Jump to content
  • When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Creating Low End Power In A 2002?


76ohtwo

Recommended Posts

M20 swap for sure. I've been more than happy with mine.

Lots more power (especially the torque you're looking for) throughout the power band, cheap to buy compared to an S14, and doesn't sound crappy like the torqueless wonder the M42 is. Honestly even the M10 feels like it has more grunt under 4k rpm than the M42.

Flame suit on...

IMG_5202-1-1.jpg

1976 2002 - Mintgrun

1986 535i - Bronzit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fantastic comments from everyone... 

Since you are very, very new to the 2002 world, I suggest that before you do any work at all (aside from basic maintenance and safety concerns) you spend a great deal of time driving the car. That will allow you to know precisely what you want, and before you sink a ton of money into upgrading the car, you will have spent your money having all of the bugs sorted out. That way your car will be reliable and you will become more familiar with the car and, consequently, what more you want from the car. Set yourself up a baseline. 2002's are very capable vehicles when stock. Unless if you have spent a great deal of time driving older cars near their limits, you will not be able to drive the car at its limits. When you have found the limits of the car, you will know what you want from it. 

1974 Grey European Market BMW 2002 

1976 Yellow BMW 2002 "GOLDENROD" SOLD

1972 Yellow Austin Mini 1000

A bunch of Bikes...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah, I hate to pee on the M42, since I think it's a brilliant motor for what it is, but what it doesn't have is torque.  

 

3500, it wakes up and goes >>ZING<< but getting there, I'd be surprised if the stock M10 doesn't equal or better it.

 

M20's great for torque, and it's all growly and stuff.

 

But the M10 is actually a torquey little engine for being as oversquare as it is.  It's a good fit for the 2002.

 

And I was serious about the S14 crank- that would add both cubes and stroke, and both are good for torque.  It's

been done more than a few times- see if you can chat wiith/get a ride with someone who's done it.

 

t

 

 

This cast piston set is specially made to accommodate the 1.8i cylinder head when used with a 2.0L crankshaft. Bore size is 90mm (1mm /.040" oversize), and compression ratio is 9.5:1. Wrist pins, clips and rings are included.

 Whoopsie- these pistons would be just fine.  Teach me not to clicky the linky.  I didn't know IE had these-

its a really nice option, as the 1.8i head's easier to find in good shape, and 9.5:1 is a good zippy ratio.

 

t

Edited by TobyB

"I learn best through painful, expensive experience, so I feel like I've gotten my money's worth." MattL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, I've had two semi hopped-up motors in my 2002, both of which have been dyno'd (admittedly at different times, on different dynos, with different operators, so take the numbers with a grain of salt.) However, hopefully you can at least use the numbers directionally as I do believe your initial goals may be a bit optimistic with the set-up you suggested. People will spout off about all sorts of HP and torque numbers, but I don't believe too many of them unless they have actually been established on a dyno. Note I'm not suggesting that fun is all about dyno numbers, merely that I'm cautious of claims people make without quantifiable back-up. 

Motor 1: Weber 38/38, 292 cam, ported head, 10:1 pistons (supposedly, but I'm not quite convinced.) HP and Torque at the wheels were both right around 105.

Motor 2: 45mm ITB's, Megasquirt EFI, 2.3L bottom end from an S14 (block, crank, and rods), 9.5:1 pistons, same head as on motor 1. HP and Torque again almost identical at about 135-140 if I remember correctly.

 

Both set-ups have really nice low end torque if you are willing to give it a little welly as they say. Totally agree that you should find a couple you should drive in your area. Regardless of dyno numbers, a nicely set-up 2002 is a blast to drive. Best of luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that 7 seconds are THAT hard to get in a 2002. The turbo is a bad example, all the lag killed it's acceleration times.

 

Here is an example of a 7second 0-100kph (0-62mph) car.

 

Was still a 2.0 (89/80 bore stroke), it had 10.5:1 comp ratio (could have been hemi pistons, i'm not sure), a 300' motorsport cam (similar to a schrick 292' I've been told, but would love to see the actual rates), definitely a worked head, 2 DCOE 45's, A 3.64 diff, and a close ratio gearbox.

 

It was faster than a 2.0 911 S, not bad.

 

If I were you, I would go with 10:1 comp, a 292' cam, DCOE 40 or 45s, and an S14 crank(84mm stroke vs stock 80mm). If you want it cheaper, buy a 2.0 crank that needs attention, and sent it to a shop to weld and reshape to 84mm stroke, a shop here asked me about $200 to do it. If you clean up the intake and port match, you should be close to, if not at 7seconds 0-60.

 

That 2002ti made its peak torque at 5000rpm, but I would bet it made more torque throughout the rev range compared to a stock 2002.

 

Just saying.

 

motor_rundschau_25-1969_alpina_Page_8.pnmotor_rundschau_25-1969_alpina_Page_6.pn

'71 2002 Malaga, fun weekender

'70 2002ti Colorado, Restoration/money pit

'74 2002 turbo in my dreams, sideways...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scanned from the October 1989 Roundel Magazine

 

 

 

Very, very interesting. Thanks!

 

M20 swap for sure. I've been more than happy with mine.

Lots more power (especially the torque you're looking for) throughout the power band, cheap to buy compared to an S14, and doesn't sound crappy like the torqueless wonder the M42 is. Honestly even the M10 feels like it has more grunt under 4k rpm than the M42.

Flame suit on...

I like the M20 motor - I've even considered getting a 325i and doing work on that before I get a 2002... but I just don't like it nearly as much.

 

Fantastic comments from everyone... 

Since you are very, very new to the 2002 world, I suggest that before you do any work at all (aside from basic maintenance and safety concerns) you spend a great deal of time driving the car. That will allow you to know precisely what you want, and before you sink a ton of money into upgrading the car, you will have spent your money having all of the bugs sorted out. That way your car will be reliable and you will become more familiar with the car and, consequently, what more you want from the car. Set yourself up a baseline. 2002's are very capable vehicles when stock. Unless if you have spent a great deal of time driving older cars near their limits, you will not be able to drive the car at its limits. When you have found the limits of the car, you will know what you want from it. 

Will do - driving a stock 02 around can't possibly be boring!

 

yeah, I hate to pee on the M42, since I think it's a brilliant motor for what it is, but what it doesn't have is torque.  

 

3500, it wakes up and goes >>ZING<< but getting there, I'd be surprised if the stock M10 doesn't equal or better it.

 

M20's great for torque, and it's all growly and stuff.

 

But the M10 is actually a torquey little engine for being as oversquare as it is.  It's a good fit for the 2002.

 

And I was serious about the S14 crank- that would add both cubes and stroke, and both are good for torque.  It's

been done more than a few times- see if you can chat wiith/get a ride with someone who's done it.

 

t

 

 Whoopsie- these pistons would be just fine.  Teach me not to clicky the linky.  I didn't know IE had these-

its a really nice option, as the 1.8i head's easier to find in good shape, and 9.5:1 is a good zippy ratio.

 

t

I'll check out the S14 crank. That sounds like a really good idea for my project, could be exactly what I need to start with!

 

For what it's worth, I've had two semi hopped-up motors in my 2002, both of which have been dyno'd (admittedly at different times, on different dynos, with different operators, so take the numbers with a grain of salt.) However, hopefully you can at least use the numbers directionally as I do believe your initial goals may be a bit optimistic with the set-up you suggested. People will spout off about all sorts of HP and torque numbers, but I don't believe too many of them unless they have actually been established on a dyno. Note I'm not suggesting that fun is all about dyno numbers, merely that I'm cautious of claims people make without quantifiable back-up. 

Motor 1: Weber 38/38, 292 cam, ported head, 10:1 pistons (supposedly, but I'm not quite convinced.) HP and Torque at the wheels were both right around 105.

Motor 2: 45mm ITB's, Megasquirt EFI, 2.3L bottom end from an S14 (block, crank, and rods), 9.5:1 pistons, same head as on motor 1. HP and Torque again almost identical at about 135-140 if I remember correctly.

 

Both set-ups have really nice low end torque if you are willing to give it a little welly as they say. Totally agree that you should find a couple you should drive in your area. Regardless of dyno numbers, a nicely set-up 2002 is a blast to drive. Best of luck.

Thanks! Those set up both sound like lots of fun. I'm going to seek out someone to show me theirs.

 

I don't think that 7 seconds are THAT hard to get in a 2002. The turbo is a bad example, all the lag killed it's acceleration times.

 

Here is an example of a 7second 0-100kph (0-62mph) car.

 

Was still a 2.0 (89/80 bore stroke), it had 10.5:1 comp ratio (could have been hemi pistons, i'm not sure), a 300' motorsport cam (similar to a schrick 292' I've been told, but would love to see the actual rates), definitely a worked head, 2 DCOE 45's, A 3.64 diff, and a close ratio gearbox.

 

It was faster than a 2.0 911 S, not bad.

 

If I were you, I would go with 10:1 comp, a 292' cam, DCOE 40 or 45s, and an S14 crank(84mm stroke vs stock 80mm). If you want it cheaper, buy a 2.0 crank that needs attention, and sent it to a shop to weld and reshape to 84mm stroke, a shop here asked me about $200 to do it. If you clean up the intake and port match, you should be close to, if not at 7seconds 0-60.

 

That 2002ti made its peak torque at 5000rpm, but I would bet it made more torque throughout the rev range compared to a stock 2002.

 

Just saying.

 

 

Haha thanks for the optimism! I'll check this out - very interesting.

-Mattio523

 

1976 BMW 2002

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the m10 is a great little motor!!! If you put together the original plan I think you would be surprised at the motor. Its all about the combination. The best things I did for my 1975 were these. some of these things were done by the PO. fresh engine. 9-5-1 piano top pistons. 38 /38 weber . port matched the manfold. Tii mechanical distributor rebuilt. Ie shorty header and IE downpipe and ss exhaust . Tune it right. My son has a very hot Subaru STI . He was amazed how fast and tight the car was. Its about the combination!! Speed, Cost, Dependable Pick any TWO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah, I hate to pee on the M42, since I think it's a brilliant motor for what it is, but what it doesn't have is torque.  

 

 

Oh good, I was wondering if I'm just crazy, and wondering why the M42 was even being discussed for torque.  I've only driven one stock 318is with an M42, and it had no torque at all.  Sure, it revs smoothly at the high rpms and sings like my miata, but no balls.  My stock M10 felt better at the bottom end.

The M42 is a 16-valve engine (like many modern 4 cylinders), so they have twice the number of valve springs to compress and stuff to spin, and that just robs power at the bottom end, but allowing more fuel to flow at high RPMs.

 

I would strongly suggest going with dual sidedrafts with small chokes/venturis, and a 3.90 LSD or 4.11.  It's not about the actual horsepower numbers, it's about the throttle response and gearing.  Just touch the gas and all 4 barrels blow fuel straight into the cylinders, and with the help of gearing, you'll be spinning the tires easily.  You're not going to get the numbers of modern performance cars, no.  But you'll get about three times more fun than any EFI/power steering/overweight appliance. 

Edited by KFunk

Bring a Welder

1974 2002, 1965 Datsun L320 truck, 1981 Yamaha XS400, 1983 Yamaha RX50, 1992 Miata Miata drivetrain waiting on a Locost frame, 1999 Toyota Land Cruiser

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh good, I was wondering if I'm just crazy, and wondering why the M42 was even being discussed for torque.  I've only driven one stock 318is with an M42, and it had no torque at all.  Sure, it revs smoothly at the high rpms and sings like my miata, but no balls.  My stock M10 felt better at the bottom end.

The M42 is a 16-valve engine (like many modern 4 cylinders), so they have twice the number of valve springs to compress and stuff to spin, and that just robs power at the bottom end, but allowing more fuel to flow at high RPMs.

 

I would strongly suggest going with dual sidedrafts with small chokes/venturis, and a 3.90 LSD or 4.11.  It's not about the actual horsepower numbers, it's about the throttle response and gearing.  Just touch the gas and all 4 barrels blow fuel straight into the cylinders, and with the help of gearing, you'll be spinning the tires easily.  You're not going to get the numbers of modern performance cars, no.  But you'll get about three times more fun than any EFI/power steering/overweight appliance. 

I was going to use downdrafts, or I've thought about Megasquirt because it's cold around here, and carbs are a pain to start in the cold. I'm definitely going to use some sort of LSD. Also planning on doing the 5 speed swap - so I'll have to look into the gearing. I've been thinking of also doing the S14 crank thing, as suggested in the thread, which would give me a larger displacement. But, as suggested in the thread, I'm going to dabble more with just driving and riding in stock 02s to get the feel first. But these ideas are great for when I get there, which will hopefully be around June.

-Mattio523

 

1976 BMW 2002

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that would be downdraft..singular.  two barrels feeding 4 cyl.  better is sidedrafts...plural.  four barrels...each feeding a cyl.

 

i never had an issue starting my dual sidedraft car when cold.  didn't even need to use the choke.  

 

and i hope you won't be driving this car in the winter anyway. see recent threads about what road salt does to these cars....

 

park it at the first road salting in the fall, don't drive it until the spring rains have washed it all away.

2xM3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that would be downdraft..singular.  two barrels feeding 4 cyl.  better is sidedrafts...plural.  four barrels...each feeding a cyl.

 

i never had an issue starting my dual sidedraft car when cold.  didn't even need to use the choke.  

 

and i hope you won't be driving this car in the winter anyway. see recent threads about what road salt does to these cars....

 

park it at the first road salting in the fall, don't drive it until the spring rains have washed it all away.

I thought that sidedrafts would be better, but Jeff Ireland recommended downdrafts. Oh well. I will be driving the car in the winter, but if there's any chance of snow I'll find alternate means of transportation. 

 

I really didnt read all the posts....sorry, ...but I read Rocans!.....I run IE stg 2 and fixed camber plts.

 

U will like the addtl neg camber..its fine for street....

 

feel free to message me if u like.

I'll install the stage 2 system first, and then add camber later if I decide that I want it. :-)

-Mattio523

 

1976 BMW 2002

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought that sidedrafts would be better, but Jeff Ireland recommended downdrafts. Oh well. I will be driving the car in the winter, but if there's any chance of snow I'll find alternate means of transportation. 

 

I'll install the stage 2 system first, and then add camber later if I decide that I want it. :-)

sidedrafts better for more power.  downdraft (singular) is simpler.   

 

driving in winter is not about the snow.  2002's with snow tires on all four corners are fine in snow.  it is the SALT that is on the road all winter whether it is snowing or not that will kill the car. it takes several good spring rains after the last snow to wash it and all the salt and brine dust off the roads.  you need a winter beater.  2002's do not have galvanized bodies or rustproofing and there are lots of nooks and crannies for the salt dust to collect in. ( i grew up in CT....)

 

if you are installing the IE suspension, that is the time to add the fixed camber plates. kinda silly not to while everything is apart.

2xM3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sidedrafts better for more power.  downdraft (singular) is simpler.   

 

driving in winter is not about the snow.  2002's with snow tires on all four corners are fine in snow.  it is the SALT that is on the road all winter whether it is snowing or not that will kill the car. it takes several good spring rains after the last snow to wash it and all the salt and brine dust off the roads.  you need a winter beater.  2002's do not have galvanized bodies or rustproofing and there are lots of nooks and crannies for the salt dust to collect in. ( i grew up in CT....)

 

if you are installing the IE suspension, that is the time to add the fixed camber plates. kinda silly not to while everything is apart.

I know about the salt - believe me. :) I've been looking into rust proofing - I believe a friend of mine has had it done to his car, and I'll ask about it next time I see him.

-Mattio523

 

1976 BMW 2002

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • BMW Neue Klasse - a birth of a Sports Sedan

    BMW Neue Klasse - a birth of a Sports Sedan

    Unveiling of the Neue Klasse Unveiled in 1961, BMW 1500 sedan was a revolutionary concept at the outset of the '60s. No tail fins or chrome fountains. Instead, what you got was understated and elegant, in a modern sense, exciting to drive as nearly any sports car, and yet still comfortable for four.   The elegant little sedan was an instant sensation. In the 1500, BMW not only found the long-term solution to its dire business straits but, more importantly, created an entirely new
    History of the BMW 2002 and the 02 Series

    History of the BMW 2002 and the 02 Series

    In 1966, BMW was practically unknown in the US unless you were a touring motorcycle enthusiast or had seen an Isetta given away on a quiz show.  BMW’s sales in the US that year were just 1253 cars.  Then BMW 1600-2 came to America’s shores, tripling US sales to 4564 the following year, boosted by favorable articles in the Buff Books. Car and Driver called it “the best $2500 sedan anywhere.”  Road & Track’s road test was equally enthusiastic.  Then, BMW took a cue from American manufacturers,
    The BMW 2002 Production Run

    The BMW 2002 Production Run

    BMW 02 series are like the original Volkswagen Beetles in one way (besides both being German classic cars)—throughout their long production, they all essentially look alike—at least to the uninitiated:  small, boxy, rear-wheel drive, two-door sedan.  Aficionados know better.   Not only were there three other body styles—none, unfortunately, exported to the US—but there were some significant visual and mechanical changes over their eleven-year production run.   I’ve extracted t

  • Upcoming Events

  • Supporting Vendors

×
×
  • Create New...