Re: What is the root of this BMW design flaw in all 3,5,7 series BMW trunk wiring looms?

Page 2 of 4  
On 03/16/2013 01:03 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:


Yes. This is the point that JB doesn't seem to get, nor does he seem capable of understanding *why* it makes you smile.

Quite true, and my impression is that German cars are actually better than either US or Japanese cars in this respect (as in, if maintained they will actually last *longer.*) I don't know if that is true of the ones being currently made, but it certainly was 20 years ago.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/17/2013 05:05 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:

yeah, after i've replaced every single component three times over, including all the stuff that should never break or wear out, the car works just great!
*) I don't know if that is true of the

there are plenty of 30+ year old bmw's out there. and plenty of 0-10 yo's. but almost nothing in between. that is by design. see above.
--
fact check required

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
underneath my scribble :
Interesting post Jim - do you have any approx. info on milage brackets on failures for transmission and other major cost BMW components? C+

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/17/2013 02:45 AM, Charlie+ wrote:

please don't top post, just snip.

this was back in the 80's and my prof was saying target was 100-120k miles. that's not to say it's current target, but i know several bmw owners who have had sudden failures at the low end of that range.
his job wasn't to just fix it for a certain mileage though, it was to solve the math on design life so a given target could be achieved. [it was a function of the cog tooth root tip radius.] with that solution, any mileage could be chosen. modern atomic-scale finite element analysis and cnc cutting tools have probably refined his model considerably since then.
--
fact check required

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/16/2013 12:52 PM, jim beam wrote:

300 HP from a 3.0 liter six - and likely as much tuning potential as the vaunted Toyota Supra - is pretty phenomenal in my book.

I would never advise anyone to buy a German car with an automatic transmission. (and you know that BMW don't actually make the transmissions correct? at least in the E9x 3-series I think the 325 autos are made by GM and the 330/335 autos are ZF-built.) Some things never change, the E28 5-series would destroy its automatic if you let it engage a driving gear, then shifted back to neutral, then revved the engine. (also a ZF box IIRC.) There's an easy solution to that problem though; learn to drive a 3-pedal car, or if you want a luxury car that your mom will enjoy driving, buy something other than a BMW. (although actually my own mom would still probably enjoy driving a BMW, as both her GTI and Miata are stickshifts.)
And as for "planned obsolescence" - you don't think that Ford, GM, and Chrysler don't deliberately revise overengineered parts?
<snippo> >> Clearly BMW cares about handling

Technically, you are correct, but in practice - it works phenomenally well. (and actually the rear suspension is a multi-link with shocks, not a strut type suspension.)

Again, it may be cheap, but it works.
Would you call a '67 Corvette with a 427/4-speed "junk" because it is not technologically advanced? I guarantee you it's still fast by modern standards, and fun to drive - and that, at the end of the day, is what matters, not whether a particular component is the most expensive, theoretically elegant part possible or not.

Hmm, I see more older Bimmers on the road than I do GM, Ford, etc. (I still see a surprisingly large number of E36 3-series and occasionally even older ones - I actually saw a 2002 on Thursday - probably the only manufacturers that I see *more* 80's era cars still running around would be Honda, Toyota, and/or VW and one would ASSume that that's because they sold more of them.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/17/2013 05:03 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:

that's only 100hp/liter. honda routinely had production vehicles at 120. non-turbo.

uh, you know that bmw /spec/ their transmission to their contractor, correct???

nate nate nate, when will you ever learn to read? i specifically stated that bmw's /method/ was pioneering but you didn't read that.
everybody else has been having their crap /wear out/ since the 50's and customers hate it. bmw's "genius" was sudden failure that took the customer unawares, /and/ presented them with a huge bill that makes the majority give up on the vehicle and buy a new one.

we'll come to fronts in a moment, but did you not read what i said about rears??? [rhetorical]

yeah, a wheel barrow works. particularly when you have tires 30% wider than a comparable vehicle that has camber control.
macpherson is garbage. by definition. go out to any parking lot and look at the inside tire of any macpherson vehicle parked with steering angled. look at the camber. look at the percentage of tire left on the pavement. /that/ is a fundamental problem that can't be solved.
macpherson is adequate for the straight-ahead and delightfully cheap for manufacturers. and that's where the story ends.

driveling excuses.

again, you can't read. you see OLD bmw's and you see modern bmw's, but you see nothing in between. the old stuff was that brief period when they had the engineering right but bmw's financials were in the crapper. then in came the mba's, so their engineering focus changed. the results are right there on the road in front of you every single day.
--
fact check required

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/17/2013 11:25 AM, jim beam wrote:

That's also stock. A simple flash tune (e.g. Cobb) or piggyback (BMS JuiceBox) can get you to 350-375 easily; more with a larger intercooler and freer-flowing cats/downpipes. Tony Vargas just dynoed a car on 91 octane pump gas with "full bolt ons" (generally, that means intake, exhaust, and intercooler and possibly a larger oil cooler as well) and a set of larger turbos but no internal engine work at 575 wheel HP. That sure sounds "phenomenal" to me, and reminiscent of what was being done with Supras 10 years ago or so - and keep in mind that tuners have only had since 2007 to work on the N54 engine. I suspect that there's more to be had (and in fact there are people getting more power out of them using methanol injection.)
I'm sure that BMW knows that there is more potential in that engine but they likely don't want the x35is a) competing with the M-cars or b) making so much power that they start to have internal engine part warranty claims at an unacceptable rate. (because, let's be honest, the types of people that buy 500+ HP cars tend to want to use that power on a regular basis.)

Of course, but my point is, that just like headlamps, German mfgrs. seem to punish Americans by making their automatics as shitty as possible. Stick with stickshift or DSG and you'll be fine. I'm in no way excusing the German slushboxes, but their shittiness has not been a secret for the last 30+ years.

You just perfectly described why I drive German cars and *not* Hondas.

>

Actually BMW tire sizes are pretty narrow comparatively, 225s on the front of a vehicle that curbs around 3400? And that's the M-sport package. BMW's tire choices are a good example of one of the instances where they have made questionable choices however; the Bridgestone run-flats do appear to have been made from actual rocks, without actually providing superior tread life.
Another thing you're not considering is that a strut-type front suspension allows room for things like big v-engines in the front of the car (remember, the current M3 uses a 4.7 liter overhead cam V-8,) and is simpler and may very well weigh less than a comparable SLA design. these are all things that must be considered when you're looking at a car designed for performance first.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not slagging Honda for using a SLA suspension - far from it - but there are several ways to peel a feline. Honda chose one way and makes some very nice handling cars (albeit FWD.) BMW and Porsche chose another and also make some very nice handling cars (but you can criticize Porsche for sticking with hanging the big heavy bits out behind the rear axle, but I suspect that that is in large part due to the Porsche faithful not accepting anything else - look at the relative failure of the 928 for example - just like we probably won't see a Harley-Davidson with anything other than a v-twin in our lifetimes.)

Hmm. Doesn't seem to hurt any of the top competitors in DTM, BTCC, etc. etc. etc. How far are the wheels generally turned in high-G cornering maneuvers, anyway? And if you'd ever owned a Bimmer you would know that any tire wear problems generally experienced are NOT in the front but in the rear, which has an "acceptable" suspension design according to you but since BMW's alignment specs have aggressive camber for better handling the rears tend to wear the snot out of the insides of the tires when the car is driven non-aggressively.
Finally, if you hate struts so much, why are you constantly slagging the Germans, who nobody can deny build beautiful handling cars (and I have never driven a car that had as nice steering feel as my old E28 chassis 535i, I suppose that that is unacceptable though because it used a recirc ball steering box which is "outdated" compared to modern R&P?) and yet I haven't yet seen you criticize Ford for the execrable Twin-I-Beam front end which was unmitigated garbage and arguably inferior to a simple straight axle, and was used pretty much unchanged save for a swap from kingpins to ball joints (a step backward, IMHO) through the mid-late 90's!

It's not an excuse, customers don't care about such things generally. What they do care about is handling and ride. If it is provided by means of transverse leaf springs and using the driveshafts as suspension links, nobody gives a crap so long as it works well.
I suppose given the choice between, say, a BMW E30 M3 and a SLA Honda Civic, in similar condition, you would pick the Civic because it has a more sophisticated suspension design, EVEN THOUGH THE BIMMER IS BETTER IN EVERY RESPECT when it comes to what matters to the driver?
Did you miss the bit where the BMW 3-series has made C&D's 10 best list for over 20 consecutive years now? And also the bit where the new Accord made this year's list as well, *despite* having the struts that you hate so much?

Where I live Bimmers seem to be one of the most popular cars (along with Toyota Camrys and various SUVs,) and I see a whole range of them on the road. The very early 3-series cars seem to have mostly disappeared, as well as most of the cars that predate the 3/5/6/7/8xx naming convention, but then again, I did see another 2002 coupe while out and about this morning. If you're looking for any particular design of 3-series however, save for the E30, you're likely to spot one within 10 minutes or so simply by driving around and looking. I probably see more E46 and E36 than I do E9x or F30s.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No shit!
The BMW E46 M3 was the first normally aspirated production vehicle to make 100HP/Liter. PERIOD.
--
snipped-for-privacy@panix.com

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/20/2013 08:25 AM, Brian Downing wrote:

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.
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. 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.
At the end of the day, though, hp/l is not really what matters - it's hp/weight, and also BSFC if you are racing in a series with limitations on fuel use...
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/20/2013 06:04 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:

you forgot to add the important qualifier - "in comparison with a buick".

prelude.

irrelevant drivel.

true enough. how's that 3200 lb behemoth working out for you?

irrelevant drivel.
--
fact check required

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/20/2013 11:08 AM, jim beam wrote:

I didn't forget anything.

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.

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 great. It rides and handles acceptably well, and unlike a CRX, Lotus, or Miata, I can actually carry three passengers and some luggage in comfort, which is important if you have friends.

Really? So if you have a limited amount of fuel, BSFC is not important at all? Fascinating.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/20/2013 11:18 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:

oh, but you did!

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]

it's a red herring and therefore irrelevant.

wow, not only do you answer rhetorical questions [sic], you do so by way of suppositional nonsense!

how old are you nate?

red herring irrelevant drivel. see above.
--
fact check required

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/20/2013 10:31 PM, jim beam wrote:

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.

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."

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?

>

The fact that you consider it irrelevant is telling. Results matter. How you get there is less important.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/21/2013 08:26 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:

If you need an explanation of why my example is not actually a fair comparison, see here:
http://www.drivingsports.com/site/2008/12/rotary-vs-piston-engine-equivalency/
Likewise, a two stroke completes all its power strokes in 360 degrees of crank rotation as opposed to the traditional 720 of a four stroke engine, therefore to normalize it WRT most of the engines that we encounter and the traditional methods of calculating displacement, their actual geometrically calculated displacements need to be doubled to make a fair comparison.
Alternately, instead of just using "displacement" as a raw number, we could use "displacement per revolution" e.g. an Otto or Diesel engine with a 3-liter displacement would have a 1.5 liter/rev displacement, which would actually make more sense, but the convention has been in place for so long that a change just to allow for fair comparisons with the exceedingly rare (only found in the current RX-8) Wankel engines and the similarly now rare (although somewhat common in the past, and we didn't appear to have confusion problems then) two stroke gasoline and Diesel engines.
That all aside, with the increasing prevalence of various forms of supercharging, actual displacement seems to be becoming less and less relevant anyway...
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/21/2013 06:02 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:

he said, diving down the irrelevant brain-damaged rabbit hole of his own digging.
--
fact check required

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/21/2013 05:26 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:

i didn't "get" anything - you simply shot your mouth off without any attempt at basic fact checking. as per usual.

you're just grasping at truly pathetic straws.

???

you're putting false words in my mouth, then not even making sense with what you say i said. fail to comprehend much? [rhetorical]

you really are brain damaged. anosognosic.
--
fact check required

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/21/2013 09:56 AM, jim beam wrote:

Um, I *did* attempt to check your facts, and I found that it was a nominal 2.2 liter engine with 217hp. If you have cites to the contrary, I'm willing to be corrected, 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, if you consider power strokes per rev irrelevant, then the Wankel wins, hands down.

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.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/21/2013 07:05 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:

then you're simply incompetent because you didn't check properly.

i've already given you the numbers, retard! do you want me to repeat them??? [rhetorical]

no. and i'm not wiping your ass for you either. retard.

he said, grasping at pathetic irrelevant straws.

so why do you keep coming back? [rhetorical] you are truly brain damaged.
--
fact check required

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/21/2013 10:45 AM, jim beam wrote:

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.

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.

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
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Stolen from "Monty Python".
--
Clive

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.