 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / BMW Cars / October 2005325 vs. 328, is there a difference in reliability?
I've been pricing some used BMWs and have zero'd in on the 3 series, and would rather have a 6-cyl over the 4. My question to the owners of the 325's and 328's is this- is the 328 any more reliable than the '25? Are there advantages or disadvantages to either one? Both seem like fine cars but I want some opinion from those who have experience. Thanks, Casey Are you looking at the E36 or E46 models? ie. Older than 2000 The E36 series fits my budget a little better, so thats the most practical series for me to consider. > Are you looking at the E36 or E46 models? > > ie. Older than 2000 I owned a 97 E36 and except for a few oxygen sensors going out, the car was awesome. Several of my friends have the E36, 325/328 and they noted few issues. The cars are built well with few electronic gadgets to go wrong as the car ages. I would opt for the 328. I don't suspect there will be a huge cost difference between a 325 and 328 given the age of the vehicles. go to http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/ > I've been pricing some used BMWs and have zero'd in on the 3 series, and > would rather have a 6-cyl over the 4. My question to the owners of the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Casey > go to http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/ > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >>Casey It's the same engine. Both are damn near bullet-proof. The 328 is used in the E36 cars after 1996, the 325 is used in cars before '96. The 328 gives 1 more HP, but has about 30% more torque, give or take a few foot pounds. The 328 is an OBD II engine, and you can pull trouble codes with readily available diagnostic equipment, the 325 is OBD I, and pulling codes requires equipment that costs much more. I'd recommend getting the best condition car you can find, whether a 325 or 328, but the 328 would be the better choice if you can find a good one. The 328 used in the E36 cars is also detuned and called a 323. I am not certain, but my guess is that an E46 car with a 328 or 325 motor is also the same power plant. The E36 cars use the M52 motor in the 328 and 323 applications, and the M50 motor in the 325 applications. I think the E46 cars use the M52, but I'm sure that if this is wrong, I'll be corrected soon. > I've been pricing some used BMWs and have zero'd in on the 3 series, and > would rather have a 6-cyl over the 4. My question to the owners of the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Casey > The 328 is used in the E36 cars after 1996, the 325 is used in cars before > '96. The 328 gives 1 more HP, but has about 30% more torque, give or take [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > cars use the M52, but I'm sure that if this is wrong, I'll be corrected > soon. You are correct, with the small correction that the M52 in the E46 cars was called the M52TU (Double VANOS). When the E46 got bumped to the 325 and 330 in 2001, the engine changed to the M54. Kyle. 98 740iL 97 M3 >> The 328 is used in the E36 cars after 1996, the 325 is used in cars >> before '96. The 328 gives 1 more HP, but has about 30% more torque, give [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > was called the M52TU (Double VANOS). When the E46 got bumped to the 325 > and 330 in 2001, the engine changed to the M54. So, the E46 started out with the M52 motors as the 328 and 323, and now gets the M54 motors, as the 330 and 325? > So, the E46 started out with the M52 motors as the 328 and 323, and now > gets the M54 motors, as the 330 and 325? Yes, the M52TU had double VANOS on the original E46 cars. Basically the same engine as in the E36 except that one was single VANOS. When they got bumped up in 2001 to the 325 and 330 the engine changed to the M54, essentially the same engine. Not to be confused with the N54 in the E90 325 and 330 which is completely different. There was an article in Roundel a few months ago that detailed the evolution of the M20 engine that the M50, M52 and M54 were all based on. Kyle. 98 740iL 97 M3 > The 328 is used in the E36 cars after 1996, the 325 is used in cars > before '96. The 328 gives 1 more HP, but has about 30% more torque, give > or take a few foot pounds. The 328 is an OBD II engine, and you can pull > trouble codes with readily available diagnostic equipment, the 325 is > OBD I, and pulling codes requires equipment that costs much more. Actually - OBD-I codes can be retrieved with no equipment at all.. it's called the 5-stomp method. Turn the car to the run position without starting it - stomp the accelerator to the floor 5 times within 5 seconds. The codes will read out as the CEL flashes. Does in a sequence of flashes representing the numbers. HTH >> The 328 is used in the E36 cars after 1996, the 325 is used in cars >> before '96. The 328 gives 1 more HP, but has about 30% more torque, give [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The codes will read out as the CEL flashes. Does in a sequence of flashes > representing the numbers. That's true, but OBD II simply plugs in, reads, then resets. No holding your tongue just right while stomping the gas pedal ... >The 328 is used in the E36 cars after 1996, the 325 is used in cars before >'96. The 328 gives 1 more HP, but has about 30% more torque, give or take a >few foot pounds. You sure about those numbers? I find it hard to believe that a motor with only 12% more displacement could have 30% more torque, when they are of similar design. >>The 328 is used in the E36 cars after 1996, the 325 is used in cars before >>'96. The 328 gives 1 more HP, but has about 30% more torque, give or take [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > with only 12% more displacement could have 30% more torque, when they > are of similar design. Edmunds list the following.... 95 325i HP 189 @ 5900 Torque 181 @ 4200 96 328i HP 190 @ 5300 Torque 207 @ 3950 My math (which is subject to correction) gets about 12.5% more torque at 250 RPM lower. I'm not certain, but I think I remember the torque band being wider on the 328 as well (starting to pull lower and continuing higher). Kyle. 98 740iL 97 M3 >>>The 328 is used in the E36 cars after 1996, the 325 is used in cars before >>>'96. The 328 gives 1 more HP, but has about 30% more torque, give or take [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >RPM lower. I'm not certain, but I think I remember the torque band being >wider on the 328 as well (starting to pull lower and continuing higher). This makes sense, with the peak torques in ratio with the displacements. To get the same peak HP, the smaller motor has to be tuned to make it's best torque in a narrower range, higher in RPM's. >>>The 328 is used in the E36 cars after 1996, the 325 is used in cars before >>>'96. The 328 gives 1 more HP, but has about 30% more torque, give or take [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > 98 740iL > 97 M3 Actually the 2.8 makes less tourque at 5900 RPM than the 2.5. If it made more than it would have more HP at that RPM then 2.5 does. Remember HP is just a function of tourque and RPM. The 2.8s power band is just lower and wider. The reason the 2.8 is so much faster than the 2.5 is because it makes a whole lot more tourque from 3-4K RPM. From 4-5K there isn't a whole lot of difference, the 2.8s a little bit stronger. From 5-6K the 2.5 starts to catch up (by not having the power fall off as much as the RPM climes).  Signature======================================== Todd Zuercher mailto:tzuercher@earthlink.net ======================================== > Actually the 2.8 makes less tourque at 5900 RPM than the 2.5. If it > made more than it would have more HP at that RPM then 2.5 does. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > stronger. From 5-6K the 2.5 starts to catch up (by not having the power > fall off as much as the RPM climes). Well it's lower alright. I don't think the 2.8 is *so* much faster than the 325/2.5. > Well it's lower alright. I don't think the 2.8 is *so* much faster > than the 325/2.5. It is in day to day driving. Signature*Oh, what a tangled website we weave when first we practice * Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. I can definitely vouch on the torque advantage. Did a test with a friend. Me = 96 328is him = 93 325is We matched speeds going uphill around 3500rpm. Then we both floored it. The 2.8 steadily pulled away on the hill and kept spooling. Test lasted 10 seconds. >>>The 328 is used in the E36 cars after 1996, the 325 is used in cars before >>>'96. The 328 gives 1 more HP, but has about 30% more torque, give or take [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >98 740iL >97 M3 > I can definitely vouch on the torque advantage. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > it. The 2.8 steadily pulled away on the hill and kept spooling. Test > lasted 10 seconds. The 328 has different gearing to the old 325 I believe which will also have an effect. The 328 has an extra 300cc so one would expect it to be a little faster. But how about this - if one bored out a 325 to 2.8l you'd get about 215hp out of it but woudl it be faster than the regular 328i?? >>The 328 is used in the E36 cars after 1996, the 325 is used in cars before >>'96. The 328 gives 1 more HP, but has about 30% more torque, give or take [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > with only 12% more displacement could have 30% more torque, when they > are of similar design. Wild but true. Perhaps the torque numbers are only better by 27%, but that's close enough. I want to be perfectly clear, the 328 does not have 30% more torque. The number is in that neighborhood, but I forget the precise number. I used "about" because I don't know the actual number. But it's a significant number. I haven't done the math, but I suspect that 328 is not 12% greater than 325. I've done the math now, and I was right, 328 is not 12% greater than 325. It's actually less than 1%. >>>The 328 is used in the E36 cars after 1996, the 325 is used in cars before >>>'96. The 328 gives 1 more HP, but has about 30% more torque, give or take [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >"about" because I don't know the actual number. But it's a significant >number. Well, I'm saying I don't believe it, without some evidence. The Greene's numbers make sense to me. Torque is very proportional to displacement. >I haven't done the math, but I suspect that 328 is not 12% greater than 325. >I've done the math now, and I was right, 328 is not 12% greater than 325. >It's actually less than 1%. Ummm, try 2.8/2.5, and I think you'll see the 12% displacement difference. >>>>The 328 is used in the E36 cars after 1996, the 325 is used in cars >>>>before [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Ummm, try 2.8/2.5, and I think you'll see the 12% displacement > difference. As it turns out, we're both wrong. The increased torque in the 328 isn't 27%, it's 27 ft pounds, or pound feet to be more correct. I like Greene's numbers too. >>>>>The 328 is used in the E36 cars after 1996, the 325 is used in cars >>>>>before [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > I like Greene's numbers too. By Greene's numbers: Displacement difference (rounded to 1/10 liter) is .3 liter, so .3/2.5 = 12.0% increase. Torque difference (207-181) is 26 lb. ft., so 26/181 = 14.4% increase. Increase is measured as a percentage of the starting figures; that is the 2.5 liter engine. Tom >>>>>>The 328 is used in the E36 cars after 1996, the 325 is used in cars >>>>>>before [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > Tom Agreed. I originally said that the torque increase was 30%, it's really 30 ft lb, and it's actually 26 ft lb. Dizzy might have been more right than me, but you'll never hear me admitting that, therefore we're both wrong. >>>>>>>The 328 is used in the E36 cars after 1996, the 325 is used in cars >>>>>>>before [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >ft lb, and it's actually 26 ft lb. Dizzy might have been more right than me, >but you'll never hear me admitting that, therefore we're both wrong. I made no errors. I challenged what I saw was an obvious error on your part, and I said that the torque difference in reality will closely track the displacement difference. You are making yourself look ridiculous with your claims that I was wrong too. >>>>>The 328 is used in the E36 cars after 1996, the 325 is used in cars >>>>>before [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > >As it turns out, we're both wrong. Umm... No, I am not wrong. What was I wrong about? I challenged your error, and I was correct. >The increased torque in the 328 isn't >27%, it's 27 ft pounds, or pound feet to be more correct. Much better. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.