What is the root of this BMW design flaw in all 3,5,7 series

[jim beam]

On 03/17/2013 11:05 PM, Bimmer Owner wrote:

On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 07:49:51 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:

You're probably expecting me to argue with you, but I'm not

This isn't an 'argument'; it's merely a discussion.
Everything you said and everything I said was true.

three most important things ... are power, handling, and braking

The E39 that I own handles those three with aplomb!

(although the stock brake pads suck unless you like refinishing
your wheels every couple years.)

The stock front pads are Jurid, with the rears being Textar,
both with an FF friction & fade coefficient. They work well
enough, although Akebono GG friction ratings are often used
as replacement.

I use the Axxis/PBR FF pads, which dust the same color as the
wheels,

??? dude, brake dust is /two/ components:

1. pad.
2. disk.

if your wheels aren't being stained, it's because #2 is not present, or
at least, not to the extent that "bmw spec" [high silica] pads have.

so you don't see the unsightly darker-colored dust
of the stock Jurid pads.

current ride hasn't cost me anything but maintenance and an
oil filter housing gasket

The OFH often leaks on the BMW M54 engine; but luckily it's an
inexpensive part, albeit a bit of a pain to DIY.

Overall, I think we're in agreement, so there's really no need
for any argument. One thing about bimmer owners, they KNOW their
cars!

i don't understand this equation - y'all are starry eyed about something
that is completely unreliable /and/ expensive to maintain. sure, it's
better than a buick, but really?

if you like fixing stuff and are serious about rwd's with handling,
race-prep a miata. if you want something that handles from new, buy an
elise.

don't pay bmw's "advertising beats engineering" tax.


--
fact check required

 

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <ki7bnb$b8g$1@dont-email.me>, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:

car quality goes in cycles - for some manufacturers anyway. in the late
80's, hondas used a higher grade under the hood - fine wire high count
high temp high flex [though not silicone], and it's remarkably reliable.

Did they tin it? The lack of tinning is one of the things that annoys me
about many of the cars of that era.

Silicone is actually a problem for cars because if you nick the insulation
the cut will propagate until it becomes a break.

in the mid 90's they changed to lower flex, smaller cross-section,
lower count, much more akin to the wire used in the rest of the vehicle
- it still just about hangs in there, though i doubt it's million mile
material. i'm pretty sure copper prices had a big influence on this.

It wasn't failing enough, so they had to downgrade it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

 

[jim beam]

On 03/18/2013 10:38 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

In article <ki7bnb$b8g$1@dont-email.me>, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:

car quality goes in cycles - for some manufacturers anyway. in the late
80's, hondas used a higher grade under the hood - fine wire high count
high temp high flex [though not silicone], and it's remarkably reliable.

Did they tin it? The lack of tinning is one of the things that annoys me
about many of the cars of that era.

no, it's not tinned.

there are two schools of thought on that. on the one hand, surface
oxidation resistance is a good thing. on the other, there may be a
problem with tin in fatigue environments. i don't know this for sure,
so if you know someone at work who does, it would be good to check - but
tin has a weird deformation mechanism called "twinning" which changes
the surface of the metal where it's occurred. given that almost all
fatigue initiates at a surface, that /might/ be a fatigue initiator.
how much it might be worse than oxidation, i can't say, but i know a lot
of mil spec wire is silver plated, not tin, so i think it might not be
simple cheapness preventing its use.

Silicone is actually a problem for cars because if you nick the insulation
the cut will propagate until it becomes a break.

indeed, but that's not unique to silicone - many elastomers have the
same problem.

in the mid 90's they changed to lower flex, smaller cross-section,
lower count, much more akin to the wire used in the rest of the vehicle
- it still just about hangs in there, though i doubt it's million mile
material. i'm pretty sure copper prices had a big influence on this.

It wasn't failing enough, so they had to downgrade it.

maybe. it was was bullet proof - never failed unless abused.


--
fact check required

 

[Nate Nagel]

On 03/17/2013 09:07 PM, jim beam wrote:

On 03/17/2013 09:00 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 03/17/2013 11:25 AM, jim beam wrote:
On 03/17/2013 05:03 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 03/16/2013 12:52 PM, jim beam wrote:
On 03/15/2013 10:28 PM, Bimmer Owner wrote:
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 20:14:01 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:

perhaps they did have a flaw in the routing/materials of
one wiring harness, but show me a comparable vehicle at the same
price
point that handles better. To accuse BMW across the board of poor
engineering is laughable.


ok, you're not going to like a lot of what i have to say, so i'm going
to preface this by reminding you that i recognize that you may be
sincere in what you believe - so don't take all this personally.



The bimmer handles well, and the power train is phenomenal.

bmw's power trains are indeed "phenomenal", but for entirely different
reasons than those by which others would measure.

300 HP from a 3.0 liter six - and likely as much tuning potential as
the
vaunted Toyota Supra - is pretty phenomenal in my book.

that's only 100hp/liter. honda routinely had production vehicles at
120. non-turbo.

That's also stock.

dude, the 120 is stock. your 100 is stock. last i checked, 120 > 100.
your math may be different, but that's not my problem.


A simple flash tune (e.g. Cobb) or piggyback (BMS
JuiceBox) can get you to 350-375 easily;

that's still only 125.


more with a larger intercooler

intercooler means turbo. if you're only getting 125 turbo, you're not
very good at tuning a vehicle.


and freer-flowing cats/downpipes. Tony Vargas just dynoed a car on 91
octane pump gas with "full bolt ons" (generally, that means intake,
exhaust, and intercooler and possibly a larger oil cooler as well) and a
set of larger turbos but no internal engine work at 575 wheel HP.

so freakin' what? there are turbo integras with more output than that.
and that's only a 1.8l 4-banger.

Streetable and civilized? Stock bottom end? I doubt it.

That
sure sounds "phenomenal" to me, and reminiscent of what was being done
with Supras 10 years ago or so - and keep in mind that tuners have only
had since 2007 to work on the N54 engine. I suspect that there's more
to be had (and in fact there are people getting more power out of them
using methanol injection.)

you're clearly in self-justification mode and incapable of receiving any
incoming information.

You're missing the point. There are a few engines that the basic block
and heads can support massive HP/tuning. The N54 is one of them. So is
the old Supra engine. That is a Good Thing, if you're a car guy.

I'm sure that BMW knows that there is more potential in that engine but
they likely don't want the x35is a) competing with the M-cars or b)
making so much power that they start to have internal engine part
warranty claims at an unacceptable rate. (because, let's be honest, the
types of people that buy 500+ HP cars tend to want to use that power on
a regular basis.)

??? why don't /you/ get one? you bought a bmw because you want a
"powerful" car, right?

Um, I did! Couldn't be happier with it, either.

bmw are pioneers in transmission life limitation. gm and frod used to
do this by simply using cheapo clutch packs in their automatics, and
cheapo steel in their sticks so they'd wear out or spall respectively.
bmw didn't like these failure modes, so, not content with "sealed for
life", they decided to design fatigue /into/ their cogs so they'd
fatigue and break. [the beauty of fatigue is that you don't get
"whiny
transmission" or slippage symptoms that develop over time - one second
it works, the next, it's a catastrophic failure.] i know this because
one of my old profs was their outside consultant, and it was
interesting
to us as students because the metallurgical problem was how to ensure
that individual ratios would fail when each one operates somewhere
within the three [very different mechanism] fatigue "regimes". it's a
"phenomenal" technical achievement and one that bmw paid a lot of
money
to solve. all the majors are now reputed to have followed their
lead to
some extent. the real kicker is that it costs bmw ~20% more in
materials and q.c. to ensure this life limitation, but the mba's did
their math and it pays because it causes big ticket repairs to
vehicles
that are depreciated thus ensuring that the vehicle gets junked.

I would never advise anyone to buy a German car with an automatic
transmission. (and you know that BMW don't actually make the
transmissions correct?

uh, you know that bmw /spec/ their transmission to their contractor,
correct???


