[uucdigest] Wednesday, March 5 2003 Volume 03 : Number 6174
_________________________________________________________________ | | 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: Re: [uuc] Re: Lightnings and other fast Fords Re: [uuc] Re: Lightnings and other fast Fords [uuc] Turning off Brake-Assist Re: [uuc] RE: Contemplating new tires: Pirelli, Yokohama or Kumho... Re: [uuc] Re: Lightnings and other fast Fords Re: [uuc] Turning off Brake-Assist [uuc] Autocrossing Helmet Recommendations RE: [uuc] Turning off Brake-Assist Re: [uuc] Re: Lightnings and other fast Fords Re: [uuc] Re: Lightnings and other fast Fords ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:07:18 -0500 (EST) From: Brian Daley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Re: [uuc] Re: Lightnings and other fast Fords Well, It's valid in the sense that *Ford's* cost for the RR engine alone is greater than their cost for an entire Mustang. Of course for the price of the Range Rover you could buy 2+ Mustangs. Brian Daley - -------Original Message------- From: Gary Derian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 03/05/03 10:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [uuc] Re: Lightnings and other fast Fords > > That compares one companies cost vs another's price. BMW undoubtedly makes a tidy profit on the engines they sell to Ford. The Mustang cost is parts and labor only. Not a valid comparison at all. Gary Derian > I remember the article in C&D (may have been Autoweek) on the new Range Rover > commented on how Ford pays BMW more for the 4.4 V8 in the RR than it costs to > _build_ a Mustang. Granted, the engine likley inluded all the electronics, etc. > and it was likely a base Mustang, but obviously very different cost levels. > > JVH > > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 09:09:10 -0800 From: John Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [uuc] Re: Lightnings and other fast Fords >> GM is about to start importing a watered down, LHD version of the Holden >> Monaro as a Pontiac GTO. > > and an ugly, heavy, unworthy of the GTO name bland-mobile it appears to > be. With all due respect, I'm looking at the prospect of trading the spousal 540i on one once they get here. Ugly, it ain't, though frankly I like the first-year Monaro nose better than any of the alternatives that have come up, certainly more than the later, 'edgy' shapes that Holden is screwing around with now. The Pontiac-shape nose isn't bad. Heavy, no more so than other RWD hardware of similar size/vintage (e.g. 5-series Bimmers.) The chassis is a notch behind Ford and current BMW practice but still quite good. Unworthy of the GTO name? Compared to what? Old straight-line-warhead drum-brake Tempests with 389s in 'em? And remember, a Lingenfelter 7-liter LS6 is only $25K away... We'll see how the chassis setup comes out relative to the Aussie Holden and HSV versions, the good news being, of course, that you can always stuff a load of HSV chassis bits in a box and ship 'em over. >> Why Ford can't bring one of the souped up Falcons over here, I don't >> know. > > $$$$$, or lack of it more correctly. due to the incentive wars & an > ageing product line, we're still not making any money on what we build > here for the US market. Chicken or egg? Build crappy boring product and you don't make any money. > plus, we didn't kill off the Mustang like GM did > with the F-bodies (which I know Brett has a soft spot for :-), so we > don't need a testoterone-soaked pseudo muscle car to draw greying boomers > into the showrooms*. The problem isn't with the specialty items, it's with the mainstream garbage. Somewhat BMW-related content: in Germany you get in a taxicab it's an E-class Benz. Okay, it's a 2.3-liter diesel with MB-Tex and that diarrhea-yellow paint that Benz used to sell to Americans back in the '70s and '80s, but it's an E-class, and it's got the structure and chassis of any E-class. Same goes with a 520i BMW. Slow and short on power options and the upholstery won't make you feel rich, but the car is solid and well-built and will go down the road all day long with the right pedal on the floor. And, to a slightly lesser extent, the same is true in Australia. A base Falcon Forte rentacar with its 4-liter six gets bland paint colors and cloth upholstery and a cheap vinyl-wrapped handbrake cover. It also gets a real RWD chassis with excellent balance, wonderful supportive seats, outstanding interior room for its size, and ride quality and a solidity of construction (most noticeable when bouncing over washboard dirt roads) that US Ford either does not know how to do, or isn't interested in doing. And that is a car that at current exchange rates sells for, oh, US$21K. In the middle-price segment, much of the rest of the world gets real cars with small engines and cloth upholstery. The US gets crap cars with big engines and dead cows on the seats. John. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:36:05 -0500 From: "Dorffer, Rich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [uuc] Turning off Brake-Assist Bora says > > Yep, a c240 6speed. The car is great except the brake assist engages under > hard braking which makes me look like a maniac since it locks up all four > wheels in ABS mode. Hmm...something isn't quite right with this statement. Mercedes' brake assist locks up all four wheels in ABS mode?!? I thought ABS was supposed to prevent locking up the wheels!! > The stopping distances are great but you lose all > modulation. What can I say, I should have bought another E30 M3. There is no accounting for taste... > I just fell for all the modern luxuries in the car. Compared to a noisy S14!? > I think the 95 M3 that I had before I sold it was the most electronics I > could tolerate. It did not have traction control, just ABS and a delightful > brake pedal. Well, right here is your problem, you should have never gotten rid of the 1995 M3. Regards, Rich - kidding around, except for the ABS comment 95 M3 90 325is ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 09:54:51 -0800 (PST) From: Jay Guillermo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [uuc] RE: Contemplating new tires: Pirelli, Yokohama or Kumho... I, on the other hand, is looking into replacing the two front tires on my '93 325i. Actually only one of them is badly due to failing tie rod. Had replaced the rods on both side, now have to replace both shoes. I currently have Michelin MXX3 but I would like a change to a less pricey pair of shoes. Would any of the following be good for the fronts (I would also replace the rears as soon as economy gets better); Kumho Ecsta Supra 712 Sumitomo HTR Z II If you would advice a different tire, I would welcome that too. Thanks, Jay __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:00:42 -0500 From: "mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [uuc] Re: Lightnings and other fast Fords That whole ordeal is more BS than what the actual engine costs. A way for BMW to stick it to ford, since they are required to use that engine or it would costs a fortune to find a substitute that late in the developement of the Range Rover. Ford has a decent motor in the 5.4 32valve engine, dont let anyone fool you there. Mike - ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Van Houten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 10:17 AM Subject: Re: [uuc] Re: Lightnings and other fast Fords > > it's a hand built engine, but somehow I don't think we put quite the same > amount > > of money into the components as BMW does on say the M5's motor, which is > similar > > size & power... > > I remember the article in C&D (may have been Autoweek) on the new Range Rover > commented on how Ford pays BMW more for the 4.4 V8 in the RR than it costs to > _build_ a Mustang. Granted, the engine likley inluded all the electronics, etc. > and it was likely a base Mustang, but obviously very different cost levels. > > JVH > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 09:57:37 -0800 From: Rex Tener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [uuc] Turning off Brake-Assist At 08:27 AM 3/5/2003 -0800, Bora Akyol (BMW) wrote: >Yep, a c240 6speed. The car is great except the brake assist engages under >hard braking which makes me look like a maniac since it locks up all four >wheels in ABS mode. The stopping distances are great but you lose all >modulation. Which is the exact problem all the Lexus IS300 autocrossers are having. One friend's car was absolutely horrible until he blead the brakes on his brand new car, then it got much better. - -- Rex Tener [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:15:38 -0500 From: "John Weese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [uuc] Autocrossing Helmet Recommendations Anyone have a recommendation for a good (not expensive) full face helmet to use for autocrossing? Please be specific re: make & model...thanks. TIA, John Weese BMW CCA #76646 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:22:21 -0800 From: "John Coffin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [uuc] Turning off Brake-Assist I think some are confused. This is not ABS doing this. Mercedes has a new feature which pressurizes the brakes (opposite of ABS) if it senses a hard stop. Kinda of like power steering. I was wondering how this would apply in the real world. Here is more info http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/jk/at_010501.htm - -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Dorffer, Rich Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 9:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [uuc] Turning off Brake-Assist Bora says > > Yep, a c240 6speed. The car is great except the brake assist engages under > hard braking which makes me look like a maniac since it locks up