E36 328i throttle body conversion....
Discussion
The Ulf said:
different question: has anyone ever tried to retrofit an OEM (yes, i don't want poxy aftermarket shite) cruise control to above mentioned m52 engine? what cost would i be looking at and how much work would it involve? in my youthful naivity i would reckon that the main loom is pretty much standard and therefore prepared to be extended for additional functions fairly easily.
About £450 for an E36 I believe - requires an awful lot of parts; throttle butterfly control (works on TCS flap IIRC), cables, computer, wiring etc. BMW do a kit - I deemed it a waste of money for the sake of not pressing the accelerator
The Ulf said:
it is if you don't do much long distance travel. as it is my daily commute is about 120 miles mostly mtorway driving. cruise control can be quite an advantage in terms of sticking to the limit and saving some fuel
Yes it's nice and easy to stick to the limit but is in fact worse on fuel economy.Not so sure about that.
The cruise on the Alpina drives it far more efficiently than I can manage - although I suspect a lot of this is down to it taking up just enough slack in the Torque Convertor to maintain speed - which is almost impossible using your foot on a fly-by-wire throttle
The cruise on the Alpina drives it far more efficiently than I can manage - although I suspect a lot of this is down to it taking up just enough slack in the Torque Convertor to maintain speed - which is almost impossible using your foot on a fly-by-wire throttle
anonymous said:
[redacted]
But your theories are just that.I've watched you being shouted down on E36coupe, by people with modded M52 2.8 engines, that have been on the dyno, and have given the figures identified by Dell K.
Only last month, I stood in Vixpys dyno room, and watched a modded 328i hammer it's way to 242bhp - and what was with the VANOS not functioning properly.
Shortly after that, an M3 Evo gave 313bhp, and my Alpina gave 270bhp (10 down) - so I there's no doubt the Dyno is spot on and not wildly over-reading.
Not at all - you needed to include the dyno sheets in your original edit of the post to avoid the arse-dyno comment.
In many respects, then, your argument is contradictory; You say that dyno figures should not be trusted, yet you've based your decision to not modify your 328 on dyno figures of one car it seems?
ETA: As for the insults - I haven't insulted you. In fact, you've managed to do that in your last post by being patronising about the dyno sheets, which, I'm sure you'll recall, weren't in your post when I replied to it.
I replied some five minutes before you edited it.
In many respects, then, your argument is contradictory; You say that dyno figures should not be trusted, yet you've based your decision to not modify your 328 on dyno figures of one car it seems?
ETA: As for the insults - I haven't insulted you. In fact, you've managed to do that in your last post by being patronising about the dyno sheets, which, I'm sure you'll recall, weren't in your post when I replied to it.
I replied some five minutes before you edited it.
Edited by Dunk76 on Tuesday 16th October 23:06
I'm not discussing low-end torque - and neither have I said the BBTB tuning so beloved of the E36 community is without it's flaws.
The simple fact is that with relatively little faffing about (i.e. no serious internal mods), you can coax a 328i to give somewhere around the 240bhp mark.
This, it must be said, it still someway short of the 100bhp per litre achieved by the M3 and other N/A performance engines.
In fact it's 85bhp per litre, which is pretty reasonable as specific outputs go - curiously comparable to the Alpina 3.3 engine, which at 84bhp per litre, and despite massive internal component changes to achieve capacity, is still not much more than a free breathing single vanos straight six. Compression, cam profile and other bits are pretty calm - the overall fuel consumption against my 328 is the same too.
I'll admit, I know absolutely sweet FA about the US M3 - But by asking why it manages to achieve the same output as the US M3 doesn't disprove anything - if the specific output of the US M3 is 80bhp per litre, that's pretty shoddy given it's wilder cams, and better induction. I think the question there is how did BMW manage to eke so little power out of so much compression and capacity?
To answer that, I'd speculate that the US M3 runs chronically retarded ignition, to cope with the unique pre-ignitive qualities afforded by US 91RON pump fuel, and I'd also speculate that it'll be saddled with lord knows how much emissions control clobber to get it sellable in California.
The simple fact is that with relatively little faffing about (i.e. no serious internal mods), you can coax a 328i to give somewhere around the 240bhp mark.
This, it must be said, it still someway short of the 100bhp per litre achieved by the M3 and other N/A performance engines.
In fact it's 85bhp per litre, which is pretty reasonable as specific outputs go - curiously comparable to the Alpina 3.3 engine, which at 84bhp per litre, and despite massive internal component changes to achieve capacity, is still not much more than a free breathing single vanos straight six. Compression, cam profile and other bits are pretty calm - the overall fuel consumption against my 328 is the same too.
