Large chart of engines and applications

[SRR2]

Thought you guys might find this huge chart useful. Most engines are on it along with some useful specs.

http://www.vrchlabi.cz/e30/ruzne/enginenumber/

Couple comments -- torque is in NM, power in HP. To convert NM to lb-ft you have to divide by 1.37. There are some errors. I noticed that the rated power of the M60 and M62 variants are off a little. There are some omissions too (especially the newer vehicles), but nothing that seriously diminishes the chart's value.

It might be useful to compile the corrections and make this available somewhere on the site. Questions that this can answer come up now and then and it would be nice to have a quality reference.

I'll volunteer to maintain if if no one else wants to.

[DaCan23]

Oooo nize.... though mine is easier to read, but maybe I can fill in some blanks w/ it... still have to finish mine

http://www.bimmer.info/forum/showthread.php?t=17943

[dacoyote]

Oooo nize.... though mine is easier to read, but maybe I can fill in some blanks w/ it... still have to finish mine

http://www.bimmer.info/forum/showthread.php?t=17943

Yours is better

[632 Regal]

their both good, theres a ton of info on there.

[skr]

the chart says that i run a garret T3. i was not aware of that.
i'll check in the morning, but i am not sure it is correct.

[Alexlind123]

Dancan, your chart has a major error, it shows the late and early m30 having the same power.

[SRR2]

I noted some of the errors in your table in the test forum. Correct information is ishly hard to come by. Many of the sources have significant errors. For instance, the Bentley and the BMW TIS on the M60B40 have the bore and stroke sizes reversed. It was only when I actually did the math was I able to figure out which was correct. There's a Wikipedia entry for the M60/62 that contains some significant errors that has propagated EVERYWHERE.

Your table contains a bunch of errors that also have been propagated all over the place wherein torque value was given in NM, but the dimension given was lb-ft. I don't know of one table anywhere that's completely right. That would be quite an achievement considering that BMW's own data is sometimes wrong.

And, once again, torque is lb-ft, not ft-lb or ft/lb or lb/ft. Lots of people get it wrong, but that doesn't make it right. lb-ft is consistent with SI nomenclature (NM).

[onewhippedpuppy]

http://www.bimmerforums.com/engine_faq/

Here's another from Bf.c, not nearly as detailed but useful as a quick reference.

[DaCan23]

Yes I noted the corrections/input many have made to the thread in the test area. My info has been gathered from many different areas. Funny thing is one number someone said was wrong, I got from Roundel LOL...

Been real bizy, well sorta, but hope to finish mine soon.

I noted some of the errors in your table in the test forum. Correct information is ishly hard to come by. Many of the sources have significant errors. For instance, the Bentley and the BMW TIS on the M60B40 have the bore and stroke sizes reversed. It was only when I actually did the math was I able to figure out which was correct. There's a Wikipedia entry for the M60/62 that contains some significant errors that has propagated EVERYWHERE.

Your table contains a bunch of errors that also have been propagated all over the place wherein torque value was given in NM, but the dimension given was lb-ft. I don't know of one table anywhere that's completely right. That would be quite an achievement considering that BMW's own data is sometimes wrong.

And, once again, torque is lb-ft, not ft-lb or ft/lb or lb/ft. Lots of people get it wrong, but that doesn't make it right. lb-ft is consistent with SI nomenclature (NM).