Have you actually measured the wear? i.e. not what the manufacturer says, but actually measure the wear on the rotors between pad changes?

 

Yes. Brand new they are within just a few thousandths of an inch over the minimum specs. BMW purposefully builds and specs them to require replacement at the first pad replacement.

 

Could be something with the recent BMW's (2008+) as I had a E46 M3 for 9 years and that definitely was not the case.

 

Dunno . Certainly a problem with the '02 and '09 MINIs, and the service advisors mentioning it as common among all BMWs. Maybe it's the way I drive.

 

I did all the brake maintenance on my M3, so I was pretty meticulous about about the wear (and I measure my brake pads and rotors after every event on my race car). I would definitely have the shop show the measurements regardless of the car when they suggest to replace rotors just to make sure they do need to replaced (or that they won't make it another brake pad cycle).

 

I wanted to put 305's on the rear. Would this work with spacers or not?

 

No problem at all w/ 305s. There's plenty of clearance OEM, and spacers add more clearance.

 

Guaranteed to work with spacers and OEM springs. Unknown as of yet with the spacers and 1.3" lowering springs, but I'll let you know when I put them on.

 

Hmmm . . . Forgot these are 17mm spacers and that an additional 5mm of the wider tire will will on the outside. Lowering aside, they could also extend beyond the fender lip a bit.

 

With the stock wheel to tire gap I don't think it will be an issue, but eorthy of close inspection. If I run into issues, I'll remove the spacers until the 305s are worn out and go back to 295s next time.

 

Sorry gents, just a peeve of mine:

Torque is pound-feet (lb-ft) or N-m.

Work is foot-pounds (ft-lb) or J.

 

Yes, I'm sure 305s will be OK from a clearance and rubbing standpoint w/ even the 17mm spacer at OEM height . . . as long as you don't mind your tires extending a bit beyond the fender lip. The 295s are very close to flush w/ the 15mm spacers, which is exactly why that original spec was decided upon.

 

I have "19 on '14 V6S, is there a set for me?

 

A peeve of mine as well, but you have it backwards:

The V6S generates 339 lb-ft of torque, 460 Joules
The lug nuts get torqued to 92 ft-lbs, 125 Nm

 

Any sets left? I'd like to get spacers as well.

 

Cal Lenny first thing monday morning

Tell him you want in on the Jag GB.

Motorsport Tech
280 S Rock Blvd, Ste 100
Reno, Nevada 89502

(775) 351-1000 - Voice

 

What's up with our spacers? Any news yet?

 

I certainly am anxious to get them as see how they look.

 

This is why I hate this topic. I'm afraid you're the one that's crossed up.

The imperial unit for torque is the product of force x distance, in that order. Hence, lb-ft goes with Nm to match the SI convention.

The United States is the only place in the world where ft-lb is used as a unit of torque, and it is widely accepted but not correct.

In the US it really boils down to having an argument about two accepted spellings of the same word.

But God damn it, canceled has one L.

 

Well...I guess I'm safe, then. I've only practiced engineering in the U.S. Would never have passed my license examination if I had tried to torque a bolt to x lb-ft. The examiners would have shown me the door.


umm...we kind of strayed from the empire about 250 years ago.