BMW 1 Series Coupe Forum / 1 Series Convertible Forum (1M / tii / 135i / 128i / Coupe / Cabrio / Hatchback) (BMW E82 E88 128i 130i 135i)
 





 

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      11-20-2009, 02:20 AM   #67
BSM Bimmer
Banned
BSM Bimmer's Avatar
0
Rep
81
Posts

Drives: 2008 135i
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Stillwater Oklahoma

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by asr engineering View Post
Do you have factual data to support your claim about the stock intake tubes being the choke point? Do you know exactly what the overall surface area calculation is of the factory intake to see what the VE limit is? If you read our previous post you'll see where the information you are giving to other members is incorrect.
Well, the stock inlet pipes are tapered down to slightly larger than 1 1/4 inches which would be a choke point. I'm sorry if I missed the thread, but where is the thread with your results as I'm really trying to figure out what parts are going to see large benefits and which are not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by asr engineering View Post
Also, what yourself and many other memebrs don't understand is the labor time to replace all those intake pipes that you feel are the choke point. It's easy to make a statement saying that you should replace the intake tubes from the turbos to the airbox, when many people have never seen what it actually takes to do so. No one in their right mind is going to pay the ridiculous amount of time it would take to R&R these intake tubes, especially when you will not see any power gains even with our upgraded turbos. We have proven this already with our upgraded turbo 135i.
I know it would be very time consuming to replace the pipes, but it wouldn't cost anything for a semi-skilled diy-er. Oldbooser (Larry Owens) had the pipes made and saw great results at the dragstrip after installing them. If I remember correctly he saw almost a half second gain a quarter mile runs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by asr engineering View Post
Lastly, the air temp increase with the BMS and Injen intake is quite a bit more than you think it is. In case you're not familiar with BMW's adaptive ignition timing advance, it is directly relative to intake temperatures. Also, from a tuning perspective, each degree of intake timing advance produces more of a hp inrease than each lb of boost. Now if your intake air temperature is increased how do you think that will affect the ignition timing advance?
I previously had a BMS tuning gauge for my JB3, and logged Air intake temps with my BT with the stock CAI and DCI's. The temps were almost identical. The only explanation that makes sense is:

a.) The difference in temps between the stock CAI and an open element system is negligible as the inter-cooler is what is responsible for cooling the intake charge after the turbos.

b.) the increased efficiency of the turbos with the intake has caused the temps to stay the same.

The simplistic equation for making power on a boosted car is Boost+Timing+AFR=hp/tq, and my timing logs were the same after as well, so people running an open intake should see no downside to it. I'm really interested in what data has shown a closed intake to be superior.
Appreciate 0
      11-20-2009, 07:34 AM   #68
BimmerBoi2100
Private First Class
2
Rep
145
Posts

Drives: 2009 Black 135i
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Da Desert

iTrader: (0)

I wanna see the dyno.....i'm feeling the design though....not feeling the price...
Appreciate 0
      11-20-2009, 08:46 AM   #69
jeremyc74
Banned
United_States
76
Rep
5,970
Posts

Drives: '08 135i Montego/Terra
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Evansville, IN

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by brracing View Post
AND class dismissed, Abid will be here all week to help go over your homework in terms of physics and thermodynamics.

I wouldn't go that far. I don't think you guys have NEARLY enough information to just dismiss them, especially when your main reasoning seems to be that they're just too expensive to make.

You're not schooling anyone in physics and thermodynamics here until you've got some data, and so far I don't see that you do. You're guessing just like everyone else, and attempting to back your guesses up with theorys that may or may not hold up in this situation.

The tubes are small, and anytime you've got high velocity flow through a small tube there's going to be a pressure drop. You can't deny that. The only question here is whether or not there's enough pressure drop to justtify the cost involved with making the tubes larger, and the bottom line is you just don't know.

If you've modeled the tubes and simulated the drops across the entire boost and RPM ranges, then I'll retract that, but I'm betting you haven't.

