Bored of drivin small cars...

rebel.ranter

I don't believe it is possible to get from 170BHP to 226BHP on a petrol car with just the addition of a chip.
Take the car to a rolling road to verify the BHP. Most petrol chips will get you 10-15 BHP at most. Chipping Diesel cars is a different story.
A "chip" can cost anything from €350 - €1000. Sometimes they don't actually replace the BMW chip they merely re-programme it.
I would ask the mechanic where he got the car "chipped", you can then talk to these people to see what the realistic gains that were expected & if it can be reversed (if you so wish).

Here is an example of the typical gains expected from a 523i:

http://www.chippedire.com/index.php?view=vehicles&model=214&manufacturer=3


http://www.autoremap.com/index.php?page=cars

Curran

Yeah ive agreed that perhaps its not increased to 226 BHP - i must heard him wrong - maybe he said 206, maybe thats not even possible, but either way, the standard 170 BHP plus whatever increase of the chip is, even if its none, is plenty for the way i'll be driving - ya know, have to wait another 2 years before them 2 points disappear. :mad:

Henry Ford III

Curran wrote:

@ unkel - how much of a difference will it make to the insurance quote, do ya reckon, even it its only a few BHP extra and not the 226 that I was told (not that im bothered anyways - 170 is loads)

It doesn't really matter what it'll cost. You simply must do it if your insurance is to be valid. If (and I sincerely hope you never do btw) have an own fault crash and your insurer refuses liability because of non disclosure, your financial future is kaput. They can take your house, car, savings - everything to recoup what they've paid out on a 3rd party claim.

I'd advise get a printout of the chipped engine's power, and submit it, in writing, to your insurer. Hopefully it's nearer the standard 170 bhp than was claimed.

Good luck.

unkel

Curran wrote:

@ unkel - how much of a difference will it make to the insurance quote, do ya reckon

There's only one way to find out. Ring them

MercMad wrote:

Wasn't the Nikasil issue mainly down to the sulphur content of the UK fuel, which we dont have here ?

Yes. And as such it affects imported cars and perhaps even Irish cars that were driven in the UK regularly

BTW the problem was way bigger in the US than in the UK. BMW over there voluntarily (hehe, fair play to consumer organisations and the pressure they can exercise ) extended the warranty to 6 years / 100,000 miles. They paid for many an engine replacement under this warranty

MercMad

I would not consider a chipped car in the first place: many run the engine very rich, and ignore the sensors. Fuel economy goes south, emissions go north as a result.

............not completely true. An engine ALWAYS has to run a mixture of roughly 14.7:1, get too far away from this and it will get rough. I had my old Alfa Romeo 2.0 T-Spark chipped, Superchips, and the idle improved, the low end torque improved, the flat spot was gone AND it was more economical to boot !

Basically a Chip is a more refined example of the original fuelling Map, where a manufacturer will have a reading for 1000RPM, 1250, 1500 etc, the aftermarket Chip get more involved and the increments become far closer !

Curran

Henry Ford III wrote:

I'd advise get a printout of the chipped engine's power, and submit it, in writing, to your insurer.

Where can ya get it done? And how much does it cost?

Curran

Phew......thanks MercMad....finally a post, that hasnt bashed the chip.

Will have to do some talking to the guy again before i sign for the car!;)

Henry Ford III

Curran wrote:

Where can ya get it done? And how much does it cost?

I'd ask seller for prrof of his engine bhp claims tbh. Perhaps he's just making it up? He presumably didn't guess the 226bhp figure?

DonJose

Did anybody here see the Top Gear programme where they each bought a classic super car for a grand or some, they bought a Ferrari, a Lamborghini and a Maserati. When they did the BHP test all the cars were below the advertised BHP, some were out by 60 BHP, the car you are buying is 10 years old so it might not have the advertised 170BHP, I'd get the BHP checked if its that important.

Curran

Yeah, am going to ask him if he's got any print outs.
And what exactly he's done to the engine to be getting the 226BHP he claims
The car could have 126 BHP and id proabably still take it - the body is perfect

Curran

DonJose wrote:

Did anybody here see the Top Gear programme where they each bought a classic super car for a grand or some, they bought a Ferrari, a Lamborghini and a Maserati. When they did the BHP test all the cars were below the advertised BHP, some were out by 60 BHP, the car you are buying is 10 years old so it might not have the advertised 170BHP, I'd get the BHP checked if its that important.

Yeah i seen it - when Clarkson thought he had bought the highest spec engine - LOL - then read the service history and in it was a receipt for a badge worth £38 - Classic.

About the BHP lads, im not bothered if its not the 226BHP he claims, im not even bothered if 50 of the stanard 170 are gone - the car has just got the presence that i want - could have a 1Lt engine and id still love it!
Weeeelllll.......not quite:rolleyes:

GB15

Has anyone ever compared the e34 525 with the e39 523/525. As far as I remember the e34 came with 192 bhp as standard with the newer 2.5 engine having 170 bhp.

Just wondering would this drop in bhp be very noticeable on the road. Maybe the newer engine has a more refined way of delivering power..??

unkel

GB15 wrote:

Has anyone ever compared the e34 525 with the e39 523/525. As far as I remember the e34 came with 192 bhp as standard with the newer 2.5 engine having 170 bhp

A lot of that has to do with marketing. The E34 525 was replaced by the E39 528. Hence the "rebadging" of the 2.5l E39 as a 523

Daft or what?

Biro

michaelanthony wrote:

yeah I'm sick of driving small cars too. I'm 27 and on my third 3 series and I'm going to look at a 730i V8 tonight.

730i - Open to correction, but I'd be willing to hedge a few bob on that being a 3 litre 7-series, on which case it's an in-line 6. The V8 was the 4.4

unkel

Biro wrote:

I'd be willing to hedge a few bob

How much?

Biro wrote:

730i - Open to correction, but I'd be willing to hedge a few bob on that being a 3 litre 7-series

You're right!

Biro wrote:

on which case it's an in-line 6. The V8 was the 4.4

You're wrong! The E38 730i had the M60 3.0l petrol V8 engine (and the early E38 740i had the 4.0l petrol V8 version of this engine). This engine was replaced in the 7-er in '96 with the M62 V8 petrol engine in 735 (3.5l) and 740 (4.4l)

My current car (E38 735) has the M62. My previous car (E34 530) had the M60. BTW the engine in the previous M5 was based on the M62 with a wee modification or two

mike65

*anorak alert*

*anorak alert.*

Mike.

unkel

I'll take that as a compliment then, Mike, shall I?

How's the A6 BTW?

mike65

Okay, that noisy top end is still with me alas, I had the oil changed to 20-50 spec which has softened the racket at idle. Once the revs get over 1100 its fine but it still sounds a bit like an old-school diesel at the lights.

The best feature of the car is deffo the autobox, I can't belive its so smooth, tbh on a light throttle you really would'nt know when the change happened unless you were listening out for it (or watching the dial!).

Mike.

Mac 3

Apologies for hi-jacking the topic, The engine used in 6 cylinder BMWs of the mid nineties was known as the M52. Although the Nikisil problem was found in the states it was also common in the UK, owing to fuel with a high sulphur content. BMW UK carried out repairs to affected cars as a goodwill gesture to correct what was seen as a manufacturing fault. The engine was updated and used different materials to ensure that the problem wouldn't re-occur.

My car is an original Irish car, bought from an Irish BM dealer in 1997, I've heard of a few cases of Nickasil or Premature Bore Wear in Ireland. So obviously some high sulphur fuel must have been in the country at some stage. Hats off to BMW, they sorted me out a few years ago.

Curran, Best of luck with it if you decide to purchase.

unkel

Mac 3 wrote:

So obviously some high sulphur fuel must have been in the country at some stage

Not in the republic afaik and I doubt it was for sale in Norn Iron. Must have been cars that spent some time over in Engerland

The whole Nikasil saga must have been a corporate nightmare for BMW. Imagine it. You design, develop and test yet another superior engine. It's working great, performance is fantastic, it's reliable and it will last forever. It will get major praise from every motoring journo in the world and it will be a commercial success too. Grand so. And then someone poisons it with chemicals and everything will go arseways from there :eek:

maidhc

unkel wrote:

The whole Nikasil saga must have been a corporate nightmare for BMW. Imagine it. You design, develop and test yet another superior engine. It's working great, performance is fantastic, it's reliable and it will last forever. It will get major praise from every motoring journo in the world and it will be a commercial success too. Grand so. And then someone poisons it with chemicals and everything will go arseways from there :eek:

Or you design an engine blissfully ignorant to the environment within which it must operate? Same sort of thing as the Japanese selling cars that used to rust to pieces in the northern european climate.

unkel

maidhc wrote:

Or you design an engine blissfully ignorant to the environment within which it must operate?

That's where the ouch factor came in for BMW. Engine is perfect until people started using it with dirty petrol. BMW payed out but it still is a big dent in the marque's perception

mike65

Did BMW attempt to put the blame on the fuel processors?

Mike.

unkel

mike65 wrote:

Did BMW attempt to put the blame on the fuel processors?

No not as far as I know. Once they understood what the problem was, they offered extended warranties. They've replaced many an engine free of charge

Andrewf20

I have the M52 523i engine in my 3 series, and its a brill engine, very smooth, and punchy from 3000rpm on up. I get about 330 miles for 60 euro with a mix of city and motorway driving.

The M50 325i was an almost identical engine, with fatter inlet manifolds & a different exhaust than the M52 engine in the e36/39 323i/523i. I have heard of folks swapping the inlet M52 manifold to a M50 manifold to boost power from a quoted 170 to 192 bhp, but peak torque comes in higher up the rev range. The drop in power to a quoted 170bhp was done to improve emissions, and bring in peak torque lower in the rev band. 0-60 in the 3 series only suffers by 0.2 secs (e36 323i vs 325i/170bhp vs 192bhp), which could also be attributed to a different final drive ratio so I dont see much point in making this manifold conversion.

I heard of 2 523i's put on rolling roads and delivered 185bhp each unmodded.

unkel

Andrewf20 wrote:

I heard of 2 523i's put on rolling roads and delivered 185bhp each unmodded.

That's interesting. Perhaps there's even more to the marketing than I thought, i.e. we'd better officialy claim they are only 170bhp otherwise the higher priced but only slightly more powerful 528 won't sell :eek:

Even at 170bhp for the 523, it makes the 528 bad value for money at about 15% more than the 523 when they were introduced. I don't think the standard spec of the 528 was much better than that of the 523 either

Andrewf20

BMW seem to be quite conservative with power figures. I have also heard of folks getting around 200bhp from unmodded e46 325i's which is claimed to have 192bhp according to BMW.

The e39 528i had 206lb/tf of torque vs 181lb/ft from the 2.5 litre so it has better average power over the rev range despite being then strangled for air at high RPM (193bhp).

BMW's 0-60 figures are conservative as well. For my yoke they claim 0-60 in 8secs, but Autocar did it in 7.3. This is true for alot of other models I have read about in magazines over the years.

Andrewf20

The danger of buying a BMW with a Nikasil issue is a very real concern. My block was changed under warranty before I bought it. Other than that I wouldnt buy one from that period. Be very wary of cheap 520i, 523i and 528i's from 1996 till late 1997. The Nikasil issue only seemed to become apparent once you headed towards 60k and above, so low mileage examples from that period may lead to future problems.

If you buy a car with this Nikasil problem, your in for scary bills.

P.S. I was reading that add for the 1996 523i supposedly chipped to 226 bhp. I cant stand that cliche folks put in their add: "First to see will buy". Argh! I think Id forget that car and consider this one:

http://www.usedcars.ie/usedcars/index.cfm?fuseaction=car&carID=676667

Although it doesnt have the M tech kit, its younger, its cheaper, with lower mileage, unmodded, should be free of Nikasil issue, and has a full BMW service history.

unkel

Andrewf20 wrote:

If you buy a car with this Nikasil problem, your in for scary bills

If you buy a car with this Nikasil problem, your car is a write-off

Except an 840 maybe...

Curran

How do you tell if it has this problem - is there an easy way of noticing - like scumy oil for a cracked head