M44 into an E30

[Danny]

50/50 weight distribution?

Idk, how much heavier is an m50 than an m42?

[kylebes1]

uhh m50 swap? why even waste time putting in an m44... m50 swapped guys are getting decent mpg, equal to an m42 but more power...hello?

Had that... not sure I want it again. Also I am not sure what my fuel economy was on the m50.

The m42 car just seems more lively with the lighter engine. The lack of sunroof adds to the fun... its several small things that make the four banger car more fun imo...

[golde30]

ehh, i guess its all subjective. i hated my 318is, felt quick but was sooo slow. i have to say it was pretty damn fun in the backroads though.

[Stu]

50/50 weight distribution?

Idk, how much heavier is an m50 than an m42?

Mine was 2580 with the M42. With the M50, plus a heavier transmission, it's 2620.

"It upsets the handling of the car....it will promote understeer..." --And all it takes is a little adjustment of your right foot. 3.0L E30's have a variety of methods available to change the attitude of the car. :D

[kylebes1]

Mine was 2580 with the M42. With the M50, plus a heavier transmission, it's 2620.

"It upsets the handling of the car....it will promote understeer..." --And all it takes is a little adjustment of your right foot. 3.0L E30's have a variety of methods available to change the attitude of the car. :D

That is great! 40 lbs! As I said in my first post the car is a daily driver... and yes driving with the right foot FTW!

Thanks Stu for useful info.

[DCColegrove]

Blah!!!

I just saw this...

Don't do it, the M44 is a pig.

The M42 shares DNA with the late 80's 2.0 Formula engine, except for a weak cylinder head (prone to cracking when overheated and I suspect detonation busts them also) it is probably one of the finest power-plants BMW devised.

My little 318is (now 2 liter bored not stroked) puts 170MBHP to the ground and still gets 30+ mpg if I keep my foot out of it.

The M44 is not capable of this, though not a bad engine it's not the powerhouse the M42 can be.

End of story...


Oops correction: 155MBHP not 170

[-Jelko-]

Well m44 engine isnt rev happy like m42,it produce more torque than m42 but if you want both go for m50/52.

[DCColegrove]

.... but if you want both go for m50/52.

Only if you cut the firewall and push the engine back about 8 to 10 inches...

totaly screws up the ballance...

M20 too, the chassis was originaly desiged for the M10.

[-Jelko-]

Only if you cut the firewall and push the engine back about 8 to 10 inches...

totaly screws up the ballance...

M20 too, the chassis was originaly desiged for the M10.

You might be true,but he isnt building a race car,so superior ballance isnt so important to him,m52 would be best since it got loads of torque and still rev happy,and also its lighter than m50


Or he can put s14

[kylebes1]

I'm not looking for HP or Torque improvements... I was under the impression the m44 had a better head, but it seems it was the late m42's...

I am hard leaning toward a 2.8 DOHC six... I already have bottom end.

[Stu]

I'm not looking for HP or Torque improvements... I was under the impression the m44 had a better head, but it seems it was the late m42's...

I am hard leaning toward a 2.8 DOHC six... I already have bottom end.

If you can score a 2.8L aluminum block from a 2.8L Z3 ('97, '98??)...you can shave an extra 52 pounds!

[kylebes1]

If you can score a 2.8L aluminum block from a 2.8L Z3 ('97, '98??)...you can shave an extra 52 pounds!

I would say that would take care of "destroying the weight balance"

We will see. I need to get my YJ running so I have something else to drive.