Re: 325 vs. 328, is there a difference in reliability?


"Tom K." <tkorth1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:XYCdnVYDAaui8NDeRVn-gw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:To2dnYYX8b3ywNDeRVn-iA@xxxxxxxxxx

"dizzy" <dizzy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:o8qok1dsj3o735sas3jjlvu67gfk0cjm58@xxxxxxxxxx 
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 18:13:31 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"dizzy" <dizzy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:hpiok1d9abhl1nd3ki89uivc90ob95n00b@xxxxxxxxxx

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 08:00:14 -0700, "Jeff Strickland"
<crwlr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.


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.


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.



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.


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

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.


.

Relevant Pages