is > > more prone to cracking and they are less stiff than steel E36 M3 control > > arms. They weren't designed for the E36 M3 and even when used on the > > lighter and less powerful E30 M3, more frequent replacement is > > recommended > > on the E30 M3 particularly in track usage (more frequent than typically > > recommended of the E36 M3 with their stock steel arms). > > > > Stick with stock E36 M3 Lemforder steel control arms unless a minuscule > > amount of unsprung weight savings and more frequent, more expensive > > aluminum > > arm replacement appeals to you. > > > > Regards, > > > > Rich > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:14 PM, Jerry Brown <dotmumble@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:14:57 +0100, Rich Dorffer < > > E36M3Digest@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > And the aluminum control arms are an improvent over new control arms > > > how? > > > > > > Stronger, less unsprung weight. Admittedly, not that important to some > > > owners. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > -jerry > > >
-------------------- 7 --------------------
#7. Re: [E36M3] Suspension refresh question - from Rich Dorffer
Top
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:32:33 -0400 From: "Rich Dorffer" <E36M3Digest@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Suspension refresh question > > From: Bill and Jan Klemme <wklemme@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [E36M3] Suspension refresh question > > Does anyone ever simply replace the ball joints in the old arms? > Wouldn't that be a less expensive way, besides avoiding the waste of > throwing away a perfectly good piece of steel? Maybe this practice was > started by repair shops who just were in a hurry to finish the job in > the least amount of time, and pass the cost along to the customer? > Or...is it even possible to buy the ball joints by themselves? Seems > strange to me. The E36 M3 arms do not have replaceable ball joints, they are fully captured in the arm. Regards, Rich
-------------------- 8 --------------------
#8. Re: [E36M3] Suspension refresh question - from Carlos Lopez
Top
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:33:27 -0400 From: "Carlos Lopez" <clopez98m3@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Suspension refresh question On 3/11/08, Rich Dorffer <E36M3Digest@gmail.com> wrote: > If failures were due to installation, this would occur whether it was > aluminum or steel, I haven't heard of nearly the failures with steel as > aluminum. The volume of aluminum in the aluminum control arms is about the > same as the volume of steel in the steel control arms, it doesn't take much > to figure out that the steel arm is far more robust than the aluminum (at > the expense of weight of course). The ball joints in the E36 M3 control > arms are solid and heat treated versus the E30/E36 control arms having > rubber lined ball joints that are not as large. I can't confirm whether > this holds completely true for the E30 M3 aluminum control arms, maybe I > need to cut one apart. > > Club Racing recommends the aluminum E30 M3 arms over the E36 M3 arms? I > guess this wouldn't be the first time I disagreed with Club Racing's > position. Where do they make that recommendation? I think that was the only conclusion from a post many years ago on this list. The ball joints on the E30 M3 aluminum arms are hardened. I think someone did a Rockwell hardness test on them. The club racing thing was a safety bulletin, I didn't agree with it when they changed it to include all E30s and E36s. -Carlos 98 M3 sticking with steel E36 M3 arms
-------------------- 9 --------------------
#9. Re: [E36M3] Re: Suspension refresh question - from David Michael
Top
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:37:32 -0400 From: "David Michael" <adavidmichael@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Re: Suspension refresh question > > . But the tricky part is that in general, aluminum is less "forgiving" > than steel of design errors because "high strength" aluminum tends to be > very ductile and will break soon after it starts to bend permanently. > > Dave > 98 M3/4 with steel control arms > > > Um make that "NOT" very ductile.....
-------------------- 10 --------------------
#10. Re: [E36M3] Suspension refresh question - from Rich Dorffer
Top
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 11:39:48 -0400 From: "Rich Dorffer" <E36M3Digest@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [E36M3] Suspension refresh question On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Carlos Lopez <clopez98m3@gmail.com> wrote: > On 3/11/08, Rich Dorffer <E36M3Digest@gmail.com> wrote: > > If failures were due to installation, this would occur whether it was > > aluminum or steel, I haven't heard of nearly the failures with steel as > > aluminum. The volume of aluminum in the aluminum control arms is about > the > > same as the volume of steel in the steel control arms, it doesn't take > much > > to figure out that the steel arm is far more robust than the aluminum > (at > > the expense of weight of course). The ball joints in the E36 M3 control > > arms are solid and heat treated versus the E30/E36 control arms having > > rubber lined ball joints that are not as large. I can't confirm whether > > this holds completely true for the E30 M3 aluminum control arms, maybe I > > need to cut one apart. > > > > Club Racing recommends the aluminum E30 M3 arms over the E36 M3 arms? I > > guess this wouldn't be the first time I disagreed with Club Racing's > > position. Where do they make that recommendation? > > I think that was the only conclusion from a post many years ago on > this list. The ball joints on the E30 M3 aluminum arms are hardened. > I think someone did a Rockwell hardness test on them. The E36 M3 ball joints are also hardened. Has anyone compared how they are captured in the arm and the size? I need to do that as I have only heard from trusted second hand accounts that the E36 M3 ball joints are more robust. > The club racing thing was a safety bulletin, I didn't agree with it > when they changed it to include all E30s and E36s. I would argue that one, where is the chief steward??? :-) Regards, Rich