all four > wheels in ABS mode. Hmm...something isn't quite right with this statement. Mercedes' brake assist locks up all four wheels in ABS mode?!? I thought ABS was supposed to prevent locking up the wheels!! > The stopping distances are great but you lose all > modulation. What can I say, I should have bought another E30 M3. There is no accounting for taste... > I just fell for all the modern luxuries in the car. Compared to a noisy S14!? > I think the 95 M3 that I had before I sold it was the most electronics I > could tolerate. It did not have traction control, just ABS and a delightful > brake pedal. Well, right here is your problem, you should have never gotten rid of the 1995 M3. Regards, Rich - kidding around, except for the ABS comment 95 M3 90 325is ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 13:22:10 -0500 From: ben keyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [uuc] Re: Lightnings and other fast Fords mike wrote: > A way for BMW to stick it to ford, since they are required to use that > engine or it would costs a fortune to find a substitute that late in the > developement of the Range Rover. I'm not sure that it's a complete screw-job on BMW's part, as I am certain they decided on the purchase price for the 4.4l motors prior to closing the deal on the purchase of LR/RR in the first place. it's certainly lost more expensive than the internal transfer price it would have been "sold" at during BMW's ownership of RR/LR, but likely not out of line with the prices we charge the various small companies in the UK for use of the non-blown Cobra motors & such. I forget whether BMW is giving Morgan a sweetheart deal for use of the V8 in the new goofy-looking Morgan. I also seriously doubt BMW wants to "stick it to Ford" either, as our purchase of the unprofitable RR/LR business from them allowed a small amount of face to be saved in the whole Rover debacle, as they gave away the Rover side of things completely. I'm not certain that RR/LR is really making that much money now either. the development costs on the new RR were quite high. Ben ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:37:35 -0500 From: "mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [uuc] Re: Lightnings and other fast Fords I didnt mean for it to sound quite like that, happens when you try to use 3 sentences to explain something, lol. >From what I heard, and it is just that, gossip. BMW did not come to the deal wiht open arms as one would have thought given the issues they had with rover. Supposedly there were some in BMW that DID NOT want to let Ford use the 4.4 V8 after BMW sold Rover. Ford came out of the deal in good shape IMO. L rover was actually doing ok, and it sounded as if some in BMW didnt like the deal that was worked up for Rover in general, I also seem to recall, that Ford really pushed the issue with BMW saying that unless they supplied the engines, no deal period. I think Ford just calculated that maybe the motors are expensive, but they more than made up for it with the discounted prices on other parts of the deal. As I am sure they dont expect the top Rover to be a huge seller and doubt they will buy more than 200,000 engines in the life of that vehicle. So to say, BMW didnt cut Ford a decent deal on the motors like one would expect since Ford really did them a huge favor in buying Rover. Mike - ----- Original Message ----- From: "ben keyes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 1:22 PM Subject: Re: [uuc] Re: Lightnings and other fast Fords > mike wrote: > > > A way for BMW to stick it to ford, since they are required to use that > > engine or it would costs a fortune to find a substitute that late in the > > developement of the Range Rover. > > I'm not sure that it's a complete screw-job on BMW's part, as I am certain they > decided on the purchase price for the 4.4l motors prior to closing the deal on > the purchase of LR/RR in the first place. > > it's certainly lost more expensive than the internal transfer price it would > have been "sold" at during BMW's ownership of RR/LR, but likely not out of line > with the prices we charge the various small companies in the UK for use of the > non-blown Cobra motors & such. I forget whether BMW is giving Morgan a > sweetheart deal for use of the V8 in the new goofy-looking Morgan. > > I also seriously doubt BMW wants to "stick it to Ford" either, as our purchase > of the unprofitable RR/LR business from them allowed a small amount of face to > be saved in the whole Rover debacle, as they gave away the Rover side of things > completely. I'm not certain that RR/LR is really making that much money now > either. the development costs on the new RR were quite high. > > > Ben > ------------------------------ End of [uucdigest] V3 #6174 *************************** | | 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 |__________________________________________
