E30 Zone

was the M10 engine carb only in the E30 or was there a injection version? if so was it any good?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M10

M10B18
L-Jetronic Fuel Injection Displacement 107.8 CI 1766cc 101 hp (75 kW) @5800rpm 103 ft/lb (140Nm)@4500rpm Compression: 9.0:1 Stroke 2.79in / 71mm Bore 3.50in / 89mm Firing order 1-3-4-2 Applications:

* 1980 E12 518
* 1980 E21 316
* 1980 E28 518
* 1980 E21 318i
* 1983 E30 318i
* 1980 E28 518i
* 1983 E30 316
* 1983 E28 518

What do you mean by "any good"?

If I were you I would just use google, I managed to find out the tech info in 10 sec flat.

Any Good is a very subjective measurement!!

I'd say it was OK, but L-Jet isn't the best system...

Given that in the 2002 the M10 (albeit in 2 litre form) with Kugelfischer mechanical injection gave 130bhp and the same motor with twin 40 carbs gave 120bhp, 101bhp isn't that great...
I used to have an 1802 with the 1766cc M10 on the single (nasty) carb and that gave over 90bhp!

Personally, if I was gonna run an M10 E30, I'd be looking for a carb car as a starter and then fit a Tii engine from an 02 or E12 520/4 or E21 320/4

I've had a carb m10 and an injection one.

The carb one struggled to get 28-29 mpg and cooked itself after 130,000 miles. The injected one managed 30mpg and also cooked itself after 130,000 miles!

Roughly speaking, the 316 did 0-60 in 12 secs and top speed was 110. The early 318i did 60 in around 11 secs and top speed was 115. In reality both feel even slower than this on the road due to the gearing and torque curve. The figures for the later M40 engined cars are similar but on the road they are so much more driveable.

They were strong, relatively quiet and economical engines in their day and are generally more liked than the M40s, especially as they're so easy to work on. But they're noiser, use more fuel, don't go as well, and don't last as long.

People do seem to like souping up the carb one though.

and don't last as long.

you are the only person ive heard say this, most reckon they are bullet proof engines.

Yeah just my experience... two out of two!

I've currently got an M40 engined 316i with over 150,000 on the clock, which is still tight and feels like it could do another 100,000 without major work. I never got that feeling from the M10s, but maybe I just had two crap ones!

i drove my 316 chromie up the road the other day, it has the webber manual choke carb fitted and i was pleasantly surprised how spritely it felt

I have a nice spritely 316 m10 engine with a new weber conversion for sale

sweep wrote:I have a nice spritely 316 m10 engine with a new weber conversion for sale

is it for sale on here?

No its not on here

sweep wrote:No its not on here

can we see it then? or is it the one in your sig?

The carbed 316 was just as good as the 318i in real life, and they have crisper throttle response. Very early 318i's had Bosch K Jetronic, the switch to LE Jet was made in mid-late 1983 when they came to the UK. A good 316 can feel as lively as a 320i as well.
I've driven a 318i M40 with a 4.1 diff and they are much more lively than the standard 3.64.

The M40 was a better engine really. Smaller, lighter, better torque and fuel consumption. A good M40 is a decent engine, shame there are so few good ones now.
M10's can last well but they are a 1962 engine and they respond to neglect with shagged cam and rockers plus worn out crank and shells. I've had E28 518i's with over 200'000 miles and still going strong.

My dad has a 316, weber manual choke and it's fantastic. Throttle response is instant, nothing like the sluggish response of E30-engines with electronic management. Instead of a rev-meter it has a giant clock! Has a "light and lively" feeling to it compared to our m20-cars. MPG is fine, around 32.

Andyboy wrote:The carbed 316 was just as good as the 318i in real life, and they have crisper throttle response. Very early 318i's had Bosch K Jetronic, the switch to LE Jet was made in mid-late 1983 when they came to the UK. A good 316 can feel as lively as a 320i as well.
I've driven a 318i M40 with a 4.1 diff and they are much more lively than the standard 3.64.

The M40 was a better engine really. Smaller, lighter, better torque and fuel consumption. A good M40 is a decent engine, shame there are so few good ones now.
M10's can last well but they are a 1962 engine and they respond to neglect with shagged cam and rockers plus worn out crank and shells. I've had E28 518i's with over 200'000 miles and still going strong.

an m40 and an m10 ...... m10 was a FAR better engine ...

the m10 deffinately feels alot torquier with a webber on it then an m40

an m10 is bulletproof and there are lots of tuning bits out there for it the problem with the m40 is the complete lack of tuning parts.

a 2.0 m10 on twin 45s is a capable engine especially with a decent cam and a good weight flywheel on it.

Messenjah wrote:an m40 and an m10 ...... m10 was a FAR better engine ...

the m10 deffinately feels alot torquier with a webber on it then an m40

an m10 is bulletproof and there are lots of tuning bits out there for it the problem with the m40 is the complete lack of tuning parts.

a 2.0 m10 on twin 45s is a capable engine especially with a decent cam and a good weight flywheel on it.

The M10 is more tuneable but in standard guise I'd take a decent M40 every time. The M40 in my old 316i was an absolute peach, decent low down torque and returned excellent economy.

They're both sh!te though in comparison to the M43 engine my old E36 had.

Messenjah wrote: an m40 and an m10 ...... m10 was a FAR better engine ...



a 2.0 m10 on twin 45s is a capable engine especially with a decent cam and a good weight flywheel on it.

I see. You go and cost up such an engine. You might possibly get 140 bhp, but I'll have spent £150 on an M42 and still have a better unit.
On what educated basis do you say the M10 is 'a far better engine' than the M40? You're saying that BMW spent millions of DM's developing an engine that was actually worse than the one that came before? Are you really?

Is your caps lock button broken btw?

Andyboy wrote:

Messenjah wrote: an m40 and an m10 ...... m10 was a FAR better engine ...



a 2.0 m10 on twin 45s is a capable engine especially with a decent cam and a good weight flywheel on it.

I see. You go and cost up such an engine. You might possibly get 140 bhp, but I'll have spent £150 on an M42 and still have a better unit.
On what educated basis do you say the M10 is 'a far better engine' than the M40? You're saying that BMW spent millions of DM's developing an engine that was actually worse than the one that came before? Are you really?

Is your caps lock button broken btw?

EDIT: my bad

so i disagree with you so must be uneducated ...

the m12 based on the m10 bottom end with a turbo strapped to the side produced 1300hp in qualifying in 1986


a 1.8 m10 produces 142lbft of torque and the m40 ... the 1.6 102lbft and the 1.8 119lbft


so clearly more torque

the m40 had hydraulic tappets and are notoriously a tappety engine because the system simply put doesnt work properly as the engine wears so the camshafts wear unevenly and on an m10 they are adjustable .

so that is why im saying its a much better engine .

and i dont know who brought the m42 into it but its a different engine im not saying the m10 is better then the m42

but what would you rather have ... an m40 with a twincam head on it
or an m10 with a twin cam head on it ...


whats a better engine the m42 or the s14 .. ?

the m10 block design is still winning races today so clearly a good engine isnt it

Wait a second, I was thinking about the M42.

Yes I agree the M10 is a better engine than the M40, for performance use.

You can't compare the M42 to the S14... that's like comparing and S50 to an M50...

Messenjah wrote:a 1.8 m10 produces 142lbft of torque

That can't be true????????????????????????????????

darkchild wrote:

Messenjah wrote:a 1.8 m10 produces 142lbft of torque

That can't be true????????????????????????????????

The 1.8 L (1773 cc/108 in3) M118 produced 90 hp to 130 hp (67 kW to 97 kW) and 143 to 150 ft·lbf (194 to 203 N·m).

Applications:

* 1963-1974 BMW 1800
* 1974 E12 518

M10
The 1.8 L (1766 cc/107 in3) M10 produced 98 hp (73 kW) and 142 ft·lbf (193 N·m).

beat me to it

jaymos wrote:beat me to it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M10

NomNomNom wrote:

jaymos wrote:beat me to it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M10

Ah, Wikipedia - 25% bullsh!t...

Further down it says 103 ft/lb which seems more likely IMO.

darkchild wrote:

NomNomNom wrote:

jaymos wrote:beat me to it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M10

Ah, Wikipedia - 25% bullsh!t...

Further down it says 103 ft/lb which seems more likely IMO.

If you read it mate, that figure is for the M10B18 with L-Jetronic Fuel Injection.

darkchild wrote:
Ah, Wikipedia - 25% bullsh!t...

Further down it says 103 ft/lb which seems more likely IMO.

Quite. 108lb/ft or 106 for the 'i' IIRC. & something like 120 for the 1.8 m40?

NomNomNom wrote:

darkchild wrote:

NomNomNom wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M10

Ah, Wikipedia - 25% bullsh!t...

Further down it says 103 ft/lb which seems more likely IMO.

If you read it mate, that figure is for the M10B18 with L-Jetronic Fuel Injection.

So its got nearly as much as torque as the far newer 16v valvetronic donk in my E46? Whatever.

darkchild wrote:So its got nearly as much as torque as the far newer 16v valvetronic donk in my E46? Whatever.

Yes that is exactly what i'm saying: http://www.bmwheaven.com/component/opti ... /mtype,M10

I can provide lots of other sources if you like?

8v engines generally produce more torque but less peak bhp, i'm sorry that this fact appears to upset you???

NomNomNom wrote:

darkchild wrote:So its got nearly as much as torque as the far newer 16v valvetronic donk in my E46? Whatever.

Yes that is exactly what i'm saying: http://www.bmwheaven.com/component/opti ... /mtype,M10

I can provide lots of other sources if you like?

8v engines generally produce more torque but less peak bhp, i'm sorry that this fact appears to upset you???

You do realise that site is listed in Nm, don't you?

& have a look at the figures under "Successor: M40"...

Ziggy wrote:You do realise that site is listed in Nm, don't you?

My bad that's quoting the L-Jetronic Fuel Injection again.

Try this one: http://www.usautoparts.net/bmw/engines/m10.htm

NomNomNom wrote:

Ziggy wrote:You do realise that site is listed in Nm, don't you?

My bad that's quoting the L-Jetronic Fuel Injection again.

Try this one: http://www.usautoparts.net/bmw/engines/m10.htm

Although no units are stated, that's quite clearly Nm too - take a look at the M31 figures on both pages for example.

Yes clearly nm.
It is a common misconception that 2v per cyl engines produce more torque. Think it was started by jealous mk2 8v golf owners