CamB

He has Nissan Skyline (actually 300zx, but who's quibbling) calipers front and rear and needs a master cylinder large enough to match. Pedal very very soggy with standard e30 m/c. It's a track/race car. Look carefully at the pic: http://www.bimmersport.co.nz/forums/index....st&p=234257

Note early e32 may be the same, not just 750i (which is all years).

It's an auto? Just kidding. Love the colour. Looks to be in good condition. I've got a set of hubcaps if the rear is missing - cheap.

Or "linear". And to stop it happening in the first place, never click on a bimmersport link which comes up from a google search.

You must have had some exciting moments in the Pug - my 106 Rallye would try and go backwards if you lifted off mid corner at decent speed.

I just reread this - the reason it all worked out is that you didn't lift. If you'd got off the throttle you would have most likely turned around... probably fairly quickly.

An e21? They are supposed to be the worst... My point is that the problem isn't "RWD = dodgy in the wet". It's car and/or driver specific. In particular, I think an e36 (which actually has semi-sophisticated rear suspension) needs to either be provoked or have been compromised to want to slide around in the wet. JiB's car's a shocker too --> 600lb rear springs in an E30 with average tyres and an LSD is pretty twitchy.

So do I! I believe the 323i and 328i had ASC, but they didn't put it on the M3, presumably because its a downgrade The M3 would happily spin the tyre in 1st, 2nd or 3rd in the wet if it was over 4,000rpm (1st earlier). It's not a turbo, so the power doesn't come in a huge rush at 3500rpm. In fact its a bit unusual - not like any other car I've driven - in that the power increase feels really linear from 3000-7500rpm. Its pretty soft below 3,000rpm though. Plus its got 245s on the back, and has standard (firm) suspension, and the longest accelerator pedal travel known to man. You have to be trying to get the tail out - it won't happen by accident. The 2002 on the other hand, with track suspension, a little too much rear camber, an aggressive LSD and a torquey 2 litre was diabolical on cold old race tyres in the wet. But you'd expect that...

This is such a misconception - most people who have a problem have: - crap tyres - excessive lowering causing excessive camber causing a reduced contact patch on the road. I can give my car a bootful in 2nd gear in the wet and its reluctant to let go, and I've got 300hp. It'll slide, but only if you really provoke it.

It's still there. http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/certifier...ral-10-v3a4.pdf Table 10-1-1, about the 6th page. Tyres inside unmodified arches, no mention of wheels (by inference, wheels can poke a little).

Bummer! I guess you'll get there eventually. I don't have any clever advice at this stage - it doesn't look like much of that is avoidable (except maybe the bias valve and the seal kit for the brakes).

I agree on the potential improvement (was only being devil's advocate), and $200 isn't much in the scheme of these things, BUT I would baffle the sump anyway. Not worth not doing it.

Devils advocate answers: · Less rotating mass for the engine to accelerate because of the removed oil · Less loss of power because of excessive drag caused by the windage cloud · Helps reduce engine damaging oil-foaming While possibly true, is it really going to be an issue at <6500rpm? Every bit helps on the way to 8,000rpm but I'm not going there personally... · Helps avoid oil starvation by keeping the oil in the pan during hard braking and turning as well as during off-road driving · Helps to cool critical engine parts by quickly returning heated oil to the sump · Helps to prevent the cylinder walls from being overloaded with oil A baffled sump does these jobs.

http://www.crank-scrapers.com/bmw.html I'd still baffle the sump too. Actually, I am just baffling the sump - sick of spending $$$ so no crank scraper.

My observation is that 15k service intervals on my wife's Golf (now for sale - bought Skoda, LOL) cost 50% more than I would expect on a similar age/cost Japanese car at 10k service intervals. Some of it is parts cost, some labour cost.

It's in the WOF rules, on the LTSA website.

If its piggyback why does it need to control vanos? Won't the existing computer still do it? Either way I think its only a switch on single vanos, so if the piggyback can do VTEC (etc) then it could do Vanos. Which piggyback are you thinking?

Can the piggyback control spark (retarding under boost)? Which city are you in?

Ouch. I'm whinging about the $600-700 for the 2002. Having said that, I have to pay for it as (as I noted earlier) a race car windscreen isn't covered by my insurance.

That looks thoroughly unbreakable but I don't think there's any prospect I could fit it in my transmission tunnel.

I dunno - other than port matching and incredibly minor tidying I understand it's not that great an idea to try and port a head without a flow bench. Conceptually I really don't consider it DIY.

So find a decent 1.9 box and take it with your 1.6 box to Greg Kent and get him to make a 1.9 (taller first) with the 1.6 final drive, which is the table you posted above. This is what he did for my mate's box, and he swapped synchros around too to make sure they were all good. Even with an Mi16 you might struggle to run out of revs with those - 210kph is pretty quick (it'd be 220-230kph on the speedo) if you can get to 7,000rpm.

Yeah - they are good people as the premium's are very low, although never had to claim from them so couldn't be sure... www.classiccover.co.nz Riley - for what it's worth my 2002 (insured as a race car, to be street registered, with a turbo) is even cheaper! JiB, who is under 25, has his track car insured with them for too ... no problems. (edit) It's full cover, and includes glass and spares (although not glass on a race car). It doesn't cover you actually at the track, and the low mileage limit, garaging restrictions, and general wording about not being used daily are an important part of the insurance terms.

Anyone keen? Probably need about a 10mm spacer as usually 7" is a 25p. http://www.trademe.co.nz/Trade-Me-Motors/C...n-211297932.htm Not mine, don't know them, think they'd look good on an E30.

My argument is that they're under horrible loads anyway - you can't pretend that a plastic ring is going to make the difference. That statement is inconsistent, and if the spigot on the hub really was taking the weight of the car it would need to be an incredibly close tolerance fit (think tapping on with a hammer).