Author Topic: m42 hate on bimmerforums (Read 53748 times)

christophbmw · « **Reply #30 on:** October 04, 2007, 10:04:06 AM »

Quote from: sheepdog;34911

Is the most pointless number unless you are Honda trying to show how great you are.
A more useful number is HP per pound, hp vs overall dimensions or hp vs mpg.

ya but doesnt hp per litre indicate an effiecient motor if it is a higher #? kindof like how BMW can get the same power out of a 4.4l, and it takes chevy (i dont have anything against chevy, just using them as an example) 6.3l to get the same power (sure the BMW engine cost WAY more.....but it shows you that it is more effeicient, it generates less heat but produces more power).

"the 318is....the Lotus of BMW's", was a quote i read on the MM website (of course that M42 had 200hp :rolleyes:).

......also, i like how on bimmerforums the where comparing Hondas "top-model" car (integra....actually Acura, and the SI). haha, they forgot one thing.......ITS STILL A HONDA, Bmw's got class, sure its 17 years old, it still has more class than a new Honda, wouldnt you agree?

And one more thing: Bmw's are momentum cars, not straight line cars (im sure im preaching to the choir), thats what makes them fun to drive.

kramerica5000 · « **Reply #31 on:** October 04, 2007, 10:36:51 AM »

I agree that hp/liter is an indication of the overall quality of engineering that goes into an engine. But I believe BMW claimed that in 1991 when the M42 was released it had the highest hp/liter of any comparably sized engine. The integra came out that year and it had a 1.8L with 130hp, so most likely this is true. The following years VTEC was added to the Hondas and power went up to 160hp and up.

So IMHO if you look at comparable engines of the time, the M42 has very high hp/L. The only thing that kept it from competing with the later Hondas was the lack of variable valve timing which was essential for generating a lot of power in the high rpm bands without sacrificing driveability the lower rpms. A Vanos variant of the M42 would have been the next logical step for BMW, but they obviously didn't feel that 4 cylinders was where they wanted to focus their energies.

We've just gotten used to cars with high HP in an age when the typical accord is making around 200hp. But back in 91, 134hp was a lot. Even today when you look at the typical 1.8L in an inexpensive car, its making the same if not less than the M42. Hell my dad's 2003 Miata's 1.8L with variable intake timing only produced 140hp.

So I'm convinced that the M42 exhibits the best engineering you can expect to find in a production car. The only thing that kept it from competing in subsequent years was the fact that BMW was behind the Japanese on the technology curve, especially when it came to variable timing. But IMHO I like the fact that it doesn't use it. I like that its a traditional DOHC engine that you can easily tune to your liking.

strad · « **Reply #32 on:** November 28, 2007, 10:55:59 PM »

I know it's a bit perverse, but part of the fun, for me anyways, is seeing how high I can push the freeway mileage on my 200k mile M42. So far 31mpg, but I've done some work that might pay dividends on the next road trip.

I like the motor just fine. It's a wonderful complement to the M20 that I already have, and the M52 that I'll have next month.

Abrax · « **Reply #33 on:** November 29, 2007, 12:14:16 AM »

Guys!

Some time ago we've crossed whole germany doing 560km in 3hours and 5 minutes! We were driving there constantly above 200km/h and it gave us 183 of average speed during whole distance. We were driving 3 different cars comming back home one by one on the same road conditions and it gave us average fuel consumption of 11,3 ltr / 100km... Can You beat this with any M20 engine? I doubt it...

D. Clay · « **Reply #34 on:** November 29, 2007, 04:38:45 AM »

Honda does amazing things with engines. Almost every racing series they have entered their engines in they have dominated within just a few years. The 2.0 liter Civic si motor is rated 197 HP. However, the regular Civic 1.8 is rated at 140 HP and 128 torque. That's M42 numbers from 17 years ago without the E30. The only reason to buy a Civic is fuel economy and price.

sheepdog · « **Reply #35 on:** November 29, 2007, 01:19:29 PM »

Quote from: christophbmw;34955

ya but doesnt hp per litre indicate an effiecient motor if it is a higher #? kindof like how BMW can get the same power out of a 4.4l, and it takes chevy (i dont have anything against chevy, just using them as an example) 6.3l to get the same power (sure the BMW engine cost WAY more.....but it shows you that it is more effeicient, it generates less heat but produces more power).

