integrate

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MisterTwo
[B]There are two different engines found in the E36 M3 which Bad 97 WS-6 was referring too.

VTEC Racer

Actually, it's 97+ for the 3.2 liter engine and -96 for the 3.0 liters.

negcamber

The 3.0L was MY '95 only in the USA. You can check edmunds.com to look at specs for various older cars.

mrkim019

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MisterTwo
[B]There are two different engines found in the E36 M3 which Bad 97 WS-6 was referring too.

r6e36

'95 M3 has a 3.0L ODB1 engine rated at 240 bhp 6000 rpm and 225 lb-ft 4250 rpm
'96-'99 M3 has a 3.2L ODB2 engine rated at 240 bhp @ 6000 rpm and 236 lb-ft @ 3800 rpm
but it's commonly known that the 3.2l motor puts out more like 250HP base on dyno runs

I am still debating wether if I should get a E46 M3 convertible to replace my car or just keep my E36 M3 and get a new S2k. What do you guys think?

integrate

Sorry VTEC

http://www.fast-autos.net/acura/nsxinfo.html

mrkim019

Keep the E36 and get a S2000.

I'm pretty sure you wont' regret it.

negcamber

That was a rumor started by Jim Conforti. While Jim is definitely the ecu mapping god for e36's, I can tell you that a couple of years back at O'fest in Orlando all the stock e36m3's, both 3.0l and 3.2l cars ran pretty close to the same on the dyno that had been set up at the event. Remember it is important to compare dyno runs made on the same machine with the same calibration and preferably on the same day. You can also check out dynospotracing.com where they confirm that the stock M3s they have dyno'ed (both 3.0l & 3.2l) put out between 197-210 rwhp. BTW, they also have an S2k run at 206 rwhp.

And as far as the extra 11lb of torque are concerned, those are produced down low. The 3.0l actually produces more torque than the 3.2l when both engines are revving above 5500rpm...so when you make that redline WOT shift the OBD II car, it is making less torque than the 3.0l at the same point in the rpm band. In a race the 3.2l car only has a small advantage while in 1st gear.

newbie

as we can all tell from my name, i am a little new here. but i have been reading this forum for a while now and i want to throw some imput into this discussion.
after reading all the replies here, i have come up with this conclusion:

ok, we are here in this forum because we love our cars. that is a fact and posers need not apply.i dunno, its like every time i see a S2k compared to a M3, there is always alot of smak talk. i doubt this will end though.

so lets just say they are totally different cars. which is really true. the S2k can be better compared to a Z3 or M Roadster, Boxter, or even a SLK. the reasoning to this is because they are the same CLASS of car. because this comparison (in theory) is not very good. we have a 2 door coupe, that can carry four people, that is an everyday car in any wheather rain, shine, snow and that he/she can drive spiritedly around corners like a full blown racer ocassionally. then we have a hot blooded roadster who has a screaming four that wines up to 9000rpm and pleasures (stricly in a driving way ) the driver whenever he turns (rather pushes) the starter for the engine, and makes the driver to want to be better to extract all performance from all of the car. these are two different cars that apply to two different areas of driving.

so lets just keep all this stuff about M3 vs. S2k to a minimal unless they have a video to prove they themselves beat their opponent. i am not siding with anyone ok? just showing my opinion. and yes i have driven both cars and yes they are equally fun to drive in each ones element. BMW made a kick ass sedan/coupe that can flog around corners with near neutral handling. while Honda engineers have acomplished their goal of building a true sportscar that every enthusiast can appreciate(except for the electronic top). these are both cars i would like to have. if it were me, M3 on the week days, S2000 on the weekends. with an every other friday choice

r6e36

uhm... no. That is not true. We had a dyno day here last summer and we had about 8 E36 M3, 5 of them were stock (two '95, one '96, one '97 and my '98) dynoed on the same dyno back to back. The '95 were dynoed around 210rwhp while the 3.2l cars were dynoed around 220rwhp consistently. The modded ones were dynoed a bit higher thou. The chart from dynosportracing is pretty consistent with other 3.0l dyno sheet that I have seen. but the 3.2 are a bit higher.
negcamber, you obviously don't know much about cars. You need torque down low to get the car off the line and moving, once you are moving and you are at higher RPM the horsepower takes over for top end performance. You should know this if you drive a S2k. Your motor don't have much torque, so getting the car moving at low rpm is not as quick, but once your engine is revving you are accelerating really fast because of the horsepower. Your best acceleration is at your HP peak not TQ peak.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by negcamber
[B]

That was a rumor started by Jim Conforti.