The BMW UUC Digest Volume 2 : Issue 101 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: Re: Stock rear swaybar info & wanted... E30 front end rebuild Re: Can Anyone Explain "Flame Surfacing"? Re: Can Anyone Explain "Flame Surfacing"? Re: Can Anyone Explain "Flame Surfacing"? Re: Can Anyone Explain "Flame Surfacing"? Re: Can Anyone Explain "Flame Surfacing"? Re: Swaybar linkages, M3 vs. other E36 Re: Swaybar linkages, M3 vs. other E36 Re: Official 1-series pictures Re: Official 1-series pictures Re: Official 1-series pictures Re: Swaybar linkages, M3 vs. other E36 Re: San Francisco - Peninsula BMW Mechanic Re: Roundel piece
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 12:14:19 -0500 From: ben keyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Stock rear swaybar info & wanted... Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mark Andy wrote: > Both are blue. I seem to recall that they're supposed to be RD bars? I believe RD stuff is generally green & Dinan stuff blue, but perhaps some RD stuff is blue also. I have a set of E30 RD bars which are green. Ireland's E30 bars are blue. Ben ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 12:23:39 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bmw list) Subject: E30 front end rebuild Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In 1 week I am going to be replacing my front strut inserts, control arms and control arm bushings. I am already hosing down every bolt involved in this with penetrating oil in preparation for the job. I would like to hear from people who have done this (or parts of this job). What is the best way to separate the ball joints? Is there oil in the strut housing for stock inserts? How hard is it to get the retaining collar out of the strut housing? What do you grab it with? How about getting the control arm bushings? Advice on getting them pressed into the housings or getting them on the control arms? I would like to hear all the useful advice before I get started for once... -- Joe -- Joseph M. Krzeszewski Network Operations [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jack of All Trades, Master of None... Yet ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 10:17:15 -0800 (PST) From: Andre Yew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: UUC Digest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Can Anyone Explain "Flame Surfacing"? Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Scott & Charlotte Miller wrote: > I know we've discussed this before, but I'm kind of clueless and would > appreciate some help. Does anyone get "flame surfacing"? The description I've heard of flame surfacing is that it's a juxtaposition of convex and concave surfaces on a car. The side of the Z4 as others have pointed out is the most obvious place to see this. Also, the big concave belt line of the E60 and the new 1-series contrasted against the lower half of the car is another example. If you look at other cars on the road, most tend to be mostly convex, some resembling big soap bars with 4 wheels (Audis in particular). I've always thought a compelling visual explanation for flame surfacing is Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles, designed by Frank Gehry, which makes anything BMW's turned out look tame by comparison. A Z4 parked in front of it would be an interesting picture (instead of the sponsor Acura TL, which has an interesting concave channel along the door handles, they usually have there). I don't think you should worry about getting it --- it's just a technical design term. The important part is whether the car looks good to you or not. Somewhat OT: on the way to work today, I was following a crusty old E30 325i towing a sailboat about 1.5 times its length. Right behind me was a shiny new Cayenne. Life can be ironic. --Andre ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 13:23:49 -0500 From: "Chris Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Can Anyone Explain "Flame Surfacing"? Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Are you sure it's not a non-technical marketing term? Chris B. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andre Yew Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 1:17 PM To: UUC Digest Subject: Re: [UUC] Can Anyone Explain "Flame Surfacing"? <snip> I don't think you should worry about getting it --- it's just a technical design term. <snip> ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 13:43:15 -0500 (EST) From: Howard Siegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: UUC Digest <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Can Anyone Explain "Flame Surfacing"? Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I think the term "flame surfacing" has more to do with the pseudo-two-tone metallic content of the paint rather than the mix of convex/concave surfaces. But then what do I know;-). - h On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Andre Yew wrote: > On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, Scott & Charlotte Miller wrote: > > I know we've discussed this before, but I'm kind of clueless and would > > appreciate some help. Does anyone get "flame surfacing"? > > The description I've heard of flame surfacing is that it's a juxtaposition > of convex and concave surfaces on a car. The side of the Z4 as others > have pointed out is the most obvious place to see this. Also, the big > concave belt line of the E60 and the new 1-series contrasted against the > lower half of the car is another example. If you look at other cars on > the road, most tend to be mostly convex, some resembling big soap bars > with 4 wheels (Audis in particular). > > I've always thought a compelling visual explanation for flame surfacing is > Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles, designed by Frank Gehry, which > makes anything BMW's turned out look tame by comparison. A Z4 parked in > front of it would be an interesting picture (instead of the sponsor Acura > TL, which has an interesting concave channel along the door handles, they > usually have there). > > I don't think you should worry about getting it --- it's just a technical > design term. The important part is whether the car looks good to you or > not. -- hsiegel~at~pobox~dot~com <*> Netcom Class of '93, RIP Netcom! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 10:23:23 -0800 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Can Anyone Explain "Flame Surfacing"? Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Um, so if I understand what you're saying, the combination of concave and convex door panels gives the side of the car the appearance of being flame-like? OK, I guess I can kind of see that on the Z4 and the E60 5 series. But I'm not seeing it on the E65 7 series. Is this not a design feature of the 7? Or do the web site's pictures just not show it? And another thing: Will these designs still look flame-like after the car suffers from the usual doord dings? Without rub strips, they are gonna get a bunch. Scott Miller GGC BMW CCA >Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 23:05:25 -0800 (PST) >From: Mike Hsu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Can Anyone Explain "Flame Surfacing"? >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Hey Scott, > >I'm also artistically challenged, but I think I get >what this flame surfacing is. If you go over to the >bmwusa.com website, and look at pics 2 and 5 on the >Z4's main page. I think, when you look up and down >the door of the car, you see this wavey-like action >going on (going back and forth from convex to >concave). I guess it looks like a flame... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 10:31:27 -0800 (PST) From: Andre Yew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Can Anyone Explain "Flame Surfacing"? Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Um, so if I understand what you're saying, the combination of concave and > convex door panels gives the side of the car the appearance of being > flame-like? OK, I guess I can kind of see that on the Z4 and the E60 5 > series. But I'm not seeing it on the E65 7 series. Is this not a design > feature of the 7? Or do the web site's pictures just not show it? A while ago, BMW was saying that flame surfacing would apply to their lower-priced cars in order to distinguish them from the higher-end cars (meaning the 6 and 7). > And another thing: Will these designs still look flame-like after the car > suffers from the usual doord dings? Without rub strips, they are gonna get > a bunch. I don't know ... there are so many SUVs with high-opening doors that they don't meet the bumper strips anymore, especially on relatively low cars. --Andre ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 13:37:53 -0500 From: "chet.dawes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Swaybar linkages, M3 vs. other E36 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mark, Let's see if I can get all of this at once: 1) The strut mounted link provides a better motion ratio (closer to 1:1) of bar end to wheel movement than the control arm mounted piece. This means that for the same wheel up-travel, the M-style sway bar end (directly connected to the strut/knuckle) moves roughly the same distance as the wheel. The same wheel travel with the link connected to the control arm (in the factory location) would not travel the same distance but a ratio. Less forces in the drop link and stress on the members for the same wheel rate is also an advantage. You'll see the importance of this in point #3. 2) Geometry: Ideally, the link will be exactly perpendicular to the sway bar end to apply force in the direction of the link to then act to twist the anti-roll bar) and not translate undesired forces to the bushings and then to the body. The longer link creates a better angle over the entire travel range of the suspension. 3) Weight savings: the improved motion ratio of the strut mounted link means you get more travel, this means the forces at the wheel would be much higher if you used the same sway bar diameter. BMW reduced the weight of the sway bar and increased it's stiffness by increasing the mechanical leverage of the bar and reducing the diameter. Thus for the same effective wheel rate, the mass was reduced. You'll see M3 sway bars are actually softer (smaller diameter) than many/most sport package non-M cars. My '95 318ti sport for example has a 26mm front bar connected to the control arm vs. a '95 M3 with a 23mm bar connected to the strut. Here's a rare example where M3 folks might try factory non-M parts when looking for an upgrade. ;) You can change your wheel rates dramatically by changing the mounting point from the control arm to the strut. You'll probably understeer like crazy if that's all you do, but it does allow one more tuning option (albeit a BIG step change) to play with. So, is one option better than another? It depends on your goal. If weight reduction is in your plans, yes. If higher wheel rates without new anti-roll bars are your goal, yes. There is a reason the ///M division chose to do it this way! Hope that helps, Chet Dawes Swaybar linkages, M3 vs. other E36 From: Mark Andy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Swaybar linkages, M3 vs. other E36 Howdy, I suspect this has been asked and answered before, but I can't find it. Why did BMW connect the front sway bar on the M3 to the struts, vs. the lower control arm like on my '93 325is? As part of my suspension changes, I'll be putting on a set of "cut-a-struts" with Koni inserts that came from an M3, so I could connect the swaybar in either place. Is one option better than another? Thanks! Mark **************************************************************************************** Note: The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and thus protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you. **************************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 15:15:11 -0500 From: Neil Maller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Swaybar linkages, M3 vs. other E36 