The BMW UUC Digest Volume 2 : Issue 260 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: Re: E38 tranny Q...Hey Brett Re: S$$$ happens Re: S$$$ happens Re: cd changer for 1995 M3? Need Help in Bean Town Re: S$$$ happens Re: S$$$ happens Re: S$$$ happens Re: S$$$ happens Re: S$$$ happens Re: S$$$ happens Re: S$$$ happens BMW CCA Raffle Re: BMW CCA Raffle Re: headlight bulbs
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:32:42 -0400 From: "Brett Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "UUC Digest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: E38 tranny Q...Hey Brett Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I'm not sure there is such a point for the 5HP30 and 5HP24. We only used to see change related problems on high mileage 4HP22's and some of the GM autos in the 6 cylinder cars. I do recommend no more than 80K miles on the fluid in your trans. Interestingly, I was talking to a ZF rep yesterday who put it this way. "There was a translation problem. BMW was told "long life oil" they translated that (probably with the marketing department's help) to lifetime. ZF "suggests" off the record, that the oil is good for no more than 100K miles. Brett Anderson KMS > -----Original Message----- > > In reading the archives I found a reference to the mileage after which > you would not change the E38's "lifetime" tranny fluid. But I did not > see that mileage number listed. Where is the cutoff point for replacing > or leaving tranny fluid? --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.712 / Virus Database: 468 - Release Date: 6/27/2004 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 17:50:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Jonathan Brush <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: S$$$ happens Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: "Rob Levinson * UUC Motorwerks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sez SNIP 3) In NJ, we pay for a police officer to sit at every highway construction site. Why isn't that guy standing at the merge point and directing traffic to merge properly? (We pay active duty time for the officer to do paperwork while sitting in his car.) Enough of that traffic directing and people will eventually get the point about a universal merge procedure." In the humble Commonwealth of Mass, utility companies etc (by law are required to) pay officers private duty $$ to stand around at construction sites drinking coffee and BSing with the "workers" who are leaning on their shovels. There was an attempt in the legislature to change this, and pay decent wages to flag persons to direct traffic. Of course the police unions argued that the officers were made available on the streets to deter criminals by this practice. Yeah, sure, they find a lot of criminals inside of their coffee cups and in the bottom of trenches where they focus their limited attention. BZZT no law change and the officers continue to make over $150K/yr in some cases. Regarding the enforced merge, seems I recall that there are (were at one time?) officers at the entrance to the Hudson River tunnels, pulling over drivers who did not adhere to the interlacing merge required by signs. Even if there was no ticket, a nice long talk at the side of the road would be enough to make the evil offender late for work. Dunno if this made the drivers more careful next time?? I would have no hope of this working in Mass, as someone said. Jon __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 12:43:21 -0400 From: "Robinson, Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'UUCDigest'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: S$$$ happens Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OK, the problem is that in this kind of case merging isn't the only issue. All the brain dead morons who have to stare at the guy changing a flat on the other side of the freeway, or try to do accident reconstruction from their driver's seat, or figure out when the road work is to be done, whatever. My original post was about construction zones, as they usually have signs "Right Lane Closed 1 Mi. ahead." I saw many cases when the idiot I was talking about trying to block the free lane was doing it with a mile of open road ahead. If there are 2 lanes in one direction & they have ALWAYS narrowed down, or the construction has been there a while, there is absolutely NO EXCUSE for a bottleneck. Non-constants like accidents are a different story. Now, the big problem causing the bottleneck is that 99% of idiots don't look any farther ahead than their hood embleme & use the brake to merge rather than the gas. I've driven in so many places, and a constant is that most people feel like driving is some menial activity you do while doing something else. Yes, I drive all the way to the front of a pile-up before merging. Yes, it benefits me greatly. However, I plan my opening a long time before I actually change lanes & can't remember the last time I impeded the flow of traffic by driving all the way past a mess to the exit ramp, end of lane, construction, etc. If I do that, I don't see what all the fuss is about.....just because you didn't take a chance & get to the front of the line why are you mad at me? I can see if I drove up to the front, stopped, pushed my way in/ran somebody off the road, etc. Fact of the matter is that this phenomenon of having one lane backed up for miles sometimes with other lanes wide open is the result of a whole lot of bad driving skills, not all related to merging. If everyone drove & merged properly driving normally up to the point where the merge is to occur, would be the best. I've always thought that the people who drive down an acceleration ramp & stop at the end should have their liscences revoked until they passed a real driving test (& maybe an IQ test). The people who stop on the interstate to let them in should never be allowed to sit in the front seat of an automobile again. Unfortuantely, this has become basically accepted behavoir....... I feel sorry for the lane-blocking self-cops, as the car I'm in doesn't have "RENTAL CAR--WITH DAMAGE WAIVER" painted on it..... ;) Lee > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Rich Dorffer > Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 23:33 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: Gary Derian > Subject: Re: [UUC] S$$$ happens > > > I must be missing something then. Sure, the length of the > backup may be > shorter (say 1,000 cars backed up in two lanes from the merge point > backwards, 500 per lane compared to 1,000 cars in one line as > the extreme > example), but I don't see how it would shorten (or lengthen > the transit > time) if the slowest speed at the merge point/bottle neck is, > say, 5 mph. > It will still take the same amount of time for the 1,000 cars to pass > through that point. > > Regards, > > Rich > > > > > When all the road is used, the length of the backup is > shorter. This will > > shorten the transit time. > > Gary Derian > > > > > > > > But right there is the issue, the speed of the open lanes > at the slowest > > point is the problem. > > > It doesn't matter if you merge at the point of closure or if > > you all line > > up orderly at the first > > > opportunity to form in the open lanes, the slowest speed > through the > > closed section is always the > > > limiting factor. Merging at the point of closure is no faster > > overall for > > the mass than merging > > > immediately if the flow is only X through the closed lanes. > > > > > > People merging at the last minute only benefit themselves > at the expense > > of everyone else. > > Search the > ARCHIVES:http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ______________________________________________________________ > ____________ > In memory of Michel Potheau - friend, enthusiast, founder of > the BMW CCA. > > UUC Motorwerks - BMW Performance Fine-tuning and home of the Ultimate > Short Shifter - accept no substitutes! > 908-874-9092 . http://www.uucmotorwerks.com > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 20:44:05 -0500 From: "Karl Zemlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: cd changer for 1995 M3? Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I bought a CDX-M30 on eBAY and with the requisite 13-14 pin adapter cable and some minor wiring for power I am up and running (just did this on Saturday). It skips pretty easily, but it recovers gracefully. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Wheeler Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 6:28 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [UUC] cd changer for 1995 M3? If it has a round plug with round pins (91-95 changer) I have been told the PIONEER CDX-M30 will work. If it is the 96+ style (two hard cornered misshapen rectangles) then there are a few adapters to make sony, kenwood, and alpine players work. I think Soundgate, PAC, and Blitz all make adapters. Hope this is a helpful start... On Jul 7, 2004, at 3:07 PM, jun lim wrote: I have the standard cassette and radio deck in my car. Are there aftermarket CD changers that will work directly from my deck? Do I need to change the head unit as well? Any advice appreciated. Jun ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2004 21:43:56 -0400 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Need Help in Bean Town Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I'm looking for someone near the Boston area that would look at a car I'm interested in. The car is located in Lexington, MA. I'm in TN. I'll try to make it worth your time ;-). TIA Evan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 22:07:29 -0400 From: "Gary Derian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: S$$$ happens Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> When all the road is used, the length of the backup is shorter. This will shorten the transit time. Gary Derian > > But right there is the issue, the speed of the open lanes at the slowest point is the problem. > It doesn't matter if you merge at the point of closure or if you all line up orderly at the first > opportunity to form in the open lanes, the slowest speed through the closed section is always the > limiting factor. Merging at the point of closure is no faster overall for the mass than merging > immediately if the flow is only X through the closed lanes. > > People merging at the last minute only benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else. > > Regards, > > Rich > Search the ARCHIVES:http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 23:33:20 -0400 From: "Rich Dorffer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Gary Derian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: S$$$ happens Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I must be missing something then. Sure, the length of the backup may be shorter (say 1,000 cars backed up in two lanes from the merge point backwards, 500 per lane compared to 1,000 cars in one line as the extreme example), but I don't see how it would shorten (or lengthen the transit time) if the slowest speed at the merge point/bottle neck is, say, 5 mph. It will still take the same amount of time for the 1,000 cars to pass through that point. Regards, Rich > > When all the road is used, the length of the backup is shorter. This will > shorten the transit time. > Gary Derian > > > > > But right there is the issue, the speed of the open lanes at the slowest > point is the problem. > > It doesn't matter if you merge at the point of closure or if > you all line > up orderly at the first > > opportunity to form in the open lanes, the slowest speed through the > closed section is always the > > limiting factor. Merging at the point of closure is no faster > overall for > the mass than merging > > immediately if the flow is only X through the closed lanes. > > > > People merging at the last minute only benefit themselves at the expense > of everyone else. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 08:35:22 -0500 From: Dennis Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: S$$$ happens Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I would agree with you. Merging early or late would make no difference unless there is a turn off or exit available. Then merging early would clear the "turn lane" for cars needing it. The real problem is idiot drivers who have to either rubber neck at EVERYTHING, treat the gas pedal as if there was a fragile egg under it, or get "scared" when the road narrows and slow way under the limit. Sometimes you get one idiot who does all three. Nothing is more frustrating than being behind someone who will not go when they can - no matter if they are looking at the wreck/road work or just take 120 seconds to go from 0-30mph. If people would just go the posted speed and accelerate briskly once past the problem - and do a "zipper-like" merge things would go a LOT smoother. Someone had a web page about driving a constant speed rather than stopping and starting - I tried to Google it up, but didn't find it (yet). I have tried this and it works super as long as there is only one lane. I use my car as a "buffer" to separate the stop/start cars in from of me from the cars behind. I try to pick a constant speed that nets out to the same speed as the cars in front. The result is a lot wear and tear on the clutch (and my leg) and much easier for those behind. If there is more than one lane, then folks will pass and get over and we are back to stop/start. Dennis 01 M5 silver/black At 11:33 PM 07/07/2004 -0400, you wrote: >I must be missing something then. Sure, the length of the backup may be >shorter (say 1,000 cars backed up in two lanes from the merge point >backwards, 500 per lane compared to 1,000 cars in one line as the extreme >example), but I don't see how it would shorten (or lengthen the transit >time) if the slowest speed at the merge point/bottle neck is, say, 5 mph. >It will still take the same amount of time for the 1,000 cars to pass >through that point. > >Regards, > >Rich > > > > > When all the road is used, the length of the backup is shorter. This will > > shorten the transit time. > > Gary Derian > > > > > > > > But right there is the issue, the speed of the open lanes at the slowest > > point is the problem. > > > It doesn't matter if you merge at the point of closure or if > > you all line > > up orderly at the first > > > opportunity to form in the open lanes, the slowest speed through the > > closed section is always the > > > limiting factor. Merging at the point of closure is no faster > > overall for > > the mass than merging > > > immediately if the flow is only X through the closed lanes. > > > > > > People merging at the last minute only benefit themselves at the expense > > of everyone else. > >Search the ARCHIVES:http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >__________________________________________________________________________ >In memory of Michel Potheau - friend, enthusiast, founder of the BMW CCA. > >UUC Motorwerks - BMW Performance Fine-tuning and home of the Ultimate >Short Shifter - accept no substitutes! >908-874-9092 . http://www.uucmotorwerks.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 11:29:36 -0400 From: "Gary Derian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: S$$$ happens Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> A thought experiment. If merging early makes no difference, then everyone should drive only in one lane for the entire trip. I think it is not the reduced capacity of the single lane so much as it is the poor merging with sudden brake applications and blocking that causes the backup. Gary Derian > I must be missing something then. Sure, the length of the backup may be > shorter (say 1,000 cars backed up in two lanes from the merge point > backwards, 500 per lane compared to 1,000 cars in one line as the extreme > example), but I don't see how it would shorten (or lengthen the transit > time) if the slowest speed at the merge point/bottle neck is, say, 5 mph. > It will still take the same amount of time for the 1,000 cars to pass > through that point. > > Regards, > > Rich ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 09:10:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Richard Dorffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Gary Derian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: S$$$ happens Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- Gary Derian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A thought experiment. > > If merging early makes no difference, then everyone should drive only in one > lane for the entire trip. I understand what you are saying, but again, it is only as fast as the slowest point. As you clearly pointed out earlier, one lane would be sufficient for all of our travels if everyone did 100+ mph together compared to two lanes doing 50 mph. > I think it is not the reduced capacity of the single lane so much as it is > the poor merging with sudden brake applications and blocking that causes the > backup. I couldn't agree with you more. The best scenario is smooth merging by all with the minimum speed any one person reaches to be as high as possible. In other words, regardless of whether everyone merges at the last minute or whether they merge early, whatever option results in people merging slowly and avoiding the panic braking is best. If everyone smoothly merged at the last minute and no one went slower than 10mph at any point, that would be better than haphazard merging where there is a bunch of stop-and-go. But, IME, the people that "run the gauntlet" to merge at the last second cause more problems pissing people off and result in more stop-and-go then the people who tend to merge safely and cleanly at their first good opportunity and everyone keeps moving at a reasonable speed. Clearly, YMMV based on merge technique... Regards, Rich ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 22:05:56 -0400 From: "Gary Derian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: S$$$ happens Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Of course this would never work as driver's will only drive to their comfort limit. Gary Derian > > 4) Gary is right - doubling the speed limit instead of decreasing it > through these chokepoints will maintain good traffic flow. That > presents a small problem at the actual merge point, but considering > that most construction merges result in miles of fewer-lane highway > (with concrete dividers protecting the construction crew, at least > here in NJ), ramping speed up (or at least maintaining the original > regular speed limit) would reduce or eliminate the several miles and > hours of backup. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 23:35:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Mark Andy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: S$$$ happens Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Howdy, On Wed, 7 Jul 2004, Richard Dorffer wrote: > But right there is the issue, the speed of the open lanes at the slowest > point is the problem. It doesn't matter if you merge at the point of > closure or if you all line up orderly at the first opportunity to form > in the open lanes, the slowest speed through the closed section is > always the limiting factor. Merging at the point of closure is no > faster overall for the mass than merging immediately if the flow is only > X through the closed lanes. > > People merging at the last minute only benefit themselves at the expense > of everyone else. Tell that one to the guy who had to sit in traffic waiting to get to his turn _prior_ to the lane closure... Mark ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 07:13:53 -0700 From: "Kevin Kelly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "BMW BMW BMW BMW" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: BMW CCA Raffle Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Have the winners of the BMW CCA raffle been announced? If anyone has the list of names post it to the list. Kevin Kelly BMW CCA 50039 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 11:35:31 -0500 From: Dennis Wynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: BMW CCA Raffle Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> They didn't call me, so once again no M3 for me :-( Dennis 01 M5 silver/black At 07:13 AM 07/08/2004 -0700, you wrote: >Have the winners of the BMW CCA raffle been announced? > >If anyone has the list of names post it to the list. > >Kevin Kelly >BMW CCA 50039 >Search the ARCHIVES:http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >__________________________________________________________________________ >In memory of Michel Potheau - friend, enthusiast, founder of the BMW CCA. > >UUC Motorwerks - BMW Performance Fine-tuning and home of the Ultimate >Short Shifter - accept no substitutes! >908-874-9092 . http://www.uucmotorwerks.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 11:54:00 -0400 From: "Gary Derian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: headlight bulbs Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Yes. The 9003/HB2 is a close tolerance version of the H4. Gary Derian > Guys, > > I recently replaced the sealed beams in my kid's car with Hella's (low beam > 60/55W). My question is: are the H4 bulbs one to one replaceable with 9003 > type? > > > -Kevin ------------------------------ End of [bmwuucdigest] digest(15 messages) **********
