Why do americans love 535i? [Archive]

Interceptor

12-22-2004, 05:24 AM

The difference between 535i and 525i (M50) is only 19 HP, 525i uses newer technology (4 valves per cylinder, no distributor cap...) + when you add an EAT chip to a 525i they even have about the same power.

Is it worth it? 1 liter of displacement more yet only 19 HP advantage? Higher consumption and older technology? Or do people in America really live by the principle "there's no replacement for displacement"? :)

I would appreciate if you could clarify this to me, because in Europe (especially in my country - Croatia), you don't see much 535's, especially after the M50B25 hit the streets.

P.S. I'm just curious, I didn't intend to offend anyone! :)

andyman32

12-22-2004, 05:51 AM

Or do people in America really live by the principle "there's no replacement for displacement"? :)

Hahaha! Yes.

There is a rampant and almost unmediated belief here that "bigger is better". Even if the 535 had LESS horsepower, I think most Americans would prefer it to the 525, simply because the engine is BIGGER. At least, that is evidenced in modern-day car buying habits. The realized utility, the efficiency, or the technology used in the car has almost nothing to do with the desirability of it. I mean, just look at Americans' unstoppable thirst for mega-huge SUVs! ;)

Thanks Interceptor - interesting question from Croatia!

-Andy

Dick Schneiders

12-22-2004, 06:53 AM

a manual transmission in a higher percentage than the M50 525i? I know that I see very few 525i's with the manual and most of the 535i's that I have seen had the manual transmission and not an automatic.

Just a guess, but that could be part of it. Also, as you said, we Americans love displacement. However, when we are talking about smallish 6-cylinder engines, that feeling seems to me to be a bit silly.

The difference between 535i and 525i (M50) is only 19 HP, 525i uses newer technology (4 valves per cylinder, no distributor cap...) + when you add an EAT chip to a 525i they even have about the same power.

Is it worth it? 1 liter of displacement more yet only 19 HP advantage? Higher consumption and older technology? Or do people in America really live by the principle "there's no replacement for displacement"? :)

I would appreciate if you could clarify this to me, because in Europe (especially in my country - Croatia), you don't see much 535's, especially after the M50B25 hit the streets.

P.S. I'm just curious, I didn't intend to offend anyone! :)

Dick Schneiders

12-22-2004, 06:57 AM

the M50 525i engine. As I recall, it is about 225 compared to 180 in the M50. This would give the 535i considerably more acceleration from a stoplight than the 525i, and that is something we Americans love even more than displacement.

The difference between 535i and 525i (M50) is only 19 HP, 525i uses newer technology (4 valves per cylinder, no distributor cap...) + when you add an EAT chip to a 525i they even have about the same power.

Is it worth it? 1 liter of displacement more yet only 19 HP advantage? Higher consumption and older technology? Or do people in America really live by the principle "there's no replacement for displacement"? :)

I would appreciate if you could clarify this to me, because in Europe (especially in my country - Croatia), you don't see much 535's, especially after the M50B25 hit the streets.

P.S. I'm just curious, I didn't intend to offend anyone! :)

Interceptor

12-22-2004, 07:10 AM

the M50 525i engine. As I recall, it is about 225 compared to 180 in the M50. This would give the 535i considerably more acceleration from a stoplight than the 525i, and that is something we Americans love even more than displacement.

525i M50 has 250 Nm and 535i has 305 Nm of torque. BUT if torque is essential for acceleration, diesel engines would be the best choice for street racers, right? :) Acceleration and top speed is only slightly better in 535i so I don't think that's the issue here. Especially if you take into account that the M30B35 engine is heavier than any M50.

shogun

12-22-2004, 07:12 AM

Interceptor

12-22-2004, 07:20 AM

in Italy there is a tax law which favours small cc cars under 2000 cc.
That's why there are among others very 'hot' cars with more HP than in other parts of Europe or USA.
Of course the car manufacturers produce also for such markets the 'suitable' engine.
2 Ltr. cars from BMW for touring car racing in Europe (ETCC) are often models sold in Italy exclusively.

I agree with you - my registration and insurance fee I pay every year is around $600! I would pay the same amount if I had a Ferrari! Isn't that just a bit silly? In Croatia, you pay big bucks if you drive a car that has more than 110 kW (150 HP) and 2.5 liters. If you take into account that fuel prices in Europe are a lot higher - driving a BMW in Europe is an expensive sport!

George M

12-22-2004, 07:31 AM

bimmerd00d

12-22-2004, 07:41 AM

I'm perfectly content with my '93 525i 5-spd, i have outrun a 535im before and i love it.

Dick Schneiders

12-22-2004, 08:13 AM

torque, they are usually built for that use, aren't they? Also, I have very little knowledge about them, but I have never seen one with hp comparable to their torque, unlike the conventional engines. Since the 535i has more hp and considerably more torque, I would think it would be noticeably quicker off of the line. I have seen a lot of postings about how quick the 535i "feels" from a standing start, and never read one extolling the virtues of the 525i in that regard.

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but the perception from reading a lot of postings is that the 535i, especially with the manual tranny, is considerably quicker.

525i M50 has 250 Nm and 535i has 305 Nm of torque. BUT if torque is essential for acceleration, diesel engines would be the best choice for street racers, right? :) Acceleration and top speed is only slightly better in 535i so I don't think that's the issue here. Especially if you take into account that the M30B35 engine is heavier than any M50.

Bill R.

12-22-2004, 08:13 AM

doesn't seem to be much difference in power and in ideal condition tests the acceleration is close from a standing start but in real world driving conditions the difference is obvious to anyone who's driven both for a week or so.. in the typical driving rpm range of 2 to 4k rpm when your just cruising thats when it most noticable. The m30 torque advantage is quite obvious then. I like both motors and don't notice much difference in gas mileage in real world usage. If you drove both cars and didn't know which was the 3.5 the differences would still be obvious.

The difference between 535i and 525i (M50) is only 19 HP, 525i uses newer technology (4 valves per cylinder, no distributor cap...) + when you add an EAT chip to a 525i they even have about the same power.

Is it worth it? 1 liter of displacement more yet only 19 HP advantage? Higher consumption and older technology? Or do people in America really live by the principle "there's no replacement for displacement"? :)

I would appreciate if you could clarify this to me, because in Europe (especially in my country - Croatia), you don't see much 535's, especially after the M50B25 hit the streets.

P.S. I'm just curious, I didn't intend to offend anyone! :)

Dick Schneiders

12-22-2004, 08:15 AM

A stock 535i would eat up a stock 525i, when both are in similar running condition - no getting around it.

I'm perfectly content with my '93 525i 5-spd, i have outrun a 535im before and i love it.

Interceptor

12-22-2004, 08:19 AM

taxation as Shogun mentioned....relatively cheap fuel relative to the rest of the world...and all you have to do is drive both cars for you answer...the big six car has more guts. In the extreme...V12 E-32's enjoy the same following for similar reasons relative to the big six E-32. Why be excessive or have more?...because they can....basic human nature.
George

This reminds me of a commercial I saw a few years ago, for Burger King or something similar: a texas family goes out to eat in their huge car with bull horns on the hood, and they stop at a drive-by burger place. A girl inside asks the man "How would you like your hamburgers, sir?" and he replies with a typical texas accent: "Whatever, just make 'em biiiig" :)

I never figured out why megalomania is much more popular in the US than anywhere else in the world :)

Everywhere else engineers try to squeeze out more power by an advance in technology - only US still makes OHV engines! In Europe, DOHC engines make 99% out of all car engines made.

Dick Schneiders

12-22-2004, 08:27 AM

bahnstormer

12-22-2004, 08:42 AM

its largely due to teh gear dick, when bmw makes an engine, they
have an uncanny sense of mating the prefect gear ratios to it.
for example the 330 e46 has only 225 hp but it able to keep up
with many, more powerful cars.

the 525i vs the 535i is also a bit of a bragging game. many people
in america are VERY materialistic...so those of you with "base" engines
aren't as good as the upper class engines. i'm not sure if this is applicable
toe very area of the united states, but here in the suburbs of nyc, the guy
with teh s600 v12 is a lot "better" than the guy with teh s430.....

does that make sensE?

Interceptor

12-22-2004, 08:48 AM

Why is my newly acquired 740i so much faster than, say a 535i? It only has a half liter more displacement, and is quite a bit heavier. I know that the hp and torque numbers are a lot higher, but why is that? Does the V8 design inherently have more punch, per liter, than a 6 cylinder? The M62 engine is a higher compression ratio engine that the M30, and that has to be part of the equation, I suppose. Actually, the M62 in my 1999 740i is a 4.4 liter, so it probably would be better if I used the M60 4.0 liter engine in my question, but the differences are still huge.

The M50 engine is also has a higher compression ratio than the rather low compression M30. Is that one of the reasons the 525i's acceleration numbers are closer to the M30 than the two cars feel when driving them? As Bill said, the 535i simply feels a lot more powerful when driven around town.

Bigger engines are more elastic - the curve of power across the rpm range is much smoother. You can see it just by looking at the specs. M50 engines achieve max power somewhere around 6000 rpm and torque around 4500. Higher compression ratio is common for 4 valves per cylinder engines because they are able to achieve higher air-flow. Intake valves are usually smaller than exhaust valves, thus, allowing the engine to work more efficiently.

Bill R.

12-22-2004, 08:58 AM

look at it as around 28% bigger then thats a sizable increase over the m30 motor.. then you have to consider that the 740 has a 5 speed auto with a fairly low first gear versus the 535 autos gearing which is much more for the highway... the 740 gearing is much more americanized with the emphasis on stoplight to stoplight usage around town and the 535's weren't geared for acceleration from a stoplight, then you have all the technical advantages that time has given to the m62 such as multivalve heads, dual overhead cams, better manifold port design, plastic intake manifolds which insulate better, better spark plug location, vanos, better fuel management, etc ... all these things add up

Why is my newly acquired 740i so much faster than, say a 535i? It only has a half liter more displacement, and is quite a bit heavier. I know that the hp and torque numbers are a lot higher, but why is that? Does the V8 design inherently have more punch, per liter, than a 6 cylinder? The M62 engine is a higher compression ratio engine that the M30, and that has to be part of the equation, I suppose. Actually, the M62 in my 1999 740i is a 4.4 liter, so it probably would be better if I used the M60 4.0 liter engine in my question, but the differences are still huge.

