The BMW UUC Digest Volume 2 : Issue 437 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: Re: Data Request - effects of negative camber Re: Data Request - effects of negative camber Re: Data Request - effects of negative camber Re: Data Request - effects of negative camber Re: Data Request - effects of negative camber Re: Data Request - effects of negative camber Re: Data Request - effects of negative camber Re: Data Request - effects of negative camber Re: Data Request - effects of negative camber Re: Icelink Zionsville Radiator, Service Shop in Long Beach CA Pre-Purchase Insp, '95 525
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:35:46 -0800 From: "Scott & Charlotte Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "JKerouac" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "UUC Digest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Data Request - effects of negative camber Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Barry, it is partly an adjustability issue, but it is more than that. Our current classification system assigns points to mods. More neg camber = more points. But this is based on an incorrect theory. The amount of camber a car needs depends on how much it leans in a max g turn. As you said, surface conditions change between sites, so the g forces also change. But in theory, for a given car on a given surface, there is an optimum setting. So I'm trying to figure out how many points to assign to a car with adjustable front camber, assuming that everyone with this setup actually sets it correctly for each event. Is that sufficient obfuscation? Scott Miller GGC BMW CCA ----- Original Message ----- From: "JKerouac" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Scott & Charlotte Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "UUC Digest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 3:54 PM Subject: Re: [UUC] Data Request - effects of negative camber > Scott, > Are you assessing the advantage of maxing out negative camber, or > the advantage of adjustability? > Adjustable camber devices won't provide more negative camber than what > can be obtained via other means. Track and course conditions vary > widely from site to site, and day to day. Being able to dial in the best > camber for the temperature/ material/ and cleanliness off the track > surface, and speed/ tightness of the course, is an advantage for > trackside tweaking. But few among us (definitely not myself) actually > know how to figure that out, let alone do it quickly at an event? > Adjustability won't allow a car to autocross faster than if it > statically already has that optimum setting for the given conditions. > Too much day of event futzin' with car adjustments takes the driver > away from focusing on their driving. A well dialed in brain in a > reasonably well sorted out car will always beat the perfectly dialed in > car who's driver didn't have time to walk the course enough because they > were too busy adjusting their suspension. > > Barry > > > Scott & Charlotte Miller wrote: > > >I hesitate to ask this question, since I'm trying to isolate the > >effects of one variable as if dozens of other variables always > >remained the same, which, of course, they never do, variables being, > >um, variable. But hey, I've gotta start somewhere. This is research > >for our 2005 update to the GGC autocross classification system. > > > >These questions are directed to autocrossers who have installed front > >adjustable camber devices (plates, whatever, I just like the word > >"devices") on their BMWs. This is not about the half degree "crash > >correction" strut bearings, or even the other fixed offset strut > >bearings sold by companies like Ireland and Turner. I'm just > >interested in data on front adjustable camber. > > > >1. When you installed front adjustable camber devices, and after you > >arrived at what you feel is your optimal camber settings, how much of > >a difference in run times did it make? Please include a reference, > >like, for example, "on a 60 second course". > > > >2. Did you make any other changes at the same time, or was front > >adjustable camber the only mod you made? > > > >3. What size sway bars are you running? > > > >4. Year and model BMW on which the mods were made? > > > >Thanks, > > > >Scott Miller > >GGC BMW CCA > > > > > > > >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: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:49:34 -0800 From: "Marco Romani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Data Request - effects of negative camber Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wouldn't it be easier/better to assume that anything beyond stock camber settings are "optimal" and just assign the same points to adjustable/fixed camber plates. I run the same camber settings on my adjustable plates as I did with my fixed plates, it was just a royal PITA to get those settings from the fixed plates/shims/blah blah.' Adjustable plates may get you more camber, but more isn't neccessarily better. You can have too much. Marco -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Scott & Charlotte Miller Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 9:36 PM To: JKerouac Cc: UUC Digest Subject: Re: [UUC] Data Request - effects of negative camber Barry, it is partly an adjustability issue, but it is more than that. Our current classification system assigns points to mods. More neg camber = more points. But this is based on an incorrect theory. The amount of camber a car needs depends on how much it leans in a max g turn. As you said, surface conditions change between sites, so the g forces also change. But in theory, for a given car on a given surface, there is an optimum setting. So I'm trying to figure out how many points to assign to a car with adjustable front camber, assuming that everyone with this setup actually sets it correctly for each event. Is that sufficient obfuscation? Scott Miller GGC BMW CCA ----- Original Message ----- From: "JKerouac" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Scott & Charlotte Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "UUC Digest" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 3:54 PM Subject: Re: [UUC] Data Request - effects of negative camber > Scott, > Are you assessing the advantage of maxing out negative camber, or > the advantage of adjustability? > Adjustable camber devices won't provide more negative camber than what > can be obtained via other means. Track and course conditions vary > widely from site to site, and day to day. Being able to dial in the best > camber for the temperature/ material/ and cleanliness off the track > surface, and speed/ tightness of the course, is an advantage for > trackside tweaking. But few among us (definitely not myself) actually > know how to figure that out, let alone do it quickly at an event? > Adjustability won't allow a car to autocross faster than if it > statically already has that optimum setting for the given conditions. > Too much day of event futzin' with car adjustments takes the driver > away from focusing on their driving. A well dialed in brain in a > reasonably well sorted out car will always beat the perfectly dialed in > car who's driver didn't have time to walk the course enough because they > were too busy adjusting their suspension. > > Barry > > > Scott & Charlotte Miller wrote: > > >I hesitate to ask this question, since I'm trying to isolate the > >effects of one variable as if dozens of other variables always > >remained the same, which, of course, they never do, variables being, > >um, variable. But hey, I've gotta start somewhere. This is research > >for our 2005 update to the GGC autocross classification system. > > > >These questions are directed to autocrossers who have installed front > >adjustable camber devices (plates, whatever, I just like the word > >"devices") on their BMWs. This is not about the half degree "crash > >correction" strut bearings, or even the other fixed offset strut > >bearings sold by companies like Ireland and Turner. I'm just > >interested in data on front adjustable camber. > > > >1. When you installed front adjustable camber devices, and after you > >arrived at what you feel is your optimal camber settings, how much of > >a difference in run times did it make? Please include a reference, > >like, for example, "on a 60 second course". > > > >2. Did you make any other changes at the same time, or was front > >adjustable camber the only mod you made? > > > >3. What size sway bars are you running? > > > >4. Year and model BMW on which the mods were made? > > > >Thanks, > > > >Scott Miller > >GGC BMW CCA > > > > > > > >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 > > > > > > > > > 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: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:55:31 -0800 (PST) From: Tammer Farid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Data Request - effects of negative camber Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- Marco Romani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > wouldn't it be easier/better to assume that anything > beyond stock camber > settings are "optimal" and just assign the same points to > adjustable/fixed > camber plates. Marco, Would you include the incidental camber gain after lowering as being "beyond stock settings?" Assuming no aftermarket gear specifically for optimizing camber is in place. -tammer __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 22:05:43 -0800 From: "Marco Romani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Data Request - effects of negative camber Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> yep. The one thing I won't define is "optimal" ;-) I run -3.5 on my racecar. I used to do that by a combination of fixed plates, shims, lowering, which btw would mean a compromise on corner weights to even out camber. Now with my adjustable plates I don't need the shims, a kludge, and I can corner weight the car properly. So adjustable ride height i.e. coilovers should be also assigned points. A car that is properly corner weighted with "optimal" camber settings will handle better than a car with screwed up corner weights. Of course my experience is in racing, I've never autocrossed. Marco -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tammer Farid Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 9:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [UUC] Data Request - effects of negative camber --- Marco Romani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > wouldn't it be easier/better to assume that anything > beyond stock camber > settings are "optimal" and just assign the same points to > adjustable/fixed > camber plates. Marco, Would you include the incidental camber gain after lowering as being "beyond stock settings?" Assuming no aftermarket gear specifically for optimizing camber is in place. -tammer __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com 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: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 05:49:11 -0800 (PST) From: Carlos Lopez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Marco Romani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Data Request - effects of negative camber Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- Marco Romani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So adjustable ride height i.e. coilovers should be also assigned > points. A > car that is properly corner weighted with "optimal" camber settings > will handle better than a car with screwed up corner weights. > > Of course my experience is in racing, I've never autocrossed. Pretty much the same, except on an autox car you typically run more toe out than on a race car (setup for more oversteer) and the really competitive folks run a stickier tire than the road race folks, like that Hoosier A3S03 or A3S04 now I hear there's a Kumho tire that's the cat's meow for autoxing. I disagree on assigning points to coilovers, I agree with you that they're an advantage though. As far as parts are concerned the same parts have been altered. Let's say one guy shows up with Bilstein sports and H&R springs and a set of KMac camber plates. The more competitive guy went with a set of AD shocks, GC coilover conversion and GC camber plates. The same parts were changed so they should both run in the same class or at least have earned the same # of points for altering the same parts. Now for Tammer's question, let's say a 3rd guy shows up just with the Bilsteins and H&R springs. He has more negative camber than a stock car because it sits lower but he does not have as much as the two guys with adj camber plates. With Smiller's question those other two guys may be as much as 1-2 seconds faster than he/she is. He should not earn as many points as the other two and could run in a lower class, it probably depends what other mods he has done and how they weigh in in that GGC points system. That's my opinion anyway. Sounds like a cool classing system that keeps evolving. Carlos. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 07:12:50 -0800 From: "Marco Romani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Data Request - effects of negative camber Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ;-) I did exactly the change you mentions (ok it was Konis, kmacs, H&R) to a full GC set up. Shaved about 1 sec off my lap times at Thill ;-) cheers, Marco -----Original Message----- From: Carlos Lopez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 5:49 AM To: Marco Romani; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [UUC] Data Request - effects of negative camber --- Marco Romani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So adjustable ride height i.e. coilovers should be also assigned > points. A > car that is properly corner weighted with "optimal" camber settings > will handle better than a car with screwed up corner weights. > > Of course my experience is in racing, I've never autocrossed. Pretty much the same, except on an autox car you typically run more toe out than on a race car (setup for more oversteer) and the really competitive folks run a stickier tire than the road race folks, like that Hoosier A3S03 or A3S04 now I hear there's a Kumho tire that's the cat's meow for autoxing. I disagree on assigning points to coilovers, I agree with you that they're an advantage though. As far as parts are concerned the same parts have been altered. Let's say one guy shows up with Bilstein sports and H&R springs and a set of KMac camber plates. The more competitive guy went with a set of AD shocks, GC coilover conversion and GC camber plates. The same parts were changed so they should both run in the same class or at least have earned the same # of points for altering the same parts. Now for Tammer's question, let's say a 3rd guy shows up just with the Bilsteins and H&R springs. He has more negative camber than a stock car because it sits lower but he does not have as much as the two guys with adj camber plates. With Smiller's question those other two guys may be as much as 1-2 seconds faster than he/she is. He should not earn as many points as the other two and could run in a lower class, it probably depends what other mods he has done and how they weigh in in that GGC points system. That's my opinion anyway. Sounds like a cool classing system that keeps evolving. Carlos. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:57:30 -0800 From: JKerouac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Carlos Lopez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Marco Romani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Data Request - effects of negative camber Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> One basic assumption that goes into a point system is that if a change is made, that the change is made to its maximum possible effect for autocross. It has to be accepted that this is not the case for the majority of cars that show up. Likewise few cars are driven to their own potential maximum performance. So the equation that develops results in a potential minimum lap time predictor for a course which is based on less than maximum application of the given modification, plus less than minimum potential time for that given set of mods. This can lead to the contentious situation where an entrant with superior car preparation for a given set of rules, who nails their runs dead on, will beat what the theoretical curve says that car should be capable of. Or where the local 'top dog' car and driver in a class is beaten soundly, but cleanly, by a newcomer. I've seen both the best of congratulations, and the worst of sour grapes cheating accusations given to drivers when this situation happens. What happens is that the people who make standard mods in standard ways don't have the fastest cars but do get penalized the most. There are many examples of alternate free mods that perform as well or better than assessed mods. So what about an inclusive set of assessments which allow you to do any of a list of mods without penalty? Then the alternatives are automatically assessed since they are not on the "allowed" list. Such as, for the engine, you may shave the head to spec, use any or no air filter, and remove any existing or make any desired add on to the stock airbox housing. Any engine mod beyond that, such as a bored out throttle body, automatically causes an assessment. That will ruled out many sublime alternatives that skirt the rules. Two on my car would be: keeping the stock HFM sensor but making a larger diameter tube for it, and removing the DSC throttle place and shaft from the DSC housing, instead of replacing it with an //M Z intake boot. These two mods on my car (when used with 4 bar fuel pressure) are good for 10 pounds of torque, but under the current wording of the classification system Scott's working with, I believe are not assessed, since they're probably not mods most people would even consider. In the interest of fair competition, now that I've started it, would other like to spill the beans about mods that clearly skirt the intent, though not the letter, of class rules? YMMV, Barry Carlos Lopez wrote: >--- Marco Romani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>So adjustable ride height i.e. coilovers should be also assigned >>points. A >>car that is properly corner weighted with "optimal" camber settings >>will handle better than a car with screwed up corner weights. >> >>Of course my experience is in racing, I've never autocrossed. >> >> > >Pretty much the same, except on an autox car you typically run more toe >out than on a race car (setup for more oversteer) and the really >competitive folks run a stickier tire than the road race folks, like >that Hoosier A3S03 or A3S04 now I hear there's a Kumho tire that's the >cat's meow for autoxing. > >I disagree on assigning points to coilovers, I agree with you that >they're an advantage though. As far as parts are concerned the same >parts have been altered. Let's say one guy shows up with Bilstein >sports and H&R springs and a set of KMac camber plates. The more >competitive guy went with a set of AD shocks, GC coilover conversion >and GC camber plates. The same parts were changed so they should both >run in the same class or at least have earned the same # of points for >altering the same parts. > >Now for Tammer's question, let's say a 3rd guy shows up just with the >Bilsteins and H&R springs. He has more negative camber than a stock >car because it sits lower but he does not have as much as the two guys >with adj camber plates. With Smiller's question those other two guys >may be as much as 1-2 seconds faster than he/she is. He should not >earn as many points as the other two and could run in a lower class, it >probably depends what other mods he has done and how they weigh in in >that GGC points system. > >That's my opinion anyway. Sounds like a cool classing system that >keeps evolving. > >Carlos. > > > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! >http://my.yahoo.com > > >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: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:08:29 -0500 From: "Gary Derian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Data Request - effects of negative camber Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> What about bending the strut towers, or front struts, or changing the shock oil to drastically increase damping which effectively does the same thing as stiffer springs during transitions. Back when I autocrossed, I always ran in a modified class due to silly rules about engine swaps. Gary Derian > --- Marco Romani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> wouldn't it be easier/better to assume that anything >> beyond stock camber >> settings are "optimal" and just assign the same points to >> adjustable/fixed >> camber plates. > > Marco, > > Would you include the incidental camber gain after lowering > as being "beyond stock settings?" Assuming no aftermarket > gear specifically for optimizing camber is in place. > > -tammer > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! > http://my.yahoo.com > > > 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: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 07:19:03 -0800 From: "Marco Romani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Data Request - effects of negative camber Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> yep.. if you go with the point system then all that stuff is a change and should have some points assigned OR have it listed with 0 points so that it is clear there isn't any cheating going on. Marco tired of all the damn rules - moving to mod -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Gary Derian Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 6:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [UUC] Data Request - effects of negative camber What about bending the strut towers, or front struts, or changing the shock oil to drastically increase damping which effectively does the same thing as stiffer springs during transitions. Back when I autocrossed, I always ran in a modified class due to silly rules about engine swaps. Gary Derian > --- Marco Romani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> wouldn't it be easier/better to assume that anything >> beyond stock camber >> settings are "optimal" and just assign the same points to >> adjustable/fixed >> camber plates. > > Marco, > > Would you include the incidental camber gain after lowering > as being "beyond stock settings?" Assuming no aftermarket > gear specifically for optimizing camber is in place. > > -tammer > > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! > http://my.yahoo.com > > > 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 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: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 06:46:40 -0800 (PST) From: Sean Cordone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Icelink Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Harvey- My car had a cassette deck standard - I meant that by replacing the head unit with a CD player version, I can still play CDs in the car, while running the iPOD on the iBUS instead of a changer. I considered building a switching circuit to go back and forth between the iPOD and a changer (this isn't a feature included with the Icelink), but in the end it seemed like overkill. With the iPOD I can't ever imagine wanting a changer again, but it is nice to be able to pop a CD in the dash right after you buy it, etc. The E39 does have the same iBUS - at least some years do. I've used my Icelink in my wife's 1998 E39 - it's plug and play. --SC --- Harvey Chao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You posted: > > I retrofitted the BMW CD43 factory CD player to my > 97 > M3, and use the Icelink to interface an iPod to the > CD > changer bus - this way you get both CD and iPod > playback options. > > Is your CD changer bus the same IBUS in E39 > vehicles? I have a 2000 > E39 w/factory changer and would like to know more > about your setup. > Looking at the Icelink web page, I didn't get the > impression that I > could retain the CD changer, that it was either the > iPod or the > changer. Is there a provision to have booth hooked > up and switch back > and forth? > Thanks > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 07:35:24 -0800 From: "Damon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Zionsville Radiator, Service Shop in Long Beach CA Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hey list, Anybody have experience with the all-aluminum radiator from Zionsville? Also, anybody know of a good BMW shop near Long Beach California? TIA -Damon '94 325i '95 993 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:41:19 -0500 From: "Michael S. Radcliffe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Pre-Purchase Insp, '95 525 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I am looking at a 95 525 touring. Car is in St. Petersburg, Florida. Is anyone in the area & can take a look at the car for me? Will compensate for time. Also, what should one look at in inspecting this year car? I understand that the engines are fairly bulletproof. I also understand that the double sunroof, although a cool idea, is a potential big $$ issue if it goes south. Many thanks Mike Radcliffe Timonium, Maryland Msradcliffe at Comcast dot net 99 540it 90 325ica --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/15/2004 ------------------------------ End of [bmwuucdigest] digest(12 messages) **********
