[uucdigest] Tuesday, July 1 2003 Volume 03 : Number 6526
_________________________________________________________________ | | 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: [uuc] <Misc> NCC Highway Safety and Drivers School Aug. 9-10 RE: [uuc] WANTED: NOLOGY WIRES FOR M6 RE: [uuc] Change of plans...Maybe a new M3... Re: [uuc] SUVs. [uuc] E46 Front seats in E36? RE: [uuc] SUVs. RE: [uuc] Change of plans...Maybe a new M3... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 06:11:33 -0700 (PDT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [uuc] <Misc> NCC Highway Safety and Drivers School Aug. 9-10 The NCC chapter is hosting a highway Safety school and Driver's school (one day of each) at the Jefferson Circuit at Summit Point WV on August 9th and 10th. The Sat. highway safety school is a good lower intensity indoctrination to your BMW's limits than a full driver's school, plus I am pretty sure that Summit's skidpad will be available as part of the curriculum (You'd have to verify with the registrar, Gary Ketner). Jefferson Curcuit itself is a great little track that was designed for drivers education (Read: lots of different and challenging corners). See link below for details. - ----- There is still some space in our August 9 Highway Safety School and the August 10 Drivers' School both on the Jefferson Circuit. Applications for admission has been extended and will be on a first-served basis until full. http://www.nccbmwcca.org/drivers-school/calendar.html Marc Plante E36 325i, 210k Vienna, VA ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 09:24:51 -0400 From: "Rob Levinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [uuc] WANTED: NOLOGY WIRES FOR M6 Why? Are you expecting any improvement over factory wires? - - Rob - ---- Original Message ---- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [uuc] WANTED: NOLOGY WIRES FOR M6 Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:48:58 -0700 >Anyone have a set of Nology wires they'd like to part with for an M6? > >Chris >88 M6: http://www.inlacal.com > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 10:38:49 -0400 From: "Binder, Larry - Spine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [uuc] Change of plans...Maybe a new M3... My wife has narrowed down her choice between a 2000 and up ML320/430 or RX300. We may go and test drive a 2000 A6 Avant. We are also willing to spend in the low 20's. Which vehicle would you choose? Larry - -----Original Message----- From: ben keyes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 2:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [uuc] Change of plans...Maybe a new M3... Lee wrote: > SUVs are (or used to be anyway) classified as trucks are still. including "trucks" like the Subaru Forester & Chrysler Pacifica & PT Cruiser, which are trucks in gov't definition only. Minivans are also "trucks" for CAFE & safety purposes. > meaning that they aren't subjected to the same government safety > standards as cars. the crash rules are different, but I don't think they're so lax on trucks as to be the root of the problem in poor crash performance in some tests. > I remember reading a couple of years back that it costs Ford more to > make a Taurus (due to the engineering & testing to achieve their great > 5-star safety rating) than either an Explorer or Expedition. there's less overall engineered content (or at least used to be) in an SUV (especially one which shares a huge portion of it's engineering with an F-series or which is an updated older design) as compared to a Taurus, but the safety side of things isn't that huge a factor in the development cost. it's almost impossible to make apples-to-apples comparisons for the development cost of _any_ vehicle as compared to another, even within the same company withint the same timeframe due to the massive number of variables involved. if you start with an SUV & coupe & wagon & hatch & sedan based on the same platform - your Civic example for instance - there may be feature/content based differences which swing the development costs somewhat but the safety standards are not a significant contributor to the differences. > The worst part is the physics involved in an accident. SUVs are > usually built on the chassis of a company's existing vehicle. This > results in SUVs being made out of chassis that were never designed to > carry or manage such weight in a collision. FWIW, I think this is > probably more constrained to the mini-SUVs which are 4000 lb cars > built on a chassis originally designed for a 2600lb Focus or Civic. > SUVs based on light pickups are also suspect. I think you're a bit offbase here. there are no longer any SUV's on the market which are just pick-ups with bodies on them, that's an early-90's situation. in the past decade, lots more money & resources have been put towards development of unique SUV platforms by all of the big 3, with the smaller (lower margin, lower volume) pickups lagging their SUV brothers to market by years. so we have completely purpose-built platforms for Explorers, Trailblazers & the like. the "real" Japanese SUV's - 4Runner/Pathfinder/Rodeo - are body-on-frame truck-based (originally) designs. I don't think you can argue that the car-based mini-SUV's are as much overweight as you think either. a