Is the E36 3.0 better than the 3.2 M3?
Discussion
Not sure about that! I've only had the 3.0 and remember at the time being told they tend to make more than the BHP quoted by BMW, whereas the Evo made less. Also recall being told the 3.0 had individual throttle bodies and the more reliable single vanos. Don't think it's more sought after though, as the Evo had a number of improvements - including a quicker rack and floating discs (although same size). The six speed box was specifically for the Evo, whereas the 5 speed was shared across others in the range, meaning the 5 speed was a lot cheaper to fix when it went wrong. Ultimately, the 3.0 was not thought of very well by the motoring press when first launched. The Evo attempted to resolve many of the criticisms.
I myself will be looking for another. If I go 3.0 I'll get a quicker purple tag steering rack, as, for me, this was the major weak point. Lovely car otherwise!
I myself will be looking for another. If I go 3.0 I'll get a quicker purple tag steering rack, as, for me, this was the major weak point. Lovely car otherwise!
I've owned both and they are both great cars. I had to replace the 6 speed box my Evo as it would jump out of 3rd sometimes. You can't rebuild the 6 speed boxes. I paid £500 for a low mileage box and my local garage fitted it for £100 so wasn't very expensive. The Evo definately felt a bit quicker. Vanos had been rebuilt before I bought the car. You can put the 5 speed box and prop shaft on the Evo if needed. Most Evo's make about 300bhp stock. Brakes were slightly better on the Evo if I remember correctly. It wouldn't stop me buying a 3litre but I certainly found the Evo to be a better car.
Well maintained 3.0 and 3.2 both make their rated power. 282bhp and 317bhp respectively. If oil is old and valve clearances aren't set correctly, as is often the case, then its not uncommon for them to be 15-20 down. I think the 3.0 making more than rated and 3.2 making less is a myth started by 3.0 owners when the EVO came out.
E36 EVO is every bit as quick as E46 and arguably quicker at the top end because of the E36's smaller frontal area. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NlXXqgNfro
Imho the 3.2 has a far better engine, brakes & steering ( 3.2 is isn't great but 3.0 variable rack is horrid ). Gearbox toughness is the only area where 3.0 is better.
E36 EVO is every bit as quick as E46 and arguably quicker at the top end because of the E36's smaller frontal area. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NlXXqgNfro
Imho the 3.2 has a far better engine, brakes & steering ( 3.2 is isn't great but 3.0 variable rack is horrid ). Gearbox toughness is the only area where 3.0 is better.
Edited by Crackie on Saturday 29th July 23:43
Crackie said:
Well maintained 3.0 and 3.2 both make their rated power. 282bhp and 317bhp respectively. If oil is old and valve clearances aren't set correctly, as is often the case, then its not uncommon for them to be 15-20 down. I think the 3.0 making more than rated and 3.2 making less is a myth started by 3.0 owners when the EVO came out.
E36 EVO is every bit as quick as E46 and arguably quicker at the top end because of the E36's smaller frontal area. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NlXXqgNfro
Imho the 3.2 has a far better engine, brakes & steering ( 3.2 is isn't great but 3.0 variable rack is horrid ). Gearbox toughness is the only area where 3.0 is better.
Sure he dropped off the power by short shifting at 15 seconds in that clipE36 EVO is every bit as quick as E46 and arguably quicker at the top end because of the E36's smaller frontal area. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NlXXqgNfro
Imho the 3.2 has a far better engine, brakes & steering ( 3.2 is isn't great but 3.0 variable rack is horrid ). Gearbox toughness is the only area where 3.0 is better.
Edited by Crackie on Saturday 29th July 23:43
I had a 3.0 5 speed M3 back in the day. I recall it was quick for the time but rather low geared for motorway work. It seemed fairly robust, eventually developing the usual vanos problem at about 75k. I never noticed a problem with the steering, it seemed ok to me, though I did have to fit a new rack at one point as I recall.
I think the Evo feels a bit more special and that's what I'd have if I were going back into an E36 M3 and money wasn't a concern. I don't think there is enough different about the 3.0 to separate it from a 328 Sport, but am happy to be told otherwise. I also like the climate, etc. with the Evo. I've had two Evos and they were both great cars and I'd have one again if the prices weren't silly.
