The BMW UUC Digest Volume 2 : Issue 475 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: M50 Rebuild questions Re: M50 Rebuild questions Re: M50 Rebuild questions Re: M50 Rebuild questions Re: <E30> running problems and stomp test Re: [E36] Horrible cold-start consumption Re: [E36] Horrible cold-start consumption Bilstein bumpstops ... Re: Bilstein bumpstops ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 22:46:46 +0200 From: Pavel Tcholakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: M50 Rebuild questions Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Happy New Year, UUC! Can anyone please give me (or point me in the direction of) the following information: * How much can the M50 block be bored out? I've heard conflicting opinions, some stating that VANOS engines cannot go above 84mm, others saying 86mm is safe within reason. * What's the piston height from the wrist pin and the con-rod lengths on the E36 M50B25, M52B28 and S50B30 motors? (Need these to figure out what can be interchanged in terms of pistons and cranks while keeping compression roughly the same). Best regards, Pavel ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 16:09:35 -0800 From: "Marco Romani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: M50 Rebuild questions Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> well you may know that the rough castings on the M50 and S50 have the same numbers cast into them. The S50 has a bore of 86mm, I have an M50 block in my garage and it looks as if you bored it out to 86mm you'd be close to the max of the liners. I know the S50 block looks as if you can bore it out a bit with out cutting thru the liners, my guess is after rough casting the block is bored out and then the liners are installed for the appropriate block. Pauter makes con rods for the M50/S50. I bet if you gave them a call they may know the lengths you're looking for. http://www.pauter.com/bmwrods.htm What are you trying to do? Marco -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Pavel Tcholakov Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 12:47 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [UUC] M50 Rebuild questions Happy New Year, UUC! Can anyone please give me (or point me in the direction of) the following information: * How much can the M50 block be bored out? I've heard conflicting opinions, some stating that VANOS engines cannot go above 84mm, others saying 86mm is safe within reason. * What's the piston height from the wrist pin and the con-rod lengths on the E36 M50B25, M52B28 and S50B30 motors? (Need these to figure out what can be interchanged in terms of pistons and cranks while keeping compression roughly the same). Best regards, Pavel 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: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 10:36:14 +0200 From: Pavel Tcholakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: M50 Rebuild questions Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I do know the S50 and M50 blocks share a common design, but as you say, it's hard to tell where the similarities end exactly. Trying to figure out a way to rebuild my motor, M50B20, into something better. I can get a full set of M50B25 internals, and also a set of pistons and rods (but no crank) from a S50. The 325 internals are cheap and are always an option, but I was thinking along the lines of boring the block to 86mm and using a 328 crankshaft to achieve a displacement of about 2900cc. My friends did something similar to a 2.7 M20 Alpina motor, bringing it to 2.9 and the results are fantastic - even with the 12v head. If I'm reading the Pauter page correctly, it would seem that pistons are interchangeable, while crankshafts have to go with the matching rods. If anyone out there has done something similar, I'd appreciate any input :-) Best regards, Pavel On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 16:09:35 -0800, Marco Romani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > well you may know that the rough castings on the M50 and S50 have the same > numbers cast into them. The S50 has a bore of 86mm, I have an M50 block in > my garage and it looks as if you bored it out to 86mm you'd be close to the > max of the liners. I know the S50 block looks as if you can bore it out a > bit with out cutting thru the liners, my guess is after rough casting the > block is bored out and then the liners are installed for the appropriate > block. > > Pauter makes con rods for the M50/S50. I bet if you gave them a call they > may know the lengths you're looking for. > > http://www.pauter.com/bmwrods.htm > > What are you trying to do? > > Marco ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 09:15:21 -0800 From: "Marco Romani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: M50 Rebuild questions Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> :-) I'm in the process of putting a M52 crank in an S50 block with custom Pauter Rods and Arias custom pistons, solid lifters, custom ground cams, yada^3. So I have a M52 block in the garage (not an M50 as in my prior email, duh) and a set of M52 rods/pistons and S50 rods/pistons /crank. So my S50 crank (heh heh he said crank) will probably be up for sale as long as all the other stuff out of my old engine (shrick cams, euro hfm, 24lb injectors) as soon as my "new" motor turns over and starts. why am I destroking? Racers do weird things to find advantages under the rulebook. Marco -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Pavel Tcholakov Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 12:36 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [UUC] M50 Rebuild questions I do know the S50 and M50 blocks share a common design, but as you say, it's hard to tell where the similarities end exactly. Trying to figure out a way to rebuild my motor, M50B20, into something better. I can get a full set of M50B25 internals, and also a set of pistons and rods (but no crank) from a S50. The 325 internals are cheap and are always an option, but I was thinking along the lines of boring the block to 86mm and using a 328 crankshaft to achieve a displacement of about 2900cc. My friends did something similar to a 2.7 M20 Alpina motor, bringing it to 2.9 and the results are fantastic - even with the 12v head. If I'm reading the Pauter page correctly, it would seem that pistons are interchangeable, while crankshafts have to go with the matching rods. If anyone out there has done something similar, I'd appreciate any input :-) Best regards, Pavel On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 16:09:35 -0800, Marco Romani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > well you