E30 Zone

which one would win?
(both standard engines)

i think it would be the m50 its got a lot less weight to move

I reckon the m30, although its only about 15 bhp more but in the torque stakes it got a big advantage. More power, more torque and a little more weight

Out of the trap id say the M30 due to plentiful torque,
round a track may be a different story!

no way M30's don't have the low end torque people seem to think they do! A good 2.7 will better one

The M50, the reason is that it is a light year between them!
M30 was a good engine back in its time, and still is, but now started to be old fassion....

All depend's on what diff is being used imo. Just like an m3 can't touch a 325i with a 4:11 diff off the light's.

How ever. who care's about the first 60ft. It's all about the overall drive.

Thrers only one way to find out............................FIIIIIIIIIIIGHT

218bhp vs 192. 229lb/ft vs 181. Quoted weight difference is 7kg. Although I suspect it's significantly more than that, an m50 isn't as light as some would have you believe! Heavier than an m20 for example, according to any figures I've found...

M52 vs M30 is a different matter, but a healthy (plenty aren't!) m30 vs a healthy m50 on the same gearing, I can't see it going anything other than the m30's way every time.

The M50's better for most things, but not for straight line acceleration.

What times have standard M30's got at the 'Pod?

Ziggy wrote:218bhp vs 192. 229lb/ft vs 181. Quoted weight difference is 7kg. Although I suspect it's significantly more than that, an m50 isn't as light as some would have you believe! Heavier than an m20 for example, according to any figures I've found...

M52 vs M30 is a different matter, but a healthy (plenty aren't!) m30 vs a healthy m50 on the same gearing, I can't see it going anything other than the m30's way every time.

The M50's better for most things, but not for straight line acceleration.

+1

Jhonno wrote:What times have standard M30's got at the 'Pod?

Pass - mine was broken this year & it's a lardy cab anyway! Martins was there this year (maybe '07) wasn't it? Would be an interesting comparison. What were the m50s & m20b27s making?

I seem to remember Karan's verdict after driving Will's m50, GUG & Toby's m30 (before it was rather more than standard!) was that the m30 felt noticably quicker...

If I had to put money on it it would be the m30. Only if it was running properly. Alot of m30's seem to be down on power

Jhonno wrote:What times have standard M30's got at the 'Pod?

Not very good ones!

oakey wrote:If I had to put money on it it would be the m30. Only if it was running properly. Alot of m30's seem to be down on power

see all the excuses are coming out already why do an engine transplant for an engine that isnt running properly seems pointless to me!

town325i wrote:

oakey wrote:If I had to put money on it it would be the m30. Only if it was running properly. Alot of m30's seem to be down on power

see all the excuses are coming out already why do an engine transplant for an engine that isnt running properly seems pointless to me!

but its the ones that dont have them that usually make these claims. like the 'is' owners who claim all 2.5's are worn out and down on power whilst all standard 'is' have more power than bmw originally claimed.

I'd say the M30, would like to see this develop a bit more.
I've beaten many various cars now off the lights, but what -60 times do the m50 and m52 have????

And i'd agree with the choice of diff too, that would make a difference too.

DanThe wrote:

Jhonno wrote:What times have standard M30's got at the 'Pod?

Not very good ones!

My best 1/4 mile time at Santa pod with the 2.5 M50 was 14.8 it was chipped and I had 3.25:1 LSD

14.9 in a 2.7 touring

she'll be up there this year i'm sure!

town325i wrote:

oakey wrote:If I had to put money on it it would be the m30. Only if it was running properly. Alot of m30's seem to be down on power

see all the excuses are coming out already why do an engine transplant for an engine that isnt running properly seems pointless to me!

I dont own an m30. I dont own an m50. I'm pretty neutral tbh.
I personally would go for an m50 over an m30 though.

What we need is a rolling road day with a selection of both transplants so we can pair up an M30 & M50 that are putting out as close to what they had when new and give this a proper test.

My next conversion (maybe in the G/F's tourer) will be an M50B25

Easey m30 hand's down LOL

Ive voted M50 because the M30 isnt likely to be producing the 218 bhp like when it was new and wouldnt the M50 be lighter ?

e36boy wrote:Ive voted M50 because the M30 isnt likely to be producing the 218 bhp like when it was new and wouldnt the M50 be lighter ?

what is the weight difference between the two?

also if the two engines were from roughly the same year (91) they will have both lost power
plus ive read the M30 is tougher than the M50!

M50 is tougher than the M30 imo..

Bare it is about 7-10kgs off the top of my head, but the M50 has lighter ancillaries iirc

M50's usually make strong power, M30's seem to be down often..

what causes the M30 to lose power?

cracker wrote:what causes the M30 to lose power?

general wear and tear and lack of maintenance from tight owners

town325i wrote:

cracker wrote:what causes the M30 to lose power?

general wear and tear and lack of maintenance from tight owners

the M50 could go through neglect,wouldnt the M50 also lose power?

cracker wrote:

town325i wrote:

cracker wrote:what causes the M30 to lose power?

general wear and tear and lack of maintenance from tight owners

the M50 could go through neglect,wouldnt the M50 also lose power?

yes they would but they are a lot newer and have had less time to be neglected like the m30

If both engines are in good order and standard, then I would put money on the M30 as long as it's a straight line !!!

Any corners involved then it will be the M50

M30 is 12v sohc (211PS) @ 5700 - (225 ft·lbf) @ 4000
M50 is 24v dohc (189 hp) @ 5900 - (184 ft·lbf) @ 4200

Look at all the extra air the M50 can force into the chambers than a M30, saying that M30 are fast in a straight line because of the torque, especially in an E30. But when your ragging out a 24v engine they do have alot more poke.

Its really hard to tell, i want to say M30 but im not sure

Whats a usual M30-E30 time down the pod?

192bhp for the m50

Simon13 wrote:no way M30's don't have the low end torque people seem to think they do! A good 2.7 will better one

why would you be using the low end ?
surely blasting from standstil you will be using the top end of the revs.

Bavarian_Autotech wrote:

Simon13 wrote:no way M30's don't have the low end torque people seem to think they do! A good 2.7 will better one

why would you be using the low end ?
surely blasting from standstil you will be using the top end of the revs.

wont you need low end tourqe to move away?