So Wat is the difference? The 94's in my area seem to all start around 3K and most good examples are closer to 4k where as the 93's seem to be around 2K with some starting as low as 1.5K and really good examples can be had for 3K.
Why am I looking at these years? Emissions testing! 95 and newer get the emissions testing here in MA. 94 and earlier do not.
Is there something between these two years that makes the 94 that much more desirable? The Wiki makes it look like the 94 has a tad more hp giving it a 1/2 sec better 0-60 but other than that I can not figure it out.
SAme/same unless you find an early '93 (build date in '02) that has no VANOS (variable cams). You can tell because the front of the head will be missing this:
Aside from that, there isn't much difference I can recall.
1992 is the model year that the suspension was changed mid-way through the build year (5/92). Swaybars from cars built before 11/91 might also be different than the rest of the run.
Everything said until now is correct.
'92 was the only year w/o VANOS.
Very early '92s had a larger upper strut bearing and the sway bar mounted to the strut housing like the M-3. Build date approx. 12/91-6/92 relocated the sway bar mount to the control arm but retained the larger upper strut bearing. These cars also had the largest non-M front bar, if you're wandering the pick-n-pull. '93 introduced the VANOS motor and the revised suspension that continued through the e36 run. Later suspension will bolt into the '92 as a complete strut assembly.
AFAIK, the '93 retained the charcoal bumpers and lower side trim, '94 may have been the switch to body color.
So for the pre 95 E36 does this meant that the 92 would be the best to get. I want simple easy to mod dumb as a stump.
The VANOS seems to say don't get if you want to modify. (I know my self to well)
Has GRM done a general info article on the E36? Sort of a history / evolution type article? That would be interesting and informative,
94 has dual airbags, 93 only has a driver airbag. I would buy a 94 over a 93 for that reason alone. But that is just me. Info is according to edmunds.com not due to my vast BMW knowledge which is almost nill.
GTwannaB wrote:
94 has dual airbags, 93 only has a driver airbag. I would buy a 94 over a 93 for that reason alone.
And I would buy the 93 over a 94 for that reason alone. Odd... 
The 92 w/o vanos has hotter cams and about 3 more hp (192 vs 189) than the >93 325. A bit less midrange. Do you want a car that makes power all the way to redline (92) or just power in the middle (93+). According to Bimmer the 92 also has dual valve springs which the later cars did not. Posts on bimmerforums say that the 92 is the fastest of all non M e36's. They got heavier as the years and options added up.
The only drawback to having a 92 so far that I have found is that it is the only year the A/C used R12.
r12 gets colder faster. as long as you can find and have the money, its a good thing. just saying
Hmmm AC I have head of that. Most of my cars have that button but for some reason the rest of the system usually does not exist. Funny how that works. LOL AC is the top of my priorities SO a 92 sounds like the car that I should be hunting for. The broad power band is definitely something I would want.
Re the R12. I am sure that it can be converted. I have lived for 20 plus years with out AC (wife gets the new cars) so it is not the top priority.