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 3/24/04 12:26 PM, Mark Andy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why did BMW connect the front sway bar on the M3 to the struts, vs. the > lower control arm like on my '93 325is? Because it gives the swaybar more leverage over wheel motion, effectively increasing roll resistance without using a larger bar (although different bars are used). > As part of my suspension changes, I'll be putting on a set of > "cut-a-struts" with Koni inserts that came from an M3, so I could connect > the swaybar in either place. Is one option better than another? Depends on the result you want to achieve, springs, rear bar, etc. If you use the M3 arrangement you'll need to buy new links. Neil 96 M3 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 15:09:45 -0500 From: Neil Maller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Official 1-series pictures Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 3/24/04 1:20 AM, Andre Yew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It looks like BMW's released official 1-series pictures and promo > material: > > http://www.bmw.com/generic/com/en/products/highlights/1series/1series/campaign > /index.html > > What a gorgeous car, with lines reminiscent of a stretched Z Coupe Well, to each his own. Looks heavy and clumsy at the rear roofline area to me. I note from the features that it's got iDrive. Oh goody, that should make them lots of friends. Neil 96 M3 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 12:47:23 -0800 (PST) From: Andre Yew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Official 1-series pictures Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, Neil Maller wrote: > I note from the features that it's got iDrive. Oh goody, that should make > them lots of friends. The iDrive is apparently optional. --Andre ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:27:11 -0600 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Official 1-series pictures Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Neil Maller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > on 3/24/04 1:20 AM, Andre Yew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It looks like BMW's released official 1-series pictures and promo > > material: > > > > <http://www.bmw.com/generic/com/en/products/highlights/1series/1series/campaign/index.html> > > > > What a gorgeous car, with lines reminiscent of a stretched Z Coupe > > Well, to each his own. Looks heavy and clumsy at the rear roofline > area to me. I love this car. An aggressive cross between the new 5 and an MZ-coupe, but it really works for me! Just give it a more powerful engine (>150 bhp) and keep the weight below 3,000 pounds and BMW NA will have my money.W I'm sure some old farts will disagree... (tongue firmly in cheek ;-). alex f ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 13:10:34 -0800 (PST) From: Gary Derian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Swaybar linkages, M3 vs. other E36 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In addition to the other responses, the direct link has less flex. This makes the bar action more linear, rather than squishy at first then stiffer. All E34s have direct link, as do many other car makes and models. Gary Derian --- Mark Andy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Howdy, > > I suspect this has been asked and answered before, > but I can't find it. > > Why did BMW connect the front sway bar on the M3 to > the struts, vs. the > lower control arm like on my '93 325is? > > As part of my suspension changes, I'll be putting on > a set of > "cut-a-struts" with Koni inserts that came from an > M3, so I could connect > the swaybar in either place. Is one option better > than another? > > Thanks! > > Mark > > Search the > ARCHIVES:http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 13:53:18 -0800 From: "J. Ochi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: San Francisco - Peninsula BMW Mechanic Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> IMO, all that means is that Dinan is very good at either covering up their mistakes, or appeasing the customer after the mistake so that the customer doesn't file a complaint. When Dinan pulled a wall job on my M3, and didn't even come close to fixing a well-known E36 problem that their service advisor identified right off the bat, they did everything they could to make it right after I showed them that I knew that they screwed up. They voided their "diagnostic time", did the job for the cost of parts only, etc., etc., etc. Anyway, it was enough that I didn't file a complaint against them. But it wasn't enough for me to take the car back to them ever again... Jim Ochi At 07:51 PM 3/17/2004, Ed MacVaugh wrote: >Dinan has been licensed in California since 1983 with zero disciplinary >actions. > >Marco wrote: > >>If you want it done right the first time don't go to dinan. I wouldn't >>trust them to tighten the lug nuts on my car. (which they forgot to do 2 >>out of the 3 times I went there). I can think of two places that do >>better alignments than them, and cheaper too. > > >Search the ARCHIVES:http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >__________________________________________________________________________ >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 > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:29:04 -0800 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Roundel piece Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Phil, I've been meaning to comment on the 5'er article and lead picture in the March Roundel. In particular, the picture of the E60 is a work of art. I like the way the image moves from shadow to light and how the angle eyes are muted but standout. The article was also well balanced and not afraid to go after the shortcomings of the car and some of the I-Drive issues. It's great to see that the Roundel doesn't hide behind the marque. -Kevin ------------------------------ End of [bmwuucdigest] digest(15 messages) **********