Of course, but my point is, that just like headlamps, German mfgrs. seem
to punish Americans by making their automatics as shitty as possible.

that wasn't your point before.


Stick with stickshift or DSG and you'll be fine.

um, actually, dsg has been highly problematic. and modern bmw sticks
aren't exactly champion either.

The current 6-speed is a little notchy when cold, but it's also rated
for quite a bit more torque than your Honda boxes. Certainly not
anything horribly objectionable.

I'm in no way excusing
the German slushboxes, but their shittiness has not been a secret for
the last 30+ years.

it's not a "slushbox", it's an "automatic transmission".

potato, potato.

at least in the E9x 3-series I think the 325
autos are made by GM and the 330/335 autos are ZF-built.) Some things
never change, the E28 5-series would destroy its automatic if you
let it
engage a driving gear, then shifted back to neutral, then revved the
engine. (also a ZF box IIRC.) There's an easy solution to that
problem
though; learn to drive a 3-pedal car, or if you want a luxury car that
your mom will enjoy driving, buy something other than a BMW. (although
actually my own mom would still probably enjoy driving a BMW, as both
her GTI and Miata are stickshifts.)

And as for "planned obsolescence" - you don't think that Ford, GM, and
Chrysler don't deliberately revise overengineered parts?

nate nate nate, when will you ever learn to read? i specifically stated
that bmw's /method/ was pioneering but you didn't read that.

everybody else has been having their crap /wear out/ since the 50's and
customers hate it. bmw's "genius" was sudden failure that took the
customer unawares, /and/ presented them with a huge bill that makes the
majority give up on the vehicle and buy a new one.


You just perfectly described why I drive German cars and *not* Hondas.

because you like cars where you're obligated to take big ticket
expenditure up the ass??? wow, you're even more retardeder than i thought.

You do realize that you don't have to buy new, right?

I paid less for my current ride than my friend did for his similarly
equipped but FWD and automatic Camry. Make depreciation work for you.

snippo

Clearly BMW cares about handling

no they don't - they use macpherson strut. if they were serious,
they'd
use wishbone.

Technically, you are correct, but in practice - it works phenomenally
well. (and actually the rear suspension is a multi-link with shocks,
not a strut type suspension.)

we'll come to fronts in a moment, but did you not read what i said about
rears??? [rhetorical]



now, bmw are at least smart enough to have realized before most
others,
porsche included, that rear suspension is crucial to making a cheaply
made car handle better, so they do at least concede to a little extra
expenditure on that, but by definition, any front suspension that
offers
no camber control is just cheap junk.

Again, it may be cheap, but it works.

yeah, a wheel barrow works. particularly when you have tires 30% wider
than a comparable vehicle that has camber control.

Actually BMW tire sizes are pretty narrow comparatively, 225s on the
front of a vehicle that curbs around 3400?

weight is not a factor in tire size. bmw use big tires because it's the
cheap way to compensate for otherwise having less rubber on the road
with cheapo macpherson strut.

Clearly you didn't read what I wrote.

Or are you going to argue that 225's are "big tires"?

And that's the M-sport
package. BMW's tire choices are a good example of one of the instances
where they have made questionable choices however; the Bridgestone
run-flats do appear to have been made from actual rocks, without
actually providing superior tread life.

wow, two red herrings in one paragraph - you surpass your usual standards!



Another thing you're not considering is that a strut-type front
suspension allows room for things like big v-engines in the front of the
car (remember, the current M3 uses a 4.7 liter overhead cam V-8,) and is
simpler and may very well weigh less than a comparable SLA design. these
are all things that must be considered when you're looking at a car
designed for performance first.

i'm sorry, didn't the original pony cars have have v8's and wishbones?
doesn't the corvette have a v8 and wishbones? oh, wait, you were
talking out of your ass - no problem.

They're also nowhere near as tightly packaged as a 3-series. But like I
said, there are definitely advantages to a SLA suspension and I'm not
going to argue that with you. I'm just saying that when you're dealing
with high spring rates and low travel that struts are not the
unmitigated evil that you make them out to be.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not slagging Honda for using a SLA suspension -
far from it - but there are several ways to peel a feline. Honda chose
one way and makes some very nice handling cars (albeit FWD.) BMW and
Porsche chose another and also make some very nice handling cars (but
you can criticize Porsche for sticking with hanging the big heavy bits
out behind the rear axle, but I suspect that that is in large part due
to the Porsche faithful not accepting anything else - look at the
relative failure of the 928 for example - just like we probably won't
see a Harley-Davidson with anything other than a v-twin in our
lifetimes.)

all you're saying is that you'll wriggle and squirm for any excuse to
justify you poor choice.

I don't need to justify my choices, I'm not the one going on the forums
slagging well-known manufacturers of performance cars to make myself
feel better about driving an old Honda.

macpherson is garbage. by definition. go out to any parking lot and
look at the inside tire of any macpherson vehicle parked with steering
angled. look at the camber. look at the percentage of tire left on the
pavement. /that/ is a fundamental problem that can't be solved.

macpherson is adequate for the straight-ahead and delightfully cheap for
manufacturers. and that's where the story ends.

Hmm. Doesn't seem to hurt any of the top competitors in DTM, BTCC, etc.
etc. etc. How far are the wheels generally turned in high-G cornering
maneuvers, anyway? And if you'd ever owned a Bimmer you would know that
any tire wear problems generally experienced are NOT in the front but in
the rear, which has an "acceptable" suspension design according to you
but since BMW's alignment specs have aggressive camber for better
handling the rears tend to wear the snot out of the insides of the tires
when the car is driven non-aggressively.

you're simply incapable of paying any attention. i don't know how many
times i've said it before, but apparently i need to say it again - rear
suspension is important because it's subject to higher lateral force
given the shorter radius for the same angular velocity as the front.
/that/ is why rears wear. oh, and they're driving wheels of course -
can't forget that!

Wait, what?

Finally, if you hate struts so much, why are you constantly slagging the
Germans, who nobody can deny build beautiful handling cars (and I have
never driven a car that had as nice steering feel as my old E28 chassis
535i,

then you've never driven a nice car if that's your pinnacle!

You've clearly never driven an E28 then.

I suppose that that is unacceptable though because it used a
recirc ball steering box which is "outdated" compared to modern R&P?)
and yet I haven't yet seen you criticize Ford for the execrable
Twin-I-Beam front end which was unmitigated garbage and arguably
inferior to a simple straight axle, and was used pretty much unchanged
save for a swap from kingpins to ball joints (a step backward, IMHO)
through the mid-late 90's!

you're putting false words in my mouth, then bullshitting about what
i've never said. that's retarded.

I'm just saying, you seem to have a habit of latching on to engineering
principles and badmouthing designs that you see to be "incorrect"
without any actual real world experience with them. As evidenced by
your comments about the E28 above.

Would you call a '67 Corvette with a 427/4-speed "junk" because it is
not technologically advanced? I guarantee you it's still fast by
modern
standards, and fun to drive - and that, at the end of the day, is what
matters, not whether a particular component is the most expensive,
theoretically elegant part possible or not.

driveling excuses.

It's not an excuse, customers don't care about such things generally.

generally??? could you be any more worthlessly vague??? rolled in with
your driveling excuses of course...


What they do care about is handling and ride.

no they don't or they'd all be driving miatas, old civics, wishbone
audi's, etc.

Miatas are great! I'd pass on the Civic because FWD and Audi because of
the maintenance/repair nightmares. (and Audi weight distribution is a
little questionable as well - why hang the engine so far out in front of
the front axle?)

If it is provided by
means of transverse leaf springs and using the driveshafts as suspension
links, nobody gives a crap so long as it works well.

"works well"??? if i'm used to driving a leaf-sprung solid axle truck,
am i qualified to say that a bmw drives well? how about if i drive an
elise?

