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

[Arthur]

Almost every BMW E39 (5-series) and E38 (7-series) and E46 (3-series)
has shorts that develop in the trunk wiring loom - all in the same spot!

Here is a picture of the uniformity of the shorts:
http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=286651&stc=1&d=1311702112

Here is another picture from another vehicle:
http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=287281&stc=1&d=1312154763

And another:
http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=261502&d=1294537117

And another:
http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=295239&stc=1&d=1317334573

And another:
http://bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=307223&d=1325771723

And another:
http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=200762&stc=1&d=1252530849

I could go on (and on); but we can't figure out WHAT the BMW design flaw is.
http://bimmerfest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=397245

Q: Can you tell from these pictures what the BMW design flaw is?

[jim beam]

yeah, it's easy.

1. the wire coating has a poor grade of plasticizer*, so the coating
cracks and bending concentrated at the cracked coating will fatigue the
wire.

2. they're using an elbow bend, not a torsion bend. the stress
concentration at the surface of the wire coating is less with a torsion
bend.

#1 is a factor of the germans being too "green" for their own good and
not using good old toxic pvc. #2 is the real screw-up - they would know
that one if they'd spoken to anyone who'd been around the block or had
done their own testing.


* the plasticizer used in the wire coating is crucial to give it
flexibility. the basic polymer insulator extruded over the wire is very
brittle without it, so a plasticizer is added for flexibility. if the
plasticizer is too volatile and evaporates over time, the coating will
become hard and brittle per the original polymer, then crack when
bending stress exceeds a certain value.


--
fact check required

[Paul Drahn]

PVC wire insulation contains a lead compound. Ano-no in Europe, even for
a tiny amount in a product.

Paul

[jim beam]

i think that was back when they were using lead pigments - hasn't been
for a while now fwiu. and lead is a no-no here too.

besides, pvc isn't exactly healthy - i think they now use something
called "epdm". with the right q.c. and testing, there's no reason that
insulation should have degraded, and with the right physical layout, no
reason it should have been challenged even if it did.


--
fact check required

[Paul in Houston TX]

jim beam wrote:
> On 03/13/2013 06:03 PM, Arthur wrote:
>> Almost every BMW E39 (5-series) and E38 (7-series) and E46 (3-series)
>> has shorts that develop in the trunk wiring loom - all in the same spot!

>>

>> Q: Can you tell from these pictures what the BMW design flaw is?
>>
>
> yeah, it's easy.
>
> 1. the wire coating has a poor grade of plasticizer*, so the coating
> cracks and bending concentrated at the cracked coating will fatigue the
> wire.
>
> 2. they're using an elbow bend, not a torsion bend. the stress
> concentration at the surface of the wire coating is less with a torsion
> bend.
>
> #1 is a factor of the germans being too "green" for their own good and
> not using good old toxic pvc. #2 is the real screw-up - they would know
> that one if they'd spoken to anyone who'd been around the block or had
> done their own testing.
>
>
> * the plasticizer used in the wire coating is crucial to give it
> flexibility. the basic polymer insulator extruded over the wire is very
> brittle without it, so a plasticizer is added for flexibility. if the
> plasticizer is too volatile and evaporates over time, the coating will
> become hard and brittle per the original polymer, then crack when
> bending stress exceeds a certain value.

Makes me wonder about the door wiring.

[Arthur]

dpb wrote on Wed, 13 Mar 2013 20:15:16 -0500:

> What's the age of the vehicles and condition of insulation in the area?
All the vehicles are five to ten years old'ish.

> Are the vehicles in very cold or hot climates and not garaged by any
> chance where such degradation could have been accelerated by extremes?
The vehicles are all over the world. Same problem everywhere.

> Is there preferential failure in any given circuit(s)?

Yes. All the wires have been identified and all the circuits involved
are implicated variously, e.g.,
KNOWN LOOM WIRE CONNECTIONS:
01. Red/yellow line = 2 @ x712 -> trunk lid light (positive)
02. Red/black line = 1 @ x1191 Rear lid lock switch (positive)
03. Gray/yellow line = 3 @ 1377 -> tunk lid locking switch (open signal)
04. Brown/gray line = 2 @ x709 -> left license plate light (positive)
05. Gray/Brown line = 4 @ x311 -> zv drive (lid closed)
06. Gray/black line = 2 @ x710 -> right license plate light (positive)
07. Gray/Green -> 4 @ x311 -> zv drive rear lid (positive)
08. White/ Brown line = 3 @ x311 -> ZV to luggage compartment light
09. Brown = 1 @ x709 -> left license plate light (ground)
10. Brown = 1 @ x710 -> right license plate light (ground)
11. Brown = 5 @ x311 -> zv drive ground
12. Brown = 1 @ x1377 -> trunk lid locking switch (open signal)
13. Brown/blue line = 2 @ x1191 Rear lid lock switch (unlock)
NOTE: (majority color[s])/(line color)=(pin number)@(connector number -> description
Sizes are 0.35mm2===21AWG, 0.5mm2===20AWG, 0.75mm2===18AWG

> Perhaps a circuit operating at high capacity relative to wiring
> ampacity/insulation rating is aiding in the failure mechanism.

Mostly it's the license plate light, the central locking system, and the trunk
lid which are affected.

> What does BMW say?

Same thing BMW always says.
Replace the entire trunk wiring loom every five years.
BMW Part number: 61116907260

[Phil Allison]

"Arthur"

> Same thing BMW always says.
> Replace the entire trunk wiring loom every five years.
> BMW Part number: 61116907260
>

** Or use silicone coated wire and do it just once.



.... Phil

[Arthur]

Phil Allison wrote on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:24:59 +1100:

> ** Or use silicone coated wire and do it just once.

Here's a picture of the loom, laid out (on a BMW E46 3-series):
http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=265914&d=1297298236

[Nate Nagel]

If you have one of these cars an easy fix is if/when something like that
fails, to splice in some fine-strand wire which will likely outlive the
car. A good source for a DIYer is old Fluke leads; don't throw them out
if you bend a probe!

As for door wiring, also a common failure on many vehicles... already
had to repair the speaker wiring where it goes through the door jamb for
my Jeep Cherokee as has just about every Cherokee owner. So this isn't
just a BMW problem.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Mar 13, 10:26 pm, Paul Drahn <pdr...@webformixair.com> wrote:
> On 3/13/2013 6:27 PM, jim beam wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 03/13/2013 06:03 PM, Arthur wrote:
> >> Almost every BMW E39 (5-series) and E38 (7-series) and E46 (3-series)
> >> has shorts that develop in the trunk wiring loom - all in the same spot!
>
> >> Here is a picture of the uniformity of the shorts:

> >>http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=286651&s...

>
> >> Here is another picture from another vehicle:

> >>http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=287281&s...
>
> >> And another:
> >>http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=261502&d...
>
> >> And another:
> >>http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=295239&s...
>
> >> And another:
> >>http://bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=307223&d=132...
>
> >> And another:
> >>http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=200762&s...

>
> >> I could go on (and on); but we can't figure out WHAT the BMW design
> >> flaw is.
> >>http://bimmerfest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=397245
>
> >> Q: Can you tell from these pictures what the BMW design flaw is?
>
> > yeah, it's easy.
>
> > 1. the wire coating has a poor grade of plasticizer*, so the coating
> > cracks and bending concentrated at the cracked coating will fatigue the
> > wire.
>
> > 2. they're using an elbow bend, not a torsion bend. the stress
> > concentration at the surface of the wire coating is less with a torsion
> > bend.
>
> > #1 is a factor of the germans being too "green" for their own good and
> > not using good old toxic pvc. #2 is the real screw-up - they would know
> > that one if they'd spoken to anyone who'd been around the block or had
> > done their own testing.
>
> > * the plasticizer used in the wire coating is crucial to give it
> > flexibility. the basic polymer insulator extruded over the wire is very
> > brittle without it, so a plasticizer is added for flexibility. if the
> > plasticizer is too volatile and evaporates over time, the coating will
> > become hard and brittle per the original polymer, then crack when
> > bending stress exceeds a certain value.
>
> PVC wire insulation contains a lead compound. Ano-no in Europe, even for
> a tiny amount in a product.
>

> Paul- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

And maybe you've found the root cause of the problem.
Instead of using decent wire suited to the application,
the Europeans chose to use some green hippie wire,
that not only costs more, but fails.....

[Scott Dorsey]

Arthur <art...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>I could go on (and on); but we can't figure out WHAT the BMW design flaw is.
> http://bimmerfest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=397245
>
>Q: Can you tell from these pictures what the BMW design flaw is?

My guess is that they are using a wire that isn't designed for high
flexibility, in an application where high flexibility is important.

That looks like typical crappy automotive-grade vinyl and normal
fairly coarse stranded wire.

It's breaking in the same spot because as the snorkel is moved in and
out, most of the strees is at that one spot.

Considering that BMW has been famous for electrical problems since the
Bavaria was new, this should not surprise you.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Arthur]

VinnyB wrote on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 05:24:43 -0500:

>>Replace the entire trunk wiring loom every five years.
>>BMW Part number: 61116907260
>

> What do they typically charge for such a replacement? Let me guess:
> $15,000 That makes sense. Anyone fool enough to by a BMW should be
> happy to pay for that fix.

These 3,4,5 series BMWs are some of the best handling and safest
vehicles on the planet. The M62, M62TU, M54, M52, & M52TU engines
are bulletproof, and the suspensions superb.

Yet, part of owning a bimmer is fixing it yourself. Otherwise you'll
go broke with the repairs. I know of scores who have "repaired"
their trunk wiring loom - but I don't know of any who went to the
stealer to have it replaced.

I was only answering the question of what BMW says to do.
We all work on our own vehicles so we repair them ourselves.

Cost to "repair" is about $20 give or take - but the real question
is why it breaks in the first place. It looks like, from the discussions,
a combination of poor choice is insulation plus a badly designed snorkel.

[Bimmer Owner]

On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 06:18:22 -0700, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
> Instead of using decent wire suited to the application,
> the Europeans chose to use some green hippie wire,
> that not only costs more, but fails.....

Maybe. But why does it always fail at the same spot.

That can't be due to the poor choice of insulation, can it?

[Arthur]

Nate Nagel wrote on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 06:30:59 -0400:

> As for door wiring, also a common failure on many vehicles... already
> had to repair the speaker wiring where it goes through the door jamb for
> my Jeep Cherokee as has just about every Cherokee owner. So this isn't
> just a BMW problem.

Luckily the door wiring on these E38, E39, and E46 (7, 5, 3 series) bimmers
is just fine. It's just something wrong with the way the trunk wiring
loom is designed that makes it crack in at the same point in all these
vehicles.

Now, don't even get me started on the BMW window regulators (which
constantly break on all these bimmers!).

