 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / BMW Cars / June 2007what type of suspension is on the e60 525i
hi all does anyone know what the suspension in on te e60 525i 2004 i have the standard suspension i have been told and i want to make it more comfortable . i have removed the runflats to conventional tyres and whilst the harshness has gone i can still feel a lot of bounce on seemingly smooth roads. maybe i have to go to a softer coil spring or shock absorber. any thoughts appreciated. >hi all >does anyone know what the suspension in on te e60 525i 2004 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >absorber. >any thoughts appreciated. US owner? It is just fine as it is - go buy a Cadillac if you want a slush-puppy! On May 27, 3:02 am, O...@nowhere.com wrote: > >i have removed the runflats to conventional tyres and whilst the > >harshness has gone i can still feel a lot of bounce on seemingly [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > It is just fine as it is - go buy a Cadillac if you want a slush-puppy! "tyres"? "whilst"? Not bloody likely in the US. If you're gonna try to be a Smartass©, at least be a good one - dumbass. -- C.R. Krieger a.a.bmw Chief Smartass© >On May 27, 3:02 am, O...@nowhere.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >"tyres"? "whilst"? Not bloody likely in the US. If you're gonna try >to be a Smartass©, at least be a good one - dumbass. Yes we have some arseholes too and, by the way, Cadillacs are on sale over here at rock bottom prices. I could probably get a 2 or 3 year old one for about $8K Ok $12K but that's only because nobody wants them. The Chrysler 300C seems nice but has it REALLY got a HEMI under that hood? On May 30, 3:59 pm, O...@nowhere.com wrote: > Yes we have some arseholes too and, by the way, Cadillacs are on sale over here > at rock bottom prices. I could probably get a 2 or 3 year old one for about $8K > Ok $12K but that's only because nobody wants them. > > The Chrysler 300C seems nice but has it REALLY got a HEMI under that hood? You seem inordinately fascinated by big American Pigmobiles. I drive a BMW. That said, a Cadillac CTS-V for that price would be a bargain. It would also probably suck the headlights out of whatever you drive. No; the current 300C to which you're probably referring does not have a REAL Hemi. But the original (1955) C300 did as did the later (1957) 300C. -- C.R. Krieger (Seen those Caddys racing) >On May 30, 3:59 pm, O...@nowhere.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >bargain. It would also probably suck the headlights out of whatever >you drive. Eh? 1997 BMW 740i & 2006 BMW 730d >No; the current 300C to which you're probably referring does not have >a REAL Hemi. But the original (1955) C300 did as did the later (1957) >300C. I know that and I know the 426 or rather 500CID is still available as a replacement crated engine but couldn't believe they actually still put one in a road vehicle. > E28 Guy© <88.535is@gmail.com> wrote: >>You seem inordinately fascinated by big American Pigmobiles. I drive [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Eh? 1997 BMW 740i & 2006 BMW 730d <Floyd, chiming in> Yes, a CTS-V will trash *any* BMW excepting an E60 M5. It is essentially even in performance (of all kinds, not only straight-ahead acceleration) to an E39 M5. And they cost less than either of your cars. >>No; the current 300C to which you're probably referring does not have >>a REAL Hemi. But the original (1955) C300 did as did the later (1957) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > in a > road vehicle. Chrysler resurrected the Hemi name about 5 years ago, in a 5.7L V8, and in a 6.1L V8. The only thing the current engines have in common with the 360&426 engines are the Hemi name, SOHC pushrods, and combustion chamber shape. See, you continue to show that you know nothing about US cars, even though you claim to have lived here. > > E28 Guy© <88.535is@gmail.com> wrote: > >>You seem inordinately fascinated by big American Pigmobiles. I drive [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > See, you continue to show that you know nothing about US cars, > even though you claim to have lived here. ----- Oh, DAMN! Nothing personal, but let's see the residual value or quality of the CTS-V after 20 years versus "ANY" BMW. Caddys are not what they used to be in terms of build. They are "old folks cars" and usually "in my damn way" cars. I have yet to run into any Caddy I can't dispense with, period. Hemi is another reason the fuel prices are so high here, along with Americans feeling the "I'll do it my way and screw you" attitudes. My wife's '98 528i gets about 30mpg in town. What's any Hemi get? 17mpg tops? For the most part, big engines are like big dicks... yeah, you got one, but where are you gonna use it? The cars that