E30 Zone

JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF ANY BODY HAS PUT A E36 325I ENGINE IN A E30 TOURING IF SO HOW WAS IT
IE
THE POWERE THE PIK UP

MY TOURING WENT IN TODAY FOR THE CONVERSION I PIKED UP A E36 325I WITH 89K
TOURING WAS ORIGINALLY A 320I

DOES ANY BODY KNOW WHAT BHP THE E36 325I IS
THANKS FOR YOUR HELP IN ADVANCE

is it not 205bhp on the m50 ?

i'm also doing this conversion and would like to know

TO BE HONEST I DONT EVEN KNOW WHAT AN M50 IS
AS IM A VDUB GUY BUT JUST CAME ACROSS MY TOURING CHEAP
ALL I KNOW IS THE ENGINE IS OUT OF A E36 325I

e36 325 with m50 is 192 bhp, 0-62 in 8 seconds and tops out at 144 mph (figures courtesy of pbmw)

HEY FUZZY WHAT IS M50
SOWI IM NEW TO BEEMAS

STOP SHOUTING

M50 is the BMW engine code for the 6 cylinder 2.5 from the e30 (and various others).

sorry but the M50 lump was never in the E30 but was in the E34 and E36

agent006 wrote:STOP SHOUTING

M50 is the BMW engine code for the 6 cylinder 2.5 from the e30 (and various others).

he means e34 and e36. it came in 2.0 2.5 and 2.8 litre forms, dohc.

2.8 was an animal

Why did i put E30? I meant e36.

a few too many jelly babies today i think.

thanks for the info lads
you rekon once the conversion is done that my touring would be able to whoop a mk2 vw 16v gti as my mates challenged me hes pushin approx 189 bhp i would know its me old golf and the golf is alot lighter
what you guys rekon
also once the conversion is done what do you think wpuld be the nest step to make it quicker apart from a chip

touring_thru wrote:thanks for the info lads
you rekon once the conversion is done that my touring would be able to whoop a mk2 vw 16v gti as my mates challenged me hes pushin approx 189 bhp i would know its me old golf and the golf is alot lighter
what you guys rekon
also once the conversion is done what do you think wpuld be the nest step to make it quicker apart from a chip

wild cams, a 6 branch and a decent filter wont go a miss but the posibilties are literlly endless

at the end of the day no matter whos quicker in a straight line what you haev to tell yourself is this:

you can oversteer an he cant. you can go round corners fast he cant

RWD Rightness my man!

what do you rekon in a straight line tho 318-is

your M20 2.5 should whip him now i can do RS turbos cav gsi's etc ect

i would agree

teh 8v mk 2 golfs tend to be quicker on low end anyway so if his as a 16 then u shud nail him

with some mods hands down ul kil him mate, u mite as well try doing them while doing the swap though will be much easier

lol

hopefully i should my tourings back out on monday and lets just say there a few nice straights in amersham hahahaha



the tourings in silver i lowered it 60mm all round on HnR springs
7.5x17 rsr khans with 25/40/17 all rounds
put mint set of comfort leathers including door cards apart from that the rest should follow

should be gettin a set of 8x17 porche cups split rims to put on dunno if they come thru tho ill have to wait

or a set of rh toplines so if you guys no any body with a set lemme know
cheers

An m50 e30 is rather quick! Id know since i had one for the best part of a year Not sure about an exact bhp figure since i never got it on the rollers but if we take 192bhp standard and mine was decatted and had a chip, maybe around 200?

I did G-tech it at 0-60 in 6.2 and the 1/4 in 15 but im not sure how accurate the readings where!

Just read this and know its out of date, but i have to reality-check you guys. don't see how an m50 powered e30, let alone an m20, could be anywhere near as fast as a 190bhp mk2 golf.
mk2 golf valver, (admittedly would need a fair bit of work to get to 190bhp - prolly 2l 16v on carbs/itbs) = 900kgs - and thats before its been stripped out, then 850kg is attainable.
bmw e30 m20, 170bhp, 1200kgs
bmw e30 m50, 190bhp, 1200kgs

So
bm m20 = 140ish bhp/tonne
bm m50 = 160ish bhp/tonne
golf = 210ish bhp/tonne

and you're telling me not only an m50, but an m20 will be quicker.
No way. even with significant mods to the m50, still no way.

lol in fact i've just looked up the touring weight in my handbook and its 1300kgs, not even 1200kgs.
So:
bm m20 touring = 130ish bhp/tonne
bm m50 touring = 145ish bhp/tonne
golf = 210ish bhp/tonne

i've seen golfs of this sort of spec run sub 15s 1/4 miles (proper quarter miles, not g-tech). the golf would make the bm look a bit silly, especially at slower speeds. fast golfs are FAST, especially at sensible speeds and off the mark, the same as any light hot-hatch.


its the same story with the twisties. golf's handle really well, especially mk2s - they're renowned for it! i think a sorted mk2 golf's easily as fast round the twisties as an e30 bm, if not faster.
its not what bmw ownership is about to me, the e30 is not light and the handling is primative. it's fun and a pleasure to drive, however. if it was just about speed we'd all be driving jap crap as thats where the best speed per Ԛ£ is.

tim_s wrote:Just read this and know its out of date, but i have to reality-check you guys. don't see how an m50 powered e30, let alone an m20, could be anywhere near as fast as a 190bhp mk2 golf.
mk2 golf valver, (admittedly would need a fair bit of work to get to 190bhp - prolly 2l 16v on carbs/itbs) = 900kgs - and thats before its been stripped out, then 850kg is attainable.
bmw e30 m20, 170bhp, 1200kgs
bmw e30 m50, 190bhp, 1200kgs

So
bm m20 = 140ish bhp/tonne
bm m50 = 160ish bhp/tonne
golf = 210ish bhp/tonne

and you're telling me not only an m50, but an m20 will be quicker.
No way. even with significant mods to the m50, still no way.

lol in fact i've just looked up the touring weight in my handbook and its 1300kgs, not even 1200kgs.
So:
bm m20 touring = 130ish bhp/tonne
bm m50 touring = 145ish bhp/tonne
golf = 210ish bhp/tonne

i've seen golfs of this sort of spec run sub 15s 1/4 miles (proper quarter miles, not g-tech). the golf would make the bm look a bit silly, especially at slower speeds. fast golfs are FAST, especially at sensible speeds and off the mark, the same as any light hot-hatch.


its the same story with the twisties. golf's handle really well, especially mk2s - they're renowned for it! i think a sorted mk2 golf's easily as fast round the twisties as an e30 bm, if not faster.
its not what bmw ownership is about to me, the e30 is not light and the handling is primative. it's fun and a pleasure to drive, however. if it was just about speed we'd all be driving jap crap as thats where the best speed per Ԛ£ is.

Some very valid points made there. Think the beemer will have the top end speed advantage though because of the gearing issues of the golf.

Valid points yes but youve forgotton to mention TORQUE.

Its all good talking about BHP/tonne but it all depends on where that BHP lies in the rev range and how much of it is available throughout the rev range.

Why is it that 2.7's with only 10-15 bhp more than a 325i are so much quicker? Much more torque everywhere.

An M50 conversion is good but if your going through all that hassle why not just stick in 2.8 M52? Easily upgraded to 225 bhp and lots of torque.

Better still, just turbo your 2.5!

this is true to an extent, but bear in mind that the original poster didn't give the torque figure of the golf (which was why i didn't mention it).
Of course power is also a product of torque so while looking at the peak power is not the whole story, it is a useful indicator when you remember that they probably produce their peak power at similar rpms (i can't see a 16v golf revving much higher than an m50). I'm not going to get into an argument over figures, but consider the following:

The 2l 16v golf has more torque than you'd imagine, near standard ones give 150ft/lb at 5k rpm (just did a google on a 9A block) and thats a real figure not a factory figure. they have a good spread of power across the rev range. iirc (its been a while since i've played with veedubs) they have a long (93.5mm) stroke so have impressive torque at low rpms, while with the 16v models they remain really revvy. they're a great engine.

So, with the sums:
m50 touring 180lbs torque @ 4700, 1300kgs = 140 lbs/tonne
mk2 valver with 2l 16v 150lbs @ 5k, 900kgs (this is for a standard, 150bhp model, one with 190bhp will no doubt have considerably more) = 167lbs/tonne

so a 2l 16v golf has more torque per tonne than an m50 e30, and this is as standard model, not one with modifications that are worth 40bhp peak power as suggested here. They also produce their peak torque at similar rpms, so the spread of power argument doesn't really stand up.
I know I can't prove the whole spread of power throughout the rev range without curves, but with peak power and peak torque being produced at similar rpms in both engines, it is clear that this is a good like-for-like comparison. and anyway the differences are too marked.

ultimately looking at torque just strengthens my argument, the golf would be signifantly faster.

Sorry to rattle on, but was intrigued so just looked at what a 2l 16v with a similar power output to the one mentioned here would do torque-wise. Found this chap on the clubgti forum:

My 2.0 16v puts out 186 bhp with 172 ft/lb with just a flowed/skimmed KR head uprated cams and a 4-2-1 manifold with full exhaust system. The 9a has only done 48k though

That's 190lbs/tonne compared to 140lbs/tonne in an m50. well, actually the above's in a mk1 golf so that car would do over 200lbs/tonne (mk1s are lighter).
Anyway its safe to say the torque figures should be pretty similar between the two engines, and even a tuned m52 with 225bhp, and, to be generous, lets say 215lbs torque, would still have less torque per tonne (175).

WASNT THE 2.8 LUMP A M52?? NOT A M50??

the problem with smaller capacity mutivalve engines (without modern variable valve timing anyway) as the peaky power.

a large 6 pot will pull hard from low rpm and in the case of the M50 will also rev very well. my wifes M50 powered E34 525i sport has demonstrated this to me, and will leave my 325i for dead in a straight line!

it's all about useable power. the 8V golf is almost as fast as a 16V on real roads as the power and torque are there for more of the rev range for each gear, the 16V is far more peaky and has to be in the perfect gear to reach it's full potential.

i reckon you'll kick his arse. also remember how much touble he'll have moving off the line!

An inline6 of the same capacity as an inline4 should exhibit a greater torque spread for the simple reason that it has more firing events per crank revolution: 3 as opposed to 2.

With the 4 cyl engine, you're reliant on the momentum of the engine components to carry them through the part of the cycle where there is no power to drive the crank. There is no overlap in power pulses with an inline4.

The inline6 on the other hand enjoys no such dead spots as the firing pulses overlap.

Couple to that lower losses to friction and zero vibration in a decent inline6 and you have a fundamentally better engine

That said, I'll probably be eating those words when someone posts the graphs for the two engines in question

thought you'd have your say! can't resist spreading the lords word about inline 6 loveliness can you!

u finished that bloody GT6 yet?

the mk2 golfs handle great! even standard they're pretty sharp
must be a fair bit lighter than an e30 so you would struggle I would think !!
however, as said, they don't have RWD!

gareth wrote:thought you'd have your say! can't resist spreading the lords word about inline 6 loveliness can you!

u finished that bloody GT6 yet?

Ha haaa, busted!

Not anywhere finished yet! Wanna get Brown up and running, then finish Stu's car (finally) then redesign the GT6 chassis if a book I ordered about 2 weeks ago on SolidWorks ever turns up!

So many projects, so little time

Yeah i agree with the sentiments about the m50 versus smaller capacity 4 pots. but the car is 400kgs heavier! that's nearly half the golf's weight! which is why the power/torque to weight ratios are quite telling.

at the end of the day the q was about the straight line speed of a modded 16v golf vs an m50 e30 touring. I just dont reckon an m50, (and even more so an m20) would 'kill'/'nail' whatever a much lighter hot hatch with similar power and much better power and torque to weight ratios.

gareth: i know what you're saying, the 1.8 16v engine in the mk2 16v was about the same time 0-60 as the 8v, and at the time people were putting them around tracks and not having any real difference in lap times.
but the 16v is a bit quicker - it just has to be worked harder. What you're saying is akin to saying a 318i is as fast on the road as a 318is (this is wrong btw!).
also most mk2 golfs putting out anywhere near 190bhp will be a 93.5mm (compare this to 81mm in a 318is) stroke 2l instead of the original 1.8l . these engines produce a surprising amount of torque.