The wrap-around tubes are an OBVIOUS choke point, and you guys are damaging your credibility trying to convince people who know better that they aren't.


Last edited by jeremyc74; 11-20-2009 at 09:46 AM.. Reason: Added Picture
Appreciate 0
      11-20-2009, 12:36 PM   #70
asr engineering
Second Lieutenant
21
Rep
261
Posts

Drives: BMW M5
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Miami, FL

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BSM135i View Post
Well, the stock inlet pipes are tapered down to slightly larger than 1 1/4 inches which would be a choke point. I'm sorry if I missed the thread, but where is the thread with your results as I'm really trying to figure out what parts are going to see large benefits and which are not.

I know it would be very time consuming to replace the pipes, but it wouldn't cost anything for a semi-skilled diy-er. Oldbooser (Larry Owens) had the pipes made and saw great results at the dragstrip after installing them. If I remember correctly he saw almost a half second gain a quarter mile runs.

1/4 mile means nothing with all other variables involved. Where does he have a dyno graph back to back that shoes the difference? If that's the kind of data that is being used to support performance gains, than someone needs to take a crash course on how to do R&D testing.


I previously had a BMS tuning gauge for my JB3, and logged Air intake temps with my BT with the stock CAI and DCI's. The temps were almost identical. The only explanation that makes sense is:

a.) The difference in temps between the stock CAI and an open element system is negligible as the inter-cooler is what is responsible for cooling the intake charge after the turbos.

b.) the increased efficiency of the turbos with the intake has caused the temps to stay the same.

The simplistic equation for making power on a boosted car is Boost+Timing+AFR=hp/tq, and my timing logs were the same after as well, so people running an open intake should see no downside to it. I'm really interested in what data has shown a closed intake to be superior.
The information you're providing here is absolutely false and again based on assumption. I'd really like for you to explain to everyone here how running anything bigger than 1.45" in diameter will help increase airflow to the stock turbos, when the max compressor cover inside diameter is 1.45" at the compressor wheel inducer? We know this information because we've done the R&D and the math. It's obvious you're basing your informtaion on speculation and not real proof or data. The engineers at BMW specifically designed the intake system to support VE at the compressor inducer.

We have done over 150 passes on the dyno with our turbo upgrades with all three intake designs we've discussed and non of them supported the power of our intake. Shiv has posted all the dyno graphs and has openly discussed this before on previous threads. I really have a hard time understanding how you can question our data and dyno graphs when your information about choke point and piping diameter come from pure guesswork and speculation.

We have openly stated here on the boards that we are more than willing to back up our claims for stock turbo applications and will post all datalogs and dyno graphs.
Appreciate 0
      11-20-2009, 12:50 PM   #71
jeremyc74
Banned
United_States
76
Rep
5,970
Posts

Drives: '08 135i Montego/Terra
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Evansville, IN

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by asr engineering View Post
The information you're providing here is absolutely false and again based on assumption. I'd really like for you to explain to everyone here how running anything bigger than 1.45" in diameter will help increase airflow to the stock turbos, when the max compressor cover inside diameter is 1.45" at the compressor wheel inducer? We know this information because we've done the R&D and the math. It's obvious you're basing your informtaion on speculation and not real proof or data. The engineers at BMW specifically designed the intake system to support VE at the compressor inducer.

We have done over 150 passes on the dyno with our turbo upgrades with all three intake designs we've discussed and non of them supported the power of our intake. Shiv has posted all the dyno graphs and has openly discussed this before on previous threads. I really have a hard time understanding how you can question our data and dyno graphs when your information about choke point and piping diameter come from pure guesswork and speculation.

We have openly stated here on the boards that we are more than willing to back up our claims for stock turbo applications and will post all datalogs and dyno graphs.

Are you suggesting that just because the tubes aren't smaller than the turbo inlets they're not causing a restriction?

What dyno charts have been shown that demonstrat that there's no power to be gained from increasing the tube size?
Appreciate 0
      11-20-2009, 12:56 PM   #72
asr engineering
Second Lieutenant
21
Rep
261
Posts

Drives: BMW M5
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Miami, FL

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremyc74 View Post
I wouldn't go that far. I don't think you guys have NEARLY enough information to just dismiss them, especially when your main reasoning seems to be that they're just too expensive to make.

You're not schooling anyone in physics and thermodynamics here until you've got some data, and so far I don't see that you do. You're guessing just like everyone else, and attempting to back your guesses up with theorys that may or may not hold up in this situation.

The tubes are small, and anytime you've got high velocity flow through a small tube there's going to be a pressure drop. You can't deny that. The only question here is whether or not there's enough pressure drop to justtify the cost involved with making the tubes larger, and the bottom line is you just don't know.

If you've modeled the tubes and simulated the drops across the entire boost and RPM ranges, then I'll retract that, but I'm betting you haven't.

The wrap-around tubes are an OBVIOUS choke point, and you guys are damaging your credibility trying to convince people who know better that they aren't.

There is no guessing involved here at all. All the data we've collected is from over 150 passes on the dyno with our TT upgrades along with all the different box designs we've discussed here. I'll say it again, the only one that was able to support the max power gains was our intake. We are the only company that has actually even tested the hp and tq increases with the intake ducts completed disconneted on the dyno with absolutely no net gain in power or torque. So, please explain to me how we are guessing? Shiv has already posted this information previously for others to view.

The bottom line is that We Do Know the inlet diameter of the compressor is 1.45" and to say that increasing the intake diameter above that level will produce more hp on stock turbos is absolutely false. The fact is yourself and several others assume you know about dimensions and values of the stock intake system, when your basing your information on pictures. The information we've presented is factual and true based on hands on measurements taken from factory parts we've done R&D testing with.

Last edited by asr engineering; 11-20-2009 at 01:19 PM..
Appreciate 0
      11-20-2009, 01:05 PM   #73
asr engineering
Second Lieutenant
21
Rep
261
Posts

Drives: BMW M5
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Miami, FL

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremyc74 View Post
Are you suggesting that just because the tubes aren't smaller than the turbo inlets they're not causing a restriction?

What dyno charts have been shown that demonstrat that there's no power to be gained from increasing the tube size?
Shiv posted dyno sheets and commented after the tuning session with our tt upgrades, that even he was suprised after we removed the intake tubes there was no power or torque increase at all. The dyno sheets look pretty much 99.9% identical both with and without the factory intake tubes connected. So, I'm not suggesting anything since we've already proven it.
Appreciate 0
      11-20-2009, 01:43 PM   #74
BSM Bimmer
Banned
BSM Bimmer's Avatar
0
Rep
81
Posts

Drives: 2008 135i
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Stillwater Oklahoma

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by asr engineering View Post
The information you're providing here is absolutely false and again based on assumption. I'd really like for you to explain to everyone here how running anything bigger than 1.45" in diameter will help increase airflow to the stock turbos, when the max compressor cover inside diameter is 1.45" at the compressor wheel inducer? We know this information because we've done the R&D and the math. It's obvious you're basing your informtaion on speculation and not real proof or data. The engineers at BMW specifically designed the intake system to support VE at the compressor inducer.
No need to take an ugly tone. We are all just enthusiast here trying to figure out the best parts to accomplish our power goals. I would say the real world proof of Larry Owens car (the record holder for any 135i, stock turbos or otherwise) makes it worth looking into. If the stock BMW parts are so great, then why do we need a new intake, exhaust, inter-cooler, and other bits and pieces to make more HP if it is designed with perfect efficiency?