are really sh.t-hot muscle are more for garage duty. I like them, but they are very impractical and eat way too much gas for the thrills you get. And if any American car manufacturer was worth its salt, they would have changed their products and marketing long ago. See Chrysler, Ford, GM and all the dead ones on the side of the road. They make sh.t and design into it obsolescence. BMW ain't perfect, but then why is it nearly always the benchmark? Bill in Omaha '86 535i >> E28 Guy© <88.535is@gmail.com> wrote: >>>You seem inordinately fascinated by big American Pigmobiles. I drive [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >acceleration) to an E39 M5. And they cost less than either of your >cars. What's this now - "Scrap heap challenge" >>>No; the current 300C to which you're probably referring does not have >>>a REAL Hemi. But the original (1955) C300 did as did the later (1957) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >with the 360&426 engines are the Hemi name, SOHC pushrods, and >combustion chamber shape. SOHC ?????????? >See, you continue to show that you know nothing about US cars, >even though you claim to have lived here. Yes--------------- 1982 - 1987 but then the Buick Regal had a 90 deg crap V6 and you had the double nickel speed limit. The Caddy I had at that time was the one with the 4, 6, 8, cyl firing system to save on fuel and gas was 50c gallon. All US cars were massively over geared and @ 70 mph one could actually see the fuel gauge (gage) move. Couldn't coax more than 75 out of that bus and the caddy - well nice to ride in and fair to drive but no real mover! > Chrysler resurrected the Hemi name about 5 years ago, in a 5.7L V8, > and in a 6.1L V8. The only thing the current engines have in common > with the 360&426 engines are the Hemi name, SOHC pushrods, and > combustion chamber shape. Why would an engine have an overhead cam and push rods? Push rods were used on engines that had the cam down in the block. But I agree 100% that the Chrysler Corp has resurrected the "Hemi" name purely for marketing.  Signature-Fred W > > Chrysler resurrected the Hemi name about 5 years ago, in a 5.7L V8, > > and in a 6.1L V8. The only thing the current engines have in common > > with the 360&426 engines are the Hemi name, SOHC pushrods, and > > combustion chamber shape. > Why would an engine have an overhead cam and push rods? Push rods were > used on engines that had the cam down in the block. It's a way of operating non inline valves from a central overhead cam. Pushrods can be lighter than long rocker arms. IIRC, the pre-war BMW 6 used this method. SignatureIs the hardness of the butter proportional to the softness of the bread?* Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. > Floyd Rogers wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Why would an engine have an overhead cam and push rods? Push rods were > used on engines that had the cam down in the block. I'm so used to overhead cams my brain just pre-pended SOHC to the valve type. You've gotta love associative memory, even when the association is incorrect. FloydR > <O...@nowhere.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > acceleration) to an E39 M5. And they cost less than either of your > cars. Frighteningly, yes. I knew from the day I saw some preproduction prototypes sitting at the local track - having recently returned from testing at the Nurburgring (they left the stickers on one) that this was One Bad Caddy. Andy Pilgrim and others have raced them quite successfully in a couple of sedan series here. Running radar on them at selected points during some of those races, I know they were among the fastest cars on the track. As much as I might like your 'short' E38 (and *not* the E45, or whatever your diesel is), they are *no* match for a CTS-V in terms of speed and handling. -- C.R. Krieger (Been there; done that) > hi all > does anyone know what the suspension in on te e60 525i 2004 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > absorber. > any thoughts appreciated. With the previous E39, the best riding one had standard suspension and 15" wheels. As the wheels got bigger - and therefore the tyres lower profile - the ride got worse. Are your wheels the smallest option? Just guessing but I doubt you'd find softer springs easily as most aftermarket types are handling orientated. And altering from standard to softer would effect the load carrying capacity - as well as being detrimental to the handling. It's a relatively easy job to beef up suspension to make a car handle 'better' but not so easy to improve the ride. Signature*Arkansas State Motto: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Laugh. Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. > In article <1180227922.532326.88...