The M50 engine is also has a higher compression ratio than the rather low compression M30. Is that one of the reasons the 525i's acceleration numbers are closer to the M30 than the two cars feel when driving them? As Bill said, the 535i simply feels a lot more powerful when driven around town.

Bill R.

12-22-2004, 09:05 AM

bigger exhaust valves than the intake valves? Higher compression ratios are only obtainable because they use knock sensors, aluminum heads and blocks, high overlap cams which lower bmep and better fuel management systems, not because of higher airflow.

Bigger engines are more elastic - the curve of power across the rpm range is much smoother. You can see it just by looking at the specs. M50 engines achieve max power somewhere around 6000 rpm and torque around 4500. Higher compression ratio is common for 4 valves per cylinder engines because they are able to achieve higher air-flow. Intake valves are usually smaller than exhaust valves, thus, allowing the engine to work more efficiently.

Beemr750

12-22-2004, 09:05 AM

It makes sense to go for a bigger engine when in a country the cost to run em is about equal.
I think the M30 would run with a less wear and tear ratio because :
Less compresion-less pressure on the moving parts.
Less RPM to maintain the same speeds-lets say at 100k's M30 has turned so many millions less RPM's than a M50 will have in equal use.

That should and maybe other listed factors from above,be a reason for the thrifty minded.:-D

Jon K

12-22-2004, 09:11 AM

I'd take an M50 over an M30 anyday. MAF vs AFM, timing chain, no valve jobs... less pinging tendencies, 24v, dual cam, i dunno, BMW used a whole liter less of displacement and the cars compete. If the M50 were 3.5L, well, it'd be a S52 ;)

PABLO

12-22-2004, 09:14 AM

totaly true!!!....They want a little bit more of power and make a bigger engine without improving too much the efficiency. And some years ago, fuel price wasnt a problem so.......

Mr Project

12-22-2004, 09:16 AM

RE: the 535 vs 525 discussion...as mentioned, it's all about the torque, baby. :) The 535 will pull strong and smooth from 1200 RPM in 3rd gear.

You have to realize too that you're on an enthusiast board, and the enthusiast in this country realizes that the 535 has some advantages:

More power stock
Much more torque stock
Much easier to get more power out of....cam, turbo, etc, is much simpler than adding power to an M50.
Easier to find in 5-speed form than an M50 525
Usually less expensive to purchase than an M50 525
Simpler and easier to work on/troubleshoot for the enthusiast mechanic

Bill R.

12-22-2004, 09:20 AM

have timing chains...... valve jobs? I gather you mean valve adjustments, another thing i would rather do than have hydraulics. Dual cam over single cam? a non advantage in my book brought on by multivalves...pinging? as compared to vanos rattle or the plastic intake manifold pulsation rattle? Mine has no pinging tendencies at all and i usually run 87 octane. Don't get me wrong i like both motors, but if i was looking at 2 identical 5 series cars except one was a 3.5 and the other an m50 there would be no hesitation on my part as to which one i would chose. The only thing that i would like to have for the m30 is the maf and Bruno and others sell them now...

I'd take an M50 over an M30 anyday. MAF vs AFM, timing chain, no valve jobs... less pinging tendencies, 24v, dual cam, i dunno, BMW used a whole liter less of displacement and the cars compete. If the M50 were 3.5L, well, it'd be a S52 ;)

Interceptor

12-22-2004, 09:22 AM

bigger exhaust valves than the intake valves?

That's what I was told, but I haven't verified the story. Maybe I mixed up something. Is it possible that the timing is different so that the exhaust valves are opened for a longer time?

Higher compression ratios are only obtainable because they use knock sensors, aluminum heads and blocks, high overlap cams which lower bmep and better fuel management systems, not because of higher airflow.

I have an early M50 without knock sensor and aluminum block nevertheless, the compression ratio is still higher than the one in M30. Both engines use Bosch Motronic as a fuel management system. How do you explain that?

Bill R.

12-22-2004, 09:32 AM

reasons they are able to raise the compression ratio, also the spark plug is relocated to a better location in the combustion chamber reducing pinging and detonation. Cam timing helps to lower cylinder peak pressures as well allowing the higher compression ratio. And motronic isn't just motronic, there have been many many generational changes and improvements in the different models of motronic.

That's what I was told, but I haven't verified the story. Maybe I mixed up something. Is it possible that the timing is different so that the exhaust valves are opened for a longer time?

I have an early M50 without knock sensor and aluminum block nevertheless, the compression ratio is still higher than the one in M30. Both engines use Bosch Motronic as a fuel management system. How do you explain that?

winfred

12-22-2004, 09:38 AM

dude musta been farting around with the radio :D

I'm perfectly content with my '93 525i 5-spd, i have outrun a 535im before and i love it.

Bill R.

12-22-2004, 09:42 AM

console and was trying to mop it up...

dude musta been farting around with the radio :D

winfred

12-22-2004, 09:42 AM

that's a big ditto

have timing chains...... valve jobs? I gather you mean valve adjustments, another thing i would rather do than have hydraulics. Dual cam over single cam? a non advantage in my book brought on by multivalves...pinging? as compared to vanos rattle or the plastic intake manifold pulsation rattle? Mine has no pinging tendencies at all and i usually run 87 octane. Don't get me wrong i like both motors, but if i was looking at 2 identical 5 series cars except one was a 3.5 and the other an m50 there would be no hesitation on my part as to which one i would chose. The only thing that i would like to have for the m30 is the maf and Bruno and others sell them now...

winfred

12-22-2004, 09:44 AM

or one of those guys that can't get the adjustable wipers to work

console and was trying to mop it up...

winfred

12-22-2004, 09:53 AM

ill sum it up with, they didn't build enough m5s and 540s for them to be cheep, otherwise we'd all drive m5s and 540s

George M

12-22-2004, 10:40 AM

As you stated Interceptor ; "I never figured out why megalomania is much more popular in the US than anywhere else in the world."

And if you still don't get it after reading this thread...I guess you never will...lol.
Hmmm...wonder if it has anything to do with size/geography, natural resources, diversity, and wealth.
God Bless the USA.
George with American made daily driver 1.9 liter DOHC car that will run with a 525..lol.
M-30 Bimmer kept in the garage due to being thirsty.

bimmerd00d

12-22-2004, 10:44 AM

Dick Schneiders

12-22-2004, 11:16 AM

well said.

Dick Schneiders

12-22-2004, 11:17 AM

my monitor. Funny stuff, but I am easily amused these days.

console and was trying to mop it up...

ryan roopnarine

12-22-2004, 11:30 AM

well, i like da m50 'cause nobody's was ever gonna make a 7L v12 from an m30. unkle hans and fritz didn't fancy the idea of 24 valve adjustments. as you can see from my sig, that displacement is v14 or h18 territory :^)

jjg43

12-22-2004, 11:50 AM

A stock 535i would eat up a stock 525i, when both are in similar running condition - no getting around it.

Dick Schneiders

12-22-2004, 11:52 AM

discussion here in a long time. As you can see from the responses, we Americans can't even come to any conclusion about why this is. ;)

In addition to everything else written here, the 535 wasn't manufactured for more than a couple of more years, or so, after the M50 was introduced in the 525i. Even though many of us would prefer the 535i for it's greater spirit, there were a lot more M50 engined cars made, starting in 1991, than the M30's. Even in America, the 525i is far more common than the 535i.

The M50 is generally considered to be a more "modern" design, if you will, but both engines are excellent workhorses and I like them both. I have owned 2 1991 525i's, with the M50, but would have preferred to have the 535i, if I could have found one that was in excellent condition. The few that I have seen in my locale were just about driven to death.

Or do people in America really live by the
principle "there's no replacement for displacement"? :)

I would appreciate if you could clarify this to me, because in Europe (especially in my country - Croatia), you don't see much 535's, especially after the M50B25 hit the streets.

P.S. I'm just curious, I didn't intend to offend anyone! :)

Dick Schneiders

12-22-2004, 11:57 AM

I even think that a decent running stock 535i would probably outrun a chipped 525i. My 525i is chipped with the excellent EAT chip, and it helps the car quite a bit, but I don't think it would outrun a good condition 535i. It may simply be a mispreception, but my seat of the pants guage tells me that every 535i I have driven is quicker than my 525i.

However, my seat of the pants guage has been wrong before. Too much excess in the guage material, I suppose.

Interceptor

12-22-2004, 12:29 PM

discussion here in a long time. As you can see from the responses, we Americans can't even come to any conclusion about why this is. ;)

Well, pissing contests are an everpopular contest :) My car/dick/whatever is bigger/better than yours will wake up any board/newsgroup :)

Anyway, people on this board are usually quite in touch with mechanics and allaround car knowledge and I find it both amusing and useful to be a part of it.

Thanks to everyone who replied and I hope we will discuss even more subjects in the year to come!

Derek A.

12-22-2004, 12:39 PM

-2 valve per cylinder engine designs are acutally still quite powerful. Look at the current motor in the Chevrolet C6 Corvette.
-While the M30 does require valve adjustments peridically is is better suited to high rpm use due to the lack on interia on the valve train.
-The M30 does offer a much flatter torque curve - more usable engine rpm in the normal driving range. In order to extract the full power potential out of an M50 it needs to be pushed to redline, the M30 is very spritied without taking it to redline all the time.
-The M30 has been in use for over 20 years in various different displacements and interations. The technology level in the M50 is much more contemporary - but at a higher repair cost.

http://www.opus45.com/pics/525_535.gif

Mitch90535im

12-22-2004, 12:44 PM

Well, pissing contests are an everpopular contest :) My car/dick/whatever is bigger/better than yours will wake up any board/newsgroup :)

I just figured that since lots of 525i owners like do de-badge their cars there must be something wrong with them. (LOL)

Seriously - I like that sewing machine precision I hear when that big 6 winds out. Nothing like it. Still the best engine on the road as far as I'm concerned.

DueyT

12-22-2004, 12:47 PM

ill sum it up with, they didn't build enough m5s and 540s for them to be cheep, otherwise we'd all drive m5s and 540s
:D How true, Winfred.

Inteceptor, in addition to the significantly cheaper fuel, don't forget...there are lots of big, long, open roads in North America and bigger cars with larger, torquier engines make for a more enojoyable travel over extended drives. The U.S. is 5,000km across and 3,000km top to bottom. Canada is 8,000km across and 7,000km top to bottom.