[jim beam]

On 03/14/2013 07:15 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Arthur <art...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> I could go on (and on); but we can't figure out WHAT the BMW design flaw is.
>> http://bimmerfest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=397245
>>
>> Q: Can you tell from these pictures what the BMW design flaw is?
>
> My guess is that they are using a wire that isn't designed for high
> flexibility, in an application where high flexibility is important.

it's not just that though - their physical routing is at fault too. if
they used a torsion bend as opposed to an elbow bend, the mechanical
strain would be spread out along the whole wire, not concentrated in one
spot.

>
> That looks like typical crappy automotive-grade vinyl and normal
> fairly coarse stranded wire.
>
> It's breaking in the same spot because as the snorkel is moved in and
> out, most of the strees is at that one spot.

right. see above.

>
> Considering that BMW has been famous for electrical problems since the
> Bavaria was new, this should not surprise you.

that's the truth!


--
fact check required

[Scott Dorsey]

Bimmer Owner <donta...@mymail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 06:18:22 -0700, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
>> Instead of using decent wire suited to the application,
>> the Europeans chose to use some green hippie wire,
>> that not only costs more, but fails.....
>
>Maybe. But why does it always fail at the same spot.

Because if you make a loop and you open and close it over and over again,
it will fail in the center of the loop where the angle of the movement is
greatest.

>That can't be due to the poor choice of insulation, can it?

No, as you'll notice the conductors are breaking too, not just the wire.
So it's a poor choice of insulation AND stranding.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <khsoqp$jd6$2...@dont-email.me>, jim beam <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>On 03/14/2013 07:15 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Arthur <art...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I could go on (and on); but we can't figure out WHAT the BMW design flaw is.
>>> http://bimmerfest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=397245
>>>
>>> Q: Can you tell from these pictures what the BMW design flaw is?
>>
>> My guess is that they are using a wire that isn't designed for high
>> flexibility, in an application where high flexibility is important.
>
>it's not just that though - their physical routing is at fault too. if
>they used a torsion bend as opposed to an elbow bend, the mechanical
>strain would be spread out along the whole wire, not concentrated in one
>spot.

That's true, and that might be less expensive than using proper wire. Still,
there's high-flexibility wire designed for the job, that won't break.

[jim beam]

but it's bmw. they won't spend a cent on better engineering that a cent
on advertising can't brainwash.


--
fact check required

[jim beam]

respectfully and completely disagree on that. the stranding is
perfectly fine if the insulation remains intact. once the insulation
cracks, then you have substantial strain concentrated in just one spot.
even fine wire high count stranding will break if subject to such a
failure.

the fix is both better wire insulation that doesn't become brittle, AND
re-routing to avoid the elbow bend. then you can keep using cheap wire
and don't need to spend money on the expensive hi-flex stuff.


--
fact check required

[Mark]

>
> the fix is both better wire insulation that doesn't become brittle, AND
> re-routing to avoid the elbow bend.  then you can keep using cheap wire
> and don't need to spend money on the expensive hi-flex stuff.
>
> --

i had the exact same thing happen in the rear door wiring in a 95
toyota camry.

Mark

[tra...@optonline.net]

On Mar 14, 10:54 am, Bimmer Owner <dontask...@mymail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 06:18:22 -0700, trad...@optonline.net wrote:
> > Instead of using decent wire suited to the application,
> > the Europeans chose to use some green hippie wire,
> > that not only costs more, but fails.....
>
> Maybe. But why does it always fail at the same spot.
>
> That can't be due to the poor choice of insulation, can it?

Of course it can be. If BMW uses some hippie green
insulation that isn't as pliable as other insulation, then
the insulation will crack. We can't do a forensic investigation
from some pics that don't show how it's mounted, how
much it moves, what tensions are on it, etc. But I'd bet
that area has more bending, tension, etc than the rest of
it.

[Adrian Tuddenham]

jim beam <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> On 03/14/2013 07:15 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > Arthur <art...@nowhere.com> wrote: > > I could go on (and on); but we
> >can't figure out WHAT the BMW design flaw is. >
> >http://bimmerfest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=397245 > > Q: Can you tell
> >from these pictures what the BMW design flaw is?
> >
> > My guess is that they are using a wire that isn't designed for high
> > flexibility, in an application where high flexibility is important.
>
> it's not just that though - their physical routing is at fault too. if
> they used a torsion bend as opposed to an elbow bend, the mechanical
> strain would be spread out along the whole wire, not concentrated in one
> spot.

Many years ago the Standard Motor Company of Coventry solved this
problem on the tailgate of their "Vanguard" estate car. They ran the
wires in a piece of hosepipe and included a bicycle spoke which ensured
that the bending was evenly spread.

Mine never gave a problem in the 25 years and 350,000 miles that I owned
it.

--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[John Robertson]

Volvo 240 (1984 and other years) wagons had a similar problem with their
tailgate wiring, where wires would always break in the hinge - the
wiring was not unlike hinge wiring in laptops. It was a very tight
routing which left only a small amount of wire that could flex with the
result that after a few years stuff on the tailgate would stop working...

I solved the problem by moving the wiring outside the hinge and had it
hang in a loop - not as nice looking, but never had any further
problems. I kept that car for 25 years...

John :-#)#

[AMuzi]

Laptops! Oy!
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/HPCSUCKS.JPG

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Nate Nagel]

A cheap shot; perhaps they did have a flaw in the routing/materials of
one wiring harness, but show me a comparable vehicle at the same price
point that handles better. To accuse BMW across the board of poor
engineering is laughable.

[Nate Nagel]

Yes, that much is true. Someone had mentioned that having the wire in
that area flex in torsion would be preferable and I agree with that
statement as well. Would be simple to have accomplished by having the
hole in the body offset by a few inches (actually as far as possible
would be preferable) from the hole in the trunk lid, and using a
correspondingly longer rubber boot. then most of the flexing of the
wire as the trunk lid opens and closes would result in a slight twisting
of the wire rather than a sharp bending.

The same holds true for wiring running from a body pillar into a door
e.g. for power mirrors, windows, speakers, etc.

[jim beam]

handling??? easy. prelude. only cheaper. crx too for that matter.

> To accuse BMW across the board of poor
> engineering is laughable.

then you don't know what you're looking at. i'm a materials guy. bmw
materials are cheap and nasty. not quite as bad as frod or g.m., but
real freakin' close.

and when they do retarded design stuff like fit electronic brake pad
wear monitors, you bmw wash-brains think that's brilliant. except for
the fact that it's on one pad, on one side of the vehicle - that's not
just retarded, it's cheap and retarded both at the same time.


--
fact check required

[Nate Nagel]

Both are front wheel drive cars, by definition you lose.

>
>
>> To accuse BMW across the board of poor
>> engineering is laughable.
>
> then you don't know what you're looking at. i'm a materials guy. bmw
> materials are cheap and nasty. not quite as bad as frod or g.m., but
> real freakin' close.
>
> and when they do retarded design stuff like fit electronic brake pad
> wear monitors, you bmw wash-brains think that's brilliant. except for
> the fact that it's on one pad, on one side of the vehicle - that's not
> just retarded, it's cheap and retarded both at the same time.
>

I'm not saying that BMW is perfect, or any manufacturer for that matter.
However I think that BMW and also Porsche do an excellent job of
producing good value for the money. Probably the best going, if you
value performance and handling (and buy used. Anyone who pays new car
prices for a Bimmer or P-car either has an enviable net wealth or is a
sucker.)

Many will find this surprising but I would consider Hyundai an excellent
value for a non-performance driver. Honda and Toyota actually make,
overall, a good product, but are overpriced in comparison.

[jim beam]

wow, that idiocy is right up there with your trunk organizers.

and i've watched preludes DOMINATE m3's and m5's on the track. you
simply have not the slightest clue what you're talking about.

>
>>
>>
>>> To accuse BMW across the board of poor
>>> engineering is laughable.
>>
>> then you don't know what you're looking at. i'm a materials guy. bmw
>> materials are cheap and nasty. not quite as bad as frod or g.m., but
>> real freakin' close.
>>
>> and when they do retarded design stuff like fit electronic brake pad
>> wear monitors, you bmw wash-brains think that's brilliant. except for
>> the fact that it's on one pad, on one side of the vehicle - that's not
>> just retarded, it's cheap and retarded both at the same time.
>>
>
> I'm not saying that BMW is perfect, or any manufacturer for that matter.
> However I think that BMW and also Porsche do an excellent job of
> producing good value for the money.

no, they do a great job of brainwashing. "only a fool can't see that
the emperor's clothes [your over-priced deutche-crap] isn't fantastic".

> Probably the best going, if you
> value performance and handling (and buy used. Anyone who pays new car
> prices for a Bimmer or P-car either has an enviable net wealth or is a
> sucker.)

no, any one who buys into their hype is a brainwashed sucker.

>
> Many will find this surprising but I would consider Hyundai an excellent
> value for a non-performance driver. Honda and Toyota actually make,
> overall, a good product, but are overpriced in comparison.

they don't make them any more, but the wishbone hondas were awesome.
the crx was incredibly cheap and handled superbly - my old crx could
crush m3's on the twisties with skinny little tires, and i'm not a good
driver. miata's handle well too. hyundai are just wishbone junk wrt
handling.


--
fact check required

[jim beam]

On 03/14/2013 08:47 PM, jim beam wrote:
<snip>

> hyundai are just wishbone junk wrt
> handling.

late night typo - "macpherson junk".


--
fact check required

[Cydrome Leader]

In sci.electronics.repair Arthur <art...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Almost every BMW E39 (5-series) and E38 (7-series) and E46 (3-series)
> has shorts that develop in the trunk wiring loom - all in the same spot!
>
> Here is a picture of the uniformity of the shorts:

> http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=286651&stc=1&d=1311702112

>
> Here is another picture from another vehicle:

> http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=287281&stc=1&d=1312154763
>
> And another:
> http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=261502&d=1294537117
>
> And another:
> http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=295239&stc=1&d=1317334573
>
> And another:
> http://bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=307223&d=1325771723
>
> And another:
> http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=200762&stc=1&d=1252530849

>
> I could go on (and on); but we can't figure out WHAT the BMW design flaw is.
> http://bimmerfest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=397245
>
> Q: Can you tell from these pictures what the BMW design flaw is?

A: german engineering.

the fact is, germans aren't good with automotive wiring. german designed
vehicles have the shittiest electrical systems ever created.

[Stormin Mormon]

Worse, even, than Lucas Electric, the Prince of Darkness?

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Cydrome Leader" <pres...@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in message
news:khvtps$9d8$1...@reader2.panix.com...

[AMuzi]

Having owned, driven, maintained and repaired BMW, MG and
Fiat the differences among them are not all that significant

[amdx]

Ya, how many "door handles" have broke on you?
I'm up to 6 on 4 vehicles, 4 inside and 2 outside.
I haven't rewarded them for their poor build.
I drill and epoxy two steel pins on the inside handles and
put two stainless steel flat head screws in the outside handles.
Haven't had any repairs break. I'd almost recommend my outside door
handle repair as preventative.
Mikek

If you're going to blame me for being rough on door handles, I'll
have to say it must be hereditary and spread by marriage. All 4
in my family has broke one and my son-in-law.