If the ID of the pipes taper down to 1.25-1.3 inches, and the diameter of the compressor wheel is 1.45, then we would see greater efficiency if we changed the pipes to 1.5" ID. you seem to be contradicting yourself by stating that the gains would occur until you reach the maximum 1.45" of the compressor housing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by asr engineering View Post
We have done over 150 passes on the dyno with our turbo upgrades with all three intake designs we've discussed and non of them supported the power of our intake. Shiv has posted all the dyno graphs and has openly discussed this before on previous threads. I really have a hard time understanding how you can question our data and dyno graphs when your information about choke point and piping diameter come from pure guesswork and speculation.
No offense, but how are your 2 cone filters in a box so much better flowing than any others without the box? Where are shivs posts? I have not seen them here on 1addicts... Is it at e90post? Shiv seems to be a lot more active on there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by asr engineering View Post
We have openly stated here on the boards that we are more than willing to back up our claims for stock turbo applications and will post all datalogs and dyno graphs.
I searched here and couldn't find the dyno's proving that the intake pipes going to the turbos were adequate, could you post the link?
Appreciate 0
      11-20-2009, 02:26 PM   #75
asr engineering
Second Lieutenant
21
Rep
261
Posts

Drives: BMW M5
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Miami, FL

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BSM135i View Post
No need to take an ugly tone. We are all just enthusiast here trying to figure out the best parts to accomplish our power goals. I would say the real world proof of Larry Owens car (the record holder for any 135i, stock turbos or otherwise) makes it worth looking into. If the stock BMW parts are so great, then why do we need a new intake, exhaust, inter-cooler, and other bits and pieces to make more HP if it is designed with perfect efficiency?

If the ID of the pipes taper down to 1.25-1.3 inches, and the diameter of the compressor wheel is 1.45, then we would see greater efficiency if we changed the pipes to 1.5" ID. you seem to be contradicting yourself by stating that the gains would occur until you reach the maximum 1.45" of the compressor housing.



No offense, but how are your 2 cone filters in a box so much better flowing than any others without the box? Where are shivs posts? I have not seen them here on 1addicts... Is it at e90post? Shiv seems to be a lot more active on there.



I searched here and couldn't find the dyno's proving that the intake pipes going to the turbos were adequate, could you post the link?
Not taking an ugly tone here at all, just simply stating the facts. You're stating that you're just enthusiasts trying to figure out the best parts for the your power goals, but than bash a product based on assumption and no technical data. What you're mis-understanding is the fact that the stock intake tubes were engineered to meet the specifications of the stock turbo compressor inlet diameter. This is what I mean about how BMW engineer's designed the system. Referencing the limitations of other products that are designed by BMW Engineers has no siginificance or bearing to the inlet diameter of the stock intake tubes matching the inlet diameter of the stock turbo compressor, since we are comparing stock to stock.

We're not contradicting ourselves since we have tested our upgraded turbos with stock tubing completely disconnected resulting in no gain in power or torque at all. If we were to have seen any siginificant gains at all, we would've designed new intake tubes to match our TT upgrades. If the stock inlet tubes can support 538whp, which is within the compressor maps of our upgraded turbos, this is just a prime example of their VE capability.

Shiv's posts are located on a thread he started on E90post with the results of our tt upgrade dyno tuning session. I believe the thread title is "500hp Been There Done That". Dyno sheets are located all over the thread including Stage I pump gas files all the way up to Stage III race and meth files. I would be more than happy to re-post a dyno sheet of our results if you haven't already seen it, but we are not permitted to do so since we are not a vendor. Although, we can provide this information to BR Racing to post if you can't find it on e90post.
Appreciate 0
      11-20-2009, 06:38 PM   #76
wu2x
Captain
wu2x's Avatar
No_Country
35
Rep
717
Posts

Drives: 2011 E90 M3 6MT
Join Date: May 2008
Location: NorCal

iTrader: (0)

Vendor status only matters on e90post, we don't care about that around these parts, although the mods might move the thread over to the for sale section. Feel free to post the dynos
Appreciate 0
      11-20-2009, 06:52 PM   #77
Project1
Bimmer Love
Project1's Avatar
16
Rep
362
Posts

Drives: You will figure it out...
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Broadway, NC

iTrader: (2)

I happen to like it...wish I hadn't already purchased a different intake, elbow, BOV, and etc...otherwise I would jump. Good job guys!
Appreciate 0
      11-20-2009, 06:57 PM   #78
philiopf22
Private First Class
16
Rep
135
Posts

Drives: Black Lexus GX 470 / AW 135
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Danville, CA

iTrader: (0)

"The next step now is to dyno test it on stock turbos vs a factory airbox and collect datalogs to reflect the positive gains."

