BMW E3

BMW E3: which version to buy — specs, engines, and the numbers that separate them

The BMW E3 ran as one generation from 1968-01-01 to 1977-12-31, as a Sedan, with five listed versions. There is no second generation to compare on body or years, so the buying question is entirely which of the five powertrains. All five are Gasoline, 6 cylinders, Inline, RWD. Four are Manual with 4 gears; only 3.3 AT is Automatic with 3 gears. Front brakes on every version are Disc.

The BMW E3 ran as one generation from 1968-01-01 to 1977-12-31, as a Sedan, with five listed versions. There is no second generation to compare on body or years, so the buying question is entirely which of the five powertrains. All five are Gasoline, 6 cylinders, Inline, RWD. Four are Manual with 4 gears; only 3.3 AT is Automatic with 3 gears. Front brakes on every version are Disc. Front suspension on every version is Independent, spring. Rear suspension, rear brakes, fuel tank, ground clearance, wheels, CO2, eco class, city/highway/combined consumption, and most weights are not measured on every version — those blanks are not optional extras, they are missing from the record.

People searching BMW E3 specs, BMW E3 horsepower, BMW E3 2500 specs, BMW E3 2800 specs, BMW E3 3.0 Si specs, BMW E3 engine, BMW E3 weight, and BMW E3 generations are asking the same practical thing: how the five versions differ on paper. Below, every difference is arithmetic on those figures.

Generations: one Sedan, five versions, nothing restyled as a new generation

1 generation is the whole catalogue life of the BMW E3: 1968-01-01–1977-12-31, Sedan, 5 versions. There is no later generation in the data, so “which generation changed what” has a short answer: nothing after this one is listed. All five versions share the same start and stop dates. Choosing a generation is not a choice; choosing a version is.

The five names, exactly as listed:

• 2.5 MT — 150 hp (110 kW)
• 2.8 MT — 170 hp (125 kW)
• 3.0 MT — 200 hp (147 kW)
• 3.3 AT — 190 hp (140 kW)
• 3.0 MT — 180 hp (132 kW)

The two 3.0 MT entries must not be merged. One is 200 hp / 147 kW; the other is 180 hp / 132 kW. Same name, same 2986 cm³, different output, different fuel system, different compression.

BMW E3 engine specs: table of all five versions

Engine position: Front, longitudinal on 2.5 MT, 2.8 MT, 3.0 MT (200 hp), and 3.0 MT (180 hp). On 3.3 AT it is not measured.

Fuel system: not measured on 2.5 MT and 2.8 MT. 3.0 MT (200 hp) is Central injection (single-point or single- point). 3.3 AT and 3.0 MT (180 hp) are Carburetor.

Compression: 9.5 on 3.0 MT (200 hp), 9 on 3.0 MT (180 hp), not measured on 2.5 MT, 2.8 MT, and 3.3 AT.

Boost is not measured on all five. That is not “naturally aspirated” as a claimed label — the field is empty.

Horsepower, litres, and what the extra displacement buys

Specific output (hp per litre of listed displacement):

• 2.5 MT: 150 hp / 2.494 L = 60.1 hp/L
• 2.8 MT: 170 hp / 2.788 L = 61.0 hp/L
• 3.0 MT (180 hp): 180 hp / 2.986 L = 60.3 hp/L
• 3.3 AT: 190 hp / 3.299 L = 57.6 hp/L
• 3.0 MT (200 hp): 200 hp / 2.986 L = 67.0 hp/L

The densest engine on the list is 3.0 MT at 200 hp. The least dense is 3.3 AT at 190 hp from the largest 3299 cm³ block.

