Herbmiester

My e92 is low so I bought a low profile jack and I think its the way to go. Pretty confident I could get this under the car between the jack and lifting point, possibly not if you had a normal height jack. Not sure I agree with flimsy, looking at my traditional jacks it has a wider base so probably better in respect to stability. All that said being able to jack at the lift point is a huge plus. I will look to get some and see how they work in the real world.

I need a medium case diff for an e36, prefer 3.15 ratio and LSD. Being used for a manual conversion so current diff ration is too low.

Here is a review of the Laufenn LK01 https://alltyretests.com/laufenn-s-fit-eq-lk01-test-review/

Thats pretty good pricing for 10% extra I would shop Kiwi.

As much as I would like to support a Kiwi company, when I bought in my Koni's from Demon Tweaks it was nearly 40% cheaper including GST and freight than the price I was quoted by Stocks.

So after all that the calculations were, whats the word, oh yeah wrong.

Well documented thread thanks for re-sharing.

To be clear I never suggested parallel testing, that was your idea. The reason I did not suggest it is that apart from what you feel it is essentially worthless without some form of laboratory to monitor results. Racing is different from the street but it puts more strain on the components and as to maintenance that is to a certain extent irrelevant in the context of this conversation. Stating that alloy flywheels have a habit of exploding in race cars is a very broad statement and without context again, irrelevant. Sating that torsional stiffness is a byproduct of material and geometry is obvious to everyone but without reference to usage and at what levels it will fail, deform etc again its an irrelevant statement. I am not trolling you I am making you account for broad sweeping statements and loose and fast calculations that you use to justify your position. The fact you only refer to your setup as Combo X is also interesting as we dont know what combo X is no one here could dispute your numbers. So no not trolling you just making sure that people who come here looking for information do not get led down the garden path by you. I say this as you have a history on this forum of extreme bias towards anything you champion, and that is a factual statement. By the way I am not trying to justify my position, I dont need to as my position is simple I have something that is know to work.

The reality is that no one will do any form of testing other than drive the car and see how it feels, hence why using proven systems is the best method. Basic modelling is close to worthless when it fails to to compare with what is actually required, as an example, how much torsional stiffness is required to give a suitable solution? I dont know, and I suspect you dont either, is the UUC flywheel stiff enough? It would seem so and similar Alloy flywheels used in racing applications for decades would seem to support that. And again because of the very basic calculations and assumptions made the basic modelling is nothing more than calculated guesswork, borderline worthless. Unless you were doing some Finite element analysis then the basic work you are doing is irrelevant compared to evidenced based feedback.

25% accurate at the very best I would say or as I see it 75% inaccurate, yet you post it up misleading people with fast and loose calculations. The facts as you present them, are as much opinion and support for your way of thinking as anything else. You really do waste peoples time with this type of approach.

I call BS on this as you just dont have enough info to make this accurate. It will either be full of assumptions or so simple because of lack of solid input data that the results are irrelevant.

I think your right downpipes are a solid upgrade for performance gains but E30 (is it even available in Welly?) seems to have a few downsides in your situation.

Ok so to do this did you get the position of the steel surfaces (where the weight is) on the UUC flywheels calculated into the equation? Or did you make assumptions? As that will no doubt have an influence on the last two calculations. Also for all we know your calculations could have been tailored to win an argument. Also your calculations on tensile strength have you measured a UUC flywheel, are you familiar with its construction, alloy grade etc? Again this will have a big impact on the torsion numbers as well. Looking at my flywheel if has a number of dimensions in regards thickness and angles plus the torsional strength will change where the friction surface is bolted as of course it will for the ring gear. Have you calculated all these variables because I suspect the calculation will be very complicated, or as you stated in one of your earlier posts used rough calculations. Based on the way you have formulated your arguments over the past number of years perhaps the numbers reflect what you want them to reflect? Also re your earlier comment on balance I discussed this with the machinist who is building a motor for me at present and he said that when it comes to balance a light flywheel with a heavier clutch plate is a complete red herring as there are so many other factors that will have a greater influence on balance . As the two are joined and the pressure plate is less likely to be in perfect balance the effects of the crankshaft and the harmonic balancer will have as much influence as the PP and FW, does the car run balance shafts, is it internally or externally balanced? are a few other things he said need to be factored in. He made it clear that the whole rotational assembly needs to be balanced as a unit if perfect balance is required. In his 40 odd years of experience in building race engines, that this step has negligible benefits and the main culprit of a noticeable imbalance is the pressure plate, but this can vary depending on the position of the clutch plate as it obviously never goes back to the same place. As to plane torsion the figures are to a certain extent irrelevant as there is no figure to determine at what power lever rpm etc the torsional deformation has an impact on the performance of the unit, ie once something is strong enough making it stronger serves no purpose.

So to be clear, my setup is stiff enough, its balanced, and is no heavier at the pedal than a standard M3, it was affordable and most importantly it's PROVEN. Using a system that has been working well for a number of years in both road and track applications is good enough for me. So using the assumptions you have made based on the published data may be correct in theory but the application in the real world may be irrelevant, which in this case I suspect it is. I do a lot of work with ballistics and I find people love to fixate on the variables, some of which only have a very minor effect on hit probability, will the Coriolis effect alter my impact point yes it will, will it make a real world difference? 99.99% of the time, No.

That may all be true in theory but the reality is this system has been in use for a number of years now in both street and racing applications and there dont seem to be any skeletons in the closet so to speak so I dont really have any concerns in this respect. As a bonus should I decide to complete a 3l stroker conversion I will certainly have enough clamping force. It would also seem that the heavy clutch pedal issue is not present with this setup and apart from the flywheel everything else is factory BMW.

I to am doing a single mass conversion on my 328i. I have gone with a UUC Motorworks lightweight setup. This setup uses a clutch with similar specs to the E34 M5 clutch so I will find out how heavy it is but reviews on this setup dont refer to an unduly heavy pedal.

The new front is growing on me but at a slow rate to be fair.

That's a beautiful looking car, but I am biased towards E92s. I have a stage 1 plus tune and have tried it at stage 2 and 2 plus and I am with Matthew. My 335i runs a few mods, Intercooler, charge pipe, PCV and oil catch can and M3 control arms. What my car is missing is a LSD. I have driven an LSD E92 and its a bigger step forward than a stage2 plus tune. Its easy to want extra HP, I do understand the attraction but you will struggle to get it down, go for the LSD next.

Alfa the king of unreliable.

Will check with him next time we speak. He liked that it had the problems solved, 135/335 reliability is very easy to poke at but its only the bad stories that get published not the ones that run trouble free.

I think an acquaintance might own your old 135i, he seems very happy with it.

Tricky one to be fair, they are one of the nicer styles for an E90. Somewhere in the $500 to $700 range perhaps more but it would seem that condition is King, curbing can reduce the price a lot.

This whole sale process has a been a joke. If he hadn't been a dick he would have had his 16k from me.