Unlike Europe (which would about fit ENTIRELY into the single province of Quebec) with its extensive, well-established high speed railway systems and relatively short distances between countries, North Americans generally relay on cars and airplanes to travel...and air travel is relatively expensive compared to inter-city hopper flights in Europe. I think nothing of driving 500 km to visit my brother or 300km to visit my parents. I would not want to be doing this regularly on our highways in a Fiat Punto! My 540i/6 provides me the comfort and performance that makes these and longer travels quite comfortable.

Specifically the 525i v. 535i question you asked...many of the guys correctly pointed out the value of torque. There is much confusion on the topic...some argue torque is better, some for horsepower. Both groups have their points but the reality is they are not the same, but there is a relationship between them (tq / hp). at its simplest, Horsepower is simply torque x RPM. Torque is force, work is force applied over a distance, and Horsepower is the rate at which that work is done...so you see how having torque and being able to apply it over a distance (rotating wheels) at increasing engine speed leads to "horsepower"...torque is the basis of the equation. So, while a car (525) may have similar 'peak' horsepower (19 hp/p.s. is still 10% less power), it will have to rev higher to make similar power and because the smaller engine generally will have less torque at lower RPMs, it will take longer to wind up and make the same peak horsepower to the bigger engine. That's what you hear from 535 guys, that the big-6 seems to want to cruise, while the little-6 seems to work harder, even up at higher rpms. Interstingly, my little 1.9L Jetta (Bora) TDI has more torque at 1800 rpm than my 540i does! *LOL*

You may have also heard of the saying, "power/area under the curve"...this addresses the differences between an larger displacement engine that has a relatively flat torque output (i.e. a relatively linear increase in HP v RPM) compared to a smaller engine that has a more noticable peak to torque, which then is exagerated into an even more narrow horsepower output. Area under the engine's torque curve represents a mathematicl integration of sorts that represent the usuable ability of an engine to creat horsepower over its rpm range. In my 540, I can drive around town at 60 km/h in 6th gear at 1600 RPM or drive on the highway at...ummm...significantly higher speeds, still in 6th gear.

p.s. maybe its also related to the American wild west, bigger gun, faster horse, larger ranch thing, too....? :D

Cheers,
Duey

winfred

12-22-2004, 01:13 PM

89-93 for the 535 and 91-95 for the 525, they only killed the 535 because they had the new v8s to sell so the 535 got replaced by the 530 (which my 535 will smoke) that and i am sure that the press was probably bitching about a engine that was almost unchanged for 20 years

In addition to everything else written here, the 535 wasn't manufactured for more than a couple of more years, or so, after the M50 was introduced in the 525i.

AllanS

12-22-2004, 01:24 PM

I bought my 535i because I couldn't find a reasonably priced 525i with a manual transmission near where I live. I had an automatic 525i originally and chose it due to the supposed benefits of the more modern engine. I wanted that smooth power, 4v head, fuel economy, and a high revving engine.

When I got my 535i, I was surprised at how stupid I had been. The 535i was every bit as smooth and responsive as the 525i, it started up and ran better on cold days, and it was vastly more reliable (my 95' 525i broke down and had to be towed twice, i've never had this happen with the 535i, and i've had it for a longer period of time).

There's also no maf to foul up, no individual coils to go bad, no plastic thermostat housing to crack, etc. etc. The dme also responds better to aftermarket chips than the m50. It was surprisingly easy to add a turbo to it as well; once I got the afm adjusted properly (by simply tightening a spring inside), it took about a day of playing with a rising rate regulator to get the same standards of smoothness, reliability, and fuel economy. Another added bonus, is that in the county I'm in, they couldn't use the obd port for inspections, so it was visual only :)

Craig

12-22-2004, 02:19 PM

Don't forget the ease of working on the M30 compared to the later, more modern engines.

As for the OHV- there are "modern" OHV engines. OHC engines have been around about as long as pushrod motors, neither is really newer than the other. GM's LS6 engines make as much power as the M5 with a lot less complexity and cost.

mholbrook

12-22-2004, 02:46 PM

Although I was initially introduced to the E34 in my previous 94 530ia, prior to purchasing my 89 535im, I looked for and nearly bought a later model 525im with less than 100k. I felt the asking price a little high at the time especially knowing that I would be tearing into it and changing almost everything in the suspension as well as bringing the engine compartment up to date with new plugs etc. At the time, I stumbled onto the 535 I bought for $2900 with almost 200k on it and felt after a drive it was a better candidate for my modifications. With $7500 in my car and about 202k now, it is sharp in handling and response of the senior six powerplant. I have made about as many modifications as possible without forced induction that make any kind of sense. I believe it was money well spent.

My good friend has a 91 M5 and there is little difference between our cars except for the extra 100+ hp he enjoyes at 5x the price and higher maintenance costs. He can aford it but I can't. I don't think there are many, if any, 525's that can stay with my car that are not force inducted.

Just my .02 for what it's worth.

JonE

12-22-2004, 02:51 PM

So, there! And, my dad, no, my mom could probably beat up your dad!

Dan in NZ

12-22-2004, 04:42 PM

console and was trying to mop it up...

More likely spilled his SUPERSIZE Coke and Fries...

Paul in NZ

12-22-2004, 07:27 PM

there really is no substitute for cubic inches..its not just the outright numbers..the 535 has a silky unburstable feel,it has a real lunge at 3500 rpm,feels as though it would be devastating at 130 180 km hr in top gear.To me my 535 manual actually feels quite slow from a standing start,but it just feels awesome on the open road.Besides my 535 is the sport spec and is a manual..I didnt see any 525 manuals and definetly no 525 sports.....The M30 is an OLD design, but the main reason I bought mine is because of the high spec in other areas.

Jon K

12-22-2004, 09:55 PM

I just figured that since lots of 525i owners like do de-badge their cars there must be something wrong with them. (LOL)

Seriously - I like that sewing machine precision I hear when that big 6 winds out. Nothing like it. Still the best engine on the road as far as I'm concerned.

I guess my friend is embarassed about this S38B36 in his E34 too, since he debadged it.

I don't have the M50tu, i have the M50, and with the different (hotter) cams that kick on at about 3200 rpm, the car is a great drive. But really, I think you're comparing the wrong cars. The 535i was phased out -- antiquated engine design mostly i would think. The M60B30 was introduced and thus the 530i. The 525i wasn't meant to compete with the 535i. It was more or less the M20 525i, the M30 535i, and that was that in the late 80's. Then it was the M50 525i, the older M30 535i, and then the 530i conventeniently came as the 535i left. So truthfully, it's not 3.5L vs 2.5L, its i6 3.5L vs V8 3.0L, since that is, what i believe, what truly replaced the 535i.

Jon K

12-22-2004, 09:58 PM

bimmerd00d

12-22-2004, 10:04 PM

haha who here saw this post taking up at least 6 pages? i did :D

Paul in NZ

12-23-2004, 05:00 AM

and i bet there is some correlationbetween the "group" that is defending the m30 so well AND the M30 itself

Dan in NZ

12-23-2004, 06:07 AM

and i bet there is some correlationbetween the "group" that is defending the m30 so well AND the M30 itself

Are you suggesting a "large displacement"??? I thought a bigger engine suggested a lack thereof ;)

Jon K

12-23-2004, 02:10 PM

Are you suggesting a "large displacement"??? I thought a bigger engine suggested a lack thereof ;)

Nah he's just saying that the owners are just due for service more often...

:D

Mr Project

12-23-2004, 03:39 PM

I thought he was saying we were simple, but torquey. You know, like red-staters. :D

George M

12-23-2004, 04:19 PM

to pile on some more :-)....something against the grain about a 2.5 liter engine in a 3800 lb car...asking a lot. Long and short is the pre-vanos 2.5 with timing belt didn't have much guts...even in an E-30 let alone a heavy E-34. The more refined and more powerful 4 valve variants with stronger timing chain (needed due to increase valve train inertia) is a better engine but BMW's early effort with variable valve timing. I personally don't like the complexity and prefer another liter of displacement with one less cam and half the valves. Four valve engines are known to make horsepower but also known for poor low end torque. Torque rules on the street. The big six is a masterpiece...kind of like BMW's version of a small block Chevy. A balance of simplicity and engineering elegance that has stood the test of time. Love the aluminum free flowing head with bullet proof iron block, robust valve train and timing chain. A wonderful combination of solid lifters and being purposefully oversquare which makes it rev like a much smaller engine with much less torque. When you tear one down the M-30 just exudes engineering because it strikes that elusive balance between simplicity and sophistication. The debate over which is better can even be applied to the latest generation 5 series. Is the new 5 series more technically advanced? No question...to the extreme. But the balance of technical sophistication and serviceability/replacement cost is now dangerously skewed. The new 5 series is rolling albatross 10 years from now (in keeping with its ugly bodywork) when anybody tries to work on one out of warranty. From replacing the electrically controlled shocks or steering to troubleshooting all the computer controlled multiplexed circuits that laden the car...a real money generator for BMW though...lol...who's kidding who.
George

Dick Schneiders

12-23-2004, 06:22 PM

evolution of these engines, I was confused. There was a "pre-vanos 2.5 with timing belt", but that was the M20, which never was involved in this discussion. Then you jump to the "4 valve variants with stronger timing chain" and equate that with the "variable valve timing". This is the M50 engine, which is the one in the discussion, but the first couple of years of this engine did *not* have Vanos.

If I am missing something here, please let me know, but it appears that you left out one of the variants - the first version of the M50.

[QUOTE=George M]to pile on some more :-)....something against the grain about a 2.5 liter engine in a 3800 lb car...asking a lot. Long and short is the pre-vanos 2.5 with timing belt didn't have much guts...even in an E-30 let alone a heavy E-34. The more refined and more powerful 4 valve variants with stronger timing chain (needed due to increase valve train inertia) is a better engine but BMW's early effort with variable valve timing.

Jon K

12-23-2004, 06:44 PM

George M

12-23-2004, 08:43 PM

Dick Schneiders

12-23-2004, 09:48 PM

I didn't know if everybody else knew. :-) So I tried to clarify and fill in the blanks, for those that might not know what we know and misread your post and then end up knowing the wrong thing. Does that clear it up? ;)

Sorry about my using a poor choice in words in wrongly stating that your post "confused" me.

