Time to learn to change gear - new //M
- Thread starter mj2k
- Start date
By the seaside...
I've read up a lot on this CDV delete thing, even your superb guide with diagrams etc... I just personally don't have an issue with my clutch at all? I've never driven the M and wondered if I could alter how that behaved.
I presume you mean not driven a non ///M. There is a possibility your car has had it removed already. Also others have said they have never had a problem, then removed the CDV and then realised how bad it was, gannet being a prime example.
If you don't have an issue then fine, but anybody who does has nothing to loose by doing this.
If you don't have an issue then fine, but anybody who does has nothing to loose by doing this.
Yep, just referring to M here as the OP and all other have M's but I also owned a 2.0 for 3 years from brand new and didn't have any clutch complaints.
That's made me think about something else, however I'll not hijack this thread and will start up a new one in the non-M section
That's made me think about something else, however I'll not hijack this thread and will start up a new one in the non-M section
Amongst M owners the feedback re. CDV removal is mixed. In my day job, this would be an empirical result of "it don't do nuffink". 
The M clutch is heavier under foot, so doesn't it follow that there's more hydraulic back pressure than in the non-M and that this might cancel out the effects of the CDV (assuming similar hose diameter, CDV aperture, master/slave cylinders etc)?
The M clutch is heavier under foot, so doesn't it follow that there's more hydraulic back pressure than in the non-M and that this might cancel out the effects of the CDV (assuming similar hose diameter, CDV aperture, master/slave cylinders etc)?
It does make a difference... It wouldn't be fitted if it didn't do anything..
Maybe the ones who don't feel anything had a duff CDV..?
I dunno, but the difference can be felt... Especially on quick gearchanges under power, it makes the slave cylinder lazy..
Maybe the ones who don't feel anything had a duff CDV..?
I dunno, but the difference can be felt... Especially on quick gearchanges under power, it makes the slave cylinder lazy..
Z4M-2006 said:
That is true. You could say the opposite too - no harm keeping it if it has no effect and it maintains manufacturing parity with non-Ms - but that doesn't seem to be consistent with all the other changes that M GmbH have made, or the fact that you can simply remove it with no other modification required.
I guess it's just a much more subtle difference on the M than the non. I need to STFU now because I bought new windows instead of a Z4MR.
On a super fast gear change, could the CDV be responsible for failing to go into gear? Like for example take off in first, and attempting to get it into second gear a split second after dipping the clutch?
In that circumstance (balking at high rpm) you're more likely to see benefit from stiffer engine mounts (I have Vibratech Competition engine mounts).ncrossy1980 said:
I found the CDV delete made little difference. I didn't put it back as I didn't like the potential for more rapid clutch wear with "slurred" gear changes in the presence of the CDV.
The gearbox is peachy and dreamy, but if I ever do a get-to-60-as-fast-as-humanly-possible with the goal being to change gear swiftly, it can sometimes refuse to select 2nd when doing it that quickly, it grinds like the clutch hasn't disengaged in time. Never ever happens whilst driving normally.
Ok cool, good to know thanks. Do uprated engine mounts give a noticeably better/smoother drive too?BMWZ4MC said:
