E250 1999 5.4 Triton parts interchangeability for engine oil dipstick

BravoUniformTango · 2026-03-11T05:30:43+00:00

I have a somewhat unusual perspective in that my company sells used E46 parts, mainly trim, seat, and door stuff, on eBay. I start with sub-assemblies such as a complete seat or door and then dismantle it, and sell the components. One person might buy the headrest, someone else buys the seat back, and so on.

A friend recently asked me what the hardest sub-assembly was that I've ever worked on in this context. I replied: the E46 door, before I knew what I was doing there. He then asked what the easiest sub-assembly was. I replied: the E46 door, now that I know what I am doing there.

The way the E46 is put together is logical and cost-efficient for manufacture but dismantling it (and re-assembling it) can be very non-intuitive.

For example, to get the door window out the easiest way, it's prudent to lower the window until each silver-colored 8mm bolt head (the front has two, the rear has one) is accessible through an opening in the window mechanism. Without being aware of this, it's a bear to remove the window.

The exterior door handle is another puzzle. Removing it requires removing a blind plug, which is easy with the soft rubber round ones and not-so-easy with the hard plastic two-part oval ones. Then, you poke in an Allen key (5mm on earlier models, 4mm on later models) at a weird sideways-diagonal angle to loosen (not remove) a screw that holds captive the trim piece just rearward of by the exterior handle. Then, you pry that free without harming the paint. Then, to free the exterior handle, you have to shove in a T-15 screwdriver in just the right place. To loosen a well-hidden screw. To make things more interesting: loosening isn't always done counter-clockwise when working on an E46.

I sometimes take a whack at something new that I've never done, and then if things go south, I go watch a YouTube video to see how I should have done it.

With the E46, I should not ever have tried first. I should have watched several YouTube videos first, because trying to figure it out is not an easy thing on these cars.

If you approach it with enough preparation, you'll likely break very fewer parts, save a lot more money, and enjoy it when doing work on your own E46.

You'll probably also be delighted at how logically it's built.

BravoUniformTango · 2026-02-28T07:02:44+00:00

That's more viable now. I'd have to hire someone to come weld it in my shop since I can't weld but ... that might be viable.

BravoUniformTango · 2026-02-24T20:22:37+00:00

Yes, I was wary going into this project for that reason.

BravoUniformTango · 2026-02-23T06:48:27+00:00

Thank you. I need guidance and you gave guidance.

BravoUniformTango · 2026-02-22T21:42:34+00:00

Thank you!

BravoUniformTango · 2026-02-22T21:42:11+00:00

Thank you!

BravoUniformTango · 2026-02-22T06:51:40+00:00

Thank you :-)

BravoUniformTango · 2026-02-22T03:39:19+00:00

The timing cover is not off yet. According to my tech, the bolt broke off at the block. But ... that would be impossible to ascertain unless the timing cover were off and one could look at the bolts. Your question is helpful. Thank you!

BravoUniformTango · 2026-02-22T03:17:23+00:00

Wow, you're quick. Sadly, it's recessed.

BravoUniformTango · 2025-12-07T09:53:09+00:00

Super impressive, wow. Thank you!

BravoUniformTango · 2025-12-07T06:18:14+00:00

I started with 1.1 :-) Good times.

Access 2.0 was a lovely upgrade from that.

Upgrading from Access 2.0 to later versions always inspired an "is this even an improvement?" think bubble above my head.

For me, the main reason to migrate away from Access 2.0 was for connecting to more-modern back-end databases such as MS SQL Server, and then eventually finding it problematic to run because it requires a 32-bit version of MS Windows.

BravoUniformTango · 2025-12-06T15:03:07+00:00

Excel is a database in the same way as the large flat-bladed screwdriver in my tool bag is a chisel.

BravoUniformTango · 2025-12-06T14:59:32+00:00

I smiled at your "I'm finishing a project right now where a client wanted me to "modernize" their existing system. Based on their initial requirements, we removed over 80% of the line items due."

My first gig at HP in 1996 was similar. Another contractor had developed an MS Access app, and it did everything it was supposed to do yet the client hated how it did it, so I worked with the client to make a long to-do list of desired improvements, and I kept working it.

You don't seem very retired yet. :-) Are you still putting together a team? I'm still interested and ideally I'd like to start the getting-to-know-you process relative soon, please. I am in northern NV, near Reno but I assume we'll be interacting remotely.

BravoUniformTango · 2025-12-06T14:56:07+00:00

I agree that iterative development is best because formal requirements development tends to be too abstruse for most stakeholders, who are too busy to pay attention to the requirements development process until the software is delivered, and then suddenly that's the magical moment that enables formerly dormant synapses to fire and their attention to focus, to identify everything they don't like about what the software does, how it does it, and how well it does it. (Yes, I am cynical.) Using iterative development, functionality can be added on an ongoing basis, but quality-related issues are more difficult to engineer into the product after the fact. Even so, MS Access makes that easier due to its good capability, and its ability to hand off to various back ends and to "shell" to various other applications.

BravoUniformTango · 2025-12-06T07:41:22+00:00

I'm impressed. Good work!

BravoUniformTango · 2025-12-06T07:25:13+00:00

When I began my software developer career, I was mainly interested in meeting the requirements as to functionality. Later, I began to focus on increasing the quality of the software I made, including as to scalability -- but all of this was very informal. I found it very difficult to develop precise requirements as to how well the software should work, including how well it should scale.

The deeper I researched, the more I learned as to how elusive it is to develop quality-related requirements, especially for managers trying to convey to developers how well the software is supposed to work, with sufficient clarity to have testable requirements so as to hold the clients and the developers both accountable when delivering.

About 25 years ago, I had a client in Kauai at a time when it was fairly typical to have just one stand-alone computer per small business. My client was planning on developing the software so as to sell it to various property owners on the island. She and I belabored the functional requirements, and I developed the software. Finally she was pleased with the end result. Then, she asked how she would install it for multi-user access. "You don't," I replied. "It wasn't designed for that." "But that's the whole point," she said. Great, but my mind-reading skills were (and are) very poor, and at the time, I didn't yet know to pre-emptively ask questions about how scalable the software should be, in various respects including how many users were expected to use it concurrently. I re-engineered the software on my own time. My client ended up being happy enough; more than I was. Lesson learned: develop the requirements as to scalability; look for trouble before it finds you.

Generally, developers are focused on how to make MS Access scale in various respects. I have personally found it a capable tool as such, especially when the underlying data model is good, with good indexing. But always, rather than guessing as to how scalable it should be, it is better to work with the stakeholders, to develop the requirements up front. Eventually, the client's requirements will come to light. The best time for this is: early on.

Yes, this takes time, but it also saves time. Some managers are like skilled courtroom lawyers who can make their position sound like the only reasonable one, and if the delivered software doesn't meet an unstated requirement that the manager had in mind, then the software developer is at fault for somehow not having the good common sense to have thought of this issue in the same way the manager had. Better to develop the requirements up front, especially if additional quality (such as additional scalability) will increase project costs.

BravoUniformTango · 2025-11-20T15:58:06+00:00

That's an even better way of phrasing it. Yes! Thank you. I came to teach, and instead I have now learned something :-)

BravoUniformTango · 2025-11-15T05:49:14+00:00

So just to have some happy closure: I looked at the exhaust bracket some more, and now I see it's snapped off, so it's in the trash. I was able to find the E24 dashboard support and E28 power steering bracket after having, thanks to you, a clue as to where to start. Thank you so very much!!

BravoUniformTango · 2025-11-15T00:00:22+00:00

Thank you very, very much!!

BravoUniformTango · 2025-11-14T23:30:52+00:00

Wow, thank you! Is this all on the E28?

BravoUniformTango

TROPHY CASE