"works well" = achieves its design objectives.

If you recall, the original Corvette was supposed to be an American
alternative to the small European sports cars that were beginning to be
popular in the US. Given that it sold reasonably well, and was also
competitive in sports car racing (at least 57-on) I would say that it
met those objectives.

I suppose given the choice between, say, a BMW E30 M3 and a SLA Honda
Civic, in similar condition, you would pick the Civic because it has a
more sophisticated suspension design, EVEN THOUGH THE BIMMER IS BETTER
IN EVERY RESPECT when it comes to what matters to the driver?

am i not a driver? what matters to me, and all the other touring car
class champs that drive these civic's, crx's and miata's for that
matter, is that the freakin' thing works better than the macpherson
garbage out there.

But clearly that's not an open and shut case, otherwise a CRX would beat
an M3 in a race every time which obviously doesn't happen.

Did you miss the bit where the BMW 3-series has made C&D's 10 best list
for over 20 consecutive years now?

car and driver???? ygtbfsm.

Well show me one authority other than yourself that says that BMW
doesn't make good handling cars.

And also the bit where the new
Accord made this year's list as well, *despite* having the struts that
you hate so much?

qed!!!

Yes, apparently struts, while technically not as elegant, can be made to
work well. Glad you finally are starting to realize that!

and efficiency of the power train;
yet, just as clearly, overall product quality is NOT even on their
radar screens.

it most definitely is. bmw are the pioneers of modern life limitation
control. nobody has spent more on ensuring that whatever they use
works
for a closely defined period, and not a moment longer. as said
before,
it costs more to do this, but it pays. customers buying new are
snowed
into believing this "ultimate driving machine" advertising [the
ultimate
meaningless tagline!] so they don't care. and second [or later]
owners
have no recourse. it gets older bmw's [and their parts] off the road,
and keeps sales up.

Hmm, I see more older Bimmers on the road than I do GM, Ford, etc. (I
still see a surprisingly large number of E36 3-series and occasionally
even older ones - I actually saw a 2002 on Thursday - probably the only
manufacturers that I see *more* 80's era cars still running around
would
be Honda, Toyota, and/or VW and one would ASSume that that's because
they sold more of them.

again, you can't read. you see OLD bmw's and you see modern bmw's, but
you see nothing in between. the old stuff was that brief period when
they had the engineering right but bmw's financials were in the crapper.
then in came the mba's, so their engineering focus changed. the
results are right there on the road in front of you every single day.

Where I live Bimmers seem to be one of the most popular cars (along with
Toyota Camrys and various SUVs,) and I see a whole range of them on the
road. The very early 3-series cars seem to have mostly disappeared, as
well as most of the cars that predate the 3/5/6/7/8xx naming convention,
but then again, I did see another 2002 coupe while out and about this
morning. If you're looking for any particular design of 3-series
however, save for the E30, you're likely to spot one within 10 minutes
or so simply by driving around and looking. I probably see more E46 and
E36 than I do E9x or F30s.

are you for real? did you not read what i said? or do you simply not
understand it? [rhetorical] you're a total waste of electrons.

I read what you wrote, but it didn't make sense, because you're delusional.

The E46 and E36 fall into the year ranges that you claim are garbage and
you "see nothing." I see them driving around, presumably driven by
happy owners, every day. They haven't disappeared in any sense of the word.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

 

[Nate Nagel]

On 03/18/2013 10:38 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

stratus46@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mar 14, 6:18=A0am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net
wrote:
On Mar 13, 10:26=A0pm, Paul Drahn <pdr...@webformixair.com> wrote:

And maybe you've found the root cause of the problem.
Instead of using decent wire suited to the application,
the Europeans chose to use some green hippie wire,
that not only costs more, but fails.....

As long as it doesn't fail during the warranty period they don't care.

Is this poor grade wire mandated by regulations?

I have seen a lot of cars over the years, and I have never, ever seen one
that used anything approaching quality wire.

And that begins with the '72 Datsun I had, where all of the insulation turned
to goo and every foot of wire in the body had to be pulled out and replaced.

Just take a look at what goes into airplanes vs. what goes into cars and
you'll be staggered.
--scott

Surprisingly, I apparently got one of the first '55 Studebakers that
used the plastic-insulated wire rather than the cloth-covered wire that
was used previously. It was still intact and flexible when I pulled the
harness for repairs 5-6 years ago which made me happy as I was not
looking forward to laying out for a new one.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

 

[Nate Nagel]

On 03/18/2013 11:36 AM, jim beam wrote:

On 03/17/2013 11:05 PM, Bimmer Owner wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 07:49:51 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:

You're probably expecting me to argue with you, but I'm not

This isn't an 'argument'; it's merely a discussion.
Everything you said and everything I said was true.

three most important things ... are power, handling, and braking

The E39 that I own handles those three with aplomb!

(although the stock brake pads suck unless you like refinishing
your wheels every couple years.)

The stock front pads are Jurid, with the rears being Textar,
both with an FF friction & fade coefficient. They work well
enough, although Akebono GG friction ratings are often used
as replacement.

I use the Axxis/PBR FF pads, which dust the same color as the
wheels,

??? dude, brake dust is /two/ components:

1. pad.
2. disk.

if your wheels aren't being stained, it's because #2 is not present, or
at least, not to the extent that "bmw spec" [high silica] pads have.


so you don't see the unsightly darker-colored dust
of the stock Jurid pads.

current ride hasn't cost me anything but maintenance and an
oil filter housing gasket

The OFH often leaks on the BMW M54 engine; but luckily it's an
inexpensive part, albeit a bit of a pain to DIY.

N54, but same principle.

Overall, I think we're in agreement, so there's really no need
for any argument. One thing about bimmer owners, they KNOW their
cars!

i don't understand this equation - y'all are starry eyed about something
that is completely unreliable /and/ expensive to maintain. sure, it's
better than a buick, but really?

I've not found it to be that unreliable (touch wood.) There *are* a lot
of electronics to fail, and that scares me a little, but that's true of
every modern car with a few notable exceptions worth having and none of
mine have failed yet (good lord I hope I don't regret posting that.) So
far I've paid for fluid changes, aforementioned OFH gasket, and a bunch
of random upgrades (euro light switch, spare tire kit, winter wheels and
tires, alarm, sat tuner, etc.) Despite the reputation for being hard to
work on I was able to install the alarm and sat tuner in an afternoon in
the driveway following excellent directions easily available online, and
without any unusual tools that a moderately DIY-oriented enthusiast is
unlikely to have. Really, no harder than changing a car stereo in any
garden-variety car. The biggest challenge to DIY work is actually
lifting the car to get underneath due to the very limited ground
clearance, but that goes with the territory of pretty much any decent
handling car, and if it doesn't, an enthusiast is likely to change that

if you like fixing stuff and are serious about rwd's with handling,
race-prep a miata. if you want something that handles from new, buy an
elise.

don't pay bmw's "advertising beats engineering" tax.

Neither the Miata nor the Elise has a back seat or a usable trunk.

I think having a 3er for a daily and a Miata or Elise for weekend fun
would be a great combination. My mom actually has a Miata for a "fun
car" and loves it (as do I) but I don't have the space/funds to justify
another vehicle purchase.

And where is all this BMW advertising? I must not pay attention to the
same media that you do, BMW seems to really not advertise at all
compared to other manufactureres; people buy them because of
reputation/previous experience/glowing reviews in magazines and on
enthusiast-oriented TV programming.

nate



--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

 

[jim beam]

On 03/19/2013 05:00 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:

On 03/18/2013 11:36 AM, jim beam wrote:
On 03/17/2013 11:05 PM, Bimmer Owner wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 07:49:51 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:

You're probably expecting me to argue with you, but I'm not

This isn't an 'argument'; it's merely a discussion.
Everything you said and everything I said was true.

three most important things ... are power, handling, and braking

The E39 that I own handles those three with aplomb!

(although the stock brake pads suck unless you like refinishing
your wheels every couple years.)

The stock front pads are Jurid, with the rears being Textar,
both with an FF friction & fade coefficient. They work well
enough, although Akebono GG friction ratings are often used
as replacement.

I use the Axxis/PBR FF pads, which dust the same color as the
wheels,

??? dude, brake dust is /two/ components:

1. pad.
2. disk.

if your wheels aren't being stained, it's because #2 is not present, or
at least, not to the extent that "bmw spec" [high silica] pads have.


so you don't see the unsightly darker-colored dust
of the stock Jurid pads.

current ride hasn't cost me anything but maintenance and an
oil filter housing gasket

The OFH often leaks on the BMW M54 engine; but luckily it's an
inexpensive part, albeit a bit of a pain to DIY.

N54, but same principle.


Overall, I think we're in agreement, so there's really no need
for any argument. One thing about bimmer owners, they KNOW their
cars!

i don't understand this equation - y'all are starry eyed about something
that is completely unreliable /and/ expensive to maintain. sure, it's
better than a buick, but really?

I've not found it to be that unreliable (touch wood.)

what cognative dissonance trip are you on this morning? you catalog a
bunch of completely unacceptable failures one day, then here you are the
next saying it's not unreliable! are you not taking your meds?

There *are* a lot
of electronics to fail, and that scares me a little, but that's true of
every modern car with a few notable exceptions

dude, what is wrong with you this morning????

worth having and none of
mine have failed yet (good lord I hope I don't regret posting that.) So
far I've paid for fluid changes, aforementioned OFH gasket, and a bunch
of random upgrades (euro light switch, spare tire kit, winter wheels and
tires, alarm, sat tuner, etc.) Despite the reputation for being hard to
work on I was able to install the alarm and sat tuner in an afternoon in
the driveway following excellent directions easily available online, and
without any unusual tools that a moderately DIY-oriented enthusiast is
unlikely to have. Really, no harder than changing a car stereo in any
garden-variety car. The biggest challenge to DIY work is actually
lifting the car to get underneath due to the very limited ground
clearance, but that goes with the territory of pretty much any decent
handling car, and if it doesn't, an enthusiast is likely to change that

can we change who shows up with meaningless drivel on r.a.t?

if you like fixing stuff and are serious about rwd's with handling,
race-prep a miata. if you want something that handles from new, buy an
elise.

don't pay bmw's "advertising beats engineering" tax.

Neither the Miata nor the Elise has a back seat or a usable trunk.

ah, got it - you idea of a car that "handles" is an extended cab pickup.
got it.

I think having a 3er for a daily and a Miata or Elise for weekend fun
would be a great combination. My mom actually has a Miata for a "fun
car" and loves it (as do I) but I don't have the space/funds to justify
another vehicle purchase.

you sure won't have funds if you're driving a bmw.

And where is all this BMW advertising? I must not pay attention to the
same media that you do, BMW seems to really not advertise at all
compared to other manufactureres; people buy them because of
reputation/previous experience/glowing reviews in magazines and on
enthusiast-oriented TV programming.

nate, i'm sure that if you're nice to your mom, she'll let you out of
the basement occasionally. you can have the tv on while she hoses you
down and changes your depends.


--
fact check required

 

[Nate Nagel]

On 03/19/2013 10:17 AM, jim beam wrote:

On 03/19/2013 05:00 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 03/18/2013 11:36 AM, jim beam wrote:
On 03/17/2013 11:05 PM, Bimmer Owner wrote:
On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 07:49:51 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:

You're probably expecting me to argue with you, but I'm not

This isn't an 'argument'; it's merely a discussion.
Everything you said and everything I said was true.

three most important things ... are power, handling, and braking

The E39 that I own handles those three with aplomb!

(although the stock brake pads suck unless you like refinishing
your wheels every couple years.)

The stock front pads are Jurid, with the rears being Textar,
both with an FF friction & fade coefficient. They work well
enough, although Akebono GG friction ratings are often used
as replacement.

I use the Axxis/PBR FF pads, which dust the same color as the
wheels,

??? dude, brake dust is /two/ components:

1. pad.
2. disk.

if your wheels aren't being stained, it's because #2 is not present, or
at least, not to the extent that "bmw spec" [high silica] pads have.


so you don't see the unsightly darker-colored dust
of the stock Jurid pads.

current ride hasn't cost me anything but maintenance and an
oil filter housing gasket

The OFH often leaks on the BMW M54 engine; but luckily it's an
inexpensive part, albeit a bit of a pain to DIY.

N54, but same principle.


Overall, I think we're in agreement, so there's really no need
for any argument. One thing about bimmer owners, they KNOW their
cars!

i don't understand this equation - y'all are starry eyed about something
that is completely unreliable /and/ expensive to maintain. sure, it's
better than a buick, but really?

I've not found it to be that unreliable (touch wood.)

what cognative dissonance trip are you on this morning? you catalog a
bunch of completely unacceptable failures one day, then here you are the
next saying it's not unreliable! are you not taking your meds?

What failures have I catalogued? I had a leaking oil filter housing
gasket at the time the car was purchased, which was repaired and the car
has been trouble free since. That is the ONLY issue that I've had in
this car in about 6K miles/several months since purchase (car has 77K
give or take.) There have been NO other repairs to this car under my care!

<rest snipped because clearly there's reading comprehension issues here.>

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

 

[Brian Downing]

jim beam <me@privacy.net> writes:

that's only 100hp/liter. honda routinely had production vehicles at
120. non-turbo.

fact check required

No shit!

The BMW E46 M3 was the first normally aspirated production vehicle to
make 100HP/Liter. PERIOD.

--
bsd@panix.com

 

[Nate Nagel]

On 03/20/2013 08:25 AM, Brian Downing wrote:

jim beam <me@privacy.net> writes:

that's only 100hp/liter. honda routinely had production vehicles at
120. non-turbo.

fact check required

No shit!

The BMW E46 M3 was the first normally aspirated production vehicle to
make 100HP/Liter. PERIOD.

Don't mind JB. He just likes to rant on about how his choices are the
right ones and can't admit that anyone other than his short list of
approved manufacturers can make a decent car.

I'm trying to think if there are any reasonably mass-produced automotive
engines that achieve 100 hp/l - I'm pretty sure Honda S2000 qualifies as
well, FWIW. Not sure if there are any others. I'm not counting Wankels
as similar to a 2-stroke comparing displacement isn't exactly fair as
they have more power strokes/displace more air per revolution than an
Otto or 4-stroke Diesel cycle engine.

At the end of the day, though, hp/l is not really what matters - it's
hp/weight, and also BSFC if you are racing in a series with limitations
on fuel use...

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

 

[jim beam]

On 03/20/2013 05:25 AM, Brian Downing wrote:

jim beam <me@privacy.net> writes:

that's only 100hp/liter. honda routinely had production vehicles at
120. non-turbo.

fact check required

No shit!

The BMW E46 M3 was the first normally aspirated production vehicle to
make 100HP/Liter. PERIOD.

the e46 was released in 2000 wasn't it? the honda prelude SiR had
100hp/l in 1996 if i understand the dates correctly. the s2000 was
released in 2000 [though its tokyo motor show debut was in 1995].


--
fact check required

 

[jim beam]

On 03/20/2013 06:04 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:

On 03/20/2013 08:25 AM, Brian Downing wrote:
jim beam <me@privacy.net> writes:

that's only 100hp/liter. honda routinely had production vehicles at
120. non-turbo.

fact check required

No shit!

The BMW E46 M3 was the first normally aspirated production vehicle to
make 100HP/Liter. PERIOD.


Don't mind JB. He just likes to rant on about how his choices are the
right ones and can't admit that anyone other than his short list of
approved manufacturers can make a decent car.

you forgot to add the important qualifier - "in comparison with a buick".

