[uucdigest] Wednesday, July 2 2003 Volume 03 : Number 6531
_________________________________________________________________ | | 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] Re: floor jacks Re: [uuc] Re: floor jacks [uuc] FS: tires listed... RE: [uuc] Programmable effects on E-39 (and alarm keys) RE: [uuc] SUVs [uuc] Anyone from Boston area going to the Glen on 7/18-20? [uuc] Any members on Cinci North Side? RE: [uuc] Left foot braking Re: [uuc] Re: air jacks :-) Re: [uuc] Aluminum Jacks Re: [uuc] '99 M3 FS Must Sell! [uuc] Does anyone have any info on the 2004 M3 yet? RE: [uuc] Change of plans...Maybe a new M3... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 22:18:30 -0500 From: Sean Cordone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [uuc] Re: floor jacks So let me get this straight. You misuse jacks, but get 400% lifting margin for "safety". Right. Michael McCoy wrote: >here here. > >I've had a Formula Ford on one jackstand before. had a guy pushing down on >the front wing to keep it balanced. so thats more than 100% of the car's >weight... coulda had a shop jack in the *middle* instead of the saw horse >type thing. (actually, i think it *was* a saw horse.) > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 23:29:08 -0400 From: "Michael Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [uuc] Re: floor jacks Where do you get the 400% number for safety? I think his point was that it is possible to jack a car up while lifting 100% of its weight, which the other poster stated was not possible. Also keep in mind that when you say car, there are cars that range from 1000lbs, formula cars etc to 5000+ trailers, loaded suburbans etc. I have seen all sorts of crazy sh$t done by professional teams at a race, when time is in short supply, they will do anything to make a repair, fix a trailer, etc etc etc. And I don't see anywhere in McCoy's post about abusing or claiming unrealistic safety margins. Mike - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sean Cordone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 11:18 PM Subject: Re: [uuc] Re: floor jacks > So let me get this straight. You misuse jacks, but get 400% lifting > margin for "safety". Right. > > Michael McCoy wrote: > > >here here. > > > >I've had a Formula Ford on one jackstand before. had a guy pushing down on > >the front wing to keep it balanced. so thats more than 100% of the car's > >weight... coulda had a shop jack in the *middle* instead of the saw horse > >type thing. (actually, i think it *was* a saw horse.) > > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 23:36:39 -0400 From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [uuc] FS: tires listed... These are still up for grabs on ebay: http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2421523591 (4) Pirelli P700-Z size 215/45-17 The other set I have listed will sell, (4) Bridgestone Potenza Pole Position S-02 size 255/35-18 Thanks for the bandwidth. - - N. Jay needs more $ and space... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 23:44:28 -0400 From: "Dennis Liu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [uuc] Programmable effects on E-39 (and alarm keys) Thank you John, the info was indeed at www.bmwtips.com. Great resource. The dealer is charging me 0.5 hours labor to set everything. vty, - --Dennis - -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of JB Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 3:20 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [uuc] Programmable effects on E-39 (and alarm keys) > >From what I've read in the manual, the "key memory" can be programmed to > run: > 1. seat position > 2. mirror position > 3. steering wheel position I believe that is about all it will remember, oh, also the climate control settings if you have it. > Does anyone know how to use this feature? And what other things can be > programmed??? > > Specifically: > > how do I DISABLE the daytime running lights? > how do I DISABLE the automatic locking feature (the doors lock > when we drive > off; have to manually unlock later)? > how do I DISABLE the automatic steering wheel "comfort ease/exit" feature? > > THANKS IN ADVANCE, > > --Dennis All of the above needs to be done at the dealer, but I am not sure if you can disable the steering movement. Also check out www.bmwtips.com, it has some useful information on many things on the E39. John ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2003 22:07:06 -0600 From: Wendall Siemens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [uuc] SUVs The problem SUVs are the ones that give you sedan handling (ford type sedan). I've got a 99 3/4T Sub and the firm suspension and LTX tires make a big difference to the body lean and handling (much better then my 1/2T truck). I drove an expedition and it felt like you could reach out the window and touch the ground while turning. It shouldn't take much more to turn the beast over considering it already achieves rotational momentum. Anyway, they are still no lowered BMW. Wendall > The real problem with SUV's is that they give the illusion of > handling like > a sedan, until you come off an exit ramp, and find yourself looking at a > line of stopped bumpers, hit the