Cough cough....Same engine bay as an E36.
belteshazzar wrote:irish44j wrote: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.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?
the M44 I had in my 318ti didn't sound like poo. All I had done to it was a fogged airbox and a supersprint exhaust. The exhaust made it sound very good with a deeper rumble.
The fogged airbox was due to how BMW ran the intake from the -other side- of the car to the airbox. Punching a hole in the box with a scoop behind the headlight saved me 4 feet of prefilter intake tubing.
I wanted to put a lighterweight flywheel on the car. I also understand that the M42's intake will add top end power over the dual plane M44 intake, but take away some midrange. Overall they are not a sparkling motor, but they are a dependable workhorse that can still spin the wheels -and- get 30+ mpg. In reality though, BMW hobbled this engine at 140hp. The 320 used a 2.0 I6 rated for 150hp. They did not want the 4 to outshine the 6
I vote run a 6 psi remote mount turbo and tune accordingly. There may be plumbing issues but where there is a will there's a way. This could be done super cheap.
belteshazzar wrote: oh id totally buy it
Me, too.
My only issue with Turboing the M44.. or any engine for that matter. I have yet to be in a non-factory Turbo car that didn't suck as far as driveability goes. With the way the M44 is laid over in the engine bay, I can't think of how you would fit a turbo manifold in there
mad_machine wrote: In reality though, BMW hobbled this engine at 140hp.
I think that is the root question of the OP: How exactly did BMW "hobble" the engine and what can be done to bring up to full potential, whatever that may be?
it FEELS like the engine needs a good set of cams.
mad-machine, i just so happen to have a 318iis in my driveway right now. i even put a supersprint exhaust on it, coincidentally. i think its the least inspiring engine note since my 4 cylinder fiero.
the 318i sedan i had before it was stock. it sounded like nothing. i added a magnaflow exhaust. then it sounded like crap too. eventually i added one, then two resonators. slightly quieter crap.
It has to be the engine management. It has the same rated HP as the smaller 1.8 M42.
I will admit my 318ti was quiet, but didn't sound like bad. It would hit some tones that would set off car alarms in the parking garage at work. I wonder if it had something to do with the shorter exhaust path the hatch had?
Stoopid heavy dual mass flywheel and lack of OTS tuning doesn't help the M44's cause.
Dinan and Tuning Techniques are the only two places that have flash available. Going to a single mass flywheel helps A LOT. A good catback will also free a few ponies.
The exhaust header is nifty piece 4-2-1 piece.
The only thing that the M44 has over the M42 is MAF and 0.1 more displacement.
Cams are an expensive ($1000+) venture. There are turbo systems out there and you can junkyard one together.
However, you are looking at 175-200whp when done. A $5-600 M52 pullout will do those numbers all day and you can keep the current Getrag transmission.
mad_machine wrote: My only issue with Turboing the M44.. or any engine for that matter. I have yet to be in a non-factory Turbo car that didn't suck as far as driveability goes...
Which goes back to the engine management issue. A lot of the drivability on aftermarket turbo cars is in the tuning - and that's where a lot of builders skimp.
if you are going to look for a M44.. the best is 1996. in 97 they got an airpump for emissions
belteshazzar wrote:irish44j wrote: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.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?
I was always under the impression that the M44 was more or less similar in performance and everything else to the M42 (except without the forged crank, and with a different intake manifold). Maybe I'm wrong.
I haven't driven an M44 car, but I own a pair of M42s, drove an M10 for a year, and race an M20. I personally enjoy the M42 in my 318i the best of the group. But maybe the M44 is more different than I've always believed ?
btw, isn't there a bolt-on supercharger for the M42/M44? I can't recall who makes it but I swear I've seen it advertised in GRM before.....
fanfoy wrote: Cough cough....Same engine bay as an E36.
As I understand it's close, but not exactly, and the space under the frame for routing exhaust can become an issue too.
irish44j wrote: btw, isn't there a bolt-on supercharger for the M42/M44? I can't recall who makes it but I swear I've seen it advertised in GRM before.....
http://www.downingatlanta.com/downingatlanta/index.htm
irish44j wrote:belteshazzar wrote:I was always under the impression that the M44 was more or less similar in performance and everything else to the M42 (except without the forged crank, and with a different intake manifold). Maybe I'm wrong. I haven't driven an M44 car, but I own a pair of M42s, drove an M10 for a year, and race an M20. I personally enjoy the M42 in my 318i the best of the group. But maybe the M44 is more different than I've always believed ?irish44j wrote: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.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?
the M44 has more torque than the M42 and more beneath the curve due to it's dual plane intake.. but the 40 pound flywheel really slows it down
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:irish44j wrote: btw, isn't there a bolt-on supercharger for the M42/M44? I can't recall who makes it but I swear I've seen it advertised in GRM before.....http://www.downingatlanta.com/downingatlanta/index.htm
NLA:
DowningAtlanta said: Dear BMW Owner, Thank you for your interest in our DowningAtlanta Supercharger systems. For over 15 years we have built complete, bolt-on kits for BMW four-cylinder cars and have shipped them to discerning owners all over the world. Because the manufacturer has now discontinued the blower we have always used, we have exhausted our inventory and have no more kits to sell. We appreciate your confidence in our products. Sincerely, DowningAtlanta Superchargers
you can still find used ones on ebay on occasion
mad_machine wrote:irish44j wrote:the M44 has more torque than the M42 and more beneath the curve due to it's dual plane intake.. but the 40 pound flywheel really slows it downbelteshazzar wrote:I was always under the impression that the M44 was more or less similar in performance and everything else to the M42 (except without the forged crank, and with a different intake manifold). Maybe I'm wrong. I haven't driven an M44 car, but I own a pair of M42s, drove an M10 for a year, and race an M20. I personally enjoy the M42 in my 318i the best of the group. But maybe the M44 is more different than I've always believed ?irish44j wrote: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.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?
just out of curiosity, is the flywheel itself 40lbs, or are you referring to the FW+clutch assembly?
I only ask because the M42 dual-mass flywheel is only about 28lbs. I find it hard to believe that BMW would have made such a drastic weight increase, especially in an engine meant for a sportscar.
no, it is a 28 pounder. I thought I remembered reading it was heavier... it certainly feels like it weights half the car's weight
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote: Because it's missing the forged crank, sodium valves, and whatnot.
This exactly........the m44 is a nearly worthless engine. Putting a lightweight flywheel on them does help with how it feels though.
Also, I don't know if I have ever heard a "Good" sounding M42/44
well... let's say this. the M44 sounds better than an uncorked Honda D series.
Where the BMW M44/42 shines is on the track. The M42 will outflow the legendary S14 engine and the rare S42 produced just as much power as the S14, but with less displacement.
Something else to remember, the 318ti weighed in at 2700ish pounds. The same car in 323 trim (there was a 323ti in europe) was over 3000 that is a lot of extra weight (how much was luxury stuff?) up on the nose of the car. The 4 cylinder was much lighter up front and better balanced
In reply to mad_machine:
There was also a flow chart floating around awhile back comparing the SR20det and M42.......the M42 outflowed it by a noticable bit. 
SR20DETs are garbage motors, so that doesn't surprise me.
Well, now we know what to get right before Race Wars when all the SR20s are taken.
You'll need to log in to post.