How does it it show it is more efficient. Yes, you get more Hp from a smaller cylinder. HOWEVER, it takes more fuel to do so. You are looking at volumetric efficiency, not overall or even fuel efficiency. That is only one measurement of an engines efficiency.

Couple great examples to counter...
Older Ford Explorer V8 = 20mpg
Older Toyota 4runner = 4 or 6, it still struggles to even get 14mpg

Newer Corvette - 400+hp - 28mpg
Newer Camry - 20mpg.

Chevy V8 has won numerous awards for overall efficiency.
It makes more power per amount of fuel than most other engines.

Yes, it is big volumetrically, but that is why it does what it does. Funny thing is that externally, it is rather small. Weight-wise, it is rather light. Pretty efficient package if you ask me.

eric ^__^ · « **Reply #36 on:** November 29, 2007, 11:43:53 PM »

BMW seems to win just as many awards for their motors as Honda

And it's probably for the best that BMW has such a great competitor.

gearheadE30 · « **Reply #37 on:** November 30, 2007, 02:51:20 PM »

If only all of those great engines were wrapped in a lighter, stiffer-sprung, smaller vehicle. Surely a company like BMW could get by with a lower production small, light car with no electronics and the 255hp 3 liter NA six... (I think the number is n54, but all of the new numbers are confusing me)...Think a M2 or something (M1 is forever taken

)

sheepdog · « **Reply #38 on:** November 30, 2007, 07:50:00 PM »

Quote from: gearheadE30;38656

If only all of those great engines were wrapped in a lighter, stiffer-sprung, smaller vehicle. Surely a company like BMW could get by with a lower production small, light car with no electronics and the 255hp 3 liter NA six... (I think the number is n54, but all of the new numbers are confusing me)...Think a M2 or something (M1 is forever taken )

Bmw cares little about low production number cars. They want to appeal to the masses and compete with Toyota. More money in it.
They forgot where they came from. The ultimate driving machine is now just a catch phrase, not a statement about how the car drives. I am not saying they drive bad, but it is hard to see what makes a BMW special these days compared to equivalents.

twism · « **Reply #39 on:** December 02, 2007, 05:35:37 PM »

Quote from: bmwman91;34665

I'll take the gymnast with no boobs. They can put themselves into positions I can barely imagine.

my ex

:eek:

xsjado · « **Reply #40 on:** December 03, 2007, 08:00:27 AM »

wow....the m42 hard at work.....lets see an m20 do that!hah!

91318isguy · « **Reply #41 on:** December 28, 2007, 01:01:47 PM »

I just read most of the BF post. Wow, some real... let me think... unqualified people on that thread. I know P/W ratio is very important, and an impressive number is one that a buddy of mine told me a few months ago. He owned a Lancer Evo 8 (not a Lancer with OZ rims and a spoiler, a true super-sedan). He mentioned that with our stock motor (he has a 318is as well) and an Atlanta Downing S/C, the P/W ratio would be the same as his EVO 8 was. I tell you what, that thing was FAST. On the Dragon (US hwy 129 here in TN) sport bikes couldn't pass him, he'd pass them. His avg speed was 85 (never wrecked either).

Also, speaking of the age of our cars. I was chatting with an old neighbor that had a 2004 Celica GT-s and when I told them (his wife was with him, it's her car) how old it was their mouths just dropped. For 17, done right, it can be a VERY eye catching automobile.

M42 Forever.

vfstyles · « **Reply #42 on:** January 02, 2008, 11:52:47 AM »

i had a chance to drive an 87 e30 eta and my 91 318is back to back when i first got my bimmer. i liked the overall feel of the 318 much more than the eta. the torque in the eta was undeniable, however the car didnt feel as nimble as the 318. So yeah, there is my totally objective opinion on 6cyl and 4cyl e30's. i think the e30 318is is a purist car and much cheaper than the m3.

alan1272 · « **Reply #43 on:** January 02, 2008, 12:13:53 PM »

Quote from: 318iSdaniel;34788

a v6 bimmer- now that is something i would pay to see! i knew what you meant, though.

slightly off topic, but that'll be �10 please.
http://www.e30zone.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=62058&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

nobrakese36 · « **Reply #44 on:** January 06, 2008, 11:41:47 PM »

Little dicks equals m42 bash, just like super high trucks....

Author Topic: m42 hate on bimmerforums (Read 53748 times)

eric ^__^

twism