27th Oct 2005, 18:24
I've had an E36 M3 Evo for 6 years now, it's a great car and I know probably all there is to know about these engines.
I'm afraid the last comment is false. The M3 Evo motor is a development of the McLaren V12. Trust me!!!
10th Dec 2005, 06:21
I've had my 1994 m3 cabriolet for 2 years. Its never let me down and I can honestly say its the best car I've ever had.
The downsides are they do eat back tyres and it can be a bit thirsty.
27th Feb 2006, 09:25
Not sure why everyone is writing about Evo's in the 3.0 coupe section! I would like to know about the non-Evo.
27th May 2006, 14:52
The 1994 M3 Coupe is far far the best looking M3 I've ever seen. Even the new M3 Coupe's don't come close to the real M3. The 1994 model has earned its name and I would like to say thank you to the creaters of such a marvelous car.
27th Jun 2006, 04:34
Oh, come on! See for yourself here:
How is the Euro-spec M3's 3.2-liter engine (S50 B32) different from the previous version (S50 B30)?
When creating the 3.2-liter M3 engine, BMW M relied upon much of the experience it had gained when designing the V12 engine for the McLaren F1 super car.
1st Jul 2006, 18:08
Yes, I think that BMW used some of the principles which they learnt from building the McLaren engine in the M3 EVO - mainly the Vanos, but to call it half a McLaren F1 is incorrect. I suspect that it probably bears the closest relationship to the stillborn V12 500bhp M8 (M850i lightend and tuned) which BMW decided not to market. In summation they are both excellent engines from the same stable. Do F1 owners agonise that their car's engine is two M3 engines welded together...
9th Jul 2006, 18:22
McLaren F1/GT: 6064cc, 627hp, 650Nm, 103.4hp/L, 98.4Nm/L.
McLaren F1 LM: 6064cc, 680hp, 705Nm, 112.1hp/L, 116.3Nm/L.
E36 M3 Evo: 3201cc, 321ps, 350Nm, 100.3hp/L, 109.3Nm/L.
ACS CLS II: 3201cc, 350hp, 355Nm, 109.3/L, 110.9Nm/L.
Regardless, an Evo engine is better than "half a McLaren" & without breaking the bank, plus to stay on topic, an Australian M3R (a 3.0 variant) bored out to 3.2 makes 380hp (a streetable Evo endurance engine makes 360-400hp), cheers! ;)
15th May 2007, 15:57
Just a quick further note, it appears that nobody has a clue what they are talking about on here. E36 m3 has an inline-6 and thus has a six cylinder block. It's called a v12 for a good reason. It denotes that the cylinder block is in a v orientation. If, as many people here seem to be suggesting, you "welded 2 m3 lumps together" the best you could hope for is a boxer 12, where 2 banks of six side by side in the conventional upright position. Either they designed a a completely new block or adapted one from there range of v12's end of story!
28th Jul 2007, 00:37
Yeah, the M3 Evo engine might produce more than half the horsepower of the s70/2 in some examples, but that's because a 6 cylinder motor will not have nearly as much emissions as a 12 cylinder motor operating at twice the power level. In order to make it street legal, the engine is not free to breathe without constraint, whereas the m3 evo motor probably is allowed to breathe more. Remember, Gordon Murray himself said that without regards to emissions, running the motor to 10000 rpm would generate 1000 hp. Although that might be an optimistic figure without reworking the engine a bit to handle the rpm and hp, I agree with the principle. 850 hp would be achievable, and your m3 motor, limited in capability by the displacement would have trouble getting past 400 hp. 425 hp might be achievable with a lot of reworking, but even the e46 gtr's v8 was originally only capable of 444 hp (later around 500). Please do correct me in regard to the e36 motor, but nonetheless, even if you were able to get two of them together, it would generate some loss in power (considering no tweaking other than putting them together). It's not simply just adding up the horsepower.
4th Aug 2007, 01:36
McLaren commissioned BMW to design a engine capable of 600bhp. BMW took the blue print of the M3 block, adjusted it, and gave it to McLaren. With the M3 you're getting great performance for what you're paying.
19th Aug 2007, 02:58
To the person who left the comment on the 15th May:
If you had read the above post by someone who clearly understands engines, you should have known you were out of your league.
1. It is not uncommon to make a v engine by welding two in-line engines. All you do is put each block at an angle and then share the crankshaft.
2. A boxer engine is not two banks sat upright next to each other; rather the cylinders are on their side, and are opposite each other (with the camshaft in the middle). It means that almost literally, the pistons 'box' each other, and is what gives Subarus that distinctive engine note. (Called a flat four engine)
As the engine sits flat, rather than upwards, the idea is it gives the engine a lower centre of gravity.
21st Oct 2007, 21:46
Iv had my 94 m3 3litre for 1 year now and the thing is excellent! I have owned plenty of turbo, d cars and the whole package with the m3 coupe is brilliant in regards to comfort style and performance.
I do however admit depending on how you drive these machines, they love to eat tyres full stop! petrol consumption is a pain, but who cares! out of 10 I rate them @ 8/10.
And less electric gizmo, s on the car unlike its evo brother!
24th Oct 2005, 05:09
Oh, please!!! The McLaren F1's engine was designed from the ground up, and purpose built for the F1 to meet Gordon Murray's very specific power, weight and packaging criteria. It was not two M3 engines welded together, basically or otherwise.
Yes it's a V12 which could be construed as two sixes welded together, but the fact that it displaces 6.1 litres and not 6.4 is just one clue that it is a totally different engine. That, and a quote from McLaren Cars' own website:
"McLaren Cars commissioned the BMW S70/2 engine, designed and built specifically for the F1"
The M3 and F1 both have four wheels and both run on petrol. That's about where the similarities end, I'm afraid.