16v engines

[Onz]

Hey guys just a quicky

Which engine is more tunable bang for buck, the M42 1.8 16v or the M44 1.9 16v?

[march109]

There no replacement for displacement, usually.

The M42 has more tuning options available off the shelf, in fact I just did a quick search and the M43 has virtually nothing off the shelf.

The 1.9 M43 is the successor to the M40, and at maximum output made 117hp after the technical update, before that it was only 103hp. In comparrison a standard M42 makes about 134hp and the successor was in fact the M44.

Plenty of M42 tuning pioneers on the site to give you advice and threads, from max out N/A tune of Kos' old M42, Then theres a super charged M42, and even a stroked 2.1 M42 build all here on the zone.

In answer to your question bang for buck stick with the M42.

[oakey]

M42 1.8 16v or the M44 1.9 16v?

[Onz]

I was actually looking at these engines:

* 1994-1995, 1796 cc, I4, 16 valves, 140 hp/103 kW, 175 Nm
* 1996-1999, 1896 cc, I4, 16 valves, 140 hp/103 kW, 180 Nm


Which of these is more tunable? I was thinking of MS particularly to lose the AFM and other basic NA tuning. Id like to get around 160BHP.

[march109]

Ok scratch most of what I said

M44 has same hp as the M42 but more torque but not alot, again it wasn't a popular engine to tune though, aside from a remap, free flow exhaust and intake there isn't much to do.

Unfortunatly though a remap on the M44 isn't as easy as the M42 because between OBD - II security issues, and because BMW regards the actual code for this system to be highly proprietary, aftermarket resources for Motronic 5.2 have been slow in coming and so hasn't been heavily supported by tuners

My points on tuning the M42 still stand theres alot more radical tuning that has already been done that you can read about on this website and emulate if you want, because the M43 was fitted to the E36 and Z3 not many people have tried to tune it like the M42. Not to say it can't if you want to pioneer it.

[march109]

I thought the M44 didn't have an AFM anyway thought it was MAF, so no benefit in ditching something that isn't there. And you'll also have to change the sump IIRC to fit to the E30.

[Bob_S]

using a 1.9 bottom end with a late M42 head and M42 cams should see a nice rise.
The e36 inlet manifold is better for torque due to it;s design over the e30's basic one.
Extracting power out of either engine is either hard or expensive tbh. Myself and demlot spoke about it and concluded that by the time you have finished pissing about with it with a good set of cams, gasket set etc etc you may aswell pick up an s14 2.3 or 2.0

cheapest way for power on an e30 IMO is to use the M50b25 unit

[Onz]

WRT M44 OBD - II security issues can these be chipped or run on Stand alone management?

[march109]

Its not worth it dude, the M44 is no better than the M42 in the long run, the M44 takes alot more work to fit into an e30 since it was intended for the e36 only, a e36 spec m42 will require the same work to fit into an e30. But an M42 for an e30 will go straight in there.

I believe the m44 cannot be chipped the management system has to be changed, tuners didn't really support it because of the lack of tuning options. However the m42 management can be used if it is modified to run for the extra capacity engine. So thats another M42 part to purchase for your m44 conversion, you'll also need the sump and oil pick up. because the m44 sump won't clear the e30 cross member.

By which time you may as well have just fitted the m42 - are you dead set on a 16valve engine then? What about 24 valve?

If its an insurance issue why don't you go for the M50 323 engine, lower insurance then the M50 325, but it is essentially the same engine just restricted. There are better engines to fit that would be smoother, more powerfull and more economical, why is it your just looking at m44 and m42's?

[Onz]

its actually for am E36 need a new car and was deciding which one to buy

[Bob_S]

323 or 328 i mate cheap enough and plenty about use the later m52 engine and reliably produce 170 and 190bhp respectively

[march109]

In that bloody case the M44 has a bit more torque, but bugger all tuning options and allready has a MAF.

So go for the M42, cam it, intake, decent exhaust and a remap and the MAF from the M44 should work with the M42 with some jiggery pokery.

