opinions welcom: best year of the e30?

[Pantless Spency]

STAGE III BRUH!

Stage 3 clutch
Stage 3 brakes
Stage 3 turbo
Stage 3 intercooler

STAGE THREE!!!!11!11!!!

i totally read this like cesar from kroll show.

BLAP BLAP!

[M20]

1991

I've always been a fan of the latest year of a run. The manufacturer usually figured everything out by then

My friends and I were giving this some thought the other day. We work in software, with usually the best equipped shifted towards current and next-gen products and the rest supporting legacy.

I'm not sure if the same holds true to the automotive industry, where the higher performers were migrated over to e36 development and production.

and I'm strictly talking from an assembly perspective here, from an engineering standpoint, I would assume that most defect would've been sorted by this point.

[Exodus_2pt0]

1988 - 2.7l engine and the diving boards that arent sticking out to far like early models.

I miss my 88 sedan.

[ELVA164]

that has nothing to do with specific hardware, even if it were true (and it isn't). the differences are pretty small in the tunes - a little bit more ignition advance, basically. I'm not sure how you think the late ECUs would need more fuel to run an identical engine..

Look, I've experienced it and verified it. It doesn't bother me if you don't believe me. Maybe that little bit of advance is what does it; either way, it happens.

FWIW my e30 shows 0 fuel being used when decelerating in gear too (I'm running the 173 as well)
Pretty sure all cars do this...not just those with 153 ECU's

They all do. Reread my whole post.

[Staszek]

the only reason any of that matters is if it was stock and relatively new. there's nothing really great about 30 year old, pitted & cracked ellipsoids..

Haha very true I just bought new ones anyway which I would have done if my car had them stock to begin with.

[nando]

the only reason any of that matters is if it was stock and relatively new. there's nothing really great about 30 year old, pitted & cracked ellipsoids..

[Eric]

1994

[slammin.e28]

please...'esplain



FWIW my e30 shows 0 fuel being used when decelerating in gear too (I'm running the 173 as well)
Pretty sure all cars do this...not just those with 153 ECU's

No airbag. Plastic bumps. The best M20 (of none that are any good IMO). Ellipsoid lamps.

They peaked at 1989.

[Stanley Rockafella]

I won't discuss because it should be painfully obvious why.

please...'esplain

They also shut the injectors off until 1,000rpm when decelerating in gear, allowing for longer periods of zero-fuel coasting.

FWIW my e30 shows 0 fuel being used when decelerating in gear too (I'm running the 173 as well)
Pretty sure all cars do this...not just those with 153 ECU's

[estoguy]

The one you own

This! I love my '86 Eta. She was pretty well looked after and has been a great car over the last 3+ years.

[slammin.e28]

1989 325is is the epitome of e30, non-M.

I won't discuss because it should be painfully obvious why.

[varg]

Stock ecu tunes, meh, if you want fast you go aftermarket anyway.

[nando]

I think you're misunderstanding my point. The difference in dyno power is negligible I'm sure; what matters is how the car behaves. 153 ECUs use less fuel at small throttle openings and are thus more fuel-efficient. They also shut the injectors off until 1,000rpm when decelerating in gear, allowing for longer periods of zero-fuel coasting. By comparison, late ECUs need more throttle and more fuel to maintain, say 50mph in fifth on level ground, and the injectors only shut off until 1,500rpm. Those are two examples of what I'm talking about. This is more "butt dyno" territory, but the car with 153 feels more... eager, I guess the word would be.

that has nothing to do with specific hardware, even if it were true (and it isn't). the differences are pretty small in the tunes - a little bit more ignition advance, basically. I'm not sure how you think the late ECUs would need more fuel to run an identical engine..

[ELVA164]

I think you're misunderstanding my point. The difference in dyno power is negligible I'm sure; what matters is how the car behaves. 153 ECUs use less fuel at small throttle openings and are thus more fuel-efficient. They also shut the injectors off until 1,000rpm when decelerating in gear, allowing for longer periods of zero-fuel coasting. By comparison, late ECUs need more throttle and more fuel to maintain, say 50mph in fifth on level ground, and the injectors only shut off until 1,500rpm. Those are two examples of what I'm talking about. This is more "butt dyno" territory, but the car with 153 feels more... eager, I guess the word would be.

[Das Delfin]

^ it's well-documented that the 153 gets slightly better performance than the 173 and later chips. But I've never head of it being more economical as well. Maybe that's because of the chip you're running, Elva? It would be interesting to compare a stock 153. I have a stock 153 and I average around 16-18 mpg (all city.. goes up to 23 ish hwy with my 4.10 gears at 70-75mph). And I would consider my driving habits relaxed.