I nut and bolt restored an e36 3.0GT over 5 years making sure it would drive as if it left the showroom.
I have since owned an e36 3.2 EVO for a year.
Hands down the 3.2 is a far superior car in so many ways and this one i have now has a boat load of miles on it. The 3.0 is geared wrong for motorway cruising and it drove me insane on long runs how high it revved at 75-80.
The 3.2 has comfier seats, a real deep roar through the rev range and more power IMO that you can actually feel.
The 3.0 GT was nice in its own way but more a quick blast car than a long run mile muncher. 3.2 a much more grown up alternative drive wise but still capable when pushed.
Forget scare stories about vanos with the 3.2, so much info available to repair these now.
BMW answered for the critiscm with the 3.2 and done a fabulous job
I have since owned an e36 3.2 EVO for a year.
Hands down the 3.2 is a far superior car in so many ways and this one i have now has a boat load of miles on it. The 3.0 is geared wrong for motorway cruising and it drove me insane on long runs how high it revved at 75-80.
The 3.2 has comfier seats, a real deep roar through the rev range and more power IMO that you can actually feel.
The 3.0 GT was nice in its own way but more a quick blast car than a long run mile muncher. 3.2 a much more grown up alternative drive wise but still capable when pushed.
Forget scare stories about vanos with the 3.2, so much info available to repair these now.
BMW answered for the critiscm with the 3.2 and done a fabulous job
The reality is that there is very little between them.
The evo feels faster / is faster because its cheating essentially. The final drive ratio is lower so essentially you are half a gear down in the evo Vs the 3.0. in the case of the evo this is resolved by the 6 seed box.
Actual power output between the two engines is more or less the same, for those who think that there are dig differences between the two, there are not, and both have strengths and weakness's. The evo cylinder head is a little better and so are the valves but the throttles are of a lower quality and almost impossible to balance without drilling holes in them. The evo vanos is weaker, but neither are all that problematic. the 3.0 crank and bottom end is stronger as the big end journals are larger, but the 3.0 has a less advanced oil pump and sump. 3.0 rods are better than the later evo sintered ones, pistons are about the same on both. Stroke on the evo engine is longer so it feels lazier than the 3.0 which has more fizz to it. Neither are great lower in the rev range though the twin vanos of the evo goes some way to helping.
its not a case of one is an outright victor.
The 3.0 ecu setup can be a pain as its twin bosh units, one for spark and fuel one for vanos, the evo is better here as its a single box siemens solution so easier to get to talk to diagnostics.
Drivetrain is broadly the same though the diff mounts on the evo are weaker and service parts for the LSD are more costly and less available than the 188 unit in the 3.0, its also harder to get different ratio's for the 210 than the 188.
Not much in it to be honest, just find a nice one of either and you will be happy.
The evo feels faster / is faster because its cheating essentially. The final drive ratio is lower so essentially you are half a gear down in the evo Vs the 3.0. in the case of the evo this is resolved by the 6 seed box.
Actual power output between the two engines is more or less the same, for those who think that there are dig differences between the two, there are not, and both have strengths and weakness's. The evo cylinder head is a little better and so are the valves but the throttles are of a lower quality and almost impossible to balance without drilling holes in them. The evo vanos is weaker, but neither are all that problematic. the 3.0 crank and bottom end is stronger as the big end journals are larger, but the 3.0 has a less advanced oil pump and sump. 3.0 rods are better than the later evo sintered ones, pistons are about the same on both. Stroke on the evo engine is longer so it feels lazier than the 3.0 which has more fizz to it. Neither are great lower in the rev range though the twin vanos of the evo goes some way to helping.
its not a case of one is an outright victor.
The 3.0 ecu setup can be a pain as its twin bosh units, one for spark and fuel one for vanos, the evo is better here as its a single box siemens solution so easier to get to talk to diagnostics.
Drivetrain is broadly the same though the diff mounts on the evo are weaker and service parts for the LSD are more costly and less available than the 188 unit in the 3.0, its also harder to get different ratio's for the 210 than the 188.
Not much in it to be honest, just find a nice one of either and you will be happy.
Gassing Station | M Power | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff