After removing the useless spacers--

B

blumax

(deceased)
Messages
1,015
Reaction score
2
Location
Costa Mesa, CA
Put standard nut on each stud--then cut off the three now too long studs--cut off excess as close to top surface of nut as possible--remove nut and then install small flat washer below correct acorn nut--voila no clearance problem--if you wish--replace original acorn nut with stainless acorn nuts for a nice touch--this is what I have done with my E-9's and E-3

Spacers were there to satisfy bureaucratic BS only--no engineering need or purpose was satisfied by them.
 
In an earlier post concerning this subject, Malc chimed in with the following:

"When I took the bucket apart to rebuild it the front struts had the spacers fitted. My car is a RHD UK supplied car. The spacers are approx 15mm thick, but I would need to confirm (If I can remember where I put them Rolling Eyes ) It also had 3 domed nuts per strut with washers fitted, so If the spacer was left out then the nuts would not tighten up."

http://www.e9coupe.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1772

FWIW, my injected E9 had thin spacers and I recently noticed a 71 E3 (short bumpered) being disassembled which also had them.

I admit I am in no position to disagree with you other than what I have seen. Nevertheless, how do you account for the fact that Malc's non-United States right hand drive version has spacers?

On the whole, most components are purposeful or esthetically pleasing, although the designers/project managers are hardly infallible - given the E9's less-than-outstanding passenger restraints and corrosion protection. So, is it remotely possible that the spacers actually had/have a function other bureaucratic busywork?

Is it possible it was designed as a load spreader? Or maybe it promotes built in obsolescence by offering more exposure to moisture and road debris? Conversely, if you are right about the BS, just how far does the long arm of your unnamed bureaucrats extend? Should I start wearing my aluminium foil hat when driving or reinstall the spacers? :):lol:

Respectfully
 
Suggestion re spacers--after removal--stop lamenting

and be bold--just toss them in the direction of the nearest Bureaucrat!!

if he/she picks them up and comments something like--"too bad for you breaking rules of the road that we established around 1968 to regulate bumper/lightings heights for your safety also compliance by you to have the right to use public roadways--you are hereby penalized by removal of your Coupe from that priviledge"--then you will know they were actually important.

BTW--I have risked removing them from 3 of my Coupes, my Bavaria and 2002--the first of which was 25 or so years ago--without operating cosequence or penalty to date--but please keep this disclosure from any Bureaucrat you may know.

My question is--of what vintage are you? As one who has lived for a few decades it does become evident that many useless rules have been enacted and adopted by the #^%@ B's to justify their "jobs" and to muddy our waters in the guise of safety. Also, while you may view the restraints and corrosion protection as inadequate or marginal at best--keep in mind that the matter of seatbelt technology was in its early stages and borrowed from aviation--notice lap belts are still used on airctaft today--and corrosion protection for the E-9 then was on par with other cars of that same era.

Just relax and trust that we are not setting you up to loose driving rights!

(;>)
 
In all fairness to bureaucrats, the early seventies was a time when the government charged itself with imposing numerous, needed regulations on car makers in the perceived interest of safety. Some of these regulations worked out well, and some were just stupid. Consider seatbelts. Would you ride without one today? It wasn't until 1971 that shoulder belts were mandated by the bureaucrats, and the public outcry against them at the time was loud. The outcry against airbags was pretty intense as well, though there's a guy on the CSR currently selling two coupes because his wife says they don't have airbags.

Pollution controls and mandates were another bureaucratic maneuver, to which car makers, such as BMW, responded half-heartedly at first. Would car makers have built engines that don't pour so much particulate and gas into the air without bureaucratic intervention? Would BMW have even bothered with VANOS? Maybe, but it would have been slow. How about crumple zones? Some car makers worked with them in the fifties and sixties, but it wasn't until the seventies that they were mandated by the bureaucrats. Would you drive a car daily on the highway at seventy miles an hour with your kids without crumple zones?

Your coupe's suspension spacers were a band-aid attempt on BMW's part to meet equivocated bumper height requirements between all cars in the interest of safety -- to keep cars from riding atop one another and decapitating their occupants in collisions. It was a common event in the fifties and sixties. Today, the reason cars have long, sloped noses is not only in the interest of reducing drag, but in meeting government imposed mandates based on research about collisions with pedestrians.

'Course, this has all gone out the window as government has become more corrupt, and the most popular vehicle sold in the States (the F-150) does not have to meet any of these requirements. It's an evolving bureaucracy...
 
Intrigued, I went to look at my shop manual to see if I could glean any insights on what the bureaucrats had in mind with the much ballyhooed useless spacers only to discover that my shop manual suspension section is missing. :cry:

Does anyone here have a copy of section 37 (Integrated Suspension System) section from the BMW E9 shop manual so I can complete my set?

These spacers are shown on the part database diagram as item 15 (page 31/6) but there is no part number (for US and non-US cars). Therefore, I think it is safe to assume that they do not actually exist and thus discarding them would be of no consequence. It is possible that these spacers are some type of prank played by Black Forest elves on unsuspecting coupe owners. :twisted:

http://www.realoem.com/bmw/showparts.do?model=3435&mospid=47811&btnr=31_0451&hg=31&fg=05
 
Intrigued, I went to look at my shop manual to see if I could glean any insights on what the bureaucrats had in mind with the much ballyhooed useless spacers
Click to expand...

I'll say it again, since it must have been lost in the murk:

Your coupe's suspension spacers were a band-aid attempt on BMW's part to meet equivocated bumper height requirements between all cars in the interest of safety -- to keep cars from riding atop one another and decapitating their occupants in collisions. It was a common event in the fifties and sixties.
 
No, not lost in the murk. Please take a look at the post time. I had started writing my post before your post was posted, and, being interrupted with a phone call, did not hit "submit" until after you posted and I was thus unaware of your post.

Thanks for the authoritative information. However, I'm sticking with my Black Forest elf theory.
 
Band Aid question

Per MichaelP:

"Your coupe's suspension spacers were a band-aid attempt on BMW's part to meet equivocated bumper height requirements between all cars in the interest of safety -- to keep cars from riding atop one another and decapitating their occupants in collisions."

Complements on your exposition. But let me ask a follow-up question out of sheer ignorance.

I understand the coupe was designed for different markets, and different markets might require different lighting and bumper heights. Common sense suggests the car might be produced for the home market and its regulations (if any) without the need for any spacer. It may be that Italy's regulations were different than France's and Germany's. I just have no idea. I also recognize that common sense may give way to other reasons such as limited parts availability or an attempt to make broader universal use of some other more expensive parts, such as springs. In any event, if you know, can you please explain why the very thin spacers were installed on the European market cars?

Thank you.
 
Re: Band Aid question

why the very thin spacers were installed on the European market cars?[/b]
Click to expand...

Which cars (e9s, e3s, 02s)? What years? Which countries? Were they installed on all Europe delivery coupes? What did the spacers look like? How thick? I've never seen one.

Are you saying that all CSis came with them or on one that you have?

I have a theory about this, but need more info.
 
jhjacobs: No, not lost in the murk. Please take a look at the post time.
Click to expand...

Sorry. I was reading the newspaper right before my pissy post and found out that Antonioni died and it put me in a foul mood.
 
Snip.....

Does anyone here have a copy of section 37 (Integrated Suspension System) section from the BMW E9 shop manual so I can complete my set?
Click to expand...

Yes I think I do, I'll look tonight do you want a copy?
I'll try and find my spacers and post a picture as well.
Malc
 
Re: Band Aid question

I have a theory about this, but need more info.
Click to expand...

I'd love to hear it. I assume the reason is varying legal requirements is why there were varying heights.

