1st Post: '01 530/5, a 6cyl invades my stable

[GZilla]

Wow! That is a steal! The I6s may be slower than the V8s, but they feel the most balanced in the E39 chassis for me. I always loved silver on the E39s, especially with the body color moldings. Was the window trim wrapped or did the previous owner install the M5 gloss black trim?

[haolibird]

Gzilla,
I didn't notice the gloss.
Might be an obstacle illusion!
Last night, I took the New old battery the OO installed off the charger, and viola, it's holding a charge! (no shit, I have the receipt for the battery, less than 100miles on it.)
Snap-On battery tester confirmed it's in good shape.

As for the "Thread jacking", pray carry on.
Much is gleaned from the right or left turn from the original thread.
Unless, of course, it divulges into an oil discussion...

Probably won't get started on this until after the New Year.
The wife takes over my garage, and I find many reasons to work overtime at this time of year.

Best,
Hb

[seagreen323i]

Well if it's been sitting for a while and you do run into issues when trying to start it I'll give a brief run-down.

Rough running-------

Intake boot is known to crack

Crankcase ventilation tubes break

Obvious things like bad fuel/clogged filter

Crank no start--------

Fuel pump died while sitting (locked up)

Perhaps crank sensor wiring/sensor

No crank no start-----

There is a fusebox under the passenger carpet that likes to rot if exposed to moisture

Check starter wires.

_____________________________

That's just an off the top of my head list of things that may happen because it sat.

That engine is gonna sound horrible when you first crank it up if it's really been sitting a while. The hydraulic lifters loose the oil in them so you basically get 24 lifters ticking in unison.

After a quick highway jaunt at 3k rpm for 3 minutes or so they will quiet down.

I would put something in the cylinders it it were me due to how long its sat, maybe a little fogging oil or something.

Also check the little cubby the brake booster resides in, they like to accumulate water and it will suck it through the brake booster and trash the engine (and tranny if you are unlucky like me). I've attached pictures of the potential carnage if it decides to suck in water. There is a little drain hole in there that gets clogged up, clear it out if there is standing water.





Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[ross1]

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]
That was comprehensive

[haolibird]

Self-made inspection holes?

Thanks.
I didn't think of the water in that recess.

I have new boots on order.
Not even going to mess with the old ones.

Not to rub it in, but we live in a fairly dry, warm climate.
I doubt there would be any standing water anywhere, except where I blasted it when I cleaned the engine compartment.

Flogging oil?
Use it nightly...

Thanks again for the tips!

Tom

[jicaino]

Congrats! As owner of both a V8 and i6 I gotta say the manual i6s are better cars IMHO. And if you ignore the nay sayers they're not actually that slower than the 540i.
Somebody said that the 530i/5 was he best in the e39 lineup and I kind of agree considering you guys didn't get the 530d MTs up there.

[seagreen323i]

I6 is a good car but it's definitely substantially slower then the 540i. Makes less power, much less torque, much less under the curve. It's not slow or anything like that but it is slower then a 540i. We've got both. The 540 puts 2 cars on the 530 0-60

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[SW530]

Sweet! I'd make it into a well maintained and tuned DD and drive it for the next 30 years..

[BimmerBreaker]

Oil pump nut certainly can destroy an engine.

Oil pump nut failure rate is extremely low compared to the number of M62's that have timing chain guide failures. Pretty much any M62 can develop TCG issues but oil pump nut problems only affects cars that are beaten on regularly, or extremely high mileage, with maybe very few exceptions....

I6 is a good car but it's definitely substantially slower then the 540i. Makes less power, much less torque, much less under the curve. It's not slow or anything like that but it is slower then a 540i. We've got both. The 540 puts 2 cars on the 530 0-60

If that is true then there is something seriously wrong with your 530i. A 540i is not even a full second faster in the 1/4 mile. In fact I've seen quite a few times where they are nearly side by side down the strip. Even my lowly 525i hung close enough to a 540i for the 540i owner to feel rather embarrassed...
The 530i has a higher redline, it is lighter and it's geared more aggressively. 540i is a good car but dang man there's no need to slander the M54's lol

Really the bigger, sadder truth is except the M5 there aren't really any fast E39's by today's standards... even an M5 will get smoked by most modern BMW's. So if we are talking just driving enjoyment, it'd be the better balanced, lighter, steering rack equipped I6 model for me any day... (then again, this is being said by someone who put a BMW V8 into a car that originally came with an I6, so maybe I'm a hypocrite)

[seagreen323i]

530 is an auto, not sure how problematic that is. Sure it factors into it. I'm not slandering the m54, just giving it the same treatment people give to m62 engines.