I am perhaps more surprised that you Dick missed the point of my post....but I only re-read yours twice ;-) Nothing I wrote refutes what you correctly stated. You simply added the non VANOS M50 which most that have been around these cars know about...even Jon, who owns one ;-) I added the 2V belt driven M20 for perspective as it is relevant to the lineage of the 2.5L BMW six. As to Jon being confused...this is underscored by his comment that a M20 is a smaller M30...won't waste the band width.
Perhaps I missed my target audience or maybe I didn't...lol.
George

Jon K

12-24-2004, 04:53 AM

I am perhaps more surprised that you Dick missed the point of my post....but I only re-read yours twice ;-) Nothing I wrote refutes what you correctly stated. You simply added the non VANOS M50 which most that have been around these cars know about...even Jon, who owns one ;-) I added the 2V belt driven M20 for perspective as it is relevant to the lineage of the 2.5L BMW six. As to Jon being confused...this is underscored by his comment that a M20 is a smaller M30...won't waste the band width.
Perhaps I missed my target audience or maybe I didn't...lol.
George

The M20 can more appropriately be called a 2.5L M30 than a M20 can be related to an M50... the only thing commoon between M20/50 is displacement. M20: SOHC, 2v per cyl, belt drive, valve adjustments, afm. M30: SOHC, 2v per cyl, belt drive, valve adjustments, afm. M50: DOHC, 4v per cyl, hydraulic valves, MAF. So, i don't see why the statement is so far off. Yes they're different blocks, but the two are more alike than the motors that are actually being compared (m50 vs. m30). But again, that s houldn't even be argument because the M30 3.5 was replaced by the M60 3.0L, yet no one has talked of that.

George M

12-24-2004, 07:51 AM

Dick...I knew you knew that I knew...lol...just having some fun with you as you were with me. And Jon...keep sticking up for your non-vanos M50...it is a nice engine...just ain't no M-30. Oh and Jon...the M-30 is too good an engine to have a belt driven camshaft....so there goes your analogy. And lastly...the reason the 3.0 liter V8 is never mentioned is for good reason...unlike the M-30, an engine BMW would like to forget. As Winfred said, an M-30 car will smoke a 3 liter V8 car which doesn't even count the headaches of maintaining one....will be waiting for Jeff's defense :-)
George

Jon K

12-24-2004, 09:10 AM

George M

12-24-2004, 09:21 AM

Jon K

12-24-2004, 11:52 AM

Huh?...when you are only pushing a single camshaft and 2V's per cylinder, you don't have much inertia....that's why the rubber band M20 works...with some noted failures along the way and in the case of the M-30 with its robust timing chain...its all gravy in terms of durability and no need to change the chain for PM.
As to which engine is better...what you coin the M-30's replacement...the anemic 3.0 Liter V8...sorry Jeff...go ahead Jon...alter the thread and take a pole as to which engine is better. You and I can bet the farm and would appreciate a nice Christmas present. Go ahead...make my day...you feel lucky?...well do ya?
:p
George

Im not saying the M60 is better, but when the original question was asked "Why do americans prefer the 535i" the immediate comparison was against the 525i. And that's fine, but thats like saying "Why do americans prefer the E30 325i" when the only alternative at the moment was the 318 (in the US). Of course people who are all into displacement will prefer 3.5L over 2.5L in the years from '88 - '93. But from '91 - '93 the differences weren't so great between the 525i and 535i. But when the 3.5L was phased out, and 3.0L V8 phased in, that's when you saw NOTICEABLE preference of the 3.5L over the "newer" technology, because everyone knows the small 8 is weak. But people still purchased the 93+ 525i's, even enthusiasts... i'm not looking to bet anyone anything, im making a point that BMW NA felt that a 3.0L V8 was a viable replacement for the antiquated M30, if the motor were that amazing, it'd still be around in new cars. The M50 design, however, lives on in double vanos versions of M52 and M54 :D

DueyT

12-24-2004, 12:05 PM

How about I throw this one in...? http://www3.sympatico.ca/dnatown/cheesy.gif

Work with me here...there are some slight gaps in the timelines, but in keeping with the thread, it's the idea that counts....

I like 'em BIG, the bigger the better (torque and oomph!):

M30 -> slight pause -> M60B40 ("woof woof woof")

I'm confindant enough in my manhood that SMALL is okay (insert "ring-ding-ding" 2-stroke sound here :p ):

M20 -----> "I like tiny engines in big cars" -> M50
└--> "I like the V-8 sound" -> M60B30

There...[start Monty Python voice] Let's not bicker and quibble over 'oo's six is better than 'oo's... [end Monty Python voice]

Cheers,
Duey

George M

12-24-2004, 12:19 PM

you don't see the landscape do you Jon?...you completely missed the point of my previous thread. Why is BMW in business?...to make money. I know the name of the game Jon because I have worked in the auto industry my whole life. I would argue and many would agree that BMW has had their glory days in the 90's which began with some great cars in the 80's...which were even more purposeful. Just because an engine is superceded doesn't make it better. BMW is whoring out to making cars with more and more bells and whistles to make money. Making more money and the best cars for enthusiasts is mutually exclusive. Sale of replacement parts is BMW's biggest profitability. More part complexity equals more money. You think BMW is making some good decisions of late?...hang out on a couple of E-65 boards for a while. The rich guys that bought those cars are suckers. Most don't know a camshaft from a door handle...precisely the market BMW wants...more money than brains. The poetic justice is the fat cats that bought those cars got what they deserved...heavy cash outlay and little ROI. Nothing stays the same...car companies are either improving or getting worse. The Japanese are starting to overtake BMW's reign as the pre-eminent car builders. Ironically BMW is going the way of the Japanese car's of the late 80's to mid-90's....selling out....pendulum swing. Depends heavily on market forces and on greed and integrity of who's at the helm of competing companies. As to 4 valve technology...been around for a while now....have owned many of each...including a 4 valve V8 car with a wonderful engine. I sure wouldn't want to rebuild one though and incur the cost. If you haven't already found out...you will.
George

aeldk5g

12-24-2004, 12:29 PM

The M30 engine is the functional equivalent of the small-block Chevrolet (283 CI) engine for BMW. Displacing 3.5 litres, the alloy head cast iron block runs a modest compression ratio of 9.0:1 and uses a single camshaft and 2 valves per cylinder.

Despite the lack of twin cams and multi-valves, the engine can still produce 155kW (208hp) at 5700rpm and 305Nm (225ft-lb) of torque at 4000rpm. Pretty basic stuff, but as they say "there is no substitute for cubic inches", and I'll add "or simplicity for durability".

The 3.5L six cylinder motor had the longest production run of any BMW engine, dating back to the 1970's. The version found in the E34 535i, was the strongest six cylinder to be produced by BMW. (Hans Stuck flying his
3.0 csl at the Nurburgring comes to mind)

Performance: With 5-Speed Gertag Manual Transmission:
0-60mph in 7.6 sec,
15.7 sec 1/4 mile,
Top: 128 mph Top Speed (chip - limited), 153 mph (aftermarket chip)

Old school technology, but what a great ride!
__________________________________________________ _____________

The difference between 535i and 525i (M50) is only 19 HP, 525i uses newer technology (4 valves per cylinder, no distributor cap...) + when you add an EAT chip to a 525i they even have about the same power.

Is it worth it? 1 liter of displacement more yet only 19 HP advantage? Higher consumption and older technology? Or do people in America really live by the principle "there's no replacement for displacement"? :)

I would appreciate if you could clarify this to me, because in Europe (especially in my country - Croatia), you don't see much 535's, especially after the M50B25 hit the streets.

P.S. I'm just curious, I didn't intend to offend anyone! :)

winfred

12-24-2004, 12:41 PM

they got over 400 hp without forced induction from those motors, some had 4 valve heads most didn't, some ran 3 45mmDCOE webbers and some ran mechanical (like a 2002tii's diesel like injection pump) methanol injection

Hans Stuck flying his
3.0 csl at the Nurburgring comes to mind

Derek A.

12-24-2004, 02:57 PM

A four valve M30 is basically an S38 or an M88. Early M88 motors in race trim were upwards of 470hp, naturally aspirated.

George M

12-26-2004, 03:21 PM

...a bit more...because this thread is more about the evolution of technology than whether the M50 is a good engine....which of course it is. My cool sister put the
Dec '04 Road & Track in my stocking this year. She knows what a car fairy I have been my whole life. My mom picked out the insert of the mag and mailed it in for the subscription...I am grateful for such a nice family. I digress....the Dec R&T really captures the technology debate...you guys have to pick it up and read it. The new ugly fire breathing V10 507 hp M5 is reviewed in depth. In another comparison review the new 400 hp (not even the Z06) C6 Corvette with yestertech 2 valve pushrod...and OHV but not OHC engine technology is pitted against one of my favorite cars of all time the 911S normally aspirated at 355 hp with 4V/cyl...which like fine wine just keeps getting better with age. BTW and incidental to the theme of this post is R&T gave the nod to the new C6 at $53K (a serious bargain) versus the $88.8K price tag of the NA 911. You guys have to read the article about the BMW...its level of technology is off the chart of course...the others being no slouch....all the synergistic computers including the fly by wire V10 mated to the only trans available...a 7 spd SMG tied in with traction control. This is the good part...the nos...the BMW with supposed 100 more horsepower over the non-Z06 Vette and 911s:
Corvette 1/4: 12.9/112.3 mph
Porsche: 1/4: 12.8/110 mph....obviously launches like a motha with rear engine and trap speed reflects being slightly down on power to the Vette.
BMW M5: 1/4: according to the article around 13 flat...no trap speed mentioned..with equivalent 0-60 times to the other two.

I will take the new improved Vette...as the new M5 is weighing in even for more money than the 911s at $90K...or shop for a couple year old 911 :-)

Anyway...the technology debate will rave long after this thread dies but for me there is a balance of technology and reliability and cost of ownership unless you are making your living at a race track where there are no holes barred.
George
P.S....R&T also reviewed the latest Mustang...also a good preformer without a computer in every circuit. Happy Holidays everybody.

Jon K

12-26-2004, 05:05 PM

I know BMW's goal is to stay in business... that's my point, the M30 had been in use since what, the late 70's? Who wants to pop the hood of a brand new BMW and have people say "Isn't that the same motor in my dads 20 year old (then) car?" That's why the M60B30 came out, to "show off" what BMW could make. You're right their goal is/was to stay in business, thats why the M30 hit the shelf.

