page M4

4/4/2006 10:48:05 AM

Quote :

"it should cost 10 grand, because you are not buying a turbo upgrade for a fucking legacy GT. you are paying premium for brand which carries heritage in racing, engineering, automotive excellence in just about every aspect. some people dont give a shit about it, some do...."

hahah... then ford and chevy would be there too cause they have some pretty impressive racing history and this isn't even counting nascar. (cause i honestly don't think nascar counts in prestige points)

Quote :

"Well, so part of it is that there are less BMW turbo kits that get purchased than there are Mustang kits, so there's economies of scale at play. But there are also other factors, forexample someone may need a higher level of craftsmanship, better response/drivability, durability and longetivity, in short, quality from an accessory for a BMW to be satisfied than the average Ford owner... Kind of like what they wanted from the car to begin with eh? Ahmet"

this on the other hand is a much better estimate and a very good point.

[Edited on April 4, 2006 at 2:30 PM. Reason : .]

4/4/2006 2:29:31 PM

if they price em at $30k and people buy em, the price is right.

4/4/2006 3:33:55 PM

Quote :

"then ford and chevy would be there too cause they have some pretty impressive racing history and this isn't even counting nascar. (cause i honestly don't think nascar counts in prestige points)"

wait, did you just compare BMW racing heritage to chevy/ford's? nascar im not going to even comment. winning 3 le mans races 40 years ago is beyond living on old fame.

4/4/2006 5:25:05 PM

Quote :

"it should cost 10 grand, because you are not buying a turbo upgrade for a fucking legacy GT. you are paying premium for brand which carries heritage in racing, engineering, automotive excellence in just about every aspect. some people dont give a shit about it, some do...."

why did you even bring up a legacy GT? never heard of the wrc? and seriously, did you actually read that shit? the turbo kit should cost more because of bmw heritage? get a fucking clue dude.

4/4/2006 5:36:12 PM

Honestly I think it's more expensive because they figure people who own BMWs are able to spend more money.

4/4/2006 5:39:49 PM

^without a doubt, that's the nature of branding

4/4/2006 7:12:52 PM

hahah yeah cause they dropped 15k on a used e36 they should be able to drop 10k more + short block mods to toss a turbo on it.


btw check out grandam cup racing.
http://www.fordracingparts.com/announcements/news14.asp

Quote :

"The car is awesome," said Tom Nastasi, owner of the #5 Ford Racing FR500C run by Blackforest Motorsports. "It was delivered to me on Wednesday, and the race was Friday. I was only able to put practice laps on the car, and didn't make any changes. It was that good right out-of-the box."

[Edited on April 4, 2006 at 7:29 PM. Reason : .]

4/4/2006 7:19:02 PM

supply, demand and r & d niggers.

4/4/2006 8:20:06 PM

Quote :

"why did you even bring up a legacy GT? never heard of the wrc? and seriously, did you actually read that shit? the turbo kit should cost more because of bmw heritage? get a fucking clue dude."

go and read my post again, which CLEARLY states you are paying for a BRAND among other things.

since you are such a fucking imbecile to even remotely comprehend elementary school conversation i will paste it for you, so you are able to see once again what i wrote. here it is:

Quote :

"you are paying premium for brand which carries heritage in racing, engineering, automotive excellence in just about every aspect"

now, stop wasting my fucking time or you use PM if you are so interested in discussing this or anything else. i will gladly meet you for a beer where you can tell me EVERYTHING in the face. deal?

[Edited on April 4, 2006 at 8:23 PM. Reason : ASD]

4/4/2006 8:21:43 PM

Quote :

"wait, did you just compare BMW racing heritage to chevy/ford's? nascar im not going to even comment. winning 3 le mans races 40 years ago is beyond living on old fame. "

le mans is the only thing that counts as heritage? news to me

4/4/2006 8:30:55 PM

strawman argument. read the entire fucking post and then comment.

4/4/2006 8:32:56 PM

i did read it, im not counting nascar either

4/4/2006 8:36:37 PM

if you did read it why did you single out le mans, while ignoring the rest of the sentence where i said it has been 40 years since ford won le mans. (66-69 i believe it was).

in most technical automotive sport - F1 they were almost non-existent and never triumphant.

4/4/2006 9:30:59 PM

lookup what heritage means

4/4/2006 9:51:21 PM

saturn has heritage too

look up strawman

4/4/2006 9:55:54 PM

i guess trans-am was nothing because it wasnt in europe

4/4/2006 10:25:57 PM

this one time i passed next to a house full of red roses

4/4/2006 10:38:36 PM

This shit is looking like a soapbox thread.

4/4/2006 11:38:17 PM

alright one in a billion, i'm calling your ass out. you couldn't even screw in a roof mount antenna on your mkIV gti. its fucking threaded, all you have to do is twist you moron. i'm ready break a bottle over your dumbass head. still want to get that beer, YOU FUCKING CAVEMAN?

4/5/2006 12:49:55 AM

yeah.. it is

but anyway.. 1 in 4, i don't remember bmw ever being kick ass in f1 either.
ford and cosworth were partners for a long time.

Quote :

"supply, demand and r & d niggers."

supply & demand....

R&D is negligible unless they design the turbos too.

4/5/2006 12:53:31 AM

Quote :

"R&D is negligible unless they design the turbos too."

that's definitely not true, a car manufacturer's budget report will say otherwise.

4/5/2006 2:13:35 AM

yea. "paying for a brand" Then theoretically if I pay 10k for a turbo on a BMW, it better be a BMW brand turbo, not a simple Garrett tubro with some piping made for a BMW. There better be a big ass BMW logo like all on the piping, and the turbo itself. even then its not worth paying the extra money "for a brand"

4/5/2006 2:32:49 AM

that's why i want to build my own turbo package.......but this is WAY down the line

4/5/2006 9:09:57 AM

Quote :

" that's definitely not true, a car manufacturer's budget report will say otherwise."

since we're not talking about a manufacturer but an after market shop like perrin etc.
who just routes pipes wherever they can and tries to keep the turbo away from anything temperature sensitive, R&D is still pretty much negligible.

unless you have a massive budget to pay someone to compare compressor maps.


btw... rofl @ drunken slut's post.

[Edited on April 5, 2006 at 9:35 AM. Reason : maybe we should get back on topic..]

4/5/2006 9:28:51 AM

The days of 10k turbo kits are over guys. You can get a great kit for 6500.

4/5/2006 11:08:24 AM

where?

4/6/2006 1:42:05 AM

Chris is right; check out BFC in the FI section and GP section. They're starting cheaper kits ...

Mike

4/6/2006 8:05:54 AM

.....someone buy my car, on that note. 18,250

Mike

4/6/2006 11:52:59 AM

Quote :

"alright one in a billion, i'm calling your ass out. you couldn't even screw in a roof mount antenna on your mkIV gti. its fucking threaded, all you have to do is twist you moron. i'm ready break a bottle over your dumbass head. still want to get that beer, YOU FUCKING CAVEMAN?"

joe gave the wrong antenna you fucking idiot. go ask him again. i guess you had to do some research before you felt secure. what time you want to meet?

4/6/2006 1:02:40 PM

oh shit

4/6/2006 1:04:19 PM

drunk slut = funny slut

4/6/2006 3:41:56 PM

Quote :

" .....someone buy my car, on that note. 18,250 "

if its that viper in your pic gallery, then consider it sold!

[Edited on April 6, 2006 at 6:14 PM. Reason : .]

4/6/2006 6:14:21 PM

you wouldn't be interested in his car.

4/6/2006 9:11:06 PM

HHahaha, no, def. not.

4/6/2006 9:22:22 PM

Quote :

"R&D is negligible unless they design the turbos too. "

You must not know how hard it is to tune these cars, and finding something to tune these cars with is even harder. Unless you are willing to fork over the clams for standalone. I dont think r and d is a big part of it but it does make up some of the price. If you have ever put a turbo kit on a car you know it takes a little time to work out the kinks. Now imagine building one from scratch and not having a manifold to use. Once you have a manifold it is not tough, you just need some time.

[Edited on April 7, 2006 at 12:14 PM. Reason : ]

4/7/2006 12:14:16 PM

http://racemarque.com/shop/asp/product.asp?recorprod=1&product=4&cat=10&ph=&keywords=&recor=&SearchFor=&PT_ID=

RMS Aplication Technology Vortech v2sq blower, superquite gears. Cast Aluminum Discharge Tube Hi-Flow Thermoplastics Air Intake 32lb Hi-Flow Fuel Injectors (@3.5 bar) RMS ESP Software Billet Drive Pulleys


8.5 PSI @ 7000 RPMs
357 hp @ 6800 RPMs

Not bad for a 5.5 grand kit.

[Edited on April 14, 2006 at 3:53 AM. Reason : .]

4/14/2006 3:53:08 AM

anyone seen that new hybrid

bitch gets like 94 mpg

4/14/2006 4:50:10 AM

leave no thread behind

6/12/2006 7:14:03 PM

Quote :

"Who's got an M3 on TWW."

Ahmet sure as fuck doesn't.

6/12/2006 9:18:03 PM

he is hating that too

6/12/2006 9:33:29 PM

got a new intake boot. it was completely cracked. $28 for a piece of rubber

6/12/2006 9:37:20 PM

Does it drive any better?

PS: Ahmet may own another M3 yet.
Ahmet

6/12/2006 11:23:52 PM

Yeah power is up or where it should be, since it is not sucking hot air directly into the throttle body.

just get mine, you'll have fun. besides, '95s M50 engine has a bigger intake manifold than 96+, which is why it doesnt lose breath past 5k

just do it

money no object this is hot as hell:

http://www.bmwnut.com/

[Edited on June 12, 2006 at 11:37 PM. Reason : adsf]

6/12/2006 11:29:17 PM

95 engines also make quite a bit less torque stock...

I would consider buying your car if it were ~$1500 cheaper. If you just have to get rid of it, you'll know where to turn, but otherwise I just bought a pathfinder, and I guess I'm OK missing a few races till I find another car that strikes my fancy.
Ahmet

6/13/2006 12:00:37 AM

96+ is a much better engine. I have seen many problems with the 3.0 i have never seen with the 3.2. That being said, i have a 3.2 with a m50/s50 intake manifold.

6/13/2006 12:04:53 AM

I've actually seen a couple of M3s a bit cleaner than that one (but not w/that few miles, and not w/the upgrades). There's a couple of fishy things about that car, such as the fact that it doesn't have rear headrests. I like it none the less, maybe if it were more like $15k.
Ahmet

6/13/2006 12:05:48 AM

^^well in terms in being more advanced, it probably is...double vanos, ligher valve lifters, springs and other bla bla. '95s are special in a way because they are geared more for performance driving with upped powerband. i guess if you want a pleasant, smooth daily driver 3.2 are better. you can make any engine breath differently with enough mods. im talking about stock cars.

as far as problems, i have read/heard just about as many problems with double vanos. more electronics just means more shit to break down.

mine is an early production 95 and valve retainers and springs have failed and been replaced. $2700 repair bill from previous owner. that was just about the only real engine problem with them.

[Edited on June 13, 2006 at 12:31 AM. Reason : asf]

6/13/2006 12:27:29 AM

people need to stop putting those gay ass clear corners on and smoking out the tailights

doing a drop, upgrading the lip, and getting new wheels is fine, but why would you wanna rice out your beautiful m3 and make it look like a civic

6/13/2006 12:29:38 AM

some m3 colors look good with stock amber signals, some colors dont. i actually hate seeing aftermarket wheels on m3. having a dedicated track M3 would be the only excuse i guess

6/13/2006 12:34:29 AM