[Mark]

-
>
> > i had the exact same thing happen in the rear door wiring in a 95
> > toyota camry.
>
> > Mark
>
>    Ya, how many "door handles" have broke on you?

snip

my wife broke the inside passenger side..

i've learned to use only two fingers to pull on the handles, don't
grab them.

i agree they are not very rugged...
but it's about the only flaw i've found with that car (knock knock)

besides the rear door wires which i understand like the BMW is a very
common spot for wires to break on this car...

and interestingly the rear door is used maybe 1/100 of the time
compared to the drivers door so you would have to think there is
something "special" about the way those particular wires are designed
and/or built to make them break before the drivers door wires break

Mark

[jim beam]

ouch.


--
fact check required

[Bimmer Owner]

On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 20:14:01 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:

> perhaps they did have a flaw in the routing/materials of
> one wiring harness, but show me a comparable vehicle at the same price
> point that handles better. To accuse BMW across the board of poor
> engineering is laughable.

The bimmer handles well, and the power train is phenomenal.

However, the window regulators break on almost every BMW
older than about 5 years, while the blower motor final stage
resistor (FSR), aka the final stage unit (FSU) will fry itself
more than once on every single bimmer ever built in the late
90's and early 2000's.

The VANOS seals are made of a material that won't last the warranty
period; and the Bosch 5.7 ABS control module was placed far too close
to the engine for cost reasons, which fries almost every single one.

The DISA valve, which appears to be an amazing engineering feat,
is practically designed to loosen the pin, which, if the engine
ingests that steel pin, will wreak havoc on the valves as the
pistons pummel it to pieces (there is nothing between the DISA
valve and the intake manifold!).

The almost criminal design of the DISA is dwarfed by the clearly
deficient design of the cooling system, where almost every bimmer
older than a few years has had a catastrophic failure of, and very
many multiple failures. Thousands of bimmers every year are destroyed
by owners not realizing that a single overheating episode causes
cracks in cylinder 3 (e.g., in the M54 engine) that essentially
turn the otherwise fantastic power plant into so much rubbish.

And, there wasn't an E39 ever built (5-series, 1997 to 2003) which
did NOT have the cluster and MID pixels turn to unreadable junk within
a few years of manufacture (due to the infamous "pink tape").

Likewise, not a single E39 is immune to the horrid choice of PBT
plastic for the headlight adjusters, turning $1000 fiber optic
Halogen H7 and Xenon headlights into veritable candles within a
few years of the heat baking the plastic.

Likely not one E39 hasn't had its power steering hose leak under the
fluid reservoir, and not a single E46, E39, or E38 (3,5,6 series)
bimmer hasn't had the CCV valve fail on them (i.e., a PCV valve
which costs hundreds of dollars to replace, frequently).

For the V8, they all have valley pan gaskets leaking, and all the
bimmers I'm talking about have had their thrust arm bushings tear.

Probably not a single bimmer of the categories above hasn't had the
vapor barrier leaking (due to an extremely poor choice of design
coupled with lousy sealant); and half the bimmers have cables slip
out of the otherwise fancy seat, causing the infamous "seat twist".

I could go on (and on), (e.g., more than half will have the windshield
washer pumps leak, and a huge percentage will lose their jack pads,
while a healthy percentage will melt their center brake lamp housing,
and even the roundels will chip away at the car wash until nothing
but silver is left).

The funny thing is that BMW DOES know how to design a powerplant.

It appears that the Germans in Bavaria simply 'care' about some
things (just count the ashtrays, for example, and then compare
them to the unanimously ridiculous cupholders of the E39 era)
while they don't care about others.

Clearly BMW cares about handling and efficiency of the power train;
yet, just as clearly, overall product quality is NOT even on their
radar screens.

[Bimmer Owner]

On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 05:28:52 +0000, Bimmer Owner wrote:

> Likely not one E39 hasn't had its power steering hose leak under the
> fluid reservoir, and not a single E46, E39, or E38 (3,5,6 series)

Ooops. 3, 5, and 7 series (embarrassing typo!)

[amdx]

On 3/15/2013 5:36 PM, Mark wrote:
> -
>>
>>> i had the exact same thing happen in the rear door wiring in a 95
>>> toyota camry.
>>
>>> Mark
>>
>> Ya, how many "door handles" have broke on you?
>
> snip
>
> my wife broke the inside passenger side..
>
> i've learned to use only two fingers to pull on the handles, don't
> grab them.
>
> i agree they are not very rugged...
> but it's about the only flaw i've found with that car (knock knock)

The inside handles seem to be designed to break at the 8 to 10 year
mark. The have a slot molded in to the highest stress point, I might add
I don't see any reason for it. Other than to help the dealer sell
replacement handles.
Other than the door handles I'm a happy Toyota owner, had a Camry,
have a T-100 still a sharp looking truck, have a Lexus and an Avalon.
My wife is a persistent patient shopper, and will wait until she finds
a great used car at a steal.
Mikek

[jim beam]

On 03/15/2013 10:28 PM, Bimmer Owner wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 20:14:01 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> perhaps they did have a flaw in the routing/materials of
>> one wiring harness, but show me a comparable vehicle at the same price
>> point that handles better. To accuse BMW across the board of poor
>> engineering is laughable.

ok, you're not going to like a lot of what i have to say, so i'm going
to preface this by reminding you that i recognize that you may be
sincere in what you believe - so don't take all this personally.

>
> The bimmer handles well, and the power train is phenomenal.

bmw's power trains are indeed "phenomenal", but for entirely different
reasons than those by which others would measure.

bmw are pioneers in transmission life limitation. gm and frod used to
do this by simply using cheapo clutch packs in their automatics, and
cheapo steel in their sticks so they'd wear out or spall respectively.
bmw didn't like these failure modes, so, not content with "sealed for
life", they decided to design fatigue /into/ their cogs so they'd
fatigue and break. [the beauty of fatigue is that you don't get "whiny
transmission" or slippage symptoms that develop over time - one second
it works, the next, it's a catastrophic failure.] i know this because
one of my old profs was their outside consultant, and it was interesting
to us as students because the metallurgical problem was how to ensure
that individual ratios would fail when each one operates somewhere
within the three [very different mechanism] fatigue "regimes". it's a
"phenomenal" technical achievement and one that bmw paid a lot of money
to solve. all the majors are now reputed to have followed their lead to
some extent. the real kicker is that it costs bmw ~20% more in
materials and q.c. to ensure this life limitation, but the mba's did
their math and it pays because it causes big ticket repairs to vehicles
that are depreciated thus ensuring that the vehicle gets junked.

>
> However, the window regulators break on almost every BMW
> older than about 5 years, while the blower motor final stage
> resistor (FSR), aka the final stage unit (FSU) will fry itself
> more than once on every single bimmer ever built in the late
> 90's and early 2000's.
>
> The VANOS seals are made of a material that won't last the warranty
> period; and the Bosch 5.7 ABS control module was placed far too close
> to the engine for cost reasons, which fries almost every single one.

it's not cost dude. see above.

for a company that spends hundreds of millions each and every year on
research, [although that's substantially less than they spend on
advertising!] do you really think all that is simply oversight?

>
> The funny thing is that BMW DOES know how to design a powerplant.

not from where i sit they don't. single row timing chain, poor
materials, both are manifestation of their overall design philosophy -
they don't sell you a car, they're selling you a period of usage with a
whole bunch of marking brainwash attached.

>
> It appears that the Germans in Bavaria simply 'care' about some
> things (just count the ashtrays, for example, and then compare
> them to the unanimously ridiculous cupholders of the E39 era)
> while they don't care about others.
>
> Clearly BMW cares about handling

no they don't - they use macpherson strut. if they were serious, they'd
use wishbone.

now, bmw are at least smart enough to have realized before most others,
porsche included, that rear suspension is crucial to making a cheaply
made car handle better, so they do at least concede to a little extra
expenditure on that, but by definition, any front suspension that offers
no camber control is just cheap junk.

> and efficiency of the power train;
> yet, just as clearly, overall product quality is NOT even on their
> radar screens.

it most definitely is. bmw are the pioneers of modern life limitation
control. nobody has spent more on ensuring that whatever they use works
for a closely defined period, and not a moment longer. as said before,
it costs more to do this, but it pays. customers buying new are snowed
into believing this "ultimate driving machine" advertising [the ultimate
meaningless tagline!] so they don't care. and second [or later] owners
have no recourse. it gets older bmw's [and their parts] off the road,
and keeps sales up.


--
fact check required

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <ki27tj$pde$1...@dont-email.me>, jim beam <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>bmw are pioneers in transmission life limitation. gm and frod used to
>do this by simply using cheapo clutch packs in their automatics, and
>cheapo steel in their sticks so they'd wear out or spall respectively.
>bmw didn't like these failure modes, so, not content with "sealed for
>life", they decided to design fatigue /into/ their cogs so they'd
>fatigue and break. [the beauty of fatigue is that you don't get "whiny
>transmission" or slippage symptoms that develop over time - one second
>it works, the next, it's a catastrophic failure.] i know this because
>one of my old profs was their outside consultant, and it was interesting
>to us as students because the metallurgical problem was how to ensure
>that individual ratios would fail when each one operates somewhere
>within the three [very different mechanism] fatigue "regimes". it's a
>"phenomenal" technical achievement and one that bmw paid a lot of money
>to solve. all the majors are now reputed to have followed their lead to
>some extent. the real kicker is that it costs bmw ~20% more in
>materials and q.c. to ensure this life limitation, but the mba's did
>their math and it pays because it causes big ticket repairs to vehicles
>that are depreciated thus ensuring that the vehicle gets junked.

Everybody does this, though. This is how cars are designed. I believe
that GM was the original innovator of the concept, at least according to
my old statics professor who had been a GM engineer in the fifties. He
was very enthusiastic about the whole concept of designing for specific
failures.

That said, I have 480,000 miles on the transmission in my old 2002, and
I had a Chrysler Laser that went through five transmissions before I gave
up on the thing.

>for a company that spends hundreds of millions each and every year on
>research, [although that's substantially less than they spend on
>advertising!] do you really think all that is simply oversight?

I think some of the failures, like VANOS seals and the DISA failures, are
the result of trying to push the technology too hard too fast.

And some of them, like the perpetually underdesigned cooling systems,
are the result of German engineers not understanding that the weather
around the world is not the same as it is in Bavaria.

But some of them are the result of typical German Engineering Disease,
where engineers will never use one part to do a job when they can use
five.

