backtop


Print 70 comment(s) - last by EricMartello.. on Apr 21 at 11:50 PM


BMW Z4 Roadster
First turbo four model will arrive this fall

Earlier this year, we reported that BMW's normally aspirated inline-6 engines will be ushered out and replaced by a new family of turbocharged four-cylinder engines. BMW today confirmed that four-cylinder power would return to U.S.-bound BMWs after a 10+ year absence. 

The first model to get BMW's new 2.0-liter TwinPower Turbo four-cylinder engine will be the Z4 sDrive28i Roadster (say that five times fast). The engine develops 240 hp and 260 lb-ft of torque (30 percent more torque at 1,500 fewer RPMs than the naturally aspirated 3.0-liter inline-6).

BMW says that the new turbo four will be 20 percent more fuel efficient than the inline-6 when paired with the 8-speed automatic transmission. We're sure that there are fuel efficiency gains to be made with the 6-speed manual transmission as well, but it's likely nowhere near 20 percent (or else BMW would have mentioned it in the press release).

The Z4 sDrive28i Roadster will arrive in showrooms this fall, and the turbo four will likely filter down to other BMW models soon after.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Just wish it ran on regular
By Hulk on 4/18/2011 3:57:19 PM , Rating: 3
If Hyundai can do 274HP on regular fuel you'd think BMW could do 240HP right?

Also I'm a little sad to see the end of the normally aspirated 6 cylinder engine. Perhaps we'll keep my wife's 3 longer than we'd planned...




RE: Just wish it ran on regular
By bah12 on 4/18/2011 5:02:43 PM , Rating: 2
Is it for sure premium required not recommended. In a recommended engine you can still run it, but it may adjust to the timing to eliminate knock. Required though is just that.


RE: Just wish it ran on regular
By steven975 on 4/18/2011 5:06:29 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but many "required" engines still reduce the timing. Early ones probably just reduced ignition timing, but newer ones probably have a mix of that and alternate fuel maps.

Otherwise, warranty costs would be too high. Even if regular was in the tank at the time, it can be emptied and replaced, or question can be thrown if the gas was labeled incorrectly.

Bottom line, the Mfr would lose.


RE: Just wish it ran on regular
By Reclaimer77 on 4/18/2011 9:47:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Yes, but many "required" engines still reduce the timing. Early ones probably just reduced ignition timing, but newer ones probably have a mix of that and alternate fuel maps.


Yeah ok you can keep on believing that until you are welcomed to the wonderful world of piston detonation.

Turbo cars HAVE to run on premium fuel. End of discussion. Anyone tells you different they are playing with fire.


RE: Just wish it ran on regular
By Reclaimer77 on 4/18/11, Rating: 0
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/18/2011 10:58:25 PM , Rating: 4
Just looked in my manual, it says 87 or higher for my Sonata Turbo.


RE: Just wish it ran on regular
By Pryde on 4/19/2011 12:55:58 AM , Rating: 2
Ford Falcon XR6 Turbo only requires 91RON(Aust) which is like 86-87 in the US.


RE: Just wish it ran on regular
By Reclaimer77 on 4/19/2011 7:21:51 AM , Rating: 2
Ok I had to do a lot of digging cause I don't know anything about RON fuel ratings.

But this link claims that RON and PON, the American method, has basically the same octane rating.

http://www.btinternet.com/~madmole/Reference/RONMO...

In America the service stations use the Pump Octane Number or PON rather than RON. this is the average of RON and MON and gives a much better grade, and is also why the American gas always seems not as good as our when in fact it is is the same (and has better quality control).


RE: Just wish it ran on regular
By abscode on 4/20/2011 1:13:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But this link claims that RON and PON, the American method, has basically the same octane rating.
Whoa there, turbo. Four to five units lower is not even close to being "basically the same".


RE: Just wish it ran on regular
By retrospooty on 4/19/2011 8:31:47 AM , Rating: 2
Big deal... When gas was $1.00 vs. $1.20 for premium, it was a big deal, a 20$ price increase. Now its more like $3.80 vs 3.60 for premium, only a 5.5% increase for using premium.


RE: Just wish it ran on regular
By YashBudini on 4/19/2011 12:58:43 PM , Rating: 2
In Europe that 10 cent difference is per liter.


RE: Just wish it ran on regular
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/18/2011 10:34:21 PM , Rating: 5
I have a Sonata Turbo, it requires regular unleaded. It was designed to run on regular unleaded. According to Hyundai engineers, putting premium in it will give you no more power. I'm to lazy to look it up right now, but I'll post a link later.


RE: Just wish it ran on regular
By Reclaimer77 on 4/18/2011 11:13:10 PM , Rating: 2
It's not about power. For most turbo cars, lower octane fuel can cause a knock which under high boost can cause engine detonation. Hello engine rebuild.

I don't know why Hyundai broke tradition and ok'd regular fuel. But I do know it was REALLY easy to Google forum posts where people have noticed knocking with Sonata Turbo's on regular fuel.


RE: Just wish it ran on regular
By lelias2k on 4/20/2011 1:05:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And to whatever idiot is rating me down, ask yourself why every manufacturer of a turbo car says "Premium fuel REQUIRED" in the manual.


I've been away for a few months, but you're still the same idiot.

lmao


RE: Just wish it ran on regular
By YashBudini on 4/19/2011 12:23:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
According to Hyundai engineers, putting premium in it will give you no more power.

That's a huge waste of potential. And why? Lack of knock sensors? Inadequate programming to optimize the use of better fuel? Sorry, going from 87 to 93 octane on such a vehicle should actually show something on a dyno. And significant is more like it.

Perhaps you need Service Pack 1?


RE: Just wish it ran on regular
By Reclaimer77 on 4/19/2011 12:31:17 AM , Rating: 2
The only thing I can think of is they are running very low compression with very little boost.

Kind of a shame...


RE: Just wish it ran on regular
By Spuke on 4/19/2011 12:54:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only thing I can think of is they are running very low compression with very little boost.
With direct injection, you could use lesser octane at the expense of hp. I'm betting that's what Hyundai did (might be looking at a 300hp engine in that car). I can run 87 in my Solstice (GM says I can) but it'll drop 20 hp and the gas mileage isn't any better. And some have reported some instances where they got knock. The small difference in price isn't worth it IMO.

NOTE: I didn't try it someone else did.


RE: Just wish it ran on regular
By Reclaimer77 on 4/19/2011 7:29:23 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah good point about the direct injection. It totally slipped my mind to be honest.

I just can't believe that to save a few dollars people are running regular pump gas in their turbo cars. Even after they hear knocking!? I can just imagine what those pistons look like, all pitted up like a golf ball. Head gasket about to bust from all the over compression.

I agree with you fully. NOT worth it. Unless you drive like grandpa all the time and never get into the boost, you are playing with fire.


RE: Just wish it ran on regular
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/19/2011 8:58:38 AM , Rating: 2
Let me see... in my case, Hyundai says regular only and the vehicle has a 10-year powertrain warranty. Seems to me that it would be in their best interest to not f**k it up :)

That being said, I'm gonna just say that their powertrain engineers know a lot more about this than you or me ;)


RE: Just wish it ran on regular
By Spuke on 4/19/2011 11:58:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That being said, I'm gonna just say that their powertrain engineers know a lot more about this than you or me
I'm certain they do AND it easily could be done with direct injection. More than likely they're leaving some hp on the table. In the Solstice's case, there was no difference in fuel economy. My guess is that Americans tend to focus on price at the pump instead of overall cost, Hyundai detuned the engine to 87 octane for PR points. Since that engine is more than likely tuned to NOT recognize higher octane, it would not behoove you to put anything other than that.


RE: Just wish it ran on regular
By Reclaimer77 on 4/19/2011 7:09:34 PM , Rating: 2
Nah the ECU knows. Thanks to the power of Google, it looks like you lose about 10hp in the Sonata when the ECU is in the regular octane fuel map. The Sonata is NOT tuned to assume you are running regular. It has the same type of learning/reacting fuel mapping ECU like is in every other vehicle.

Here's the fun part. How does the ECU know when you tank up with 87 octane? When the knock-sensor kicks in, the ECU remembers the engine RPM and load and other factors of when the knock happened and goes into a sort of "knock learning" mode.

Knock sensors and ECU timing/ignition retarding aren't infallible. So basically the knocks that the ECU uses to determine what type of fuel you are running can STILL be the knocks that kill your engine in a turbo car.

Like I said, playing with fire. Brandon has a lot of faith in the same engineers who about five years ago were cranking out the most crappy cars on the road: Korean.


RE: Just wish it ran on regular
By YashBudini on 4/19/2011 8:15:04 PM , Rating: 2
No company starts by making the perfect car. Even if a company has been in business for years a sudden explosion of growth will inevitably compromise quality until the company fully adapts.

Hyundai is actually quite large, turning on a dime is rather unrealistic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyundai

Race has nothing to do with it.


RE: Just wish it ran on regular
By Reclaimer77 on 4/19/2011 8:48:22 PM , Rating: 2
Right clearly I was referring to their race instead of the REGION THE CARS COME FROM!

Never waste an opportunity to make me fit a stereotype though Yash. Keep up the good work.

Fact is Hyndai and Kia are way better today than they were. And they need to keep it if they want to shake their previous image.


RE: Just wish it ran on regular
By YashBudini on 4/19/2011 10:37:52 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone must deal with guilt by association. However, it seemed that way, with or without your signature.

A friend just got a new Hyundai. IE a brand new replacement under the Lemon Law. 8 out of 30 months in the shop, it was last waiting for it's 4th transmission. Typical dealer inventory does not include whole transmissions. (They should have considered they're dealing with a symptom and not a cause by now.)


RE: Just wish it ran on regular
By Reclaimer77 on 4/20/2011 7:42:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Everyone must deal with guilt by association. However, it seemed that way, with or without your signature.


Fair enough.

quote:
A friend just got a new Hyundai. IE a brand new replacement under the Lemon Law. 8 out of 30 months in the shop, it was last waiting for it's 4th transmission. Typical dealer inventory does not include whole transmissions. (They should have considered they're dealing with a symptom and not a cause by now.)


WOW!

Sounds like your friend needs to lawyer up. That sucks.


RE: Just wish it ran on regular
By KC7SWH on 4/19/2011 11:58:23 AM , Rating: 2
Everywhere around where I live regular is only 85 and the 87 that Hyundai wants would require the mid grade which is usually 88 (varies as mid is a mix of premium and regular). So regular only would indeed f**k it up.


RE: Just wish it ran on regular
By YashBudini on 4/19/2011 1:30:49 PM , Rating: 2
85 octane? Apparently they accounted for employees peeing in the storage tanks.


By EricMartello on 4/21/2011 11:50:15 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, he's driving a hyundai. It's practically a disposable car. If his engine blows up he can always get another Hyundai. Maybe he got a bogo deal on that Sonata.


RE: Just wish it ran on regular
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/19/2011 6:51:18 AM , Rating: 3
Because it's a FWD family sedan and they didn't want a lot of torque steer? 274hp is plenty.

I'm sure they'll be pushing 300+ and require premium when the refreshed Genesis Coupe gets this engine.


RE: Just wish it ran on regular
By gman7664 on 4/19/2011 10:01:04 AM , Rating: 2
No disrespect intended however you should check out a Gen 1 Toronado. Granted, the SAE HP ratings did change a bit, but still the torque doesn't change... and they call it torque steer, not power steer so the HP rating difference does not really matter.

The 1968-1970 Toronado with the W-34 option produced 400 HP and 485 Ft-Lbs of torque. The Europeans at the time (early 60s) claimed it was impossible. They were wrong. These cars have exactly zero torque steer as they have equal length half-shafts. Which, BTW, are about 2" in diameter unlike modern shafts which are as small as about .5" on something like a Honda CRX (in the IRS rear which can be seen from behind. I always marveled at the toothpicks they drive those little matchboxes with...)