binders, and realize that you better aim > for the shoulder, as it AINT stopping in time! (See the 6,000 lb > all season > rubber, Kelsey Hayes note) > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 07:20:17 -0400 From: "Michael Gilbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [uuc] Anyone from Boston area going to the Glen on 7/18-20? Is anyone from the Boston area going to the Delaware Valley Chapter school at the Glen on 7/18-20? I have four tires (unused and unmounted so they're clean) for someone who is going to be at that drivers school and would appreciate help in transporting them. Please contact me off-list if you can help - thank you very much!! - -Mike 97 M3 IP/ITE #121 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 06:54:59 -0500 From: "Karl Zemlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [uuc] Any members on Cinci North Side? I found a car advertised for sale on the north side of Cinci. I could take a detour next week to give it a good look, but I was wondering if anyone around there would be willing to take a quick walk-around and peek through the windows to report on body and interior condition before I take a few hours on a side trip to check it out. If you are willing, please email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks a bunch! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 08:23:43 -0400 From: "Robinson, Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [uuc] Left foot braking Like I said, I think learning to left foot brake is really good for autocross & even track use. It's the first thing I started to work on after double-clutched matched-rev shifts. I've actually become alright at both.....despite appearing retarded to confused onlookers. I tried to practise on the street alone in the car, so as not to throw an instructor through the windshield. I'm pretty sure this is a skill that will come in handy when I get that call from an FIA rally team.........hmmm, maybe I should build a club rally car first.... Lee > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas G. Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 12:37 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [uuc] Left foot braking > > > I have done a bit of LFB myself. At the track this weekend I > was doing it in > a particularly quick set of corners where being smooth was > the most important > benefit. With my big paws it's hard for me to quickly > transition from brake to gas > smoothly so if I can involve the left foot to help with that, > so much the better for me. > > A friend of mine who raced formula fords bought an automatic > car for his daily > driver and braked lefty ONLY for several months to get some > good pedal feel > before he took it to the track. I use the left foot often to > help get some practice > at applying the brake smoothly. > > Tom > > At 02:15 PM 6/26/2003 -0400, you wrote: > >Lucky for the SMG'ed folks among us but what do the rest > >do? Anyone here a LFB fiend that care to comment, give advice, tell > >stories, etc? > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 08:36:43 -0400 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [uuc] Re: air jacks :-) >I wish there was a way to do this economically, it would be extremely >cool for changing tires & such. no worries about getting the jack >under the overly lowered car either... The cool thing would be if you didn't have to carry the air with you. So Ben... when do we add air jacks and maybe a tank in the trunk (weight distribution) to the 332iS? Imagine pulling up to the tech inspection line push a button and <Pppssshhh!!!...> Your car is up and ready to be inspected. :-) BTW the ones I've seen closely at a P-car club race (911 Cup cars) dropped the car like a sack of potatoes once you removed the air line, nothing gentle about the process. Carlos 91 M3 88 iS <--back on the road baby! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 08:41:09 -0400 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [uuc] Aluminum Jacks Jim O. wrote: >Do you really need an aluminum jack? They're nice to haul around for track >use, but honestly, most people just pull them out of their >truck/trailer/trunk and use them in their paddock area. For BMW club racing you usually end up hauling it to your pit stop area since there's a 5 minute mandatory pitstop in the enduro race. It's nice not to have to lift a 80-100 lb jack a bunch of times. Carlos. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 08:59:40 -0400 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [uuc] '99 M3 FS Must Sell! >>Distress sale! 1999 BMW M3, 87K Miles, Black on Black Yes, too many E36 M3s causes distress... especially black ones. ;-) >>Looking for an E30 M3 track car, mileage under 120K. Ahh good man, dumping the E36 to get a real M3! :-) How about one right at 120K miles, Ground Control suspension, babied, the works.... :-) Carlos. 