Still, when I drive the 2002, it makes me smile. I'm willing to put up
with a remarkable amount of crap for that. Not everyone is, but that's
why they make so many different kinds of cars.

>not from where i sit they don't. single row timing chain, poor
>materials, both are manifestation of their overall design philosophy -
>they don't sell you a car, they're selling you a period of usage with a
>whole bunch of marking brainwash attached.

That is the philosophy of the entire auto industry and singling out one
manufacturer for it is disingenuous.

[jim beam]

correct. i'm referring to the technique which bmw use - as i said, the
"traditional" approach was having stuff wear out, which customers hate.
sudden failure is the way to keep them all hooked, and particularly
with bmw, "you must be a hard driver - it's the price you pay for
driving a 'sports' car" excuses that go with it.

>
> That said, I have 480,000 miles on the transmission in my old 2002,

also correct - they tried to get into this stuff in the late 70's,
didn't get very far, and didn't get it figured out [with outside help]
until the early 80's. there are plenty of old bmw's on the road, but
there's a honking great gap between them and anything older than ~10.

> and
> I had a Chrysler Laser that went through five transmissions before I gave
> up on the thing.

'nuff said!

>
>> for a company that spends hundreds of millions each and every year on
>> research, [although that's substantially less than they spend on
>> advertising!] do you really think all that is simply oversight?
>
> I think some of the failures, like VANOS seals and the DISA failures, are
> the result of trying to push the technology too hard too fast.

it could just be incompetence, but seals are well known, the materials
are well known, so there's no real reason for it to be oversight.
especially if you read some of the german technical literature - they
have multiple phd's crawling over every slightest detail.

>
> And some of them, like the perpetually underdesigned cooling systems,
> are the result of German engineers not understanding that the weather
> around the world is not the same as it is in Bavaria.

germans travel the globe dude. they know /exactly/ what they're doing.
and no cooling system fails on their target market owner - the one who
wants a new "ultimate driving machine" every three years.

>
> But some of them are the result of typical German Engineering Disease,
> where engineers will never use one part to do a job when they can use
> five.

part of that is keeping it complicated thus helping to ensure that only
/their/ shops work on their vehicles. why else would you have a 7mm
allen socket on a brake caliper pin when 6 or 8mm would do and is widely
available??? and bmw pioneered the "check engine light" concept and
tried to lock it down so that only /their/ dealers could service their
cars. fortunately, independent repair shops lobbied and congress
stepped in on that one. [initially at least. we now have all the
proprietary "tier two" codes which can be locked, but that's a war of
who lobbies the most.]

the other part is that their design teams tend to work in isolation.
each single component can be well designed, but having them all work
together wasn't part of the original spec.

>
> Still, when I drive the 2002, it makes me smile. I'm willing to put up
> with a remarkable amount of crap for that. Not everyone is, but that's
> why they make so many different kinds of cars.

sure - it's the last of the era where they had the "good" part of the
engineering figured out, and before the mba's took over.

>
>> not from where i sit they don't. single row timing chain, poor
>> materials, both are manifestation of their overall design philosophy -
>> they don't sell you a car, they're selling you a period of usage with a
>> whole bunch of marking brainwash attached.
>
> That is the philosophy of the entire auto industry and singling out one
> manufacturer for it is disingenuous.
> --scott
>

i'm singling them out because their efforts at life limitation and
lock-out are well over and above that of any other. "sealed for life"
transmissions? ygbsm.


--
fact check required

[Daniel Prince]

Nate Nagel <njn...@roosters.net> wrote:

> an easy fix is if/when something like that
>fails, to splice in some fine-strand wire which will likely outlive the
>car. A good source for a DIYer is old Fluke leads; don't throw them out
>if you bend a probe!

I would like to acquire some fine-strand wire but I do not have any
old Fluke leads. Do you know where I can buy some? Thank you in
advance for any help.
--
When a cat sits in a human's lap both the human and the cat are usually
happy. The human is happy because he thinks the cat is sitting on him/her
because it loves her/him. The cat is happy because it thinks that by sitting
on the human it is dominant over the human.

[jim beam]

On 03/16/2013 07:43 PM, Daniel Prince wrote:
> Nate Nagel <njn...@roosters.net> wrote:
>
>> an easy fix is if/when something like that
>> fails, to splice in some fine-strand wire which will likely outlive the
>> car. A good source for a DIYer is old Fluke leads; don't throw them out
>> if you bend a probe!
>
> I would like to acquire some fine-strand wire but I do not have any
> old Fluke leads. Do you know where I can buy some? Thank you in
> advance for any help.
>

he can only afford to destroy old fluke leads because he didn't buy
them, his employer did. normal mortals buy high-flex silicone wire from
electronics stores or online. plenty of people sell short lengths on ebay.


--
fact check required

[stra...@yahoo.com]

On Mar 14, 6:18 am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>
wrote:
> On Mar 13, 10:26 pm, Paul Drahn <pdr...@webformixair.com> wrote:
>
> And maybe you've found the root cause of the problem.

> Instead of using decent wire suited to the application,
> the Europeans chose to use some green hippie wire,
> that not only costs more, but fails.....

As long as it doesn't fail during the warranty period they don't care.

Is this poor grade wire mandated by regulations?

G²

[Nate Nagel]

You've never had an old British car, have you?

[Nate Nagel]

You're probably expecting me to argue with you, but I'm not going to. I
admit to being one of those people to whom the three most important
things about a car are power, handling, and braking - so I like BMWs.
(although the stock brake pads suck unless you like refinishing your
wheels every couple years.) Other people don't care quite so much and
consider "adequate" handling to be acceptable; for them, a BMW is just
too much of a PITA to run so they buy something else. (although current
ride hasn't cost me anything but maintenance and an oil filter housing
gasket - knock on wood.)

And if you want to talk about shite window regulators - I actually had
an A4 chassis GTI for a while. Yes, the one with the plastic doodad
that was guaranteed to break. I was understanding when I read that
their supplier had deviated from the spec, but was angry when the
dealership said that VWoA wouldn't let them fix both windows when I
brought it in for the first one... bastards... but I digress...

[Nate Nagel]

On 03/16/2013 12:52 PM, jim beam wrote:
> On 03/15/2013 10:28 PM, Bimmer Owner wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 20:14:01 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>> perhaps they did have a flaw in the routing/materials of
>>> one wiring harness, but show me a comparable vehicle at the same price
>>> point that handles better. To accuse BMW across the board of poor
>>> engineering is laughable.
>
>
> ok, you're not going to like a lot of what i have to say, so i'm going
> to preface this by reminding you that i recognize that you may be
> sincere in what you believe - so don't take all this personally.
>
>
>>
>> The bimmer handles well, and the power train is phenomenal.
>
> bmw's power trains are indeed "phenomenal", but for entirely different
> reasons than those by which others would measure.

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.

>
> bmw are pioneers in transmission life limitation. gm and frod used to
> do this by simply using cheapo clutch packs in their automatics, and
> cheapo steel in their sticks so they'd wear out or spall respectively.
> bmw didn't like these failure modes, so, not content with "sealed for
> life", they decided to design fatigue /into/ their cogs so they'd
> fatigue and break. [the beauty of fatigue is that you don't get "whiny
> transmission" or slippage symptoms that develop over time - one second
> it works, the next, it's a catastrophic failure.] i know this because
> one of my old profs was their outside consultant, and it was interesting
> to us as students because the metallurgical problem was how to ensure
> that individual ratios would fail when each one operates somewhere
> within the three [very different mechanism] fatigue "regimes". it's a
> "phenomenal" technical achievement and one that bmw paid a lot of money
> to solve. all the majors are now reputed to have followed their lead to
> some extent. the real kicker is that it costs bmw ~20% more in
> materials and q.c. to ensure this life limitation, but the mba's did
> their math and it pays because it causes big ticket repairs to vehicles
> that are depreciated thus ensuring that the vehicle gets junked.

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
>
> no they don't - they use macpherson strut. if they were serious, they'd
> use wishbone.

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.)

> now, bmw are at least smart enough to have realized before most others,
> porsche included, that rear suspension is crucial to making a cheaply
> made car handle better, so they do at least concede to a little extra
> expenditure on that, but by definition, any front suspension that offers
> no camber control is just cheap junk.

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.

>
>> and efficiency of the power train;
>> yet, just as clearly, overall product quality is NOT even on their
>> radar screens.
>
> it most definitely is. bmw are the pioneers of modern life limitation
> control. nobody has spent more on ensuring that whatever they use works
> for a closely defined period, and not a moment longer. as said before,
> it costs more to do this, but it pays. customers buying new are snowed
> into believing this "ultimate driving machine" advertising [the ultimate
> meaningless tagline!] so they don't care. and second [or later] owners
> have no recourse. it gets older bmw's [and their parts] off the road,
> and keeps sales up.

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 Nagel]

On 03/16/2013 01:03 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Still, when I drive the 2002, it makes me smile. I'm willing to put up
> with a remarkable amount of crap for that. Not everyone is, but that's
> why they make so many different kinds of cars.

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

>> not from where i sit they don't. single row timing chain, poor
>> materials, both are manifestation of their overall design philosophy -
>> they don't sell you a car, they're selling you a period of usage with a
>> whole bunch of marking brainwash attached.
>
> That is the philosophy of the entire auto industry and singling out one
> manufacturer for it is disingenuous.

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.

[jim beam]

On 03/17/2013 05:05 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
> On 03/16/2013 01:03 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> Still, when I drive the 2002, it makes me smile. I'm willing to put up
>> with a remarkable amount of crap for that. Not everyone is, but that's
>> why they make so many different kinds of cars.
>
> Yes. This is the point that JB doesn't seem to get, nor does he seem
> capable of understanding *why* it makes you smile.
>
>>> not from where i sit they don't. single row timing chain, poor
>>> materials, both are manifestation of their overall design philosophy -
>>> they don't sell you a car, they're selling you a period of usage with a
>>> whole bunch of marking brainwash attached.
>>
>> That is the philosophy of the entire auto industry and singling out one
>> manufacturer for it is disingenuous.
>
> 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.

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
> ones being currently made, but it certainly was 20 years ago.

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

[jim beam]

On 03/17/2013 02:45 AM, Charlie+ wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 09:52:43 -0700, jim beam <m...@privacy.net> wrote as
> underneath my scribble :

please don't top post, just snip.


>
> Interesting post Jim - do you have any approx. info on milage brackets
> on failures for transmission and other major cost BMW components? C+

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

[jim beam]

On 03/17/2013 05:03 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
> On 03/16/2013 12:52 PM, jim beam wrote:
>> On 03/15/2013 10:28 PM, Bimmer Owner wrote:
>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 20:14:01 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>
>>>> perhaps they did have a flaw in the routing/materials of
>>>> one wiring harness, but show me a comparable vehicle at the same price
>>>> point that handles better. To accuse BMW across the board of poor
>>>> engineering is laughable.
>>
>>
>> ok, you're not going to like a lot of what i have to say, so i'm going
>> to preface this by reminding you that i recognize that you may be
>> sincere in what you believe - so don't take all this personally.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The bimmer handles well, and the power train is phenomenal.
>>
>> bmw's power trains are indeed "phenomenal", but for entirely different
>> reasons than those by which others would measure.
>
> 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.

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

>
>>
>> bmw are pioneers in transmission life limitation. gm and frod used to
>> do this by simply using cheapo clutch packs in their automatics, and
>> cheapo steel in their sticks so they'd wear out or spall respectively.
>> bmw didn't like these failure modes, so, not content with "sealed for
>> life", they decided to design fatigue /into/ their cogs so they'd
>> fatigue and break. [the beauty of fatigue is that you don't get "whiny
>> transmission" or slippage symptoms that develop over time - one second
>> it works, the next, it's a catastrophic failure.] i know this because
>> one of my old profs was their outside consultant, and it was interesting
>> to us as students because the metallurgical problem was how to ensure
>> that individual ratios would fail when each one operates somewhere
>> within the three [very different mechanism] fatigue "regimes". it's a
>> "phenomenal" technical achievement and one that bmw paid a lot of money
>> to solve. all the majors are now reputed to have followed their lead to
>> some extent. the real kicker is that it costs bmw ~20% more in
>> materials and q.c. to ensure this life limitation, but the mba's did
>> their math and it pays because it causes big ticket repairs to vehicles
>> that are depreciated thus ensuring that the vehicle gets junked.
>
> 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?

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

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.

>
> <snippo>
>
>>> Clearly BMW cares about handling
>>
>> no they don't - they use macpherson strut. if they were serious, they'd
>> use wishbone.
>
> 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.)

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

>
>> now, bmw are at least smart enough to have realized before most others,
>> porsche included, that rear suspension is crucial to making a cheaply
>> made car handle better, so they do at least concede to a little extra
>> expenditure on that, but by definition, any front suspension that offers
>> no camber control is just cheap junk.
>
> Again, it may be cheap, but it works.

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.

>
> 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.

driveling excuses.

>
>>
>>> and efficiency of the power train;
>>> yet, just as clearly, overall product quality is NOT even on their
>>> radar screens.
>>
>> it most definitely is. bmw are the pioneers of modern life limitation
>> control. nobody has spent more on ensuring that whatever they use works
>> for a closely defined period, and not a moment longer. as said before,
>> it costs more to do this, but it pays. customers buying new are snowed
>> into believing this "ultimate driving machine" advertising [the ultimate
>> meaningless tagline!] so they don't care. and second [or later] owners
>> have no recourse. it gets older bmw's [and their parts] off the road,
>> and keeps sales up.
>
> 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.

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

[Nate Nagel]

On 03/17/2013 11:25 AM, jim beam wrote:
> On 03/17/2013 05:03 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
>> On 03/16/2013 12:52 PM, jim beam wrote:
>>> On 03/15/2013 10:28 PM, Bimmer Owner wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 20:14:01 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> perhaps they did have a flaw in the routing/materials of
>>>>> one wiring harness, but show me a comparable vehicle at the same price
>>>>> point that handles better. To accuse BMW across the board of poor
>>>>> engineering is laughable.
>>>
>>>
>>> ok, you're not going to like a lot of what i have to say, so i'm going
>>> to preface this by reminding you that i recognize that you may be
>>> sincere in what you believe - so don't take all this personally.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The bimmer handles well, and the power train is phenomenal.
>>>
>>> bmw's power trains are indeed "phenomenal", but for entirely different
>>> reasons than those by which others would measure.
>>
>> 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.
>
> that's only 100hp/liter. honda routinely had production vehicles at
> 120. non-turbo.

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.)

>>
>>>
>>> bmw are pioneers in transmission life limitation. gm and frod used to
>>> do this by simply using cheapo clutch packs in their automatics, and
>>> cheapo steel in their sticks so they'd wear out or spall respectively.
>>> bmw didn't like these failure modes, so, not content with "sealed for
>>> life", they decided to design fatigue /into/ their cogs so they'd
>>> fatigue and break. [the beauty of fatigue is that you don't get "whiny
>>> transmission" or slippage symptoms that develop over time - one second
>>> it works, the next, it's a catastrophic failure.] i know this because
>>> one of my old profs was their outside consultant, and it was interesting
>>> to us as students because the metallurgical problem was how to ensure
>>> that individual ratios would fail when each one operates somewhere
>>> within the three [very different mechanism] fatigue "regimes". it's a
>>> "phenomenal" technical achievement and one that bmw paid a lot of money
>>> to solve. all the majors are now reputed to have followed their lead to
>>> some extent. the real kicker is that it costs bmw ~20% more in
>>> materials and q.c. to ensure this life limitation, but the mba's did
>>> their math and it pays because it causes big ticket repairs to vehicles
>>> that are depreciated thus ensuring that the vehicle gets junked.
>>
>> 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?
>
> uh, you know that bmw /spec/ their transmission to their contractor,
> correct???
>

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.

>
>> 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?
>
> 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.
>

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

>>
>> <snippo>
>>
>>>> Clearly BMW cares about handling
>>>
>>> no they don't - they use macpherson strut. if they were serious, they'd
>>> use wishbone.
>>
>> 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.)
>
> we'll come to fronts in a moment, but did you not read what i said about
> rears??? [rhetorical]
>
>
>>
>>> now, bmw are at least smart enough to have realized before most others,
>>> porsche included, that rear suspension is crucial to making a cheaply
>>> made car handle better, so they do at least concede to a little extra
>>> expenditure on that, but by definition, any front suspension that offers
>>> no camber control is just cheap junk.
>>
>> Again, it may be cheap, but it works.
>
> yeah, a wheel barrow works. particularly when you have tires 30% wider
> than a comparable vehicle that has camber control.

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.)

>
> 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.

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!

>>
>> 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.
>
> driveling excuses.

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?

>>
>>>
>>>> and efficiency of the power train;
>>>> yet, just as clearly, overall product quality is NOT even on their
>>>> radar screens.
>>>
>>> it most definitely is. bmw are the pioneers of modern life limitation
>>> control. nobody has spent more on ensuring that whatever they use works
>>> for a closely defined period, and not a moment longer. as said before,
>>> it costs more to do this, but it pays. customers buying new are snowed
>>> into believing this "ultimate driving machine" advertising [the ultimate
>>> meaningless tagline!] so they don't care. and second [or later] owners
>>> have no recourse. it gets older bmw's [and their parts] off the road,
>>> and keeps sales up.
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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.

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.

[jim beam]

On 03/17/2013 09:00 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
> On 03/17/2013 11:25 AM, jim beam wrote:
>> On 03/17/2013 05:03 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>> On 03/16/2013 12:52 PM, jim beam wrote:
>>>> On 03/15/2013 10:28 PM, Bimmer Owner wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 20:14:01 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> perhaps they did have a flaw in the routing/materials of
>>>>>> one wiring harness, but show me a comparable vehicle at the same
>>>>>> price
>>>>>> point that handles better. To accuse BMW across the board of poor
>>>>>> engineering is laughable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ok, you're not going to like a lot of what i have to say, so i'm going
>>>> to preface this by reminding you that i recognize that you may be
>>>> sincere in what you believe - so don't take all this personally.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The bimmer handles well, and the power train is phenomenal.
>>>>
>>>> bmw's power trains are indeed "phenomenal", but for entirely different
>>>> reasons than those by which others would measure.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> that's only 100hp/liter. honda routinely had production vehicles at
>> 120. non-turbo.
>
> That's also stock.

dude, the 120 is stock. your 100 is stock. last i checked, 120 > 100.
your math may be different, but that's not my problem.

> A simple flash tune (e.g. Cobb) or piggyback (BMS
> JuiceBox) can get you to 350-375 easily;

that's still only 125.

> more with a larger intercooler

intercooler means turbo. if you're only getting 125 turbo, you're not
very good at tuning a vehicle.

> 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.

so freakin' what? there are turbo integras with more output than that.
and that's only a 1.8l 4-banger.

> 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.)

you're clearly in self-justification mode and incapable of receiving any
incoming information.

>
> 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.)

??? why don't /you/ get one? you bought a bmw because you want a
"powerful" car, right?

that wasn't your point before.

> Stick with stickshift or DSG and you'll be fine.

um, actually, dsg has been highly problematic. and modern bmw sticks
aren't exactly champion either.

> I'm in no way excusing
> the German slushboxes, but their shittiness has not been a secret for
> the last 30+ years.

it's not a "slushbox", it's an "automatic transmission".

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

because you like cars where you're obligated to take big ticket
expenditure up the ass??? wow, you're even more retardeder than i thought.

>
>>>
>>> <snippo>
>>>
>>>>> Clearly BMW cares about handling
>>>>
>>>> no they don't - they use macpherson strut. if they were serious,
>>>> they'd
>>>> use wishbone.
>>>
>>> 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.)
>>
>> we'll come to fronts in a moment, but did you not read what i said about
>> rears??? [rhetorical]
>>
> >
>>>
>>>> now, bmw are at least smart enough to have realized before most others,
>>>> porsche included, that rear suspension is crucial to making a cheaply
>>>> made car handle better, so they do at least concede to a little extra
>>>> expenditure on that, but by definition, any front suspension that
>>>> offers
>>>> no camber control is just cheap junk.
>>>
>>> Again, it may be cheap, but it works.
>>
>> yeah, a wheel barrow works. particularly when you have tires 30% wider
>> than a comparable vehicle that has camber control.
>
> Actually BMW tire sizes are pretty narrow comparatively, 225s on the
> front of a vehicle that curbs around 3400?

weight is not a factor in tire size. bmw use big tires because it's the
cheap way to compensate for otherwise having less rubber on the road
with cheapo macpherson strut.

> 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.

wow, two red herrings in one paragraph - you surpass your usual standards!

>
> 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.

i'm sorry, didn't the original pony cars have have v8's and wishbones?
doesn't the corvette have a v8 and wishbones? oh, wait, you were
talking out of your ass - no problem.

>
> 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.)

all you're saying is that you'll wriggle and squirm for any excuse to
justify you poor choice.

>
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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.

you're simply incapable of paying any attention. i don't know how many
times i've said it before, but apparently i need to say it again - rear
suspension is important because it's subject to higher lateral force
given the shorter radius for the same angular velocity as the front.
/that/ is why rears wear. oh, and they're driving wheels of course -
can't forget that!

>
> 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,

then you've never driven a nice car if that's your pinnacle!

> 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!

you're putting false words in my mouth, then bullshitting about what
i've never said. that's retarded.

>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> driveling excuses.
>
> It's not an excuse, customers don't care about such things generally.

generally??? could you be any more worthlessly vague??? rolled in with
your driveling excuses of course...

> What they do care about is handling and ride.

no they don't or they'd all be driving miatas, old civics, wishbone
audi's, etc.

> 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.

"works well"??? if i'm used to driving a leaf-sprung solid axle truck,
am i qualified to say that a bmw drives well? how about if i drive an
elise?

>
> 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?

am i not a driver? what matters to me, and all the other touring car
class champs that drive these civic's, crx's and miata's for that
matter, is that the freakin' thing works better than the macpherson
garbage out there.

>
> Did you miss the bit where the BMW 3-series has made C&D's 10 best list
> for over 20 consecutive years now?

car and driver???? ygtbfsm.

> And also the bit where the new
> Accord made this year's list as well, *despite* having the struts that
> you hate so much?

qed!!!

are you for real? did you not read what i said? or do you simply not
understand it? [rhetorical] you're a total waste of electrons.


--
fact check required

[Bimmer Owner]

On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 07:49:51 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:

> You're probably expecting me to argue with you, but I'm not

This isn't an 'argument'; it's merely a discussion.
Everything you said and everything I said was true.

> three most important things ... are power, handling, and braking

The E39 that I own handles those three with aplomb!

> (although the stock brake pads suck unless you like refinishing
> your wheels every couple years.)

The stock front pads are Jurid, with the rears being Textar,
both with an FF friction & fade coefficient. They work well
enough, although Akebono GG friction ratings are often used
as replacement.

I use the Axxis/PBR FF pads, which dust the same color as the
wheels, so you don't see the unsightly darker-colored dust
of the stock Jurid pads.

> current ride hasn't cost me anything but maintenance and an
> oil filter housing gasket

The OFH often leaks on the BMW M54 engine; but luckily it's an
inexpensive part, albeit a bit of a pain to DIY.

Overall, I think we're in agreement, so there's really no need
for any argument. One thing about bimmer owners, they KNOW their
cars!

[Scott Dorsey]

<stra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Mar 14, 6:18=A0am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>
>wrote:

>> On Mar 13, 10:26=A0pm, Paul Drahn <pdr...@webformixair.com> wrote:
>>
>> And maybe you've found the root cause of the problem.
>> Instead of using decent wire suited to the application,
>> the Europeans chose to use some green hippie wire,
>> that not only costs more, but fails.....
>
>As long as it doesn't fail during the warranty period they don't care.
>
>Is this poor grade wire mandated by regulations?

I have seen a lot of cars over the years, and I have never, ever seen one
that used anything approaching quality wire.

And that begins with the '72 Datsun I had, where all of the insulation turned
to goo and every foot of wire in the body had to be pulled out and replaced.

Just take a look at what goes into airplanes vs. what goes into cars and
you'll be staggered.

[Ralph Mowery]

"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ki78te$bnr$1...@panix2.panix.com...

> Just take a look at what goes into airplanes vs. what goes into cars and
> you'll be staggered.

The price per foot will probalby do the same.

[jim beam]

On 03/18/2013 07:38 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> <stra...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 14, 6:18=A0am, "trad...@optonline.net" <trad...@optonline.net>
>> wrote:
>>> On Mar 13, 10:26=A0pm, Paul Drahn <pdr...@webformixair.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> And maybe you've found the root cause of the problem.
>>> Instead of using decent wire suited to the application,
>>> the Europeans chose to use some green hippie wire,
>>> that not only costs more, but fails.....
>>
>> As long as it doesn't fail during the warranty period they don't care.
>>
>> Is this poor grade wire mandated by regulations?
>
> I have seen a lot of cars over the years, and I have never, ever seen one
> that used anything approaching quality wire.

you're spoiled if you work on aero-spec stuff.

car quality goes in cycles - for some manufacturers anyway. in the late
80's, hondas used a higher grade under the hood - fine wire high count
high temp high flex [though not silicone], and it's remarkably reliable.
in the mid 90's they changed to lower flex, smaller cross-section,
lower count, much more akin to the wire used in the rest of the vehicle
- it still just about hangs in there, though i doubt it's million mile
material. i'm pretty sure copper prices had a big influence on this.

>
> And that begins with the '72 Datsun I had, where all of the insulation turned
> to goo and every foot of wire in the body had to be pulled out and replaced.
>
> Just take a look at what goes into airplanes vs. what goes into cars and
> you'll be staggered.
> --scott
>

planes cost a /lot/ more!


--
fact check required

[jim beam]

On 03/17/2013 11:05 PM, Bimmer Owner wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Mar 2013 07:49:51 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> You're probably expecting me to argue with you, but I'm not
>
> This isn't an 'argument'; it's merely a discussion.
> Everything you said and everything I said was true.
>
>> three most important things ... are power, handling, and braking
>
> The E39 that I own handles those three with aplomb!
>
>> (although the stock brake pads suck unless you like refinishing
>> your wheels every couple years.)
>
> The stock front pads are Jurid, with the rears being Textar,
> both with an FF friction & fade coefficient. They work well
> enough, although Akebono GG friction ratings are often used
> as replacement.
>
> I use the Axxis/PBR FF pads, which dust the same color as the
> wheels,

??? dude, brake dust is /two/ components:

1. pad.
2. disk.

if your wheels aren't being stained, it's because #2 is not present, or
at least, not to the extent that "bmw spec" [high silica] pads have.

> so you don't see the unsightly darker-colored dust
> of the stock Jurid pads.
>
>> current ride hasn't cost me anything but maintenance and an
>> oil filter housing gasket
>
> The OFH often leaks on the BMW M54 engine; but luckily it's an
> inexpensive part, albeit a bit of a pain to DIY.
>
> Overall, I think we're in agreement, so there's really no need
> for any argument. One thing about bimmer owners, they KNOW their
> cars!

i don't understand this equation - y'all are starry eyed about something
that is completely unreliable /and/ expensive to maintain. sure, it's
better than a buick, but really?

if you like fixing stuff and are serious about rwd's with handling,
race-prep a miata. if you want something that handles from new, buy an
elise.

don't pay bmw's "advertising beats engineering" tax.


--
fact check required

[Scott Dorsey]

In article <ki7bnb$b8g$1...@dont-email.me>, jim beam <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>car quality goes in cycles - for some manufacturers anyway. in the late
>80's, hondas used a higher grade under the hood - fine wire high count
>high temp high flex [though not silicone], and it's remarkably reliable.

Did they tin it? The lack of tinning is one of the things that annoys me
about many of the cars of that era.

Silicone is actually a problem for cars because if you nick the insulation
the cut will propagate until it becomes a break.

> in the mid 90's they changed to lower flex, smaller cross-section,
>lower count, much more akin to the wire used in the rest of the vehicle
>- it still just about hangs in there, though i doubt it's million mile
>material. i'm pretty sure copper prices had a big influence on this.

It wasn't failing enough, so they had to downgrade it.

[jim beam]

On 03/18/2013 10:38 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> In article <ki7bnb$b8g$1...@dont-email.me>, jim beam <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>> car quality goes in cycles - for some manufacturers anyway. in the late
>> 80's, hondas used a higher grade under the hood - fine wire high count
>> high temp high flex [though not silicone], and it's remarkably reliable.
>
> Did they tin it? The lack of tinning is one of the things that annoys me
> about many of the cars of that era.

no, it's not tinned.

there are two schools of thought on that. on the one hand, surface
oxidation resistance is a good thing. on the other, there may be a
problem with tin in fatigue environments. i don't know this for sure,
so if you know someone at work who does, it would be good to check - but
tin has a weird deformation mechanism called "twinning" which changes
the surface of the metal where it's occurred. given that almost all
fatigue initiates at a surface, that /might/ be a fatigue initiator.
how much it might be worse than oxidation, i can't say, but i know a lot
of mil spec wire is silver plated, not tin, so i think it might not be
simple cheapness preventing its use.

>
> Silicone is actually a problem for cars because if you nick the insulation
> the cut will propagate until it becomes a break.

indeed, but that's not unique to silicone - many elastomers have the
same problem.

>
>> in the mid 90's they changed to lower flex, smaller cross-section,
>> lower count, much more akin to the wire used in the rest of the vehicle
>> - it still just about hangs in there, though i doubt it's million mile
>> material. i'm pretty sure copper prices had a big influence on this.
>
> It wasn't failing enough, so they had to downgrade it.

maybe. it was was bullet proof - never failed unless abused.


--
fact check required

[Nate Nagel]

Streetable and civilized? Stock bottom end? I doubt it.

>
>
>> 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.)
>
> you're clearly in self-justification mode and incapable of receiving any
> incoming information.

You're missing the point. There are a few engines that the basic block
and heads can support massive HP/tuning. The N54 is one of them. So is
the old Supra engine. That is a Good Thing, if you're a car guy.

>>
>> 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.)
>
> ??? why don't /you/ get one? you bought a bmw because you want a
> "powerful" car, right?

Um, I did! Couldn't be happier with it, either.

The current 6-speed is a little notchy when cold, but it's also rated
for quite a bit more torque than your Honda boxes. Certainly not
anything horribly objectionable.

>> I'm in no way excusing
>> the German slushboxes, but their shittiness has not been a secret for
>> the last 30+ years.
>
> it's not a "slushbox", it's an "automatic transmission".

potato, potato.

>>
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> You just perfectly described why I drive German cars and *not* Hondas.
>
> because you like cars where you're obligated to take big ticket
> expenditure up the ass??? wow, you're even more retardeder than i thought.

You do realize that you don't have to buy new, right?

I paid less for my current ride than my friend did for his similarly
equipped but FWD and automatic Camry. Make depreciation work for you.

Clearly you didn't read what I wrote.

Or are you going to argue that 225's are "big tires"?

>> 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.
>
> wow, two red herrings in one paragraph - you surpass your usual standards!
>
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> i'm sorry, didn't the original pony cars have have v8's and wishbones?
> doesn't the corvette have a v8 and wishbones? oh, wait, you were
> talking out of your ass - no problem.

They're also nowhere near as tightly packaged as a 3-series. But like I
said, there are definitely advantages to a SLA suspension and I'm not
going to argue that with you. I'm just saying that when you're dealing
with high spring rates and low travel that struts are not the
unmitigated evil that you make them out to be.

>
>>
>> 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.)
>
> all you're saying is that you'll wriggle and squirm for any excuse to
> justify you poor choice.

I don't need to justify my choices, I'm not the one going on the forums
slagging well-known manufacturers of performance cars to make myself
feel better about driving an old Honda.

>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
> you're simply incapable of paying any attention. i don't know how many
> times i've said it before, but apparently i need to say it again - rear
> suspension is important because it's subject to higher lateral force
> given the shorter radius for the same angular velocity as the front.
> /that/ is why rears wear. oh, and they're driving wheels of course -
> can't forget that!

Wait, what?

>>
>> 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,
>
> then you've never driven a nice car if that's your pinnacle!

You've clearly never driven an E28 then.