quick search shows that the Escape (based on the old Contour/Mystique/Mondeo platform, not the Focus) is ~3,350, the CR-V (tall Civic) also ~3,350, the RAV4 (Corolla-based) a lightweight at ~2,900 but with the SUV-only Liberty a porky 4,100. it does look like you could push over a CR-V with a strong wind, but that's just because they look so spindly rather than any actual likelihood to tip over. > In your position I would think you can consider some alternatives.... > E class wagon, I think you can even get the 4matic AWD. Does it get > much safer than a Benz? if you don't understand the dynamics of the vehicle (not many people do) and don't drive as if your SUV grants you an exemption from the laws of physics (which many people do), I would argue that a large SUV - Sequoia/Expedition/Navigator/Yukon/Tundra/Land Cruiser - is going to be far safer in an accident than a low to the ground (and thus likely to get smashed by a high-riding SUV) wagon which loses out in many arguments merely by being 1000 or more lbs lighter. not a nice reality, but probably not far from the truth. > Now, if you WANT an SUV, that's a whole different story...... this is the crux of the situation. buy what _you_ (or your wife) want and do it for the criteria which are important to you. if these are perceived or actual fact-based criteria is up to you to decide, just make the most informed decision based on the available information. there's lots of it, just try not to get too caught up in the spin that everyone wants to place on it. if you fear the world & the people in it (with good or bad reasons) then you want the biggest thing you can get & you want to operate it in the most conservative way you can. if you're a bit more trusting (some would say naive) about the world you might be driving around in a sub-3,000 lb vehicle with no airbags & RWD :-) just because I find an X5/ML to be a waste of money, space & resources as compared to the equivalent (and just as roomy in many measures & much better performing) 5'er/E-class wagon doesn't mean I'm going to begrude others they're choice to drive them. Ben ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 09:55:39 -0500 From: Mark and Heather Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [uuc] SUVs. I'll add to what Gary Derian said about rollovers, since I get to see *exactly* what happens to cars and SUVs on a daily basis.... IMHO, the only time being in an SUV is better than being in a car is when you are the person in the SUV and hitting another car, or if the SUV is hit from the rear....... SUVs do not fare any better than cars in offset front impacts, and they are especially susceptible to rollover in many common accidents.. (SUV turning and hit by a car for example..).. Most people that drive SUVs simply do NOT heed vehicle dynamics... we've all seen soccer moms coming up fast in the rear... way too fast for safety.. There are too many other factors in owning an SUV that make it a poor choice for a daily driver... High beltline and rear glass makes it hard to see other cars... The long length of larger SUVs simply exacerbates this in parking lot maneuveurs ... In the parking lot accidents I see between SUVs and cars, over 80% of the time the SUV driver is responsible for failing to maintain a proper watch to the rear.. When inclement weather hits (snow or rain)... it's SUVs that go spinning off the road first, and in higher numbers (again, based on the claims I see daily) due to the higher roll height, inability to maintain balance in a lane change situation, and their greater likelihood of hydroplaning on water or sliding in snow and ice due partly to the the general overconfidence of SUV drivers and mostly due to the lack of "road feel" transmitted to the driver.. Mark Williams Dallas, TX claim rep by day.... 91 ///M3 2.5L 93 Honda Accord "beater mobile" 98 Ford Expedition " family vacationmobile - tow vehicle" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 08:21:04 -0700 From: "Mitch Tracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [uuc] E46 Front seats in E36? My 97 M3 sedan seats are looking a bit worn. Have the opportunity to get some E46 seats to replace, but will E46 front seats bolt into an E36? Thanks! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 11:27:14 -0400 From: "Binder, Larry - Spine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [uuc] SUVs. I think that everyone will agree that it comes down to the driver of any motor vehicle that makes it safe or not safe. Motorcycles are very good at maneuvering out of harms way. Would I drive one at high speeds on the highway. Never. Mostly because I don't trust any other driver on the road. It is just not worth the risk. In a perfect world my wife would get out of the way of every idiot around her. In a worst case scenario I want her to be safe if she or someone around her makes a mistake. She also said that she wants to take a car control course. I'm sure that will help her as well. Hope for the best, plan for the worst. Larry - -----Original Message----- From: Mark and Heather Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 10:56 AM To: bmwuucdigest Subject: Re: [uuc] SUVs. I'll add to what Gary Derian said about rollovers, since I get to see *exactly* what happens to cars and SUVs on a daily