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

[Nate Nagel]

On 03/21/2013 10:45 AM, jim beam wrote:

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.

Hey, you're the one making the claims, you back them up.

I'm not even saying you're wrong. I *am* saying that the burden of
proof is on you because I (and likely many other readers of this group)
are going to take your word for jack shit because you're hardly an
authoritative source. And before you get your nosehairs all in an
uproar, that's the way life works - unless you're a published expert,
when you make a claim you need to back it up. And if you *are* a
published expert, then the backup ought to be in your published works.

I shouldn't have to spend more than a minute or two researching anything
you post, you lazy satchel.

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.

In what way is it irrelevant? If you want to name a winner in the
"breaking the 100 hp/l mark in a production automotive naturally
aspirated engine" unless you exclude them and/or apply an adjustment
factor (generally accepted as 2, e.g. the nominal 1.3l 13B engines
should be considered to be 2.6l for purposes of this discussion,) Mazda
wins.

Unless you want to start looking at two-stroke motorcycle engines... do
those count, too? I'm sure I could find examples of those putting out
over 200 hp/l before applying an adjustment factor.

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.

Boredom? the need to feel better about myself? Who knows.

Clearly most of the intelligent people have left Usenet; I guess I'm a
little nostalgic for the good old days when we used to have actual
intelligent, enlightening discussions. A little libertarian/egalitarian
part of me truly believes that a moderated forum is inferior in most
ways to an unmoderated group; however, you and others like you are
starting to make me seriously question that belief.

nate


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

 

[AMuzi]

On 3/21/2013 1:20 PM, Cydrome Leader wrote:

In sci.electronics.repair Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:
On 03/15/2013 03:46 PM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
In sci.electronics.repair Arthur <arthur@nowhere.com> wrote:
Almost every BMW E39 (5-series) and E38 (7-series) and E46 (3-series)
has shorts that develop in the trunk wiring loom - all in the same spot!

Here is a picture of the uniformity of the shorts:
http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=286651&stc=1&d=1311702112

Here is another picture from another vehicle:
http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=287281&stc=1&d=1312154763

And another:
http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=261502&d=1294537117

And another:
http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=295239&stc=1&d=1317334573

And another:
http://bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=307223&d=1325771723

And another:
http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=200762&stc=1&d=1252530849

I could go on (and on); but we can't figure out WHAT the BMW design flaw is.
http://bimmerfest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=397245

Q: Can you tell from these pictures what the BMW design flaw is?

A: german engineering.

the fact is, germans aren't good with automotive wiring. german designed
vehicles have the shittiest electrical systems ever created.



You've never had an old British car, have you?

nope.

But I have had to do parking lot wiring repairs of modern german cards.

Fair enough, but not only German.

Here's my employee's Ford which self immolated while taking
the child to school one day:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/fordfire.jpg

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[Cydrome Leader]

In sci.electronics.repair Stormin Mormon <cayoung61***scamblock@hotmail.com> wrote:

Worse, even, than Lucas Electric, the Prince of Darkness?

probably, although I've never seen anything from lucas here.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Cydrome Leader" <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in message
news:khvtps$9d8$1@reader2.panix.com...

Q: Can you tell from these pictures what the BMW design flaw is?

A: german engineering.

the fact is, germans aren't good with automotive wiring. german designed
vehicles have the shittiest electrical systems ever created.

 

[Cydrome Leader]

In sci.electronics.repair Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:

On 03/15/2013 03:46 PM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
In sci.electronics.repair Arthur <arthur@nowhere.com> wrote:
Almost every BMW E39 (5-series) and E38 (7-series) and E46 (3-series)
has shorts that develop in the trunk wiring loom - all in the same spot!

