E36 M3 321BHP????

E36 M3 321BHP????

Author
Discussion

swansea v6

Original Poster:

1,279 posts

226 months

Saturday 16th September 2006
quotequote all
I have read all the reports saying the BMW E36 M3 3.2 EVO has 321BHP as standard, but have been told that this power output is a tad optimistic.......so how true is it? and does anyone know what a standard M3 EVO is putting out???? how does it compare to the 3.0 non EVO M3???

scoobz

6,578 posts

249 months

Saturday 16th September 2006
quotequote all
some are a tad optomistic.

Vixpy1 is your man about bhp figures for these, I believe he has 'had' a few on his rolling road.

fnarr.

BiggusLaddus

821 posts

232 months

Sunday 17th September 2006
quotequote all
Standard 3.2 evo usually gets to around 290-295 bhp. The 321bhp was extremely optimistic.

ChrisE

927 posts

213 months

Monday 18th September 2006
quotequote all
Ive heard these power claim rumours myself, which along with the vanos problems with the evo's is the reason I opted for the 3.0ltr non evo E36. Out of interest does anyone know if the 286bhp power claims on this engine were optimistic?

Andrew D

968 posts

241 months

Monday 18th September 2006
quotequote all
Power at the wheel as given by a rolling road is different to the power at the crank as quoted in manufacturers literature.

A rolling road will generally give a reading of about 87% of the power at the crank due to friction and inertia of transmission components.

321bhp * 0.87 = 279bhp

dan101smith

16,806 posts

212 months

Monday 18th September 2006
quotequote all
Has anyone had their Evo on a rolling road and worked out the BHP at the flywheel?

I know that power will decrease with age a little, but has anyone got experience of how to achieve the quoted 321BHP?

andygtt

8,345 posts

265 months

Monday 18th September 2006
quotequote all
remove the air con, alternator, power steering etc..... lol.

I have to say that I'd be amazed if my M3 evo made over 300bhp.
But then at 150k mile (50k with me) my cars not had any vanos issues so maybe its not the norm.

Dave 321

558 posts

241 months

Monday 18th September 2006
quotequote all
My M Coupe was 306 bhp, my brother brought his to same rolling road. He had 308bhp, got it Unichipped, now 320.9bhp.....

Broccers

3,236 posts

254 months

Monday 18th September 2006
quotequote all
Dave 321 said:
My M Coupe was 306 bhp, my brother brought his to same rolling road. He had 308bhp, got it Unichipped, now 320.9bhp.....


My standard car made 322 : Nobles last year on a Shootout day (Total BMW mag). Quite a few of the guys cars were similar to the first figure you mentioned.

Dave 321

558 posts

241 months

Monday 18th September 2006
quotequote all
Thats good power from std car! Not many ever make that..What torque figure??

pentoman

4,814 posts

264 months

Monday 18th September 2006
quotequote all
It's odd how with VANOS, and a 0.2 litre capacity increase they only gained 20-25bhp.

Does the 3.2 feel a lot different?

Dave 321

558 posts

241 months

Monday 18th September 2006
quotequote all
It feels more grunty..I prefare 3.2 ..

dan101smith

16,806 posts

212 months

Monday 18th September 2006
quotequote all
How does the E46 compare to it's book figures?

Are they really that much quicker than the Evo's? Not had a chance to drive one yet...

dannylt

1,906 posts

285 months

Monday 18th September 2006
quotequote all
Andrew D said:
Power at the wheel as given by a rolling road is different to the power at the crank as quoted in manufacturers literature.

A rolling road will generally give a reading of about 87% of the power at the crank due to friction and inertia of transmission components.

321bhp * 0.87 = 279bhp
The rolling road correct for power at the wheels to give power at crank which is what generally is always quoted. So in your case you've scaled it up twice. 87% is doing very well for a RWD car - seem unlikely to be that good.

Andrew D

968 posts

241 months

Monday 18th September 2006
quotequote all
dannylt said:
The rolling road correct for power at the wheels to give power at crank which is what generally is always quoted. So in your case you've scaled it up twice. 87% is doing very well for a RWD car - seem unlikely to be that good.
?

Couldn't really decipher what your post meant.

The power at the crank (or flywheel) is the figure quoted by the manufacturer (typically), in the case of the E36 M3 321bhp. The power at the wheels as tested by a rolling road is typically 87% of the power at the crank (i.e. it's a smaller number), which means an E36 M3 will read about 280bhp on a rolling road.

craigAMV8

34 posts

212 months

Monday 18th September 2006
quotequote all
Just sold an 04 plate m3 smg. Had DMS do some work on it and it then produced 373bhp, took it on the rabbit run for the last 3 years (check out their site www.rabbit-run.co.uk its an amazing event)and it did a true gps'd 176mph. I have just bought a V8 Vantage wich is lovely, but not a quick as the M3, I miss it a bit actually.

Craig

BRoCceRs

3,236 posts

254 months

Monday 18th September 2006
quotequote all
Dave 321 said:
Thats good power from std car! Not many ever make that..What torque figure??


From the bottom of the bog reading magazine basket Ive found issue 66 of Total BMW.

261.5 @ 5582.

vixpy1

42,626 posts

265 months

Tuesday 19th September 2006
quotequote all
Typical bhp for an E36 M3 Evo on the rollers will be 390-300bhp.

For an E43 around 320-325bhp

E39 M5 360 to 405bhp

E34 M4 3.8 290 to 333 bhp (ok, that one was absolutely mint)

M coupe 280 to 305bhp

M coupe with the newer engine around 315bhp.


BRoCceRs

3,236 posts

254 months

Tuesday 19th September 2006
quotequote all
Its funny you should say that Vixjumper. These engines don't work unless they are 70 degrees or higher - most on rollers will not be at prime operating temp hence the low readings.

Thats my theory anyway and why if you look at Total BMW you'll see some shocking S54 results.

vixpy1

42,626 posts

265 months

Tuesday 19th September 2006
quotequote all
BRoCceRs said:
Its funny you should say that Vixjumper. These engines don't work unless they are 70 degrees or higher - most on rollers will not be at prime operating temp hence the low readings.

Thats my theory anyway and why if you look at Total BMW you'll see some shocking S54 results.


We always make sure the engine oil is up to temp before running cars, running a car with the oil cold is just asking for trouble. Although it would not suprise me if other places did not.

Its strange, because non M BMW engines make really good power.

The new M5 engine makes the power, although I've yet to do one. (here's hopeing)

When you say shocking, you mean shockingly high.. or low. I don't get Total BMW but would be interested to see the results and comment.