I apologize everyone but I'm baffled on what models/years have timing
chains and which ones have timing belts.
Specifically, does a 96/97/98 328i/328is have a chain or belt?
Also, it seems to me that there's no difference (except year) between
a 96 and a 97 328 series is that correct?
Is there some cross reference table somewhere that I could look up so
I don't ask any more dumb questions like this?
This is my first BMW and it seems like they have a dizzying array of
engine configurations. Much more so than Japanese manufacturers.
-max
Michael Yeager - 26 Dec 2007 15:14 GMT
I may be dead wrong but I believe you'll find your car has a chain.
The M20 inline six (used back in the 80's and early 90's) had a timing
belt. Not sure what other may have had belts back when but I'm pretty
sure the newer models are all chain.
>I apologize everyone but I'm baffled on what models/years have timing
>chains and which ones have timing belts.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
>-max
Max - 26 Dec 2007 15:22 GMT
>I may be dead wrong but I believe you'll find your car has a chain.
>The M20 inline six (used back in the 80's and early 90's) had a timing
>belt. Not sure what other may have had belts back when but I'm pretty
>sure the newer models are all chain.
thanks Michael, that's what I thought.
cheers,
-max
>>I apologize everyone but I'm baffled on what models/years have timing
>>chains and which ones have timing belts.
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>>
>>-max
Dave Plowman (News) - 26 Dec 2007 16:53 GMT
> I apologize everyone but I'm baffled on what models/years have timing
> chains and which ones have timing belts.
> Specifically, does a 96/97/98 328i/328is have a chain or belt?
The twin cam 24 valve engines are all chains. So basically after about '92
or so.
> Also, it seems to me that there's no difference (except year) between
> a 96 and a 97 328 series is that correct?
Pretty well none.
> Is there some cross reference table somewhere that I could look up so
> I don't ask any more dumb questions like this?
John Burn's site is pretty good.
http://www.unixnerd.demon.co.uk/bmw.html
> This is my first BMW and it seems like they have a dizzying array of
> engine configurations. Much more so than Japanese manufacturers.
Perhaps because they make a wider range of models - and the engines are
the heart of their appeal?
> -max

Signature
*Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Jeff Strickland - 26 Dec 2007 17:47 GMT
>I apologize everyone but I'm baffled on what models/years have timing
> chains and which ones have timing belts.
>
> Specifically, does a 96/97/98 328i/328is have a chain or belt?
Chain.
> Also, it seems to me that there's no difference (except year) between
> a 96 and a 97 328 series is that correct?
Yes, that's correct.
> Is there some cross reference table somewhere that I could look up so
> I don't ask any more dumb questions like this?
>
> This is my first BMW and it seems like they have a dizzying array of
> engine configurations. Much more so than Japanese manufacturers.
What you are facing in your range of choices is the line between OBD I and
OBD II. What you really have is a 4 cylinder and a 6 cylinder. The 4 comes
as the M42 and M44, the 6 comes as the M50 and M52. There is also a car
called an M (for Motorsport), but that engine is the S50 or S52. In all of
these choices, the OBD I cars (before 1996) is the first listed, and the OBD
II cars (1996 and after) are the second listed.
You appear to be only interested in the M52. This motor can be had as the
323 or 328. The 323 has a 2.5L displacement, the 328 displaces 2.8L, and
both of these motors are essentially the same from a mechanical
perspective(a difference such as this can be accomplished by changing the
crank shaft and connecting rods).
There is not really a dizzying array of selections.
PS
OBD (On Board Diagnostics), I and II are the engine management schemes. OBD
II is the better choice, but it comes into play from the 1996 model year, so
your search strattles the line -- and hence the extra confusion. As you move
into the '99 and later models, the 325 reappears along with the 323, 328,
and the addition of the 330.
Shop for your price range, it's far easier than shopping for engines. As a
practical matter, most can't tell the diffference in the engines, especially
on the daily grind to the office and back.
dizzy - 27 Dec 2007 00:27 GMT
>You appear to be only interested in the M52. This motor can be had as the
>323 or 328. The 323 has a 2.5L displacement, the 328 displaces 2.8L,
So, Jeffy, we've seen the end of you dividing 328 by 325 in the midst
of a discussion of engine torque? I recall that you concluded that
"the difference was less than 1 percent" LOL
(Yes, the above really happened. Jeffy's not the brightest bulb on
the tree.)
Jim - 27 Dec 2007 01:24 GMT
>>You appear to be only interested in the M52. This motor can be had as the
>>323 or 328. The 323 has a 2.5L displacement, the 328 displaces 2.8L,
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> (Yes, the above really happened. Jeffy's not the brightest bulb on
> the tree.)
Perhaps so, However, the model which was called a 323 actually had a 2.5
liter engine. I can think of two reasons:
1. The 323 did not have VANOS on both intake and exhaust valves. The 2.5
liter engine actually had the performance
of a 2.3 liter version of the 2.8 engine.
2. Buyers of the 328 would be upset if they saw how much cheaper the 323
had despite have only 300 cc less displacement.
You should not read too much into those labels. The sheet metal just sits
there and lets them put whatever label they wish.
Jim
dizzy - 27 Dec 2007 23:31 GMT
>>>You appear to be only interested in the M52. This motor can be had as the
>>>323 or 328. The 323 has a 2.5L displacement, the 328 displaces 2.8L,
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>Perhaps so, However, the model which was called a 323 actually had a 2.5
>liter engine.
Common knowledge.
>I can think of two reasons:
Two reasons for what? For Jeffy's idiocy?
>1. The 323 did not have VANOS on both intake and exhaust valves.
The E46 323 does indeed have "double VANOS".
>The 2.5 liter engine actually had the performance
>of a 2.3 liter version of the 2.8 engine.
Nope. It had the performance one would expect, given the
displacements of 2.5 and 2.8.
>2. Buyers of the 328 would be upset if they saw how much cheaper the 323
>had despite have only 300 cc less displacement.
Now you're getting warm, although I would not put it that way.
>You should not read too much into those labels. The sheet metal just sits
>there and lets them put whatever label they wish.
Why would you think that I believe otherwise?