jom

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

1993 E36 Coupe 325i (UK build)

Hi. I recently lost (or as good as) reception to an otherwise perfect signal through my radio. It is a Sony head unit. Has anybody had a similar experience and found the solution? Any wee tricks to try? The CD and Ipod work fine, Its just the Radio reception. Very much appreciate any help. Cheese.

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

I have decided to go

See you there!

Which e36 were you in Jo? The silver one? I was in the white S13 Silvia yesterday - previously i used my burgundy E30 325i.

What times did you get yesterday? Considering the weather and track condition yesterday (wet/damp) - 1sec quicker than normal is much better!

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.

How did the car feel balance wise ?

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!

you are right get the ride height sorted first then measure the rear bar 18 is sport bar 16 is stock I run a 20

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.....

I even put 95 in my lawn mower, any leftover fuel I put it back in the car so I don't have to store them in the shed. I just get fresh fuel every time I mow the lawn.

This discussion comes up every couple of months, just get the 95+ for modern BMWs. For the price of a coffee (or beer, shooter, a large can of V, etc...), you can fill up the tank (60L?) with what the car deserves to run on. I feel better knowing the car is running on the fuel it's suppose to run on.

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

Shortly (some time in the next six months) I want to put new feet on the car. Now i know absolutely nothing about tyres so any help would be grateful. It still has the same feet on it when I bought it which are dragon 225/45 zr 17 91w. I am looking at something middle of the road really as it is my daily driver but I have been know on odd occasions to push the pedal heavily when on a trip so something with a bit of grip to would be 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.

Which part of the torque curve are you talking about?

Lower in the rev range (where the majority of automatic traffic driving is done) the m52 intake makes more torque.

So are you saying giving your car less torque where you use it is better? did you consider a 318?

If your up high in the revs for a lot of your driving then the m50 intake could be a good change. But for your average daily 328 that spends most of it's life travelling low in the revs you aren't helping it.

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.

I Have not missed your point. You are simply talking total crap, an auto gearbox is more suited to constant torque delivery and incremental RPM increase for the most effecient energy transfer. guess what thats how BMW engineered the M52 my original comment stands:

"You have sucessfully retuned your car so it is a slug at low speed and sucks more fuel at 100kmh - well done."

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.

Yes: front up a bit and even and back down; the most important thing is to get the back down so the relative roll centre heights are closer.

If you can't lift the front, just make sure it is even.

Do you have stock sway bars or M-Sport? going bigger on the back helps

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

Okay:

M3 ride height on staggered 17s factory specs are: 540 in the rear and 585 in the front (Std M3), the sport option lowers the front to 560mm

So when in the most raked mode (sport), the front still measures 20mm higher than the rear (shape of guards)

(I run 560 in the rear and 580 in the front (any lower in the front and I can not get up my driveway) same as the M3 sport set up in rake. I run more rebound control to offset the slight height increase.)

YOURS:

Compared to the std M3 , yours is higher in the back by 7-10 mm and lower in the front by 28 to 33 mm or so you have significantly more rake and a low front roll centre.

Compared to the more raked sport version you still have more rake and you have a lower front roll centre but a significantly higher rear roll centre.

This will make the car sledge in the front as the low roll centre tries to dig in and wave its arse about as the back end jacks up .

Suggestion:

1) Check the spring pads in the front they come in 3mm and 9mm thickness - if thin ones are fitted buy new thick ones, (about $30 each) these were designed to facilitate equalising ride heights but the can also be used for fine height adjustments. Objective: get the front up a bit and even.

2) Fit lower rear springs; M3 ones fit straight in, 328 sport ones are 560mm - you want to go to 540mm.

Objective: Set rake to match the M3 Sport - also even up heights using selected pads.

3) You will then be able to dial in some rebound control which will stabilise the car without making it understeer as the balance will result in the full chassis doing the work not just the front axle - then the rebound will control the un-weighted outside wheel as it is supposed to.

This will give to an extremely neutral handling car that stays neutral, right up till your testicles start shrinking and looking for somewhere to hide.

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.

So your car and use is similar to mine except mine is a manual.

I have:

Koni sport adjustables all rounds set to 40% on the front and 30% on the rear

Sports springs all round 20mm lower in the front and 10 mm lower in the rear

M3 sway bars front and rear ( full M3 set up on the front)

M3 top mounts and offset bushes in front suspension.

I ahve 15mm rake (front lower)

I started off on stock 235/40 17s all round and wondered why the arse wiggled every time I punted it through corners- fitted the staggered wheel set up and changed my driving style and picked up 10 to 15kmh through the same corners.

Point 1 - stay with the staggered set up it works really well on a 328

Check your ride height by measuring from the lowest point on the rim to the highest point on the guard.

From what you describe the front is too low compared to the back, set up like this your car will sledge into corners.

Basically if the description is correct , the front roll centre is low and the back is high and the chassis overly raked; when you come into a corner all the weight movement is being controlled through the front axle. So the front tyres, the outer in particular are loading up to control body roll. The back is so high ( relatively) it is not contributing much stability.

Options

The best (road) option is to lift the front 20 mm to let it work properly - this will reduce the induced roll stiffness plus allow the back to work more with the front and provide a better balanced car that drives well on the road and is good for ocasional track days.

If you want to keep the car low but get it handling as well; then drop the back 10 to 15mm and lift the front 5 to 10 mm. This will be better on the track but a but harsher on the road as you will have to drive the corners more to avoid loading the front end up.

Give me the ride height figures and I will give you more accurate details

Ride heights (mm) with 25l fuel, no driver:

FL 557

FR 552

RL 557

RR 550

are you around over xmas?i can bring the tyres out to you,currently mounted on 17x8 et 20 ex my 535

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

If your problem is underesteer then deal with the source of the understeer rather than trying to mask it by tyre size.

Running M3 staggers does slightly increase " traction loss" understeer at the limit it. BUT does not set the car up with understeer across the driving range.

Your source of "understeer" is more likely to be a front roll centre that is too low combined with stiff front springing and probably a stiff front roll bar so the front is doing too much work to control the car resulting in understeer.

What is the car and how is it currently set up and what are you using it for?

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?

As per Brents comment 235/45 is too tall correct sizes are: 225 /45 or 235/40

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

which characteristics are these? I have no clue about autos

m50 manifold is better in the higher rpms. Is this where you use your auto?

If your happy that's all that matters. I'm not trying to bag on you. Just don't want someone taking your word as gospel then being disappointed at the results.

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....

So you have sucessfully retuned your car so it is a slug at low speed and sucks more fuel at 100kmh - well done. I think I will leave mine as it is.

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.

Check out Turner Motorsport in the States, they have an E46 suspension deal at the moment with OEM Msport struts and new front arms.

Jo

Thanks guys

My E46 is german assembled (even if Jap imported) so assume the spare well is the same as NZ new. There is a hell of a lot of room free with the space saver in.

What is the front wheel diameter - suspect it is narrower than the rears?

Anyone got a motorsport 17" front wheel arround for sale?

Alan

A 225/45/17 is the same diameter as a 245/40/17, so it will fit on the rear, but it will be a little narrow.

Jo

I have very similar problems with mine, what did it cost you for the replacement?.....Just looking to sort that out now...

I lucked into a cheap box on Trademe, the day mine started leaking. - But - I've looked at prices, rebuilds about $1500 (check with a trans supplier) and around $1000 to fit it at an indie.

Jo

So no plastic end tanks? Would you be able to get me the dimensions of the core

It has plastic end tanks. Identical to the original, made up by assembling pattern end tanks to a pattern core.