I'm trying to think if there are any reasonably mass-produced automotive
engines that achieve 100 hp/l - I'm pretty sure Honda S2000 qualifies as
well, FWIW.

prelude.

Not sure if there are any others. I'm not counting Wankels
as similar to a 2-stroke comparing displacement isn't exactly fair as
they have more power strokes/displace more air per revolution than an
Otto or 4-stroke Diesel cycle engine.

irrelevant drivel.

At the end of the day, though, hp/l is not really what matters - it's
hp/weight,

true enough. how's that 3200 lb behemoth working out for you?

and also BSFC if you are racing in a series with limitations
on fuel use...

irrelevant drivel.


--
fact check required

 

[Nate Nagel]

On 03/20/2013 11:08 AM, jim beam wrote:

On 03/20/2013 06:04 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 03/20/2013 08:25 AM, Brian Downing wrote:
jim beam <me@privacy.net> writes:

that's only 100hp/liter. honda routinely had production vehicles at
120. non-turbo.

fact check required

No shit!

The BMW E46 M3 was the first normally aspirated production vehicle to
make 100HP/Liter. PERIOD.


Don't mind JB. He just likes to rant on about how his choices are the
right ones and can't admit that anyone other than his short list of
approved manufacturers can make a decent car.

you forgot to add the important qualifier - "in comparison with a buick".

I didn't forget anything.

I'm trying to think if there are any reasonably mass-produced automotive
engines that achieve 100 hp/l - I'm pretty sure Honda S2000 qualifies as
well, FWIW.

prelude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Prelude


Type S

One version of the fifth generation Prelude, a high-performance model
called the Type S, was only available in Japan. It was equipped with the
2.2 L H22A, featuring VTEC and producing 217 hp (162 kW; 220 PS) at
7,200 rpm and 163 lbf¡ft (221 N¡m) at 6,500 rpm.

Close, but not quite. Still respectable though.

Not sure if there are any others. I'm not counting Wankels
as similar to a 2-stroke comparing displacement isn't exactly fair as
they have more power strokes/displace more air per revolution than an
Otto or 4-stroke Diesel cycle engine.

irrelevant drivel.

Quite relevant.

It's much easier to achieve a certain hp/l number with a two stroke than
a four stroke. Do you understand why? Same effect in operation here.

At the end of the day, though, hp/l is not really what matters - it's
hp/weight,

true enough. how's that 3200 lb behemoth working out for you?

It's great. It rides and handles acceptably well, and unlike a CRX,
Lotus, or Miata, I can actually carry three passengers and some luggage
in comfort, which is important if you have friends.

and also BSFC if you are racing in a series with limitations
on fuel use...

irrelevant drivel.

Really? So if you have a limited amount of fuel, BSFC is not important
at all? Fascinating.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

 

[jim beam]

On 03/20/2013 11:18 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:

On 03/20/2013 11:08 AM, jim beam wrote:
On 03/20/2013 06:04 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 03/20/2013 08:25 AM, Brian Downing wrote:
jim beam <me@privacy.net> writes:

that's only 100hp/liter. honda routinely had production vehicles at
120. non-turbo.

fact check required

No shit!

The BMW E46 M3 was the first normally aspirated production vehicle to
make 100HP/Liter. PERIOD.


Don't mind JB. He just likes to rant on about how his choices are the
right ones and can't admit that anyone other than his short list of
approved manufacturers can make a decent car.

you forgot to add the important qualifier - "in comparison with a buick".

I didn't forget anything.

oh, but you did!

I'm trying to think if there are any reasonably mass-produced automotive
engines that achieve 100 hp/l - I'm pretty sure Honda S2000 qualifies as
well, FWIW.

prelude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Prelude


Type S

One version of the fifth generation Prelude, a high-performance model
called the Type S, was only available in Japan. It was equipped with the
2.2 L H22A, featuring VTEC and producing 217 hp (162 kW; 220 PS) at
7,200 rpm and 163 lbf¡ft (221 N¡m) at 6,500 rpm.

Close, but not quite. Still respectable though.

so if i understand you correctly, when you were claiming "100hp/l" you
were trying to do so for years 2001-2006 [the years the e46 was
produced], while somehow trying to claim that it's better than the 217hp
/ 2.157l = 100.6hp/l of the 1996 prelude, correct? so year for year
doesn't figure in your calculations? or are you just too spectacularly
incompetent to otherwise avoid being confronted by the facts on the
s2000 instead? [rhetorical]

Not sure if there are any others. I'm not counting Wankels
as similar to a 2-stroke comparing displacement isn't exactly fair as
they have more power strokes/displace more air per revolution than an
Otto or 4-stroke Diesel cycle engine.

irrelevant drivel.

Quite relevant.

It's much easier to achieve a certain hp/l number with a two stroke than
a four stroke. Do you understand why? Same effect in operation here.

it's a red herring and therefore irrelevant.

At the end of the day, though, hp/l is not really what matters - it's
hp/weight,

true enough. how's that 3200 lb behemoth working out for you?

It's great. It rides and handles acceptably well, and unlike a CRX,
Lotus, or Miata,

wow, not only do you answer rhetorical questions [sic], you do so by way
of suppositional nonsense!

I can actually carry three passengers and some luggage
in comfort, which is important if you have friends.

how old are you nate?

and also BSFC if you are racing in a series with limitations
on fuel use...

irrelevant drivel.

Really? So if you have a limited amount of fuel, BSFC is not important
at all? Fascinating.

red herring irrelevant drivel. see above.


--
fact check required

 

[Nate Nagel]

On 03/20/2013 10:31 PM, jim beam wrote:

On 03/20/2013 11:18 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 03/20/2013 11:08 AM, jim beam wrote:
On 03/20/2013 06:04 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 03/20/2013 08:25 AM, Brian Downing wrote:
jim beam <me@privacy.net> writes:

that's only 100hp/liter. honda routinely had production vehicles at
120. non-turbo.

fact check required

No shit!

The BMW E46 M3 was the first normally aspirated production vehicle to
make 100HP/Liter. PERIOD.


Don't mind JB. He just likes to rant on about how his choices are the
right ones and can't admit that anyone other than his short list of
approved manufacturers can make a decent car.

you forgot to add the important qualifier - "in comparison with a
buick".

I didn't forget anything.

oh, but you did!





I'm trying to think if there are any reasonably mass-produced
automotive
engines that achieve 100 hp/l - I'm pretty sure Honda S2000
qualifies as
well, FWIW.

prelude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Prelude


Type S

One version of the fifth generation Prelude, a high-performance model
called the Type S, was only available in Japan. It was equipped with the
2.2 L H22A, featuring VTEC and producing 217 hp (162 kW; 220 PS) at
7,200 rpm and 163 lbf¡ft (221 N¡m) at 6,500 rpm.

Close, but not quite. Still respectable though.

so if i understand you correctly, when you were claiming "100hp/l" you
were trying to do so for years 2001-2006 [the years the e46 was
produced], while somehow trying to claim that it's better than the 217hp
/ 2.157l = 100.6hp/l of the 1996 prelude, correct? so year for year
doesn't figure in your calculations? or are you just too spectacularly
incompetent to otherwise avoid being confronted by the facts on the
s2000 instead? [rhetorical]

Actually I came in late to this conversation, you were discussing
power/displacement ratio with someone else and I just jumped in because
I found it interesting. I don't know really anything about Quaaludes
other than that they really were supposed to be some of the nicest
handling FWD cars made, I just hopped on wiki and tried to find which
engine to which you may have been referring. The bit that I quoted was
the highest hp/l ratio that I saw; 217 hp/2.2l is still not quite 100.
Now if the actual exact displacement is less than 2.2l, then OK, you get
that one.

Not sure if there are any others. I'm not counting Wankels
as similar to a 2-stroke comparing displacement isn't exactly fair as
they have more power strokes/displace more air per revolution than an
Otto or 4-stroke Diesel cycle engine.

irrelevant drivel.