The M44 can be made to run on M42 OBD I management by modifying the chip to use the extra capacity. The M44 has knock sencers tho so would be great for F.I. Personally I think the M42 has more potential and is equally good in standard form.

[blitz877]

ditch the injection and run carbs mate

[Onz]

I was thinking MS, light head work, cams and ITB's ;)

[march109]

why not just get an M52'd E36 more power out of the box, and better tuning prospects.

[blitz877]

or an m20b25 running carbs 6branch and dizzy?

[Onz]

i was looking for economy too. I already have a good 2.7 Alpina engine but I dont like the economy and work requires mileage. I was looking closely at compacts for good weight distribution and parts compatibility. Also all the good bits of both E36 and E30

[ShepsEvo3]

If its an insurance issue why don't you go for the M50 323 engine, lower insurance then the M50 325, but it is essentially the same engine just restricted. There are better engines to fit that would be smoother, more powerfull and more economical, why is it your just looking at m44 and m42's?

To be honest, I have dyno'd a few 323i's and more often than not, they make close to the the 190bhp the 325i does too, so maybe BMW didn't bother restricting some? Chipped and the make closer to 200bhp.

[Onz]

it was only the later cars that were restricted. If you get a late model car and fit an early model inlet manifold using the conversion kit from cooks ferry you get quite a respectable gain.

[march109]

when you stretch the potential of a M42 or M44 you won't be getting any more power than an M52 and worst yet you won't get the reliability or economy either. Tuning an engine will reduce an engines economy.

I've found some specs on tinternet and tried to qoute reliable sources though couldn't find one source that reviewed both, have a look and bare in mind when you tune your m44 for power reliability and economy will suffer:

Standard M44 1.9 Specs from Italianhands buying guide
Engine BMW M44
Max Speed 132mph
0-60 10.2 secs
Economy 35mpg

Standard M52 2.8 specs from autocar
Engine: Type —a BMW M52TU (M52 up to Spetember 1998)
Capacity —a 2793 cc. Bore & stroke: 86.4 X 91 mm
Performance: (â€ËaAutocar' test) Maximum Speed —a 134 mph
0-60 mph —a 6.7 secs 0-80 mph —a 11.3 secs
Fuel consumption: 37 mpg @ 70 mph, 32 mpg @ 80 mph.
34/38 mpg touring, occasionally up to 40 mpg.
Fuel tank capacity —a 55 litres

Doesn't make that great reading for the M44! Can't vouch for the figures accuracy but I think they are very probably very accurate.

[Onz]

very interesting figures but hard to believe that a 6pot with more capacity uses less fuel than a 4 pot. Also the 4pot revs alot higher so as long as the revs are kept low it should use less juice. But my main aim for this car is driveability. Its a road car so peak power doesnt really matter. I want precise handling and ability to flick the car about. I think the E36 coupe is too lardy for that and feels very heavy and boaty. I was looking at the ti models because they have similar weight to the E30 and also make use of the better steering rack and front suspension assembly found in the E36 while still keeping the E30 semi trailing arm arrangement at the rear.

I have driven plenty of E36's and later models but all of the ones I drove other than the M3's they didnt really excite me in the handling department. I did also look at getting an M5 but economy and city driving are out of the question with one of those. (but i will definately have one one day as a track car!)

[march109]

There is also the fact that you'll look a proper girl in the compact tho!

[Onz]

well that all depends on the body mods ;) A nice set of 18" rims, M3 kit and spoiler wil put a stop to that

thanks for the research earlier btw sorry I forgot to add it in my last post.

[march109]

No worries dude.

Do they do an M3 kit for the compact? I can see how you might put the front and rear bumpers on, (rear with some work as they are different shapes), but the skirts would be too long. And 18's would be too big IMO, 17's would suit it perfect though.

[Onz]

thre is a factory model available with the M3 kit and 140 BHP as standard. Thats the one I am looking for The skirts and rear bumper are slightly different but still looks mean as hell and exactly like an M3 bar the mirrors from the front.

[march109]

Sorry that image isn't really doing anything for me.

When I needed mpg I just bought a pug diesel, 50mpg and runs on chip fat.