>
>> 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!
>
> you're putting false words in my mouth, then bullshitting about what
> i've never said. that's retarded.

I'm just saying, you seem to have a habit of latching on to engineering
principles and badmouthing designs that you see to be "incorrect"
without any actual real world experience with them. As evidenced by
your comments about the E28 above.

>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> driveling excuses.
>>
>> It's not an excuse, customers don't care about such things generally.
>
> generally??? could you be any more worthlessly vague??? rolled in with
> your driveling excuses of course...
>
>
>> What they do care about is handling and ride.
>
> no they don't or they'd all be driving miatas, old civics, wishbone
> audi's, etc.

Miatas are great! I'd pass on the Civic because FWD and Audi because of
the maintenance/repair nightmares. (and Audi weight distribution is a
little questionable as well - why hang the engine so far out in front of
the front axle?)

>
>> 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.
>
> "works well"??? if i'm used to driving a leaf-sprung solid axle truck,
> am i qualified to say that a bmw drives well? how about if i drive an
> elise?

"works well" = achieves its design objectives.

If you recall, the original Corvette was supposed to be an American
alternative to the small European sports cars that were beginning to be
popular in the US. Given that it sold reasonably well, and was also
competitive in sports car racing (at least 57-on) I would say that it
met those objectives.

>>
>> 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?
>
> am i not a driver? what matters to me, and all the other touring car
> class champs that drive these civic's, crx's and miata's for that
> matter, is that the freakin' thing works better than the macpherson
> garbage out there.

But clearly that's not an open and shut case, otherwise a CRX would beat
an M3 in a race every time which obviously doesn't happen.

>>
>> Did you miss the bit where the BMW 3-series has made C&D's 10 best list
>> for over 20 consecutive years now?
>
> car and driver???? ygtbfsm.

Well show me one authority other than yourself that says that BMW
doesn't make good handling cars.

>
>> And also the bit where the new
>> Accord made this year's list as well, *despite* having the struts that
>> you hate so much?
>
> qed!!!

Yes, apparently struts, while technically not as elegant, can be made to
work well. Glad you finally are starting to realize that!

I read what you wrote, but it didn't make sense, because you're delusional.

The E46 and E36 fall into the year ranges that you claim are garbage and
you "see nothing." I see them driving around, presumably driven by
happy owners, every day. They haven't disappeared in any sense of the word.

[Nate Nagel]

On 03/18/2013 10:38 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Surprisingly, I apparently got one of the first '55 Studebakers that
used the plastic-insulated wire rather than the cloth-covered wire that
was used previously. It was still intact and flexible when I pulled the
harness for repairs 5-6 years ago which made me happy as I was not
looking forward to laying out for a new one.

[Nate Nagel]

N54, but same principle.

>>
>> Overall, I think we're in agreement, so there's really no need
>> for any argument. One thing about bimmer owners, they KNOW their
>> cars!
>
> i don't understand this equation - y'all are starry eyed about something
> that is completely unreliable /and/ expensive to maintain. sure, it's
> better than a buick, but really?

I've not found it to be that unreliable (touch wood.) There *are* a lot
of electronics to fail, and that scares me a little, but that's true of
every modern car with a few notable exceptions worth having and none of
mine have failed yet (good lord I hope I don't regret posting that.) So
far I've paid for fluid changes, aforementioned OFH gasket, and a bunch
of random upgrades (euro light switch, spare tire kit, winter wheels and
tires, alarm, sat tuner, etc.) Despite the reputation for being hard to
work on I was able to install the alarm and sat tuner in an afternoon in
the driveway following excellent directions easily available online, and
without any unusual tools that a moderately DIY-oriented enthusiast is
unlikely to have. Really, no harder than changing a car stereo in any
garden-variety car. The biggest challenge to DIY work is actually
lifting the car to get underneath due to the very limited ground
clearance, but that goes with the territory of pretty much any decent
handling car, and if it doesn't, an enthusiast is likely to change that :)

>
> if you like fixing stuff and are serious about rwd's with handling,
> race-prep a miata. if you want something that handles from new, buy an
> elise.
>
> don't pay bmw's "advertising beats engineering" tax.

Neither the Miata nor the Elise has a back seat or a usable trunk.

I think having a 3er for a daily and a Miata or Elise for weekend fun
would be a great combination. My mom actually has a Miata for a "fun
car" and loves it (as do I) but I don't have the space/funds to justify
another vehicle purchase.

And where is all this BMW advertising? I must not pay attention to the
same media that you do, BMW seems to really not advertise at all
compared to other manufactureres; people buy them because of
reputation/previous experience/glowing reviews in magazines and on
enthusiast-oriented TV programming.

[jim beam]

what cognative dissonance trip are you on this morning? you catalog a
bunch of completely unacceptable failures one day, then here you are the
next saying it's not unreliable! are you not taking your meds?

> There *are* a lot
> of electronics to fail, and that scares me a little, but that's true of
> every modern car with a few notable exceptions

dude, what is wrong with you this morning????

> worth having and none of
> mine have failed yet (good lord I hope I don't regret posting that.) So
> far I've paid for fluid changes, aforementioned OFH gasket, and a bunch
> of random upgrades (euro light switch, spare tire kit, winter wheels and
> tires, alarm, sat tuner, etc.) Despite the reputation for being hard to
> work on I was able to install the alarm and sat tuner in an afternoon in
> the driveway following excellent directions easily available online, and
> without any unusual tools that a moderately DIY-oriented enthusiast is
> unlikely to have. Really, no harder than changing a car stereo in any
> garden-variety car. The biggest challenge to DIY work is actually
> lifting the car to get underneath due to the very limited ground
> clearance, but that goes with the territory of pretty much any decent
> handling car, and if it doesn't, an enthusiast is likely to change that :)

can we change who shows up with meaningless drivel on r.a.t?

>
>>
>> if you like fixing stuff and are serious about rwd's with handling,
>> race-prep a miata. if you want something that handles from new, buy an
>> elise.
>>
>> don't pay bmw's "advertising beats engineering" tax.
>
> Neither the Miata nor the Elise has a back seat or a usable trunk.

ah, got it - you idea of a car that "handles" is an extended cab pickup.
got it.

>
> I think having a 3er for a daily and a Miata or Elise for weekend fun
> would be a great combination. My mom actually has a Miata for a "fun
> car" and loves it (as do I) but I don't have the space/funds to justify
> another vehicle purchase.

you sure won't have funds if you're driving a bmw.

>
> And where is all this BMW advertising? I must not pay attention to the
> same media that you do, BMW seems to really not advertise at all
> compared to other manufactureres; people buy them because of
> reputation/previous experience/glowing reviews in magazines and on
> enthusiast-oriented TV programming.

nate, i'm sure that if you're nice to your mom, she'll let you out of
the basement occasionally. you can have the tv on while she hoses you
down and changes your depends.


--
fact check required

[Nate Nagel]

What failures have I catalogued? I had a leaking oil filter housing
gasket at the time the car was purchased, which was repaired and the car
has been trouble free since. That is the ONLY issue that I've had in
this car in about 6K miles/several months since purchase (car has 77K
give or take.) There have been NO other repairs to this car under my care!

<rest snipped because clearly there's reading comprehension issues here.>

[Brian Downing]

jim beam <m...@privacy.net> writes:

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

> fact check required

No shit!

The BMW E46 M3 was the first normally aspirated production vehicle to
make 100HP/Liter. PERIOD.

--
b...@panix.com

[Nate Nagel]

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...

[jim beam]

the e46 was released in 2000 wasn't it? the honda prelude SiR had
100hp/l in 1996 if i understand the dates correctly. the s2000 was
released in 2000 [though its tokyo motor show debut was in 1995].


--
fact check required

[jim beam]

On 03/20/2013 06:04 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
> On 03/20/2013 08:25 AM, Brian Downing wrote:
>> jim beam <m...@privacy.net> writes:
>>
>>> that's only 100hp/liter. honda routinely had production vehicles at
>>> 120. non-turbo.
>>
>>> fact check required
>>
>> No shit!
>>
>> The BMW E46 M3 was the first normally aspirated production vehicle to
>> make 100HP/Liter. PERIOD.
>>
>
> 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.

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

>
> 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.

prelude.

> 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.

irrelevant drivel.

>
> At the end of the day, though, hp/l is not really what matters - it's
> hp/weight,

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

> and also BSFC if you are racing in a series with limitations
> on fuel use...

irrelevant drivel.


--
fact check required

[Nate Nagel]

On 03/20/2013 11:08 AM, jim beam wrote:
> On 03/20/2013 06:04 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
>> On 03/20/2013 08:25 AM, Brian Downing wrote:
>>> jim beam <m...@privacy.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> that's only 100hp/liter. honda routinely had production vehicles at
>>>> 120. non-turbo.
>>>
>>>> fact check required
>>>
>>> No shit!
>>>
>>> The BMW E46 M3 was the first normally aspirated production vehicle to
>>> make 100HP/Liter. PERIOD.
>>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> you forgot to add the important qualifier - "in comparison with a buick".

I didn't forget anything.

>
>>
>> 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.
>
> prelude.

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.

>
>
>> 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.
>
> irrelevant drivel.

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.

>>
>> At the end of the day, though, hp/l is not really what matters - it's
>> hp/weight,
>
> true enough. how's that 3200 lb behemoth working out for you?

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.

>> and also BSFC if you are racing in a series with limitations
>> on fuel use...
>
> irrelevant drivel.

Really? So if you have a limited amount of fuel, BSFC is not important
at all? Fascinating.

[jim beam]

On 03/20/2013 11:18 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
> On 03/20/2013 11:08 AM, jim beam wrote:
>> On 03/20/2013 06:04 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>> On 03/20/2013 08:25 AM, Brian Downing wrote:
>>>> jim beam <m...@privacy.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> that's only 100hp/liter. honda routinely had production vehicles at
>>>>> 120. non-turbo.
>>>>
>>>>> fact check required
>>>>
>>>> No shit!
>>>>
>>>> The BMW E46 M3 was the first normally aspirated production vehicle to
>>>> make 100HP/Liter. PERIOD.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> you forgot to add the important qualifier - "in comparison with a buick".
>
> I didn't forget anything.

oh, but you did!

>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> prelude.
>
> 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.

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]

>
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> irrelevant drivel.
>
> 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 a red herring and therefore irrelevant.

>
>>>
>>> At the end of the day, though, hp/l is not really what matters - it's
>>> hp/weight,
>>
>> true enough. how's that 3200 lb behemoth working out for you?
>
> It's great. It rides and handles acceptably well, and unlike a CRX,
> Lotus, or Miata,

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

> I can actually carry three passengers and some luggage
> in comfort, which is important if you have friends.

how old are you nate?

>
>>> and also BSFC if you are racing in a series with limitations
>>> on fuel use...
>>
>> irrelevant drivel.
>
> Really? So if you have a limited amount of fuel, BSFC is not important
> at all? Fascinating.

red herring irrelevant drivel. see above.