I'll admit, I know absolutely sweet FA about the US M3 - But by asking why it manages to achieve the same output as the US M3 doesn't disprove anything - if the specific output of the US M3 is 80bhp per litre, that's pretty shoddy given it's wilder cams, and better induction. I think the question there is how did BMW manage to eke so little power out of so much compression and capacity?
To answer that, I'd speculate that the US M3 runs chronically retarded ignition, to cope with the unique pre-ignitive qualities afforded by US 91RON pump fuel, and I'd also speculate that it'll be saddled with lord knows how much emissions control clobber to get it sellable in California.
Edited by Dunk76 on Tuesday 16th October 23:22
Well, you'd be better off buying one already done by someone else in the form an Alpina B3 3.2 
- the best E36 ever made, IMO.
I suspect the difference betwixt US M3s may be down to something as simple as a sticker on the filler cap. Perhaps the 3.0 was mapped to accept 91RON, whilst the 3.2 simply has a sticker on it saying "95RON, or it simply won't work, dumbass"
- the best E36 ever made, IMO.I suspect the difference betwixt US M3s may be down to something as simple as a sticker on the filler cap. Perhaps the 3.0 was mapped to accept 91RON, whilst the 3.2 simply has a sticker on it saying "95RON, or it simply won't work, dumbass"
Well chaps, I've been watcing this chat with interest, and whilst I don't believe that I have the BBTB mod, I think I have had a remap:
Mine will rev happily to 7k and pulls to that without dropping.
Perhaps its possible?
Either way, I'm thinking I need to pop to Charlies to get mine RR'd.
Mine will rev happily to 7k and pulls to that without dropping.
Perhaps its possible?
Either way, I'm thinking I need to pop to Charlies to get mine RR'd.
neil_bolton said:
Either way, I'm thinking I need to pop to Charlies to get mine RR'd.
Whereabouts is that mate?Feeling the need to RR the Merc again since the rebuild.. (if it's affordable!)
Back on thread.. Ever wonder if the E39 528i magazine test cars were not making the standard 190bhp?
From the 528i SE (manual) road test on the website, they recorded 0-60 in 6.8s, 0-100 in 18s, and 1/4 mile in 15.3 at 93mph. That car weighed in at 1530kg..
IIRC even the test of the touring model managed similarly quick figures. Even if it had turbodiesely levels of torque and perfect gearing, those seem strong for that power and weight? Or not?
Did the E39 get the double vanos version as per the E46?
Got the modified manifold on my 328 and it does make a difference, exactly how much is hard to quantify, if it has lost some bottom end torque it's not very noticeable,likewise if there is more bhp at the top end it's not a huge amount, but what it has done on my car at least is to make it rev more freely and it seems to hold on to it's power all the way to 6.5k revs. Not really going to make a big difference in a drag race but on twisty roads using say 2nd, 3rd and 4th gear mainly, the manifold does seem to make the car more enjoyable to drive.
Edited by blade7 on Wednesday 17th October 12:12
Pentoman said:
neil_bolton said:
Either way, I'm thinking I need to pop to Charlies to get mine RR'd.
Whereabouts is that mate?Feeling the need to RR the Merc again since the rebuild.. (if it's affordable!)
I'll find out from Charlie what he'll charge if we pop down.
RobCrezz said:
I would just like to add, the USA doesnt have lower octane fuel to us, they just rate it using MON rather than RON.
Just found this topic searching for information on the intake manifold swap - I've done the restrictor removal (noticed a bit more induction roar, like it). Lots of great information in this topic - Cheers everyone.North America (well, US and Canada anyway) actually use an average of RON and MON, not just straight RON as we do.
Another thumbs up for this topic.
My '98 328i sport was a bit of a fiddle to remove the restrictor, so there's the steps I underwent:
1. Unclip and remove the lid of the air filter housing. The air filter will come out with it.
2. Remove the entire airbox by:
a. loosening the bolts connecting it to the bracket on the wheelarch
b. Removing the two clips connecting the output part of the airbox to the throttle body
c. Unclipping the air funnel from it's fixing point near the headlight. The air comes in through the gap on the right hand side of the headlight and through a hole in the steel pressed part of the car that the radiator,headlights etc fit to. That hole is actually two holes (imagine a "8" shape a bit like the BMW kidney grill rotated through 90 degrees). The central division of the hole has the air funnel clip hinged over it. You'll need to shine a torch through the gap between the headlight and then use a long thin screw driver to pop the clip off.
d. Once steps a to c above have been performed, the air box should lift out of the car.
3. Remove the air funnel that ran from the headlight area to the main airbox. This is a push fit onto the airbox.
4. Unclip the restrictor by pushing back the tab on the airbox that holds it in. This for me was the hardest part, but I noticed that moving the tab down helped it to slide back.
