Canadian and American Specs

[<50miles]

Helllo

I have a question about a 1972 Canadian Spec 3.0csa (carb). When I contacted BMW Mobile Tradition in 1998 about this car (VIN 2250114) they sent me a document that stated the engine made 180 bhp (DIN) at 6000 rpm and 188 lb/ft of torque at 3700 rpm, however when I checked a back issue of Road and Track, the article stated bhp (net) that the engine made 170 at 5800 and torque was 185 at 3500 rpm. Are the figures different because the Canadian spec cars had the same configeration as the european? The compression ratio stated in the Road and Track issue was 8.3:1 and based on the difference in bhp and torque it appears the Canadian model is closer to 9.0:1.

And in respect to my previos previous post (Car ownership for smucks) I am still trying to figure out what to do about the car.:confused:

Andrew

 

[Stan]

I noticed your coupe is not registered.
Please click CS Registry on the black bar above and enter as much data as you can.
Thanks,
Stan

 

[<50miles]

Registered

Hello Stan

Given my uncertainty about the vehicle I wasn't sure if I should register. But for the sake of tracking how many are still around and in what condition they may be in I have added the car's information.

Andrew

 

[<50miles]

Hello MMecury

Thank you for the considered answer. Presently, the car is at a garage in Edmonton, Alberta, and according to the owner of this garage (Stu) the car's engine has never been apart. If I decide to go forth with the restoration, I will have it complete rebuilt. Having not taken the compression, I took it on faith that the document from Mobile tradition was true to BMW's records of this particular car.

The document reads as follows ( I can scan the letter for those interested):

BMW Mobile Tradition

VIn 2250114

Dear Mr. XXXXX

thank you for writing to Mobile Tradition

In our documentation the above vin refers to a BMW 3.0cs with CDN specification, which was produced on April 06 1972 and shipped to Canada. The original color was polaris metallic, BMW colour code 60. Options are not mentioned.

For your information we are enclosing a technical data sheet.

We trust to have been of service to you.

Sincerely yours

Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
Historisches Archiv und Dokumentation

(signed by Elke Giehl)

The reason I ask about the apparent difference in compression is that there have been Canadian models from other manufactures where the compression is closer to the european models, than the same year and make of American car.

By the way, the options on this car are:

Red Leather
Radio
Power Windows
No Sunroof
LSD
1970s Nardi Steering Wheel
Automatic

Again, thank you for your wisdom on this matter.

Andrew

 

[MMercury]

BMW Mobile Tradition sent me a document that stated the engine made 180 bhp (DIN) at 6000 rpm and 188 lb/ft of torque at 3700 rpm, however when I checked a back issue of Road and Track, the article stated bhp (net) that the engine made 170 at 5800 and torque was 185 at 3500 rpm. Are the figures different because the Canadian spec cars had the same configuration as the European? The compression ratio stated in the Road and Track issue was 8.3:1 and based on the difference in bhp and torque it appears the Canadian model is closer to 9.0:1.

Following your response, including the information you received from MT, I have revised my thoughts and think it safe to say that your question is best answered by “Ripley’s.” :wink: :wink:

Most seem to agree there were two versions of the E9: Euro and North American. But were there more? While considering your Canadian-targeted question, it occurred to me that it has been suggested that a tiny minority of cars might fall into a hybridized North American version, specifically tailored for cars registered in the tighter emissions California market. (I have no personal knowledge of this, nor have I seen any documentation for this. One supposes it is possible that a handful of 1975 California E9's were equipped with thermal reactors, as occurred with the 1975 E3's. It is just as possible someone performed an ill-conceived transplant of an engine from an early E24, E12 or late E3 equipped with a thermal reactor.) http://www.realoem.com/bmw/partxref.do?part=11751264063&showus=on&showeur=on Ahem. Back to your concern.


According to the registration information provided elsewhere in this site, http://www.e9-driven.com/E9_Vins.asp your vin indicates it is a North American export version and not a Eurospec version. You should be able to verify all of the information yourself. First, if your unmolested engine is equipped with an EGR fitting, it indicates your engine is “probably” “a” lower compression North American export version. http://www.e9-driven.com/Public/Library/BMW-E9-Manual/pages/en/11640090.html#refertoc

The more definitive answer could be had by examining the piston crown configurations. Limited research suggests:
8.3:1 compression ratio engine likely has flat head pistons;
9.0:1 compression pistons likely has a pronounced crown 4.5mm proud of the flat portion of the piston head; and
9.5:1 compression piston crown reportedly protrude by 6.8mm.

Thus, if you have flat head pistons, it is a fairly safe bet your engine is the North American version. (A less accurate indicator of engine version might be had by examining your carb’s air correction jets, since “some” North American Export engines may have been different than Euro versions. Unfortunately, Automatics may not be different.) http://www.e9coupe.com/tech/autobooks/appendix/autobooks_manual_145.htm and http://www.e9-driven.com/Public/Library/BMW-E9-Manual/pages/en/13000000.html#refertoc

Anecdotally, I had a North American 1972 E3 many years ago. To the best of my knowledge, the engine had never been modified, and the pistons were original. I am certain it had pop-up piston crowns, which seems to belie the idea that all North American version M30 engines were 8.3:1 compression and fitted with flat head pistons. I seem to recall an EGR fitting too, suggesting an anomaly of sorts. Thus, there is some reason to believe the information MT provided was/is accurate. But is it?


Should you believe what you read?
One would expect the manufacturer knows its own product better than any magazine, and thus, one would tend to favor the factory’s representations over the latter's. However, that does not mean BMW is infallible or the magazine’s info is inaccurate. I would guess "Elke’s" courtesy information was the generic version found in its Owners Handbook, a copy of which is available here. http://www.e9coupe.com/tech/handbook/gallery.htm Note that it omits any reference to the lower 8.3:1 compression engine. The Handbook is “reasonably reliable” given the proviso contained on page 2:

The shop manual, or at least the versions I have seen, also seem to omit reference to the 8:3:1 compression figures. The same is true for the Autobook Owners Workshop Manual http://www.e9coupe.com/tech/autobooks/autobooks.html , despite the fact that it claims to cover the entire model range, including North America (1968-1977).

Strangely enough, other period literature, including your referenced road test, (and the 1973 US Sales brochure without head rests, seat belts, or US plates) http://www.e9coupe.com/tech/lit/index.htm) specifically includes the lower compression data. Contemporaneous Reviews/ road tests for the E3, including one from R&T states:
“In 1972 BMW increased the engine displacement to an even 3.0 liters and decreased the compression ratio so the car could use regular gasoline.” http://www.seniorsix.org/e3info/rt_usedcars/road_track_2.html (It is assumed this assertion is accurate; however, the original source is unclear.) One “reasonable” interpretation is that all 3 liter engines produced for the NA Market were low compression.

But what about the 1971 or early 1972 3.0 liter engines?

If the registry's information is correct, there were 192 NA 3.0 liter equipped E9's produced in 1971 and 788 1972 NA models. http://www.e9-driven.com/E9_Vins.asp Could some of these have been equipped with slightly higher compression engines? Who knows, since it is unclear whether the statistics cover years produced, as distinguished from years sold, or even years registered. (Realoem suggests the first production date for North American version 3 liter engines was April 1971.) http://www.realoem.com/bmw/select.d...Cou&model=3.0CS&zone=USA&prod=19710400&arch=1

Another consideration regarding the accuracy of published E9 data is the evolution of North American 3 liter engine emissions equipment. For example, distributor advance curves were modified along with EGR plumbing. http://www.e9coupe.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9683 One wonders whether these changes possibly included minor compression ratio changes, or whether they measurably impacted engine performance. REALOEM, which may have MT’s endorsement, lists the stock sized piston for the North American engine as PN 11251261944. It does not indicate it as being also used in any Euro version. http://www.realoem.com/bmw/partxref.do?part=11251261944&showus=on&showeur=on Conversely, PN 11251261970 for the 9.5:1 piston does not cross reference with North American models. Nor does PN 11251261955 for the 9:1 compression Euro piston. http://www.realoem.com/bmw/partxref.do?part=11251261955&showus=on&showeur=on So, one might conclude based upon REALOEM, that all North American version M30 engines used the same low compression pistons. Unfortunately, that does not explain my personal experience.

Large manufacturers typically reserve the right to modify their product as noted in the Owners Handbook. Large and highly competitive businesses do not reveal all of their practices. Consequently, anomalies may exist. Whether early North American imported 3-liter models shared the same compression ratios as their Euro cousins, is unclear. If some “slipped through the cracks,” that number is equally unclear.**

**Looking back at period publications from the so-called muscle car era, some manufacturers published singular horsepower data that later morphed into two numbers. The first number was the "official" "advertised" horsepower data, supposedly "reduced" due to "insurance purposes" and government regulations. The second number was the so-called “actual” (but unsubstantiated) higher horsepower rating. http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum...ad.php?t=33343 http://transamcountry.com/community/...c=23608.0;wap2

Maybe the truth is somewhere out there, or in between? hiccup. :lol:

 

[<50miles]

Proof is in the pudding!!

Hello MMeccury

It all boils down to actually determining:

1) Is the engine original to the car?
2) Has the engine ever been rebuilt?
3) What is the compression of the engine?

And of course this all depends on what I will do with the vehicle.

Once more, I am very grateful for your input.

Andrew

 

[MMercury]

It all boils down to actually determining:
1) Is the engine original to the car?
2) Has the engine ever been rebuilt?
3) What is the compression of the engine?
And of course this all depends on what I will do with the vehicle.
Once more, I am very grateful for your input.
Andrew

I overheard a heated argument about the "real" differences between Euro and NA E9's. One fellow contended his NA spec car was the same as the other's Euro spec model "since they both had emission control equipment." At the time it was easy to explain things as probable confusion over a gray market vehicle, or a vehicle originally destined for North America but sold in Europa. Your post caused me to remember this and wonder whether any unmolested Euro spec'd E9's were actually EGR equipped.

Using just REALOEM as a thumbnail guide, it does not appear that any Euro E9 used an EGR. So, the existence of one on your Edmonton car, probably means low compression NA model. It is interesting to note that some Euro spec'd model E3's (with the same carburetor equipped engines) did apparently use an EGR (PN 117112635) and related apparatus, so some Euro carburetor equipped M30 engines had emissions controls. Maybe others can shed some light on this.

Go figure! :?:

http://www.realoem.com/bmw/partxref.do?part=11711263541&showus=on&showeur=on
http://www.realoem.com/bmw/partxref.do?part=11711263599&showus=on&showeur=on