E36 3.2 M3 compare with 3.0 M3

[stuttgart]

Does anyone own both 3.0 and 3.2 E36 M3? Is the 3.2 engine make huge different on performance when compare to the 3.0?

[///Mpmp1025]

not huge. it has more torque but not a whole lot. the biggest difference is when u mod the engine. u gain more on the 3.0L than u do on the 3.2L. and the computer system is different 3.0L uses OBD1 while 3.2L uses OBD2. all the tuners i know of like the 3.0L engine better for tunning purposes its easier. it also has less sensors to deal with. i have a 3.0L model and love it.

[stuttgart]

I've test drove a 3.0 and a 3.2. The 3.2 performace seems huge different compare to the 3.0. But I am not sure if the 3.0 that I drove is in healthy shape. So I would like to find out more from the M3 owners here on the broad.

[eclou]

The tunability factor between the 3.0 and the 3.2 is becoming smaller and smaller. The 3.0 may be slightly cheaper to mod, but some of us have gotten a fairly substantial amount of power out of the 3.2 and have remained OBD II compliant.

Eugene

[Kenzo]

Eugene,

Track pipe & 02 simulators OBDII compliant?!? ;-)

How was the ski trip?

I hope to talk with Bob today about the tires. Where are some issues with consistancy. Call me when you get a few minutes.

[Keda]

I have a 3.2. One thing to take into consideration is the age of the cars. The 3.0 might be cheaper up front and a bit cheaper to mod, but it will most likely have more miles too.

[Kenzo]

Has anyone looked into the new 3.0 (double vanos I believe) intake/manafold and headers. They develope torque early and maintain it(could be the double vanos) good HP curve too.

The intake & HFM on out 3.0 Z3 makes the stock M3's look like a soda straw. I look at it more closely tonight.

[LateApex]

I had a '95 3.0 liter car for 3 years and traded in for a '98 3.2 sedan. The '95 was autocrossed regularly... the '98 less so, since it sees double duty as the family hauler.

The 3.0 liter motors are peakier --the fun doesn't start until about 4k, but from there till redline the motor is pure butter. IMO, it has more 'interesting' power delivery and is more fun to rev. It also sounds better, probably due to the shorter stroke. A stock '95 is probably a TICK slower than a stock 96+ due to torque and slightly taller gearing, but from the driver's seat it doesn't feel like it. Overall, I think the 3.0 liter has a 'racier' feel.

The 3.2 liter motors make more torque earlier, so in daily driving, the motor feels more substantial... not unlike an American small V8 where the torque swells, then dies out early. Even at part throttle, the car feels like it has more balls. The factory redline is 6800 on the 3.2, but I never feel its worth it to venture up there since it runs out of steam by 6k. After owning a 3.0 liter for years, the 3.2 can sound rough by comparison. These are my only complaints about the 3.2.

At autocross speeds, the extra torque and shorter gears on the 3.2 makes it feel more useable than the 3.0... not that I am going any faster with the 3.2 :( since its a bit heavier than the 3.0 (lots of options) But you do have an advantage at corner exits with the extra torque.

There are distinct steering and handling differences between the two versions, as there were a few technical differences in steering ratio, caster, sidewall height and suspension tuning. The quicker steering in the 3.2 is nice, but the 3.0 had better feel. I can almost swear the 3.2 actually rides better, but gives up nothing in the corners.

Either version of the car is great, but honestly, I miss the siren wail of my old 3.0.


-Apex

[eclou]

Originally posted by Kenzo
Eugene,

Track pipe & 02 simulators OBDII compliant?!? ;-) ?


Hey, if it passes inspection then it is compliant right?:devillook

Eugene

[bimmer143]

Originally posted by eclou
?


Hey, if it passes inspection then it is compliant right?:devillook

Eugene

What Track pipe and O2 simulators??:evil2 Gotta love connections!!;)

[alan2990]

Very nice write-up LateApex :clap:

I have driven a friend's 3.2 M3 before and it feels so much stronger on the street due to the lower torque peak.
Even when cruising in 4th or 5th gear, the 3.2 starts pulling
at any rpm level; while in my 3.0 you kinda have to wait for the power to build up until around 3500 rpm when it's pulling, and at a little above 4k it really pulls. You can say that the 3.0 is more "VTEC". It is really evident on a 2nd gear roll from 2k-6k.
You can feel a good pull at 3-3.5k and then a kick at 4k.

[Mazrx7tt]

So say in a pull in 2nd gear in a 95 and a 97 persay at 2k-6k RPM. Can someone explain how both would run? Which would win, etc.
Also, In a race from 2k RPM in 2nd gear to say about 90 MPH which car would win and explain how the cars would differ. Like would the 97 take off faster then the 95 would edge in? I have a 95 and I can understand the VTEC similarities. Thanks
AJ

[LateApex]

Well, in THEORY, a rolling race between 3.2 and 3.0 in identical states of tune with identical race weight would result in the 3.2 pulling slightly right off and maintaining the lead until vMax.

But how often does that scenario ever happen? If the 3.0 driver weighed 150, had a near empty tank of gas (7lbs/gal) and had some very basic mods like intake and exhaust, while the 3.2 driver weighed 250 and got the heated, power seats and had a stereo system in the trunk, the 3.0 would probably nullify the advantage and even pull convincingly on the 3.2.

Speaking from practice, if my buddy (exhaust, base car, chip I think) got the jump on me in the 3.0, I could keep him from pulling away, but I would NOT be able to reel him in my 3.2 (BONE stock, heated, power seats).


-Apex

[Cannon]

Remember that half of the difference in feel between the two cars is due to the taller 3:15 rear end in the '95's.

Having said that, both my '97 and my '95 have the same 3:23 rear end, and still the 3.2 feels faster, but the 3.0L is smoother at high RPM and is much more fun on the track because of its more linear power delivery. On the street, the 3.2 is better most of the time only because the torque difference below 4K is quite noticeable.

Again, the two are very close in terms of performance, and determining which is faster is going to be driver-dependant 99% of the time.

Chris

[bimmer143]

Originally posted by scottycs
3.0 OWNZ!!! BOOYA!!

WERD!!:D

[bimmer143]

Originally posted by scottycs
3.0 OWNZ!!! BOOYA!!

WERD!!:D

[332 RustBucket]

I personally have never driven a stock 3.2 obd2 motor or a stock 3.0 motor but find it interesting when the 3.2 liter motor came out a lot of magazines tested it and got slower numbers than with the 3.0? Anyone have any insight to this? I remember the 3.0 getting around 5.4-5.6 to 60 while the 3.2 was getting 5.6-6.0?? Just curious? If I am wrong in this go gental please;) I don't have the time to go and look @ mags but just thought that I remembered this.

[Jeff L]

Originally posted by Cannon
Remember that half of the difference in feel between the two cars is due to the taller 3:15 rear end in the '95's.



I'd like to put this urban legend to bed.

The change in final drive ratio from '95 (3.15) to 96+ (3.23) was to compensate for the increased rolling radius of the larger 245 40-17 tire. If you factor in the tire, the difference in overall final drive ratio is less than 1%. How big is 1%? As an example, there’s a 1% difference between a new tire and one that has 1/3rd of the tread remaining.

Jeff

[BlueM3Racer]

332 TMS car- I too remember this. i remember reading an article comparing the 3.2 and the 3.0 and the author preferred the 3.0 because it felt smoother and more "racy". The difference between them isn't too much. if you don't mind having an older car then the 3.0 is great and easier to mod. a lot of people like the better reliability of a newer car and the obdII doesn't upset them too much, because as eclou stated the obdII m3's now have many mods capable of hanging/putting them ahead of modded 3.0's .

[ca415playa]

werd

[d4nn]

I had a 95m3 & now am having a 99m3.

my 95m3 had:
X-Brace, H&R sports Spring + Bilstein shocks
Dinan Chip & Intake
SuperSprint exhaust
UUC shortshifter, TME, clutchstop, & replica Motorsport wing
Euro floating rotors, HP+ pads, & Stainless Steel Brakelines

my 99m3's having:
17x8.5 with 245/40/17 all around.
GC coil-overs, camber plates, X-brace, UUC sway bars.
Dinan software, Intake
SuperSprint exhaust

I tracked both of them since they were in stock form.

stock to stock on the track, you wont notice any difference unless can push the car 10/10.

For my limit, I like both of them equally on the track. On the street, the 99m3 is a much better car.

After all the upgrades, & a recent DE I like the 99m3 much much much better !!

The few next things i wanna get for the 99m3 are:
SS brake lines, & Hawk HT10 racing pads (they're laying in my room now), & euro floating rotors.

bottom line is that get the most recent one as possible.

Danny

[dave is cool]

I don't understand how the 3.2 can feel SOO much faster and torquier than the 3.0, when it has only 11 or more so ft./lbs. of torque than the 3.0. How does the 3.2 feel so much faster then?

[eclou]

Dave, 11 is the delta at the peak. Its the area underneath the curve that pushes you into the seat. The difference at 2k or 3k might be much higher than 11. Switching from the OBD II intake to the OBD I manifold I have lost some 20+ ft/lbs at 3-4k on my engine. Makes a BIG difference.

Eugene

[d4nn]

Originally posted by dave is cool
I don't understand how the 3.2 can feel SOO much faster and torquier than the 3.0, when it has only 11 or more so ft./lbs. of torque than the 3.0. How does the 3.2 feel so much faster then?

95m3 vs 99m3
both peaks out 240hp @ 6k rpm
225 ft-lb torque @ 4200 rpm vs 236 ft-lb torque @ 3800 rpm.
3.15 lsd vs 3.23 lsd

early torque & higher lsd make the 99m3 a much better car for street driving.

However, on the track, most of the time you bring the car in the power band, so you wont feel much difference.

[dqm3]

I have owned both the 99 and 95 M3s. I do admit that the 99 did feel a lot faster. The third gear pull in 99 was simply amazing!

[stuttgart]

So basiclly the 3.2 just FEEL faster because of the low end torque, but in reality when compare both car the 3.2 is not actually faster than a 3.0??

[dqm3]

Yep, that about sums it up.

[r6e36]

And therefore you got less torque compared to a 3.2 motor...


Originally posted by scottycs
Thats why I bought an engine designed for the m50 manifold:D

[M3Jokster]

how about a stock 3.2L running obd1 vs. a stock 3L?

or

modded 3.2L running obd1 vs. a modded 3.0L
both having the same mods...CAI, euro HFM, schrick cams and 24lb injectors. and both have JC chip..but the software will be different since 1 is a 3.2 a nd the other a 3.0

[eclou]

There is no replacement for displacement.

Eugene

[E30 Stu]

My brother Alex has a 3.2 OBD-1 in his E30 M3. I have driven it a lot, and the car pulls really well at any RPM, in any gear. I raced a '98 M3 in it with an ECIS and pulled about 10 cars from 50-100.

My car is getting the same motor as Alex's, except a 3.0. My car is lighter than his though, so I think my car won't really suffer from the slight lack of torque compared to his 3.2.

This post was irrelavent. :stickoutt

[eclou]

You McHenry kids, always rubbing our noses in it!

Eugene

[Striker[x]]

im having the same dilemma, im looking for an M3 but I don't know which one to go with, its between 96+ a 95 or a 94 eurospec. Any advice?

[dqm3]

I would go with the 94 eurospec as my first choice. Second choice is the 3.2L M3. It's cheaper to remachine a 3.2L than do a 3.2L transplant. Trust me, I've gone thru it.

[Striker[x]]

dqm3 i've been told that some of the euro spec m3's parts are not the same as the US spec. Don't you think it would be a hassle to find parts and wouldn't they be crazy expensive since there probably not in as huge demand as the parts for a US spec m3?

[dqm3]

Obviously the 3.0 with the HFM,intake, & software will make more power than the 3.2L with just intake and software. But it's a lot cheaper to go OBD1 with 3.2L than it is to do a transplant a 3.2L into a 95 chassis.


Striker -

I heard that 3.0 euro engine responds really well to mods though. Not sure how much the parts would be but you're prolly right in that it's more expensive.

[dqm3]

True dat.

[tubbedF100]

My battle!!!!

My friend has a 97' M3 with cat-back and a filter. No wing no heated seats, no extra stereo mods. Stock 3.23 gear

I have a 95' M3 with UUC CAt-back, chip, filter, 24lbs injectors, homemade track pipe. Stock 3.15 gear, with 18" wheels, heated seats, wing, and some stereo stuff.

We raced, I have about 100lbs on him, and alot less gearing. From a 1st gear roll I pulled for just a second while he spun, then his torque took over, evry time he shifted I was just at 5800 rpm or so, he would pull, then I would get just a little back at the top of my gears. The end result though was him being able to stay a car link out front both times we kicked it. Alot of it has to do with gearing, I strongly believe that, because with my 18" wheels and 3.15 gear I don't have enough torque at the gear change to overcompensate for how much he pulled. However, I could bearly nudge back at the top of my gear 6000-7000rpm. Regaurdless he pulled me and there was nothing I could do about it.

I might have Vanos problems or something because he straight up has more midrange torque period!

[Serious]

so scottycs how is that 3.2 odb1 running?????

kinda funny to read your posts from back when you had the 3.0 and thought it was the sh*t.

[///M3ryder NY]

so scottycs how is that 3.2 odb1 running?????

kinda funny to read your posts from back when you had the 3.0 and thought it was the sh*t.

lol, holy old thread...

[DeeM3]

After owning both in stock form. I will have to say that the 95 was more fun. At arond 3.5k -4k rpms is really where the fun begins even though it's still fun below that. Personally if I had the choice I'll take the 3.0 engine something about the way it drives is just pure fun. Even with it's 3.15 diff.

[vjlax18]

The "fun" above 4k is all because of the manifold. Buy the 3.2L and install the manifold and it's more funerer.

[Mad Dog 20/20]

Yeah, the muscle-car type of power delivery of the stock 3.2 falls on its face at around 5.5k rpm. Not a lotta fun. :rolleyes However, you can mod it to deliver the goods all the way to redline. :devillook

"Gearing" does make some difference. My car was quicker out of the hole with 235/40/17's on it than with 225/40/18's. A 235/40/18 would be even worse.

[loudes 13]

I preferred the '95 3.0L because I didn't want obd2 due the maintenence reasons (obd1 is more simple if/when things break).

3.2 is torquier. the last 3.2 I drove felt much stronger down low. 3.23 gear helps.

3.0 has a faster steering ratio, bigger ft sway bar, non-staggered wheels, and no electronic nanny (traction control). I would venture a guess that many '95's are lighter due to options, but that's a case by case basis.

[RRdawho?]

dynoed my car w/ a bunch of 3.0's and the area under the curve for my torque was much greater than that of the 95's counter parts, but thats expected...

97 M3/4 with Intake and Exhaust only and 165k miles.

[BSH]

lol, holy old thread...He must use the SEARCH option. Good job! :buttrock

[dragonm3]

Having said that, both my '97 and my '95 have the same 3:23 rear end, and still the 3.2 feels faster, but the 3.0L is smoother at high RPM and is much more fun on the track because of its more linear power delivery. On the street, the 3.2 is better most of the time only because the torque difference below 4K is quite noticeable.
Chris

Dunno, my 96 doesn't feel like it has sh!t before 3500... 'course that's after almost 2 years of driving it. :help

[coolcarlski]

Very nice write-up LateApex :clap:

I have driven a friend's 3.2 M3 before and it feels so much stronger on the street due to the lower torque peak.
Even when cruising in 4th or 5th gear, the 3.2 starts pulling
at any rpm level; while in my 3.0 you kinda have to wait for the power to build up until around 3500 rpm when it's pulling, and at a little above 4k it really pulls. You can say that the 3.0 is more "VTEC". It is really evident on a 2nd gear roll from 2k-6k.
You can feel a good pull at 3-3.5k and then a kick at 4k.I like the characteristics of the 2.5 and the 3.0L motor better than the 3.2L. The 3.2L feels kinda dead after 6k.Seems like solely a midrange motor. Makes me feel like my MB torque monster will catch it once it hits 85-100mph. The 3.2 just doesnt rev like either the 2.5 or 3.0 and I miss that.I'm hoping cams would wake up the 3.2L motor after install.I may even add valve springs.

[coolcarlski]

After owning both in stock form. I will have to say that the 95 was more fun. At arond 3.5k -4k rpms is really where the fun begins even though it's still fun below that. Personally if I had the choice I'll take the 3.0 engine something about the way it drives is just pure fun. Even with it's 3.15 diff.I have to agree.

[DeeM3]

So I wonder if the 3.2 will feel more like the 3.0 but stronger once you install an odb1 manifold.

[mobil1]

get a 95 and then put in a 3.2 and convert it to obd1.

[Serious]

So I wonder if the 3.2 will feel more like the 3.0 but stronger once you install an odb1 manifold.

yep. but you do lose some low end, but what the hell the s52 should have never came with that manifold anyways.

[DeeM3]

..... but what the hell the s52 should have never came with that manifold anyways.
That's what I say I think that manifold is just stupid. The car was restricted enough in 95 why restrict it more.

[E36DJ]

I have owned both the 99 and 95 M3s. I do admit that the 99 did feel a lot faster. The third gear pull in 99 was simply amazing!
:alright 3rd gear is simply freaky.. there have been so many times when I tell myself I'll shut down at the top of 3rd, I NEVER get to that point, always stop early. 3rd gear is deadly in these things (to other cars ;)), especially with the chip (the 7k redline in 2nd lands the engine RIGHT into the powerband in the bottom of 3rd.)