[uucdigest]         Sunday, February 2 2003         Volume 03 : Number 6082



_________________________________________________________________
|
|  Search the ARCHIVES:
|     http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
|
|  Visit Richard Nott's Ultimate BMW Database:
|     http://www.bmwdatabase.com
|
| For all available Digest commands including unsubscribe/subscribe,
| visit the BMW UUC Digest page: http://www.uucdigest.com
|
| Send SUBMISSIONS to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Complaints?  Send 'em to [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you must.
| Technical Problems? Send 'em to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|__________________________________________________________________

In this BMW UUC Digest:

       Re: [uuc] '00 M Roadster Questions
       Re:[uuc] '00 M Roadster Question
       [uuc] More
       Re: [uuc] '00 M Roadster Question
       Re: [uuc] '00 M Roadster Question
       [uuc] carfax?
       Re: [uuc] '00 M Roadster Question
       [uuc] Timing chain tensioner
       [uuc] '00 240HP vs '01 315HP Engines - Mod's and Limitations
       Re: [uuc] '00 240HP vs '01 315HP Engines - Mod's and Limitations
       [uuc] Car Fax Request Please
       Re: [uuc] '00 240HP vs '01 315HP Engines - Mod's and Limitations

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 16:08:09 -0500
From: "Gary Derian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [uuc] '00 M Roadster Questions

One question, what does the Plexiglas shield do in a crash?  Does it
fracture into long shards that pierce your neck?  Has the manufacturer done
any testing on it?

Gary Derian


> The plexiglass does sound interesting, as the '00 that I was looking at,
> it had that BMW one in the trunk, and it appeared that it would block the
> nice looks of that rollbar system and such, kinda ruining the over all
> beauty in the style of design.
>
> I think I mentioned this before, but driving it reminded me of some of
> the other open tops roadsters I've owned in the past, with 2 big
> exceptions...  You could feel the quailty, and it had a scarey fast
> amount of HP/Torque.  I got that shit eating grin on my face I couldn't
> peel off when driving it. I think you guys know the look.
>
> Tom Childers wrote:
>
> > I totally agree with Martin that the M Roadster is by far the most
> > fun car I've ever owned, both in the twisties and just driving around
> > town.
> >
> > The two upgrades that were most important to me is a wind screen
> > behind the seats, and a smaller rear view mirror.  Info on both is
> > available at http://www.mz3.net  I got the stock BMW wind screen, but
> > the plexiglas aftermarket screen looks interesting.  The stock screen
> > is easy to drop if you are driving at night with the top up...there
> > are  two zippers that release it from between the seats.
> >
> > The Gary Hansel mirror adapter is a great help.  The smaller mirror
> > really improves visibility to the front right quarter if you are more
> > than 5' 8" tall.
> > -tdc
> >
> > '98 M Roadster
> > '88 M5
>
>
>

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 21:52:55 -0000
From: "Andrew Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re:[uuc] '00 M Roadster Question

Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>>I learned that only the '01 model M Roadster has/had a larger more
>> powerful eninge, perhaps an optional eninge. Is this a true statement,
>> and if so, whats hte engine size and HP of that larger engine engine/
>> option?

"True.  It's the S54 3.2l from the E46 M3 in slightly detuned form (315hp).
It's more-or-less the same cc as the previous S52 3.2l, but more
powerful/sophisticated/expensive.  However, the S54 motor has been having
some reliability issues (primarily with connecting rod failures; the rev
limit is around 8k)."

It's interesting that the S54B32 engine which appeared in the late Roadsters
and Coupes had similar power outputs, at similar engine speeds, to the
S50B32 (the "Euro" motor) which appeared in both E36 M3 and M
Roadster/Coupe.  In the Roadster/Coupe, this engine was down on power by a
few percent because of exhaust limitations.  The power output of 315 hp/325
bhp was achieved at 7,400 rpm and the car redlined at 7,600 rpm.  The
earlier S50B32 (S52B32 was the 3.2 litre US/Canada engine) was one of the
strongest, most reliable engines BMW has ever made; those last few hundred
rpm seem to have been the undoing of various key components, and the
engine's reputation for reliability.

Andy T

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 17:17:40 -0500
From: "Kathy Lyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [uuc] More

"Dzus".

Thank you.

;-)
- ----
Kathryn M. Lyle, CPA, CVA
Lyle & Associates CPA
www.lylecpa.com
Creating Business Value

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 16:49:52 -0600
From: Jay Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [uuc] '00 M Roadster Question

I understand that BMW will give extended coverge for those S54 engines in all
the M models.  This coincides with the artical I read stating the '01, '02 at
least will get that coverage.  But I hear that the problem ones are Dec '01 and
prior engines I guess built for the '01 model, and anything after that is ok??
Did at some point they rectify the problem, or are ALL those S54 engines in all
the M's getting the free ext. warr. because the problem is a much wider range of
time/serial numbers, like two years?  Could be my misunderstanding.  If others
could please help clarify.  I'd hate to get rid of one problem car and buy
another.  Thx, Jay

Andrew Thomas wrote:

> Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >>I learned that only the '01 model M Roadster has/had a larger more
> >> powerful eninge, perhaps an optional eninge. Is this a true statement,
> >> and if so, whats hte engine size and HP of that larger engine engine/
> >> option?
>
> "True.  It's the S54 3.2l from the E46 M3 in slightly detuned form (315hp).
> It's more-or-less the same cc as the previous S52 3.2l, but more
> powerful/sophisticated/expensive.  However, the S54 motor has been having
> some reliability issues (primarily with connecting rod failures; the rev
> limit is around 8k)."
>
> It's interesting that the S54B32 engine which appeared in the late Roadsters
> and Coupes had similar power outputs, at similar engine speeds, to the
> S50B32 (the "Euro" motor) which appeared in both E36 M3 and M
> Roadster/Coupe.  In the Roadster/Coupe, this engine was down on power by a
> few percent because of exhaust limitations.  The power output of 315 hp/325
> bhp was achieved at 7,400 rpm and the car redlined at 7,600 rpm.  The
> earlier S50B32 (S52B32 was the 3.2 litre US/Canada engine) was one of the
> strongest, most reliable engines BMW has ever made; those last few hundred
> rpm seem to have been the undoing of various key components, and the
> engine's reputation for reliability.
>
> Andy T

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 18:34:46 -0500
From: "KMS - Brett Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [uuc] '00 M Roadster Question

BMW Service Information Bulletin # 11 04 02 states:

Subject - S54 Engine - Extended Warranty

Model - E36/7, M Roadster/coupe with S54 engine from 02/02 up to 06/02
             E46, M3 coupe/convertible with S54 engine from 03/01

++++++

Note that it does NOT have a cut off date for the M3.


- -----------------------------------------------------
BMW Special Tool Rentals
Pay per incident tech support
- -----------------------------------------------------
Brett Anderson
KMS
(440) 338 1650
www.koalamotorsport.com

OSS committee member

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: [uuc] '00 M Roadster Question


> I understand that BMW will give extended coverge for those S54 engines in
all
> the M models.  This coincides with the artical I read stating the '01, '02
at
> least will get that coverage.  But I hear that the problem ones are Dec '01
and
> prior engines I guess built for the '01 model, and anything after that is
ok??
> Did at some point they rectify the problem, or are ALL those S54 engines in
all
> the M's getting the free ext. warr. because the problem is a much wider
range of
> time/serial numbers, like two years?  Could be my misunderstanding.  If
others
> could please help clarify.  I'd hate to get rid of one problem car and buy
> another.  Thx, Jay
>
> Andrew Thomas wrote:
>
> > Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > >>I learned that only the '01 model M Roadster has/had a larger more
> > >> powerful eninge, perhaps an optional eninge. Is this a true statement,
> > >> and if so, whats hte engine size and HP of that larger engine engine/
> > >> option?
> >
> > "True.  It's the S54 3.2l from the E46 M3 in slightly detuned form
(315hp).
> > It's more-or-less the same cc as the previous S52 3.2l, but more
> > powerful/sophisticated/expensive.  However, the S54 motor has been having
> > some reliability issues (primarily with connecting rod failures; the rev
> > limit is around 8k)."
> >
> > It's interesting that the S54B32 engine which appeared in the late
Roadsters
> > and Coupes had similar power outputs, at similar engine speeds, to the
> > S50B32 (the "Euro" motor) which appeared in both E36 M3 and M
> > Roadster/Coupe.  In the Roadster/Coupe, this engine was down on power by a
> > few percent because of exhaust limitations.  The power output of 315
hp/325
> > bhp was achieved at 7,400 rpm and the car redlined at 7,600 rpm.  The
> > earlier S50B32 (S52B32 was the 3.2 litre US/Canada engine) was one of the
> > strongest, most reliable engines BMW has ever made; those last few hundred
> > rpm seem to have been the undoing of various key components, and the
> > engine's reputation for reliability.
> >
> > Andy T
>
>

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 19:29:32 -0500
From: "Marshall Lytle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [uuc] carfax?

anyone have an open carfax account that wouldn't mind running vin for me?

1GNGK26JXXJ472142

it isn't a bmw, but i hope it will be regularly towing one...;-)

thanks,
marshall
mblytle "at" compuserve.com

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 16:43:17 -0800
From: "Bora Akyol (BMW)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [uuc] '00 M Roadster Question

Brett

Did they finally figured out the cause of these failures and fix it, or you
think the warranty is just a band-aid for resale values of these (think
lease returns that BMW Bank needs to deal with)
On 2/2/03 3:34 PM, "KMS - Brett Anderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> BMW Service Information Bulletin # 11 04 02 states:
> 
> Subject - S54 Engine - Extended Warranty
> 
> Model - E36/7, M Roadster/coupe with S54 engine from 02/02 up to 06/02
>            E46, M3 coupe/convertible with S54 engine from 03/01
> 
> ++++++
> 
> Note that it does NOT have a cut off date for the M3.
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------
> BMW Special Tool Rentals
> Pay per incident tech support
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Brett Anderson
> KMS
> (440) 338 1650
> www.koalamotorsport.com
> 
> OSS committee member
> 
>

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 19:53:16 EST
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [uuc] Timing chain tensioner

I'm getting the cold-start engine rattle in my 95 318ti so I'm going to 
attempt to replace the tensioner...rattle or not, with 121k on the car I 
think it's time (my dealer, which is normally quite good, hasn't heard 
anything about this....). �From what I gather it's a simple remove 
old/replace with new, but the Haynes says tighten the plug to 18 ft/lb and 
Bentley specifies 30. �Assuming I can get a torque wrench in there at all, 
does it really matter? �Any other tips besides removing the washer reservoir 
and coilpack? �I'm gonna wait for a warmish day to do this, as revving a 
stone-cold engine to 3500 for a minute to prime the tensioner gives me the 
heebie-jeebies....

Thanks all--
Gary Buff
95 318ti
03 Cooper on order

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 18:48:40 -0600
From: Jay Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [uuc] '00 240HP vs '01 315HP Engines - Mod's and Limitations

Can a person easily (Read: bolt on, after market) get the HP/Torque
rating of the '99 - '00 240HP engine to match up to the the HP/Torque of
the '01 - '02 315HP engines?   Seems that it wouldn't be that difficult
to make up that 75 HP difference, and hopefully equivilent on the torque
scale after mods, w/o putting that engine at rick for problems with rods
and bearings.  What is a ~reasonable~  upper limit of output on a 240
base '99 - '00.  325HP, 350HP, 350HP+??  And still stay on pump gas.
Thanks, Jay

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 17:40:32 -0800
From: "Bora Akyol (BMW)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [uuc] '00 240HP vs '01 315HP Engines - Mod's and Limitations

Yes

Call Mr. Dinan and ask for the S2 or the S3 package, more HP and much more
torque than the S54. The achilles heel of the S54 engine is the lack of
torque esp. when compared to the S52 engines that came before it. Same
torque just more horsepower. And you may ask, why does the E46 M3 so much
faster than the E36 M3 in a straight line, that's easy 6 gears and different
rear-end ratio.

Bora

On 2/2/03 4:48 PM, "Jay Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Can a person easily (Read: bolt on, after market) get the HP/Torque
> rating of the '99 - '00 240HP engine to match up to the the HP/Torque of
> the '01 - '02 315HP engines?   Seems that it wouldn't be that difficult
> to make up that 75 HP difference, and hopefully equivilent on the torque
> scale after mods, w/o putting that engine at rick for problems with rods
> and bearings.  What is a ~reasonable~  upper limit of output on a 240
> base '99 - '00.  325HP, 350HP, 350HP+??  And still stay on pump gas.
> Thanks, Jay
> 
> 

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 19:34:41 -0600
From: Jay Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [uuc] Car Fax Request Please

Hi, I saw a post a moment ago, good idea.  Yes please, if anyone has an
open Car Fax account, if they don't mind.  WBSCK9348YLC93176   Thanks!
- --Jay

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 19:43:39 -0600
From: Jay Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [uuc] '00 240HP vs '01 315HP Engines - Mod's and Limitations

You say so much faster as though the E46 can pass it like it's painted on  the
road.  Surely it's not that more proverally faster.  I would think that
HP/Torque improvements alone could make it an even match in a straight line...

"Bora Akyol (BMW)" wrote:

> Yes
>
> Call Mr. Dinan and ask for the S2 or the S3 package, more HP and much more
> torque than the S54. The achilles heel of the S54 engine is the lack of
> torque esp. when compared to the S52 engines that came before it. Same
> torque just more horsepower. And you may ask, why does the E46 M3 so much
> faster than the E36 M3 in a straight line, that's easy 6 gears and different
> rear-end ratio.
>
> Bora
>
> On 2/2/03 4:48 PM, "Jay Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Can a person easily (Read: bolt on, after market) get the HP/Torque
> > rating of the '99 - '00 240HP engine to match up to the the HP/Torque of
> > the '01 - '02 315HP engines?   Seems that it wouldn't be that difficult
> > to make up that 75 HP difference, and hopefully equivilent on the torque
> > scale after mods, w/o putting that engine at rick for problems with rods
> > and bearings.  What is a ~reasonable~  upper limit of output on a 240
> > base '99 - '00.  325HP, 350HP, 350HP+??  And still stay on pump gas.
> > Thanks, Jay
> >
> >

------------------------------

End of [uucdigest] V3 #6082
***************************

|
| In memory of Michel Potheau - friend, enthusiast, founder of the BMW CCA.
|________________________________________
| Please visit these UUC-approved BMW parts vendors/service providers:
|          (listed alphabetically)
|
| Autoscope-Motorsports - http://www.autoscope-motorsports.com
|
|====================================================
|
| Koala MotorSport . BMW technical information, special tool sales/rental
|      http://www.koalamotorsport.com
|
|====================================================
|
| Taylor BMW - http://www.taylorbmw.com - Doc Bimmer!
| UUC Motorwerks . http://www.uucmotorwerks.com
|__________________________________________

Reply via email to