So
I'm just gonna cut to the chase.
The conflicting amount of information revolving around these incredibly mythical steering racks is ridiculous. Every time I think I'm chasing a lead, I find information that completely goes against what I've researched and sends me down another rabbit hole. I starting to think I'm just on some wild goose chase, and that there are so many rumors surrounding this rack that the truth is lost in the midst of all the lies people believe to be true.
These are the complete spec-sheet for the Z3 quick ratio steering rack:
2.7 Turns Lock to Lock (L/L)
53.5mm Full-Turn Travel
144.5mm Total Travel
13.9:1 Degree Ratio
So, I've just bought a 1996 Z3 1.9 rack. I assumed from initial studies because it was the 1.9, it would be the 2.7L/L model. The more I read up on it however, the more conflicting information is out there regarding these racks, leaving me MORE confused, and just downright frustrated. My observations have lead me to a certain batch of information that people are claiming are true without definitive proof. This man is a genius, because he actually asks the questions most people don't dare to ask (Quoted from e30tech)
Now, my main annoyance is the specific member from BF.C who claimed this. Paraphrased, he claims that not all 1.9s came with the 2.7L/L, but fails to provide any supporting information such as the model years he tested at the yards.
He then goes on to claim without any definitive proof that the 2.7L/L racks were ZF racks, but were re-manufactured by Maval and were given a gold finish and sold as Maval units. Now, I don't know about you, but I've seen plenty of Z3 2.7L/L racks that have been confirmed as the originals that were the aluminum finished silver ZF units. However, I've read people claiming this "evidence" as fact and trying to school other members on the true 2.7L/L rack (To those people, you need to start doing your research yourself). What makes this annoying he hasn't logged in since April, so there's no way to ask his sources; his claim however, is the only one I've read about it. He did claim he thinks one of the Z3 1.9s he tested was a 2000 model. We'll roll with that for now.
This is what makes matters worse, because no one has any definitive information regarding the racks, and no one has put to rest any of the above rumors, I have no idea if the rack I've ordered is true 2.7L/L, or a plain 3.2L/L Z3 rack. All we know is he mentions Maval, and them having a specific gold finish, not the typical aluminum that the ZF racks have. That being said more questions come up such as, which cars actually CAME with the Maval units? It just kind of seems to me he just did half the research and left it at that, and that really pisses me off.
Further researching the Maval rebuilds themselves has revealed, from multiple sources, that the racks are complete garbage and are poorly re-manufactured (play after only 1000 miles, leaky fittings unless over-torqued). I've called Ron (Rongineer) at RyanGMW and he said to avoid them unless it is re-manufactured by ZF themselves because the Maval units are a bad re-manufacturing. Further questioning.. Why would the 2.7L/L racks be only produce by Maval in the first place?
So.. Gathering all the information that SHOULD be believed if these stories are "true"? ZF made racks that were 3.2 and had a silver-aluminum finish for the Z3s, but somehow some of them needed remanufacturing and were sent to an outside company (Maval) where they changed the ratio to 2.7 and added a gold-aluminium finish, and some Z3s got them, but some didn't, so I have to check every single one just to be sure? That's bullshavek; there has to be some hard facts on this subject and some people are talking out of their ass.
Further research I've come across has proof that there were some BMW Z3 racks that DO indeed have a 2.7L/L ratio, but only had 44.5mm turn travel versus the original 54.5. I have come to the conclusion that these are not original Z3 racks, but really e36 racks with stoppers set to 2.7L/L to compensate for the original Z3 L/L characteristics. BMW seemed to have two separate part numbers at one point in time for the original 53.5mm vs. the new 44.5mm travel; wherein the later superseded the former, most likely over safety issues from the linear pull and the rack ratio/large travel distance of the original Z3 racks. Picture evidence comparing the original 2.7L/L vs. the shortened 2.7L/L and the e36 3.2L/L shows that the shortened 2.7L/L and the e36 3.2L/L are exactly the same, while the original Z3 2.7L/L is a completely different rack housing and is easily distinguishable between the 3.
Piecing together any slight bits of information that remotely makes ANY sense, I want to say I believe that the original Z3 2.7L/L racks came in all 95-97 Z3s (excluding the M) as long as they kept the original racks, and that after a certain model year, BMW did in fact supersede the original 2.7L/L part number purging it from the original BMW catalogs due to safety concerns, and started fitting Z3s with shortened 2.7L/L or e36 3.2L/L racks. However, at this point I have no other evidence to make this a definitive claim, and should not be quoted as fact: this is just a theory as any rack produced after 1997 that is the original 2.7L/L will make it crumble.
At this point, I really don't know what to believe. I didn't want to claim any of this as fact until I have definitive proof due to the nature of BSery I've been reading all over the web on these racks. So far, most of my information has been hearsay with a couple sprinkles of hard facts, so I wanted to ask the gurus on r3v for clarification.
The rack in question I've bought is a 1996 Z3 1.9 Rack. Just really want to know I'm getting the real deal and getting the original 2.7L/L, not an e36 3.2L/L or a shortened 2.7L/L that only has 44.5mm travel.
I'm just gonna cut to the chase.
The conflicting amount of information revolving around these incredibly mythical steering racks is ridiculous. Every time I think I'm chasing a lead, I find information that completely goes against what I've researched and sends me down another rabbit hole. I starting to think I'm just on some wild goose chase, and that there are so many rumors surrounding this rack that the truth is lost in the midst of all the lies people believe to be true.
These are the complete spec-sheet for the Z3 quick ratio steering rack:
2.7 Turns Lock to Lock (L/L)
53.5mm Full-Turn Travel
144.5mm Total Travel
13.9:1 Degree Ratio
So, I've just bought a 1996 Z3 1.9 rack. I assumed from initial studies because it was the 1.9, it would be the 2.7L/L model. The more I read up on it however, the more conflicting information is out there regarding these racks, leaving me MORE confused, and just downright frustrated. My observations have lead me to a certain batch of information that people are claiming are true without definitive proof. This man is a genius, because he actually asks the questions most people don't dare to ask (Quoted from e30tech)
Does anyone know which Z3 rack is the 2.7 linear rack? I have heard too much conflicting information.
Some say...
A. Make sure to Check all Z3 racks cause not all are 2.7
B. All Z3 non M racks are 2.7
C. Only the 1.9 racks are 2.7
D. 2.8L Z3 96+ had a 2.7
E. There was a very limited amount of 2.7 racks made (around 2500)
Anyone can confirm which of these is correct?
Thanks!
Some say...
A. Make sure to Check all Z3 racks cause not all are 2.7
B. All Z3 non M racks are 2.7
C. Only the 1.9 racks are 2.7
D. 2.8L Z3 96+ had a 2.7
E. There was a very limited amount of 2.7 racks made (around 2500)
Anyone can confirm which of these is correct?
Thanks!
He then goes on to claim without any definitive proof that the 2.7L/L racks were ZF racks, but were re-manufactured by Maval and were given a gold finish and sold as Maval units. Now, I don't know about you, but I've seen plenty of Z3 2.7L/L racks that have been confirmed as the originals that were the aluminum finished silver ZF units. However, I've read people claiming this "evidence" as fact and trying to school other members on the true 2.7L/L rack (To those people, you need to start doing your research yourself). What makes this annoying he hasn't logged in since April, so there's no way to ask his sources; his claim however, is the only one I've read about it. He did claim he thinks one of the Z3 1.9s he tested was a 2000 model. We'll roll with that for now.
This is what makes matters worse, because no one has any definitive information regarding the racks, and no one has put to rest any of the above rumors, I have no idea if the rack I've ordered is true 2.7L/L, or a plain 3.2L/L Z3 rack. All we know is he mentions Maval, and them having a specific gold finish, not the typical aluminum that the ZF racks have. That being said more questions come up such as, which cars actually CAME with the Maval units? It just kind of seems to me he just did half the research and left it at that, and that really pisses me off.
Further researching the Maval rebuilds themselves has revealed, from multiple sources, that the racks are complete garbage and are poorly re-manufactured (play after only 1000 miles, leaky fittings unless over-torqued). I've called Ron (Rongineer) at RyanGMW and he said to avoid them unless it is re-manufactured by ZF themselves because the Maval units are a bad re-manufacturing. Further questioning.. Why would the 2.7L/L racks be only produce by Maval in the first place?
So.. Gathering all the information that SHOULD be believed if these stories are "true"? ZF made racks that were 3.2 and had a silver-aluminum finish for the Z3s, but somehow some of them needed remanufacturing and were sent to an outside company (Maval) where they changed the ratio to 2.7 and added a gold-aluminium finish, and some Z3s got them, but some didn't, so I have to check every single one just to be sure? That's bullshavek; there has to be some hard facts on this subject and some people are talking out of their ass.
Further research I've come across has proof that there were some BMW Z3 racks that DO indeed have a 2.7L/L ratio, but only had 44.5mm turn travel versus the original 54.5. I have come to the conclusion that these are not original Z3 racks, but really e36 racks with stoppers set to 2.7L/L to compensate for the original Z3 L/L characteristics. BMW seemed to have two separate part numbers at one point in time for the original 53.5mm vs. the new 44.5mm travel; wherein the later superseded the former, most likely over safety issues from the linear pull and the rack ratio/large travel distance of the original Z3 racks. Picture evidence comparing the original 2.7L/L vs. the shortened 2.7L/L and the e36 3.2L/L shows that the shortened 2.7L/L and the e36 3.2L/L are exactly the same, while the original Z3 2.7L/L is a completely different rack housing and is easily distinguishable between the 3.
Piecing together any slight bits of information that remotely makes ANY sense, I want to say I believe that the original Z3 2.7L/L racks came in all 95-97 Z3s (excluding the M) as long as they kept the original racks, and that after a certain model year, BMW did in fact supersede the original 2.7L/L part number purging it from the original BMW catalogs due to safety concerns, and started fitting Z3s with shortened 2.7L/L or e36 3.2L/L racks. However, at this point I have no other evidence to make this a definitive claim, and should not be quoted as fact: this is just a theory as any rack produced after 1997 that is the original 2.7L/L will make it crumble.
At this point, I really don't know what to believe. I didn't want to claim any of this as fact until I have definitive proof due to the nature of BSery I've been reading all over the web on these racks. So far, most of my information has been hearsay with a couple sprinkles of hard facts, so I wanted to ask the gurus on r3v for clarification.
The rack in question I've bought is a 1996 Z3 1.9 Rack. Just really want to know I'm getting the real deal and getting the original 2.7L/L, not an e36 3.2L/L or a shortened 2.7L/L that only has 44.5mm travel.
Comment