backtop


Print 165 comment(s) - last by Iketh.. on Feb 12 at 2:53 AM


BMW's new turbo four nestled in the X1 crossover SUV
New engine to offer more power and torque than the naturally aspirated inline-6

It's hard to not to mention the name BMW and not think about the company's buttery smooth inline-6 engines. With the exception of the current generation M3, 3-Series models in the U.S. for over a decade have been powered solely by inline-6 engines. And most recently, BMW has added turbos to its inline-6 to boost power and efficiency.

BMW is now looking to make another leap in fuel efficiency, and it means that the company's normally aspirated inline-6 could get the axe in favor of a new 2.0-liter, turbocharged inline-4 engine. The new engine produces 240hp @ 5,000 rpm and 260 lb-ft of torque at just 1,250 rpm.

For comparison, the 3.0-liter inline-6 produces 230hp at 6,500 rpm and a meager 200 lb-ft of torque at 2,750 rpm when used in the 328i.

The new engine uses the same technology found in the turbocharged version of the inline-6 (N55) meaning that a twin-scroll turbocharger, direct injection, and VALVETRONIC intake control are onboard. In addition, the new turbo four is not only lighter than the naturally aspirated inline-6, but it is also more compact.

BMW has not released official fuel economy numbers for the new engine yet, but it will no doubt offer better ratings than the current naturally aspirated inline-6.

Expect all of BMW's models that use the naturally aspirated 3.0-liter inline-6 (1-Series, 3-Series, X3, X1, Z4, etc.) to switch over to the engine shortly.



Comments     Threshold


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

A non-american opinion on turbo-ed cars.
By geok1ng on 1/30/2011 4:46:24 AM , Rating: 3
Brazilian market has a very unique car to blow away the myths over turbo-ed cars, the 1.4L Fiat Linea T-Jet. In Brazil the Linea is marketed as a mid-sized sedan, but for Americans is better described as a small family car, bigger than a Fiesta and smaller than a Focus.

The Linea T-Jet uses the combination of an small engine with a very small and blazing fast IHI RHF3 turbine. This turbine has max rpm at 250k, which is 60.000 rpm above the rest of the market competition. I am talking about 2007 technology that remains state of art lag-wise. With a very short first gear relation, its an engine that idles as a 1.4L and reaches top torque equal to NA 2.4L. Mentioning turbo lag on such a lean machine is offensive: it offers a torque/weight ratio at 2250 rpm that most 6 cilinders wont have until 4000 rpm. The fact that the car reaches 12-18 km/l ( 28 to 42 mpg) numbers without resorting to variable valve timing, direct fuel injection or regenerative breaking speaks wonders of the 1.4L engine size.

A driver should feel pleasure while accelerating, and no NA engine will surpass a turboed engine in this subject: the torque reaches full numbers much faster on a turboed engine, which translates in less gear shifts. A typical travel on the 1.4L T-jet is driving at 5th gear at 80km/h (50mph) and knowing that you will not need to decrease the gear for better torque until the max speed of 240km/h (149 mph).

Considering that a NA engine will ALWAYS have higher idle fuel consumption and will ALWAYS have less torque than a turbo-ed engine of similar price and power output, i fail to see any reason besides loving America to own a NA 6 cylinders or bigger engine.

Dont get me wrong, i agree that an 8 cylinders is a monster, but it is a big, slow and gas guzzling monster that is decimated performance wise by a dual/twin turbo 6 cylinders. It is no wonder that 6 cilinders/2 turbos is the way to go in REAL cars, like the Porshe Panamera. And since 2005 the VW/Audi 2.0T engine is in the market, beating the crap out of any NA competition on the power range.

To reinforce the whole idea about smaller and faster cars, i would have loved to see the face of owners of bigger engines,including a few ford Fusions and 300C, after eating the dust of my 1.4L T-Jet. sure the car is 100hp "weaker" but it also is 500kg lighter.




RE: A non-american opinion on turbo-ed cars.
By Runiteshark on 1/30/2011 7:17:34 AM , Rating: 2
That's the same turbo they throw on the Fiat 500 Abarth. The reason it spools so damn quickly is because it is absolutely tiny. Turbine RPM doesn't mean shit. I promise you that that turbo won't see anywhere near peak RPM because it only goes to 14.7psi (tops at 23psi according to the compressor map). Furthermore, you can't eek anything else out of that turbo. The max amount of power you can make with it is around 190hp.

Furthermore, yes, there STILL IS TURBO LAG. What the hell don't people get that no matter how small the turbo is, there will still be lag? Power curves do NOT equal lag. Also according to a modded 500's dyno;
http://streetwarriors.pl/files/frytol/a500/2009052...
It looks like the torque is pretty weak. It gets up to 125ft lbs at around 2200rpm and stays there then drops off at higher rpm. Know why the car is such a "torquey" car? Because of the bore to stroke. Its has a 72mm bore to a 84mm stroke. Undersquare engines ALWAYS make more torque then the oversquare engines. You say that "torque reaches full numbers much faster on turbo cars" NO. Oversquare undersquare man. I can show you a Turbo s2000 which doesn't make torque to 5000rpm because its so oversquare.

Also no. Sure it will beat a NA 4 at torque at such low rpm because of the turbo + undersquare, but that piddly 125ft lbs doesn't come close to a v6. Here's an example of a very very common v6 in the Nissan family;
VQ35HR (350z/FX35, etc etc)
http://image.modified.com/f/17925439/modp_0905_05_...
It makes over 150ft lbs from idle, which blows the 1.4 away. http://image.modified.com/f/17925439/modp_0905_05_...

You also mention that turbo engines will have a lower idle fuel consumption, this is so stupid I can't even believe I have to tell you this.... Every single turbo car requires larger fuel injectors then a naturally aspirated car. There is no disputing this. Because of this, fuel consumption will always be HIGHER in a turbo car. Especially the modded ones that run 800-2000cc injectors. You also say that v8's get ate alive by turbo 6's. This is patently false if we're comparing stock to stock and the same class. A corvette will eat a e46 m3 for lunch, as will it do the same for any other tt i6 from bmw. They also can get fantastic (actually better then the m3 lol) gas mileage because they barely have to move to make serious power. LS powered Corvettes are known to easily hit 30mpg with a huge 6.2/7l engine. If you start comparing modified cars, a twin turbo v8 will easily destroy any straight 6 (sorry 2jz guys) in making power all throughout the RPM band.

Oh, and the Panemera comes with a Twin turbo v8, not a twin turbo v6. The lowest end is a v6 which puts out a piddly 300hp. I have no idea why they didn't put one of their typical flat 6's in there. Also, most "real" (read high end) cars have 8 10 12 or 16 cylinders. Sure porsche likes their flat 6's but that's the only exception.


By geok1ng on 1/30/2011 10:26:50 AM , Rating: 2
I wrote that the 1.4L T-Jet has the torque of a NA 2.4L, never that it would surpass the raw power or torque of a V6.

The real car is more enjoyable to acellerate thanks to small size and weight ( just under 1300kg), ask the owners of the Mohave V6 and 300C V6 that i dusted...
"Furthermore, you can't eek anything else out of that turbo. The max amount of power you can make with it is around 190hp.""

Seriously. "only" 190hp out of a 1.4L engine?. Not even VW/Audi has marketed such a powerful 1.4L engine. The 2.0L turbo-ed from Kia/Hyunday are quite impressive at 275hp, but i would call 190hp out of a 1.4L a weak result by any means.

The engine version used on the Fiat 500 is handicapped. Here is a original and a modded torque curve of a 1.4L T-Jet, similar to the ones used on the Linea and Punto T-Jets in Brazil.
http://www.hpower.com.br/pdf/Punto%20Turbo%20T.pdf

That's it : 230nm of torque= 169 ft/lb. A modded engine would peak at 320 Nm= 236 ft lb. Not even a NA Civic Si 2.0 has that kind of torque, at any rpm. It may achieve higher Hp given its ability to run at 9000rpm, but torque wise the 1.4L is better.
DO NOT confuse these with the Abarth versions from Europe, that use a garret turbine, and reach 170-190hp.

" Every single turbo car requires larger fuel injectors then a naturally aspirated car. There is no disputing this. Because of this, fuel consumption will always be HIGHER in a turbo car"
In good faith, could you explain to me like i was five years old how a bigger engine will need LESS gas than a smaller one at IDLE? Or in another terms, why my 1.4L turbo-ed engine would consume MORE gas at idle than a V6? It has anything to do with the fact that my fuel injectors are "larger" than a similar NA engine with 2.4L? And at IDLE/ low rpm my "larger" fuel would definitely use more gas than an engine 1L bigger?

show me a single 2.4L NA engine without VVI/FSI or regenerative breaking that reaches 42mpg and wield that the whole idea of using a turbo is flawed.


RE: A non-american opinion on turbo-ed cars.
By geok1ng on 1/30/2011 12:16:41 PM , Rating: 2
I wrote that the 1.4L T-Jet has the torque of a NA 2.4L, never that it would surpass the raw power or torque of a V6.

The real car is enjoyable to acellerate thanks to small size and weight ( just under 1300kg), ask the owners of the Mohave V6 and 300C V6 that i dusted...

"Furthermore, you can't eek anything else out of that turbo. The max amount of power you can make with it is around 190hp.""

Seriously?! "only" 190hp out of a 1.4L engine?. Not even VW/Audi has marketed such a powerful 1.4L engine. The 2.0L turbo-ed from Kia/Hyunday are quite impressive at 275hp, but i would not call 190hp out of a 1.4L a weak result by any means.

The engine version used on the Fiat 500 is handicapped. Here is a original and a modded torque curve of a 1.4L T-Jet, similar to the ones used on the Linea and Punto T-Jets in Brazil.

http://www.hpower.com.br/pdf/Punto%20Turbo%20T.pdf

That's it : 230nm of torque= 169 ft/lb. A modded engine would peak at 320 Nm= 236 ft lb. Not even a NA Civic Si 2.0 has that kind of torque, at any rpm. It may achieve higher hp given its ability to run at 9000rpm, but torque wise the 1.4L is better.
DO NOT confuse these with the Abarth versions from Europe, that use a garret turbine, and reach 170-190hp.

" Every single turbo car requires larger fuel injectors then a naturally aspirated car. There is no disputing this. Because of this, fuel consumption will always be HIGHER in a turbo car"
In good faith, could you explain to me like i was five years old how a bigger engine will need LESS gas than a smaller one at IDLE? Or in another terms, why my 1.4L turbo-ed engine would consume MORE gas at idle than a V6? It has anything to do with the fact that my fuel injectors are "larger" than a similar NA engine with 2.4L? And at IDLE/ low rpm my "larger" fuel would definitely use more gas than an engine 1L bigger?

show me a single 2.4L NA engine without VVI/FSI or regenerative breaking that reaches 42mpg.


RE: A non-american opinion on turbo-ed cars.
By Runiteshark on 1/31/2011 4:04:11 AM , Rating: 2
You clearly don't understand what oversquare and undersquare means. Go to wikipedia and look it up. The civic engines will never have that amount of torque because they are set up in an oversquare configuration.

Furthermore, injector size makes a big difference. A small 1.4L engine running 4 400cc injectors will drink more fuel at idle then a v6 running 6 230cc injectors. Its just the way it works. Smaller injectors can dump less fuel.

Further, no. The turbo itself will not make much more then 23psi, and combined with that engine means 190hp with roughly 220-240ft lbs of torque, just as your dyno graph showed you. That is the limit of the turbo itself, if you strapped a bigger GT25 or even a 28 on there you could easily eclipse 300hp provided the internals could handle it. As for the big bad 1.4 putting out that much power, big deal. Look up a Nissan SR20. You can throw 450-500hp out of it all day long with a GT30 or GT35, and that's a piddly 2 liter.

Also you keep blabbing that it does not have VVT and DI. Big deal, they're trying to keep the engine cheap. If it did have those technologies they could very easily push even more power out of it, and get better fuel economy. They also wouldn't have to have such a crappy undersquare setup either, since VVT would mean they could run a more square setup and still get the same torque low down.


RE: A non-american opinion on turbo-ed cars.
By geok1ng on 1/31/2011 7:03:35 AM , Rating: 2
I do not see the need for the harsh talk. My point is that smaller turbines generate a better driver experience than bigger laggy turbines.

Surely it is safe market-wise to put the biggest turbine your engine can handle and market it as a super-duper 4cil that reaches 275hp, as Hyundai has done with the Sonata, but the whole concept of a short lag ( there no such thing as a lagless turbo, even if it is 0.2s) and flat torque curve is not by any means wrong or failed.

The big Garret Turbines that American loved make the car bipolar, with a sluggish start and a sudden explosion of torque. The smaller and lighter turbine favored by the europeans allow the turbine to reach max torque just a trickle over idle: there are europeans cars that reach excellent torque at 1250-1350 rpm, which is a mere gentle push on the accelerator pedal.

Given the choice between a 275hp car with some lag ( a turbo-ed with big turbine) , a 250hp car without an excellent torque curve ( lets say a bigger NA) and a car with 240 hp ( a small engine with small turbine) , no lag and an even better torque response, the response most sane and rational drivers is quite obvious, even more considering that we live in countrys without autobahns.

Now back to my example: as i said , the 1.4L t-Jet engine delivers torque of a 2.4L NA engine, and you insist that it needs MORE fuel at idle than a V6?? I insist: show an example of a 2.4 NA ( no V6 needed) that reaches 42mpg, without resorting to extraneous or expensive measures.

