The later model engine (which does NOT have double Vanos btw, that's on the e46) makes more power through out. It's not as peaky, but it makes more power down low and up top (not by much at the higher speed ranges). It's a tighter, more reliable engine. There's really no way you can argue the +'s of the early engine, considering OBD I is due to the chasis not the engine itself.
Ahmet

6/13/2006 12:44:02 AM

euro E36 3.2 engines did have double vanos. yes, of course it more advanced, but it is more diluted car, just like in general e36 has lost race heritage that e30 m3 came from.

6/13/2006 12:47:05 AM

e36 m3s are more fun to drive than e46s, even though e46s are of much a better build quality

i cant really explain why though, guess it's just personal preference

6/13/2006 12:53:51 AM

I disagree with you. I think a late M3 looses nothing to the earlier ones. It's not the same argument. The later engine makes more power down low AND up top, it's more reliable, tends to use less oil, it even runs cleaner and gets better fuel economy. It's not any heavier that I'm aware of either. If it was worse in some way (it's also got better throttle response, and lighter rotating assemblies), your argument could have some merit. Since it doesn't from my perspective, I respectfully disagree.

E30 M3 was a sharper car, some prefer their feel. E46 is heavier, but it's another step ahead in my opinion. If they made a 4 door e46 M3, I'd own one.
Ahmet

6/13/2006 1:04:42 AM

If we are talking about engines per se I am not disputing that the 3.2 engine is more tecnologically advanced. I agree there completely, but I would argue that the torque difference is not significant. 3.0 is 225ft.lb@ 4250rpm, whereas 3.2 is 236ft.lb @ 3800rpm. 11 ft.lb at 400 rpm less is really not really significant. Judging by numbers both engines perform the same in terms of 0-60 and 1/4 miles.

3.0 breaths better due to larger intake manifold at higher rpm. 3.2 is stronger down low. By 1999 m3 has gained some 200 lb of fat from 1995 because of options and more electronics. Fuel economy is identical I believe. I get 28 on the highway @ 75mph. Also, since you drove my car, try not to compare 170k+ miles M3 to the one you had.

Anyhow, I like them both, and would own either one honestly, but '95 3.0 is somewhat special and definetly will be a hard find in near future.

[Edited on June 13, 2006 at 1:32 AM. Reason : tired]

6/13/2006 1:22:01 AM

you turd munchers dont know what youre talking about

both engines are very very similar. (we're talking S50/S52). there no new technology in the S52 besides being obdii compliant. its simply slightly stroked. nothing newer, nothing fancier. S50/S52 heads are even interchangable.

The biggest difference comes from TWO things. the M/S50 manifold has bigger plenums. this means greater air velocity up top, and lower velocity down low. this means more power up top, and less torque down low.

secondly, the have different final drives. the S50 is a 3.15:1 rear and the S52 is a 3:23. this makes the S52 feel even more torquey.

in the land of US E36 M3s, thats all there is to it. either can be made to feel like the other

6/13/2006 8:56:35 AM

I loved your car, I think it's a lot of fun and drives great... I wish I had another car with over 200k miles just to show you low mile freaks that higher miles CAN be OK.
Ahmet

6/13/2006 10:11:54 AM

Quote :

"1999 m3 has gained some 200 lb of fat from 1995 because of options and more electronics."

I think that might be an exaggeration. Sure, it has traction control and the associated extra throttle assembly, side airbags, etc. But what in god's gracious earth do you think they added to yield a 200 lb difference? MAYBE if you're comparing a no-option 95 m3 vs full-option 99 m3, I'd believe an extra 75lbs.

That said, estoril4life

[Edited on June 14, 2006 at 12:29 AM. Reason : .]

6/14/2006 12:28:34 AM

95s aren't drive by wire or anything funky are they?

what is a good stand alone for a bimmer?
or what standalone do bimmer shops prefer?

6/14/2006 12:45:19 AM

1in10^9 shut the fuck up, u dont know what you arte talking about. if i wasnt drunk i would own u right now.,

6/14/2006 1:04:04 AM

^get your slow shit out of here

[Edited on June 14, 2006 at 1:58 AM. Reason : .]

6/14/2006 1:58:28 AM

^^weak sauce

6/14/2006 2:23:31 AM

Bavarian pissing contest.

answer my damned question people

6/14/2006 2:48:08 AM

question is whats the gay to strait ration in here with all these bmw owners?

6/14/2006 9:11:47 AM

No, e36s aren't drive by wire.

TEC3(R), AEM for standalones.

6/14/2006 10:31:20 AM

1in10^9 learn about your car before you try to get technical.

6/14/2006 12:53:18 PM

coming from a guy who compares 540i and M5 without driving the latter one.

6/14/2006 2:32:05 PM

O RLY?

and I def never said that

6/14/2006 2:37:40 PM

wait, i forgot to ask what i said was wrong? please point it out so i can learn.

tell me how long you drove E39 M5?

[Edited on June 14, 2006 at 2:41 PM. Reason : f]

6/14/2006 2:40:32 PM

haha UR M3s cant touch my gs400

6/14/2006 2:54:26 PM

Quote :

"wait, i forgot to ask what i said was wrong? please point it out so i can learn. "

Quote :

"^^well in terms in being more advanced, it probably is...double vanos, ligher valve lifters, springs and other bla bla. '95s are special in a way because they are geared more for performance driving with upped powerband. i guess if you want a pleasant, smooth daily driver 3.2 are better. you can make any engine breath differently with enough mods. im talking about stock cars. as far as problems, i have read/heard just about as many problems with double vanos. more electronics just means more shit to break down. "

Confusing euro and US.

Quote :

"If we are talking about engines per se I am not disputing that the 3.2 engine is more tecnologically advanced. I agree there completely, but I would argue that the torque difference is not significant. 3.0 is 225ft.lb@ 4250rpm, whereas 3.2 is 236ft.lb @ 3800rpm. 11 ft.lb at 400 rpm less is really not really significant. Judging by numbers both engines perform the same in terms of 0-60 and 1/4 miles. "

More advanced, it is the same engine wtih minor changes. How can you argue the torque difference is not significant?? I have had both, each for over a year, and i can most certainly tell you the torque difference is significant.

Quote :

"By 1999 m3 has gained some 200 lb of fat from 1995 because of options and more electronics"

wrong again.

happy now?

6/14/2006 3:29:29 PM

Quote :

"Confusing euro and US."

If you go back, Ahmet mentioned that E36 didn’t come with double vanos only until E46. That’s not true. Euro e36 engine is still e36 chasis and it did have double vanos.

Quote :

"More advanced, it is the same engine wtih minor changes. How can you argue the torque difference is not significant?? I have had both, each for over a year, and i can most certainly tell you the torque difference is significant. "

so whats your stance anyway? First you mention it is the same engine with minor things changed, which I agree, but you are arguing 11ft.lb of torque at similar rpm is significant difference??? I gained 50 wtq with a chip on the GTI and thought the butt dyno was not really significant. It is relative.

96+ did gain weight especially in 98/99 with all the fat options…auto climate control, more electronics, CD-changer, side airbags…etc. im not sure whether staggered setup had heavier wheels.

you still have not answered how long did you drive E39 M5 and did not prove that im wrong in anything i said. anyhow, just to feed your ego a bit, since you obviously feel neglected, im sure you do know more hands-on stuff on E36 than anyone else on this forum. Anybody else would if they had the car for that long. Feel better now?
seriously stop being a little elitist self-pretentious bitch. it was amusing at first, now it is getting boring...

[Edited on June 14, 2006 at 5:00 PM. Reason : s]

6/14/2006 4:57:21 PM

We live in the US, he was talking about the USA E36. Ahmet knows enough about BMWs then to be corrected by you.

Digital climate control adds weight? haha are you fucking serious? It is actually lighter if you want to get technical. The analog version has a control box, and one more motor. The cold/hot switch is electronic in the pre-96 climate control, and cable driven on 96+.

CD changer was a option in all the years.

More electronics? PLEASE SHOW ME.

Side airbags came in 1998.

CHRIS SCOTT FTW!!!!!!!

I drove it (M5) long enough to know the car.

6/14/2006 7:46:54 PM

dude, please google "strawman argument". i'm threw with you.

6/14/2006 8:59:35 PM

I don't see a strawman here.

6/14/2006 10:02:57 PM

how so are you done with me? you just keep making outlandish comments which I can and will disprove.

6/15/2006 12:53:12 AM

Quote :

"I gained 50 wtq with a chip on the GTI and thought the butt dyno was not really significant"

did you dyno that car before the software? the last dyno i saw from you had more hp than torque, something very odd on the stock turbo

6/15/2006 1:12:34 AM

^that's really not odd at all...

?

6/15/2006 1:14:14 AM

i'm under the impression that a 1.8T should make significantly more torque than horsepower on the stock turbo

[Edited on June 15, 2006 at 1:23 AM. Reason : *]

6/15/2006 1:22:26 AM

^^ no on a turbo that small that is extremely odd.

6/15/2006 1:27:04 AM

1^10.9 repeating, my comments were relating to the U.S. engine. I already told you we disagree, and won't fight you to death for it. The 3.2 is very similar to the 3.0, but it's a better engine, in every way (except for cost). I would argue the same when comparing early e36 M3s to late e36 M3s (U.S. market). You disagree, thus we can't really go any further in a constructive manner.

As for 1.8t's making more torque than horsepower when modified, this isn't unusual at all. Most turbochargers start making more torque than horsepower if they operate out of their efficiency range. We see this more often on stock turbos (they tend to be on the smaller side for spool up). As a turbocharger is pushed beyond a range where it's efficient, it's most efficient range tends to come lower in the rev range of a given motor (turbo spinning at X+1 rpm provides increased air at Y-1 rpm in the torque band), and torque falls off from it's peak at higher rpms sharper compared to a stock motor, hence the lower increase in hp. As an example, look at a chipped Porsche 944 turbo running 19lbs, it makes well over 310ft-lbs at the wheels, but not even 250hp (up from ~240ft-lbs and ~220hp @11.xx lbs of boost).
Ahmet

6/15/2006 1:40:58 AM

anyone who says 50 whtq isnt significant in a 190hp car is rediculous.

6/15/2006 1:41:58 AM

^^^^ my bad, you're right.

6/15/2006 2:14:41 AM

ehh fuck it this is a bmw thread not a vw


[Edited on June 15, 2006 at 2:46 AM. Reason : .]

6/15/2006 2:43:04 AM

Quote :

"did you dyno that car before the software? the last dyno i saw from you had more hp than torque, something very odd on the stock turbo"

i never dynoed stock. dyno data from that run is somewhat off, because 02M transmission (6-speed) should be dynoed in 4th gear, not 3rd (what i did on that dyno). 4th is closest to 1:1 on 6-speed, while O2M, 5-speed should be dynoed in 3rd as that is closest to 1:1 ratio. so it is odd, the real # should be ~ 200-210whp, 230-260wtq, as oppose to 215whp and 202wtq that car made.

Quote :

"how so are you done with me? you just keep making outlandish comments which I can and will disprove."

everything i stated technical are facts. when i mentioned E36 i was talking about E36 in general having double vanos. yes, US version didnt come with one, but euros had them on E36 some two years before the US launch. you knew that because i clearly explained myself.
i apologize living in Europe for 75% of my lifetime and not thinking that Sun revolves around US, not Earth. irrespective of that you continued to put words in my mouth and kept arguing over stuff I AGREE ON, which is that E36 3.2 IS tecnically more advanced engine, with exception to better flowing manifold. my OPINION on which car do i consider to be special is obviously relative because it is just an opinion. 200lb weight gain was an approximation and i probably overestimated it, but if you search any of bmw forums, there are numerous references that between added rear headrests, rear airbags, staggered setups and other interior crap changes car did gain weight.

i ask you once again how long did you drive M5.

6/15/2006 12:47:43 PM

3.2 and 3.0 are the same engine, just the 3.2 has more displacement. Other than the slight exhaust, intake manifold, and ecu, the engine is exactly the same other than displacement. It was more than 2 years that Europe got double vanos before the US. We live in the US and the thread is labeled "who's got an M3 on TWW", so do you actually think we are talking euro M3s?

200lb is a huge overestimate. Once again, rear headrest came in 98. Rear airbags were never an option. Interior changes? Nothing major changed that would add weight. Staggered wheels are the only thing you have mentioned that made sense.

Once again, long enough to know the car.

6/15/2006 12:56:23 PM

im not going to repeat myself. you can read my previous posts.

thread name? people are talking about VW and porcshes.

6/15/2006 1:05:21 PM

All I see is alot of ownage.

6/15/2006 1:55:31 PM

^get your slow shit out of here

6/15/2006 1:57:31 PM

6/15/2006 4:13:31 PM

If I can get my shit together around Christmas I might be getting a new oneeee (06/07)

A 330Ci or 330CiC that is. Not an M3

I want it black on black.

I love my current '01 325Ci way more than the Eclipse and the Mustang I had.
Is there anything nifty I can do to my car now?

6/15/2006 8:57:23 PM

Quote :

"Is there anything nifty I can do to my car now?"

learn how to drive the car

6/15/2006 9:00:24 PM

Hmm care to explain?

I've already mastered the euro transmission with the reverse upfront, and havent managed to hit anything and I commut 50 miles roundtrip on 40 during rush hour to school EVERY DAY.

I think I know how to drive.

6/15/2006 9:04:17 PM

ahaha. can you park it all by yourself too?

6/15/2006 9:32:00 PM

What the fuck. I'm not some little race car driver like you all.
I drive my car well, I have never been in any sort of accident.
I take good car of my car, I can change a flat, and I check the oil and other minor things often. I don't try to race something that's not meant to be. I like my car, I like driving manual more than anything. I drive defensively on the way to Raleigh every morning.

Just piss off then if you're going to be an ass.

[Edited on June 15, 2006 at 9:44 PM. Reason : ]

6/15/2006 9:38:31 PM

im not talking about driving to work and back.

the best thing you can do to your car, is learn how to control/drive it.

take it to a track day. and see the limits of your car. and i guarantee you will not want any mods or anything to do to your car.

people get all these mods to their car without even knowing the max the stock parts can do.

if you goto one HPDE (high performance driving event) you are already a better driver than 90% of the people out there. (on average)

6/15/2006 9:42:50 PM

Yeaaah by nifty I meant like...in terms of taking care of it. Like, products. Not a silly turbo charger or something else pretty worthless for such a nice car.

I don't want to pay for a new clutch either, so I try to not fuck it up.

6/15/2006 9:46:57 PM

what do you think a turbo charger is... its a product like you want.

6/15/2006 9:47:59 PM

Like...umm..stuff to clean it and keep it pretty with. Not stuff where I'd rather spend the money on car payments.

6/15/2006 9:49:27 PM

i hear.

hell i dont know. i dont believe in washing and keeping my cars clean.

although i should.

6/15/2006 9:51:05 PM