Clutch hose confusion

[Trademark1]

Hello,

I could sure use some experienced help in sorting out clutch hose parts for the ZF transmission. I was planning to replace my 2000 M roadster clutch slave and hose (I have maybe a tiny leak - possibly at a hose crimp).

I ordered the FTE equivalent for the clutch hose indicated in real OEM. It looks like below and matches images of the genuine BMW part as well as images in TIS.

EBD35F33-E83C-41D7-88CB-291678210546.jpg

The hose on the car however has a longer hard line section from the hose bracket to the clutch slave with more bends :

96222BC1-966C-40DF-9622-6F474D2EF1DC.jpg

any ideas what gives and what I should do?

[Mr Bingley]

Read this thread

https://www.bimmerforums.com/forum/s...tch-line-today

[zellamay]

I don't think that is a SS clutch line you have pictured, but a stock rubber replacement. The SS line is considered to be an "upgrade" because it improves clutch actuation and won't degrade over time. It's mentioned in the thread that Bingley ref'd. Here's the one I bought: https://www.ecstuning.com/b-ecs-part...SABEgI6GPD_BwE Yes, it is worth it to buy one and return that stock line.

[Trademark1]

Thanks - I had read this with great interest - and to psych myself up and prepare for bleeding . . .

I should have been more clear in my question, but what is not obvious to me is whether everyone is removing the small segment of bent hard pipe between the slave and the hose upon reinstallation? With the hose small bent elbow screwing directly into the slave?2EE98F36-6253-4E44-BEC2-4F3BAE63F95E.jpg

It seems that both the now-shipping OE hoses and the aftermarket hoses with the larger lumen to remove the “CDV” all have the same geometry with the small integral bent hard pipe - but nowhere near as long or bent as what is in the car now. Is there some engineering reason for this longer segment of hard pipe beyond navigating out of the tight confines between the slave and insulation? (While I have the Rogue rear shock mounts, I am often biased toward preserving original engineering when I don’t know better). If all are deleting the little hard pipe are you also not reinstalling the bracket (I am not sure how it would fit with the different geometry hoses)?

On the other topic of the pseudo CDV valve delete - I am sure the majority of the forum will say get rid of it pronto. I also assume this part was designed to avoid driveline stress (such as when added to Honda S2000) - albeit at cost of some additional clutch wear (although that wouldn’t explain the 3.0 version - maybe it really is just for bad manual drivers). I am not one to intentionally dump the clutch - but with the postulate that stresses on the diff hanger being key contributor to the subframe/trunk floor issue, do I really want to remove any potential safeguards?

[IndianaRoadster]

Thanks - I had read this with great interest - and to psych myself up and prepare for bleeding . . .

I should have been more clear in my question, but what is not obvious to me is whether everyone is removing the small segment of bent hard pipe between the slave and the hose upon reinstallation? With the hose small bent elbow screwing directly into the slave?2EE98F36-6253-4E44-BEC2-4F3BAE63F95E.jpg

It seems that both the now-shipping OE hoses and the aftermarket hoses with the larger lumen to remove the “CDV” all have the same geometry with the small integral bent hard pipe - but nowhere near as long or bent as what is in the car now. Is there some engineering reason for this longer segment of hard pipe beyond navigating out of the tight confines between the slave and insulation? (While I have the Rogue rear shock mounts, I am often biased toward preserving original engineering when I don’t know better). If all are deleting the little hard pipe are you also not reinstalling the bracket (I am not sure how it would fit with the different geometry hoses)?

On the other topic of the pseudo CDV valve delete - I am sure the majority of the forum will say get rid of it pronto. I also assume this part was designed to avoid driveline stress (such as when added to Honda S2000) - albeit at cost of some additional clutch wear (although that wouldn’t explain the 3.0 version - maybe it really is just for bad manual drivers). I am not one to intentionally dump the clutch - but with the postulate that stresses on the diff hanger being key contributor to the subframe/trunk floor issue, do I really want to remove any potential safeguards?

The first time I drove my car before I bought it, I noticed the clutch feel was different than what I'm used to. After I bought it and started the refurbishing, I switch to a SS hose for a non-M roadster. It changed the feel to what I liked.

[Mr Bingley]

Delete the bendy metal hose and go with the 3.0 hose or a SS hose.

[zellamay]

Right! As Mr Bingley says. ..... You are over-thinking this. Just buy a SS hose, take off the stock hoses, put the SS hose on, bleed, and enjoy the improvements. If you choose, you can search this site for gobs of testimonials for doing this.

[Trademark1]

Thanks to all. Certainly not the first time I have overthought something. Also found old three from Mr. Bingley warning that some inexperienced mechanics might think they have the wrong part upon seeing the installed bendy bit