basis.... IMHO, the only time being in an SUV is better than being in a car is when you are the person in the SUV and hitting another car, or if the SUV is hit from the rear....... SUVs do not fare any better than cars in offset front impacts, and they are especially susceptible to rollover in many common accidents.. (SUV turning and hit by a car for example..).. Most people that drive SUVs simply do NOT heed vehicle dynamics... we've all seen soccer moms coming up fast in the rear... way too fast for safety.. There are too many other factors in owning an SUV that make it a poor choice for a daily driver... High beltline and rear glass makes it hard to see other cars... The long length of larger SUVs simply exacerbates this in parking lot maneuveurs ... In the parking lot accidents I see between SUVs and cars, over 80% of the time the SUV driver is responsible for failing to maintain a proper watch to the rear.. When inclement weather hits (snow or rain)... it's SUVs that go spinning off the road first, and in higher numbers (again, based on the claims I see daily) due to the higher roll height, inability to maintain balance in a lane change situation, and their greater likelihood of hydroplaning on water or sliding in snow and ice due partly to the the general overconfidence of SUV drivers and mostly due to the lack of "road feel" transmitted to the driver.. Mark Williams Dallas, TX claim rep by day.... 91 ///M3 2.5L 93 Honda Accord "beater mobile" 98 Ford Expedition " family vacationmobile - tow vehicle" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 11:51:47 -0400 From: "Binder, Larry - Spine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [uuc] Change of plans...Maybe a new M3... I agree %100. My first priority is a nice safe car. I think that a 2000 ML or RX will be as safe as (if not more safe than) a new vehicle in the same price range. The M3 would be nice. Remember my wife wants it too - It's not just for me. She'll be driving the M to work on Saturdays (while I have the baby). We won't really have to take the baby in the M that often. We are both leaning toward the RX. There seems to be some very good deals on ML's though. Thanks, Larry - -----Original Message----- From: Dennis Wynne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 11:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [uuc] Change of plans...Maybe a new M3... The wife of my boss has been driving a RX300 for several years. They love the car and have has 0 problems with it (typical Toyota quality). In fact he would probably buy a 2nd one (or the new 330) if he didn't have to transport his elderly mother from time to time. She has a hard time with the step up/down of even a cute-ute. Audi (and VW) have had terrible repair records lately. The MB is OK, but I like the Lexus better and the reliability will be better. The only problem with Lexus/Toyota is since they seldom break the parts are ridiculously expensive. I would think it would be a good time to get an RX300 now - or shortly - as lots of RX300 owners trade up for the even nicer RX330. The RX should have side impact beams and side airbags, and child seat tethers - and skid control (DSC to a BMW owner). All desirable safety features if getting a vehicle for your wife and child. I don't much care for SUVs, myself. I prefer a sportier car. That said, just yesterday there was a head-on collision between someone in a late model Camry (high crash rating, I would think) and someone in a Expedition (I think). The Camry driver died, the SUV driver is in the hospital. An SUV may be more likely to roll over and may be more dangerous as far as single car accidents go, but there is no substitute for mass in a collision. When they crash test cars they hit a barrier of either a certain weight or the weight of the car. In a crash of a light car VS a big SUV the big SUV is a lot safer. If "they" are going to drive these things around, then putting your wife and child into one can be a good move. When driving in my S2000 a few weeks ago, I pulled up next to a Hummer H2. I am pretty sure the bumpers on the H2 were about level with the TOP of my doors. If the driver hit me with that vehicle combination you would have to just send flowers, I would wonder if I could survive even a 30mph crash - unless I could avoid it with superior handling and performance :-) Get your wife and child a nice, safe car. If there is not enough money left over for an M3 then so be it. Putting a car seat in the back of a 2 door coupe is big-time no fun, been there and done that. Dennis 330i silver/black/manual/sp/pp/xenon/cd At 10:38 AM 07/01/2003 -0400, you wrote: >My wife has narrowed down her choice between a 2000 and up ML320/430 or >RX300. We may go and test drive a 2000 A6 Avant. We are also willing >to spend in the low 20's. Which vehicle would you choose? > >Larry > >-----Original Message----- >From: ben keyes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 2:09 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [uuc] Change of plans...Maybe a new M3... > > >Lee wrote: > > > SUVs are (or used to be anyway) classified as trucks > >are still. including "trucks" like the Subaru Forester & Chrysler >Pacifica & PT Cruiser, which are trucks in gov't definition only. >Minivans are also "trucks" for CAFE & safety purposes. > > > meaning that they aren't subjected to the same government safety > > standards as cars. > >the crash rules are different, but I don't think they're so lax on >trucks as to be the root of the problem in poor crash performance in >some tests. > > > I remember reading a couple of years back that it costs Ford more to > > make a Taurus (due to the engineering & testing to achieve their > > great 5-star safety rating) than either an Explorer or Expedition. > >there's less overall engineered content (or at least used to be) in an >SUV (especially one which shares a huge portion of it's engineering >with an F-series or which is an updated older design) as compared to a >Taurus, but the safety side of things isn't that huge a factor in the >development cost. it's almost impossible to make apples-to-apples >comparisons for the development cost of _any_ vehicle as compared to >another, even within the same company withint the same timeframe due to >the massive number of variables involved. > >if you start with an SUV & coupe & wagon & hatch & sedan based on the >same platform - your Civic example for instance - there may be >feature/content based differences which swing the development costs >somewhat but the safety standards are not a significant contributor to >the differences. > > > The worst part is the physics involved in an accident. SUVs are > > usually built on the chassis of a company's existing vehicle. This > > results in SUVs being made out of chassis that were never designed > > to carry or manage such weight in a collision. FWIW, I think this > > is probably more constrained to the mini-SUVs which are 4000 lb cars > > built on a chassis originally designed for a 2600lb Focus or Civic. > > SUVs based on light pickups are also suspect. > >I think you're a bit offbase here. there are no longer any SUV's on >the market which are just pick-ups with bodies on them, that's an >early-90's situation. > >in the past decade, lots more money & resources have been put towards >development of unique SUV platforms by all of the big 3, with the >smaller (lower margin, lower volume) pickups lagging their SUV brothers >to market by years. so we have completely purpose-built platforms for >Explorers, Trailblazers & the like. the "real" Japanese SUV's - >4Runner/Pathfinder/Rodeo - are body-on-frame truck-based (originally) >designs. > >I don't think you can argue that the car-based mini-SUV's are as much >overweight as you think either. a quick search shows that the Escape >(based on the old Contour/Mystique/Mondeo platform, not the Focus) is >~3,350, the CR-V (tall >Civic) also ~3,350, the RAV4 (Corolla-based) a lightweight at ~2,900 >but with the SUV-only Liberty a porky 4,100. it does look like you >could push over a CR-V with a strong wind, but that's just because they >look so spindly rather than any actual likelihood to tip over. > > > In your position I would think you can consider some > > alternatives.... E class wagon, I think you can even get the 4matic > > AWD. Does it get much safer than a Benz? > >if you don't understand the dynamics of the vehicle (not many people >do) and don't drive as if your SUV grants you an exemption from the >laws of physics (which many people do), I would argue that a large SUV >- Sequoia/Expedition/Navigator/Yukon/Tundra/Land Cruiser - is going to >be far safer in an accident than a low to the ground (and thus likely >to get smashed by a high-riding SUV) wagon which loses out in many >arguments merely by being 1000 or more lbs lighter. not a nice >reality, but probably not far from the truth. > > > Now, if you WANT an SUV, that's a whole different story...... > >this is the crux of the situation. buy what _you_ (or your wife) want >and do it for the criteria which are important to you. if these are >perceived or actual fact-based criteria is up to you to decide, just >make the most informed decision based on the available information. >there's lots of it, just try not to get too caught up in the spin that >everyone wants to place on it. > >if you fear the world & the people in it (with good or bad reasons) >then you want the biggest thing you can get & you want to operate it in >the most conservative way you can. if you're a bit more trusting (some >would say >naive) about the world you might be driving around in a sub-3,000 lb vehicle >with no airbags & RWD :-) > >just because I find an X5/ML to be a waste of money, space & resources >as compared to the equivalent (and just as roomy in many measures & >much better >performing) 5'er/E-class wagon doesn't mean I'm going to begrude others >they're choice to drive them. > > > >Ben ------------------------------ End of [uucdigest] V3 #6526 *************************** | | 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! | |==================================================== | Turner Motorsport Inc . The Ultra-High Performance BMW Specialist | 207 Elm Street, Amesbury, MA 01950 | 978-388-7769 / fax 978-388-4202 | http://www.turnermotorsport.com | |==================================================== | | UUC Motorwerks - BMW Performance Fine-tuning | and home of the Ultimate Short Shifter - accept no substitutes! | 908-874-9092 . http://www.uucmotorwerks.com |__________________________________________________________
