Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Engine weights FAQ

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Engine weights FAQ

    For years people have been referencing the engine weights on
    BMW Engine FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) Contributed by: Jared Robinson Horsepower quotes may not always reflect US Rating, If there are two HP numbers, lower HP number generally denotes US rating M10 Straight 4 cylinder SOHC 8V. 1966-1987. 83kg 180lbs Used in 1502, 1600-2, E21 316/318i/320-4, E30 316, 2002tii and 2002 turbo 1.5 (75bhp), 1.6 (85bhp), 1.8 … Continue reading Engine FAQ →

    and


    Most of the engine weights on the 2 pages above are gotten from the weight BMW lists for the part "Short Engine" which can be seen on


    For example, this is the page for the US E36 M50 engine:


    Although the image for the "Short Engine" part shows the entire engine with both the block and head, these weights are commonly criticized and thought to be way too low and inaccurate for the entire assembled engine as it would be in the car.

    I believe using the bmwfans.info is accurate, just not for the entire assembled engine. It obviously doesn't include manifolds and other parts attached to the engine.
    But I do believe it includes at least the block and head as the picture shows. I think this because you can add up the weight of the block and head for the engine listed and see that it's much less than the "short engine".
    For example:

    M20 Short Engine - 257 lb
    M20 Engine block with piston - 116 lb
    M20 Cylinder head - 26 lb
    116 + 26 = 142
    So you can see their weight for the "Short Engine" is much more than just the block and head.
    If you wanted, you could add up all the engine parts weights listed on that page and see how close it comes to the short engine weight. You could essentially figure out what the short engine includes from this or what the engine weighs with certain parts included. But I know it must be at least the block and head.

    Also, on the unix nerd site, he lists most of the engines at the same weight as the bimmerforums FAQ, however, he lists some engines at very different weights than are reported by the short engine weight and the bimmerforums FAQ. I consider his website unreliable for engine weights since he is not consistent with using BMW's "Short Engine" weight or weights from official documentation or press releases.

    Also note that the bimmerforums FAQ doesn't list exactly the same weight as the short engine weights on bmwfans.info for all the engines, although for the most part they do.
    For example, they list the M50 at 299 lbs which is the same as the bmwfans short engine weight but they list the M30 at 315 lbs which is inconsistent with the bmwfans short engine weight which lists the M30 at the same weight as the m50, ~299 lbs.


    Now for some more real realistic engine weights...

    This website:

    lists BMW engines and their specifications including official weights reported by BMW in technical information documents or press releases. I have confirmed some of the weights and cross referenced them with BMW's reported weight for the ones I could find; and all of the ones I could find the weights for matched up. Going off that, I think it's safe to assume the are consistent with BMW's reported weight. These weights are much more than the "Short Engine" OEM parts weights and I think they are the best source to compare the engine weights since they are consistent with BMW's official documented weights. And these weights are much closer to what people on these forums have weighed fully dressed engines at.
    They list almost every BMW engine with specs, however, they don't have weights for that many of them, and there are no weights for engines such as the US iron block M52/S52, but weights for the euro aluminum version.

    Here are weights I gathered from that website unless otherwise noted:

    Iron block M50B20 and M50B25
    engine _____ weight(kg) _ weight(lbs)
    non-VANOS _ 194 _______ 427.7
    VANOS _____ 198 _______ 436.5

    The US S50 should be the same as the VANOS M50 and the S52 should be very close to this weight as well.

    Aluminum block M52B20 and M52B25
    engine _______ weight(kg) _ weight(lbs)
    VANOS _______ 166 _______ 366
    Double VANOS _ 177 _______ 390.2


    Aluminum block M52B28
    engine _______ weight(kg) _ weight(lbs)
    VANOS _______ 170 _______ 374.8
    Double VANOS _ 180 _______ 396.8


    engine _ weight(kg) _ weight(lbs)
    M54 ___ 170 _______ 375


    engine _ weight(kg) _ weight(lbs)
    M60 ___ 210 _______ 463


    M62
    engine _____ weight(kg) _ weight(lbs)
    non-VANOS _ 219 _______ 482.8
    VANOS _____ 221 _______ 487.2



    Weights reported by BMW found elsewhere:

    engine _____ weight(kg) _ weight(lbs)
    S85 ________ 240 _______ 529


    engine _____ weight(kg) _ weight(lbs)
    S65 ________ 202 _______ 445


    engine _____ weight(kg) _ weight(lbs)
    S54 ________ 217 _______ 478

    (States the the S65 is 15kg/33lbs more than the S54)

    engine _____ weight(kg) _ weight(lbs)
    N52 ________ 161 ______ 354.9
    N54 ________ 195 ______ 430





    I will add on to this list if I find anything else or if anyone else does.
    Unfortunately I can't find anything for the older engines such as M10, M20, M30, and M42 that are reported by BMW documents or press releases like the ones above.
    Zinno '89 <24v swap in progress>


    #2
    excellent thread, anyone ever able to find more info?
    '91 325i

    Comment


      #3
      Not to be picky but kilograms aren't a weight. They are a mass. You wouldn't believe how many people fuck up their calculations. Good info though

      Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by mitch55 View Post
        Not to be picky but kilograms aren't a weight. They are a mass. You wouldn't believe how many people fuck up their calculations. Good info though

        Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
        Yes, but for all intents and purposes, the mass is felt and directly translates as a weight since we are in earth's gravitational field!
        '91 325i

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by thatphysicsguy View Post
          Yes, but for all intents and purposes, the mass is felt and directly translates as a weight since we are in earth's gravitational field!
          Haha so true I'm an ass. I have just been doing countless integrating work done by force problems and people always forget that kg isn't a force when F*D=W

          Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

          Comment

          Working...
          X