The BMW UUC Digest
Volume 3 : Issue 501 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue:
Re: E36 rear shock mount replacements
Re: E36 rear shock mount replacements
Re: E36 rear shock mount replacements
Re: E36 rear shock mount replacements
Re: <OT> P-Car weatherstrip
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 19:27:36 -0400
From: "Rich Dorffer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Neil Maller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "bmwuucdigest@uucdigest.com" <bmwuucdigest@uucdigest.com>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: E36 rear shock mount replacements
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 6/9/07, Neil Maller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> on 6/8/07 9:20 PM, "Rob Levinson * UUC Motorwerks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > The conical center section prevents the bushing from pushing through the
> > mounting plate. Pics and details: http://www.uucmotorwerks.com/MEYLE_HD
>
> on 6/8/07 9:20 PM, Andre Yew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asks:
> > Can the Meyles be used in an upside down configuration?
>
> on 6/8/07 9:20 PM, "Rob Levinson * UUC Motorwerks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> replies:
> > Don't know, I haven't tried. As they resemble a standard mount, I can't see
> > any reason why not.
>
> Err, no.
>
> If you inverted the Meyle RSM's the conical insert would then be free to
> push through the bushing, rather than being retained.
The forces on the shock mount are in both direction, both down and up,
up with every bump and down with every rebound and the forces are
largely related to the stiffness of the shock's compression and
rebound.
Who can name original equipment BMW components manufactured by Meyle?
Regards,
Rich
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:16:50 -0400
From: Neil Maller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Rich Dorffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "bmwuucdigest@uucdigest.com" <bmwuucdigest@uucdigest.com>,
Rob Levinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: E36 rear shock mount replacements
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
on 6/9/07 7:27 PM, Rich Dorffer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The forces on the shock mount are in both direction, both down and up,
> up with every bump and down with every rebound and the forces are
> largely related to the stiffness of the shock's compression and
> rebound.
Hey Rich,
Sure - although the point is moot now, since the original poster clarified
that by 'upside down' he didn't actually mean, well, upside down.
Still, the directional internal design of the Meyle RSM's makes clear that
they, at least, think that resistance to upward/compression forces is the
issue. This may be born out by anecdotal reports where the shock shaft pokes
up through a failed stock RSM. Never happened to me, I'm relieved to say...
Neil
Fort Wayne, IN
96 M3 - Bastard child
03 525iT - Sterling Grey Metallic
05 Mini - Cooper S with LSD
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 13:56:46 -0400
From: "Rich Dorffer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Neil Maller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "bmwuucdigest@uucdigest.com" <bmwuucdigest@uucdigest.com>,
"Rob Levinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: E36 rear shock mount replacements
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 6/10/07, Neil Maller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> on 6/9/07 7:27 PM, Rich Dorffer at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > The forces on the shock mount are in both direction, both down and up,
> > up with every bump and down with every rebound and the forces are
> > largely related to the stiffness of the shock's compression and
> > rebound.
>
> Hey Rich,
>
> Sure - although the point is moot now, since the original poster clarified
> that by 'upside down' he didn't actually mean, well, upside down.
>
> Still, the directional internal design of the Meyle RSM's makes clear that
> they, at least, think that resistance to upward/compression forces is the
> issue. This may be born out by anecdotal reports where the shock shaft pokes
> up through a failed stock RSM. Never happened to me, I'm relieved to say...
Sadly, I have first hand evidence of the forces in a rear shock mount
as I have held the top of the shock as a car was driven down the road.
Needless to say, both forces are a challenge to control but
compression is probably a greater force.
I am not convinced that the conical design of the inner shaft of the
Meyle HD RSM does anything at all. When I look at the cutaway of the
RSM, the only thing I think it does is possibly stiffen the RSM as it
reduces the amount of rubber and potentially stiffens the overall
structure. But, it doesn't mean that the quality of the rubber they
use is better or that the RSM lasts longer. In almost every RSM I
have had wear out, it is the rubber that deteriorates and allows the
inner metal tube to tear away. Meyle could make a tie rod with a
beefier metal rod or better threads or better whatever, but their ball
joints would still suck and they would be junk in no time.
Regards,
Rich
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 14:55:40 -0400
From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: bmwuucdigest@uucdigest.com
Subject: Re: E36 rear shock mount replacements
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
That occurred to me soon after I wrote that... was out the
door and didn't follow up.
Nevertheless, the bushing portion itself is at least as
secure as an OE part when upside down due to the greater
profile concavity.
But yes, probably not recommended.
- Rob
----- Original Message -----
From: Neil Maller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If you inverted the Meyle RSM's the conical insert would
> then be free to push through the bushing, rather than
> being retained.
>
> Neil
> Fort Wayne, IN
- Rob Levinson
UUC Motorwerks * 908-874-9092 * http://www.uucmotorwerks.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2007 22:05:53 -0700
From: Allister Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Chris Blumenthal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <bmwuucdigest@uucdigest.com>
Subject: Re: <OT> P-Car weatherstrip
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MTCW,
wd 40 or better always works as an adheSive remover
cheers
On 8-Jun-07, at 11:20 PM, Chris Blumenthal wrote:
> I have also used 3M General Purpose Adhesive Remover countless
> times on
> cured paint with no noticeable problems. I have also used it on
> vinyl to
> remove greasy and other tough stains with good effect. It certainly
> doesn't
> do much for baked on cosmoline. I had to use aircraft paint
> stripper to get
> that off the M20 motor in my E30. I have seen the adhesive remover
> take off
> small amounts of rattlecan paint that I used on less visible parts
> of my
> older cars.
>
> Chris Blumenthal
>
>>
>> Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 20:45:48 -0700
>> From: "Curtis Ingraham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: bmwuucdigest@uucdigest.com
>> Subject: Re: <OT> P-Car weatherstrip
>> Message-ID:
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> I use 3M General Purpose Adhesive Cleaner all the time, and
>> it has never harmed clearcoat or paint. Best thing ever for
>> removing stickers and adhesives. Dunno about Cosmoline.
>> It's bad for some plastics but OK for most.
>>
>> Curt Ingraham
>> Oakland, CA
>>
>> Brian Ruiz wrote:
>>> I've got a can of the 3M General Purpose Adhesive Remover
>> that I bought about 8 months ago to attempt to clean off some
>> of the baked-on cosmoline in my engine bay. It didn't work
>> too well, but worked great at starting to remove the clear
>> coat and paint. Boo. $14 down the drain, unless someone
>> wants to buy it off me. It would probably work great for
>> removing adhesives as long as you don't rub too much. Funny
>> thing is the can says it works without damaging cured paint.
>>
>> ------------------------------
>
>
> Search the ARCHIVES:http://www.mail-archive.com/
> bmwuucdigest@uucdigest.com
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> ____
> 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
------------------------------
End of [bmwuucdigest] digest(5 messages)
**********