Step-ups in displacement and power:

• 2.8 MT versus 2.5 MT: +294 cm³ (+11.8%), +20 hp (+13.3%), +15 kW. Specific output barely moves (60.1 → 61.0 hp/L). You buy more capacity and more power in almost the same ratio.
• 3.0 MT (180 hp) versus 2.8 MT: +198 cm³ (+7.1%), +10 hp (+5.9%), +7 kW. Specific output falls slightly (61.0 → 60.3 hp/L). Extra cubic centimetres buy less extra horsepower than the previous step.
• 3.0 MT (200 hp) versus 3.0 MT (180 hp): same 2986 cm³, +20 hp (+11.1%), +15 kW. Compression 9.5 versus 9. Fuel system Central injection (single-point or single- point) versus Carburetor. Power peak 5500 rpm versus 6000. This is the only pair where the extra output is not bought with extra displacement.
• 3.3 AT versus 3.0 MT (180 hp): +313 cm³ (+10.5%), +10 hp (+5.6%), +8 kW. You also change from Manual 4 to Automatic 3.
• 3.3 AT versus 3.0 MT (200 hp): +313 cm³, −10 hp, −7 kW. The largest engine is not the strongest.

kW ranking is identical to hp ranking: 3.0 MT 200 hp (147 kW), 3.3 AT (140 kW), 3.0 MT 180 hp (132 kW), 2.8 MT (125 kW), 2.5 MT (110 kW). Spread from weakest to strongest: 50 hp and 37 kW.

Power rpm is not measured on 2.5 MT. 2.8 MT and 3.0 MT (180 hp) peak at 6000. 3.0 MT (200 hp) and 3.3 AT peak at 5500. Torque is not measured on four versions; only 3.3 AT lists 294 Nm at 3700 rpm. You cannot rank the manuals on torque because the field is empty.

Performance and economy: what is measured, what is not

0–100: not measured on 2.5 MT, 2.8 MT, both 3.0 MT versions. 3.3 AT is 10.5 s.

Top speed: not measured on the four manuals. 3.3 AT is 201 km/h.

City / highway / combined consumption: not measured on all five. There is no mpg figure to quote.

Tank, CO2, eco class: not measured on all five.

So a performance shortlist cannot be “the fastest 0–100 among the manuals” — those times do not exist in the data. The only timed and speed-rated car is 3.3 AT: 10.5 s to 100 km/h and 201 km/h, Automatic, 3 gears, 190 hp, 294 Nm, kerb 1470 kg.

Weight per horsepower is computable only for 3.3 AT: 1470 / 190 = 7.74 kg/hp. For the other four, kerb weight is not measured, so kg/hp is not measured.

BMW E3 weight, dimensions, tank, wheels

Kerb weight: 1470 kg on 3.3 AT; not measured on 2.5 MT, 2.8 MT, 3.0 MT (200 hp), 3.0 MT (180 hp).

Gross weight: not measured on all five.

Ground clearance: not measured on all five.

Tank: not measured on all five.

Wheels: not measured on all five.

BMW E3 dimensions and BMW E3 size searches therefore hit empty fields in this dataset. BMW E3 weight has one number: 1470 kg kerb on 3.3 AT.

Chassis items that are listed: front Independent, spring and front Disc on every version. Rear suspension and rear brakes: not measured on every version. You cannot pick a version for a different rear axle or rear brake type from this table.

Which version to choose — using only these numbers

There is one generation, so the decision is engine, gearbox, and the few filled performance fields.

Choose 2.5 MT if the smallest engine is the point. 2494 cm³, 150 hp, 110 kW, Manual, 4, RWD. It is 50 hp and 37 kW below 3.0 MT (200 hp) and 20 hp below 2.8 MT. Specific output (60.1 hp/L) sits with the carburetted 3.0 MT (180 hp) at 60.3 hp/L, not with the injected 3.0 MT. Fuel system, torque, 0–100, top speed, kerb weight: not measured. It is the low end of the arithmetic, not a separate body or generation.

Choose 2.8 MT if you want the first real step up without leaving the four-speed Manual pattern. 2788 cm³, 170 hp at 6000 rpm, 125 kW. Versus 2.5 MT: +294 cm³, +20 hp. Versus 3.0 MT (180 hp): −198 cm³, −10 hp, same 6000 rpm power peak, same Manual 4. Fuel system still not measured. Torque, 0–100, top speed, weight: not measured. On hp/L it is 61.0, a hair above 2.5 MT and the 180 hp 3.0 MT.

Choose 3.0 MT (180 hp) if you want 2986 cm³ and Carburetor with the Manual 4. 180 hp at 6000 rpm, 132 kW, compression 9, 2 valves per cylinder, Front, longitudinal. Versus 2.8 MT you gain 10 hp and 198 cm³. Versus the other 3.0 MT you lose 20 hp and 0.5 compression points (9 vs 9.5) and you do not get Central injection (single-point or single- point). 0–100, top speed, torque, kerb: not measured. Do not confuse this 3.0 MT with the 200 hp 3.0 MT.

Choose 3.0 MT (200 hp) if the goal is maximum listed horsepower and the only injection system in the set. 200 hp at 5500 rpm, 147 kW, 2986 cm³, Central injection (single-point or single- point), compression 9.5, Manual, 4, RWD. It is 20 hp above the other 3.0 MT, 10 hp above 3.3 AT, and 50 hp above 2.5 MT, from 287 cm³ less than 3.3 AT. It is the only version over 66 hp/L (67.0). Torque, 0–100, top speed, kerb: not measured. You cannot claim it is quicker to 100 km/h than 3.3 AT; that comparison is not measured on this 3.0 MT.

Choose 3.3 AT if you need Automatic, the only torque figure, the only 0–100, the only top speed, and the only kerb weight. 3299 cm³, 190 hp at 5500 rpm, 140 kW, 294 Nm at 3700, Carburetor, Automatic, 3, RWD, 10.5 s, 201 km/h, 1470 kg. Valves per cylinder, engine position, compression: not measured. Versus 3.0 MT (200 hp) you give up 10 hp and 7 kW and 9.4 hp/L of specific output, and you change Manual 4 for Automatic 3. Versus 3.0 MT (180 hp) you gain 10 hp and 313 cm³ and the only timed performance line in the catalogue. kg/hp is 7.74 here and not measured elsewhere, so this is not a weight ranking against the manuals.

Reliability is not measured in this dataset. No failure rates, no service intervals. BMW E3 vs E9, vs E12, vs E30 are other models, not versions of this one, and they are not in the data — they cannot be scored here. Colour (orange) is not in the data.

Short ranking by the numbers that exist

• Strongest: 3.0 MT 200 hp / 147 kW
• Largest: 3.3 AT 3299 cm³
• Highest hp/L: 3.0 MT 200 hp — 67.0 hp/L
• Only Automatic: 3.3 AT
• Only 0–100 and top speed: 3.3 AT — 10.5 s, 201 km/h
• Only kerb weight: 3.3 AT — 1470 kg
• Smallest / weakest: 2.5 MT — 2494 cm³, 150 hp
• Mid Manual steps: 2.8 MT 170 hp, then 3.0 MT 180 hp

If the extra “money” is treated as extra displacement and extra listed systems rather than a price (prices are not in the data): 294 cm³ and 20 hp take you from 2.5 MT to 2.8 MT; 198 cm³ and 10 hp take you from 2.8 MT to 3.0 MT (180 hp); 0 cm³ and a change from Carburetor plus compression 9 to Central injection (single-point or single- point) plus compression 9.5 take you to 3.0 MT (200 hp); 313 cm³, Automatic 3, 294 Nm, 10.5 s, 201 km/h, and 1470 kg take you to 3.3 AT, at 10 hp less than the injected 3.0 MT.

That is the whole buying split for BMW E3: five Gasoline Inline 6 RWD Sedans from one generation, 1968-01-01 to 1977-12-31, distinguished by 2494 / 2788 / 2986 / 3299 cm³, 150 / 170 / 180 / 190 / 200 hp, Manual 4 versus Automatic 3, Carburetor versus Central injection (single-point or single- point), and a performance sheet that is filled in only on 3.3 AT.