Here is a picture of the uniformity of the shorts:
http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=286651&stc=1&d=1311702112

Here is another picture from another vehicle:
http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=287281&stc=1&d=1312154763

And another:
http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=261502&d=1294537117

And another:
http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=295239&stc=1&d=1317334573

And another:
http://bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=307223&d=1325771723

And another:
http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=200762&stc=1&d=1252530849

I could go on (and on); but we can't figure out WHAT the BMW design flaw is.
http://bimmerfest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=397245

Q: Can you tell from these pictures what the BMW design flaw is?

A: german engineering.

the fact is, germans aren't good with automotive wiring. german designed
vehicles have the shittiest electrical systems ever created.



You've never had an old British car, have you?

nope.

But I have had to do parking lot wiring repairs of modern german cards.

 

[Scott Dorsey]

Cydrome Leader <presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

In sci.electronics.repair Stormin Mormon <cayoung61***scamblock@hotmail.com> wrote:
Worse, even, than Lucas Electric, the Prince of Darkness?

probably, although I've never seen anything from lucas here.

Don't blame Lucas so much, because Lucas did make some decent systems for
some British cars. Blame Triumph and MG who wanted the cheapest possible
electrics from Lucas.

Although whoever decided it would be a good idea just to dispense with the
headlight relay and use a 30A switch on the dashboard probably has a special
corner of hell reserved for them. And don't get me started on the ignition
coil designs...
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

 

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 18:17:25 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
<presence@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

In sci.electronics.repair Stormin Mormon <cayoung61***scamblock@hotmail.com> wrote:
Worse, even, than Lucas Electric, the Prince of Darkness?

probably, although I've never seen anything from lucas here.

harry.

 

[jim beam]

On 03/21/2013 08:07 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:

On 03/21/2013 10:45 AM, jim beam wrote:
snip crap
so why do you keep coming back? [rhetorical] you are truly brain
damaged.


Boredom? the need to feel better about myself? Who knows.

being confronted with your own pathetic failings makes you feel better
about yourself? you really are fucking brain damaged.

Clearly most of the intelligent people have left Usenet; I guess I'm a
little nostalgic for the good old days when we used to have actual
intelligent, enlightening discussions.

you never contributed to an intelligent discussion in your life. and
certainly not with crap about trunk organization or how to wash shit of
a window.

A little libertarian/egalitarian
part of me truly believes that a moderated forum is inferior in most
ways to an unmoderated group; however, you and others like you are
starting to make me seriously question that belief.

i don't give a fuck what you believe. all i care about is that you
constantly pollute the net with your unspeakable stupidity and inability
to learn a single damned thing. just fuck off and stay fucked off.


--
fact check required

 

[Nate Nagel]

On 03/21/2013 10:21 PM, jim beam wrote:
all i care about is that you

constantly pollute the net with your unspeakable stupidity and inability
to learn a single damned thing. just fuck off and stay fucked off.

Odd, that's exactly how the rest of us feel about you.



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

 

[jim beam]

On 03/21/2013 07:26 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:

On 03/21/2013 10:21 PM, jim beam wrote:
all i care about is that you
constantly pollute the net with your unspeakable stupidity and inability
to learn a single damned thing. just fuck off and stay fucked off.


Odd, that's exactly how the rest of us feel about you.

"us"??? so you're not just anosognosic, you're schizo too!

brain damaged retard.


--
fact check required

 

[Kevin Bottorff]

jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote in news:kigfod$q81$2@dont-email.me:

On 03/21/2013 07:26 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 03/21/2013 10:21 PM, jim beam wrote:
all i care about is that you
constantly pollute the net with your unspeakable stupidity and
inability to learn a single damned thing. just fuck off and stay
fucked off.


Odd, that's exactly how the rest of us feel about you.

"us"??? so you're not just anosognosic, you're schizo too!

brain damaged retard.

yea your the only brilliant child here Jimmy boy, all alone in the
darkness!!!!!! KB

 

[Clive]

In message <kif44608m2@news3.newsguy.com>, Nate Nagel
<njnagel@roosters.net> writes

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.
Stolen from "Monty Python".

--
Clive

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Cydrome Leader wrote:

But I have had to do parking lot wiring repairs of modern german cards.

