Is the M50 route worth the hassle?

[nickso]

no i mean what i wrote.

bmw deliberately fucked with the inlet for insurance purposes. most standard engines are "de-tuned" for reliability but thats not the case with the m52.

pedantics aside, you are now comparing an m52 with a different inlet to a rebuilt and stroked m20. you should be comparing a 2.8 m20 to a 3.0 m52

[reggid]

(outside of ford circles where things just drop in) and every one is different.

as above, a m50 inlet 2.8 will kick out 220hp, a well built m20 2.8 will kick out 210hp but in a different manner and need less work to fit.

if power was the ultimate goal to the detriment of everything else then you would be a fool to pee pee about with m20s or m5xs. it would be turbo or gtfo.

But the 24v lumps do just drop in..

The M20 2.8 wont have the torque or the flexibility of the 24v lump (Vanos is great..)

Turbo's are hassle.. Big power N/A is where it is at

If we want big NA hp the engine would begin with an S not an M 24V or not.......and if you want a lowend /midrange monster a built M30 is the way go without going to an S.

[Jhonno]

(outside of ford circles where things just drop in) and every one is different.

as above, a m50 inlet 2.8 will kick out 220hp, a well built m20 2.8 will kick out 210hp but in a different manner and need less work to fit.

if power was the ultimate goal to the detriment of everything else then you would be a fool to pee pee about with m20s or m5xs. it would be turbo or gtfo.

But the 24v lumps do just drop in..

The M20 2.8 wont have the torque or the flexibility of the 24v lump (Vanos is great..)

Turbo's are hassle.. Big power N/A is where it is at

If we want big NA hp the engine would begin with an S not an M 24V or not.......and if you want a lowend /midrange monster a built M30 is the way go without going to an S.

It's ok.. Mine does

A modern S engine has all those attributes..

[reggid]

A modern S engine has all those attributes..

Thats what i said....so why would anyone do a M5x when the S5x are available......

[HairyScreech]

Nickso-

no im comparing a like for like capacity, its pointless to compare a standard 2.5 to a tweeked 2.8.
there fore its far better to look at it as "lets compare the most common route to 2.8 and 200hp+ on both engines", which for the m52 is fit the 2.8 and the m50 manifold, and for the m20 is bung a 2.8 crank and 2.0 rods in a 2.5 block. both can be done at home by a competent mech, and both can be done for less than £1500 with similar amounts of hassle.

and yes i know they deliberately fucked with the inlet on the m52, but that dosent make changing for a m50 one STANDARD, as in AS IT LEFT THE FACTORY.

if your going to be picky we should be comparing bog standard 2.5s, which realistically is about an extra 15-20hp on the side of the 24v.

and jhonno-

they dont just drop in like some stuff, i dont call fouling the servo and modifying the gear box mount, prop and or gear linkage and having to find and fit an e34 sump just drop in.
i know they go in easy, and a lot easier than some engines will into other cars, but there are still issues to contend with, leaving no such thing as a standard spec for the conversion. its not like a fiesta where a 2.0 zetec will literally just drop in, couple of different hoses and some wiring its a runner.

the vanos is a great help, and has been shown on many dyno runs to be a big boost to the low end.

i think your wrong on the big power n/a. less than 300hp is not big power any more, not when 20k buys you that kind of power brand new off the forecourt or any of the big names.
put simply a home build turbo kit will give power that a n/a motor can only dream of and will cost less.

getting lots of power from a relatively small capacity n/a engine is expensive, simply due to the constraints of keeping a motor in one piece, n/a power puts a lot more stress on the engine than going turbo will. rule of thumb is you can double the power of an engine with a turbo and only add a third extra stress, simply because the combustion pressure is applied over a longer crank angle duration thus decreasing peak stress.

id like to see a 2.5 hold 300hp na on standard internals, when its well documented that even the m20 will make that with about a bar above atmospheric shoved down it.

turbo is and will be the future, its no coincidence that a lot of manufacturers are going turbo and downsizing engines.

[nickso]

Nickso-

no im comparing a like for like capacity, its pointless to compare a standard 2.5 to a tweeked 2.8.
there fore its far better to look at it as "lets compare the most common route to 2.8 and 200hp+ on both engines", which for the m52 is fit the 2.8 and the m50 manifold, and for the m20 is bung a 2.8 crank and 2.0 rods in a 2.5 block. both can be done at home by a competent mech, and both can be done for less than £1500 with similar amounts of hassle.

and yes i know they deliberately ****** with the inlet on the m52, but that dosent make changing for a m50 one STANDARD, as in AS IT LEFT THE FACTORY.

if your going to be picky we should be comparing bog standard 2.5s, which realistically is about an extra 15-20hp on the side of the 24v.

ok, we shall disagree then as i see no point in comparing a deliberately strangled engine.

i'm not saying the modded m52 is standard, i'm saying thats what it probably would have been had BMW not messed with it, putting an m50 manifold on is just doing what BMW couldn't or wouldn't.

[HairyScreech]

yes and i agree with you, which is why i think its better to compare a tweeked m52b28 to a tweeked m20b28 - which gives ~230 and 210hp respectively.
or a 2.5m20 to a 2.5 m50 (which was the original question) and gives ~170 and ~190hp.
so in general it seems the 24v engines are ~20hp more in a like for like comparison.

which is why i said above that a m50 fanymoulded 2.8 is best compared to a m20 stroker as both are the well known easy route to power and are the same capacity.

although some people on this thread think a fair comparison is a standard 2.5 m20 to a tweeked 2.8 m52.

your 100% right though, the m52 2.8 should have been a much better engine as standard, a good inlet and exhaust would have seen the 328 e36 become a cracking car but market forces and tax restriction saw it strangled.