Why does the BMW M44 suck so much?

And can it be improved without FI while maintaining OBD-II?

I have a line on a CHEAP (almost Challenge money) 1996 Z3. I've always liked the cars, and I fit into them much better than Miatas. But the 1.9 M44 is kind of a dog. I know the flywheel weighs a bazillion pounds; outside of swapping that, people suggest fogging the airbox, getting a less restrictive muffler, and then supposedly that's it. Game over, unless you want a $4000 supercharger.

I'm not sure if it's the OBD-II holding it back, but it seems like people can make some decent power with the M40 and M42. Yet the M44 is seemingly a dog by all accounts. This car is cheap enough that I'd have no qualms with taking it on a diet.

Any commentary on the M44?

Seems like the bottom end is strong. Why not GRM/junkyard turbo?

oldtin wrote: Seems like the bottom end is strong. Why not GRM/junkyard turbo?

Engine management, as far as I know. Bottom end is cast (M42 is forged) but does have oil squirters. Many have tried but the only successful turbo M44's I've seen were significant undertakings.

I am mostly wondering how the M40/42 can get built to make some decent power but the M44 can't...I've heard some people blame the intake manifold, some the head, some the engine management, but I can't find any real consensus as far as what the bottleneck on the M44 is.

Sell and buy an M52 car. This really is the best solution. You could swap, but why do that when they are already available?

mr2peak wrote: Sell and buy an M52 car. This really is the best solution. You could swap, but why do that when they are already available?

Because when the M44 car is $2200, a swap is actually cheaper than buying another.

SlickDizzy wrote: Because when the M44 car is $2200, a swap is actually cheaper than buying another.

Now those are FAMOUS LAST WORDS. I'm sure they are on someone's gravestone someplace.

Either way, this thread was about the M44 in the first place because a $2200 Z3 leaves a little bit of room to play around. Just curious why the motor sucks so much, which nobody has tried to answer yet.

I don't think its a bad engine, there's just little reason to develop it further since there are so many high powered alternatives. This is why nobody has taken the time to squeeze power out of the thing.

Because it's missing the forged crank, sodium valves, and whatnot.

It was a cheap way to get extra displacement (torque) to make up for the power losses going from OBD-I to OBD-II. It does not have the awesome sauce of the older 4 banger so when you add power and heat you get failure or you empty your wallet trying to improve it .

They are a nice upgrade for a 2002 but if you must have more ooomph in a Z3, put an S52 in there. It will be cheaper in the long run.

There we have it - junkyard turbo + MS - hoon till it pops, replace with S52. Plan on early replacement.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: Because it's missing the forged crank, sodium valves, and whatnot. It was a cheap way to get extra displacement (torque) to make up for the power losses going from OBD-I to OBD-II. It does not have the awesome sauce of the older 4 banger so when you add power and heat you get failure or you empty your wallet trying to improve it . They are a nice upgrade for a 2002 but if you must have more ooomph in a Z3, put an S52 in there. It will be cheaper in the long run.

I had an M10B18 in my e30, and swapped to an M42 (which is essentially an M44). For a lightweight car (like a gutted e30) it's a nice peppy engine once chipped. A z3 lightest weight is just a shade under 2800lbs. A stock 318is is only 2500lbs, and are easy to get toward 2200lbs or so.

If running NA in stock(ish) form, it's far superior to an M10B18 in the performance department, IMO.

Also, a single-mass flywheel conversion to an M42/M44 makes a substantial difference in how quick it feels.

I like the M44 engine. Where is this Z3 if you decide to pass?

mad_machine wrote: I like the M44 engine. Where is this Z3 if you decide to pass?

In town here, Milwaukee WI.

the powerband, the soundtrack, the throttle response... none of these characteristics are bmw-like, at all.

belteshazzar wrote: the powerband, the soundtrack, the throttle response... none of these characteristics are bmw-like, at all.

powerbands, soundtracks, and throttle response can be douchey?

LS swap???

Can't believe I'm the first to write it.

fanfoy wrote: LS swap??? Can't believe I'm the first to write it.

My thoughts exactly. You know this board is going downhill when "what to do with $2200 1.9 Z3" is met with "sell it and buy a six cylinder." From half the responses in this thread you'd think I was on Bimmerforums.

I think you have run in to the age old problem. That if you guild a turd it is just shiny turd.

LOL I was thinking I was in a Honda thread with all the alphabet soup being thrown around. No reason a conservative turbo system wouldn't do well on that motor. Just don't expect big numbers and always tune conservatively.

is there a prefab turbo kit for that application? my recollection is that there isnt a convenient way of plumbing a turbo.

irish44j wrote:

belteshazzar wrote: the powerband, the soundtrack, the throttle response... none of these characteristics are bmw-like, at all.

powerbands, soundtracks, and throttle response can be douchey?

Okay specifically they sound like poo, theyre dont rev freely, and more rev's dont equal more power. Unfortunately less rev's dont equate to much power either. I honestly think gm has made some better 4 cylinder engines.

SlickDizzy wrote:

fanfoy wrote: LS swap??? Can't believe I'm the first to write it.

My thoughts exactly. You know this board is going downhill when "what to do with $2200 1.9 Z3" is met with "sell it and buy a six cylinder." From half the responses in this thread you'd think I was on Bimmerforums.

Shut your dirty whore mouth! You will never get an LS swap in there for less than an S52 will cost. It was sound advice. Sane even. Now... if you had said "I need to break the stock axles with whatever I choose to go with and, hell, I've got an extra $3k burning a hole in my pocket well... then... berkeley yeah, you should totally put an LS in there.

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

SlickDizzy wrote:

fanfoy wrote: LS swap??? Can't believe I'm the first to write it.

My thoughts exactly. You know this board is going downhill when "what to do with $2200 1.9 Z3" is met with "sell it and buy a six cylinder." From half the responses in this thread you'd think I was on Bimmerforums.

Shut your dirty whore mouth! You will never get an LS swap in there for less than an S52 will cost. It was sound advice. Sane even. Now... if you had said "I need to break the stock axles with whatever I choose to go with and, hell, I've got an extra $3k burning a hole in my pocket well... then... berkeley yeah, you should totally put an LS in there.

No no no, your post contained actual data that informed me on why the M44 is not an ideal choice. I was mostly responding to the other comments. "Sell it." "Swap is unfeasible." This coming from a board of guys who have been guilty swapping 1.6 Miatas to 1.8's on multiple occasions, which is not really a sensible swap as far as an effort/performance ratio either...

AFAIK Belteshezzar is right and there's no easy way to plumb a turbo, which is why the DASC is the only "easy button" speed option for the M44. Which, admittedly, saddens me. BMW built their name on the 2002, which did just fine with an I4. Shame the M44 sucks.

I was mostly just asking because a $2200 Z3 is a deal, regardless of drivetrain...or so I thought, at least.

oh id totally buy it