Originally posted by RUFFLZ
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
wtf is up with m42swaps?
Collapse
X
-
I have way more fun in my m42d vert than my m50d e36 or the m20d e30 i get to drive once in a while. Yes, there's no debate that it's not the fastest motor on earth but definitely lots of fun. Something i could smash on and feel the kick while staying decently within speed limit or around there. that "buzzing" reminds me of old carburated 4 cyl cars, wpuld last longer than every other car i own and on top of all this, i feel think the gas mileage is amazing. Its way better than the e36...it definitely gets the job done.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by ///M42 sport View Postm42 turbo >m20
m42 < m20 turbo
but:
m42 turbo > m20 turbo
m20 turbo will make easier power than an m42 turbo. there is no argument there. but an m42 turbo is an m42 turbo. you get weird faces when you tell people you turboed an m42. ;)
Leave a comment:
-
well when sina and I schmobbed the twisties together I couldn't keep up.
he got's a 4 dr 318i, I haz '89.
I'm just talking from my experience d0e
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by RUFFLZ View PostI think it's time for all the oh so knowledgeable RUFFLZ to chime in on the topic.
This is simply my perspective; leaving all numbers aside.
m20's sound great, m42's dont.
m42's are ridiculously r3v-happy, m20's are a bit more sluggish in comparison.
Also, I feel as if m42's are almost on par with m20's as far as speed and on the twisties; m42's will win everytime stock v. stock.
In the perfect world, I would own both an alpine slicktop and '89.
No it wouldn't
Leave a comment:
-
I think it's time for all the oh so knowledgeable RUFFLZ to chime in on the topic.
This is simply my perspective; leaving all numbers aside.
m20's sound great, m42's dont.
m42's are ridiculously r3v-happy, m20's are a bit more sluggish in comparison.
Also, I feel as if m42's are almost on par with m20's as far as speed and on the twisties; m42's will win everytime stock v. stock.
In the perfect world, I would own both an alpine slicktop and '89.
Leave a comment:
-
Sometimes i feel my m42 is a little slow. But ive accepted that it isnt a racecar and it has 295.000 km on the clock. But when i take it down a twisty road with a lot of hills i cant stop smiling. That is when it is really fun. The M42 isnt really fast from 0-60 but from 60-100 you can really feel it going that is when its fun.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by redsubdivisions View PostI am still in awe of how long this thread is over such stupid bickering about outdated engines.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by E30 Wagen View PostHey, I honestly just don't know how the power output of a moderately built m42 would compare with a stock m20 or m50 series engine, as well as how the costs would compare. If the m42 really could never achieve more than 150hp without significant investment, then it is what it is I guess... That being said, I don't know why the hell you'd swap in a m20, at the ver least go m50 series.
Even so, it seems like a lot less work and time to swap out an entire driveline, not forgetting transmission, wire harness, exhaust, driveshaft, diff, and other bits, when you could just take out the m42 engine, throw some upgrades and machine work at it, and reinstall a practically brand new, higher output engine without any headache. I think there's more than HP figures to consider in all this.
The only reason I replaced my M42 with an M20 was convenience. The M42 was toast, and I obtained a complete M20 drivetrain for free. There was no question.
Originally posted by redsubdivisions View PostI am still in awe of how long this thread is over such stupid bickering about outdated engines.
Leave a comment:
-
I am still in awe of how long this thread is over such stupid bickering about outdated engines.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by iamcreepingdeath View PostNot sure if serious...
without forced induction, you would not be able to get more than around 150 hp from an M42 without getting into significant (and costly) upgrades. That doesn't come very close to an M20 or an M50. Putting that same amount of money into an M20 or M50 would get you much more power. Also, putting that same amount of money into a carb'd small block chevy would get you MUCH more power...
Even so, it seems like a lot less work and time to swap out an entire driveline, not forgetting transmission, wire harness, exhaust, driveshaft, diff, and other bits, when you could just take out the m42 engine, throw some upgrades and machine work at it, and reinstall a practically brand new, higher output engine without any headache. I think there's more than HP figures to consider in all this.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by CrusherCurtis View PostJust how practical is an m42 over an m20 in terms of gas mileage? Maybe 2 mpg better if that?Originally posted by Vivek View PostJust about none. I get around 20 city (daily) and 24 combined. I've never tried all highway but my mileage blows.
Having owned both cars/engines. The m42 is light and nimble while the m20 is beefy and has a sense of grunt to it. Having said that, it really comes down to preference, but speed wise m20 wins in an numbers game.
I really want to know the story behind the rubber timing belt on the m20 engine though.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: