Bavarian-Board.co.uk - BMW Owners Discussion Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Technical & Model Specific Forums > BMW 3 Series
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - 316 V 318
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Forum Locked316 V 318

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
Peter Fenwick View Drop Down
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Avatar

Joined: 27-August-2003
Location: Lost somewhere in time...
Status: Offline
Points: 6484
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Fenwick Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: 316 V 318
    Posted: 21-November-2006 at 16:29
Originally posted by Rossi Rossi wrote:

Originally posted by Andyboy Andyboy wrote:

318iS (320i in brackets)

0-60 = 9.3 secs (8.8)

0-100 = 26.6 secs (27.2)

standing 1/4 16.8 secs (16.7)

Top whack 125 mph (122 mph)

The 320i figs are for an earlier car with a 3.45 final
drive which will crack 60 mph in second gear. having
said that, a later car was timed by Autocar at 8.8
secs to 60 - a standard 1989 four door 320i.
A nice conversion on the 320i is to fit a 325i inlet
manifold with it's vastly bigger throttle body as well
as a chip for the ECU. I did this to mine old track car
(A gold F reg 320i 4 door) and it would be some
318iS that got past!
Originally posted by Peter Fenwick Peter Fenwick wrote:

Are you refering to the E30 or E36.

Didn't know BMW made E36's in 1989...

OOpS!!

The original question was about E36 316 versus earlier E36 318.

Entering an age of Austerity and now driving a Focus Diesel.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
AndyS View Drop Down
Really Senior Member II
Really Senior Member II
Avatar
The Last of the Few

Joined: 21-August-2003
Location: 55 � North
Status: Offline
Points: 1365
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AndyS Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-November-2006 at 14:53
If we're talking E30 then the 318iS had 136bhp compared to the 320's 129bhp + extra weight.

The E36 318iS had 140bhp vs 150bhp from the 320 (still with a weight disadvantage).

It wasn't so much the difference in performance (negligible & thus pointless on the public road) but how that performance was delivered. A revvy & peaky 4 pot or a smooth & refined 6. At least you had a choice of how you wanted your power delivered.

Out of interest, how much more power did a 325 inlet, throttle & chip give?

AndyS
Live each day as if it's your last - one day it will be.

Back to Top
Rossi View Drop Down
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Avatar

Joined: 07-May-2005
Status: Offline
Points: 3311
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Rossi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-November-2006 at 14:22

Originally posted by Andyboy Andyboy wrote:

318iS (320i in brackets)

0-60 = 9.3 secs (8.8)

0-100 = 26.6 secs (27.2)

standing 1/4 16.8 secs (16.7)

Top whack 125 mph (122 mph)

The 320i figs are for an earlier car with a 3.45 final
drive which will crack 60 mph in second gear. having
said that, a later car was timed by Autocar at 8.8
secs to 60 - a standard 1989 four door 320i.
A nice conversion on the 320i is to fit a 325i inlet
manifold with it's vastly bigger throttle body as well
as a chip for the ECU. I did this to mine old track car
(A gold F reg 320i 4 door) and it would be some
318iS that got past!
Originally posted by Peter Fenwick Peter Fenwick wrote:

Are you refering to the E30 or E36.

Didn't know BMW made E36's in 1989...

OOpS!!

Back to Top
Peter Fenwick View Drop Down
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Avatar

Joined: 27-August-2003
Location: Lost somewhere in time...
Status: Offline
Points: 6484
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Fenwick Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-November-2006 at 13:36

Originally posted by b318isp b318isp wrote:

Originally posted by Peter Fenwick Peter Fenwick wrote:

A 320 will be quicker than a 316/318. Ok so performance wise the 318is is very similar but it's wortht he extra fiel for the sound of that straight 6. Mind you i'd be looking for a 325 if it was my money.


The 318i and 320i aren't too different on the road. A 320i isn't even remotely as quick as a 318is even though the powers are similar.

Are you refering to the E30 or E36.

I know that for the E36 the 320 has similar performance figures to the 318is.

320 150bhp, 134mph 0-60 9.6s

318is 140bhp, 132mph 0-60 9.9s

I though that seeing as how the thread was refering to an E36 then the E36 figures were more relevant 



Edited by Peter Fenwick
Entering an age of Austerity and now driving a Focus Diesel.
Back to Top
Andyboy View Drop Down
Banned User
Banned User
Avatar

Joined: 04-June-2003
Status: Offline
Points: 707
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Andyboy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-November-2006 at 13:22
318iS (320i in brackets)

0-60 = 9.3 secs (8.8)

0-100 = 26.6 secs (27.2)

standing 1/4 16.8 secs (16.7)

Top whack 125 mph (122 mph)

The 320i figs are for an earlier car with a 3.45 final
drive which will crack 60 mph in second gear. having
said that, a later car was timed by Autocar at 8.8
secs to 60 - a standard 1989 four door 320i.
A nice conversion on the 320i is to fit a 325i inlet
manifold with it's vastly bigger throttle body as well
as a chip for the ECU. I did this to mine old track car
(A gold F reg 320i 4 door) and it would be some
318iS that got past!
Back to Top
b318isp View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 10-October-2002
Location: Ireland
Status: Offline
Points: 2057
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote b318isp Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-November-2006 at 13:06
Originally posted by Peter Fenwick Peter Fenwick wrote:

A 320 will be quicker than a 316/318. Ok so performance wise the 318is is very similar but it's wortht he extra fiel for the sound of that straight 6. Mind you i'd be looking for a 325 if it was my money.


The 318i and 320i aren't too different on the road. A 320i isn't even remotely as quick as a 318is even though the powers are similar.
Back to Top
Peter Fenwick View Drop Down
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Avatar

Joined: 27-August-2003
Location: Lost somewhere in time...
Status: Offline
Points: 6484
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Fenwick Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-November-2006 at 08:50
Originally posted by AndyS AndyS wrote:

If they're so good why are you driving around in a 5-series?

Because I want more from my motoring than a Vauxhall can offer.

Don't get me wrong, they are not great cars, but they do the job they were intended to do. Affordable motoring for those who aren't bothered about image etc.

I would however have a Vauxhall Monaro if funds would permit.

Oh and there are loads of Mk3 Cavaliers still on the road. You even still see the occasional MK2.

Entering an age of Austerity and now driving a Focus Diesel.
Back to Top
AndyS View Drop Down
Really Senior Member II
Really Senior Member II
Avatar
The Last of the Few

Joined: 21-August-2003
Location: 55 � North
Status: Offline
Points: 1365
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AndyS Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-November-2006 at 22:19
Originally posted by Peter Fenwick Peter Fenwick wrote:

Why do you think there are so many cavaliers still on the road? Because they are reliable, cheap to maintain and reasonably well put together.

There are still Cavaliers around?!? Can't say I noticed.

Originally posted by Peter Fenwick Peter Fenwick wrote:

I bet all my dad's Vauxhalls have been a damn site more reliable than your 635!

Well, it did blot it's copybook with a failed crank sensor. Not sure if that's down to substantially reduced mileage over the last couple of years or the fact that it's nearly 18 years old.

Wonder how many 18 year old Chavaliers are still around?

If they're so good why are you driving around in a 5-series?

AndyS
Live each day as if it's your last - one day it will be.

Back to Top
Peter Fenwick View Drop Down
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Avatar

Joined: 27-August-2003
Location: Lost somewhere in time...
Status: Offline
Points: 6484
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Fenwick Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-November-2006 at 19:18

Originally posted by AndyS AndyS wrote:

You'll never convince me Vauxhall's were good for anything except landfill. Tacky designs, crummy interiors, rubbish gearboxes & a complete absence of class.

None of which means the engines weren't any good

No they are not classy but then the people that buy them aren't after classy. They are good for doing what they are supposed to. Affordable transport for people who just want to get from A to B. Why do you think there are so many cavaliers still on the road? Because they are reliable, cheap to maintain and reasonably well put together.

I bet all my dad's Vauxhalls have been a damn site more reliable than your 635!

His Mk2 cavalier 1.6L went from 40k to 140k in his ownership over about 6 years. It was comfortable, never broke down, had a hard wearing interior and for a large car with only a 1.6 had a reasonable ammount of poke. In short it did what it was supposed to. Even after he traded it in it was still driving around for at least another 3 years.

Entering an age of Austerity and now driving a Focus Diesel.
Back to Top
AndyS View Drop Down
Really Senior Member II
Really Senior Member II
Avatar
The Last of the Few

Joined: 21-August-2003
Location: 55 � North
Status: Offline
Points: 1365
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AndyS Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-November-2006 at 18:26
You'll never convince me Vauxhall's were good for anything except landfill. Tacky designs, crummy interiors, rubbish gearboxes & a complete absence of class. They were designed down to the lowest standard a company car driver would accept whilst still being capable of getting the job done.

Arch rival Ford competed well in the mediocrity stakes but Vauxhall were more consistently crap.

However, both companies were well & truly beaten by the worst sh1te of all - Rover. A true dog by any standards. They could make even a half decent (once upon a time) Honda design into a feeble failure.

It used to a rare case when an engine did over 100k without smoking & rattling. Now we expect 150k or more before we look for a replacement so I guess things are improving.

AndyS
Live each day as if it's your last - one day it will be.

Back to Top
neileg View Drop Down
Really Senior Member II
Really Senior Member II
Avatar

Joined: 20-July-2004
Location: Northumberland
Status: Offline
Points: 638
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote neileg Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-November-2006 at 12:10

My two pennorth.

I had an M40 316i bought at about 100k. It rattled and clattered all the time except for when I did a 1500 mile trip to France at very high speed. Ran sweet as a nut for about 6 weeks after that. I wouldn't buy another one, unless I knew it had had the top end work done and it was for peanuts.

I now have a 318is E36. Apart from a general sound of chains and cogs, it runs very nicely at 125k. Chain tensioner was changed at 90k. I find the engine much more responsive than the 320i 2 litre and its pretty economical even at high speeds.

So I'd buy a 318is, or a 323 upwards. If I found a nice M43 engined car I might consider it, but it would have to be a peach and cheap.

Cheers, Neil
Back to Top
Peter Fenwick View Drop Down
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Avatar

Joined: 27-August-2003
Location: Lost somewhere in time...
Status: Offline
Points: 6484
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Fenwick Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-November-2006 at 08:54

Originally posted by AndyS AndyS wrote:


Vauxhalls were even worse.

Rubbish. My father had 3 cars that used the Old OHC engine and my brother had a Mk1 astra 1.3S with the 70bhp one normally found in the Nova SR. Not the most refined engines but very reliable and with a decent amount of power. All of the cars did well over 100,000 miles without requiring any repair work. I could also talk about countless Cavalier SRIs that mates of mine have owned that went for ever regardless of the abuse handed out to them. A good solid, reliable engine.

Entering an age of Austerity and now driving a Focus Diesel.
Back to Top
bmw1066 View Drop Down
Really Senior Member II
Really Senior Member II
Avatar
GOOD OLD E23

Joined: 16-January-2005
Location: West Sussex Nr Brighton
Status: Offline
Points: 1095
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote bmw1066 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-November-2006 at 23:48

The m40's run great if looked arfter but now there geting old thay tend to suffer. my touring did a cambel be4 I had it and ended up with new top end. But me Dad's runing a 316 e30, now on 175k and it's all down to servicing but all the work it has is on the moterway 25k this year. People are just to tight to have the oil changed every 6 k on these older engines. Moterway work can save old engins.

I have a m30 525 did'nt know when I bought it but it had'nt seen a oil chang for six years I have NEVER seen anthing like it you could not get any more crud in it 3 inc of muck at the bottom on the filter housing and the filter had near colapsed but it ran soo sweet I changed oil and ran it for 4 k up n down the m25 and a12 changed it this week and replaced the rocker cover for a nice painted one and was amased to see that the top end was in mint condishion not a shighn of crud? valve clearence were way out but other than that



Edited by bmw1066
Mark 735 se 1982
RED BARON A E23 is for life not just for x-mas
BMW e34 530 v8 Sport kit
Spelling always Bad
Back to Top
Andyboy View Drop Down
Banned User
Banned User
Avatar

Joined: 04-June-2003
Status: Offline
Points: 707
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Andyboy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-November-2006 at 22:48
The CVH was a decent little motor - but you're
probably talking about an engine which is now 15-20
years old. They're all pretty tired now as they're so old
but back in the day they'd rack up 100'000 miles in 3
years. I had a few Mark 3 Escorts ranging from W-A
plate and they were okay. The 1300 was a little
revver(esp. with the original VV carb) and the
RS1600i I had back in 1989 was pretty quick. The
problem with the CVH was the cambelt - Pinto belts
used to last 100'000 miles, CVH ones about 25'000.
Made a nice living out of CVH top end rebuilds! The
other problem concerned the blue cap Lucas
distributor which would go open circuit at a certain
temperature and the car would refuse to start until it
had cooled down. The ignition module on the
underside of the distributor was also troublesome
along with the diapragm in the VV carb. Black Death
killed most of them however which is where all the
noisy tappets came from. But you could install a
complete new set in half an hour.
Apart from that they were a good engine but in typical
Ford fashion everything they did to improve it made it
worse. The last CVH's in the Mark 5 Escorts around
1993 were truly terrible - harsh and gutless and the
1400/1600 lean burn units were crap. The 1.8 in the
Sierra was evil and wore the rings out in under 60k.
The CVH was fitted with a 16 valve twin cam head in
1992 to become the Zetec which is a very good
engine indeed.

The Vauxhall engine was brilliant and they really
don't have any faults apart from maintenance related
wear and tear. Anyone who ever drove a 1300 Mark 1
Astra will remember how quick they were. GM made
two versions, Family A (1200 1300 1400 1600 Nova)
and Family B (1600 1800 2000) for the Cavaliers etc.
It was an intelligently designed and simple engine
that lasted forever with reasonable care which of
course very few ever got. The only pain in the bum
was the cambelt which was tensioned on the water
pump but with strong fingers you could (and I did!)
change the belt without disturbing the tension.
The way the camshaft carrier could be removed
without disturbing the head was genius really and
you could do a clutch in 25 minutes dead. I had a 1.3
SR Nova on a B plate and it was a great little car - it
thrived on abuse.

The M40 was okay but BMW would have been better
spending a bit on the M10 - an alloy block and
hydraulic tappets maybe. The M40 was an engine
quickly knocked up based on V12 bits ( head
design/cam/rockers/con rods) and the guy who
designed it also worked on the NSU Ro80 w*nkel
engine. He later committed suicide - maybe haunted
by the warranty claims.







Back to Top
AndyS View Drop Down
Really Senior Member II
Really Senior Member II
Avatar
The Last of the Few

Joined: 21-August-2003
Location: 55 � North
Status: Offline
Points: 1365
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AndyS Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-November-2006 at 21:35
Well I agree the M40 is far from a cutting edge design (thanks Andy for an insight into the bleaker aspects of the M40's design) but it is more refined than the M10 it was based on. My own 316 is pretty good but then it has led a pampered life & I have no intention of dirtying my hand on it. I'll leave that to my local BMW specialist.

The Ford CVH was rubbish from day one & hasn't improved with age. Vauxhalls were even worse. Honda engines are jewels providing you don't mind having to use high revs to get anywhere.

The 318i is the choice for economy & the 2.5 six pot for performance. The 2.0 litre six offers better refinement than the 318iS but at the expense of economy & probably insurance.

AndyS
Live each day as if it's your last - one day it will be.

Back to Top
Peter Fenwick View Drop Down
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Avatar

Joined: 27-August-2003
Location: Lost somewhere in time...
Status: Offline
Points: 6484
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Fenwick Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-November-2006 at 15:35

Originally posted by Andyboy Andyboy wrote:


There were so many decent, simple to maintain 4 cyl
OHC engines about at that time like the Ford CVH,
Vauxhall 1600 etc.........

Ford CVH a decent engine!

It was better than the pinto but thats' not saying much.

I agree about the Vauxhall OHC engines but the CVH was a nail. Simple to maintain, yes, but then it needed to be.

Entering an age of Austerity and now driving a Focus Diesel.
Back to Top
Peter Fenwick View Drop Down
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Bavarian-Board Contributor
Avatar

Joined: 27-August-2003
Location: Lost somewhere in time...
Status: Offline
Points: 6484
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Fenwick Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-November-2006 at 15:33
A 320 will be quicker than a 316/318. Ok so performance wise the 318is is very similar but it's wortht he extra fiel for the sound of that straight 6. Mind you i'd be looking for a 325 if it was my money.
Entering an age of Austerity and now driving a Focus Diesel.
Back to Top
fozzymandeus View Drop Down
Really Senior Member II
Really Senior Member II


Joined: 01-February-2006
Location: Sunny Rhyl
Status: Offline
Points: 607
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fozzymandeus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-November-2006 at 14:12
Sorry to again push for caution but the 320i is no rocket.

You get the advantage of straight six in terms of noise vibrational harmonics, but not really much performance benefit. (also a 320 will typically have more kit)

You'll also have more weight in the nose so the handling isnt as spot on as the four cylinder cars.

318is, 323, 325 or 328 are better bets i reckon. The 318is isnt particularly quick but the engine has a lovely note and feels sporty.

320s are nice cars mind.
Back to Top
Red3 View Drop Down
Really Senior Member I
Really Senior Member I


Joined: 09-May-2005
Location: Ireland
Status: Offline
Points: 298
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Red3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-November-2006 at 13:57

Cheers for the replies lads.  I think i'll pass on the 318 m40 so and keep my eye out for a decent 320i i can afford.

1995 316i, 2002 520i
Back to Top
Andyboy View Drop Down
Banned User
Banned User
Avatar

Joined: 04-June-2003
Status: Offline
Points: 707
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Andyboy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-November-2006 at 13:32
Indeed it does! The last E30 I had was a 1990 316i
and that one was quite sweet with no leaks or cam
issue. But they're still a pain in the bum to work on
and some of the design is incredibly stupid. Why,
when the M20 has one belt tensioner/guide pulley,
does the M40 need three? Why did they not put any
timing marks on the cam pulley? (To make you go to
a BMW dealer with the special tools to lock the cam
and crank in position!). Why do you need an inlet
manifold in two bits? And why bury the coolant temp
sensor under the manifold where you can't even see
it?

There were so many decent, simple to maintain 4 cyl
OHC engines about at that time like the Ford CVH,
Vauxhall 1600 etc........and the old M10! The M40
wasn't even a very special engine in the way a
Honda unit was.

One problem the M40 and the Ford CVH shared was
that the top end of the engine is overcooled leading
to 'black death' and cam wear. I'd always use a hot
running 'stat in one of these.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.