I am in the process of rebuilding one of these 7.5 liter stump pullers and when I finish it should be in excess of 450 HP and 550 Ft-Lbs. The car will drive just fine with all this power because Oldsmobile so completely over-engineered the thing they were able to put this power package into a 12,000 lb GMC motorhome.

I'm just sayin' :o)


RE: Just wish it ran on regular
By YashBudini on 4/19/2011 1:26:49 PM , Rating: 2
As GM showed us it's not that hard to build an adequate transmission when efficiency is of no concern. This is why they have so many issues currently. Anybody can make a tank transmission, but try spinning it. And you also have to take into account what they deemed "reliable" back then, if it lasted 50K miles it was sellable.

You forgot the 1970 Eldorado, 500HP, 500 ft lbs of torque, FWD. Did we get a glimpse of one in Terminator in the parking garage?

That said one enterprising young man back in the days of Hot Rod Mag put a big block Chevy and Toronado trans mid ship in a Vega wagon. The trans powered the rear wheels. Mid 12's and street wheelies were the results. Overkill for me, back then I would have liked Chevy's current V6 and trans from a Camaro into the Vega. The idea of keeping my "feet" on the ground had appeal, the extra weight of a cast iron V8 up front did not, like most conversions.


RE: Just wish it ran on regular
By JediJeb on 4/19/2011 5:56:51 PM , Rating: 2
Back in the days, those were some fun times. I would liked to have seen that setup in the Vega. When I was in high school the big competition in town was a nicely built V8 Vega versus what was aptly named Super Falcon. Some kid had built a Ford Falcon with a 428SCJ in it, it was a monster at the local drag strip, and many back roads too.


RE: Just wish it ran on regular
By YashBudini on 4/19/2011 8:20:39 PM , Rating: 2
Back in those days real hot rodders needed a lot more than a huge checkbook to see their dreams materialize. Home garage fabrication showed real ingenuity.


RE: Just wish it ran on regular
By YashBudini on 4/19/2011 1:11:32 PM , Rating: 2
The answer is not torque steer, the car could be programmed to make use of the octane at higher revs, much like it limits boost at lower revs now.

Actually the answer lies in a prior DT article, the one where customers have almost zero knowledge of how hybrids work. Years later the engines idled accordingly.

Your car's "position" on premium fuel is based on demograpghics. The average buyer is "cheap". The $$$ and effort is not cost effective in your segment. They certainly can't require premium fuel, the cheap customer would try to cheat on any account. The amount of drivers who would spring for premium is low, and the whole idea of less power with low grade gas can seem insulting if you're not technically aware.

GM didn't understand this cheap business when it released the Vega with solid lifters. No cheap customer was even going to read the manual, let alone perform regular valve adjustments.

IE, Hyundai has indirectly insulted your intelligence, lumped you into with the crowd.


RE: Just wish it ran on regular
By YashBudini on 4/19/2011 1:35:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Years later the engines idled accordingly.


Sorry, wanted to put this sentence last after the Vega business.


RE: Just wish it ran on regular
By YashBudini on 4/19/2011 1:37:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
lumped you into with the crowd.

Here the brain is processing 2 similar sentences in parallel with 1 result. Duh.


RE: Just wish it ran on regular
By SniperWulf on 4/20/2011 8:31:09 AM , Rating: 2
Not really. Hyundai knows their market. They know that requiring premium grade fuel would kill the sales of those Sonatas. I just bought one for my fiance and even on regular unleaded, the engine is quite stout and gets better gas mileage that what the window sticker reports.

I'm pretty sure Brandon can report the same


By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/20/2011 9:28:44 AM , Rating: 2
I've gotten better in the city, but not the highway (as I tend to drive 70 - 75 mph on the hwy, and the faster you drive, the lower your MPG).

I've been averaging 24.88 mpg over the course of 6,000+ miles (using hand calculations; the onboard computer is off by about 1.4 mpg). Roughly 90% of that driving has been in the city.

The vehicle is rated at 22/33.

When I'm driving on the highway, I average anywhere from 30 mpg to 31 mpg. About the highest I've ever seen on the highway is about 32 mpg.


Awesome Powerplant
By Stuka on 4/18/2011 4:04:37 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Maximum output of 240 horsepower is achieved at 5,000 rpm, 1,500 rpm lower than in the normally-aspirated 3.0-liter inline six. The peak torque of 260 lb-ft comes on stream at just 1,250 rpm.

I love the current Audi/VW 2.0T, with it's low torque peak and great power buildup, but this motor looks to be an order of magnitude better. Kudos to BMW for continuing their superb engine heritage. I hope you can still cruise off-boost though, as that to me is the key reason for turbo power over normal aspiration.




RE: Awesome Powerplant
By Stuka on 4/18/2011 4:08:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I hope you can still cruise off-boost though, as that to me is the key reason for turbo power over normal aspiration.

That is to say, that fuel mileage off-boost is favorable compared to cruising with an N/A engine with similar power output.


RE: Awesome Powerplant
By tdktank59 on 4/18/2011 4:16:29 PM , Rating: 2
all you have to do is keep your foot out of it and boost will not be produced, the turbo is always spinning as long as the car is on, just at some point it spools faster and starts generating boost. that point changes tho based on the engine and other characteristics.

For example my SR20DET w/ GTiR T28 turbo spools at ~3100rpm
I can get a turbo that drops that down to ~2800 or get a bigger one that pops it up to 4500 so it all depends on the application and setup.

Just because im sitting at 4000rpm doesn't mean im producing boost, I need to put my foot down quite a bit to start generating boost, and I can keep it out of boost if I want to but it feels like im driving like a granny.

Im going to guess that for the roadster they will pick the right turbo to generate good gas millage while at the same time produce power in the upper part of the rpm band. It is a average joe car after all :p


RE: Awesome Powerplant
By Flunk on 4/18/2011 4:48:33 PM , Rating: 4
Average joes can't afford BMWs, this is a richman's car.


RE: Awesome Powerplant
By tdktank59 on 4/18/2011 6:14:51 PM , Rating: 2
True

What i ment to say was its not being sold as a race car, rather just a sporty roadster.


RE: Awesome Powerplant
By Spuke on 4/18/2011 8:15:59 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Average joes can't afford BMWs, this is a richman's car.
It's not necessarily a rich man's car. I'm not anywhere near rich but can afford one of these. Besides, a lot of average Joe's lease them and with BMW's free maintenance, they're not expensive to own. Now after the warranty is up....

About the new turbo 4, the current sDrive30i gets 18/28 on both transmissions. Should translate to ~22/34 for the auto.


RE: Awesome Powerplant
By dubldwn on 4/18/2011 5:19:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
this motor looks to be an order of magnitude better.

What makes you say that? Audi's 2.0T does 211HP @ 4300 and 258lb-ft @ 1500. I haven't seen the graph for this new engine, though. Maybe it has much better torque curve at higher revs?


RE: Awesome Powerplant
By 91TTZ on 4/18/2011 5:41:39 PM , Rating: 2
It sounds like it's just a higher revving engine than the one you mentioned, which is really a low revving engine.


RE: Awesome Powerplant
By shiftypy on 4/19/2011 3:57:25 AM , Rating: 2
I hope you can still cruise off-boost though, as that to me is the key reason for turbo power over normal aspiration.

GTDI gasoline direct injection turbocharged...

Screams for stratified charge lean-burn cruise for me.
Only one small step needed in NOx trap and we are good to go


Nice engine but...
By Beenthere on 4/18/2011 4:44:00 PM , Rating: 3
This engine may appease those who have never driven a silky-smooth six cylinder, but even the best turbo four engines have coarse power delivery compared to a six or eight due to the 180 degree cylinder firing. VW/Audi's 2.0T engine is very similar and nice but not close to the sixes as far as smoothness of power delivery and NVH.




RE: Nice engine but...
By steven975 on 4/18/2011 5:15:42 PM , Rating: 2
It'll appeal to the F&F types who think they can just up the boost and maintain reliability and get a "free" 335i upgrade. Of course, these cars are well outside their price range.

Of course, the 4cyl motors in the 250hp (except just one that's normally aspirated) class are usually starting with over 1bar(14psi) of boost...and really can't handle much more than that without significantly shortening their lives.

There are not nearly as many VW 1.8Ts and SRT4s on the road as you would think based on the number sold vs current ones you see on the road. Many of those died early deaths.

I think the appeal of the BMWs was in the inline 6. Going with a turbo4 has some benefits, but it's not a smooth inline 6 anymore. You can hide much of the turbo boost, but it's still there and the power delivery is not nearly as smooth. Its trading down refinement to cut costs...and this isn't going to result in a price decrease. I'd expect the resale to not be nearly as good (or should I say worse) as the already pretty bad resale value on out-of-warranty BMWs.


RE: Nice engine but...
By Spuke on 4/18/2011 8:20:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Its trading down refinement to cut costs...and this isn't going to result in a price decrease
They're not doing it to cut costs, they're doing it to improve fuel mileage. About the NA six, very true indeed! Silky smooth power delivery. Even the boosted six in the 335i is super smooth. No 4 cyl can match that (yet) although they're MUCH smoother than even a few years ago.


RE: Nice engine but...
By FITCamaro on 4/18/2011 10:15:54 PM , Rating: 1
The 335i is a 6 cylinder.


RE: Nice engine but...
By zzatz on 4/18/2011 7:26:51 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, inline sixes are smooth, as are V12s and boxers. But mileage is more important now.

Taxes based on displacement, common everywhere but the US, encouraged small high-revving engines. The same effect occurs in racing, where displacement limits reward designs that get the most power out of a given displacement.

But the most power per displacement is not the same as the most power per fuel burned. For that, you want fewer but larger cylinders, running at lower speeds and higher boost.


RE: Nice engine but...
By YashBudini on 4/19/2011 12:31:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Taxes based on displacement, common everywhere but the US, encouraged small high-revving engines.

Hence such wonders in the 60's and 70's in Europe of 2 liter 6 cylinder engines. I once saw a Honda motorcycle, a 400cc in-line 4. I always wondered how smooth that ran. The closest we ever got to that was the V30 Magna.

Did Porsche make a 2 liter flat 6 in one of their 914 models decades ago?


RE: Nice engine but...
By Spuke on 4/19/2011 12:57:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Did Porsche make a 2 liter flat 6 in one of their 914 models decades ago?
I believe so. Not to mention, early 911's also had 2.x L flat 6's. I sure would love one of those but the prices are going up and up on them.


RE: Nice engine but...
By YashBudini on 4/19/2011 7:37:06 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Nice engine but...
By Spuke on 4/20/2011 12:12:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And you didn't even ask.
Didn't know there were some out there with actual 911 engines!!! Nice! Thanks for the link.


By steven975 on 4/18/2011 5:21:30 PM , Rating: 3
You know, back when 325i meant 3-series, 2.5L engine. First number the model, the second the engine size.

Now you have the 335i, which is 3.0L. Then you have a 328i that's really a 3.0L too.

I think it went south earlier in the 00's when they moved the 2.5L to 2.8L and then moved model number up, but refused to move the model number up on the 323i even though it went to 2.5L.

The names used to be functional, now they're more marketing and dictated to denote price, with a big enough distance so that the people who got the cheaper model are lower on the totem pole and vice versa. After all, a 323i was the cheap model...moving it up to 325i would make it match the upmarket model offered in the last year.




By dubldwn on 4/18/2011 6:19:48 PM , Rating: 2
Couldn't agree more. They should be the 544T, 330T, etc. How they compare with previous years should be irrelevant, although that's BMW's official reasoning.

Is is true though that the 3.0L 328 is called the 328 so they didn't step on the toes of the previous models top of the line 330 owners. That elitist line of reasoning might be even more lame.


By Hulk on 4/18/2011 8:33:17 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah and my wife's 2006 325i is actually the 3.0L engine as well. Makes it a great deal since you still get 215HP and the inherent torque of the 3.0L engine. This engine is so unstressed I bet with regular service we could get a couple hundred thousand miles out of it.

Now I know 10 people are going to post, "So what!!! My blahblahblah turbo 4 that I have CAI, stage XXX chip, etc... has been running strong for 250,000 miles and I haven't even changed the oil yet! Plus I'm getting 38mpg and I'm driving it hard!! Shit my Dad's old El Camino used to get 25mpg towing a 3000lb boat!!"


By FITCamaro on 4/18/2011 10:19:10 PM , Rating: 2
Heh I know you were joking but I loled at the thought of not changing the oil for 250,000 miles. Considering the videos and pictures of cylinder heads with 80k mile oil in them, I can't imagine what "oil" would look like even if the engine managed to make it that far. It'd be dust.


By YashBudini on 4/19/2011 12:35:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Shit my Dad's old El Camino used to get 25mpg towing a 3000lb boat!!"

On a 30 degree incline at 85 mph. With no radiator fluid.


By chaos386 on 4/19/2011 1:07:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think it went south earlier in the 00's when they moved the 2.5L to 2.8L and then moved model number up, but refused to move the model number up on the 323i even though it went to 2.5L.

It was earlier than that. The E30 325e from the 80s had a 2.7L engine, despite the name. The 5 series with the same engine at the time was called the 528e!


Misleading?
By UNCjigga on 4/18/2011 3:58:11 PM , Rating: 2
So wait...that 20% fuel-efficiency gain is a result of the 4-banger paired with an 8-speed transmission? Wouldn't it be more accurate to specify the net gains from using the new engine alone? I'm sure the I6 would benefit from an 8 speed transmission too.




RE: Misleading?
By ImEmmittSmith on 4/18/2011 4:37:20 PM , Rating: 2
I would love an 8 speed in my 550i. :0)


RE: Misleading?
By PlasmaBomb on 4/19/2011 6:43:09 AM , Rating: 2
Combined with stop-start the 8 speed auto transmission should provide an 11% saving compared to a 6 speed auto.

(The saving drops to 6% without the stop start)

http://www.zf.com/corporate/en/products/innovation...


By callmeroy on 4/19/2011 9:09:47 AM , Rating: 2
Granted my comment adds nothing just sarcasm but still...after reading a few back and forth on using prem v using reg...WTF's your point?

Here's a tip -- use what your car's manual says to...I'm pretty sure the company that built your car knows better than some random guy on an Internet blog who just hits bing/google or Wiki to look up facts just to prove a point.

As an aside in general -- I was told by a half dozen people who are either ASE certified mechanics or family members that I trust greatly (and they are also very knowledgeable about cars too - have built some from the ground up for racing)......if you use prem fuel and your car isn't required to have prem fuel....you are mostly just wasting your money, as any benefit (if at all) you gain is going to be so low as to not be worth the extra cash at the pump spent for it.




Whats the point
By FITCamaro on 4/18/11, Rating: -1
RE: Whats the point
By Iaiken on 4/18/2011 5:05:50 PM , Rating: 2
This is actually their second low displacement engine to hit those figures.

The 1.6L Prince engine can hit an easy 211hp and 192lbft (more during over-boost) dates back to the end of 2006 and was first fielded in 2007.

What sucks is that we'll never see the xDrive23d power-train that puts out 201hp and over 300lbft at idle.


RE: Whats the point
By Spuke on 4/18/2011 8:31:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Good to see that BMW now has a turbo-4 with sligthly less power than an Ecotec of 4-5 years ago.
Noticed that, huh? :) Another 20 hp could be had easily without affecting mileage much but I'm going to guess that they want their owners to repeatedly get that 20% increase and then some.


RE: Whats the point
By MrTeal on 4/19/2011 9:54:21 AM , Rating: 1
That's not unheard of. Even the Ferrari 458 Italia doesn't offer a manual transmission, and it's more of a pure sports car than anything BMW produces.


"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki