My '75 2002 Sleeper

[tinkwithanr]

Pretty much, it will be interesting to say the least. I'm already low on space.

[deutschman]

Understandable. Sounds like you will have to fab a custom tank that fits into a tight space.

[tinkwithanr]

That's my last option. I don't really want to move it back there for a few reasons. First it would mean running large oil lines either under the length of the car or through the passenger compartment. Since this isn't a dedicated track car I would like to avoid running oil lines on the underside of the car due to my low ground clearance. It would really suck to high-side and pinch off a line. Likewise, I want to avoid running oil or fuel lines in the passenger compartment in case of an accident. The second reason is I'd like to retain some of my trunk space, which is already pretty limited due to the fuel cell.

[deutschman]

Why run the oil tank in the trunk? Why not move it to the trunk to get a bit more weight to the back? Also get rid of clutter in the bay.

[tinkwithanr]

Haven't had much time to work on the car lately, I've had to work 60-70 hours the past couple of weeks. My new oil pump did come in though, so I took some time to start planning out my oil system a bit.

The new pump in all it's glory. Used, but in great condition. I'll probably end up sending it in for a rebuild at some point before the car is done, but for now I'll just keep it as is for help with mocking everything up.




First up was to cut out the stock sump. For the final setup I will probably end up with either a full billet pan or welding up a custom one from a CAD design (as opposed to just modifying the stock cast pan) but for now I will use the stock one minus sump for mocking up. This pan already had a stripped drain plug, so no real harm.






For mounting the pump I really see two options, driver or passenger side. Initially I was leaning towards the driver side to help keep it away from the heat of the headers and to simplify the scavenging lines coming from the pan.

This is roughly where it would go:





And the output ports from the top. The first three would run to the oil tank and the last is the pressure out to the block.





I also mocked it up on the passenger side. This would be nice because it would allow a shorter pressure side run into the block, as well as keep the oil tank on the driver side away from the headers. The main downside to this position would be messier scavenging lines from the pan due to the tilt of the engine.





The next step will be figuring out what kind of capacity I will need for the oil tank, and seeing where I can shoehorn that into the engine bay.

[dougie30]

The past 2 days if been reading this and all I have to say is

[303e30]

The amount of work you are putting into this car is insane! This is a very inspiring thread. Sub'd.

[kronus]

anyway, nice brakes!

[tinkwithanr]

Thanks, I couldn't remember the 'technical' acronyms off the top of my had and I was to lazy to look them up.

[kronus]

for googlin' purposes, it's ISO Class 12.9, and SAE Grade 8 ;)

[tinkwithanr]

Please rethink this, especially in light of your high hp/grip goals. The stock bmw fasteners are extremely tough, 12.9 metric grade i think. There have been failures on 2002s with less than bmw quality fasteners and its not pretty!

Thanks for your concern. You are correct, the stock BMW bolts are metric grade 12.9 (which for the record is the equivalent of 'American' grade 8 so that's a bit misleading). I have gone through the calculations comparing the two different grades and it will be fine, keeping in mind the stock '02 strut housing uses M8 bolts and the e12 strut uses M10 (probably because of the much larger curb weight). Taking those into account:

M8 Minor Diameter (the 'area' that a stress will be applied) = 6.596mm
M8 Stress Area = 34.15mm^2

M10 Minor Diameter = 8.315mm
M10 Stress Area = 54.274mm^2

So the M10 fastener has 59% more cross sectional area for a stress to act over. This means that even though the grade 12.9 bolts has 54% more tensile strength than the stainless bolt, because the stainless fastener is larger in diameter it is still stronger overall than the stock fastener. I do admit that the above maths are only valid for tension or shear failure, I didn't bother to test for thread failure. This is because the threads would pull out of the steel housing or the aluminum spacer (for the bolts holding the pitman arm to the spacer) before the threads on either fastener failed.

All that being said, thanks for bringing it up. It never hurts to check and double check things, especially when it comes to critical components. Hope that puts your mind to ease!:up:

[Denny]

people take many directions on these 2002s

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/BMW-2002-BASE-MELBOURNE-RED-02-OEM-TURBO-LOOK-WIDEBODY-BLACK-AND-SUEDE-INTERIOR-/140939572455?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item20d0a734e7

but I think all e30 owners always have a soft spot. The above seller had a blue one earlier this week that appears to have sold as its no longer listed.

no affiliations

not another onne....lol...damn it now I need to build a 2002...

[LJ851]

Then I'm using 316 stainless allen heads to mount the adapters to the struts. The stainless bolts have a yield strength of 110ksi, which is similar to a grade 5 bolt. Normally this wouldn't do, but since the e12 struts take a size larger than 02 struts did, the lower grade is fine.

Please rethink this, especially in light of your high hp/grip goals. The stock bmw fasteners are extremely tough, 12.9 metric grade i think. There have been failures on 2002s with less than bmw quality fasteners and its not pretty!

[tinkwithanr]

Haha I'll do you one better. You can just set up a tent inside the shop and give me a hand!

[ClayW]

So, where do you live? Because I'm going to buy the place next door.