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > suspension to make a car handle 'better' but not so easy to improve the > ride. There are companies that will make springs to your specification. The ride on my 3 went up with eibach springs and sachs sport dampers, although that was compared to 100k mile old original stuff. >> In article <1180227922.532326.88...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >There are companies that will make springs to your specification. Interesting but only useful if you run an F1 team - or a master at suspension dynamics and a lengthy time available for testing and type approval - Oh! this is only for driving around a private test track then....! >The ride on my 3 went up with eibach springs and sachs sport dampers, >although that was compared to 100k mile old original stuff. > hi all > does anyone know what the suspension in on te e60 525i 2004 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > absorber. > any thoughts appreciated. I hate to be a naysayer, but me thinks you paid extra for that. One of the hall marks of a BMW is precision handling, a result of all that precision is that you feel the road. If you are feeling stuff on the road, you can be sure it's there and not coming from the car. If you feel some roads differently than others, that's the car doing its job. > One of the hall marks of a BMW is precision handling, a result of all > that precision is that you feel the road. If you are feeling stuff on > the road, you can be sure it's there and not coming from the car. If > you feel some roads differently than others, that's the car doing its > job. I have an E39 528 with standard suspension and 15" wheels and a neighbour a new E36 535 diesel which I've driven. A most impressive performer, but somewhat spoiled (to me) by the poor ride. It has sports suspension and 18"? wheels with the original runflats. It *may* handle very much better at speed - I never had the chance to find out - but I've not found my car lacking in that respect either. On my test drive I took it round local roads I know very well and it certainly found potholes my car ignores. You could both feel and hear them. I don't think there are dramatic differences to the suspension so I concluded it's down to the bigger wheels and run flat tyres. Signature*They call it PMS because Mad Cow Disease was already taken. Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >> One of the hall marks of a BMW is precision handling, a result of all >> that precision is that you feel the road. If you are feeling stuff on [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >differences to the suspension so I concluded it's down to the bigger >wheels and run flat tyres. Dave Can you remember what I said a couple of months ago? I was on the lookout for a nearly new (ex-demo) E65 730d and drove several but one in particular caught my eye. A FULLY LOADED 730d Sport. It had 20" wheels with very low profile tyres - don't think they were run-flat - TV, IR camera, TV, Sat Nav, Bluetooth, Comfort access, fully powered boot lid (trunk), comfort seats, rear AC, cool box etc. etc. Took it for a run down the A3 from Streatham to just past Esher and back. TOTAL CRAP......... Ride far to hard, Every bump, pot-hole, road join, repair, white line, cats-eye....... It wandered all over the road and made me feel queasy (hard to do to a driver) and my wife sick. Nice looking car but a definite NO NO. Another I looked at was a very nice 730d SE pretty bare in goodies but it had the 20" wheels and adjustable suspension. Again on "sport" the dampers went hard but as it still had the stock springs it was, again, bumpy, thumpy, and difficult to keep in a straight line and it too found every pimple on the road surface. On Comfort (soft) ride it was like a boat on a slightly choppy sea. Yawing and Pitching all over the place and the tyres didn't help either. Thump --- whoa! up-down-around and around sway to the left then right. My wife turned green and we had to stop the car. I must say that this test drive took place in Hungerford and comprised of a fairly fast A/B road and a local country hill/lane back road in need of a complete resurface (not that it will ever happen). No my friend - stay well clear of 20" wheels and sport suspension unless you are only going to use the car once a month on a deserted airfield by yourself. > I have an E39 528 with standard suspension and 15" wheels and a neighbour > a new E36 535 diesel which I've driven. A most impressive performer, but [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > differences to the suspension so I concluded it's down to the bigger > wheels and run flat tyres. I have M-sport suspension and 17" wheels on my E39 540 and the ride is noticeably worse than my E34 with standard suspension and 15" wheels. The standard BMW suspension used to be an ideal compromise between handling and comfort. Frankly I don't think firm suspension adds anything. If you corner on a rough surface it feels like the car will skitter off the road. The low ride height looks good but makes it more likely you'll ground it out on something. > I have M-sport suspension and 17" wheels on my E39 540 and the ride is > noticeably worse than my E34 with standard suspension and 15" wheels. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > skitter off the road. The low ride height looks good but makes it more > likely you'll ground it out on something. It appears to be the case that the motoring press in general think the BMW ride is pretty poor these days. Aftermarket alternatives may well give a better ride. > It appears to be the case that the motoring press in general think the > BMW ride is pretty poor these days. Aftermarket alternatives may well > give a better ride. The press hear say it's mainly down to the run flat tyres. Who actually needs these damn things if they spoil day to day driving? But I say again I'd be surprised if anyone offered softer springs than are available from the factory - I've never seen such a thing advertised. And there could be a very real problem with load carrying without some form of self levelling. Signature*I wished the buck stopped here, as I could use a few* Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >> It appears to be the case that the motoring press in general think the >> BMW ride is pretty poor these days. Aftermarket alternatives may well >> give a better ride. > The press hear say it's mainly down to the run flat tyres. Who actually > needs these damn things if they spoil day to day driving? Is it definitely down to those? I haven't got run flats, just stiff springs, and it's bumpy enough. This was the optional sport suspension. I think this sort of thing is bought by middle aged men who fancy themselves a bit sporty. If the new BMWs are all 'firm and sporty' it's probably just pandering to fashion. Audis have been bumpy for ages and people claim to like it. Personally I believe more compliant suspension actually lets you make better progress on a typical road, but I can't back that up with figures. > But I say again I'd be surprised if anyone offered softer springs than are > available from the factory - I've never seen such a thing advertised. And > there could be a very real problem with load carrying without some form of > self levelling. He could let down the tyres a bit. On the E34, inflating them to the max recommended pressure made the ride too skittish, so I ran them at the minimum. I'm told if you put bigger than 15" wheels on the E34 it was crap too. > I think this sort of thing is bought by middle aged men who fancy > themselves a bit sporty. If the new BMWs are all 'firm and sporty' it's > probably just pandering to fashion. Audis have been bumpy for ages and > people claim to like it. Personally I believe more compliant suspension > actually lets you make better progress on a typical road, but I can't > back that up with figures. Actually I am VERY surprised to read this thread. I mean, suspension setup depends on personal taste... and personal taste depends also on where you live (different roads, better road maintenance, stricter policemen etc). Italy is certainly not famous for its fantastic road maintenance (but fortunately policemen here are not very strict so at least you can drive fast :-D). Personally, I think that comfort differences on modern cars are just a mental thing... people spending their driving time listening to bumps as if they were choosing a new hi-fi :-). If you were deaf, 95% of your perceived harshness would go away, because the asphalt hits the tires, but between the tires and your a.s you have TWO suspension systems (the suspensions of the car and the seat, whose damping is very considerable), so basically if you didn't think you are breaking the car whenever you hear a bump you would see that suspension setup is just fine... even too soft, to tell the truth (there's plenty of roll). The actual vertical acceleration of the driver while going over bumps IMHO is really really low, unless bumps are really huge. However, I don't see the point of wanting softer bmws, I mean, you can buy a mercedes or a jaguar or even a citroen if you're not so sport- oriented and you want more of a compromise... there's no such thing as a perfectly comfortable car with decent handling.... not as long as you are so demanding as far as comfort is concerned! > there's no such thing as > a perfectly comfortable car with decent handling.... not as long as > you are so demanding as far as comfort is concerned! The Jag XJ series gets damn close. But having owned one I still prefer my 5 Series. On standard suspension and the small wheels it was originally designed for. ;-) Signature*That's it! I‘m calling grandma! Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. >> there's no such thing as >> a perfectly comfortable car with decent handling.... not as long as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >5 Series. On standard suspension and the small wheels it was originally >designed for. ;-) What year are we talking about Dave? Last XJ I drove 2006 4.2 sovereign was really rubbish compared to the BMW 7 series in standard trim (not sport) in fact I found it weird on the steering - Jags have always had light steering but this one seemed to want to drive it's self or rather it was more point and aim. Very soft ride but held the road Ok but didn't feel as stable as the BMW The actual vertical acceleration > of the driver while going over bumps IMHO is really really low, unless > bumps are really huge. There's a stretch of road near me where I bang my head on the roof of the car several times when I drive down it. There's more to the comfort than just the overall spring rate. The damping has a lot to do with it too. Someone else mentioned tyre sizes and that it is a big part of the ride comfort. > However, I don't see the point of wanting softer bmws, I mean, you can > buy a mercedes or a jaguar or even a citroen if you're not so sport- > oriented and you want more of a compromise... there's no such thing as > a perfectly comfortable car with decent handling.... not as long as > you are so demanding as far as comfort is concerned! BMWs were always so good because they combined almost the comfort of a Mercedes with good 'feel' and tightness, but from personal experience I think sport suspension is a shade too far. Good fun when you want to fling it about, and at a decent speed, but a low speeds over less than smooth roads it's merely uncomfortable. But it's personal taste, as you say. Haven't ridden in or driven an ugly boat on wheels, er, E60, so can't comment on what those are like, but people seem to be saying they're a bit firm. > He could let down the tyres a bit. On the E34, inflating them to the > max recommended pressure made the ride too skittish, so I ran them at > the minimum. I'm told if you put bigger than 15" wheels on the E34 it > was crap too. BTW, an anecdote: when I took my 330xd touring to the race track, I increased tire pressure about 15%, to lower tire temperatures (I was certain they were going to overheat). Actually that meant, IIRC, 2.8bar and 3.1bar, front and rear (!). Well, the pressure in those tires has NEVER been put back to its previous value, initially because of my laziness, but also because I decided it was good for road use, as well: my driving is quite sporty (when traffic allows me to do so), and higher tire pressure helped to make tire wear more even (but it's still quite uneven :-D). My parents and grandparents NEVER complained because I told them nothing, they never noticed the difference. Had I told them about that, they would have complained... > BTW, an anecdote: when I took my 330xd touring to the race track, I > increased tire pressure about 15%, to lower tire temperatures (I was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > as well: my driving is quite sporty (when traffic allows me to do so), > and higher tire pressure helped to make tire wear more even (but it's I used to always do that: inflate the tyres to the 'fully loaded' pressure in the book. Sharpened up the steering no end. It worked for all my cars until the E34! >> BTW, an anecdote: when I took my 330xd touring to the race track, I >> increased tire pressure about 15%, to lower tire temperatures (I was [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >pressure in the book. Sharpened up the steering no end. It worked for >all my cars until the E34! Back in the good ol' days of police driver training, we used to run "bald eagles" at 100 PSI (honestly) on a flooded skidpan to learn car control. Few things since then have been so much fun, at least while I had my clothes on. SignatureDan. > Back in the good ol' days of police driver training, we used to run > "bald eagles" at 100 PSI (honestly) on a flooded skidpan to learn car > control. > > Few things since then have been so much fun, at least while I had my > clothes on. LOL My race bicycle pump allows me to inflate car tires as well... next time my tires are shaved, I'll try the 100psi stunt in a parking lot before replacement :-)))) > hi all > does anyone know what the suspension in on te e60 525i 2004 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > absorber. > any thoughts appreciated. If you "still feel a lot of bounce", perhaps you should have the condition of your existing suspension components checked. Have you owned the car since 2004 and has there been a gradual deterioration of the ride and/or handling? Tom K. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.