Turbocharge the 3.2 or 3.4?

Discussion pertaining to positive pressure E28s.
Post Reply
MatthewakaMatt
Posts: 232
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM
Location: Golden, CO

Post by MatthewakaMatt »

I have a 1984 533i with a blown engine that I am starting to prepare for turbocharging. Obviously the first step is to get a working engine in it. While looking over the engine specifications for the 533 and 535, it seemed to me that the 3.4L in the 535 would be a better engine to turbo. More displacement is always good and, besides, the 3.4 has lower compression. However, since I am new to BMWs and my knowledge of the differences between these engines is limited to reading a few pages in a Chiltons manual, I would like to get some advice from you guys since you all have more experience with these engines.

Will the 3.4 bolt right in to the 533? It seems to me like they should, but I would like to avoid unnecessary complications.
Is the 3.4 actually a better engine to turbocharge?

thanks for your time
- Matt
Yellow2
Posts: 1639
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM
Location: Atlanta / Charlotte

Post by Yellow2 »

I have an 87 535i engine in my 533i. I dont have ABS and its intercooled and turbocharged from a 745i system. I have a custom engine mount to tilt the 535i with turbo stuff a little more level. As far as charging the 3.2 or 3.4, maybe someone else can help there. Look into TCD systems for your needs. Everything is done for you and its guarenteed to work. Tech help too.
russc
Posts: 1759
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM
Location: SF Bay Area, CA
Contact:

Post by russc »

No brainer, 3.4.

RussC
Justin in C'ville
Posts: 34
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM

Post by Justin in C'ville »

I beg to differ, I would say use a 3.2 with a B35 head, that would give you 8.3:1 compression, and a much better cyl head design. check out the numbers that some of the E34 guys are getting with the later model engines (PSI vs. HP)

I run a turbo M30B35 in my car, 10psi non-intercooled. The trouble with using the later motor is that most blocks (88->) don't bolt directly in.
russc
Posts: 1759
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM
Location: SF Bay Area, CA
Contact:

Post by russc »

[QUOTE="Justin in C'ville"]I beg to differ, I would say use a 3.2 with a B35 head, that would give you 8.3:1 compression, and a much better cyl head design. check out the numbers that some of the E34 guys are getting with the later model engines (PSI vs. HP)

I run a turbo M30B35 in my car, 10psi non-intercooled. The trouble with using the later motor is that most blocks (88->) don't bolt directly in.[/QUOTE]

Right,
But that wasn't the question. If a choice between just the two, its the 3.4. Now if you change the criteria, then thats different. Pick and matching differnet parts from the various M30's is the best way to go, I agree there.

Have you dyno'd that yet, if so, what were the #s again?

RussC



[Edit by russc on [TIME]1138395365[/TIME]]
MatthewakaMatt
Posts: 232
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM
Location: Golden, CO

Post by MatthewakaMatt »

The main thing was since at this point any engine that will bolt in is equally possible, I wanted to make certain that I got the best one I could afford. I mentioned the 3.2 and 3.4 because those were the two that I knew about.

Just to make certain that I am clear on it. If I am just plopping an engine in there, the 3.4 is best. But if I am building an engine up up, the 3.2 with the B35 head is the number one choice for forced induction. That's good to know. Now I just need to put that knowledge into action.

Oh, one last question. I remember somebody saying that the 87 735i and 635CSi had the B35 head and a B34 block. I'm not even certain if that's true or not, but as long as you guys are patient I might as well keep asking dumb questions. I don't know if the higher compression from that engine would outweigh the benefit from a little extra displacement. Thoughts on this one?

Thanks,
Matt


[Edit by MatthewakaMatt on [TIME]1138421003[/TIME]]
Boru
Posts: 1028
Joined: Jul 04, 2008 10:09 AM

Post by Boru »

The '88-'89 B35 rom a 6er has the correct engine mounts to bolt right in. Later B35s need custom mounts.
The higher compression means you ultimately run lower boost but the benefits of the higher compression are the greater efficiency/more power which means, on the low rpm side, it has more "git up and go" and will spool the turbo sooner.
My engine build up is a '92 B35, 8.5:1 JE pistons, MLS head gasket, studs, balanced assembly, piston oil squirters, etc. and I plan to run 20+psi boost it it will take it.


[Edit by Sweeney on [TIME]1138450369[/TIME]]
Velocewest
Posts: 1558
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM
Location: UK

Post by Velocewest »

Wait, must we not debate the relative value of the cam in the 3.2 vs. the 3.4? IIRC the 3.2 would have a 272 cam, which I believe has been promoted as a better performance option than the 260 in the 3.4.

Why leave well enough alone? ;)
Yellow2
Posts: 1639
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM
Location: Atlanta / Charlotte

Post by Yellow2 »

So its a throw up between having a 272 (533) or a ~262 (535) or giving up a worse flowing head (533) for the better flowing head (535).

Which do you think would be a better idea mod. My thoughts are to upgrade to the 535 b35 with the better head and cange out the came at a later time. I have a 535 engine in my 533 and the pickup is slugish on the lowend which i plan to install some sort of granger valve to help eliminate boost lag, but i would rather have a b35 head and upgrade the cam later. I think a btter head way outmods a better cam upgrade.
Jesse
Posts: 103
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM

Post by Jesse »

Let's cut to the chase here:

What we are all saying I think is; the best known (so far) turbo engine setup with factory parts is the b34 3.4l bottom end (I guess the best would be the M106 bottom end with the oil squirtsers, right? Maybe too low a compression with the b35 head??) with a b35 head and a 533i (272) cam; right??? That's what I get from all the various threads on the subject.

TCD - Please clarify here. What is the best M30 setup according to TCD?
MatthewakaMatt
Posts: 232
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM
Location: Golden, CO

Post by MatthewakaMatt »

I have few more questions about putting the B34 in my 533i. Now that this is looking like it will happen soon, I need to consider the more mundane details. I will need to run it NA for a while while I do maintenance and upgrade the suspension, brakes, etc. Can the stock ecu work with the 3.4L? Would the accessories and sensors from my engine connect to it?

Thanks,
Matt
Jesse
Posts: 103
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM

Post by Jesse »

[QUOTE="MatthewakaMatt"]I have few more questions about putting the B34 in my 533i. Now that this is looking like it will happen soon, I need to consider the more mundane details. I will need to run it NA for a while while I do maintenance and upgrade the suspension, brakes, etc. Can the stock ecu work with the 3.4L? Would the accessories and sensors from my engine connect to it?

Thanks,
Matt[/QUOTE]

Sure. The stock 533i controls and externals will work just fine for you on a b34.
Skeen
Posts: 2208
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM
Location: Charlotte, NC
Contact:

Post by Skeen »

[QUOTE="Jesse "]Sure. The stock 533i controls and externals will work just fine for you on a b34.[/QUOTE]

You will need to use your stock injectors (not the ones that come on the b34) if you use the stock ECU/wiring harness.
Jesse
Posts: 103
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM

Post by Jesse »

[QUOTE="Jesse "]Sure. The stock 533i controls and externals will work just fine for you on a b34.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="Skeen"]You will need to use your stock injectors (not the ones that come on the b34) if you use the stock ECU/wiring harness.[/QUOTE]

That's what I meant by "externals". Sorry; I should have been more clear here. Been playing with jet engines too long...


[Edit by Jesse on [TIME]1139528195[/TIME]]
MatthewakaMatt
Posts: 232
Joined: Feb 12, 2006 12:00 PM
Location: Golden, CO

Post by MatthewakaMatt »

Sweet. That's good to know. Thanks guys. :cool:
Post Reply