Last post on Mar 24, 2013 at 10:51 AM
You are in the BMW 3-Series
What is this discussion about?
BMW 3 Series, Sedan
#21991 of 30250 HP Differences: See December 2000 Car & Driver
Feb 21, 2003 (7:04 am)
Check out the December 2000 Car & Driver, their test of new 330i. Excerpt:
"BMW says the added cubes only account for about 30 percent of the power spike over the 2.8-liter engine, which made 193 hp and 206 pound-feet, compared with the 330i's 225 hp and 214 pound-feet. ANOTHER 57 PERCENT COMES FROM FIDDLING WITH THE PROFILES OF THE TWIN-CHAMBER INTAKE-MANIFOLD AND EXHAUST PORTS, AND THE REST COMES FROM CHANGES IN THE CAM PROFILES. Happiness through better breathing, in other words. THANKS TO THE INTAKE FINAGLES SHARED WITH THE 3.0-LITER, THE BASE 2.5-LITER SIX ALSO GETS A 14-HP JOLT TO 184 HP."
Article also has a nice discussion about the changes to the M54 engine over time, including VANOS/double VANOS.
The MY 2000 full-color brochure for the 3 Series sedan says "Double VANOS steplessly variable valve timing" is standard with BOTH 323i (170 hp at 5500 RPMs and 181 pound-feet at 3500 RPMs) and 328i (193 hp at 5500 RPMs and 206 pound-feet at 3500 RPMs). And in the Technical Guide section of the brochure, it has a section devoted to explaining double VANOS.
The MY 2001 full-color brochure then shows output as 184 hp (6000 RPMs) and 175 pound-feet (3500 RPMs) for 2.5L and 225 hp (5900 RPMs) and 214 pound-feet (3500 RPMs) for 3.0L.
You have to keep in mind that the later 2.5L engine actually lost 6-pound-feet of torque from 2000 to 2001 and today. And notice how the higher hp figures come at higher RPMs compared to MY 2000.
#21992 of 30250 Hair splitting time...
Feb 21, 2003 (7:09 am)
The 1999 and 2000 323i have the following ratings:
HP: 1705500 RPMs
TQ: 1813500 RPMs
WT: 3153 Lbs
The 2001 and on 325i have the following ratings:
HP: 1846000 RPMs
TQ: 1753500 RPMs
WT: 3241 Lbs
In theory, the 323i should actually be a little faster off the line, and the 325i should be a little faster at higher speeds. If I remember correctly, Brave1Heart posted something a year ago or so that supported this theory, however, I cannot remember the specifics of his post.
Feb 21, 2003 (7:12 am)
I see that great minds think along similar patterns, again. You and I must have been working on the two above posts at the same time.
#21994 of 30250 323 & 325 (e46)
Feb 21, 2003 (7:17 am)
Interesting torque rating for both engines:
and both engines have the same bore/stroke, compression ratio, and displacement. The only difference is the engine management system. The new system actually makes less torque, although it makes more bhp.
#21995 of 30250 Used 3-series market in Calif?
Feb 21, 2003 (9:20 am)
Would it be too weird (or risky) to plan a vacation to the West Coast, buy your car here, and then drive it home? just throwing the idea out there.
Feb 21, 2003 (9:23 am)
Looking at the bmw web site one can find for the 2.5 liter 6:
1995 - 189 hp5900 -> 168 ft-lbs 5900
1998 - 168 hp5500 -> 160 ft-lbs 5500
1999 - 170 hp5500 -> 162 ft-lbs 5000
2001 - 184 hp6000 -> 161 ft-lbs 6000
We can furthur compute that at 6000 RPMs the torque is less than:
1995 - 165 ft-lbs
1998 - 147 ft-lbs
1999 - 149 ft-lbs
2001 - 162 ft-lbs
So I think the 2001 engine has more torque at low and high speeds than the 99-2000 engines. I suspect that the 95 engine was not good below 2000 RPMs. But others on this forum can speak to that.
Feb 21, 2003 (11:21 am)
From 92-95 there was no 328, so of course the 2.5L made more power. When the 328 arrived, note the immediate and substantial loss of output.
Feb 21, 2003 (1:35 pm)
Very interesting stuff is there a web page with all the differences that happened from 97 on. I really have to check with my insurance for the M3. I pay 140 for 4 months and then I get 2 off but that is for my 96 civic. It really is interesting to read all the differences between the cars.
#22000 of 30250 MY2000 Data--Torque
Feb 21, 2003 (2:32 pm)
fjk... Why didn't you include the MY 2000 torque and hp data? (Methinks some of your numbers are off. The 2.5L torque data for 1999 and 2001 seems too low.)