As per the R&T articles and all... it's a little unjust to head to head to head compare those 3 cars considering "Which one would I buy?" because i REALLY doubt the person looking at a base 997 911, corvette, and M5 are the same person. Honestly, 13 seconds flat for a what 4900lb car or something ridiculous? That's more than adequate for my taste. The corvettes are built only for one purpose and thats to go as fast as their low-tech motor will allow. They just put a DECENT interior in the C6, they know their customer base, and it's not the wood and leather BMW crew.

George M

12-26-2004, 06:35 PM

if your logic were intact Jon, GM's flagship sportscar would have double overhead cams on each bank, 4V's per cylinder and no push rods. GM had that technology as early as BMW...maybe earlier....point is...don't need 'em. Guess you're right about
3 different buyers. Anybody who would pay $90K for an M5 has rocks in his head.
George

Craig

12-27-2004, 12:19 AM

Once again people, the Corvette engine is not low tech. OHC engines and OHV engines have been around about the same amount of time. The LS1/2/6 engine is LEV qualified as well, it's actually very HIGH tech. It just happens to use pushrods because they worked well in that application. It's a new engine that first appeared in 1998 and does NOT share parts with the old small block Chevy engines that date back to the 50's.

George M

12-27-2004, 08:19 AM

Agree Craig, the Vette engine is far from low tech. To get as much specific output as Chevrolet does from that engine on 93 octane gas without a blower and much more than 1 hp per cubic inch and in particular with 2V's per cylinder is a remarkable engineering feat. My reference was the lineage of the small block Chevy...which does date back to the 50's as you mention as well. A further point to be made regarding a heralded company known for their engineering mastery...Porsche. Porsche has staunchly adhered to its basic 911 vehicle design and opposed flat 6 cylinder which has always faced criticism for its less than perfect 50/50 weight distribution (which the Corvette has) with rear mounted engine which makes it to this day difficult to drive close at the limit as the R&T article points out....no refuting physics. Yet in spite of criticism from automotive purists during the entire run of the 911, Porsche still soldiers on with what some would call an arcane design and has not changed the basic layout which also harkens back to the 50's....a noteable statement from such a highly evolved car company. Will say it again...and R&T agrees, bang for buck there isn't another performance car that approaches the new Corvette on the planet for its performance envelope....from Japan, Europe or anywhere. Kudo's to GM for making such a great affordable car. Anybody can make a great expensive performance car...BMW demonstrates this daily....sadly more now than in years past....four door or two door. BTW GM has every bit the technology of any of the other leading companies including Toyota, Porsche and BMW. As Bill has correctly mentioned before, GM does lag in bringing out hybrid cars however which is based upon marketing strategy more than their capability.
George

DueyT

12-27-2004, 11:39 AM

To keep the O/T, morphing theme of the thread alive ;) .....I have to hand it to Porsche, the 911 was and still is classic race-minded driver's car the day it first hit the tracks. Sure it's tail heavy and will lash out and hurt you if you touch the throttle a wee bit to much coming out of a turn, but that's what the 911 is..."all the warts" and everything. I'm glad Porsche hasn't frittered around with the basic idea of the 911...although there are some new computer modules on the car, I think it's fair to say it is still a driver's car. Porsche has kept the market following them for the most part, rather than try and snivel up to it with the latest gadget.

Both Chevy and BMW are much more market followers in this respect, than Porsche.

To be honest it seems that BMW is really trying to suck up to the techno and gadget-greedy public. Except for the new M5 which really seems like a McLaren Formula One rig pushed into the clothing of an E65, the other BMWs, especially when "Bangle-ised" seem to be trying to maintain market share of what they once had.

Chevy? Hmmm...I think they're trying to keep the heritage of the Vette in tact a little bit more than BMW seems to be these days...especially with those Dame Edna light on the E65. GM's Gen 4 V8's are awsome engines, and it is interesting to see such high spec. output from them...in general...not just because they still have pushrods. If pusrods and OHV provide the required performance valvetrain-wise, I think that's great...limit design engineering at it's best...

I think the M30 is a cool engine in the same sense that the 440 in my Charger is a cool engine...torque, personality, and you almost feel like rooting for it just because it's a little bit older but still does a wonderful job doing what it's supposed to do...

Cheers,
Duey

bahnstormer

12-27-2004, 01:01 PM

The new heads use the same valve sizes and port configurations of the LS6. A six-liter Gen IV gets within 100 rpm of the LS6 without the LS6's hollow stem valves. Almost 11:1 compression is just short of amazing on pump gas, especially the 91-octane (rather than the recommended 93-octane) which is all you can get in some parts of the country, especially out West. No doubt, when running 91 on anything else but a cool day, the engine controls will rely on knock retard (and the toll it takes on performance) to keep the engine out of detonation. Like the LS1 and LS6 before it, we suspect LS2 will take 93.5-to-94-octane to eliminate knock retard under all conditions.

LS2, with 400hp, in a car that gets 22.6 miles-per-gallon (EPA combined rating), is more efficient that most of its competitors' engines. Some (Ferrari 575, Viper, Porsche Turbo) have more powerful engines, some (Porsche 911, Ferrari Modena) have engines of the same or less power, but none can get the kind of mileage the C6 gets. The closest competitor is the Porsche 911 at 20.6 mpg. The rest are below 20 and the Ferarris get 12.7. 'Course, if you got a Ferarri, you don't care about fuel mileage anyway and probably don't care your engine is not very efficient, either.

George M

12-28-2004, 08:42 AM

your comments are right on Bahnstormer...truly amazing what Chevy gets out the lastest gen IV. The amount of compression relative to gas octane level is remarkable...at 1.1 hp per cubic inch...unreal. R&T points out the Vette feels stronger than the Porsche which it is...the Porsche being no slouch...mostly in torque advantage...a full 100 ft-lbs borne out of cubic inches...BTW analogous to the big six versus 4V M50 debate :-) Even more noteworthy though is the outstanding fuel economy. The Chevy small block LS derivatives...in the last few years have all gotten better fuel ecomony than any of the competition. 20 miles per gallon + with 350-400 hp is unthinkable.
George

Zeuk in Oz

12-30-2004, 01:59 AM

[QUOTE=George M]...because this thread is more about the evolution of technology than whether the M50 is a good engine. QUOTE]
As a non-technical enthusiast this thread has been very interesting not only in what has been said but also what has not been said.
Surely what is happening is that the petrol internal combustion engine with its alloy construction, double overhead camshafts, double variable valve timing, 4 valves per cylinder, turbocharging and supercharging etc is nearing the end of its development until some new technology is invented or becomes inexpensive and reliable enough for mass production (if it/they already exist/s).
What I find more interesting are the recent developments in diesel engine technology, and despite comments about BMW losing their way, this is an area where BMW seems to be doing their bit. (I must admit though that Mercedes, with all the commercial and passenger diesel vehicles they sell, did have somewhat of a head start.)
Common rail direct injection coupled with multi-valve cylinders and turbocharging and new lighter engine block technology such as the graphite Peugot/Jaguar/Landrover block diesel have revolutionised the humble diesel.
BMW's 3.0 litre diesel 6 cylinder engine is phenomenal with 500 Nm of torque. In my opinion it is the engine of choice in the new 5 series and the X5, particularly when matched to a 6 speed auto gearbox. And using only 7-9 litres per 100 km in normal driving.
I will be very surprised if Americans do not shortly start a love affair with the new diesels, providing that legislators allow them. :D

George M

12-30-2004, 12:19 PM

Zeus for a non-tech guy you made a number of astute observations, may of which I agree with. The operative point about the internal combustion engine being replaced is about 95% cost...in terms of capitalization to produce an alternative engine, part complexity and distribution and for the consumer, fuel cost. Aside from diesel fuel being less refined and hence having a lower per gallon cost to consumers...also has a downside from an emission stand point as well which can be controlled somewhat... another strike against however. Your inference that the IC engine is near the end of either its usefulness or development curve is likely inaccurate however as twenty years ago many even technical experts were starting to write off the IC engine which to this day is still the cheapest from an overall investment and cost of ownership standpoint....in cars...but not in trucks. Eighteen wheelers throughout the world have been diesels for a long time now....purely based on overall economics....dollar per mile....diesil fuel prices only being a subset...diesel engines as you may know tend to be quite reliable and durable as well. Consumers in America will only transisition to diesel and hybrid cars when the nos. are there and yes the tide is slowly turning. The reason Europe has had diesel and turbo diesel technology for a number of years now in passenger cars is the cost of fuel and the small influence of capital and part distribution which tips the scale in favor of IC engines. Believe you are correct and will see more diesel cars in America...and possibly in Europe as well. Diesels in America have been around for a long time in passenger cars...my choice is still the IC engine.
I like my friend's MB turbo sedan but prefer my big six 735iL :-)
George

Mr Project

12-30-2004, 02:01 PM

George, are you differentiating between gas and diesel engines when you say diesel and IC? Because both gas and diesel combust internally.... :)

Regardless, I've always thought that a good turbodeisel powerplant was ideal for most american driving situations. Excellent low-end torque (see our love affair with the large V8 for this reason), good economy at idle (big city traffic), and longevity (geographically large country). What average american ever revs past 5k RPM? And diesels would be perfect for our SUV-crazed moms.

However, obviously diesels have suffered for a long time in our passenger car market for other reasons: Negative stereotypes associated with crappy early 80's GM diesels, smoky emissions from older or out-of-spec models, and the like. I'd be driving one now, but the relative lack of selection on this side of the pond keeps used diesel car prices high and parts costs high as well. Plus, up until recently (5 years or so) there was a pretty big performance hit. Now-a-days, a lot of the former objections are gone, so I look forward to our fuel quality improving to the point that we can enjoy the new generations of performace diesel powerplants. And 15 years from then, I'll be buying them used. :)

philbyil

12-30-2004, 02:27 PM

CI - compression ignition vs Internal combustion!
I love diesels (I have one in my MH)....I believe it was Ralph Schumacher that got nailed doing over 150mph in France in a BMW 3series diesel....Yeehahh! :D

BTW - My 2 cents...
I specifically looked for a 95 model manual 525i. My M50tuB25 motor with a Jim C chip runs like a top, cruises all day at 90 and gets great MPG!
Stop light drag races are BORING...the 525i with the M50tuB25 motor is wonderfully balanced and isn't a slug. On the slab, it's an ideal cruiser and when the twisties come...look out!

bahnstormer

12-30-2004, 03:55 PM

so we're all pretty much clear then
why americans love the 535i yes?

case closed! =]

George M

12-30-2004, 04:28 PM

actually meant IC in the context of alternative fuel/power source vehicles...believe IC vehicles have a bit of a run to go before we use up the planet's reserves of fossil fuel....or more correctly, the cost of escavating the remainder of crude oil exceeds the cost of alternative fuel/power source vehicles...that time is coming...maybe in my lifetime.
Diesels are just a stepping stone...still petroleum based. And lets not kid ourselves about liberating the Iraq people for humanitarian reasons. Although a by product...we are there in large measure because the middle east is strategic to a vast oil supply...we want a country we can trade oil with as they sit on some of the world's largest supplies. Oil makes the wheels go around in America and we use a lot of it and if we inflate gas to the prices it should cost...say what it costs in Europe then we slow down our economy which won't wash with the American people. You are correct Mr. P...both are internal combustion engines of course and yes Philbyil...how diesels work...on very high compression for combusting diesel fuel versus the lower flash point of conventional gas. And bahnstormer...can't we get a few more drops of crude out of this thread?...lol.
George

DueyT

12-30-2004, 08:25 PM

I stayed away from diesels in my earlier post since I was keeping closer to the M30/M50 aspect of the thread, but George laid down the gauntlet about keeping this thread going... :D

To start off with, I'd drive a 530d before a 545i...