The discussion here is if BMW made a blunder by using a turbo-ed 4 cil in place of a NA 6 cil. Too bad that the argument used by you, and more interlopers that the turbo-ed engines use MORE fuel than the NA of the SAME power-hp output ( no need to go for same torque output, since the torque output of these 2.0L turbo-ed are in V8 territory) is decimated by reality numbers that show good, great and amazing mpg on all the turbo-ed examples cited here.

Maybe the turbo-ed engine are disobeying the laws of (Ford, Chrysler, GM) physics, that state that bigger NA engines are destined to use LESS fuel than smaller turbo-ed engines.


By Runiteshark on 1/31/2011 10:40:06 AM , Rating: 3
Like I said twice before, it is NOT just the size of the damn turbo that determines where it makes power and how it does. The engine is UNDERSQUARE. It has a LONGER STROKE then its BORE.

This means it will DEVELOP MORE TORQUE THEN A OVERSQUARE ENGINE. Combining this with a small turbo means that it has an even lower starting torque curve. Sheesh.

Furthermore, combining a bigger turbo with an engine that's that undersquare is a terrible idea. People do it with KA24DE's and it is a terrible idea there too. If the engine was oversquare, combining it with a bit bigger turbo would give you a traditional power curve. All small turbo 4's have the same power curve typically because they all have small turbos on them. No manufacturer puts a huge GT28 factory on their cars these days on a small 4 banger. The one thing that you aren't considering is that engines that are oversquare climb RPMs much quicker then undersquare engines, as they're designed to do. A gentle push on say a honda engine with a turbo results in the same type of acceleration due to the gearing (and granting its a small turbo).

As for your 2.4L NA engine, easy peasy,
http://www.tsobad.com/jtso/Images/Test%20Pipe/test...

This is a Honda K24, they put it in elements accords, etc, and guess how it's configured? ITS UNDERSQUARE JUST LIKE THE 1.4L ENGINE! Wow amazing! Same torque curve. Its a 87mm bore by a 99mm stroke. Are you getting this yet? Bore and stroke make power curves. Turbos augment the powercurve and can shift the power range up or down depending on size.

Guess how much MPG cars with this engine get? 30mpg with a HUEG Honda Accord.

As for an engine that hits 40mpg and is NA and has more power, no problem. Look no further then the new engine by ford in the focus. 2l with VVT and Direct injection. The Turbo focus is even more nasty. I don't think I have to tell you again that DI and VVT add more power and uses less fuel.

As for BMW's engine putting out the same torque as a v8, that's cute. Real cute. The VQ35HR puts out more torque then this does.

A ls3 puts out more then 300ft lbs of torque at IDLE;
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1241/1418679842_4fe...

There isn't a real dyno of the new engine in BMW's, but here's the one that they provided;
http://www.bimmerpost.com/forums/attachment.php?at...

Not even close.

Lastly, I'm going to state this as simply as possible. Turbos = bigger injectors. Bigger injectors = worse fuel economy at idle. End of story. You can't argue this with me. Go google injector sizes between turbo and NA engines and get back to me. Honestly, I'm guessing that the 2.4L k24 I mentioned earlier uses the same sized injectors as the 1.4L turbo engine you won't shut up about, but still uses less fuel thanks to VVT (VTEC) at idle.


RE: A non-american opinion on turbo-ed cars.
By Tabinium on 1/31/2011 10:28:44 AM , Rating: 2
Runiteshark,

Your anecdotal "tuning" evidence and experience does not make you an expert on the subject. I am sure you are knowledgeable in whatever boy-racer tuning circles you hang out in, but unfortunately many of your key points are flawed and/or incorrect.

1. The stroke ratio is one of many of engine parameters that affect the characteristics of an engine. Here's a direct quote from Wikipedia regarding stroke ratios: "While the stroke ratio can provide insight into the goals of an engine's designer, it has no direct effect on the speed at which an engine reaches maximum torque..."

2. The duty cycle of an injector is the primary attribute effecting fuel consumption, not it's maximum flow rate. Extremely large injectors (for the sake of argument, >1000cc) could use more because the orifice is simply too large to regulate with a low duty cycle, but they are only used aftermarket, very high-horsepower applications.


RE: A non-american opinion on turbo-ed cars.
By Runiteshark on 1/31/2011 5:03:11 PM , Rating: 3
Cool, because I'm a Boy racer.

Good job on wikipedia bro;

From Wikipedia itself;
quote:
undersquare engines are most often tuned to develop peak torque at relatively low speeds.


Furthermore, stroker engines ALWAYS develop more torque. Sorry, looks like you should of read more.

Also, yes duty cycle does play a big role in how much fuel an injector will dump. I'll admit the 1000cc injector is a huge injector and will be used primarily for aftermarket high horsepower applications typically. This does not change the fact that;

A Typical Nissan SR20 (S14) engine comes with.... 480cc injectors. Guess what a normal 2 liter engine comes with? Oh that's right, 280-330cc injectors. Good job, you proved me wrong there.

A larger injector will ALWAYS dump more fuel then a smaller injector at idle.

Anything else you'd like to be corrected on?


RE: A non-american opinion on turbo-ed cars.
By Mint on 2/1/2011 11:01:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A larger injector will ALWAYS dump more fuel then a smaller injector at idle.
What? No it won't. Any fuel injector can have as low as 0% duty cycle.

If you just blindly replace injectors without adjusting the ECU, sure, you'll use more fuel. That you think an automaker would do this just points to how little you really know about an ICE...


RE: A non-american opinion on turbo-ed cars.
By Runiteshark on 2/1/2011 2:02:36 PM , Rating: 2
Are you really serious? Do you even know how injectors work? No?

An injector that is larger then another will NOT be able to limit the fuel at idle as much as a smaller injector would.
Reason being, is injectors are either OPEN or CLOSED. A larger CC injector will spray more fuel then a smaller injector would. I don't give a damn if you're running at 0% duty, or how low you tune it. A bigger injector will give you more gas. The way to circumvent this to a degree is to cause it to spray less often, however, you will still use more fuel then a smaller injector.
This is why even with tuning, cars will have greater difficulty with idling then if they had smaller injectors. They also will always have worse emissions then if they had used a smaller injector.

Here is a stupid simple link to how injectors work, since you don't seem to understand;
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-injection3.htm

Also, I never said that any automaker would do this. You'd have to think I'm an idiot to say this. Cars these days idle correctly without issue, which points to automakers properly tuning their cars. Furthermore, cars tune themselves to a degree and retard or advance timing, and change fuel injection rates depending on load, throttle input etc etc. Its why we get such good gas mileage for how much power we can make in comparison to carbs. Its also why direct injection is even better since we can control the amount of fuel used even better. Good job there. Go read some more links and get back to me.

Shows how little you really know about an ICE...


RE: A non-american opinion on turbo-ed cars.
By Dorkyman on 2/2/2011 11:44:21 AM , Rating: 2
Okay, I've had enough.

First, your attitude needs a recalibration. Are you always this nasty and self-righteous with people you work with? Chill out, man. Go have a beer.

Secondly, I fail to see the logic of your INSISTENCE that an undersquare design makes more torque. Oversquare/undersquare has, inherently, nothing to do with torque. You can look it up. Maybe while having that beer.


By Runiteshark on 2/2/2011 12:11:05 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pissed that people keep making the exact same error when stuff saying exactly what I'm saying is right infront of them, but they choose to ignore it. Just like you.

quote:

A piston engine is undersquare or longstroke if its cylinders have a smaller bore (width, diameter) than stroke (length of piston travel).

This can be a negative trait, since a longer stroke usually means greater friction, a weaker crankshaft (strengthen with weld, true & balance), and a smaller bore means smaller valves which restricts gaseous exchange; however, with the aid of modern technology, these are not the large problems that they used to be. An undersquare engine usually has a lower redline than an oversquare one, but it may generate more low-end torque. In addition, a longer stroke engine can have a higher compression ratio with the same octane fuel compared to a similar displacement engine with a much shorter stroke ratio. This also equals better fuel economy and somewhat better emissions. An undersquare engine does not overheat as easily as similar oversquare engine. Engines can be modified with a "stroker" crankshaft, which increases an engines stroke from stock, increasing torque. Increased stroke make the piston travel further up and down. Since the amount of time allowed for this movement is not increased, the piston speed increases with a Stroked Crank (piston must move a further distance in the same amount of time). This can sometimes cause pistons to wear more quickly.

Undersquare engines produce strong torque at low to mid range rpm's because of the "leverage" advantage of a longer stroke.

Large increases in stroke can decrease an engines ability to perform optimally at high rpm.

One disadvantage for some applications would be increased piston speed. Excessive piston speed can cause ring seal problems and lubrication problems, which decreases piston life. Piston speed will obviously increase with rpm and it will also increase with an increase in stroke. And then there's the loads on the crankshaft, pistons, the piston pins, connecting rods, and rod bearings that increase dramatically with increases in stroke (or piston speed). In general, a longer stroke leads to higher thermal efficiency through faster burning and lower overall chamber heat loss.

A longer stroke will have greater port velocity at a given RPM, more torque due to more leverage on the crank, will achieve it's greatest efficiency at a lower RPM, and have less peak potential than a shorter stroke motor. Smaller combustion chambers are also more efficient, with the flame front having a shorter distance to travel- this leads to being more detonation resistant, and having an advantage for emissions.

A longer stroke, however, increases piston speed per engine cycle, which causes greater side-loads on the cylinder walls and decreases maximum rpm's.

If you are a torque devotee, increase your stroke. If you are a horsepower (rpm) junkie, increase your bore. If you believe that too much power is just the right amount, you can increase both!

The added torque of a stroked engine makes it tons of fun to ride, and if that's what you want, more power to you.

Oversquare Engines

An engine is oversquare or shortstroke if its cylinders have a greater bore (width, diameter) than stroke (length of piston travel).

An oversquare engine is generally more reliable, wears less, and can be run at a higher speed. In oversquare engines power does not suffer, but low-speed torque does to some degree, since torque is relative to crank throw (distance from the crank center to the crankpin)—the leverage, essentially. An oversquare engine cannot have as high a compression ratio as a similar engine with a much higher stroke ratio, and using the same octane fuel. This causes the oversquare engine to have poorer fuel economy, and somewhat poorer exhaust emissions. Engines can be modified by being "de-stroked", shortening the stroke to increase maximum rpms and top-end horsepower, at the expense of low-end torque.

Breathing is the important thing, then. Over square engines have an advantage here, in theory. In a big bore engine, the edges of the valve are less obstructed by the cylinder wall. This is called "unshrouded" and helps breathing. A big bore can fit larger valves and give them more breathing room, too.Engines used at sustained high rpm usually will be better with less stroke and more bore (oversquare).

A short crankshaft stroke reduces parasitic losses. Ring drag is the major source of internal friction. With a shorter stroke, the pistons don't travel as far with every revolution. The crankshaft assembly also rotates in a smaller arc, so the windage is reduced. In a wet-sump engine, a shorter stroke also cuts down on oil-pressure problems caused by windage and oil aeration.

Bigger bores with shorter strokes have the potential to turn higher RPM's, and larger/more valves will fit into bigger combustion chambers. Since the HP race involves turning ever higher RPM's to make more power, the oversquare motors have increased in popularity particularly when it comes to motorcycles.


This is seriously basic physics here. I can't believe so many people are arguing with me. Go drink a beer and read some physics books or ICE theory or something.


Not exactly...
By Beenthere on 1/29/2011 11:20:43 AM , Rating: 3
The BMW turbo four is replacing the base 3.0L engine in some models. The 3.0L may also be available in some models in both N/A and turbo configurations depending on the market. I doubt many 3/5/7 series buyers will accept a turbo four.

In regards to power delivery, yes there is quite a difference between a four and six and most people who buy luxury cars will not accept the turbo four's coarser power delivery. This has been confirmed in the past. It's the cylinder firing spacing not engine balance that determines the smoothness of a six over a four.

While the BMW turbo four looks to be a good engine and quite similar to the VW 2.0L TFSI in performance, it is not likely to be well received by luxury car buyers.




RE: Not exactly...
By BZDTemp on 1/29/2011 1:00:06 PM , Rating: 3
Considering how many BMW buyers go for the diesel engines which was once considered unfit for anything but big trucks I think you're gonna be proven wrong. Also it's not new for BMW to sell 3/5-series cars with 4 cylinders.


RE: Not exactly...
By Spuke on 1/30/2011 11:01:01 PM , Rating: 3
4 cylinders is indeed nothing new for BMW and people will not mind a turbo 4. Americans, in general, just want the power and don't care how they get it. When we do care, we buy cars that satisfy our wants. The NA Bimmer customer isn't going to care about the powerplant and, with being green trendy, it's a good time to reintroduce the 4 cyl. Bimmer customers wanting more performance will continue to buy the quicker models with the more powerful powerplants.


RE: Not exactly...
By cmdrdredd on 1/31/2011 4:57:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
4 cylinders is indeed nothing new for BMW and people will not mind a turbo 4. Americans, in general, just want the power and don't care how they get it.


Oh really? Go read a review on the Audi A4 and watch for the part where they wish it were a V6 instead...the 2.0T I4 is ok for city driving but get out on the highway and it has a buzzing sound and doesn't have as smooth a power band as a good V6 does. An example of a properly done 6 cylinder is the new 3.7L in the 2011 Mustang. Smooth revving and enough power.


RE: Not exactly...
By Spuke on 2/1/2011 12:52:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh really? Go read a review on the Audi A4 and watch for the part where they wish it were a V6 instead
Reviews from magazine writers hardly coincide with what the customer (you know, the people that actually BUY stuff) wants. If the 4 cyl A4 was a flop, it would've been ALREADY replaced with a 6. Instead, actual OWNERS of these cars are quite pleased with the powerplant as is. To stay on topic, if you look at E90post, for example, you'll see a myriad of OWNERS that like the new 4 cyl BMW powerplant and will have no problems with buying it.

Look, I'm not anti-V6 and I am partial to turbocharged engines in any form but if it gets the job done then so be it. Now when V12's stop being produced then we have a problem. ;)


RE: Not exactly...
By mellomonk on 1/30/2011 2:53:11 AM , Rating: 3
I've been reading about this BMW turbo 4 for awhile now from various sources. They are not going to market the turbo 4 and the 3.0 6 in the same model. It will not be matter of choice. The turbo 4 will replace the 3.0 in many if not all future models. BMW looks to be committed to forced induction going forward.

Audi has done quite well in recent years selling a ton of models with the 2.0 TFSI. Something I am sure BMW is keenly aware of.


RE: Not exactly...
By GWD5318 on 1/31/2011 8:39:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
While the BMW turbo four looks to be a good engine and quite similar to the VW 2.0L TFSI in performance, it is not likely to be well received by luxury car buyers.


I think that a few thousand Audi A4 owners would not agree with that statement. If you'll recall, the A4 is Audi's chief 3-Series fighter.


RE: Not exactly...
By cmdrdredd on 1/31/2011 5:02:45 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I think that a few thousand Audi A4 owners would not agree with that statement. If you'll recall, the A4 is Audi's chief 3-Series fighter.


The main complaint about the A4 is the 2.0T engine. It has a buzzing exhaust note that doesn't fit a luxury sedan at all. Especially at highway speeds. It might be ok in the city, but highway is horrible. I know many A4 owners and only one of them opted for the turbo 4 engine. Everyone else wanted the 6 because the power band on the 4 isn't close to being the same.


Efficiency...not really...
By EricMartello on 1/29/11, Rating: 0
RE: Efficiency...not really...
By phantom505 on 1/29/2011 12:24:09 PM , Rating: 3
You fail at understanding turbos. They don't burn more fuel at constant RPM. It's when you're accelerating do they use more. When I put a turbo on my Grand AM my fuel economy was basically the same because the duration of acceleration is generally very brief.

4 bangers with a turbo almost always will do better than a 6 unless you're slamming your breaks and accelerating hard pretty all the time.


RE: Efficiency...not really...
By Iketh on 1/29/11, Rating: -1
RE: Efficiency...not really...
By phantom505 on 1/29/2011 11:34:50 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong again. Turbos are actually mostly waste heat. They are freely rotating so it hardly matters... there isn't enough friction to matter.


RE: Efficiency...not really...
By semiconshawn on 1/30/2011 1:41:36 AM , Rating: 2
Who is talking about friction? He is talking about the amount of force required to push the turbo on the exhaust hard enough to compress the intake charge. You really think 17psi comes for free? Its cool that you started your retarted retort with "Wrong again" though. Turns out you are correct.


RE: Efficiency...not really...
By Spuke on 1/30/2011 10:53:19 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
He is talking about the amount of force required to push the turbo on the exhaust hard enough to compress the intake charge. You really think 17psi comes for free?
Close enough to free as you can get! The exhaust energy that turns that turbine would normally just continue out of the exhaust. With turbocharging, you're actually putting some of that waste to work. But you already knew that, right?


RE: Efficiency...not really...
By mindless1 on 1/31/2011 4:03:00 PM , Rating: 1
False. You cannot take energy from this subsystem without effecting its primary purpose which is getting the exhaust OUT. To say impedance in exhaust is free, would be akin to stating reducing impedance to intake (supercharging itself) is free as-in, also makes little to no difference.

See it for what it is, a trade-off of taking some power away to add some in another way, to put greater thermal and mechanical stresses on a smaller engine to get more out of it, and while you have a shorter lived engine you have one lighter with less total friction so the efficiency goes up a little bit.

Personally I work on my own vehicles and would rather the straight 6, but I can understand some yuppy beemer owner not knowing the difference or caring about a few % difference TCO. After all, it's really /green/ to make everything break down sooner and be inconvenienced to needing an additional car, right??

Granted, advanced materials research and manufacturing are making today's more complex engines even more reliable than those of yesteryear, but just imagine if this tech were applied to yesteryear's designs too, that we built a last generation of ICE vehicles that lasted a really long time to satisfy those who for whatever reason don't want an electric vehicle and because even if we shift to electric power for vehicles there's still a lot of oil sitting around that might as well be put to use at a lower consumption rate than we presently do.


RE: Efficiency...not really...
By Mint on 2/1/2011 11:47:18 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think you understand the concept of a turbo very well.

The extra pressure in the exhaust, when expanded by the turbine, is used to compress air in the intake. If you had a perfect turbine and compressor, you wouldn't lose anything and the engine would just see the world like atmospheric pressure was 32psi instead of 15psi (well, not exactly, but no need to dwell on details). Backpressure at the exhaust manifold is balanced by pressure in the intake manifold, so yes, that 17psi virtually is free, minus turbo friction (air and shaft). What you gain, however, is more oxygen per CC of displacement, allowing you to satisfy the same power requirement with a smaller, lower friction engine.

This is why turbos are more efficient than superchargers. There's still energy available to be reclaimed at the exhaust after the pistons extracted what they could, and using it all to minimize exhaust manifold pressure is not the best way to use it.


RE: Efficiency...not really...
By Iketh on 2/12/2011 2:53:40 AM , Rating: 2
lol the intake pressure is never in contact with exhaust pressure... nearly every reply here is way off the mark, and why i got downrated is baffling


RE: Efficiency...not really...
By EricMartello on 1/29/11, Rating: -1
RE: Efficiency...not really...
By phantom505 on 1/29/2011 11:45:39 PM , Rating: 4
Wow, what a vicious retort to something you don't understand at all. I designed and programmed the fuel curves for my car so I know what I'm talking about, you however, do not. And no, it was a sleeper. And yes, the 60*V6 from GM was way under rated because grease monkeys didn't know how to use a torque wrench properly. The engine could handle 9k RPM on the crank with ease, just had to beef the rods up a bit, and remake that 4T45.

Turbos only spool under LOAD. LOAD implies either there is external resistance increase (ie headwind, uphill, etc) or acceleration and offers almost zero spooling when it not under load.

When you are not LOADing the engine then it basically functioning at the same capacity as a NA. So RPM x Displacement x efficiency = Output

Yes, your "physics" (which is really stoichiometric chemistry, which I was a chemist, and now going to be physician) is misleading. Yes, at that exact moment they have = horsepower they consume = fuel. The difference here is that when you are at constant speed at constant load you are not using equal horsepower.

