Question about Front subframe tow hooks

[kiva667]

5 hours ago, NickVyse said:

 

you're lucky - in 1965 they didn't even give you one ? Why wouldn't you use it as intended - certainly don't use anything else under there!

 

 

 

When I turned 55 I would not have let anybody tow me... lol

 

[Mike Self]

My Feb '69 build date '02 has had two hooks from the beginning, as does my Dec 72 build date '73.  I can't recall having seen an '02 with just one--or none--where it wasn't obvious that Something Unfortunate hadn't happened to the missing one(s).  They are often--and easily--bent by parking blocks, curbs etc.  I've even seen 'em stretched out almost like tiny battering rams where one end of the loop had been pulled loose from the subframe.  

 

mike

[kiva667]

"I've even seen 'em stretched out almost like tiny battering rams where one end of the loop had been pulled loose from the subframe."

 

Here's the Persian '02 variant with the twin tow hooks/battering rams.

Edited February 17, 2022 by kiva667
Quote added.

[John76]

14 hours ago, kiva667 said:

in 1965 they didn't even give you one ?

The early cars were much more reliable. Never needed to be towed.

[kiva667]

8 hours ago, John76 said:

The early cars were much more reliable. Never needed to be towed.

A few years ago, while

my car was in storage at my son's girlfriend's mother's house, a rear brake cylinder disintegrated and dumped all the brake fluid on the garage floor. My son gracefully cleaned up the mess and had my '67 NK towed so we could replace both rear cylinders and refill the brake fluid. Towing was free with AAA.

 

I posted the pic of my car on the tow truck on the NK forum.

 

At the time, OE NK rear brake cylinders were available for $200 each.. My man Patrick O'Neil at Midnight Motorsports in Seattle pointed out to me that the E30 versions were identical and cost $20 each. I went with those, it need not be said. Now all is good. In 12 years of ownership that's the only time I've had to have the car towed.

 

 

 

 

[Dudeland]

I thought I had read that they aren't tow hooks at all, but tie-down locations meant for shipping.  Perhaps that is why they bend so easily. 

 

[calw]

The sheet metal ring under the spare tire well doesn't seem strong enough to suit either purpose.  Pulling straight back on lever ground on a car with no locked brakes and out of gear probably won't damage it, unless there's rust in the spare tire well.  Doesn't seem like a useful function...

[jgerock]

48 minutes ago, calw said:

The sheet metal ring under the spare tire well doesn't seem strong enough to suit either purpose.  Pulling straight back on lever ground on a car with no locked brakes and out of gear probably won't damage it, unless there's rust in the spare tire well.  Doesn't seem like a useful function...

Another vertical tie down point was added to the left rear inner fender well.  I posted about this somewhere here on the FAQ- it was a TSB type document that included the starting VIN. Here is the tab on my 69 2002.

[calw]

12 minutes ago, jgerock said:

Another vertical tie down point was added to the left rear inner fender well.  I posted about this somewhere here on the FAQ- it was a TSB type document that included the starting VIN. Here is the tab on my 69 2002.

forgot about that bit.   It's not present on my early '68 1600

[Conserv]

On 2/16/2022 at 10:34 PM, Mike Self said:

My Feb '69 build date '02 has had two hooks from the beginning, as does my Dec 72 build date '73.  I can't recall having seen an '02 with just one--or none--where it wasn't obvious that Something Unfortunate hadn't happened to the missing one(s).  They are often--and easily--bent by parking blocks, curbs etc.  I've even seen 'em stretched out almost like tiny battering rams where one end of the loop had been pulled loose from the subframe.  

 

mike

+1

 

Yes, I learn something new about ‘02’s most days!

 

And, given that we are 50+ years in with these fragile towing eyes, I would have certainly dismissed all claims of “single-towing eye” ‘02’s as reflective of later damage — but for a bunch of “old guys”, and especially original owners such as @tahoedon, who consistently report right-side-only towing eyes. So my primary question then is “When was this changeover?”

 

Mike’s original-owner February 1969 2002 is a carved-in-stone date from my perspective. And it’s always had two towing eyes. But could a 1600-2 have had a single towing eye after that date?

 

Let’s look at the parts catalogue. It makes no mention of 1600-2 vs. 2002 differences, and shows each and every model as having 2 “loop traction eyes”, part number 31112406105. This is component 2 on parts page 31/1, both pages of which are shown below (relevant references highlighted in green). So there’s nothing in my version of the parts catalogue, last updated 1977.

 

Are there earlier versions of this parts page that show a changeover VIN or a different quantity of eyes? I’m not a “right-side-only” eye denier, I’m simply trying to determine when that practice ended. I’m guessing it ended for all sub-models before Mike’s February 1969 example was built.

 

What’s in your old Owner’s handbooks? The oldest version of the handbook I could find in my collection dates to July 1969, and it unambiguously references two front tow eyes (third and fourth photos below, with reference and relevant photo surrounded by blue boxes). They are “tow eyes” according to the handbook, helpful when your ‘02 won’t start! ?

 

And while we’re noting it, the next page in the handbook (fifth photo below) describes the factory-correct use of that rear towing eye: it’s for towing the other guy with your ‘02, so long as his car is neither larger nor heavier than your ‘02. Okay, so that mystery is solved… ?

 

Anyway, I’d love to hear more observations regarding right-side only towing eyes: I’m guessing the changeover is a function of date rather than sub-model. And I’m guessing it was between @tahoedon’s February 1968 1600-2 and @Mike Self’s February 1969 2002.

 

That’s where I’m at based on fairly limited and contradictory evidence.

 

Best regards,

 

Steve

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tahoedon]

My owner’s handbook refers to a towing eye, not eyes.  

[Conserv]

26 minutes ago, tahoedon said:

My owner’s handbook refers to a towing eye, not eyes.  

I love you, Don! ?
 

And I recognize that while a May 1968 publication date on your handbook isn’t the final word on the changeover date, it’s the first published reference I’ve seen verifying the single towing eye! And it flatly contradicts the evidence provided by the parts catalogue — neither the first nor the last time the catalogue was wrong!

 

Thanks and best regards,

 

Steve

 

 

[Son of Marty]

It might be they refer to a singular tow hook because they were meant to be used on one side and not as the pair, don't know, just saying.

[Conserv]

1 hour ago, Son of Marty said:

It might be they refer to a singular tow hook because they were meant to be used on one side and not as the pair, don't know, just saying.

I don’t know for certain either, but the handbook’s language was clearly changed between May 1968 and July 1969. The combination of Don’s bought-new car, manufactured February 1968, supported by the language in the May 1968 handbook, is pretty darned convincing to me.

 

May 1968:

”The front axle support beam is fitted with a towing eye” (first photo below)

 

July 1969:

”The front axle support beam is fitted with towing eyes at left and right.” (second photo below)

Bold text was added by BMW.

 

Best regards,

 

Steve

 

 

 

 

[Son of Marty]

Ok that clearly invalidates my post,

.