Quite relevant.

It's much easier to achieve a certain hp/l number with a two stroke than
a four stroke. Do you understand why? Same effect in operation here.

it's a red herring and therefore irrelevant.

It's quite relevant, unless you're the type that likes to compare apples
to oranges to "win" a usenet argument.

OK, in that case: You're both wrong. The very first Mazda production
rotary yielded 110hp from 982cc. In 1965. I "win."

At the end of the day, though, hp/l is not really what matters - it's
hp/weight,

true enough. how's that 3200 lb behemoth working out for you?

It's great. It rides and handles acceptably well, and unlike a CRX,
Lotus, or Miata,

wow, not only do you answer rhetorical questions [sic], you do so by way
of suppositional nonsense!

I'm just saying, your "approved list" actually includes some good cars,
but they are not generally practical as a primary vehicle. You're
attempting to compare sports *cars* to sports *sedans* (or coupes, as
the case may be) and then running down the latter because of the
comparison. Dissemble much?

I can actually carry three passengers and some luggage
in comfort, which is important if you have friends.

how old are you nate?



and also BSFC if you are racing in a series with limitations
on fuel use...

irrelevant drivel.

Really? So if you have a limited amount of fuel, BSFC is not important
at all? Fascinating.

red herring irrelevant drivel. see above.

The fact that you consider it irrelevant is telling. Results matter.
How you get there is less important.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

 

[Nate Nagel]

On 03/21/2013 08:26 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:

On 03/20/2013 10:31 PM, jim beam wrote:
On 03/20/2013 11:18 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 03/20/2013 11:08 AM, jim beam wrote:
On 03/20/2013 06:04 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 03/20/2013 08:25 AM, Brian Downing wrote:
jim beam <me@privacy.net> writes:

that's only 100hp/liter. honda routinely had production vehicles at
120. non-turbo.

fact check required

No shit!

The BMW E46 M3 was the first normally aspirated production vehicle to
make 100HP/Liter. PERIOD.


Don't mind JB. He just likes to rant on about how his choices are the
right ones and can't admit that anyone other than his short list of
approved manufacturers can make a decent car.

you forgot to add the important qualifier - "in comparison with a
buick".

I didn't forget anything.

oh, but you did!





I'm trying to think if there are any reasonably mass-produced
automotive
engines that achieve 100 hp/l - I'm pretty sure Honda S2000
qualifies as
well, FWIW.

prelude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Prelude


Type S

One version of the fifth generation Prelude, a high-performance model
called the Type S, was only available in Japan. It was equipped with the
2.2 L H22A, featuring VTEC and producing 217 hp (162 kW; 220 PS) at
7,200 rpm and 163 lbf¡ft (221 N¡m) at 6,500 rpm.

Close, but not quite. Still respectable though.

so if i understand you correctly, when you were claiming "100hp/l" you
were trying to do so for years 2001-2006 [the years the e46 was
produced], while somehow trying to claim that it's better than the 217hp
/ 2.157l = 100.6hp/l of the 1996 prelude, correct? so year for year
doesn't figure in your calculations? or are you just too spectacularly
incompetent to otherwise avoid being confronted by the facts on the
s2000 instead? [rhetorical]

Actually I came in late to this conversation, you were discussing
power/displacement ratio with someone else and I just jumped in because
I found it interesting. I don't know really anything about Quaaludes
other than that they really were supposed to be some of the nicest
handling FWD cars made, I just hopped on wiki and tried to find which
engine to which you may have been referring. The bit that I quoted was
the highest hp/l ratio that I saw; 217 hp/2.2l is still not quite 100.
Now if the actual exact displacement is less than 2.2l, then OK, you get
that one.






Not sure if there are any others. I'm not counting Wankels
as similar to a 2-stroke comparing displacement isn't exactly fair as
they have more power strokes/displace more air per revolution than an
Otto or 4-stroke Diesel cycle engine.

irrelevant drivel.

Quite relevant.

It's much easier to achieve a certain hp/l number with a two stroke than
a four stroke. Do you understand why? Same effect in operation here.

it's a red herring and therefore irrelevant.

It's quite relevant, unless you're the type that likes to compare apples
to oranges to "win" a usenet argument.

OK, in that case: You're both wrong. The very first Mazda production
rotary yielded 110hp from 982cc. In 1965. I "win."

If you need an explanation of why my example is not actually a fair
comparison, see here:

http://www.drivingsports.com/site/2008/12/rotary-vs-piston-engine-equivalency/

Likewise, a two stroke completes all its power strokes in 360 degrees of
crank rotation as opposed to the traditional 720 of a four stroke
engine, therefore to normalize it WRT most of the engines that we
encounter and the traditional methods of calculating displacement, their
actual geometrically calculated displacements need to be doubled to make
a fair comparison.

Alternately, instead of just using "displacement" as a raw number, we
could use "displacement per revolution" e.g. an Otto or Diesel engine
with a 3-liter displacement would have a 1.5 liter/rev displacement,
which would actually make more sense, but the convention has been in
place for so long that a change just to allow for fair comparisons with
the exceedingly rare (only found in the current RX-8) Wankel engines and
the similarly now rare (although somewhat common in the past, and we
didn't appear to have confusion problems then) two stroke gasoline and
Diesel engines.

That all aside, with the increasing prevalence of various forms of
supercharging, actual displacement seems to be becoming less and less
relevant anyway...

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

 

[jim beam]

On 03/21/2013 05:26 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:

On 03/20/2013 10:31 PM, jim beam wrote:
On 03/20/2013 11:18 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 03/20/2013 11:08 AM, jim beam wrote:
On 03/20/2013 06:04 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 03/20/2013 08:25 AM, Brian Downing wrote:
jim beam <me@privacy.net> writes:

that's only 100hp/liter. honda routinely had production vehicles at
120. non-turbo.

fact check required

No shit!

The BMW E46 M3 was the first normally aspirated production vehicle to
make 100HP/Liter. PERIOD.


Don't mind JB. He just likes to rant on about how his choices are the
right ones and can't admit that anyone other than his short list of
approved manufacturers can make a decent car.

you forgot to add the important qualifier - "in comparison with a
buick".

I didn't forget anything.

oh, but you did!





I'm trying to think if there are any reasonably mass-produced
automotive
engines that achieve 100 hp/l - I'm pretty sure Honda S2000
qualifies as
well, FWIW.

prelude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Prelude


Type S

One version of the fifth generation Prelude, a high-performance model
called the Type S, was only available in Japan. It was equipped with the
2.2 L H22A, featuring VTEC and producing 217 hp (162 kW; 220 PS) at
7,200 rpm and 163 lbf¡ft (221 N¡m) at 6,500 rpm.

Close, but not quite. Still respectable though.

so if i understand you correctly, when you were claiming "100hp/l" you
were trying to do so for years 2001-2006 [the years the e46 was
produced], while somehow trying to claim that it's better than the 217hp
/ 2.157l = 100.6hp/l of the 1996 prelude, correct? so year for year
doesn't figure in your calculations? or are you just too spectacularly
incompetent to otherwise avoid being confronted by the facts on the
s2000 instead? [rhetorical]

Actually I came in late to this conversation, you were discussing
power/displacement ratio with someone else and I just jumped in because
I found it interesting. I don't know really anything about Quaaludes
other than that they really were supposed to be some of the nicest
handling FWD cars made, I just hopped on wiki and tried to find which
engine to which you may have been referring. The bit that I quoted was
the highest hp/l ratio that I saw; 217 hp/2.2l is still not quite 100.
Now if the actual exact displacement is less than 2.2l, then OK, you get
that one.

i didn't "get" anything - you simply shot your mouth off without any
attempt at basic fact checking. as per usual.

Not sure if there are any others. I'm not counting Wankels
as similar to a 2-stroke comparing displacement isn't exactly fair as
they have more power strokes/displace more air per revolution than an
Otto or 4-stroke Diesel cycle engine.

irrelevant drivel.

Quite relevant.

It's much easier to achieve a certain hp/l number with a two stroke than
a four stroke. Do you understand why? Same effect in operation here.

it's a red herring and therefore irrelevant.

It's quite relevant, unless you're the type that likes to compare apples
to oranges to "win" a usenet argument.

OK, in that case: You're both wrong. The very first Mazda production
rotary yielded 110hp from 982cc. In 1965. I "win."

you're just grasping at truly pathetic straws.

At the end of the day, though, hp/l is not really what matters - it's
hp/weight,

true enough. how's that 3200 lb behemoth working out for you?

It's great. It rides and handles acceptably well, and unlike a CRX,
Lotus, or Miata,

wow, not only do you answer rhetorical questions [sic], you do so by way
of suppositional nonsense!

I'm just saying, your "approved list" actually includes some good cars,
but they are not generally practical as a primary vehicle.

???

You're
attempting to compare sports *cars* to sports *sedans* (or coupes, as
the case may be) and then running down the latter because of the
comparison. Dissemble much?

you're putting false words in my mouth, then not even making sense with
what you say i said. fail to comprehend much? [rhetorical]

I can actually carry three passengers and some luggage
in comfort, which is important if you have friends.

how old are you nate?



and also BSFC if you are racing in a series with limitations
on fuel use...

irrelevant drivel.

Really? So if you have a limited amount of fuel, BSFC is not important
at all? Fascinating.

red herring irrelevant drivel. see above.

The fact that you consider it irrelevant is telling. Results matter.
How you get there is less important.

you really are brain damaged. anosognosic.


--
fact check required

 

[jim beam]

On 03/21/2013 06:02 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:

On 03/21/2013 08:26 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 03/20/2013 10:31 PM, jim beam wrote:
On 03/20/2013 11:18 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 03/20/2013 11:08 AM, jim beam wrote:
On 03/20/2013 06:04 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 03/20/2013 08:25 AM, Brian Downing wrote:
jim beam <me@privacy.net> writes:

that's only 100hp/liter. honda routinely had production
vehicles at
120. non-turbo.

fact check required

No shit!

The BMW E46 M3 was the first normally aspirated production
vehicle to
make 100HP/Liter. PERIOD.


Don't mind JB. He just likes to rant on about how his choices are
the
right ones and can't admit that anyone other than his short list of
approved manufacturers can make a decent car.

you forgot to add the important qualifier - "in comparison with a
buick".

I didn't forget anything.

oh, but you did!





I'm trying to think if there are any reasonably mass-produced
automotive
engines that achieve 100 hp/l - I'm pretty sure Honda S2000
qualifies as
well, FWIW.

prelude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Prelude


Type S

One version of the fifth generation Prelude, a high-performance model
called the Type S, was only available in Japan. It was equipped with
the
2.2 L H22A, featuring VTEC and producing 217 hp (162 kW; 220 PS) at
7,200 rpm and 163 lbf¡ft (221 N¡m) at 6,500 rpm.

Close, but not quite. Still respectable though.

so if i understand you correctly, when you were claiming "100hp/l" you
were trying to do so for years 2001-2006 [the years the e46 was
produced], while somehow trying to claim that it's better than the 217hp
/ 2.157l = 100.6hp/l of the 1996 prelude, correct? so year for year
doesn't figure in your calculations? or are you just too spectacularly
incompetent to otherwise avoid being confronted by the facts on the
s2000 instead? [rhetorical]

Actually I came in late to this conversation, you were discussing
power/displacement ratio with someone else and I just jumped in because
I found it interesting. I don't know really anything about Quaaludes
other than that they really were supposed to be some of the nicest
handling FWD cars made, I just hopped on wiki and tried to find which
engine to which you may have been referring. The bit that I quoted was
the highest hp/l ratio that I saw; 217 hp/2.2l is still not quite 100.
Now if the actual exact displacement is less than 2.2l, then OK, you get
that one.






Not sure if there are any others. I'm not counting Wankels
as similar to a 2-stroke comparing displacement isn't exactly fair as
they have more power strokes/displace more air per revolution than an
Otto or 4-stroke Diesel cycle engine.

irrelevant drivel.

Quite relevant.

It's much easier to achieve a certain hp/l number with a two stroke
than
a four stroke. Do you understand why? Same effect in operation here.

it's a red herring and therefore irrelevant.

It's quite relevant, unless you're the type that likes to compare apples
to oranges to "win" a usenet argument.

OK, in that case: You're both wrong. The very first Mazda production
rotary yielded 110hp from 982cc. In 1965. I "win."

If you need an explanation of why my example is not actually a fair
comparison, see here:

http://www.drivingsports.com/site/2008/12/rotary-vs-piston-engine-equivalency/


Likewise, a two stroke completes all its power strokes in 360 degrees of
crank rotation as opposed to the traditional 720 of a four stroke
engine, therefore to normalize it WRT most of the engines that we
encounter and the traditional methods of calculating displacement, their
actual geometrically calculated displacements need to be doubled to make
a fair comparison.

Alternately, instead of just using "displacement" as a raw number, we
could use "displacement per revolution" e.g. an Otto or Diesel engine
with a 3-liter displacement would have a 1.5 liter/rev displacement,
which would actually make more sense, but the convention has been in
place for so long that a change just to allow for fair comparisons with
the exceedingly rare (only found in the current RX-8) Wankel engines and
the similarly now rare (although somewhat common in the past, and we
didn't appear to have confusion problems then) two stroke gasoline and
Diesel engines.

That all aside, with the increasing prevalence of various forms of
supercharging, actual displacement seems to be becoming less and less
relevant anyway...

he said, diving down the irrelevant brain-damaged rabbit hole of his own
digging.


--
fact check required

 

[Nate Nagel]

On 03/21/2013 09:56 AM, jim beam wrote:

On 03/21/2013 05:26 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 03/20/2013 10:31 PM, jim beam wrote:
On 03/20/2013 11:18 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 03/20/2013 11:08 AM, jim beam wrote:
On 03/20/2013 06:04 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 03/20/2013 08:25 AM, Brian Downing wrote:
jim beam <me@privacy.net> writes:

that's only 100hp/liter. honda routinely had production
vehicles at
120. non-turbo.

fact check required

No shit!

The BMW E46 M3 was the first normally aspirated production
vehicle to
make 100HP/Liter. PERIOD.


Don't mind JB. He just likes to rant on about how his choices are
the
right ones and can't admit that anyone other than his short list of
approved manufacturers can make a decent car.

you forgot to add the important qualifier - "in comparison with a
buick".

I didn't forget anything.

oh, but you did!





I'm trying to think if there are any reasonably mass-produced
automotive
engines that achieve 100 hp/l - I'm pretty sure Honda S2000
qualifies as
well, FWIW.

prelude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Prelude


Type S

One version of the fifth generation Prelude, a high-performance model
called the Type S, was only available in Japan. It was equipped with
the
2.2 L H22A, featuring VTEC and producing 217 hp (162 kW; 220 PS) at
7,200 rpm and 163 lbf¡ft (221 N¡m) at 6,500 rpm.

Close, but not quite. Still respectable though.

so if i understand you correctly, when you were claiming "100hp/l" you
were trying to do so for years 2001-2006 [the years the e46 was
produced], while somehow trying to claim that it's better than the 217hp
/ 2.157l = 100.6hp/l of the 1996 prelude, correct? so year for year
doesn't figure in your calculations? or are you just too spectacularly
incompetent to otherwise avoid being confronted by the facts on the
s2000 instead? [rhetorical]

Actually I came in late to this conversation, you were discussing
power/displacement ratio with someone else and I just jumped in because
I found it interesting. I don't know really anything about Quaaludes
other than that they really were supposed to be some of the nicest
handling FWD cars made, I just hopped on wiki and tried to find which
engine to which you may have been referring. The bit that I quoted was
the highest hp/l ratio that I saw; 217 hp/2.2l is still not quite 100.
Now if the actual exact displacement is less than 2.2l, then OK, you get
that one.

i didn't "get" anything - you simply shot your mouth off without any
attempt at basic fact checking. as per usual.

Um, I *did* attempt to check your facts, and I found that it was a
nominal 2.2 liter engine with 217hp. If you have cites to the contrary,
I'm willing to be corrected, because, as you well know, hondas are
something that I have little to no experience with. In fact I am trying
to remember if I've ever even driven one. Since you're the supposed
expert, please, enlighten us.

Not sure if there are any others. I'm not counting Wankels
as similar to a 2-stroke comparing displacement isn't exactly fair as
they have more power strokes/displace more air per revolution than an
Otto or 4-stroke Diesel cycle engine.

irrelevant drivel.

Quite relevant.

It's much easier to achieve a certain hp/l number with a two stroke
than
a four stroke. Do you understand why? Same effect in operation here.

it's a red herring and therefore irrelevant.

It's quite relevant, unless you're the type that likes to compare apples
to oranges to "win" a usenet argument.

OK, in that case: You're both wrong. The very first Mazda production
rotary yielded 110hp from 982cc. In 1965. I "win."

you're just grasping at truly pathetic straws.

No, if you consider power strokes per rev irrelevant, then the Wankel
wins, hands down.

At the end of the day, though, hp/l is not really what matters - it's
hp/weight,

true enough. how's that 3200 lb behemoth working out for you?

It's great. It rides and handles acceptably well, and unlike a CRX,
Lotus, or Miata,

wow, not only do you answer rhetorical questions [sic], you do so by way
of suppositional nonsense!

I'm just saying, your "approved list" actually includes some good cars,
but they are not generally practical as a primary vehicle.

???


You're
attempting to compare sports *cars* to sports *sedans* (or coupes, as
the case may be) and then running down the latter because of the
comparison. Dissemble much?

you're putting false words in my mouth, then not even making sense with
what you say i said. fail to comprehend much? [rhetorical]




I can actually carry three passengers and some luggage
in comfort, which is important if you have friends.

how old are you nate?



and also BSFC if you are racing in a series with limitations
on fuel use...

irrelevant drivel.

Really? So if you have a limited amount of fuel, BSFC is not important
at all? Fascinating.

red herring irrelevant drivel. see above.

The fact that you consider it irrelevant is telling. Results matter.
How you get there is less important.

you really are brain damaged. anosognosic.

Man Look! I came here for an argument.
Mr Barnard (calmly) Oh! I'm sorry, this is abuse.
Man Oh I see, that explains it.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

 

[jim beam]

On 03/21/2013 07:05 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:

On 03/21/2013 09:56 AM, jim beam wrote:
On 03/21/2013 05:26 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 03/20/2013 10:31 PM, jim beam wrote:
On 03/20/2013 11:18 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 03/20/2013 11:08 AM, jim beam wrote:
On 03/20/2013 06:04 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 03/20/2013 08:25 AM, Brian Downing wrote:
jim beam <me@privacy.net> writes:

that's only 100hp/liter. honda routinely had production
vehicles at
120. non-turbo.

fact check required

No shit!

The BMW E46 M3 was the first normally aspirated production
vehicle to
make 100HP/Liter. PERIOD.


Don't mind JB. He just likes to rant on about how his choices are
the
right ones and can't admit that anyone other than his short list of
approved manufacturers can make a decent car.

you forgot to add the important qualifier - "in comparison with a
buick".

I didn't forget anything.

oh, but you did!





I'm trying to think if there are any reasonably mass-produced
automotive
engines that achieve 100 hp/l - I'm pretty sure Honda S2000
qualifies as
well, FWIW.

prelude.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Prelude


Type S

One version of the fifth generation Prelude, a high-performance model
called the Type S, was only available in Japan. It was equipped with
the
2.2 L H22A, featuring VTEC and producing 217 hp (162 kW; 220 PS) at
7,200 rpm and 163 lbf¡ft (221 N¡m) at 6,500 rpm.

Close, but not quite. Still respectable though.

so if i understand you correctly, when you were claiming "100hp/l" you
were trying to do so for years 2001-2006 [the years the e46 was
produced], while somehow trying to claim that it's better than the
217hp
/ 2.157l = 100.6hp/l of the 1996 prelude, correct? so year for year
doesn't figure in your calculations? or are you just too spectacularly
incompetent to otherwise avoid being confronted by the facts on the
s2000 instead? [rhetorical]

Actually I came in late to this conversation, you were discussing
power/displacement ratio with someone else and I just jumped in because
I found it interesting. I don't know really anything about Quaaludes
other than that they really were supposed to be some of the nicest
handling FWD cars made, I just hopped on wiki and tried to find which
engine to which you may have been referring. The bit that I quoted was
the highest hp/l ratio that I saw; 217 hp/2.2l is still not quite 100.
Now if the actual exact displacement is less than 2.2l, then OK, you get
that one.

i didn't "get" anything - you simply shot your mouth off without any
attempt at basic fact checking. as per usual.

Um, I *did* attempt to check your facts, and I found that it was a
nominal 2.2 liter engine with 217hp.

then you're simply incompetent because you didn't check properly.

If you have cites to the contrary,
I'm willing to be corrected,

i've already given you the numbers, retard! do you want me to repeat
them??? [rhetorical]

because, as you well know, hondas are
something that I have little to no experience with. In fact I am trying
to remember if I've ever even driven one. Since you're the supposed
expert, please, enlighten us.

no. and i'm not wiping your ass for you either. retard.

Not sure if there are any others. I'm not counting Wankels
as similar to a 2-stroke comparing displacement isn't exactly
fair as
they have more power strokes/displace more air per revolution
than an
Otto or 4-stroke Diesel cycle engine.

irrelevant drivel.

Quite relevant.

It's much easier to achieve a certain hp/l number with a two stroke
than
a four stroke. Do you understand why? Same effect in operation here.

it's a red herring and therefore irrelevant.

It's quite relevant, unless you're the type that likes to compare apples
to oranges to "win" a usenet argument.

OK, in that case: You're both wrong. The very first Mazda production
rotary yielded 110hp from 982cc. In 1965. I "win."

you're just grasping at truly pathetic straws.

No, if you consider power strokes per rev irrelevant, then the Wankel
wins, hands down.

he said, grasping at pathetic irrelevant straws.

At the end of the day, though, hp/l is not really what matters -
it's
hp/weight,

true enough. how's that 3200 lb behemoth working out for you?

It's great. It rides and handles acceptably well, and unlike a CRX,
Lotus, or Miata,

wow, not only do you answer rhetorical questions [sic], you do so by
way
of suppositional nonsense!

I'm just saying, your "approved list" actually includes some good cars,
but they are not generally practical as a primary vehicle.

???


You're
attempting to compare sports *cars* to sports *sedans* (or coupes, as
the case may be) and then running down the latter because of the
comparison. Dissemble much?

you're putting false words in my mouth, then not even making sense with
what you say i said. fail to comprehend much? [rhetorical]




I can actually carry three passengers and some luggage
in comfort, which is important if you have friends.

how old are you nate?



and also BSFC if you are racing in a series with limitations
on fuel use...

irrelevant drivel.

Really? So if you have a limited amount of fuel, BSFC is not
important
at all? Fascinating.

red herring irrelevant drivel. see above.

The fact that you consider it irrelevant is telling. Results matter.
How you get there is less important.

you really are brain damaged. anosognosic.


Man Look! I came here for an argument.
Mr Barnard (calmly) Oh! I'm sorry, this is abuse.
Man Oh I see, that explains it.

so why do you keep coming back? [rhetorical] you are truly brain damaged.


--
fact check required