91 M3 <--need to sell it and 88 iS <--build this one to race in KP ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 09:19:04 -0400 From: "Binder, Larry - Spine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [uuc] Does anyone have any info on the 2004 M3 yet? This month a roundel article mentioned that the e90 would replace the e46 in 2005. Is this true? That seems like a very short run for the e46. - -----Original Message----- From: Phil Marx [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 2:05 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Binder, Larry - Spine Subject: Re: [uuc] X5 replacement? When? The model updates as leaked from BMW NA dealer information seem to indicate: face-lifted X5 in October 2003 and an X5 replacement in 4th Quarter 2006. - -Phil Adam Momtaheni replied: >There will be a facelift for the 2004 X5. It should not be radically >different, something similar to the facelift that the E39 5 series had >for the 2001 model year, this will include "angle eyes" front head >lamps. BMW has official photos of the car and my dealer told me that >he has seen the pictures he liked the new look. That is all I know as >of now. > > >At 01:28 PM 5/16/2003 -0400, Larry wrote: > >Does anyone have an idea when the x5 replacement is scheduled? I've >seen a >>few mentions of a facelift but have not seen any pictures that really >>look > >different than the current x5. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 09:36:12 -0400 From: "Robinson, Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: [uuc] Change of plans...Maybe a new M3... > 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 think it was only recently that trucks even were mandated to have passenger airbags. I think the basic problem is that the crash tests are designed for cars & don't take into consideration some of the differences in trucks. > > 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. I know you work for Ford so I'm going to argue too much.....but I would think there is quite a lot of engineering cost that goes into designing a vehicle's safety system & crush zones. > > 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. Yes, my idea of what the mini-uties weighed was off. That doesn't change the fact that the chassis themselves were designed for lighter vehicles. 500 lbs is a lot of extra energy to dissipate in a crash. They are constantly rated "poor" in crash testing. I read recently of the mini-uties side impact results, where only 2 of 12 or something were given an acceptable rating. A coupe did fair but most did poorly. About the CRV tipping. Short wheel base, narrow track, skinny tires. That's why I saw on on it's roof last Friday. > > 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. I think the only thing that the mass of those huge SUVs garuantees is that you will do more damage to whatever you hit. If heavier was indeed better, then we should all be driving around in late 60's early 70's 'muracan iron. But it's not. More mass simply means there is more kinetic energy to dissipate to protect the vehicle's occupants in the case of a crash. Run an e class & a Yukon into a tree (i.e. immovable object). I don't think you'll be any safer in the Yukon. I would actually rather take my chances in the Benz. Someone made the point about the Maclaren & I think that's ON-base. A well engineered car doesn't need to be huge to be safe. Fact of the matter is there's a reason these German cars are so expensive & I would think it's largely the engineering that goes into them. A Mercedes or Volvo or Saab is designed so that the car is totally destroyed if it needs to be to protect what's inside. That's why racecars break to pieces in accidents--the best way to dissipate kinetic energy (besides converting it to heat with the brakes) is to leave it as kinetic energy in flying parts or crumpling, bending metal. I doubt a Yukon is so carefully designed--or even if such a massive vehicle can be designed to do that. I've actually been looking at big trucks (relative term) & SUVs recently to tow the M3. I've been looking for signs of engineered crumple zones & break-away components. None. Look under the hood of my Saab or a Mercedes & they're all over. You can see the crimps in the frame rails, hood rails, break-away motor mounts, etc. The only truck I saw this in was the Tundra, which is the only full-size truck to get a 5-star rating, BTW. Of course, the best safety feature is accident avoidance. SUVs are a "no contest" here. > > 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. Exactly, it's about what you want. I don't hate SUVs or even want to discourage people from driving them. Just don't let the salesman bamboozle you with the "bigger is better" as I certainly don't think it's true. However, Larry mentioned the ML class. I think of all SUVs, this is the one I'd like in the case of an accident, as I figure that Mercedes is one of the companies that would go to all ends to ensure their reputation for safety applies to every vehicle......plus, we've all seen the ad where they are rolling an ML sideways down a hill, crashing it into offset barriers & side impacts. > > 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 :-) Or you could just stay at home & make it so the rest of us don't have to find away around you on the way to work ;) > > Ben Lee ------------------------------ End of [uucdigest] V3 #6531 *************************** | | 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 |__________________________________________________________