Next, frankly....diesel fuel in N.A. quite honestly is crap! Many times pushin 500ppm sulphur while Euro-spec D2 cannot exceed 50ppm and several of the Scandanavian countries can't exceed 15ppm sulphur.

So what? Well, the emissions are directly related to how clean the fuel is and can be burned. Diesel catalytic convertors and particulate filters in Euro Tier 3 and 4 vehicles really clean up the exhaust. If the U.S. and Canada take their collective heads out of their arses regarding cleaning up diesel, I'm sure we would see many of the makers bringing diesels "back" to North America...yup, many TDI/CRD/CDI etc...-powered vehicles are actually made here then shipped to Europe and around the world. Yeah, sure it's supposed to be fully <50ppm sulphur diesel by 2006 but watch the petroleum companies drag that one out. The current "low-sulphur" (i.e. <300ppm S) is a joke.

This whole topic pisses me off since power and efficiency could be there if not for a fart-load of greedy petro companies in N.A. wanting to delay the extra 1.5-2¢/litre costs to clean up D2/D1.

- I've driven a 1981 Buick Station wagon with the 5.7L Olds diesel -- GM really frigged the programming of the transmission, the guys clearly had no idea about torque and hp production of a diesel engine and hence choked the motor with a TH350 tranny that thought the best way to make power wasa to spin the big V8 at 4500 rpm...idiots! GM pissed a who generation (or two) off against diesels...way to go, General!

- I drive a 2001 Jetta TDI that at the time was the only diesel available in anything other than a heavy duty pickup or SUV. Kudos ot VW (notwithstanding their shite customer service reputation) for keeping diesels alive in N.A. My TDI (I usually don't even call it a Jetta, just a TDI...) is a fantastic little beasty...60-65mpg hwy and at least 40-45mpg in the city. 90hp doesn't sound like a lot but 155 ft-lbs ( 210 N.m ) of torque at 1900 rpm is a lot of pulling power. Far more useful than the shite 2.0L 115hp/155ft-lb gasser VW pedals (wait, did you say 155 ft-lbs, isn't that the same torque as the TDI..yes...but 1700 rpm higher...yup, 3600 rpm...not exactly helpful when moving away from the stop light)

I'd like to see a diesel hybrid but that's not likely to happen...why, because Rudy Diesel's little oil-burner is for the most part too efficient (on a business-case basis) to be mated to an electric system for a car...trains/ship, yes, but not cars.

I'm waiting until the 2006 ULSD is mandated in the U.S. and Canada and then see what cars can come over (or be kept here) that will produce fewer pollutants than some of the cleanest gassers. p.s. I've run some bio-diesel that a firend made and the car was fantastic...same performance...just made me hungry...the exhaust smelled the french fries cooking! *LOL*

p.s. I still vote for the M30.....http://www3.sympatico.ca/dnatown/cheesy.gif

Cheers,
Duey

Zeuk in Oz

12-31-2004, 02:10 AM

George, the point I was trying to make was that America's love of larger displacement engines is presumably related to torque as much as power and thus diesels were an alternative as they have phenomenal torque.
It is interesting to note that the newer European diesels are not nearly as polluting as the older diesels - black sooty exhaust is a thing of the past. Also they are so frugal that the amount of emissions must be minimised compared to older diesels that used much more fuel.
The diesel fuel in Australia is reduced in sulphur content (to < 50 ppm I think - all because BMW blackmailed our government) and so most of the European marques have brought out new generation common rail direct injection engines as part of their line-up. Peugeot, Citroen, MB, BMW, Audi, Rover and Land Rover all offer state of the art diesels.
Not surprisingly all the Japanese 4WD manufacturers are persisting with the old technology and so there are still new diesels sold that belch lots of black smoke and use lots of fuel.
I own a ML 270 CDI 4WD and it regularly returns between 9-9.5 litres per 100 km in normal semi-rural driving which is quite brilliant for a vehicle weighing 2.2 tonnes.
Getting back to the original thread, I actually find that my M20 powered E34 5 speed has adequate power for normal driving.
Perhaps I have just become too old. LOL

George M

12-31-2004, 06:29 AM

Zeuk...we both have gotten just too old...lol...power isn't as important to me as it once was but I grew up around American muscle cars and British and European sports cars and learned early on that cars can be enjoyed with less power...sometimes more if the rest of the car's balance is there. The most noteable manifestation of this rule was a car a friend of mine had in college...a Lotus Elan. I will never forget that car. I was commuting to college in a Triumph TR4 that I had patchworked together as a poor engineering student and my friend said he had a Lotus and would like to take me for a ride. We sought out some twisties and few if any cars I have ever been in brought a smile to my face like that car did.

Good comments about diesel power from both Duey and yourself. Will see...again...economics would likely drive demand for the noisier and dirtier (relative terms) alternative to gas driven cars in the US in particular.
As we have explored...my fault for deviating the thread but I like to talk cars :-).... there are many analogies to the M-30 versus M-50 debate in terms of fuel economy, torque, engine simplicity and cost of ownership over time.
Cheers,
George

Karl

12-31-2004, 08:09 AM

Hope that doesn't sound like I'm bragging but...
I picked up an e12 528i when it was about 10 years old. When its engine needed work, that was my excuse to swap in an e34 3.5L engine. That was an easy swap, and the whole rationale for the change is torque. The car has been through several autocrosses and driving schools and never broken anything. (yeah, I'm that kind of fool) I've also lowered the car about an inch, and tweaked just about everything I can lay hands on, and now it can keep up with e36 cars thru the corners at the driving schools. I think I've just about got this car where I want it now... and it's a fun daily driver.

And I for a good deal on the e34 525i when it was about 10 years old. It's really comfy for my wife as daily driver and its working cruise control makes it easy to live with on long trips. So far ;) its only change is an EAT chip. It has the automatic transmission so--
a. I'm sure that holds it back some. It might be educational to try a stick
b. It's already on its second transmission :(
Last summer that car had its turn at a club driving school. That was a real exercise in using my mirrors -- got passed by everybody there on the straights. But it drove through the corners so well it didn't even chew up the edges of the tires. I'm impressed (and longing for that torque...)

And yes, I'm so thankful to live in a country with inexpensive fuel (even at todays prices) and low vehicle taxes.

DueyT

12-31-2004, 03:48 PM

Are we on page 10 yet? :D

DueyT

12-31-2004, 03:49 PM

Hmmmm...guess not...:(

DueyT

12-31-2004, 03:53 PM

Oh, wait a second...yes we are! [insert festive Mariachi music]

p.s. George, you should listen to how quiet my mom's new Passat TDI (130 hp/247 ft.lbs) is. In the U.S., the TDI Passat is only $204 more expensive than the base model's 1.8L turbo...

2005 Passat TDI (http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=7222)

Cheers,
Duey

winfred

12-31-2004, 08:16 PM

i like the black cloud when some ******* is hooked to your rear bumper in traffic, i've had a couple volvo I6 diesels one turbo one not and with that bosch ve pump (like the 85-86 524td) you get em up 4-5k and they make a nice cloud, you can turn em up too for more power, moms turbo gets 30-40 mpg and has decent power (not as much as if i was driving it :D )

black sooty exhaust is a thing of the past.

GAGE308

01-01-2005, 04:30 AM

Hey I actually REALLy didnt think Americans were ALL THAT MUCH into the 535' over the 525's/////Maybe ON HERE.There MAY SEEM to be A TON Of 535 fans...I had not Noticed.....But Out On the streets I see More 525's ACTUALLY 325 overe EVERYTHING....I own a WONDERFUL MINT 525I....
NOW...IF I HAD....NOTICED people over here Liking the 535's Over the 525;s THE ONLY THING That make sense is....its a Higher number....and that means its More and better....LOL....I KNOW....Its SHALLOW to the MAX....But thats Not ALL americans we have CHEESEBALLS within ALL CULTURES...LOL...OK DUDE...
GREAT DAY TO YA
DONNIE V

riot

01-01-2005, 05:02 AM

Driving in Europe period I imagine is expensive. I recently got back from Turkey for the first time ever and if the rest of Europe is like that, its no wonder Insurance on a car with over 150hp is expensive. People act like it's the autobahn. 80+ Everyone, in and out. I loved it of course. Yet I did not have my BMW.

About the issue at hand. I think it IS due to the 525i's being mainly automatic and the 535is being standard. I love my 525i but I wish it was manual. With most of the Nikasils being repaired in the 540i's I would get one of those before either. I see alot of 525is around, but the enthusiasts, (e34 lovers mainly), preferr the 540i, and with good reason.

I was offered a 540 for 9k. He told me if I wanted to sell my 525i he would sell me his 540 for 9k. I bought mine for $7,300 with 114k miles, Mint condtion, since I've done some things to it. I'd let it go for 8k, with the stereo and rims. www.hcbmw.com/gallery mine is on top the one he would see is in the middle. Check it out.

