The BMW UUC Digest Volume 2 : Issue 649 : "text" Format Messages in this Issue: Re: e34 Touring Glass Hatch Lift R&R Re: e34 Touring Glass Hatch Lift R&R <E34> M60 Coolant Usage. Re: <E34> M60 Coolant Usage. Re: <E34> M60 Coolant Usage. AWD vs. RWD and Snow Tires AWD vs. RWD and Snow Tires Re: AWD vs. RWD and Snow Tires Re: AWD vs. RWD and Snow Tires Re: M-coupe or Cooper S? Re: AWD vs. RWD and Snow Tires Re: M-coupe or Cooper S? Re: '95 E36 M3 - Head Gasket and Stud Kits <E36> leaking PS hose quick fix
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 21:53:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Tammer Farid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: e34 Touring Glass Hatch Lift R&R Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I don't know if this particular tool is included in the program, but Brett does rent certain special tools. You're still paying a pro, but a whole lot less. -tammer --- Karl Zemlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the hardest, it's a 15. > Unless you have the tool, then it's a 0.2" > > > I'll interpret that as "pay the pros" > > Thanks, Brett > > > 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 > Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 09:14:45 -0400 From: Steve Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: e34 Touring Glass Hatch Lift R&R Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Good question Tammer. I need to do the same thing on my rear hatch. Brett, do you rent the tool? -Steve Tammer Farid wrote: > I don't know if this particular tool is included in the > program, but Brett does rent certain special tools. You're > still paying a pro, but a whole lot less. > > -tammer > > --- Karl Zemlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>"Scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the hardest, it's a 15. >>Unless you have the tool, then it's a 0.2" >> >> >>I'll interpret that as "pay the pros" >> >>Thanks, Brett >> ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 03:43:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Neil Deshpande <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: <E34> M60 Coolant Usage. Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Gruppe: A friend of mine has a 95 540i 6sp that is using coolant @ 1L/wk. We have resealed waterpump, replaced a coolant cap with a chipping edge on the inside, checked oil for coolant, checked tailpipe for white vapour and smell, checked cabin for condensation and smell, looked all over the engine bay for leaks. Found nothing. I'm going to build a pressurizing device out of an old radiator cap. What pressure is safe for the system to take? Any other ideas on where to look? Are there leak potentials in the vee of that engine? TIA, Neil Deshpande 92 M5 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 05:57:36 -0500 From: Jenny Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Neil Deshpande <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: <E34> M60 Coolant Usage. Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Don't exceed 20 lbs, and do it cold in case something lets go. Hot spray is a nasty. Have you examined the valley cover area? There are 2 bypass tubes which can rot and lose seal at their o-rings, front or back. The tubes live on the driver's side of the engine, under the intake plenum. Jenny Morgan On May 6, 2005, at 5:43 AM, Neil Deshpande wrote: > Gruppe: > > A friend of mine has a 95 540i 6sp that is using > coolant @ 1L/wk. > > We have resealed waterpump, replaced a coolant cap > with a chipping edge on the inside, checked oil for > coolant, checked tailpipe for white vapour and smell, > checked cabin for condensation and smell, looked all > over the engine bay for leaks. Found nothing. > > I'm going to build a pressurizing device out of an old > radiator cap. What pressure is safe for the system to > take? Any other ideas on where to look? Are there > leak potentials in the vee of that engine? > > TIA, > > Neil Deshpande > 92 M5 > 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: Fri, 6 May 2005 08:14:28 -0700 (PDT) From: wy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: <E34> M60 Coolant Usage. Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- Jenny Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Don't exceed 20 lbs, and do it cold in case > something lets go. Hot > spray is a nasty. I second that comment. A friend of mine suffered 3rd and 2nd degree burn when hot coolant showered half his body. The mechanic who previously work on the E36 over tighten the clamp on the t-stat housing. It broke on him when troubleshoot the cooling system. Will Get Firefox! Discover Yahoo! Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 07:49:44 -0400 From: "Richard Sperry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: AWD vs. RWD and Snow Tires Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Here's my take, Get an AWD car, and then put snow tires on it. In my case, an Audi A6 Quattro wagon. See ya later. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 10:32:51 -0700 From: Tom Kosmalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: AWD vs. RWD and Snow Tires Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Stan's comments included: Unless, of course, you are climbing a very steep hill or are in reverse ... That brings to mind climbing my future in-laws driveway in Montana one Christmas in my old 82 Saab 900. Three tries, couldn't quite get over the last hump. Opened the hatchback, turned the car around, and rallied right up the sucker in reverse. As far as (non)power-sliding FWD in snow, it is actually pretty easy to do. Simply mount studded snows on the front, and unstudded tires out back. Many learned sources (CR, Tire Rack, etc.) would call this dangerous, but, growing up where the roads were often snowpacked 5 months of the year--allowing for more practice driving in snow than anybody really actually wanted--I just called it fun. That said, the most fun winter car I ever drove, by a huge margin, was my family's old VW Beetle. Great traction and not much power. A great way for a 12-year old to learn to drive, especially with a Dad who encouraged donuts, etc. in slippery, empty parking lots! Tom K. Hood River, OR (not nearly enough winter driving opportunities) ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 11:33:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Richard Dorffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Stan Jackson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [email protected] Subject: Re: AWD vs. RWD and Snow Tires Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- "Stan Jackson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From a total performance point of view (acceleration, braking, cornering, > and handling overall), FWD is inherently superior to RWD in icy and snowy > conditions. Why? Why would FWD be better overall just because the surface is more slippery? I understand that Stan has a lot of experience in this area so that is why I am asking him and others.... > Mid-engined and rear-engined vehicles technically fall in > between, but that is difficult to see reflected in reality (too few > mid-engine and rear-engine vehicles, other variables). Whether it is a > little more or a lot more, FWD has a higher percentage of weight over the > driving wheels. Simply put, that translates into an inherent advantage, > period. Unless, of course, you are climbing a very steep hill or are in > reverse ... I understand that a FWD vehicle will have more of a percentage of its weight over the drive wheels (I don't know of any exceptions to this), but I only see that as an advantage in the area of acceleration, I see it as a disadvantage in most all other areas of handling. And, AFAIC, shortcomings in acceleration in slippery conditions is usually the safer problem compared to shortcomings related to turning, braking, etc. Regards, Rich - not trying to be a PITA, hoping to learn something from this discussion. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 17:17:58 -0400 From: "Stan Jackson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Richard Dorffer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[email protected]> Subject: Re: AWD vs. RWD and Snow Tires Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Rich, Why FWD is generally safer in snowy and icy conditions: While there are experienced drivers who can handle oversteer, there are many more inexperienced drivers who cannot. And even some experienced drivers do not respond promptly or properly in emergency situations. RWD cars are more likely to oversteer, while FWD cars are more likely to understeer. Both drive types can do either under the right circumstances, but these are the much more likely situations. When a RWD car begins to oversteer, it requires a driver response NOW. When a FWD car begins to understeer, it requires a driver to wait until traction is regained. Additionally, a FWD car is more likely to stay out of trouble if the driver does not respond to oversteer. Why FWD is a better performer in snowy and icy conditions: FWD accelerates better due to weight distribution. Initial braking is better for the same reason. And engine braking is somewhat more effective through the front wheels. As you come out of a turn, you can get on the throttle much sooner with FWD. The reason? On snow and ice, you tend to steer with the drive wheels. With FWD, the front wheels pull the car through, allowing the car to utilize new spots of traction sooner. With RWD, you must set the car up for the turn, then wait until the rear wheels get to the areas of traction. Finally, oversteer generally takes time. It is certainly reasonable to control the oversteer in a RWD car, but it may be taking too much time to do it. The FWD car is easier to handle. What it really boils down to is that FWD is superior specifically when the surface is low traction, and especially when it is variably slippery. The more traction, the less variability, the closer RWD is, until eventually it surpasses FWD in performance on high traction pavement. Stan ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Dorffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Stan Jackson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, May 06, 2005 2:33 PM Subject: Re: [UUC] AWD vs. RWD and Snow Tires > --- "Stan Jackson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From a total performance point of view (acceleration, braking, cornering, > > and handling overall), FWD is inherently superior to RWD in icy and snowy > > conditions. > > Why? Why would FWD be better overall just because the surface is more slippery? > > I understand that Stan has a lot of experience in this area so that is why I am asking him and > others.... > > > Mid-engined and rear-engined vehicles technically fall in > > between, but that is difficult to see reflected in reality (too few > > mid-engine and rear-engine vehicles, other variables). Whether it is a > > little more or a lot more, FWD has a higher percentage of weight over the > > driving wheels. Simply put, that translates into an inherent advantage, > > period. Unless, of course, you are climbing a very steep hill or are in > > reverse ... > > I understand that a FWD vehicle will have more of a percentage of its weight over the drive wheels > (I don't know of any exceptions to this), but I only see that as an advantage in the area of > acceleration, I see it as a disadvantage in most all other areas of handling. > > And, AFAIC, shortcomings in acceleration in slippery conditions is usually the safer problem > compared to shortcomings related to turning, braking, etc. > > Regards, > > Rich - not trying to be a PITA, hoping to learn something from this discussion. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 08:26:19 -0400 (EDT) From: "John Stoj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: M-coupe or Cooper S? Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Folks, Thanks for all the helpful responses. This is why I figured I'd throw it out there. I had almost ruled out the MCS before an MC40 edition (40th anniversary Monte Carlo win) came up for sale near me. I don't intend to autocross the car - but I won't rule it out. (I'd like to do something like that, but I haven't had the gumption to take the 993 out to the track/parking lot.) After owning a '97 M3 for 4 or so years I am pretty comfortable with the mechanicals that would be in the M-coupe. The LR will still be around for hauling and poor weather, so, yes, front wheel drive is not an issue (unless you consider it a negative). I've driven the MCS I thought enough to think I wouldn't be bothered by it. (But I hate my parents' Acura TSX for its FWD tendencies.) As for the rear end coming around on me (knock on wood), I drive enough like a grandma than I've never been in danger of than happenning with any of my 911's, so I'm figuring than the M-coupe shouldn't be any worse. Hopefully I'll see both cars this weekend and get a better idea of what I'm going to do. I am jonesing for a Bimmer again. - John S. _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 13:00:15 -0400 From: "Stan Jackson Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: AWD vs. RWD and Snow Tires Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >From a total performance point of view (acceleration, braking, cornering, and handling overall), FWD is inherently superior to RWD in icy and snowy conditions. Mid-engined and rear-engined vehicles technically fall in between, but that is difficult to see reflected in reality (too few mid-engine and rear-engine vehicles, other variables). Whether it is a little more or a lot more, FWD has a higher percentage of weight over the driving wheels. Simply put, that translates into an inherent advantage, period. Unless, of course, you are climbing a very steep hill or are in reverse ... That does not mean that any particular driver wil prefer the handling of a FWD vehicle over a RWD vehicle, feel as comfortable with it, or even perform as well with it. Additionally, that does not mean that a particular driver-vehicle-tire combination that includes RWD can't be better than another that includes FWD, or even AWD. Driver, tire, and vehicle specifics add a LOT of variables. Narrower tires only help in deep snow, and given the current state of snow tire technology, and my extensive experience Ice Racing, I question whether that is still true. If you manage to get the rear end of a FWD car into a true slide, you were probably so far gone that it did not matter what you were driving. Or you hit some really nasty ice patch very suddenly and at just the right angle, in which case RWD would have come around even faster. Most (though definitely not all) FWD cars simply won't allow the rear end to slide out significantly. The front end will push instead. And if the rear end does somehow come out a little, all you have to do is accelerate out of the slide -- which I'll admit is much easier said than done, especially for someone who grew up on RWD. For Ice Racing (Autocrossing on a frozen lake) in say, a 1980's VW GTI, you are probably better with slicks on the rear and snows on the front so that you can get around the corners quicker (OK, not slicks)! On the other hand, the 2001 GTI has much better balance, and you can get the rear end to come around a bit even on equivalent tires. Stan ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 12:59:26 -0500 From: Neil Maller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: M-coupe or Cooper S? Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 5/5/05 5:30 PM, Ben Keyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > M coupe, no question. But there is a question, in fact rather a lot of them. I'm not advocating either of the Mini or the M Coupe, both of which I like, both of which I've driven and one of which I own, because I have no idea what all the questions are. For instance I'd never consider an M Coupe as long I have the M3 because they occupy the same quadrant of the automotive landscape. I'm told that John, who originally posed the Mini or M Coupe question, also has a couple of 911's. Would another performance 2 seater be one too many for him? Buggered if I know. Here's the question John didn't ask, but which everyone else is rushing to answer: which of these should he get? What he did ask is: are there any gotchas he should know about before making his own choice? Neil Fort Wayne, IN 96 M3 - Bastard child 03 525iT - Sterling Grey Metallic 77 MGB - Original owner, need to sell 05 Mini - Cooper S with LSD! ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 13:21:50 -0700 (PDT) From: Richard Dorffer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: '95 E36 M3 - Head Gasket and Stud Kits Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I need to replace the head gasket on my 1995 M3. I haven't had the typical head gasket issues I have read about, mine simply leaks oil (leaks, not seeps) back by the #6 cylinder (and the oil hits the cats and blows white smoke out from under the car scaring the unsuspecting victims I pass at DEs... :-) The head gasket was replaced once when the valve train was upgraded to the newer hardened retainers/keepers so it isn't the original. I suppose something could have occurred at that time where a contaminant got under the gasket or the gasket was defective, who knows. Regardless, it has to be replaced. So, I might as well go for an upgrade over a stock gasket IMO. As a result, I think the multi-layered steel head gasket (from VAC Motorsports) and possibly adding their ARP stud kit makes sense. Anyone else do this (I know Marco has I believe)? Results? Anyone do something else that I should consider? Thanks in advance. Regards, Rich - need to get ready for my next DE... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 14:04:56 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [email protected] Subject: <E36> leaking PS hose quick fix Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Recently on my son's E36 the high pressure PS hose was seeping to the extent that it would leave spots on the drive way. As an experiment we put a hose clamp of the appropriate size on the metal crimp to tighten up the connection. So far it's been holding up with no leaking. -Kevin ------------------------------ End of [bmwuucdigest] digest(14 messages) **********