may know that the rough castings on the M50 and S50 have the same > numbers cast into them. The S50 has a bore of 86mm, I have an M50 block in > my garage and it looks as if you bored it out to 86mm you'd be close to the > max of the liners. I know the S50 block looks as if you can bore it out a > bit with out cutting thru the liners, my guess is after rough casting the > block is bored out and then the liners are installed for the appropriate > block. > > Pauter makes con rods for the M50/S50. I bet if you gave them a call they > may know the lengths you're looking for. > > http://www.pauter.com/bmwrods.htm > > What are you trying to do? > > Marco 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: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 00:43:48 -0500 (EST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Pawlowicz) Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Clarence), [email protected] (UUC Digest) Subject: Re: <E30> running problems and stomp test Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >From Chris Pawlowicz > >From: "Clarence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Car is an '87 325i w/JC chip, about 239K and has been running well... >> until just before I shut it off Thursday afternoon. While pulling it into >> the garage (the car had been warmed up but not really hot) it started >> running just a little rough and the check engine light came on. >> > >stomp test: >-nope, it doesn't sound like it's working right for you.. >turn key to ignition, check engine light comes on, stop pedal to floor 5 x, >not too fast, rate is about 2 a second.. after 5 times release, CE light >will go off, then come back on for a while, then back off, then comes back >on giving the blink codes.. when it's done the 4 digit blink code it will >then come on for a longish time before repeating > In my 1987 E30, the stomp test won't work either. Just turn the ignition on and watch the CE light. If all is well, it just comes on and sits there. If there is a code, it will start blinking. It will blink 1, 2, 3, or 4 times. I know that 4 blinks is the O2 sensor. I don't recall the other codes at the moment, but I could look it up again. This seems to be an early motronic "feature". Cycle the ignition five times to clear the codes. -- Joe -- Joseph M. Krzeszewski Network Operations [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jack of All Trades, Master of None... Yet ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 13:51:12 +0200 From: Pavel Tcholakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [E36] Horrible cold-start consumption Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I think I got it! I took the rear seat out and removed both covers - one's the fuel level sender (this one's on the left), the other one is the pump + 2nd fuel level sender (on the right). This is a right-hand drive car so it might be reversed compared to US cars. The fuel sender on the left hand side was a little dusty under the cover but other than that looking perfect. I took the other side off and - surprise surprise! Much dirtier, and this time it wasn't just dust - it was more like dried up sludge. I scraped as much as I could off with a screw driver and vacuumed both sides. Next thing I noticed is that the little pipe that comes in was not in all the way onto the fitting. Not only that, but the clamp was not the same as the other 3. I took some pictures: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v124/pcholakov/Fuel%20Leak/right_side1.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v124/pcholakov/Fuel%20Leak/right_side2.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v124/pcholakov/Fuel%20Leak/right_side3.jpg This is the left side for comparison: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v124/pcholakov/Fuel%20Leak/left_side.jpg The plastic looks much whiter - I wonder if it has been changed? I didn't appear so, if anything my fuel pump has been changed (that's the yellow one) - the carpet and seal around it looked like they've been taken out before. As I tried to tighten up the clamp a bit of fuel squirted out - the pipe was loose! I tightened it as much as I could and started the car. Looked on both sides, no leaks - couldn't see or smell anything. I also looked under/around the manifold and fuel rail - nothing there either. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v124/pcholakov/Fuel%20Leak/manifold1.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v124/pcholakov/Fuel%20Leak/manifold2.jpg (Nothing notable in the above two pics - just snapped them to show off my clean engine bay :-)) What's also interesting, the fuel gauge now reads maybe about a gallon more in the tank than it did yesterday. Parked in the exact same spot, haven't moved or touched anything else. Now in two years that I've owned the car, this has never happened - it always reads same or less with each successive start. (Usually less if it's overnight.) So even if the leak wasn't a major one it could've affected my fuel reading and thus thrown my MPG calculations off. I would guess somebody changed the fuel pump before (or took it out for some reason), lost the one clamp and didn't fit the pipes properly. I'm definitely gonna go in there again and replace those clamps on the pipes. Should I do anything more? At least I know what it is now, so I'm happy - shouldn't be too expensive to fix either, hopefully. Best regards, Pavel On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:27:39 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Pavel, > > I have a 92 325i (non-vanos M50 engine) with 112K on the clock. It's my > daily driver and has the slushbox tranny and gets about 21 to 22 around > town and 28 on the highway driving between 75 and 80. > > One problem I had you may want to check is a fuel hose from the tank to > a fitting below the back seat was leaking sporadically. It was a bugger > to find this leak since it was intermittent buy my independent tech > finally got it in one day when the leak was present and found it and > fixed it. It's fairly easy to get to if you want to check it. Just > remove the lower part of the back seat and then there's a panel you > remove by taking 2 screws out. Mine was on the driver's side. If > you're smelling petrol that may be where it's coming from. > > Oh by the way, I still call it petrol every now and then.....my > excuse....was in Australia this time last year! It's hard to go back to > calling it gas after being there for 6 months. > > Hope this helps and good luck! > > Phil ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 09:17:30 -0800 From: "Marco Romani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [E36] Horrible