Probably should have waited to posta at all until you did this before posting with "butt dyno" claims.

Neat design however it'll never come near my car at that cost unless it is DRAMATICALLY better than an open air setup. And I mean > 3x or 4x better.
Appreciate 0
      11-20-2009, 08:27 PM   #79
jeremyc74
Banned
United_States
76
Rep
5,970
Posts

Drives: '08 135i Montego/Terra
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Evansville, IN

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by asr engineering View Post
Shiv posted dyno sheets and commented after the tuning session with our tt upgrades, that even he was suprised after we removed the intake tubes there was no power or torque increase at all. The dyno sheets look pretty much 99.9% identical both with and without the factory intake tubes connected. So, I'm not suggesting anything since we've already proven it.

Then post a link to the dyno results showing the same power with the tubes and airbox and without.

It's a well known fact that the Shivs system shoots for a torque target and it could have very well been making that target at less boost.
Appreciate 0
      11-20-2009, 09:06 PM   #80
BSM Bimmer
Banned
BSM Bimmer's Avatar
0
Rep
81
Posts

Drives: 2008 135i
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Stillwater Oklahoma

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremyc74 View Post
Then post a link to the dyno results showing the same power with the tubes and airbox and without.

It's a well known fact that the Shivs system shoots for a torque target and it could have very well been making that target at less boost.
I would like to see that chart as well. I think it could be really telling as to where each part becomes a bottleneck on power...

Yeah, I had forgotten that shiv's tune is based on a torque target...
Appreciate 0
      11-20-2009, 10:39 PM   #81
brracing
brracing's Avatar
United_States
23
Rep
194
Posts

Drives: E46 M3, 135i, Mini Cooper S -
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bay Area, CA

iTrader: (1)

There seems to be two angles of interest here.
(1) Performance...we will post the data from the prior set of tests, and we have stated that we will perform additional tests of stock/OEM vs the new intake.
In addition, if others have had systems on the market, and are now readying new designs that will also be of the closed intake side...normal deduction would be that if those vendors had a product set before, and are now replacing it with a more refined version (closed), there would likely be a reason (performance)....you have seen the new AFE closed system shown at SEMA (and it's price point...but more on that in a sec), and it is only an intake, and it does not leverage for forced air element of the stock intake scoops or inlet...just moves the intake location, and Dinan, which has shown their prototype (and which was supposed to see the light of day this month), which also is a closed system, and which also is a CAI only and not integrated
(2) Price...we're working on price, and normally you see price points drop over time as the volume grows and costs are driven out. We're the ONLY ones offering additional elements (powder coating to match car color as an examle, SS mesh air filters), the system we've shown includes the charge pipe and BOV (which in and of itself is over $500 and is with a TIAL unit for better response), which means the intake (closed, powder coated, w two SS mesh air filters, scoops, integrated w OEM system, greater volume) is currently at $1,000 vs the AFE at $800 and not integrated, etc....doesn't seem like the value proposition is too off at all. If we change the BOV type, change to K&N filters, eliminate the color choices, go to lighter weight alum shrouds, etc, we could drive the price point lower, or offer multiple solution options....and again, if you don't like the price point...you're not forced to buy in any way, but is great feedback on where we need to be in a rational pricing discussion, rather than "cheaper".
Appreciate 0
      11-21-2009, 03:15 PM   #82
emos325
Streifenden Komet
United_States
9
Rep
120
Posts

Drives: 525i was a 325is
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ft.Myers/Orlando Fl