A bunch of 'Jokers', no doubt. ;-)

--

Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

Sometimes Friday is just the fifth Monday of the week.

 

[dizzy]

jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:

A cheap shot; 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.

handling??? easy. prelude. only cheaper. crx too for that matter.

You're a lying idiot. And this is from someone who has owned both a
Prelude Sia and CRX Si.

 

[dizzy]

jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:

A cheap shot; 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.

handling??? easy. prelude. only cheaper. crx too for that matter.

Both are front wheel drive cars, by definition you lose.

wow, that idiocy is right up there with your trunk organizers.

Nope. He's right.

and i've watched preludes DOMINATE m3's and m5's on the track.

If true, there was "handicapping" going-on to "level the field".

There's not a purpose-built race car on the planet that is FWD. There
are reasons for that.

 

[dizzy]

Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:

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

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!

This "Jim Beam" is a real stupid troll.

 

[R. Mark Clayton]

"dizzy" <dizzy@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uln1l8tmkdijqi6kvovbksbmq21h8vh4bs@4ax.com...

jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:

A cheap shot; 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.

handling??? easy. prelude. only cheaper. crx too for that matter.

Both are front wheel drive cars, by definition you lose.

wow, that idiocy is right up there with your trunk organizers.

Nope. He's right.

and i've watched preludes DOMINATE m3's and m5's on the track.

If true, there was "handicapping" going-on to "level the field".

There's not a purpose-built race car on the planet that is FWD. There
are reasons for that.

Well it is nearly fifty years, but IIRC Mini's won the Monte Carlo Rally
many times (and would have come 1, 2, 3 in 1966 if they hadn't fudged the
rules to disqualify the Brits and let a French car win...)

 

[jim beam]

On 03/27/2013 01:06 PM, R. Mark Clayton wrote:

"dizzy" <dizzy@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uln1l8tmkdijqi6kvovbksbmq21h8vh4bs@4ax.com...
jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:

A cheap shot; 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.

handling??? easy. prelude. only cheaper. crx too for that matter.

Both are front wheel drive cars, by definition you lose.

wow, that idiocy is right up there with your trunk organizers.

Nope. He's right.

and i've watched preludes DOMINATE m3's and m5's on the track.

If true, there was "handicapping" going-on to "level the field".

There's not a purpose-built race car on the planet that is FWD. There
are reasons for that.


Well it is nearly fifty years, but IIRC Mini's won the Monte Carlo Rally
many times (and would have come 1, 2, 3 in 1966 if they hadn't fudged the
rules to disqualify the Brits and let a French car win...)

people that talk smack about fwd vehicles don't know how to drive them.

regardez:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJlqqvVj-jA>

and from 1991 onwards:
<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Ragnotti#Palmar.C3.A8s>


--
fact check required

 

[dizzy]

jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:

On 03/27/2013 01:06 PM, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
"dizzy" <dizzy@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uln1l8tmkdijqi6kvovbksbmq21h8vh4bs@4ax.com...
jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:

A cheap shot; 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.

handling??? easy. prelude. only cheaper. crx too for that matter.

Both are front wheel drive cars, by definition you lose.

wow, that idiocy is right up there with your trunk organizers.

Nope. He's right.

and i've watched preludes DOMINATE m3's and m5's on the track.

If true, there was "handicapping" going-on to "level the field".

There's not a purpose-built race car on the planet that is FWD. There
are reasons for that.


Well it is nearly fifty years, but IIRC Mini's won the Monte Carlo Rally
many times (and would have come 1, 2, 3 in 1966 if they hadn't fudged the
rules to disqualify the Brits and let a French car win...)

people that talk smack about fwd vehicles don't know how to drive them.

regardez:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJlqqvVj-jA

and from 1991 onwards:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Ragnotti#Palmar.C3.A8s

Stupid.

There's not a purpose-built race car on the planet that is FWD.
There are reasons for that.