cold-start consumption Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> if you track the car much you could install a second pump in place of the left hand sender. Prevents fuel starvation under g-load when under a 1/4 tank. Marco -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Pavel Tcholakov Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 3:51 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [UUC] [E36] Horrible cold-start consumption I think I got it! I took the rear seat out and removed both covers - one's the fuel level sender (this one's on the left), the other one is the pump + 2nd fuel level sender (on the right). This is a right-hand drive car so it might be reversed compared to US cars. The fuel sender on the left hand side was a little dusty under the cover but other than that looking perfect. I took the other side off and - surprise surprise! Much dirtier, and this time it wasn't just dust - it was more like dried up sludge. I scraped as much as I could off with a screw driver and vacuumed both sides. Next thing I noticed is that the little pipe that comes in was not in all the way onto the fitting. Not only that, but the clamp was not the same as the other 3. I took some pictures: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v124/pcholakov/Fuel%20Leak/right_side1.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v124/pcholakov/Fuel%20Leak/right_side2.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v124/pcholakov/Fuel%20Leak/right_side3.jpg This is the left side for comparison: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v124/pcholakov/Fuel%20Leak/left_side.jpg The plastic looks much whiter - I wonder if it has been changed? I didn't appear so, if anything my fuel pump has been changed (that's the yellow one) - the carpet and seal around it looked like they've been taken out before. As I tried to tighten up the clamp a bit of fuel squirted out - the pipe was loose! I tightened it as much as I could and started the car. Looked on both sides, no leaks - couldn't see or smell anything. I also looked under/around the manifold and fuel rail - nothing there either. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v124/pcholakov/Fuel%20Leak/manifold1.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v124/pcholakov/Fuel%20Leak/manifold2.jpg (Nothing notable in the above two pics - just snapped them to show off my clean engine bay :-)) What's also interesting, the fuel gauge now reads maybe about a gallon more in the tank than it did yesterday. Parked in the exact same spot, haven't moved or touched anything else. Now in two years that I've owned the car, this has never happened - it always reads same or less with each successive start. (Usually less if it's overnight.) So even if the leak wasn't a major one it could've affected my fuel reading and thus thrown my MPG calculations off. I would guess somebody changed the fuel pump before (or took it out for some reason), lost the one clamp and didn't fit the pipes properly. I'm definitely gonna go in there again and replace those clamps on the pipes. Should I do anything more? At least I know what it is now, so I'm happy - shouldn't be too expensive to fix either, hopefully. Best regards, Pavel On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 19:27:39 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Pavel, > > I have a 92 325i (non-vanos M50 engine) with 112K on the clock. It's my > daily driver and has the slushbox tranny and gets about 21 to 22 around > town and 28 on the highway driving between 75 and 80. > > One problem I had you may want to check is a fuel hose from the tank to > a fitting below the back seat was leaking sporadically. It was a bugger > to find this leak since it was intermittent buy my independent tech > finally got it in one day when the leak was present and found it and > fixed it. It's fairly easy to get to if you want to check it. Just > remove the lower part of the back seat and then there's a panel you > remove by taking 2 screws out. Mine was on the driver's side. If > you're smelling petrol that may be where it's coming from. > > Oh by the way, I still call it petrol every now and then.....my > excuse....was in Australia this time last year! It's hard to go back to > calling it gas after being there for 6 months. > > Hope this helps and good luck! > > Phil 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: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 11:37:13 -0800 (PST) From: Andre Yew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Bilstein bumpstops ... Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ... But it's not that about cutting them! :-) I've been receiving and reading conflicting advise about reusing the external bumpstops when replacing the stock shocks and springs on my E46 328Ci coupe with Bilstein sport shocks and lowering springs (H&R sports). Do I reuse them, or do I leave them out since the shocks have their own (infamous) bumpstops built in? Front and rear, only front, only rear? Perhaps it would have been easier to go with SA Konis in the first place, especially after just reading Carroll Smith's near-diatribe against Bilsteins and high-pressure monotubes in "Tune to Win". --Andre ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2005 14:42:41 -0500 From: "Rich Dorffer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Andre Yew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Bilstein bumpstops ... Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You don't reuse the bumpstops for the struts (front) as they have the built-in bumpstop as you noted. You do need to use OE bumpstops in the shocks (rear) as they don't have any built in bumpstops. Regards, Rich > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andre Yew > Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2005 2:37 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [UUC] Bilstein bumpstops ... > > > ... But it's not that about cutting them! :-) > > I've been receiving and reading conflicting advise about reusing the > external bumpstops when replacing the stock shocks and springs on my E46 > 328Ci coupe with Bilstein sport shocks and lowering springs (H&R sports). > Do I reuse them, or do I leave them out since the shocks have their own > (infamous) bumpstops built in? Front and rear, only front, only rear? > > Perhaps it would have been easier to go with SA Konis in the first place, > especially after just reading Carroll Smith's near-diatribe against > Bilsteins and high-pressure monotubes in "Tune to Win". > > --Andre ------------------------------ End of [bmwuucdigest] digest(9 messages) **********
