jom

It's ticketing southbound. Got a ticket for 106k at Easter....

Seen on SHI south of Mana roundabout - spot the camera van..... So is this legal? Isn't there a requirement that camera vans are supposed to be a visible deterrent?

So...when i bought the car it had a very flakey BMW cassette player in it, which I got the dealer to replace. Subsequently I replaced that (green graphics, it was horrible) with a BMW fitted VDO head unit, and I had some front speakers sound with that. What I think happened is that the car came in from Japan with a quality stereo and amp. Somewhere between compliance and the dealer it got removed and the BMW amp wasn't reconnected - the wires were bullet connected to mimic a crossover circuit. A lot of bullet connectors and cable (and new amp) from Jon and Keren, and I now have sound in 8 speakers, not 2! PS If I ever find out who did the compliance... I know it was 5 years ago, but I'lll strangle whoever fitted the Indian made brake pads. White painted with "Gur" marked on the back. They wore the disc more than the pad, and were so bad that the ABS didn't even work in the wet.

done that. Still not too much noise from the front speakers (but at least some), so I took a look at the amp in the boot. It's not pretty.... Any ideas why it's like this? What should it look like? Cheers Jo

Thanks, that did it. The aftermarket radio connector is wired with the antenna lift wire (blue) as standard, the amp on/off wire (blue/white) is hanging in the breeze. I piggbacked the two together, and I now have front speakers. Cheers Jo

I've just replaced a VDO head unit in my E36 with a JVC, so I get a USB socket for the ipod. After sorting through the correct wiring interfaces....(including the yellow/red swap) it works, but only on the rear speakers. Using the fader affects the balance on the rear speakers. (So does the balance control) I've traced the wiring from the JVC/standard end to BMW colours - it all looks fine. Any ideas? Is there a wiring change I've missed, or is it just a duff head unit? Jo

remove the C pillar trims (either side of the rear window) and tighten up the aerial connections to the splitter/whatever it is on each side. Jo

See you there!

average times were about a second better - I'm doing 1.31s instead of 1.32s. Also did my fastest time ever - a 1.30.03. So close to breaking the 1.30 barrier! I was in the silver 328 coupe (auto...) number 328 Did you go out in the wet? Rain tyres weren't enough, you needed oil tyres. 3 secs a lap slower than a normal wet track, and totally unpredictable.

less understeer, not perfect yet, but it was VERY oily out there. Now at the point where the standard seat belt isn't good enough in the corners, I need a 4 point as my shoulders are sliding off the seat. So an increase in overall grip!

Just to complete the picture: I dropped the rear 20mm with slightly softer springs. At Manfield today that was about a second a lap quicker. The run in to the esses from Toyota is now flat, before it was "involuntary lift". Thanks for the help, Ron. PS rear bar is next.....

98 in the 328i, and 91 and Castrol R30 in the lawnmower. Smells great!

Bridgestone Adrenalin RE001s are a good wet/dry compromise, and will also stand being pushed around Manfield. The last ones I bought were $225 each, you should be able to find them cheaper, as the price is dropping.

I may have missed the point of this post. The majority of my automatic driving is just that -in traffic. I don't need torque in Wellington traffic because I can't overtake. Out of heavy traffic I use sport mode on the auto and floor it as soon as I'm committed. Overtaking is faster with the M50 manifold. I don't have as much control as with a manual so I want the seamless power to get me past as fast as possible. What it lacks at the low end (8bhp?) is more than made up for at the top end (20 bhp). So it works with the auto box and my driving style. FYI, a manual 318iS with lightened flywheel, a cam job and Toyo stickies is still slower round Manfield.So - when it matters I am up in the top of the rev range, that's pretty much all you can do with an auto.

Yes, and by using the M50 manifold I get CONSTANT torque - it's a dead flat line rather than a hump. As I've tried this, and you haven't, I suggest that you at least consider my opinion rather than tell me it's crap. You can read as many books as you like, but there is absolutely no better way to find something out than to try it. Fuel consumption, by the way, is totally unaffected.

The sway bars are standard coupe, so M-sport. I've thought about a bigger bar at the rear, but I think I need to get the ride height down first. Getting info on springs isn't easy. When I got the car it had Sachs suspension with tapered wire springs, which made for a bouncy (and underbody shattering ) ride, and lousy turn in. Ride heights were about the same as now. I bought the Koni kit thinking that they would base the spring rates and heights on a known reference (eg a BMW OEM set - Avus, rally or something) but I've got the same nose down attitude as the first set. Aftermarket springs too, advertise "25mm lower" etc., but compared to what? Standard, Msport.... Any suggestions? Cheers Jo

Just checking the maths (I'm confused) If I want to go to M3 sport spec, do I need to raise the front from 552/557 to 560? A 9mm spring pad on one side would nearly fix that. At the rear, I need to swap the springs. To get to a 540 mm ride height can I use M3 springs? As far as the height at the front, it clears my driveway (not sure by how much, but it does). I'm very interested in the height as I've just fitted new wheelarch liners and underspoiler lumpy bits. Incidentally if you keep breaking the central lower air scoop that's screwed to the body, I have a mod that uses the old broken part and stops it from breaking every time it grounds. The last time it fell off was because running over Manfield kerbs vibrated a screw out and dropped it onto the kerb....and it's still usable. I know about the shrinking thing. Trying to go flat from the exit of the first corner to the esses at Manfield has a effect not only on the testes, but my right leg also shrinks involuntarily.

Ride heights (mm) with 25l fuel, no driver: FL 557 FR 552 RL 557 RR 550

Thanks for the offer Paul, I'm being led down a different path at the moment....I'll keep it in mind.

It's a stock 97 328i auto Coupe except... Koni sport suspension - springs and dampers (set to full soft). Springs are supposedly 40 mm drop at the front, 25mm at the rear. Front crossbrace Tyres are Bridgestone RE001, 225/45R17 and 245/40R17 on M3 rims Rear damper mounts are E46 M3 It's a daily driver which goes to Manfield sprints 6 times a year. It's important to keep it comfortable on the road, but also balanced on the track. One other thought is to change the tyres to 235/40 all round - was this the early M3 setup?

I'm running 225/45R17s on 7.5in M3 staggers at the moment on the front, 235/40R17 is slightly smaller and I really don't want to lose any more front ride height. That's why I was looking at the 235/45R17. Apart from that, it's available in Bridgestone RE001 (and the 235/40 isn't) and I rather like RE001s.Ride height is 40mm down on (stiff) koni sport springs. the 235/40 profile is 7mm smaller radius than the 225/45, the 235/45 is 4mm bigger. I'm looking to dial out some understeer. So I guess I'll just have to try them for size. Paul, I might take you up on your offer.... Thanks everyone for your help. Jo

Has anyone run these on the front? Do they fit OK? Jo

No, serious. The throttle response at 100kph is too harsh with the standard manifold and the auto - the natural cruising speed is about 120 and a small throttle movement at 100 means that you "hunt" to keep it at 100 and it's tiring. The lack of excessive torque at 100kph with the M50 makes for a more relaxed traffic drive. In (auto) sport mode the change point is about 6200rpm. With the M50 manifold the power is linear right up to the change point. The original setup has an embarassing power dropoff at about 5500rpm, which is OK with a manual (you'd change gear) but crap in an auto. The fact that the M50 conversion makes the car missile -like on 'sport' full throttle more than makes up for the torque loss. Yes it does feel more sluggish at low revs, but that's cruising territory. Sport mode puts the box up into vanos territory and it makes a big difference. It revs with consistent power right up to the red line. Overtaking speeds on full throttle get embarrassing! My own observations - no difference in fuel consumption, 1/2 second a lap (better) at Manfield, more civilised on the road. I know what the theory says, I tried it anyway! Come and try it if you're in Wellington....

You missed my point - it is a much better match for the characterisics of the AUTO gearbox. I'm leaving mine as it is, too, with the M50 manifold.

Going back to the (yawn) M50 manifold on M52 topic..... Now I've actually tried it. First of all, theoretically I can't get over the fact that the M50 manifold is perfectly matched to the M52 head. Has anyone considered the 40% step increase in area where a M52 manifold meets the head? Adiabatic expansion, fuel dropout, anyone? Second - on an automatic 328 I think that the conversion is a no-brainer. The torque curve is embarrassing in NZ conditions on the standard car. At 100kph it's extremely difficult to keep the speed down - it's right at the start of that big torque hump - so in traffic driving gets very frustrating. Also the fact that the power drops off at 5500rpm - 500 revs before the gears change in sport mode - indicates a serious mismatch in the gearbox software. Add the M50 manifold and both these problems go away. There is a steady power increase right up to the red line and the gears change up at maximum power. It also feels slower on the track (not so much drama!) but is actually quicker. My vote is for the M50 conversion.