325 sport BHP????

Post Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:53 pm

I know that when the 325 sport came out it had 171BHP but I've been recently told that somewhere along the line it had a power hike to around 190BHP.

Is this true? and if so was this done when they brought the sport out with the M tec 2 bumpers?

Or is this just a confusion with the 190BHP that the E36 325 had when it was released?

Post Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:55 pm

they have always been around the 171 mark, pre facelifts were supposed to be a bit pokier on account of the higher compression ratio.

E36 is 192 bhp

Post Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:58 pm

Cheers Beemer Lad,

when you say a bit pokier do you mean faster overall or quicker acceleration??

Post Sun Oct 02, 2005 9:59 pm

the earlier ones make a more reliable 171bhp, whereas the later ones in late 87 cars onwards doesn't always make the claimed power, so i've heard.

Post Sun Oct 02, 2005 10:01 pm

all e30 325i's in europe are rated at 171bhp.

the early cars (eg phase one) tend to make around this figure.

the later phase 2 cars tend to make a little bit less power (altho officially they were still rated at 171bhp)

Post Sun Oct 02, 2005 10:04 pm

supremacy wrote:I know that when the 325 sport came out it had 171BHP but I've been recently told that somewhere along the line it had a power hike to around 190BHP.

Is this true? and if so was this done when they brought the sport out with the M tec 2 bumpers?

Or is this just a confusion with the 190BHP that the E36 325 had when it was released?

Whoever told you that might've been thinking about the South African 325is? I'm sure these were more powerful than normal a 325i and as UK Sports are often referred to as 325is's this could be how the confusion came about?

Post Sun Oct 02, 2005 10:08 pm

Thanks for setting me straight on that guys

Post Sun Oct 02, 2005 10:48 pm

Just out of curiosity then, if I were and I am going to buy a 325i doner car for my 320i '89, would I be better off getting an early or late?

Regards Mark, I know engine section should deal with this but considering we are on the subject........

Post Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:24 pm

^ GO for early

Andrew

Post Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:29 pm

Demlotcrew wrote:^ GO for early

and fit the ecu from a later car (with a zone chip)

best of both worlds then.

Post Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:47 pm

Why would the ECU be any different?

Andrew

Post Mon Oct 03, 2005 12:03 am

Demlotcrew wrote:Why would the ECU be any different?

Andrew

the management is different on phase one and phase 2 cars is it not ?

Post Mon Oct 03, 2005 12:06 am

Demlotcrew wrote:Why would the ECU be any different?

Andrew

Because they changed versions of motronic at the facelift...

The thing I wanna know is what's best to do on an early lump - chip the existing ECU or retrofit the later stuff & chip that... As I understand it, the main reason the later one responds better to chipping is just because it was more restricted from the factory (emissions etc), & it's certainly easier just to get a chip for the ECU I've got. Ant?!

Post Mon Oct 03, 2005 12:15 am

Ziggy wrote: The thing I wanna know is what's best to do on an early lump - chip the existing ECU or retrofit the later stuff & chip that... As I understand it, the main reason the later one responds better to chipping is just because it was more restricted from the factory (emissions etc), & it's certainly easier just to get a chip for the ECU I've got. Ant?!

i discussed this with Ant at lakeside a few months ago.
(At the time i was thinking of a 2.5 m20 track car)

he said an early engine with the later ecu (with zone chip) shud show good power.

Post Mon Oct 03, 2005 10:18 am

My engine before it went back was an early one with later ECU and cooling system etc. It was a flying machine.

Post Tue Oct 04, 2005 12:48 pm

Thankyou boys, early engine later chip it is then, ooops already got the later chipped ecu. Gonna be a good 2006.......

Post Tue Oct 04, 2005 1:16 pm

Early engine, later cooling and management systems!

Post Tue Oct 04, 2005 1:25 pm

Jimbob wrote:Early engine, later cooling and management systems!

Jim, what's different on the later cooling system? Is it just the water pump and relocation of the expansion tank or is the rad different?

Post Tue Oct 04, 2005 1:28 pm

E30BeemerLad wrote: Is it just the water pump and relocation of the expansion tank?

Yes, as rightly pointed out by Adam the expansion tank sits next to the hottest part of the engine (on the early engine) so I had the time to swap to the newer setup.

Post Tue Oct 04, 2005 6:50 pm

In what year did they change from mk1 to m2 and is the difference really that noticable??

I had a 325 sport 87 a few years ago so would a 1991 model (which is all that i can find in good nick!!) going to be noticable slower?

Post Wed Oct 05, 2005 4:30 am

supremacy wrote:In what year did they change from mk1 to m2 and is the difference really that noticable??

I had a 325 sport 87 a few years ago so would a 1991 model (which is all that i can find in good nick!!) going to be noticable slower?

the change over was on an E reg iirc.

u wont notice much difference between an early and late sport tho, cos when they went to the tech 2 they also lowered the overall gearing to compensate.