Page 1 of 1

S38 3.6 vs S50 3.2

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 8:04 pm
by M5pilot
Seems like both of these engines weigh about the same.

What one would you rather install into an E30?

The S38 doesn't have EWS issues and is tank of an engine rarely ever going wrong

S50 has Vanos.....

E30 with S38 vs E30 with S50 - is there going to be much in it do you think?

I pretty much know the answers but I'd like to get a second opinion on this.

Sal

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 8:11 pm
by jaistanley
I think you're right. There wouldn't be much in it..

Personally I like the idea of a more modern engine on more up to date management. Being able to tootle around and (hopefull) not use too much fuel.

I think the s38 would be more torquey though. Anyone driven both? All engines have a different charachter.

Jai

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 8:13 pm
by polwutna
s38 appeals to me more as an engine (not saying its better), but I would go s50.

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 8:16 pm
by ste
So you'd go for the one that appeals to you least? Good answer.


"Hello Sir, our specials for the evening are Lobster Thermidore or fish fingers?"

"Well I'd love the lobster so I'm going to have to say I'll have the fish fingers please."

:mad:

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 8:26 pm
by Dan318-is
over the 3.6 i would say the s50, despite being harder to fit, its newer, probably likely to have less running issues once its had the shell problem sorted, and is probably lighter?

if it was the 3.8 on the other hand it would be a diff matter!

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 8:31 pm
by Andy335Touring
Tough call, not much in it power or engine weight wise ?

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 8:36 pm
by polwutna
So you'd go for the one that appeals to you least? Good answer.
:D sounds daft I know.

What I meant was that the s38 is a bit more old school design compared with the s50, its simpler and hence why as mspilot said 'its a tank of an engine and never go wrong' newer engines get more and more complicated - eg vanos in the s50.

But if was modding a car, I would go for the s50 purely as I believe it is more rev happy. Plus I wouldnt be the first to do it - has anyone done an s38 in an e30?

Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 11:03 pm
by Simon13
S50 is a heavy lump and just won't make the torque of a S38.

S38's do the miles but both aren't a cheap lump to run as u should know.

do i smell a bodged conversion coming?!

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 1:29 am
by M5pilot
Simon13 wrote:S50 is a heavy lump and just won't make the torque of a S38.

S38's do the miles but both aren't a cheap lump to run as u should know.

do i smell a bodged conversion coming?!
No you don't smell a bodge conversion because it's not the sort of conversion that's even worth bodging. You either do it properly or you don't do it at all.

Sal

Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 1:18 pm
by jaistanley
Karan's done most of the donkey work on his S38 conversion... He'd be a good man to speak too.

It's a shame about the weight and VANOS issues of the S50. I have one and am going to have to make allowances for both. I'm going to fit some up-rated rod bolts to protect the shells (I'm not sure if it's worth putting a new set of std size shells in at the same time??) and keep right on top of oil servicing and VANOS filters to protect the top end. Should be pretty hardy then.

Jai