--
fact check required

[Nate Nagel]

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.

>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> irrelevant drivel.
>>
>> 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 a red herring and therefore irrelevant.

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."

>>
>>>>
>>>> At the end of the day, though, hp/l is not really what matters - it's
>>>> hp/weight,
>>>
>>> true enough. how's that 3200 lb behemoth working out for you?
>>
>> It's great. It rides and handles acceptably well, and unlike a CRX,
>> Lotus, or Miata,
>
> wow, not only do you answer rhetorical questions [sic], you do so by way
> of suppositional nonsense!

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?

>> I can actually carry three passengers and some luggage
>> in comfort, which is important if you have friends.
>
> how old are you nate?
>
>
>>
>>>> and also BSFC if you are racing in a series with limitations
>>>> on fuel use...
>>>
>>> irrelevant drivel.
>>
>> Really? So if you have a limited amount of fuel, BSFC is not important
>> at all? Fascinating.
>
> red herring irrelevant drivel. see above.

The fact that you consider it irrelevant is telling. Results matter.
How you get there is less important.

[Nate Nagel]

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...

[jim beam]

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

>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> irrelevant drivel.
>>>
>>> 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 a red herring and therefore irrelevant.
>
> 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."

you're just grasping at truly pathetic straws.

>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> At the end of the day, though, hp/l is not really what matters - it's
>>>>> hp/weight,
>>>>
>>>> true enough. how's that 3200 lb behemoth working out for you?
>>>
>>> It's great. It rides and handles acceptably well, and unlike a CRX,
>>> Lotus, or Miata,
>>
>> wow, not only do you answer rhetorical questions [sic], you do so by way
>> of suppositional nonsense!
>
> 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?

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

>
>
>>> I can actually carry three passengers and some luggage
>>> in comfort, which is important if you have friends.
>>
>> how old are you nate?
>>
> >
>>>
>>>>> and also BSFC if you are racing in a series with limitations
>>>>> on fuel use...
>>>>
>>>> irrelevant drivel.
>>>
>>> Really? So if you have a limited amount of fuel, BSFC is not important
>>> at all? Fascinating.
>>
>> red herring irrelevant drivel. see above.
>
> The fact that you consider it irrelevant is telling. Results matter.
> How you get there is less important.

you really are brain damaged. anosognosic.


--
fact check required

[jim beam]

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


--
fact check required

[Nate Nagel]

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.

>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> irrelevant drivel.
>>>>
>>>> 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 a red herring and therefore irrelevant.
>>
>> 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."
>
> you're just grasping at truly pathetic straws.

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.

[jim beam]

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

> If you have cites to the contrary,
> I'm willing to be corrected,

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

> 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. and i'm not wiping your ass for you either. retard.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> irrelevant drivel.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 a red herring and therefore irrelevant.
>>>
>>> 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."
>>
>> you're just grasping at truly pathetic straws.
>
> No, if you consider power strokes per rev irrelevant, then the Wankel
> wins, hands down.

he said, grasping at pathetic irrelevant straws.

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


--
fact check required

[Nate Nagel]

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.

>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> irrelevant drivel.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 a red herring and therefore irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>> 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."
>>>
>>> you're just grasping at truly pathetic straws.
>>
>> No, if you consider power strokes per rev irrelevant, then the Wankel
>> wins, hands down.
>
> he said, grasping at pathetic irrelevant straws.

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.

[Cydrome Leader]

In sci.electronics.repair Stormin Mormon <cayoung61***scam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Worse, even, than Lucas Electric, the Prince of Darkness?

probably, although I've never seen anything from lucas here.


>
> Christopher A. Young
> Learn more about Jesus
> www.lds.org
> .
>
> "Cydrome Leader" <pres...@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote in message
> news:khvtps$9d8$1...@reader2.panix.com...
>>
>> Q: Can you tell from these pictures what the BMW design flaw is?
>
> A: german engineering.
>
> the fact is, germans aren't good with automotive wiring. german designed
> vehicles have the shittiest electrical systems ever created.
>
>
>
>

[Cydrome Leader]

In sci.electronics.repair Nate Nagel <njn...@roosters.net> wrote:
> On 03/15/2013 03:46 PM, Cydrome Leader wrote:
>> In sci.electronics.repair Arthur <art...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> Almost every BMW E39 (5-series) and E38 (7-series) and E46 (3-series)
>>> has shorts that develop in the trunk wiring loom - all in the same spot!
>>>
>>> Here is a picture of the uniformity of the shorts:
>>> http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=286651&stc=1&d=1311702112
>>>
>>> Here is another picture from another vehicle:
>>> http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=287281&stc=1&d=1312154763
>>>
>>> And another:
>>> http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=261502&d=1294537117
>>>
>>> And another:
>>> http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=295239&stc=1&d=1317334573
>>>
>>> And another:
>>> http://bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=307223&d=1325771723
>>>
>>> And another:
>>> http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=200762&stc=1&d=1252530849
>>>
>>> I could go on (and on); but we can't figure out WHAT the BMW design flaw is.
>>> http://bimmerfest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=397245

>>>
>>> Q: Can you tell from these pictures what the BMW design flaw is?
>>
>> A: german engineering.
>>
>> the fact is, germans aren't good with automotive wiring. german designed
>> vehicles have the shittiest electrical systems ever created.
>>
>>
>

> You've never had an old British car, have you?

nope.

But I have had to do parking lot wiring repairs of modern german cards.

[AMuzi]

Fair enough, but not only German.

Here's my employee's Ford which self immolated while taking
the child to school one day:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/fordfire.jpg

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Scott Dorsey]

Cydrome Leader <pres...@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:
>In sci.electronics.repair Stormin Mormon <cayoung61***scam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Worse, even, than Lucas Electric, the Prince of Darkness?
>
>probably, although I've never seen anything from lucas here.

Don't blame Lucas so much, because Lucas did make some decent systems for
some British cars. Blame Triumph and MG who wanted the cheapest possible
electrics from Lucas.

Although whoever decided it would be a good idea just to dispense with the
headlight relay and use a 30A switch on the dashboard probably has a special
corner of hell reserved for them. And don't get me started on the ignition
coil designs...

[k...@attt.bizz]

On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 18:17:25 +0000 (UTC), Cydrome Leader
<pres...@MUNGEpanix.com> wrote:

>In sci.electronics.repair Stormin Mormon <cayoung61***scam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Worse, even, than Lucas Electric, the Prince of Darkness?
>
>probably, although I've never seen anything from lucas here.

harry.

[jim beam]

On 03/21/2013 08:07 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
> On 03/21/2013 10:45 AM, jim beam wrote:

<snip crap>

>> so why do you keep coming back? [rhetorical] you are truly brain
>> damaged.
>>
>
> Boredom? the need to feel better about myself? Who knows.

being confronted with your own pathetic failings makes you feel better
about yourself? you really are fucking brain damaged.

>
> 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.

you never contributed to an intelligent discussion in your life. and
certainly not with crap about trunk organization or how to wash shit of
a window.

> 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.

i don't give a fuck what you believe. all i care about is that you
constantly pollute the net with your unspeakable stupidity and inability
to learn a single damned thing. just fuck off and stay fucked off.


--
fact check required

[Nate Nagel]

On 03/21/2013 10:21 PM, jim beam wrote:
all i care about is that you
> constantly pollute the net with your unspeakable stupidity and inability
> to learn a single damned thing. just fuck off and stay fucked off.
>

Odd, that's exactly how the rest of us feel about you.

[jim beam]

On 03/21/2013 07:26 PM, Nate Nagel wrote:
> On 03/21/2013 10:21 PM, jim beam wrote:
> all i care about is that you
>> constantly pollute the net with your unspeakable stupidity and inability
>> to learn a single damned thing. just fuck off and stay fucked off.
>>
>
> Odd, that's exactly how the rest of us feel about you.

"us"??? so you're not just anosognosic, you're schizo too!

brain damaged retard.


--
fact check required

[Kevin Bottorff]

jim beam <m...@privacy.net> wrote in news:kigfod$q81$2...@dont-email.me:

yea your the only brilliant child here Jimmy boy, all alone in the
darkness!!!!!! KB

[Clive]

In message <kif44...@news3.newsguy.com>, Nate Nagel
<njn...@roosters.net> writes

>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.

Stolen from "Monty Python".
--
Clive

[Michael A. Terrell]

Cydrome Leader wrote:
>
> But I have had to do parking lot wiring repairs of modern german cards.

A bunch of 'Jokers', no doubt. ;-)

--

Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

Sometimes Friday is just the fifth Monday of the week. :(

[dizzy]

jim beam <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

>> A cheap shot; perhaps they did have a flaw in the routing/materials of
>> one wiring harness, but show me a comparable vehicle at the same price
>> point that handles better.
>
>handling??? easy. prelude. only cheaper. crx too for that matter.

You're a lying idiot. And this is from someone who has owned both a
Prelude Sia and CRX Si.

[dizzy]

jim beam <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

>>>> A cheap shot; perhaps they did have a flaw in the routing/materials of
>>>> one wiring harness, but show me a comparable vehicle at the same price
>>>> point that handles better.
>>>
>>> handling??? easy. prelude. only cheaper. crx too for that matter.
>>

>> Both are front wheel drive cars, by definition you lose.
>
>wow, that idiocy is right up there with your trunk organizers.

Nope. He's right.

>and i've watched preludes DOMINATE m3's and m5's on the track.

If true, there was "handicapping" going-on to "level the field".

There's not a purpose-built race car on the planet that is FWD. There
are reasons for that.

[dizzy]

Nate Nagel <njn...@roosters.net> wrote:

>On 03/19/2013 10:17 AM, jim beam wrote:
>>
>> what cognative dissonance trip are you on this morning? you catalog a
>> bunch of completely unacceptable failures one day, then here you are the
>> next saying it's not unreliable! are you not taking your meds?
>
>What failures have I catalogued? I had a leaking oil filter housing
>gasket at the time the car was purchased, which was repaired and the car
>has been trouble free since. That is the ONLY issue that I've had in
>this car in about 6K miles/several months since purchase (car has 77K
>give or take.) There have been NO other repairs to this car under my care!

This "Jim Beam" is a real stupid troll.

[R. Mark Clayton]

"dizzy" <di...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uln1l8tmkdijqi6kv...@4ax.com...

Well it is nearly fifty years, but IIRC Mini's won the Monte Carlo Rally
many times (and would have come 1, 2, 3 in 1966 if they hadn't fudged the
rules to disqualify the Brits and let a French car win...)

[jim beam]

people that talk smack about fwd vehicles don't know how to drive them.

regardez:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJlqqvVj-jA>

and from 1991 onwards:
<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Ragnotti#Palmar.C3.A8s>


--
fact check required

[dizzy]

Stupid.