Joking aside, the m54 is dead reliable. A fantastically smooth motor, and a rock solid performer when it comes to overall balance.

540 has a better trans, diff, and engine (depending on how you see things)

530 has a better front suspension setup, better steering linkage, and lower weight (also slightly better weight balance.)

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[haolibird]

Man, I'm Geeked at having this new ride in the inventory!

Can't wait to start the restoration.
Some added pics of the engine compartment, post clean.

I PM'd another member whose opinion I hold in high esteem, and he is not high on the Catch-Can conversion.
Granted, on this car, the CCV was replaced not that long ago, in terms of miles, maybe 30k. (6 yrs in terms of time).
I was going to use the "50's Kid" CC example that he built for his E46.
Any differing opinions?


LOL on the V8 compared to modern cars.
It seems that even a Corolla is much faster off the line than my 540.
That said, my experience in the 70mph to 120mph range the 540 has few peers, especially if you have a 6spd.
And yes, I have been smoked by many a late model off the line in the M5. (My crappy driving not withstanding)
But I ain't like that no more.

Thanks to all who have given their opinions.
Tom

[BimmerBreaker]

Catch cans are stupid. If the CCV system is broken just fix it.

[haolibird]

BB,

Not broken that I know of, but you certainly don't mince words.

Thanks,
Hb

[seagreen323i]

Catch cans are stupid. If the CCV system is broken just fix it.

Catch cans have their place. Increased ring gap due to boost increases blowby. That will quickly overwhelm the stock ccv system.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

[KeysCoupe]

Quote from Bimmerbreaker;
If that is true then there is something seriously wrong with your 530i. A 540i is not even a full second faster in the 1/4 mile. In fact I've seen quite a few times where they are nearly side by side down the strip. Even my lowly 525i hung close enough to a 540i for the 540i owner to feel rather embarrassed...
The 530i has a higher redline, it is lighter and it's geared more aggressively. 540i is a good car but dang man there's no need to slander the M54's lol

Really the bigger, sadder truth is except the M5 there aren't really any fast E39's by today's standards... even an M5 will get smoked by most modern BMW's. So if we are talking just driving enjoyment, it'd be the better balanced, lighter, steering rack equipped I6 model for me any day... (then again, this is being said by someone who put a BMW V8 into a car that originally came with an I6, so maybe I'm a hypocrite)[/QUOTE]

A few years ago when I bought my 525 wagon, a friend picked me up with his 540 to take me over to pick it up. He had never seen an E39 with a supercharger (neither had I). On the drive home on I 95, he egged me on to see what my car would do. He blew by me, so I took off after him. I quickly caught him and put a 100 yards on him till I backed down. He couldn’t believe how much faster I was. I figured he backed off after passing, but he said he never lifted until I backed off.
When I was looking at E39s, the first car I drove was a 528, then I drove a 540, and it felt much “heavier” and less nimble than the I6 car. I knew which version I preferred. Then I got lucky finding my wagon. I just need the time to swap in the 6 speed and M54b30.
By the way, my car came with a catch-can, but its likely there for a reason. I’ll re-sort that when it gets repowered. This car should have the best of both worlds.
-Donny

[KeysCoupe]

With your engine compartment photos, I assume you pulled the cam cover trim, and airbox, etc. as part of your cleanup? Or is that how you got the car? It does look clean. Have you gotten it started yet?
-Donny

[Mike WW]

Virgin no more...

I recently came across a 530 5speed in need of a new home.

$2500.00
236k on the clock
Original owner, with folder full of receipts ($20,495.00 over the life of the car)
Car sat for 5years (plausible story for the long sleep)
Most of the 6cyl maint items have been addressed in the last 30k miles.
Paint flawless
Interior outstanding
Rims near perfect

On a total impulse, I bought this car that my neighbor found while on the job.
Having limited knowledge of the M54, BMW forums are a good thing...

Still, I feel like an infidel.

Some of the receipts a


Pics for your consideration.

Tom

Ya know, I'd more than likely be more than happy to spare you any 6 cylinder embarrassment... Wouldn't want you to feel like an infidel...

[sleuth255]

I PM'd another member whose opinion I hold in high esteem, and he is not high on the Catch-Can conversion....

I posted a link earlier in this thread; a how-to for replacing the entire CCV system with a simpler and far less troublesome PCV valve. I've not done this conversion myself (yet) but it does appear to be a popular conversion for I6 owners. Does have some controversy though. Maybe CCV is an example of Bavarian over-engineering? From what I can tell, this is not a catch-can solution either. Interesting discussion on its effectiveness in the original thread:

https://www.xoutpost.com/bmw-sav-for...-problems.html

[ross1]

I posted a link earlier in this thread; a how-to for replacing the entire CCV system with a simpler and far less troublesome PCV valve. I've not done this conversion myself (yet) but it does appear to be a popular conversion for I6 owners. Does have some controversy though. Maybe CCV is an example of Bavarian over-engineering? From what I can tell, this is not a catch-can solution either. Interesting discussion on its effectiveness in the original thread:

https://www.xoutpost.com/bmw-sav-for...-problems.html

I get it that nobody likes changing or paying for the CCV. Mrs. Ross' froze up one year and isn't a pleasant job, nothing under the intake of these is.
A simpler maintenance idea might be to replace the drain hose to the dipstick once in a while as this seems to be where the congealed schmutz from condensation and oil fumes collects.
Cars that aren't garaged in cold climates and see short trips seem to be the likely victims. Can't use a garage if you don't have one but you can get the car out and run it.
I've installed the "cold weather" version (which seems to simply be some insulation around a few of the pipes) on another's car recently. That one was a bigger PITA as all the hoses are now bloated from the insulation.
The "solutions" I see offered all appear a bit makeshift. Like some other bits, once in a decade problems are fine by me. I don't feel the need to re-engineer the system.

[sleuth255]

Mine gets about 1000mi/qt and I've replaced the CCV twice now. I definitely fall into the class of "short trip/cold climate" owners. The theory behind the PCV mod reducing oil consumption in an M54 is that the increased crankcase vacuum equalizes the pressure differential on the intake stroke which keeps oil from moving past the more ineffective oil ring in these engines.

[ross1]

That seems implausible. The oil is a film on the cyl walls, no amount of crankcase vacuum is going to change that. The oil mist needs to be separated out, vented or burned, take your pick. What am I missing?

[sleuth255]

Its what I was reading on the thread I linked. According to posters there, on an M54, the oil ring gap becomes excessive very quickly which in turn creates an excessive oil consumption condition. Seemed to be a reasonable explanation as to why the mod instantly decreased consumption about 4 fold.

[ross1]

Its what I was reading on the thread I linked. According to posters there, on an M54, the oil ring gap becomes excessive very quickly which in turn creates an excessive oil consumption condition. Seemed to be a reasonable explanation as to why the mod instantly decreased consumption about 4 fold.

I see. My thoughts were regarding the freezing issue, I didn't consider oil burning M54s. M52s don't seem to suffer that problem.
I'll do some reading and educate myself.
So, did some reading of that thread. Looks like all of the oil mist in the rocker cover is now just going to be burned after being introduced to the intake tract.
Another thought about the set up described in that thread is that the old style crankcase venting this fellow emulates required venting to atmosphere. That would certainly wreak havoc on the fuel mixtures with all the unmetered air.
Just doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

[haolibird]

KeysCoupe,
Yes, I have all the components.
They were pulled for cleaning purposes, and now reside in the trunk.

Mike WW,
I appreciate the Aloha!

I'm gonna swallow my pride, and see how this one shakes out.

Until my wife takes down the Christmas deco's, my garage is not mine...
All work will have to wait until the New Year.

I hope to get to it soon after the Tundra's timing belt replacement.
The 530 is undercover in a friends storage lot for now.

The catch can debate is interesting, as I thought it was sussed out long ago.
By admission, I would only slightly scan I6 post at the 'Fest, as they held little interest for me.

Just for fun...My slowwww M5.

Mahalo,
Hb

[Mike WW]

I see. My thoughts were regarding the freezing issue, I didn't consider oil burning M54s. M52s don't seem to suffer that problem.

Yeah, as similar as they are, M52s and TUs which are really M54s without drive by wire, don't burn oil, at all, with reasonable care. M54s often do. I've been hearing more about worn rings in recent years, but for a long time it was mostly attributed to low tension rings trying to squeeze out every last MPG, then not working as well with age, especially if the factory extended oil changes were used which could either seize the rings or clog up the drain holes in the pistons, leading to sometimes severe oil consumption.

I feel like a salesman for them I plug them so much, but Liqui Moly 5-40 LL 01 made a dramatic difference in my M54. Not entirely sure why it works, but it does for me.

https://www.bimmerforums.com/forum/s...he-usual-story