BTW, the rings made great spacers when your rear 2002 sport springs were too short and you needed to prop up the ass-end a half an inch or so. Still on the malaga 72 tii I restored (although the car is no longer mine).
 
just removed mine

Well, i decided to remove my spacers today. I followed murray's suggestions for cutting down the bolts. everything went fine and now the car no longer looks like its front end is riding too high.

This is the first modification this car has had, as far as I can tell.

I like it.

ccr
 
Sorry. I was reading the newspaper right before my pissy post and found out that Antonioni died and it put me in a foul mood.
Click to expand...

No need to apologize. I probably deserve it.

As far as cars and countries - my '72 E9 (US 3.0bav) had them as I recall. I never removed them, they looked nicely engineered and important. If memory serves correctly, this spacer was cast alloy with little voids built in to retain water and promote rust. I never thought much about them but just assumed that they were a load spreader.

I looked into the ETK part catalog again and found that this part does indeed exist. It is: 31 33 1 113 721 and it is called a "Flat Washer." When I cross checked on usage it applies to 1602-2002tii and 2500-3.0Li; the CS's are not listed! It also appears there was some type of "update" in regard to this part.

The thing I find truly bizarre is that in order to lift the car height with this spacer band aide they also had to band aide the mounting bolts which would have been too short. So, being efficient, why would German engineers make two modifications to solve one problem? I must now offer up another theory: the actual problem is that the bolts were too long to use the nice acorn nuts so the aesthetically minded bureaucrats decided that the spacer would be the proper solution!

Did we ever come up with a logo? Perhaps this part would make some good subject matter. :p
 
Spacers--eeerrr washers--maybe start a collection

Since JHJ appears so intrigued by these wonderful parts perhaps starting a collection of them would be really special--if interested I have a couple of nicely bead blasted sets to contribute as starters--and suspect Coupe King and Carl Nelson would have a mother load available--unless tossed!!

I do plan to keep one set as someday it may be a part that is NLA but once again having some critical purpose--perhaps to assure collecting plenty of silt, sand and moisture to contribute to hastening the corrosion of front shock towers.

:)>)
 
I am useless and spaced out reading about useless spacers!

Hey guys,

Am loving this thread! Bureaucrats, Black forest elves, and all. My wife finds its funny that I check in here more often than I check for email.

Surely ze super efficient German would not have invented these band aid spacer rings simply because they made the initial bolts too long? Or would they?.......

Add "hidden secret conspiracy theories" to the reason I love this community!

Having read all of the above, and having always thought that the front of my CSi sits just that wee bit higher than I'd like, I'm for whipping them out and seeing how it would look without them.

Attn Malc - fancy trying this on my car, we can measure and photograph in a proper "before and after style" and see how it turns out?
 
Dave,
Yeap lets give it a try unless your car has already been tampered with by the Scottish relatives of the Black Forest elves living at the 19th hole just at the back of your house! :wink:
Malc
 
A cautionary tale?

Please think twice before removing the front spacers.

I am not saying there is any direct correlation, but after going spacer-less, I gained weight, the girlfriend became more demanding, petrol prices began to increase and I have been feeling irritable. Maybe I should have just gone to thinner spacers! Be forwarned 8)
 
one problem

Well, a week ago i removed my spacers and the car looks better, but i have been getting some rubbing on the inner fende wall up front. Today i went over a bump and the tire hit the inner fender lip and pulled it down about a centimeter and caused some tire damage. there is a groove in the tire where it hit.

maybe i don't have the correct offset for these staggered alpinas...i'll check later, but i think they're the standard.

any thoughts....anyone else ever have rubbing up front?

has anyone rolled their inner fender lips? The ferrari 360 had similar rubbing issues that caused the "pull down" of the lip until the challenge stradale was released and now the 430 that have "rolled" lips and now no problems

chuck
 
You got to roll the fenders with the alpina's

You have to roll the fenders in order to not to get the ripping up of your tires and the damge to the fenders. Believe me i know as this winter my coupe will be getting some paint work done to fix the damage!
Jeff in pdx
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top