Whats is the Hp for a stock 95ti

[jobimmer]

Does anyone know what the horse power and torque for a stock 95 ti?

[bmwhartgeM3]

isnt the HP something like 121 to the wheels?

[m44ic]

Does anyone know what the horse power and torque for a stock 95 ti?

the 95 has the m42 motor with obd1, Im not exactly sure so correct me if im wrong but I think that its about 115 whp 110 wtq. The hole flywheel hp and wheel hp confuses me why cant they just only measure it by wheel hp.

[mickd]

'95 318ti M42
Power SAE net 138bhp @ 6000rpm
Torque SAE net 129 lb-ft @ 4500rpm

[m44ic]

'95 318ti M42
Power SAE net 138bhp @ 6000rpm
Torque SAE net 129 lb-ft @ 4500rpm

wow, MickD is that flywheel or wheel hp?

[dodj]

what about for the 1.9?

[mickd]

wow, MickD is that flywheel or wheel hp?
At the flywheel

[mickd]

what about for the 1.9?

The M44 1.9L is:
Power SAE net 138bhp @ 6000rpm
Torque SAE net 133lb-ft @ 4300rpm

M42 bore and stroke:
84.0mm X 81.0mm

M44 Bore and stroke
85.0mm X 83.5mm

The M44's increase in torque is mainly due to the longer stroke. I personally prefer shorter stroke motors. The 1.8 16V Scirroco I owned reved so much faster than the 2.0 16V GTI that I had. I really didn't like that 2.0 16V VW motor, Loved the 1.8 16V VW motor. My buddy in Anaheim Hills 1.9 Z3 (M44) seemed slow compared to my '95 ti. They are both about the same weight.

[jobimmer]

Thanks for the info, I asked because I smoked a 97 Acura Integra w/intake and exaust i just thought they were faster than that.

[dodj]

so the 1.8 is faster than the 1.9 ti???

please explain, well you already did explain but i dont understand :(

[mickd]

The M42 has a forged crank and conventional rockers, the M44 has a cast crank and roller rockers. The M42's maximum engine speed is 6500rpm, the M44's 6350rpm. Just thought I'd post this as long as we're talking about our motors. Got all the numbers from R&T, the HP and torque match factory specs.

[dodj]

so in a straight line a 95 ti would be ahead?

[mickd]

Thanks for the info, I asked because I smoked a 97 Acura Integra w/intake and exaust i just thought they were faster than that.

That's great! I've beaten Integra's but not the R types, I'm all wound out in 2nd and have to shift and they go by pretty easily, with their high reving motors and high redline. I beat Civics pretty handily.

[dodj]

my friends prelude vtir beats me pretty easily

[mickd]

so the 1.8 is faster than the 1.9 ti???

please explain, well you already did explain but i dont understand :(

The 1.8 M42 sure feels better to me, seems to rev much easier, and that's what counts. I don't want to be flamed, but I would bet a stock '95 M42 would beat an M44, just the fact it revs better and has a higher redline would make me believe so.

[dodj]

the m44 must have something going for it?? why did they change it??

[mickd]

I bought my '95 ti new in Feb. '96, I was annoyed that the new model had a bigger motor for '96. I remember articles saying it went to 1.9 for the increase in torque (horsepower remained the same). But 4 lb-ft more at 200 rpm lower, what's that? Doesn't seem like it would matter much performance wise, other than making it a slower reving motor with the longer stroke. Now I'm glad I have the M42. It is also easier to mod the M42 with all the resrictions of OBDII on the M44. You can also read the fault codes in the car on the M42.

[jobimmer]

since the m44 has longer stroke wouldn't that make the Max speed higher than the m42 short stroke?

[m44ic]

I bought my '95 ti new in Feb. '96, I was annoyed that the new model had a bigger motor for '96. I remember articles saying it went to 1.9 for the increase in torque (horsepower remained the same). But 4 lb-ft more at 200 rpm lower, what's that? Doesn't seem like it would matter much performance wise, other than making it a slower reving motor with the longer stroke. Now I'm glad I have the M42. It is also easier to mod the M42 with all the resrictions of OBDII on the M44. You can also read the fault codes in the car on the M42.
well just have to see which is better :biggrin: my m44 in a heavy @ss convertible thats basically stock ran a 16.7 my first time at the track.

[m44ic]

The M42 has a forged crank and conventional rockers, the M44 has a cast crank and roller rockers. The M42's maximum engine speed is 6500rpm, the M44's 6350rpm. Just thought I'd post this as long as we're talking about our motors. Got all the numbers from R&T, the HP and torque match factory specs.
the m44 rev limit is 6500 rpm, I know this for shure cause my buddy hooked up his palm with engine software to my obd2 port and said that he saw me hit 6500

[GDB]

A race between the M44 and M42 should be a drivers race. Although I'm yet to see someone get near my 15.7 while NA :biggrin:

[mickd]

the m44 rev limit is 6500 rpm, I know this for shure cause my buddy hooked up his palm with engine software to my obd2 port and said that he saw me hit 6500

These are the published numbers, and we all know we have gone over them. I have seen my tach at 6500 rpm regularly.

[mickd]

well just have to see which is better :biggrin: my m44 in a heavy @ss convertible thats basically stock ran a 16.7 my first time at the track.
I told you those were great times, what, the 318ic is probably 200lbs heaver than the ti's? R&T says the '96 ti does 16.5 @ 84mph, but their numbers are usually conservative, not like C&D.

[mickd]

since the m44 has longer stroke wouldn't that make the Max speed higher than the m42 short stroke?
Bores and all other engine components being equal the shorter stroke will always rev higher. Longer stroke gives greater torque, are smoother, and have better economy. Every vehicle I have ever owned where they increased stroke and left bore the same, the shorter stroke felt like it reved more freely. I liked the Kawasaki 900 better than the 1000, The 1.8 VW more than the 2.0. Granted, my comparison on the M42 vs. the M44 was between a ti and a Z3, thought it would be a fair comparison since weights are close but I don't know if the Z3 1.9 has the same rear end ratio as the ti. I 'll have to check that. I started a thread asking for direct comparison of the M42-M44 ti's but no one responded http://www.318ti.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4443 These differences in M42 vs. M44 are just so small, the better driver will probably be the fastest. But seat of the pants tells me the M42 revs more freely.

[m44ic]

I told you those were great times, what, the 318ic is probably 200lbs heaver than the ti's? R&T says the '96 ti does 16.5 @ 84mph, but their numbers are usually conservative, not like C&D.

Im just jokin, dont worry about it, I just thought it was weird cause I have hit 6500 and why would they say the it was lower?

[m44ic]

Bores and all other engine components being equal the shorter stroke will always rev higher. Longer stroke gives greater torque, are smoother, and have better economy. Every vehicle I have ever owned where they increased stroke and left bore the same, the shorter stroke felt like it reved more freely. I liked the Kawasaki 900 better than the 1000, The 1.8 VW more than the 2.0. Granted, my comparison on the M42 vs. the M44 was between a ti and a Z3, thought it would be a fair comparison since weights are close but I don't know if the Z3 1.9 has the same rear end ratio as the ti. I 'll have to check that. I started a thread asking for direct comparison of the M42-M44 ti's but no one responded http://www.318ti.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4443 These differences in M42 vs. M44 are just so small, the better driver will probably be the fastest. But seat of the pants tells me the M42 revs more freely.

good point :)

[mickd]

Well, I have been talking about my comparison of the '95 M42 ti and the '96 M44 Z3.

Weight:

'95ti 2734 lbs (Automobile)
'96 Z3 2690 lbs (Road&Track)

all transmission ratios the same, both rear end ratios 3.45:1, I'm assuming both cars have the same weight flywheel.

Since the Z3 is actually a lighter car than the ti, I can only assume the M42 revs better, the difference was drastic, I was glad I had my ti after driving the '96 Z3 1.9 for several days. I still would like to hear from someone who has driven both M42 and M44 ti's and hear their opinion. I am getting tired. I'm done here.

[mickd]

Ran into quillbro on my way home from work in his '96 Z3 (M44). He stopped over at my house and let me drive his car with the new intake, sounds nice. I let him drive my car to compare the power between his car and my M42 ti, he agreed with me that the throttle response was better in my car, even though the Z3 is slightly lighter. On the way up to Road America a few weeks back we were driving side by side and we both downshifted to 3rd at around 50mph and we were dead even to around 80mph when we quit, I had a 150-160lb passenger in my car, he was driving alone.

[andy]

I should have run a 1/4 before I put the cage in and after I'd stripped the interior. The car was in the 2300lb range at that point.

FWIW, JC Chip, Fogged Box, and Stromung exhaust put me at 125hp/119tq to the wheels on a crisp clear good for dynoing day earlier this year. Engine has 155K on it, 20K at least have been track miles.

[bmwpwr]

I have had both a 95ti and a 96ti. Both are bone stock. I bought my 1995 when it was brand new liked it so much I purchased a 96 sport last march. As far as max power you probably couldnt tell a difference by the seat of your pants dyno. The lower powerband on the 96ti seems to be the biggest difference. I always had to drive the piss out of the 95 to keep the revs up over 4500 rpm to get any power out of it. The lower powerband and added torque seem to make a big difference in the lower rpms. The power curve seems much smoother in the 96.

[tEso]

I have had both a 95ti and a 96ti. Both are bone stock. I bought my 1995 when it was brand new liked it so much I purchased a 96 sport last march. As far as max power you probably couldnt tell a difference by the seat of your pants dyno. The lower powerband on the 96ti seems to be the biggest difference. I always had to drive the piss out of the 95 to keep the revs up over 4500 rpm to get any power out of it. The lower powerband and added torque seem to make a big difference in the lower rpms. The power curve seems much smoother in the 96.
I think what u just wrote is correct and im with u.. !
BMW arent that dumb to release the M44 with a weaker engine than the M42 ..
the M44 is supposed to the Evolution of the M42 just like the M40 then came the M42... !

[kickass95318ti]

i googled it and it came out to be like 140hp didn't tell the torque

[SporTi]

I bought a 95 Ti 64000 miles 5 speed about a month ago. It is fun, but seemed like I had to work the hell out of it to get power (Clutch is probably reaching end of life too). Once I added up the cost of adding all the Sport body stuff and Seats that I wanted, I decided to just by a Sport and found a 97 Sport (120,000 miles). Now the question. The Sport (which I just got a few days ago seems to have significantly more power than the 95. Both appear stock, no intakes, stock exhausts. Any idea what I should look for to explain the difference? I'd like to have the 95 running as strong as possible when I sell.

[andy]

I bought a 95 Ti 64000 miles 5 speed about a month ago. It is fun, but seemed like I had to work the hell out of it to get power (Clutch is probably reaching end of life too). Once I added up the cost of adding all the Sport body stuff and Seats that I wanted, I decided to just by a Sport and found a 97 Sport (120,000 miles). Now the question. The Sport (which I just got a few days ago seems to have significantly more power than the 95. Both appear stock, no intakes, stock exhausts. Any idea what I should look for to explain the difference? I'd like to have the 95 running as strong as possible when I sell.

Individual engines may vary. My 91 318is seems to make a lot more power than when I bought it a year ago especially at the top end - I think the M42 is finally really getting broken in as it passses 130K. :)

[Etienne]

I have had both a 95ti and a 96ti. Both are bone stock. I bought my 1995 when it was brand new liked it so much I purchased a 96 sport last march. As far as max power you probably couldnt tell a difference by the seat of your pants dyno. The lower powerband on the 96ti seems to be the biggest difference. I always had to drive the piss out of the 95 to keep the revs up over 4500 rpm to get any power out of it. The lower powerband and added torque seem to make a big difference in the lower rpms. The power curve seems much smoother in the 96.

Having owned both as well, I would agree with this assesment.

[tigruppe]

Just to answer a few questions for you guys on this. In 96 big brother mandated OBDII and a smog pump. These changes caused the M42 to lose a bit of power. To compensate BMW changed the stroke to add some torque to the motors to keep them up with the previous years models. The quicker reving 95 has a lot to do with not having to drive a smog pump which has parasitic power.

As far as power differences there was something on a dealership level that cars taken in for service were hooked up to a computer and downloaded a milder program which robbed them of power. A shark upgrade should help out with this. Also there was a trick in spreading the cam timing out that helped out as well.

[bullmand]

OK, couple of problems here: I assume when you say smog pump that you must be talking about the Secondary Air Pump, which is not belt driven and therefore causes no parasitic loss. The last time I looked at my M44 the only belt driven items were the AC compressor, alternator, power steering pump, and water pump. The other thing you're talking about was a Technical Service Bulletin to deal with customer complaints of a rough idle. It involved a software "update" and a slight adjustment to the timing to smooth out the idle. The uncofirmed(AFAIK) internet rumors about this adjustment indicate that it causes a slight reduction in power, but I've never seen anybody back that up with any kind of before and after comparison.

[tigruppe]

Sorry about the pump being driven by the motor. Meant to say the addition of the pump and OBDII caused a reduction in the power of the M42 like the M50 so BMW upped the torque to try and keep the same seat of the pants feel.

As far as the software update that has been verified by a number of people arround this area, on previous ti boards and by a number of BMW techinicians that I associate with.

[bullmand]

What's the difference in HP and torque before and after the "update". I only ask because I've never seen any actual numbers. Does anybody know what model years it affected. Was it all of them?

[tigruppe]

The update affected the M44 engine in the ti, z, and 318i/s autos from '96 to '98 I believe. Ten years ago somebody did do the test on the dyno and found it to lose about 5-7 rwhp and a couple twisties. Cannot find that discussion now because it was on a ti board I use to run which I let go a few years ago.

One of the BMW techs that I have known for years was able to get the power back by splitting the cams 1-2 degrees.