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
i like how you guys are thinking about offering it in multiple solutions. To me more options the better, you seem like the slogan should be "cheaper price cheaper parts, quality parts quality price." Don't sacrifice stick to your guys and if all the info and dynos (i haven't seen them yet) prove the point then as you said no one is forcing us to buy it. i'd shell out the cash for the product once i have done my home work, on you guys as well as ur product. Great going both BRRACING AND ASR Don't back down!
Appreciate 0
      11-21-2009, 07:52 PM   #83
onehungevo
Captain
64
Rep
982
Posts

Drives:
Join Date: Sep 2008

iTrader: (0)

I think everyone is taking out their frusteration on this vendor because multiple vendor's have sold rims, performance parts etc. that don't perform or fit the 135. Keep up the good work;
Appreciate 0
      11-21-2009, 11:42 PM   #84
Evice
Major
Evice's Avatar
193
Rep
1,457
Posts

Drives: E92M3
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Somewhere here

iTrader: (1)

@jeremyc74

"you've got high velocity flow through a small tube there's going to be a pressure drop"

technically... pressure increases in the tube, not decreases(drops).
__________________
Appreciate 0
      11-22-2009, 01:18 AM   #85
jeremyc74
Banned
United_States
76
Rep
5,970
Posts

Drives: '08 135i Montego/Terra
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Evansville, IN

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evice View Post
@jeremyc74

"you've got high velocity flow through a small tube there's going to be a pressure drop"

technically... pressure increases in the tube, not decreases(drops).

It's a restriction. If the outside pressure is at atmosphere, it will be LESS after the tubing. Are you REALLY going to debate that on a technicality?
Appreciate 0
      11-22-2009, 10:17 AM   #86
Jettafanatic
Private First Class
Jettafanatic's Avatar
United_States
14
Rep
120
Posts

Drives: 135i
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Santa Barbara, CA

iTrader: (2)

Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evice View Post
@jeremyc74

"you've got high velocity flow through a small tube there's going to be a pressure drop"

technically... pressure increases in the tube, not decreases(drops).
Actually... Pressure is inversely related to speed when it comes to tube diameters... Bernoulli, gotta love him... so Jeremy is correct... http://physicsed.buffalostate.edu/Wi.../bernoulli.gif

I had thought of building ( done it before for my race jetta using lexan plastic from baby incubator that had been discarded ) something very similar to what you guys came up with. There is no doubt that a closed system sucking air *efficiently* from outside of the engine compartment is a better solution ( in fact, that's essentially what the OEM airbox is, though the design could have been a lot better as it comes with inherent restrictions including the strange small squarish opening from the air filter compartment to the intake tubes... very small ). And I thnk you guys have done a proper job... It's because of people like you who keep trying to come up with "better" systems that we have a tuning market tiday ( the beauty of living in the US rather than Italy....
I applaud the design thought and effort though would make 2 suggestions:

-I would prefer an air filter with a built-in velocity stack ( i.e. Baker precision) or BmS style ( not sure if your stainless steels have that?).

-For those who already have a charge pipe and a strut bar (Mason) your design will not work... which is unfortunate... maybe a "shallower" box version should be available?

Appreciate 0
      11-22-2009, 02:28 PM   #87
emos325
Streifenden Komet
United_States
9
Rep
120
Posts

Drives: 525i was a 325is
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ft.Myers/Orlando Fl

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
"-For those who already have a charge pipe and a strut bar (Mason) your design will not work... which is unfortunate... maybe a "shallower" box version should be available?"
if possible or have the tubes set lower. Once again if possible! Any ideas, would you consider it, would a shallower box retard the design, make it less tan optimal?
Appreciate 0
      11-22-2009, 04:08 PM   #88
BMW-driver
Drive carefully :)
BMW-driver's Avatar
Netherlands
6
Rep
322
Posts

Drives: 1M Valencia Orange
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Leeuwarden

iTrader: (0)

So, still not any dyno yet from the ASR product I suppose?
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:38 PM.




1addicts
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST