Engine Horsepower boggle?

[Zchild]

M62TUB44[edit]

In 1998, the Technical Update was applied, resulting in the M62TUB44. In the United States, power for 2001-2003 540i models was increased to 216 kW (290 bhp).^[18][19]

According to the above information from the Wiki page the 2001 - 2003 540i models make 290 bhp which would mean the 1998 -2000 models only make 282 bhp with the same motor, what's the difference between the motor's when they are the same nomenclature, thanks in advance to all of the gearheads!
FTR: I have a 99 540i...

[atobe]

http://mywikimotors.com/m62b44/

TLDR is
The main differences between the engines M62B44 and M62TUB44 are the following: a system of changing the valve timing on the inlet camshaft VANOS was added, an electronic throttle body appeared, an intake manifold with the ports of smaller diameter was installed, the engine control unit was replaced with Bosch DME M7.2.

[R Shaffner]

The big change with the TU was the addition on VANOS (variable valve timing) on the intake side. There were some other differences as well (exhaust manifold, throttle body).

I've owned both a '97 and an '02, both manual. At first I thought the '02 (with the TU engine) was stronger, but then I realized that was only under part throttle in the middle of the rpm range. At WOT and up to redline the TU seemed to run out of power earlier -- I found myself shifting upo before redline on max runs. So the two engines drive differently.

Like many here I put the earlier intake manifold (from an M62) on a later M62TU engine. That gave me the best of both worlds. The better mid-rpm torque of the TU seemed to still be there, but the engine breathed much better at the top enf, more like the M62. (M60 intakes are supposed to be even better.) So if you'd like a little more from your TU at the top end, find one of the earlier manifolds. Pretty easy swap.

(check here:
https://www.bimmerforums.com/forum/s...ntake-Manifold )

As for the actual HP ratings, many here will say that the M62 and M62TU are both under-rated. I'm not sure, except I know that engines with more mid-range torque often feel stronger. Some will say there's a difference between the M62 and M62TU, others will prob say there isn't.

Having had both, I like my '02 set-up as I described above.

[Zchild]

Thanks for the information but I still don't understand how two cars which are both 540i's with the same M62TUB44 motor make different bhp... The 1998 - 2000 make 282 with the M62TUB44 while the 2001 - 2003 make 290 bhp with the same M62TUB44 motor...

[BimmerBreaker]

marketing

[R Shaffner]

Thanks for the information but I still don't understand how two cars which are both 540i's with the same M62TUB44 motor make different bhp... The 1998 - 2000 make 282 with the M62TUB44 while the 2001 - 2003 make 290 bhp with the same M62TUB44 motor...

Well, the M62 and the M62TU are not the same motor.

The other thing we didn't mention: Many people don't think BMW is that precise about its stated power numbers, and that other motives come into play (like positioning between different models). We're talking about a horsepower difference of about 2-3%. Not a lot of difference, if in fact there is any difference.

[edjack]

The main reason for VANOS on the -TU was to broaden the torque curve. The -TU engine was introduced for the '99 MY.

BTW, the M60 and M62 intake manifolds carry the same part number: www.realoem.com.

[R Shaffner]

The main reason for VANOS on the -TU was to broaden the torque curve. The -TU engine was introduced for the '99 MY.

BTW, the M60 and M62 intake manifolds carry the same part number: www.realoem.com.

I think realoem can be off in some details. Based on what others have posted here, with pics and part numbers, the early M60 intakes were different and had velocity stacks on the runners.

[geargrinder]

Thanks for the information but I still don't understand how two cars which are both 540i's with the same M62TUB44 motor make different bhp... The 1998 - 2000 make 282 with the M62TUB44 while the 2001 - 2003 make 290 bhp with the same M62TUB44 motor...

As ed said:

The -TU engine was introduced for the '99 MY.

The Wikipoopia pages for stuff like this can either be 1. simply erroneous, or 2. sometimes year-ranges on production stuff like that is because maybe "OK the M62 (non-TU) was still put into the South African variant into 2000 because changeover regulatory cert for new engine was not issued blah blah blah..."

In USA / mainstream-Euro reality the TU = '99+, end of story.

And re: the actual numbers... Yeah...

The other thing we didn't mention: Many people don't think BMW is that precise about its stated power numbers, and that other motives come into play (like positioning between different models). We're talking about a horsepower difference of about 2-3%. Not a lot of difference, if in fact there is any difference.

marketing

Totally.

Famously the E46M3 S54 engine was rated at "333hp" - ha ha get it? BMW in-joke - M3 has 3-3's! What a bunch of jokers they are!

Often there's games being played w/ the other models. Gotta be sure the M5 has a good distance from the 540i. Lets be sure the M3 comes in right in between them. That kinda stuff. Generally BMW is known for under-rating but so are some Japanese makers... Amurican motors are not always but more likely to be overstated...

Back to our V8's - Yes both of those motors are probably under-rated, but particularly many think the non-TU was really underrated for top-end-power. I'll confirm what Shaff says, if you drive both motors back to back you'd immediately noticed the TU seems absolutely stronger in most daily driving situations... until you wind them both out and then you'll think maybe the TU is 'soft' at redline compared to the "NV" (Non-Vanos). Its not just the intake manifold, its also the cams - the NV motor has more duration.

BTW, the M60 and M62 intake manifolds carry the same part number: www.realoem.com.

I think realoem can be off in some details. Based on what others have posted here, with pics and part numbers, the early M60 intakes were different and had velocity stacks on the runners.

Yes there are sub-variants of the early manifolds... I think there's maybe 3 versions of early 'big runner' manifolds?

Whether they have same/difft part numbers I don't recall but I wouldn't be surprised if there was some same-PN-difft-parts stuff.

My theory on that is I think in the old days BMW was less fanatical about new part numbers and would be more likely to have a running change without a visible part number change. Ever since late 90's that's not the case, its more likely to be the opposite - aka you can find 2-3-4 part numbers in supercession and you can stare at the parts all day and be hard pressed to find what the difference was. Maybe its' just a sourcing change or maybe a secret hidden seal-spec (viton vs buna etc.) or something, but now-a-dayz they issue a new part number at the drop of a hat... VAG has been more consistent about that over the years, they use letter suffices to denote part evolution aka 111-222-333-A / 111-222-333-B / 111-222-333-C as the part evolves... Much easier to follow...

[Zchild]

That's one of the things that dawned on me as well; since it's a wiki and can be changed by the masses the information contained in could very well be incorrect and I suppose that's why it stood out to me... I don't personally believe BMW would build a car with the same engine and model and provide two entirely different bhp's... lol I thought this forum s the best place to settle this boggle... lol

[geargrinder]

Well as keeps being pointed out - an M62 and an M62TU are NOT the same engine.

Variants, yes. Same, no.

[Zchild]

I was only making reference to the M62TUB44 motor...

[geargrinder]

Right. Its the misleading text of the Wiki.

-> 1998 model year = non-TU (non-vanos)
99+ model year = TU engine (VANOS, DBW, different cams/intake/exhaust etc.)

Again excepting if there was some weird exception stuff like "RHD models sold to Southeast Asian Countries during Ramadan which still got the NV motor unless the car was a blue automatic and had the NAV option" or whatever....