- trey

I agree with you - my registration and insurance fee I pay every year is around $600! I would pay the same amount if I had a Ferrari! Isn't that just a bit silly? In Croatia, you pay big bucks if you drive a car that has more than 110 kW (150 HP) and 2.5 liters. If you take into account that fuel prices in Europe are a lot higher - driving a BMW in Europe is an expensive sport!

me4mimes

01-29-2005, 11:25 PM

ha, thats why i got a 525i, they also have better torque and i especially like how the m50 engine plays with a manual transmission. I have a friend who has the 535i and really, truthfully, down to hart, my thesis to your question is that most americans are stupid, they see the bigger number and bigger is better, notice most of the peope who own 535i's are not totally obsessed over their car....

winfred

01-30-2005, 12:07 AM

huh? mabie your buddy has a wussy 535 i've stomped on e39 528s with mine and they have more ass then a 525

ha, thats why i got a 525i, they also have better torque and i especially like how the m50 engine plays with a manual transmission. I have a friend who has the 535i and really, truthfully, down to hart, my thesis to your question is that most americans are stupid, they see the bigger number and bigger is better, notice most of the peope who own 535i's are not totally obsessed over their car....

Dick Schneiders

01-30-2005, 07:57 AM

M50 more torque!! HuH! Have you even looked at the numbers? The M50 has 184 Ft. Lbs. of torque and the M30 has 225.

I think your friend probably debadged his car and it is really a 4 cylinder car.

I have never owned a 535 and love my 525's, but the M50 is certainly wimpy compared to the bigger engine.

ha, thats why i got a 525i, they also have better torque and i especially like how the m50 engine plays with a manual transmission. I have a friend who has the 535i and really, truthfully, down to hart, my thesis to your question is that most americans are stupid, they see the bigger number and bigger is better, notice most of the peope who own 535i's are not totally obsessed over their car....

best535iever

01-30-2005, 08:34 AM

M50 more torque!! HuH! Have you even looked at the numbers? The M50 has 184 Ft. Lbs. of torque and the M30 has 225.

I think your friend probably debadged his car and it is really a 4 cylinder car.

I have never owned a 535 and love my 525's, but the M50 is certainly wimpy compared to the bigger engine.

so which engine is better? I would take on a 525i any day w/ my 535. I have driven many bmw's. I work in a small privately owned european shop. I have not worked on that many e34's though. On the ones i have driven, The 535 has alot more juice. Thats why i bought one.

winfred

01-30-2005, 11:03 AM

the m30 is a much older design going back past the 70s and had plenty of time to get refined, it's a hard to kill motor with the potential to go 400k miles with little more then a head rebuild around 250k, most m50s i've seen are pretty tired at 250k

so which engine is better? I would take on a 525i any day w/ my 535. I have driven many bmw's. I work in a small privately owned european shop. I have not worked on that many e34's though. On the ones i have driven, The 535 has alot more juice. Thats why i bought one.

Bill R.

01-30-2005, 11:19 AM

had, meaning its like the small block chevy in that parts are far more likely to be found at almost any auto parts store for it... Basic stuff like waterpump, cap,rotor,sparkplugs, filters...valve cover gaskets etc. And these items are going to be cheaper than the m50, its technology is simpler and easier to repair. You can go to almost any junkyard that has a bmw and find an engine or engine parts for one since they hold up so well.

the m30 is a much older design going back past the 70s and had plenty of time to get refined, it's a hard to kill motor with the potential to go 400k miles with little more then a head rebuild around 250k, most m50s i've seen are pretty tired at 250k

winfred

01-30-2005, 11:23 AM

a close 2nd would be the m20

had, meaning its like the small block chevy in that parts are far more likely to be found at almost any auto parts store for it.

Jesda

01-30-2006, 06:49 AM

angrypancake

01-30-2006, 08:06 AM

this thread apparently doesnt want to die

Alexlind123

01-30-2006, 10:26 AM

This debate is silly anyway. My 525 is the slowest car I've owned in years...but I enjoy it.

I miss 145mph cruising in middle America, and the effortless joy of low-end torque when running errands around town, so I may sell it and buy another Infiniti Q45. I'll miss the little Bimmer though for everything else it does so remarkably well. Perhaps I'll buy another if I move to a place with curves in the road. :)

Buy a 535i. When my dad drove mine into emissions testing for me when i first got it, he described the car as fast and the shifting as hardly noticable. He said he took it up to about 90, and said it felt like it could keep accelerating forever. This is coming from a man who has owned 2 440 plymouth gtx's and a '71 dodge charger r/t with a 440.

Edit: On my recent trip to las vegas, we rented a ford freestar van with a 4.2liter engine (although my dad "reserved" an impala). It had plenty of low-end but a pitiful top-end, it was almost as if it actually lost power with rpm instead of gaining. So dont wish too much for low-end power, you might get it!

ILoveMPower

01-30-2006, 11:01 AM

I love my M30. There's something about the torque curve and the sound of the big six that makes it so amazing, once 3rd gear 4k hits, you're off.

M50's are awesome, but I'd rather have the simplicity and ability to create gobs of FI power.

ttsalo

01-31-2006, 10:46 AM

...I can drive around leisurely using 2000-3000 rpm, and when I need the power, I go to 3500-6500 rpm. After 3000 I feel the increase in acceleration and cars surges forward as the vanos kicks in and I hit the torque peak. The motor doesn't feel at all like out of breath until I hit 6000. The gearing is set up such that I don't have to go below 3500 rpm after an upshift. So it's downright anemic at 2000 and below, but who cares? The whole idea of the 4 valves per cylinder is to make the engine breathe better so that the torque peak happens at higher rpms, which translates into more power from same displacement. With an engine like this, you're not supposed to use the lower rpms unless you don't want the power :D

And another reason is that BMW didn't put AWD in anything else than 525.

Here's some production totals for E34:

520i: 383823
525i: 384960
525iX: 4783
530i (M30): 20279
535i (M30): 41759 manual, 54552 automatic
530i (M60): 8292 manual, 21951 automatic
540i: 20074 manual, 2570 automatic
M5 (3.6l): 8344
M5 (3.8l): 3019 sedan, 891 touring

What does this tell? At least the fact that the 520 and 525 were the bread and butter of the E34 series.

angrypancake

01-31-2006, 02:39 PM

however the demand right now is extremely high for 535iM's. am i the only one who thinks this debate will never be settled? 535 owners love their cars, 525's as well, i've had both, just give me an e34 as long as it's not a 518 or a 520, and I'm a happy driver.

Incantation

01-31-2006, 03:41 PM

all it tells is that you have trouble reading stats :P

535i (M30): 41759 manual, 54552 automatic

i would say based on your findings and logic that the 535 was the bnb

Jon K

01-31-2006, 03:48 PM

Ok guys. M50 wins. Duh.

I like mine because it makes funny noises :)

angrypancake

01-31-2006, 03:49 PM

Ok guys. M50 wins. Duh.

I like mine because it makes funny noises :)

yours doesnt count... stupid "something or other" :p

Cambridge

02-06-2006, 10:19 PM

this thread apparently doesnt want to die :)

Gayle

02-06-2006, 11:16 PM

Here's some production totals for E34:

520i: 383823
525i: 384960
525iX: 4783
530i (M30): 20279
535i (M30): 41759 manual, 54552 automatic
530i (M60): 8292 manual, 21951 automatic
540i: 20074 manual, 2570 automatic
M5 (3.6l): 8344
M5 (3.8l): 3019 sedan, 891 touring

Where did you locate this information? It is very interesting and I would like to check out the original.

.

Paul in NZ

02-07-2006, 03:41 AM

there is something wrong there surely??

540i: 20074 manual, 2570 automatic

twenty thousand and seventy four manuals and only two thousand five hundred and seventy autos....I dont think so

535 win this page so far!!!

bahnstormer

02-07-2006, 10:34 AM

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/sucks2.jpg

Jesda

02-07-2006, 12:11 PM

I'm posting!

EdNL

04-12-2007, 08:58 AM

I drive a 1990 Euro 525i M50B25 non-Vanos and my father drives a 1988 530i M30B30. Both are chipped and manuals.

The 530i just has more access to power and earlier (lower rpm), while the 525i needs more revs to get the same done. Mine just feels a bit sportier because it's lighter (1468kg/525i versus 1530kg/530i) and likes to rev more, but we've raced sometimes and the differences are very small. If the 530i was a bit lighter, it would outrun my 525i. I think the M30 also gains more from being chipped than the M50 525i with its already more up-to-date ECU.

The lack of torque in the lower rpm's is just a bit annoying sometimes, especially with all fast TDI's driving around in the Netherlands. I've once driven a manual 535i and it's smooth as silk and picks up at low RPM's. If there was an M50B30, then I might prefer it to the M30B35, but as it is, I'd prefer a 535i immediately if it weren't for the amazing fuel prices here (1.35 euro per liter!). The M50 is definitely a lot easier on the fuel.

The 530i M30 was phased out with the arrival of the 525i M50, but the 535i is still almost a second faster to 60 mph than the 525i M50 and doesn't need be to revved too hard to keep up with all the fast Turbo Diesels around.
I think the M50 is quite a reliable engine, but if something happens you'll pay a lot more than servicing an M30. Mine is still going strong and idles perfectly, while my father's 530i really needs some servicing soon.

bmwrp8

04-12-2007, 09:08 AM

aside from specs what i love about the m50 is the sound it makes when revving. the 535 sound more like a v8.:)

ILoveMPower

04-12-2007, 09:11 AM

Because somehow every time I drive my car even with its weak 208hp it somehow feels to me like a racecar

I prefer the m30 mostly because it's a legend... and the fact I have 200K miles running like a top with little maintenance, it only furthers my preference.

Qube

04-12-2007, 09:43 AM

Having a car built in 88 smoke majority of the cars of late feels good :) I'm glad I have an 89 early gen 535 ;)

I have driven a 94 (?) 525 and it was molassas off the line. Was sharked just the same, but automatic (sport). When crusing, c'mon... no difference. When you need to HAUL ASS (transport truck merging...), the 535 is gone... the 525 will kickdown and breath deeply for a moment before moving.

Different strokes for different folks. The 525 is more civil, and the 535 is more fun. If I were driving to Chicago to the meet, I'd rather take the 525 and save some money in gas. If I'm driving to work, I'd like those 30-45 minutes to be FUN!

ThoreauHD

04-12-2007, 12:00 PM

If I could afford it or be able to live with the guilt, I'd like to own a 2007 750i. But for sheer style and comfort I like the E34 5 series the best. Engine size was a consideration for me more for smoothness rather than peeling out like a monkey.

I would have bought a 540 if I could find one, but at purchase time, I couldn't find a 540 in as good a shape as the 530 I have.

The 525's have alot of pickup and can outrun a 535 in some instances. Some guys in 525's have tried to race me in my lil V8, but that's not what I'm in it for. If I wanted that, I'd get a tricked out japanese car.

The 540 to me is the right balance of size and power. I'll have to live vicariously through the other owners here in power, but I don't miss it. At highway speeds a V8 is hard to beat. Vrrooom. It can peel the paint off the car at redline. In the end, for me, it's having the power I need when I need it- even if the car is fully loaded with bricks. That's why I went with a V8.

repenttokyo

04-12-2007, 12:03 PM

I don't think anyone is buying a 6 cylinder 5 series for speed, or mistaking it for a racecar.....

Jon K

04-12-2007, 12:04 PM

I don't think anyone is buying a 6 cylinder 5 series for speed, or mistaking it for a racecar.....

o rly?

repenttokyo

04-12-2007, 12:15 PM

o rly?

certainly not in stock form.

Jon K

04-12-2007, 12:18 PM

certainly not in stock form.

I've seen tons of M5s and 535i doing track duty. I have actually never seen a 540 on a track.

repenttokyo

04-12-2007, 12:23 PM

Jon K

04-12-2007, 12:29 PM

M5 was not what I was referring to when I said 6 cylinder. The thread was referring to 525's and 535's, and that is what I was discussing as well. Certainly you can take any car you want to onto a track, but that doesn't mean that it is particularly fast or well suited to racing. I like my car, but I have no illusions about it's performance, particularly in straightline speed. My car is a lot of fun in rally's and twisties, but fun does not always = fast.

as for never having seen a 540 on the track before: http://www.bimmer.info/forum/showthread.php?t=32417

;)

I've seen Fiat Punto sand Golf TD 1.3 liter diesels on the ring - when you drive the 'ring on your own time, its not a "track".

There are tons of guys racing E28 and E34 cars in NASA SCCA etc. There are E24 635's as well. There is nothing wrong with the 6 cylinder engines especially in classes that limit displacement. A 540 has more torque and all, thats great, but you don't see M60 engines revving to 7,500 rpm in a car. The E30 chassis dominates NASA/SCCA but look around and you will see E12/E28/E34's and none of them have an M60 motor. Too heavy, too large, and too expensive to make worth going fast.

repenttokyo

04-12-2007, 12:45 PM

An e30 weighs siginificantly less than an e34. The lack of torque is apparent in a heavy car like this, even in daily driving.

I don't see how your argument of e34's participating in class based racing with rigid rules defining competition does anything other than bolster my argument that the car is fun to drive and not especially fast. I'm not trying to be a jerk here - I drive one of these myself.

I also don't see the relevance of an M60 revving to 7500?

ryan roopnarine

04-12-2007, 01:10 PM

2.5 years and this shiat thread is still coming up? i know i'm not helping by typing in it, but damn.

repenttokyo

04-12-2007, 01:14 PM

your post has doomed it to perpetuity!

dacoyote

04-12-2007, 01:26 PM

WOW... I cannot believe this stupid thread came back to life...

Long live stupid threads

Jon K

04-12-2007, 02:39 PM

Stupid threads for stupid people?

Has anyone forgotten the '70s racing heavy ass alfa's and lancia with puny 2.0L engines? Its no different.

repenttokyo

04-12-2007, 02:41 PM

it's like fat chicks wearing spandex - people do it, but that doesn't mean they should!

attack eagle

04-12-2007, 05:17 PM

Who brought this thread back to life?
I had a 3800 lb car with a 2.0 and turned the 1/4 in less than 14 seconds, and did 167 mph right out of the box... all that on 210 crank ponies. It was a LOT faster later.

there is no replacement for displacement. But not everyone that buys a BMW is looking for acceleration. Some of us want "hands off ishness" and the best fuel economy we can get. If we wanted pure acceleration we'd probably be driving something Smaller lighter and turbo.

repenttokyo

04-12-2007, 06:07 PM

for sure. i bought my car bc it was slow, looks good, and is fun to drive :)

Alexlind123

04-12-2007, 07:37 PM

Macv

04-12-2007, 08:15 PM

I'm posting!

Haha.
petitionspot.com "Put an end to reviving threads."

mikeythekidd

04-13-2007, 05:08 PM

Has anyone noticed just how cool the M30 engine looks? That big, beautiful intake manifold swooping up and over the valve cover. The distributor cleverly mounted at the end of the cam shaft. No plastic covers on this baby! Nosir...just a big, beautiful hunk of German-engineered powerplant. Who cares about sophistication? The M30 embodies the qualities that makes BMWs so addictive in the first place: subtle and often intangible differences that seperate our cars from everyone elses.
The M30 is a living and breathing legend. If I wanted to drive something to get from point A to point B I'd drive a f***ing Cambry.

Jon K

04-13-2007, 05:19 PM

genphreak

04-13-2007, 06:25 PM

LOL the intake manifold doesn't flow terribly great and weighs a TON. The distributor is at the end of the camshaft because... thats where distributors go!That's being a little harsh. The distributor design was revolutionary for the M20 and M30 when they adopted it, and there aren't many engines with a similar system except later Jap engines (just a crib-job). Most engines employ a complete seprate unit, whether they have contacts or are breakerless. Ours is just a black plastic housing on the end of the cam- minimal weight and maintenance- the caps last for ages.

The intake is not that heavy (most do weigh), I can lift it and the head myself, but yes it could be lighter as it would be on a more modern engine where the technology can be employed casting and manufacturing. - the point is the weight is fine for the time, the 'swoop' efficient, and with the engine slanted any weight in the manifold evens it out anyway. The fact is these engines are workhorses and are well proven as this thread implies, they could be more refined but that's why they made the M88/S36/S38 s so the point is moot.

M30s rock, the proliferation of the Turbo aftermarket (despite the rigid engine management that is only recently resolvable cheaply) atest to its excellent HP/$+reliability ratio. I'm looking forward to getting my second one on the road... the only thing that beats them is the M5x and S series engines, the V8s are excellent too but perhaps hard/costly to look after unless you have a new one. Just my 2c :) Nick

ryan roopnarine

04-13-2007, 07:08 PM

1. i gave this thread 1 star. i suggest everyone else do the same, and stop posting to this frigging thread.

2. the m20 or m30 intake manifold may have been technologically advanced for its time, but come on. that's the one part of the e34 that looks pure east berlin. soviet. slap a nameplate that says SPUTNIK on that bih. the east german half of the bmw engineering room designed the look of that thing. most 80s-90s german cars have one part that looks like it was designed by lada, the volkswagens have those soviet looking fluid resivoirs, the e34 has that intake manifold.

Panda

04-13-2007, 07:29 PM

So there are loads of 540 manuals knocking about? What an interesting (and long...) thread.

I love my 535 but I want a 540 manual (can't find one, only shitty slushboxes with space shuttle mileages). The 525 may only be 19hp short but where do you go from there? The 3.5 has a nicely linear power delivery, there are no flat spots and you don't need high revs to get the best from it. It picks up form low revs and just keeps going to the red line. Very few cars have the ability to accelerate from 40-90 in 3rd gear like a (manual boxed) 3.5.

My uncle gifted me my car when he got one of the last 540/6's (the git, I found the car and he bought it. Top money at £3500 but 60k miles and full BM history) The 540 doesn't have the delivery of the 3.5 and misses out on the 3rd gear fun, the V8 doesn't start playing until 4k rpm and the 6 six speed box is stacked very differently, the engine dynamics and box ratios mean that there is not a 3rd gear equivalent and so the V8 looses some flexibility for overtaking.

Anyway.... The point of the 535? It has easy performance, by accident or design, BMW created a great compromise of comfort and performance (I was never a BMW fan until I got the E34) that has never really been bettered by any manufacturer and which BMW has never improved upon.

I could spend a small fortune tuning my car to 300hp or I could buy a 540 that has more or less that power already. Spend another small fortune and 400hp is possible. Maybe there really is "no substitute for cubes" after all.

How much would have to be spent on a 2.5 to make 400hp and, more importantly, how long would it last?

PS Why kill this thread? It may have been around for 2.5 years but not all members of this forum have. Spend too much time alienating the noob's and you will only have the old timers left. Stupid threads for stupid people? Maybe, but it's not stupid to those that haven't seen it before.

Airborne001

04-14-2007, 05:30 AM

You have to be careful to not compare Apples to Oranges. Your opening statement compares a 525 w/EAT chip to a stock 535, if you compare a 525 w/EAT to a 535 w/EAT, you get to the answer a lot faster. (pardon the pun)

kick7ca

04-14-2007, 08:32 AM

M30 has:
-900cc more displacement
-longest production run of any bmw engine
-simplicity

mikeythekidd

04-14-2007, 09:56 AM

LOL the intake manifold doesn't flow terribly great and weighs a TON. The distributor is at the end of the camshaft because... thats where distributors go!
You missed the point I'm afraid...My 525iT obviously has an m50 and it's an awsome engine in it's own right. I also own a 2006 e90 and I honestly am astounded every time I step on the gas. But I would give my left nut to have an m30 and a 5 speed in my Touring. Would it have more power and torque? A little. would it get any better mileage? Nope. Would it be easier to maintain? Not by a long shot. Would it put a big smile on my face every time I popped the hood? You bet ur ass it would?:D BMW ownership is something that can't be explained numerically. When I get asked why I drive em, I know all I can do is toss em the keys and say "go drive it". Words and numbers just don't get it!

ROBMPULSE

04-14-2007, 11:57 AM

I have a 535i. My number is bigger than your number.

/thread

Rick L

04-14-2007, 08:32 PM

Bill,

I have S54 engine in my M3 and I believe it's about time to have the valves adjusted. Do you know how many hours it usually takes for a tech to do this? Also, do they really need adjustment every 30k miles? Once a while, I hear ticking sound (louder than usual) from valve or from double vanos???

Thanks,
Rick

have timing chains...... valve jobs? I gather you mean valve adjustments, another thing i would rather do than have hydraulics. Dual cam over single cam? a non advantage in my book brought on by multivalves...pinging? as compared to vanos rattle or the plastic intake manifold pulsation rattle? Mine has no pinging tendencies at all and i usually run 87 octane. Don't get me wrong i like both motors, but if i was looking at 2 identical 5 series cars except one was a 3.5 and the other an m50 there would be no hesitation on my part as to which one i would chose. The only thing that i would like to have for the m30 is the maf and Bruno and others sell them now...