5. Remove the restrictor.
6. Clip the funnel back onto the car using the torch and screwdriver.
7. Slide the airbox back into position, ensuring that the output tube from it fits into the throttle body input tube as you lower the airbox down. This can be fiddly because the airbox locates on a rubber mounting on the wheelarch.
8. Fit the funnel back on to the airbox.
9. Clip the throttle body tube back on.
10. Tighten the airbox retaining bolts.
With my car I noticed a slight increase in induction noise and it felt a little more keen to rev, but this may have subjective.
Once the car was warm I used my usual 30-70 timing straight to measure the 30-70 as a 4 way average. My E36 328i recorded 5.9/6.0 runs when I bought it (at 67k miles) and tonight (at 84k miles) it was doing 5.8/5.9, so to be honest that's not really conclusive because it's me operating the stopwatch and atmospheric conditions (temperature, humidity, air density) will be different; although it's certainly not slower! Out of interest, my E36 325i recorded 6.4/6.5 second runs, and my E46 330ci was identical to the E36 328i, thus adding more weight to the rumour that the 328i put out a little more than BMW would like to admit, even in standard tune.
Edited to say: Has anyone else noticed how the airbox has been clearly designed to work without the restrictor in place? (IMHO). The restrictor/funnel (or whatever it is!) feeds air directly into the space in front of the panel air filter, and the air filter will then suck the air in from there. I'm no engine engineer, but I can't think why the airbox needs the shaped cavity below the restrictor, which appears to be shaped to guide air round and up to the panel filter if the restrictor/funnel wasn't there. With the funnel in place, this area of the airbox doesn't seem to serve any purpose at all.
My '98 328i sport was a bit of a fiddle to remove the restrictor, so there's the steps I underwent:
1. Unclip and remove the lid of the air filter housing. The air filter will come out with it.
2. Remove the entire airbox by:
a. loosening the bolts connecting it to the bracket on the wheelarch
b. Removing the two clips connecting the output part of the airbox to the throttle body
c. Unclipping the air funnel from it's fixing point near the headlight. The air comes in through the gap on the right hand side of the headlight and through a hole in the steel pressed part of the car that the radiator,headlights etc fit to. That hole is actually two holes (imagine a "8" shape a bit like the BMW kidney grill rotated through 90 degrees). The central division of the hole has the air funnel clip hinged over it. You'll need to shine a torch through the gap between the headlight and then use a long thin screw driver to pop the clip off.
d. Once steps a to c above have been performed, the air box should lift out of the car.
3. Remove the air funnel that ran from the headlight area to the main airbox. This is a push fit onto the airbox.
4. Unclip the restrictor by pushing back the tab on the airbox that holds it in. This for me was the hardest part, but I noticed that moving the tab down helped it to slide back.
5. Remove the restrictor.
6. Clip the funnel back onto the car using the torch and screwdriver.
7. Slide the airbox back into position, ensuring that the output tube from it fits into the throttle body input tube as you lower the airbox down. This can be fiddly because the airbox locates on a rubber mounting on the wheelarch.
8. Fit the funnel back on to the airbox.
9. Clip the throttle body tube back on.
10. Tighten the airbox retaining bolts.
With my car I noticed a slight increase in induction noise and it felt a little more keen to rev, but this may have subjective.
Once the car was warm I used my usual 30-70 timing straight to measure the 30-70 as a 4 way average. My E36 328i recorded 5.9/6.0 runs when I bought it (at 67k miles) and tonight (at 84k miles) it was doing 5.8/5.9, so to be honest that's not really conclusive because it's me operating the stopwatch and atmospheric conditions (temperature, humidity, air density) will be different; although it's certainly not slower! Out of interest, my E36 325i recorded 6.4/6.5 second runs, and my E46 330ci was identical to the E36 328i, thus adding more weight to the rumour that the 328i put out a little more than BMW would like to admit, even in standard tune.
Edited to say: Has anyone else noticed how the airbox has been clearly designed to work without the restrictor in place? (IMHO). The restrictor/funnel (or whatever it is!) feeds air directly into the space in front of the panel air filter, and the air filter will then suck the air in from there. I'm no engine engineer, but I can't think why the airbox needs the shaped cavity below the restrictor, which appears to be shaped to guide air round and up to the panel filter if the restrictor/funnel wasn't there. With the funnel in place, this area of the airbox doesn't seem to serve any purpose at all.
Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 13th May 10:13
Glad this one was revived, can anyone shed light on a sticky throttle problem? sometimes, from rest, the throttle needs a bit more effort to move it off idle which results in aggressive launching.
I've removed the cable from the intake and poured oil into it so I know this is lubed fine. Is there any other known culprit for this annoying trait?
I've removed the cable from the intake and poured oil into it so I know this is lubed fine. Is there any other known culprit for this annoying trait?
Gassing Station | BMW General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff