M50 to Getrag 240

[Forrest 35]

^ Thats true mate, but can get a m42 or a m50 for about the same price, its just I would need another gearbox if I went the m50 route, because mine is the 4 cylinder g240 not the 6

Edit: ^ Ignore my retard post

Edited May 3, 2009 by Forrest

[mark247 39]

wont this mean that the gearbox is twisted back 10degrees though, so a custom tranny mount should be used?

As has already been said in this thread, the 240 from an M40 will fit fine behind an M50, better so than the 240 from the M20, as this will have the wrong angle.

320guy just modified the normal transmission mount.

And his shifter is on a bit of an angle, but it's nothing serious. Still totally useable.

[tire 10]

Thats wrong. I got my getrag240 from a 320i and it's now sitting behind a m20 stroker. All m20' blocks are the same so of course the bellhousing is the same. Shifter linkage would go by year, early models use steel plate shifter design, later ones changed..

I didn't say a m20b20 240 would not fit behind another m20..

[westy 614]

As I said, m20, m40, m42, m44, m50, m52, s50 etc all use the same bellhousing.

This is not quite right. They share the same basic bolt pattern with the exception being the m20 is on a different angle. Just as Mike says.

It doesn't stop the m20 boxes being used with modified crossmember.

[Guest FrantiC]

I didn't say a m20b20 240 would not fit behind another m20..

3rd line you said

"Then there is the g240/5 fitted to the 320i which, according to this book has another different bellhousing which prevents it from being interchanged."

[Silver Fox 43]

3rd line you said

"Then there is the g240/5 fitted to the 320i which, according to this book has another different bellhousing which prevents it from being interchanged."

Reading it in context with the above bits, it prevents it being interchanged with the M10 and M40 engines, which is correct.

[Guest FrantiC]

Reading it in context with the above bits, it prevents it being interchanged with the M10 and M40 engines, which is correct.

Oh, My bad

[tire 10]

What foxy said

This is a very valuable thread I've book marked it.

[Andrew 30]

I didn't read the whole post - it was long, so forgive me if I repeat something.

It appears the M40/M50/M20 all share the same gearbox bolt holes. The gearboxes sit on different angles. M10/S14/M30 share another pattern.

I have used a Getrag 260 from a m20b25 to the turbo m42 (318iS e30). We cut the front off the bellhousing, rotated the gearbox round to the right place. Works like a champion on a 300hp car.

[c.robertson00 11]

Have you ever thought about an m30b35 conversion? its prity cheap power

[e30plz 1]

M30B35 would be mint.

Have you taken your 316i for a serious thrash yet though?

It's mint.

[mark247 39]

Have you ever thought about an m30b35 conversion? its prity cheap power

I hear to put a m30 in a e30 you gotta smash the firewall in to get it to fit. The weight of a m30 would f**k the handling on a e30 as well. My mate with an m50 in it even says you can notice the difference between it and the old m20 when it comes to handling.

[Silver Fox 43]

M30's only 26kg heavier than the m20. you don't have to touch the firewall at all if you don't want to.

[Jamez 2147483647]

^^^ just put it in the boot e30's are know to be a bit light in the back

[Guest FrantiC]

Why drift off into m30 territory, Thats a whole different gearbox needed there.. And more to be had with a 24V motor than an old m30. Not that there is anything wrong with an m30, Very strong motors.. m50+ much more economical.

[Forrest 35]

Yeah m30 is a pretty ancient motor. I plan on skipping any other 'e30' motor and going to a 'early' e36 motor. Ideally want to do non vanos m50 with a turbo..essentially the same motor as boostjunky's...ay Luke

[BM WORLD 1283]

Yeah m30 is a pretty ancient motor. I plan on skipping any other 'e30' motor and going to a 'early' e36 motor. Ideally want to do non vanos m50 with a turbo..essentially the same motor as boostjunky's...ay Luke

better to use early M50 2.5 non vanos as they are a cast iron block ,and less complicated with out the vanos.

and fit a 2.8L crank if you want more CC (and maybe bore out to 3L while you are at it)

Edited May 6, 2009 by Brent HARTGE535i

[westy 614]

All m50s are cast iron are they not?

And why the obsession with non vanos?

[BM WORLD 1283]

All m50s are cast iron are they not?

And why the obsession with non vanos?

yes m50 are all cast iron , m52 are ali

i hear its better not to have vanos when doing turbo setups

[Guest FrantiC]

Yeah, Vanos harder to tune. More to go wrong. And possibly strength of the heads too maybe?

[mark247 39]

From what i understand the vanos m50's have an alloy block.

Also the non-vanos have double valve springs, which the vanos dont have, so if you wanna rev the nuts off it.. go non-vanos.

[*Glenn* 854]

Yeah m30 is a pretty ancient motor. I plan on skipping any other 'e30' motor and going to a 'early' e36 motor. Ideally want to do non vanos m50 with a turbo..essentially the same motor as boostjunky's...ay Luke

Why go turbo ? more goes wrong with turbo set ups. I'd go M52B28 + SC if it was me with no tuning issues...just a remap and spend more money on suspension, brakes & certification

[Guest Ari Gold]

All m50s are cast iron are they not?

And why the obsession with non vanos?

Valves are larger are they not?

[westy 614]

From what i understand the vanos m50's have an alloy block.

No.

And both m50/m50tu are good for approx 7000rpm as I understand it. Pretty high for a street engine.

Valves are larger are they not?

No idea.