MWerks: AUTObiography- Andy's 340i

[Digitalwave]

thats because nobody can say anything to say that heavier is better. My 318is is not lightning fast but it sure can keep up w/ a 325is if not pull away a bit. it's nothing magical the m20 doesn't have but like 20ish more hp than the m42. people can hate on m42's all the want but I will never loose love for them. sure putting the m50 in my car would make it pretty fast...I don't think its worth it to loose the feel of the 318is. how is it so hard to believe that someone actually likes the m42? W/ a turbo my 318 should be able to hang w/ the s/m50's and I know I could turbo a m50 but I guess I may be like budget beater trying to prove to you crazy people something...that the m42 is not that bad. sure a turbo m50 would be faster but I think that a turbo m42 would be more than fast enough and tons of fun.

Your logic is flawed just because of the weight you are adding to the front end with your turbo. Taking out the airbox and wiper fluid tank is like a 2lb reduction, it doesn't make up for anything.

You are a hypocrit, plain and simple.

[FredK]

TJ, I pointed that out that a turbo was gonna add weight in front of the front axle a few pages back, and his reply was:

And yeah obviously the turbo is going to add weight!!!! what kind of moron are you?!?!?! its not going to be 100lbs + the heavier tranny though

What a tool.

[Tvan]

asu, you know why BMW didn't put a V8 into the E30? They didn't put a V8 into ANY car during the production years of the E30. They did not make a V8 until ~1993, when the M60 came out. Before that the last time BMW made an 8 cylinder was in the 1960s. What a poor line of reasoning.

Correction: the 840i (M60) was made in '91, to be released in '92 as a '93 model year('92 model year in europe), while many e30 coupes were finishing production for late '91, and convertible e30's being made for '92.

Sorry to be so picky, but you weren't really correct in that statement. Although the point is still valid, because the e30 was being phased out just as the 8 series was being introduced.

[FredK]

Correction: the 840i (M60) was made in '91, to be released in '92 as a '93 model year('92 model year in europe), while many e30 coupes were finishing production for late '91, and convertible e30's being made for '92.

Sorry to be so picky, but you weren't really correct in that statement. Although the point is still valid, because the e30 was being phased out just as the 8 series was being introduced.

Point taken that there was overlap in the production dates of the convertibles and the newer cars to receive the M60. The last production month of the E30 convertible 318i is 4/1993 in Europe.

The first car to receive the M60 in Europe was the E34 in 3/1992 production. The first production date of the 840i is 12/1992 in Europe. It was not produced in 1991. You may have been thinking of the 850i, which had a much earlier production start date, 7/1989.

I was trying to avoid confusing asubimmer, god knows he has enough on his plate trying to wrap his mind around a car weighing 200 lbs more AND having 200 lbs-ft more torque being faster than his car.

[cahomey]

asubimmer watch out for rattle snakes in your bed tonight.

[asubimmer]

dang guys really...I have stopped even though I'm not a hypocrit...Tj if you had read I said that anyone could take that crap out...its just stuff I had to take out to make room for the turbo and FYI the resv filled weighs more than 2lbs. FredK 100+ lbs is diff than the 50- lbs for the turbo and crap...your the tool you fr3akin noob. I love the revvy m42 and a turbo will make it even more fun. I know its not going to be the fastest car out there. But its what I want. All this crap because I said I thought the v8 swap was dumb...you people should get a life. and cahomey have fun at the cheese factory ;)

[Digitalwave]

M20's and M50's rev easier than M42's...

[asubimmer]

M20's and M50's rev easier than M42's...

hell dude I didn't say that the m42 r3v'ed better than anything else...this is the prob. you guys keep making up crap and streaching what I say. if I had a 325 I would deff do the m50 swap...BUT w/ a 318is I would keep the m42. TJ I thought that you were an intelligent person...ohh well

[Digitalwave]

What am I doing to question my intelligence?

I think you are just communicating what you are trying to say very poorly.

[asubimmer]

cause you can't read TJ...I have said basically the same crap this whole time and every time I make a post someone getts some new bright idea that I am trying to say I hate m50's or that the m42 is the fastest revving bmw engine out there...its just freaking retarted.

OK FOR THOSE WHO CAN'T READ:
I NEVER SAID THAT THE M42 WAS BETTER THAN ANY OTHER ENGINE JUST THAT I DO NOT THINK THAT YOU SHOULD PUT ANYTHING OTHER THAN A 4 INTO A 318is. YOU LOOSE THE FEEL AND UNIQUNESS OF THE 318is. THE M42 IS VERY UNDER-RATED ANT ITS A LOT BETTER THAN PEOPLE GIVE IT CREDIT.

[Ziggens96]

Im as big a fan of the m42 as anyone else but asu you are a fool. You will not beat a 325i in a straight line. The BMW v8 is not that heavy and you can stop repeating the same lighter is better the m42 rules quote over and over again. You sound like a cd that keeps skipping.

well said. tvan, I also agree with you: asubimmer is making us look bad. I am predicting that your M42 turbo idea won't go through anywhere close to the date you are expecting, that is, if you do it at all.

M20's and M50's rev easier than M42's...

stock for stock, I don't think this is true, (with the M20, at least) especially if you're revving in neutral (I know, this is is not an ideal ground for comparison.) However, with an M20 and 4.10, it will probably rev up quicker than an M42 if you're doing a highway pull.

I'd rather have an M/S50 than the M42, but I would not drive an M20 unless it were a turbo. At this point though, I'm very happy with the M42 because it runs well and I have no money for a swap anyway.

I think some of you are forgetting how Stu feels about the M42...he has said that he would rather drive one over an M20 any day. He probably knows more about engines than 95% of the people on this forum. Before you say "that's just his opinion," remember that his opinion has a lot more credibility than yours.

[asubimmer]

Ziggens96 for the record I was planning on having the turbo done and everything by Christmas...Obviosly its not done yet...I still need a few more parts not to mention I have to either find a manifold or weld one up myself. There is not much out there for turboing a m42 so yeah its taking a while longer than I thought. Right now I am trying to have everthying done pretty soon after summer break starts...who knows it may take longer.

[Digitalwave]

cause you can't read TJ...I have said basically the same crap this whole time and every time I make a post someone getts some new bright idea that I am trying to say I hate m50's or that the m42 is the fastest revving bmw engine out there...its just freaking retarted.

I can read perfectly well. In the same posts, you've been saying you don't want more weight on the car but you are adding a turbo to yours.

What you are saying has absolutely 0 to do with this thread anyways, if you are saying 318iS's should stay 4 cylinder. This car with the V8 started as a 325iS so again, your opinion has no bearing on this topic.

[asubimmer]

I can read perfectly well. In the same posts, you've been saying you don't want more weight on the car but you are adding a turbo to yours.

damn dude you really can't read..I never said that I didn't want more weight on my car I just said that a lighter car is better...I know that adding a turbo is going to make it a little heavier but if I did a engine swap there would be a LOT more weight up front.

[FredK]

FredK 100+ lbs is diff than the 50- lbs for the turbo and crap...

50 lb does not make a damn difference on a car. There are people who corner weight their cars trying to get every bit of handling performance, but 50 lbs this isn't going to make your car handle like shit.

The 240 is a lighter transmission than the 260. That's where some of the weight difference is. So what. The transmission is placed low on the car, and close to the center. Heavy shit placed at either end of the car makes more of a difference. Shit like turbos, intercoolers, etc.

You caused a ruckus by calling the 340i in this post a straight line car, which it isn't. The reason why you got called out is because you gave the flimsiest line of reasoning why you feel the 340i sucks. Maybe if you had a more substantial argument, I would have taken you seriously.

I know that adding a turbo is going to make it a little heavier but if I did a engine swap there would be a LOT more weight up front.

50+ lbs. BFD.