[Onz]

hehe i would like a diesel (Audi A4 Quattro TDi) but there is just something holding me back. I may get a van in the future for work. I just want a nice driving car and i dont think diesels can offer me what I want at the moment.

[JimmySmith]

Interesting read and similar to a car i'd like to have in the near future

I'm conscience of economy too, so was thinking of an E30 1.8 m42.

I can't see though how the 2.8 M52 would be more economical, especially with town driving?

James.

[Onz]

well lower revs, better combustion and lower capacity would help economy so I dont see how a higher capacity engine can get better economy either but modern engines are getting really good!

[JimmySmith]

So the M52 engine is a 6 pot, 24v, and comes in 2.3, 2.5 and 2.8 versions?

Do you know the power and mpg for them?

Cheers, James

[darkchild]

So the M52 engine is a 6 pot, 24v, and comes in 2.3, 2.5 and 2.8 versions?

Do you know the power and mpg for them?

Cheers, James

2.3 = 170bhp
2.5 = 192bhp
2.8 = 193bhp

The 2.3 and 2.8 are strangled by BMW for insurance group reasons but a few simple mods can liberate 20 ponies. Don't know exact mpgs but all are more economical than a M20.

[tim_s]

when you stretch the potential of a M42 or M44 you won't be getting any more power than an M52 and worst yet you won't get the reliability or economy either. Tuning an engine will reduce an engines economy.

I've found some specs on tinternet and tried to qoute reliable sources though couldn't find one source that reviewed both, have a look and bare in mind when you tune your m44 for power reliability and economy will suffer:

Standard M44 1.9 Specs from Italianhands buying guide
Engine BMW M44
Max Speed 132mph
0-60 10.2 secs
Economy 35mpg

Standard M52 2.8 specs from autocar
Engine: Type —a BMW M52TU (M52 up to Spetember 1998)
Capacity —a 2793 cc. Bore & stroke: 86.4 X 91 mm
Performance: (â€ËaAutocar' test) Maximum Speed —a 134 mph
0-60 mph —a 6.7 secs 0-80 mph —a 11.3 secs
Fuel consumption: 37 mpg @ 70 mph, 32 mpg @ 80 mph.
34/38 mpg touring, occasionally up to 40 mpg.
Fuel tank capacity —a 55 litres

Doesn't make that great reading for the M44! Can't vouch for the figures accuracy but I think they are very probably very accurate.

to suggest that a M52B25 will give near or in fact better economy of an M44 is wrong. Also the M44 versus M42 info in this thread isn't really accurate.

bottom line is M44 is a good deal better on fuel than the m5x sixes, esp in traffic, but also on the mway. I have loads of experience of both cars. My old man still has a 323 tourer, my bro used to have '99 IS. M44 feels a good deal slower than the 323, but in reality, esp once I'd made some tweaks to one it would keep up with the 323 (coupe IS vs 323 tourer though). the m52 is a much more powerful engine whether the shorter or longer stroke version, but the long diff ratio etc seem to hinder it in the b25.
M44 is a noisy motorway cruiser compared to the m52, m52 sounds much nicer, but has very flat power delivery compared to an m42 and is a quieter engine. m52 is more sluggish in traffic and uses a hell of a lot mroe fuel around town. m44 can be remapped, EWS has little to do with it. They fuel better than the m42, the siemens dme is better than motronic, and MAF etc as standard is a bonus. DISA manifolds suck imo. post 93 M42s are the best M42s. Best car for chap in this thread is late M44 1.9 318ti imo.

[JimmySmith]

Good reply tim_s

It gives me a much better idea of what i'm after anyway

Cheers, James

[SugaHillBill]

m44 can be remapped, EWS has little to do with it. They fuel better than the m42, the siemens dme is better than motronic, and MAF etc as standard is a bonus.

I've been told by a few places, including the Evo Zone shop that re-mapping the M44 ECU (EWS and all) is impossible. Only way to use the M44 is use M42 ECU and re-map to suit.

Are you sure the M44 ECU can be used in an E30 AND re-mapped?

[Onz]

it can be done with either a full s tandalone system or a uni-q piggy back ;)