yes.. the M42 has a forged crank.. the M44 does not
yes.. the M42 has a forged crank.. the M44 does not
Strike_Zero wrote: In reply to m4ff3w: Moar info please . . .
http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/showthread.php?t=147223
with megasquirt (or whatever computer) talking to more better sensors and by using more recent turbos that spin easily and lots of charge cooling I see lots of builds with stock compression, castings, pistons, and depending on the motor, mayby rods. ultimately you cant squeeze as much fuel into the smaller volume without the compression drop but it might be worth looking into higher compression low lag setups. I think diydave (is that it?) here makes very solid power from a high compression e-85 1.6l d series honda- his build thread might be a good read as well as the forced induction forum over at d-series.org. I find the forum really interesting because these folks build and blow up lots of junkyard motors and in the process learn a great deal. people make quite a bit of very usable broad power out of oem long blocks and mayby rods with careful ramping up of the puter controlled inputs these days. 350 at the wheels might be asking for too much but a reliable 280-300 might be reasonable. just a thought.
I skimmed the thread but I have turboed two m42 engines. One swapped into a 2002 and one into a e21. The e21 is my buddies and he did most of the work..I did the manifold and tune. We actually were adjusting the tune this evening to work on some of the colder weather stuff.
In his light e21 it is ridiculous! This is on a stock engine (160k or more on it). Nothing has been done internally and he has been beating the E36 M3 out of it. 9psi of boost on a china turbo.
I am actually in the works of putting together a bolt on kit for the m42....stock motronic tuning.
The turbo 2002 I did.
The e21
If you have any questions post or shoot me an email.
Horsepower is easy. Liberating enough heat to make it live in a roadrace environment is the trick...
Any restrictions on fuel type?
How much is a N20B I think those are like 245 hp stock. Would that work with your rules? I take it the engine has to be sourced from a BMW?
red5_02 wrote: It's not 1998 anymore, why are people still dropping compression for boost? At this point the fuel and tuning options make the sky the limit when it comes to power and boost.
You can't overcome thermodynamics, that's why.
My question - how do the BMW transmissions hold?
I think the Trans behind most of the M42 and M44s is a Getrag 250? That said.. I believe the Transmission from the M3 will bolt right to the back of the M42.. all the way up through the E46M3
g240 behind the e30 m42 g250 behind the e36 m42
ZF e36 trans will also bolt up as will the g260 but the g260 will be slanted to the one side slightly.
m42 is pretty much an m50 minus 2 cylinders. Very similar layout.
g240 is pretty strong...I had it behind a s52 and it is still holding for the new owner after 4 years.
In reply to mad_machine:
I have an M3 drivetrain already. The ZF 5speed can take the 400/350 numbers that worked over S54s dish out so no issues there.
I'd assume there's a big difference between a boosted M42 for the street vs. the track. I'm not an expert on these engines, but in general, it sounds like a turbo'd 4cyl is going to be tougher to keep happy on the track. On the street, you'd rarely be at full boost for any sustained amount of time, whereas on the track, your goal would be full boost as much as possible.
With your HP goal, it sounds like you'd be pushing the envelope for an M42 with boost - especially when you're considering the track use. Powerful, cheap, and reliable - pick two.
It sounds like it could be more reliable with less HP, but that would completely defeat the purpose of the swap when compared to your current motor. When making your decision, I'd include a factor for the cost and frustration involved if it blew up. With M42s being cheap, that might actually work in favor of the M42.
I know you've been considering your options for next year, and it sounds like you're at a sweet spot where your car is right now. If you want to go faster, you're looking at spending cubic dollars and additional effort. That's always a good place to step back and ask if a different platform (or racing format) would be a better option. You may have already made the decision to press forward, but anytime you're looking over the cliff it's good to step back and think it through before you make that leap...
I'd like to see it done......
Jakeb, I see you keep using the E30 m42 intake......the engine I bought off oldtin has that, just wondering if my assumptions are correct that it is better than the E36 m42 intake. 
from what I have been told.. the Dual plane manifold on the M44 has better midrange torque.. but the E30s manifold gives a nice increase at higher RPMs..
mad_machine wrote: from what I have been told.. the Dual plane manifold on the M44 has better midrange torque.. but the E30s manifold gives a nice increase at higher RPMs..
I thought it looked like stupid long runners on mine.........the e30 ones appear half as long.....
which is good for a nice street driven car... but for the rest of us.. we want the short runners.
I keep thinking about making my 1.9 into a 2.1 with the diesel crank
dj06482 wrote: I know you've been considering your options for next year, and it sounds like you're at a sweet spot where your car is right now. If you want to go faster, you're looking at spending cubic dollars and additional effort. That's always a good place to step back and ask if a different platform (or racing format) would be a better option. You may have already made the decision to press forward, but anytime you're looking over the cliff it's good to step back and think it through before you make that leap...
All of this is true. It is just that it is not in my nature to follow the path of least resistance. There are well established ways to get to the front of my class but where is the sport in doing what other people have done successfully when you can reinvent the wheel? I am only half joking when I say that - I get a lot of satisfaction from successfully doing something myself, with a different (cheap-ass) approach even if it takes longer or does not turn out quite as well as I'd hoped.
I think the turbo option is attractive for weight, balance and packaging but reading all the replies here - it's the wrong motor (and/or approach for me) because I need rock solid reliable power at a level that seems to be right at the top of the curve. I also have never turbo'd anything before so I am bound to blow it up while climbing the learning curve.
I need moar powah. This was just one option to explore for how I get there from here.
What kind of rules restrict engines? Same make, etc?
yamaha wrote: What kind of rules restrict engines? Same make, etc?
Same make, 3.5L or less.
Theres always the pesky 3L v8.........not the best idea though
yamaha wrote: Theres always the pesky 3L v8
There is someone running one - it has produced a very fast car but there is a lot of machine work in it. Still - if I could try it cheaply I might give it a go. I am thinking I might just make valve covers with roundels on them for an LS motor :)
yamaha wrote: Theres always the pesky 3L v8
I was just wondering whether there was a V8 that might work... It may not be an overall weight reduction, but I-6es are just so dang long...
But I'm not familiar with BMW V8s, and have no idea what it takes to make them make more power, or whether go-fast parts are available.
That being said, the M62B35 is right at your displacement limit and makes 230hp stone stock...
EDIT: I am slow again with the typing...
They seem to free up with breathing mods........I considered a 4.0L or 4.4L for the ti, but the those are salty. I'll figure out how to rwd the sho's 3.4L v8 before I go bimmer 8 in it.
The answer is F2T.
i've seen M42's overrev'd so hard they trashed the entire valvetrain. i've seen them overheated bad enough to blow out the headgasket THREE times (undiagnosed impeller failure).
still never seen a bottom end go bad.
You'll need to log in to post.
