You've not actually made the silencer any more free flowing than in OEM state. You've cut into the outlet pipes at the wrong end.
Deano1712 wrote:
big cheesy wrote:'I nearly cacked my trolleys till I quickly tuned in'. Yorkshire Cruise 2008.
Remind me - how does one spell 'dunce'?shantybeater wrote:Oh yeah, wheres that dunse smilie!
Remind me - how does one spell 'dunce'?shantybeater wrote:Oh yeah, wheres that dunse smilie!
Dont know yet. It may make it understeer but I can always adjust the setup now the KWV3's are fitted. At the moment its a scary ride. The new rears are spinning really easily hence not driven it fast. It feels more powerful than it did, and I expect the tyres need a few miles putting on them before they grip.markrnorton wrote:Looks like you could do some road rolling with those beasty tyres ! flatten that tarmac
How does it affect handling ?
At first glance I thought you had 4 tyres stacked up there Mark - just realised it's only 2Deano1712 wrote:
Yes agreed. I can fit 245 up front I think so will probably go with that. Will be better than what I have. I'm looking out for a cheap pair of PS2's.c_w wrote:Looks ace! 235 / 315 is a bit of a massive differential though, you can go wider at the front too but 8J rim isn't all that wide compared to the rear.
Good question!offyourmarks wrote:As there is more than enough torque to light the rears, by increasing the contact patch with the wider tyres you are obviously going to increase the torque reaction from the half shafts - do you envisage any chassis structural problems due to the increased loading?
Ahh yes, i remember that thread a while back.Deano1712 wrote:Good question!offyourmarks wrote:As there is more than enough torque to light the rears, by increasing the contact patch with the wider tyres you are obviously going to increase the torque reaction from the half shafts - do you envisage any chassis structural problems due to the increased loading?
You may remember that I had problems with my boot floor a few years ago and did a strengthening job on it. When I did that I made sure the fix was at least twice as strong as standard. This is the weak point and I'm confident I wont have any more problems there even with the increased torque its now likely to see.
http://www.zroadster.net/forum/viewtopi ... inter+jobs
Slow reply but the loads are soley generated by the torque through the driveshafts to the wheels. I assumed no losses at all in the calculations to get worst case. There is much discussion about what what fails first. Mostly its the spots welds but Randy Forbes has the most knowledge on this and he thinks either can fail first - I had a recent exchange with him on that very topic on bimmerforums. I have recently come to the realisation that there is a strong link between the failings of the boot floor and occurrances of driveshaft problems. I see an increasing number of posts with older high mileage cars suffering problems with the driveshaft intermediate bearing. Some have fixed this to find it fails soon after. On my car I found the boot floor had been pulled down about 5mm in the centre. Most cars will have some deformation in this area even if the welds are ok. You can easily check for this by putting a straight edge along the boot floor. When there is some permanent deformation it causes the rear of the differential to sit lower and the alignment of the differential to the engine centreline is lost. This will manifest as extra forces and/or vibration in the driveshaft and potential intermediate bearing or yoke failures. When repairing damage to the boot floor it is important the alignment is considered otherwise a 'fix' may leave a lurking problem in there with misalignment built into the rear diff mounting. An early post in this thread showed me fitting an offset bush in the rear diff mount in my car. I'm now thinking this was necessary to correct the movement in the boot floor, to get the diff and engine centreline inline. This always troubled me slightly since the S50 and LS3 were, on paper, sitting in similar positions.offyourmarks wrote:Ahh yes, i remember that thread a while back.
Interesting read Dean - when doing the numbers did you calculate the loads from the half shaft and the propellor shaft?
When calculating max torque in first, what % efficiency did you estimate when incorporating the final drive and first gear ratios? 85%?
Looking at the geometry of the rear I'd guess that the summed force isnt applied through a single component either onto the ear and beam. Would I be right in thinking the diff ear tears or do the spots pop. Or both?
big cheesy wrote:'I nearly cacked my trolleys till I quickly tuned in'. Yorkshire Cruise 2008.
It was good to meet you too. Your car looks great btw.shantybeater wrote:What offset/width changes are you making to the fronts? Will be very interested to hear what you think of the z3 rack, its been on my list for a while now...
Nice to meet you at silverstone by the way car looked great and made some lovely noises in front of me on the parade lap!
and for the weight balances? more or less weight can be a "surplus", but in the general car setup? M5 e39 and M3 E9x are obviosly differently balanced, due to different shape, measures and so on.c_w wrote:V8s are used in the E39 M5 and now E90 M3 so it's not unknown for use in an M car. The V8 engine is slightly lighter I think, and 2 cylinders shorter so it sits relatively further back so handling in theory should be better than the straight 6 3.2 engine.
obviously, is the primary premiseDeano1712 wrote: Clearly the intention with the conversion wasnt to keep it standard /M!
Were on earth have you got the idea that a stock Z3 handles well fromresunoiz wrote:and for the weight balances? more or less weight can be a "surplus", but in the general car setup? M5 e39 and M3 E9x are obviosly differently balanced, due to different shape, measures and so on.c_w wrote:V8s are used in the E39 M5 and now E90 M3 so it's not unknown for use in an M car. The V8 engine is slightly lighter I think, and 2 cylinders shorter so it sits relatively further back so handling in theory should be better than the straight 6 3.2 engine.
It's only a doubt, I have to point on, and NOT a critic. I always figured out that a car is not only maximum speed and acceleration, but handling too. Is not a risk to compromise this (for me) crucial parameter altering wheights? Obviously, if in addiction to motor swap there aren't other tuning works
If the engine it a touch lighter (or even the same weight) it will be better if it's sat further back in the engine bay. Subjectively speaking the non-Ms feel nimbler because all the other 6cyl engine are alloy so significantly lighter.resunoiz wrote:and for the weight balances? more or less weight can be a "surplus", but in the general car setup? M5 e39 and M3 E9x are obviosly differently balanced, due to different shape, measures and so on.c_w wrote:V8s are used in the E39 M5 and now E90 M3 so it's not unknown for use in an M car. The V8 engine is slightly lighter I think, and 2 cylinders shorter so it sits relatively further back so handling in theory should be better than the straight 6 3.2 engine.
It's only a doubt, I have to point on, and NOT a critic. I always figured out that a car is not only maximum speed and acceleration, but handling too. Is not a risk to compromise this (for me) crucial parameter altering wheights? Obviously, if in addiction to motor swap there aren't other tuning works
know stock suspension sucksluckycolourblue wrote:
Were on earth have you got the idea that a stock Z3 handles well from
Weight distribution with a well fitted LS* is near 50/50 in an M Coupe, so theory would suggest better handling.....I have yet to be 100% happy with mine but that's down to being lazy with set up of KW's etc.resunoiz wrote:know stock suspension sucksluckycolourblue wrote:
Were on earth have you got the idea that a stock Z3 handles well from
BUT I'm wondering (is a curiosity, as said) if different whieights can afflict handling
I've seen is not the only conversion here, but I wonder it was amde a lot of times. And that doubt has always remained "unsolved"