What you claim is that all engines use the same amount of gas at idle. Which is not true.


RE: Efficiency...not really...
By EricMartello on 1/30/11, Rating: -1
RE: Efficiency...not really...
By YashBudini on 1/31/11, Rating: 0
RE: Efficiency...not really...
By EricMartello on 2/1/11, Rating: -1
RE: Efficiency...not really...
By YashBudini on 2/1/2011 8:42:37 PM , Rating: 2
For some odd reason proving you're immature is something that's incredibily important to you, otherwise why continue?

quote:
If speed were the only thing that mattered we'd all be riding sport bikes.

New concept for you - weather. And apparently you seem to think chicks don't like bikes, must be part of that mature logic you keep using.

quote:
agreeing with the idiot who thinks turbo engines get better fuel economy than equally rated NA engines shows that you not only drive a shitty car but will never have anything better.

Where did I agree with anything? And two, how does immaturity allow access to the future? I never said I wouldn't buy a turbo car, I said I wouldn't buy a used one. Are you mature enough to make the distinction? The answer is already present. Your temper tantrum is just dessert.
quote:
Borat wanted a car with a pussy magnet, but yours comes with pussy repellent.

And yet you keep coming back for more.
quote:
P.S. - Yer momma and/or sister don't count.

What's next Einstein? Sticks and stones? You and FitCamaro should go have a beer together, attrack some skanks with huge tramps stamps, and then have a dire need for penicillin. But hey, that shit was fun. And that's provided you ever reach drinking age.



RE: Efficiency...not really...
By Mint on 2/1/2011 12:02:40 PM , Rating: 1
Turbos do not exist to improve fuel economy? Why not? Why do you think VW used one in their TDI, the posterchild of high MPG engines in the last decade?

If you make a good turbo, then you can use a smaller, lower friction engine to meet the same peak power demands. That means better fuel economy.

Why is this so hard for you to understand? I have a V6 that gets 30MPG on the highway but only 10-15 in the city (lots of traffic and stops). Friction losses matter a lot when the engine is operating way off its peak BFSC.


RE: Efficiency...not really...
By EricMartello on 2/1/11, Rating: 0
RE: Efficiency...not really...
By DeepBlue1975 on 2/2/2011 7:37:10 AM , Rating: 3
The explosion inside the combustion chamber is what produces power.
That explosion is generated by a mix of air and fuel: you can't make a more powerful explosion, without more air because oxygen is what allows combustion...

That is what a turbo is for: allow the same amount of air to be burned than in bigger displacements where air is used at atmospheric pressure, not compressed much beyond that.

By boosting the compression ratio you can further enhance power while using less fuel.

So, not necessarily 2 engines with the same power will equate to the same consumption: on bigger NA engines you'll be using about the same amount of oxygen than in a smaller turbo one, but potentially more fuel in the process unless the compression ratio in the NA one is higher enough than on the turboed one.

That being said, I read several comments about how the bore to stroke ratio would be an indication of torque...
That holds somewhat true, but you won't see any NA engine, regardless of configuration, giving away much more than 110nm/liter of displacment, while on Turbo engines those figures start at about 130nm/liter in the worst case, with that ration growing steadily as turbo pressure increases.

An NA Civic SI puts out about the same torque than any other 2.0 NA engine, regardless of its power, it's only slightly worse than average in that matter so even if engine configuration makes a difference, it's by all means not a big one.

If you want higher torque on an NA engine, there's no way around it: displacement has to be increased so that more oxygen is used to burn fuel.
As you can't indefinitely make the compression ratio grow (at a point you would be unable to find a suitable, widely available fuel to use in that car!), if you want more torque, all you can do is make the engine larger.

In turbo engines thanks to the compressed air, you don't need to make the engine bigger to yield better torque: more air pressure will suffice.

Of course there's a practical limit there as well, as bigger, pushier turbos are laggier, produce more heat and need bigger intercoolers and have a more peaky power delivery which in these days is not so much desired.

What nowadays is being sought for, is to be able to combine good power with low fuel usage, and provided the usage pattern of normal cars is most of the time way below their peak power, downsizing the engine and putting a turbo to get the same power as before is the answer they've found.


RE: Efficiency...not really...
By EricMartello on 1/30/11, Rating: -1
RE: Efficiency...not really...
By YashBudini on 1/31/11, Rating: -1
RE: Efficiency...not really...
By EricMartello on 1/31/11, Rating: -1
RE: Efficiency...not really...
By YashBudini on 1/31/11, Rating: 0
Sad news to me....
By Souka on 1/31/2011 1:35:30 PM , Rating: 3
I really like driving the BMW's with the inline-6.

Smooth, quiet, non-whiny power.

True, these turbo's do add kick, but I just typically don't care for turbos.

My $.02




RE: Sad news to me....
By YashBudini on 2/1/2011 8:47:55 PM , Rating: 1
Wisdom lost on this crowd. Along the lines with DT's so called "rules" against personal attacks. Perhaps they're just waiting for my mother's army boots to be attacked, it's about the only thing left.


Sad news
By lawrance on 2/2/2011 9:34:27 PM , Rating: 2
I think BMW should add a turbo engine to its lineup, but to replace a tried and true 6 cylinder engine across the board is market-share suicide. A lot of people don't like turbos and BMW will lose some of the clients if that's all they offer. I've owned 2 turbo charged cars (one high psi and one low psi) and here are my findings:

Turbos whine
Turbos lag
Turbos leak oil
Turbos don't last as long as the rest of the engine
Turbos are expensive as hell to replace
4 cylinder turbo based engines don't tow as well as 6 or 8 cylinder engines




Here we go again...
By Harywood on 1/28/11, Rating: -1
RE: Here we go again...
By e36Jeff on 1/28/2011 10:39:16 PM , Rating: 2
methinks you havent driven in any of the newer generations of turboed cars. I have driven a 750Li, my fathers, its a much larger car than I'd like. If I didnt tell you it had twin turbos under the hood, you would have no idea they were there. The problems you mentioned are largely issues of the past.


RE: Here we go again...
By dsx724 on 1/28/2011 11:50:02 PM , Rating: 2
Go to a BMW forum and look up turbo lag and HPFP. HPFP problems started in 2007 and BMW has not fixed it to this day. Turbo lag can be minimized but you can't defy physics nor emissions requirements. The 750Li exhibits a lot of lag compared to the 740Li when you drive it one after the other.

Even modern turbos are not the magic cure. Sure they're not as bad as they were 20-30 years ago, but they're nowhere close to NA counterparts in terms of reliability and instant throttle response. Also, even if it takes .2 seconds for the turbo to get to full boost, .2 seconds feel like a long time in a lot of situations.


RE: Here we go again...
By e36Jeff on 1/29/2011 4:07:48 PM , Rating: 2
um...the 740Li uses a much smaller engine. Any time you have more recprocating mass it will take longer to respond to changes. I was comparing it(response time-wise) to his old e38 740iL and my mothers '04 XJ8. His 750Li is slower to respond than my e36 328is, but I dont think its overly fair to compare the responses of a 4.4L engine to a 2.8L engine, since I felt his 740iL was slow to respond compared to my car. There is a difference between turbo lag and simply overcoming the inertia of the engine.

HPFP is a fuel pump issue and is non-relevant to a discussion about turbo lag in general. I'm not saying its not an issue, it is, but its specific to one engine type, and not something that affects all turbos. Granted a fuel pressure issue can cause lag, but that would not be an artifact of the turbos, just the fuel delivery system.


RE: Here we go again...
By Spuke on 2/1/2011 1:03:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Go to a BMW forum and look up turbo lag and HPFP.
What does the HPFP have to do with turbo lag? ALL DI cars have HPFP's and not all have problems with them. Irrelevant in any case when it comes to turbo lag. Also, it seems that various people have various definitions of turbo lag. First of all, full boost is not achieved in all situations. That depends on your right foot. NA cars don't make max horsepower either in all situations. That also depends on your right foot. Boost response may be a better word but any case, I put my foot down in a 335i and I have boost. The amount of boost depends, again, on my right foot. My turbo, DI 4 cyl Solstice responds similarly (not exactly as smooth I'll give you that much). Foot down, in boost. You want lag, drive a 80's Porsche 911 Turbo. Foot down...wait wait wait, BOOST!. THAT'S LAG!!!

PS - Inline sixes, boosted or not, are just damn smooth in power delivery. What a wonderful engine.


RE: Here we go again...
By GulWestfale on 1/28/2011 10:41:59 PM , Rating: 2
lag: not really, with modern fuel injection and engine programming, plus the use of relatively small turbos for a low output per liter, lag is largely a thing of the past. VW with its 2 liter turbo and BMW with its 3 liter turbo have shown that. haven't you read a car review in the last 3 years?

sudden acceleration: well, that happens when the turbo kicks in... but as i said above, lag is a thing of the past, and even in high performance cars like the porsche 911 turbo, the turbos are at their torque peak at below 2000 rpm. this is a non-issue.

reliability: really, you haven't read any car reviews since... what, 1998? all turbo charged cars are unreliable? the GTR, various BMWs, porsches, audis, VW diesels, volvos, saabs, not to mention commercial trucks all have unreliable engines?


RE: Here we go again...
By chick0n on 1/29/2011 12:54:19 AM , Rating: 1
rofl, that simply shows you need to do more homework.

Turbo-charged car will never be able to outlast any NA cars. period. its sad but true. it does not matter how advance technology has become. Fact is fact.

all the companies you've mention gone turbo simply because its much easier to reach the hp goal + emission than trying to figure out how to make an inline 6 more efficient(read: cheaper) Not because Turbo charged engines can last as long as NA engines.

Does that mean V6/Inline6/V8/whatever is dead? nope? Cuz right now I-4 Engine + Turbo can reach the Hp figure easily, so they have more "spare" time to do more homework on their I-6/V6/V8/whatever.


RE: Here we go again...
By Kurz on 1/29/2011 8:10:57 AM , Rating: 2
I guess the new 2011 F150 Engine during Ford's challenge is impossible?


RE: Here we go again...
By Jeff7181 on 1/29/2011 4:28:25 PM , Rating: 2
That's like arguing that overclocking a CPU and reducing it's lifespan from 20 years to 10 years is significant. It'll be obsolete a couple times over before it actually fails.

The same applies to these engines. I bet a quarter of a million miles is no problem for these turbocharged engines.


RE: Here we go again...
By YashBudini on 1/29/2011 4:43:34 PM , Rating: 1
This is not a logical comparison. Reality is not a constantly upgrading and demanding OS for a car. Plenty of 20 year old cars out there do just fine, and dare I say it? Camaroes do just fine (Eww, now I need a shower.)

Take a look at the original FI Corvette and it's mileage. What are we looking at? A car that's pushing 50 years old?


RE: Here we go again...
By mindless1 on 1/31/2011 4:09:59 PM , Rating: 2
Not true at all. The human form has not changed, getting from point A to B has not changed, it is a misuse of the word "obsolete".

A car is either working properly or not. Even if the original owner wants something shiny and new before the viable lifespan of the vehicle is gone that is no argument that the car is in any way unfit for use, nor that the owner wouldn't like to be able to sell it for something instead of needing repairs which relegate it to the nearly worthless auction market.

You bet a quarter of a million miles is no problem? Then you are truly a gambler given there is no evidence at all to support this on a new design. In fact, most cars are retired from mechanical problems (if not wrecks) BEFORE they reach 250K miles so I'd like some of what you are smoking please.


RE: Here we go again...
By Runiteshark on 1/29/2011 6:07:03 AM , Rating: 2
Torque peaking at low RPMs does not imply lack of lag whatsoever.

The 911s are very laggy, and clearly you have not driven them. What lag is, since you don't seem to understand is the delayed response when you press on the gas pedal, not the power curve itself.

As for unreliability, again, your ignorance is showing. Turbocharged cars have higher IAT's no matter what size intercooler is equipped, even cars with meth injection. Higher temps will always mean one thing, less longevity, even with the best cylinder liners, plasma treatments, or any other technology you want to throw at it. The way around this in the tuning community has been to use E85 instead of regular race fuel, since it burns cooler and has higher octane for cheap, at the expense of requiring 35% more fuel.

Every single turbocharged car will have lag, regardless of if you think it does or does not, or how small the turbo is, or even if it's a twinscroll setup. Quick it can be, sure, but not as responsive as NA cars, Ever.

Deal with it.


RE: Here we go again...
By GulWestfale on 1/29/11, Rating: 0
RE: Here we go again...
By Runiteshark on 1/29/2011 9:03:52 AM , Rating: 2
Nice you couldn't even come up with a reply there brosiris.

As for retardation, I'm not so sure your claims are valid. You didn't even grasp the basics of engine power delivery, or what lag was, so I'm not feeling too insulted.


RE: Here we go again...
By GulWestfale on 1/29/2011 5:54:20 PM , Rating: 2
:)


RE: Here we go again...
By Pneumothorax on 1/29/2011 10:51:43 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed, try a 335i/335d vs. a M3 back to back and you will definately notice the lag. BMW didn't put 8 individual throttle bodies for nothing. Sad to see in the next gen of 3 series, there will be NO NA cars in the whole lineup.

An inline 4-banger, no matter how much R&D you put in it will never be as smooth or sound as good as an inline 6. You're also giving up the excellent reliability of the NA inline 6. There's howls of protest going on right now in bmw forums. The few dissenters that welcome this change are from the fast and furious crowd, who are all excited about trying to up the boost in a car that's already pretty high at 17 psi. In other words, unlike the 335i and Audi's turbo 4's that run in the 8-13 psi, it's not going to be an easy engine to increase power.


RE: Here we go again...
By Runiteshark on 1/30/2011 2:38:20 AM , Rating: 2
I think the high amount of boost stems for the microscopic sized turbo they're putting on there. They need it to push that high because of how little it flows. On the flip side it'll make power at low RPMs and not have a whole lot of lag.


RE: Here we go again...
By Spuke on 2/1/2011 1:07:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's howls of protest going on right now in bmw forums.
Actually, there isn't...see E90post for example. The inline 6 twin turbo is still available and will be for a long time. This is nothing new. BMW has had 4 cylinders in the past and will continue to do so. The difference is that, this time, the 4's will actually have some power.


RE: Here we go again...
By dsx724 on 1/29/2011 1:14:00 PM , Rating: 2
I love how all the people that know about cars and owned/tested these cars side by side are getting down rated by people who don't know physics 101.


RE: Here we go again...
By EricMartello on 2/2/2011 3:07:51 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, pretty much the case anytime you try to explain actual performance facts to people who are determined to believe whatever marketing hype about the car they wish they had.

Turbo lag is an issue for all turbo cars. In my opinion, the lag is more pronounced on cars using an automatic transmission - you really notice it in situations where you may need to slow from 50 MPH to 20 MPH because someone in front of you is making a turn, then accelerating back up from 20 to 50 MPH again.


RE: Here we go again...
By YashBudini on 1/29/11, Rating: 0
Pretty sad
By FITCamaro on 1/28/11, Rating: -1
RE: Pretty sad
By vol7ron on 1/28/2011 7:47:50 PM , Rating: 2
no it's 240hp and 260lb-ft - the inline was 230hp and 200lb-ft.

I'm curious what the numbers actually will equate to in terms of both power and efficiency. It sounds like an all-around better deal.


RE: Pretty sad
By dsx724 on 1/28/2011 7:57:59 PM , Rating: 1
If Hyundai can pack 270+ horses in a 2.0L TST, I expect BMW to pack 280. 240 is unacceptable! If the South Koreans made a DCT, the Germans will no longer be the Germans.


RE: Pretty sad
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/28/2011 8:01:15 PM , Rating: 1
The upcoming Veloster is available with a Hyundai-developed DCT


RE: Pretty sad
By vol7ron on 1/28/2011 8:05:17 PM , Rating: 2
but 260 lb/ft isn't bad especially at 1250rpm


RE: Pretty sad
By dsx724 on 1/28/11, Rating: 0
RE: Pretty sad
By walk2k on 1/28/2011 8:52:36 PM , Rating: 2
lol you realize torque stays flat until near redline? having torque come on at low rpm is a GOOD thing.

also there's nothing magical about turbo, more boost = more power. they could easily crank up the boost, but the cost is reliability. which is another reason they will limit boost in 1st/2nd, so the Fast&Furious idiots aren't blowing up engines left & right.


RE: Pretty sad
By dsx724 on 1/28/11, Rating: -1
RE: Pretty sad
By Howard on 1/28/2011 9:32:46 PM , Rating: 2
You know this because you've seen the torque curve or the flow maps?


RE: Pretty sad
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/28/2011 10:19:05 PM , Rating: 4
Dyno Chart for BMW's new turbo four:

http://i52.tinypic.com/2hn9g0o.jpg


RE: Pretty sad
By walk2k on 1/29/2011 1:29:41 AM , Rating: 2
what the hell is that? can't read that.. but tq. curve looks pretty good (if not TOO good what is this from a simulation?)


RE: Pretty sad
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/29/2011 4:28:17 AM , Rating: 2
It's from the euro press release from a few weeks ago

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=477...


RE: Pretty sad
By 0ldman on 1/29/2011 9:58:03 AM , Rating: 3
Torque must be artificially limited to have a flat line in the curve like that.

In typical engine design, if you have a flat spot in the torque curve you have a design flaw/limitation.

The engine is capable of much more.


RE: Pretty sad
By FITCamaro on 1/29/2011 7:51:27 PM , Rating: 1
There's no way that's an actual dyno graph. Not unless they're programming the motor to return that type of curve on a dyno.

Here's my dyno from when I got my car tuned.

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/_uRGWny7qoJA/SiH...

A real graph would never look that perfect.


RE: Pretty sad
By Spuke on 1/30/2011 11:09:07 PM , Rating: 2
It's not limited on purpose BUT, if it's like other turbo DI cars, the ECU will not ask for more than max torque. In reality, the torque curve will be really flat but not like the graph.


RE: Pretty sad
By walk2k on 1/29/11, Rating: 0
RE: Pretty sad
By dsx724 on 1/29/2011 1:40:43 PM , Rating: 2
The turbo runs out of steam at 5K and does not remain flat until redline (7.5K) as you've stated. Only NA VVEL are able to reach 7K+ redline with a steady torque.

They limit boost in 1st and 2nd because you'll have 1500+ ft-lbs after torque multiplication and only 245+ wheels will be able to hold traction which the BMW won't come with. Running full boost in 1st or 2nd will not blow up the engine.

No, not like what you said.


RE: Pretty sad
By walk2k on 1/30/2011 2:09:17 AM , Rating: 2
Redline looks more like 5500-6000 which LIKE I SAID the torque curve stays nearly flat. Sure you could rev it out to 7000 but why? That's what gears are for... have you ever driven a car LOL


RE: Pretty sad
By dsx724 on 1/30/2011 12:06:22 PM , Rating: 1
Have you ever owned a recent BMW because obviously you haven't? They all redline at 7K+. They are not a Japanese cars. The dyno is shows you the where the limiter is.

http://i52.tinypic.com/2hn9g0o.jpg

Stop being ignorant to factual data.
N52 and N53 achieves peak power at 6600RPM no less. Thats why you rev to 7K in a BMW.


RE: Pretty sad
By 0ldman on 1/29/2011 10:01:58 AM , Rating: 2
Not if it is built properly.

A twin turbo setup with proper release valves can give you insane power from just off idle to 6000rpm on a Ford small block. I'm sure BMW can come up with a pair to do the same on an engine half the size considering a the air/fuel requirement differences between them.


RE: Pretty sad
By sorry dog on 1/29/2011 10:02:46 AM , Rating: 3
Take a look at the dyno posted below and I challenge you to find another stock single turbo motor that has a flatter torque curve.

It looks to me that the BMW engineers went to great effort to cap the torque at 260 on this configuration as according to that graph it stays almost exactly there from 1200 to 5000 rpm.

I suspect capping it there probably has something to do with keeping a good safety margin for auto transmission durability.


RE: Pretty sad
By Spuke on 1/30/2011 11:27:36 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Take a look at the dyno posted below and I challenge you to find another stock single turbo motor that has a flatter torque curve.
Most of the DI turbo torque curves are similar because the ECU "limits" max torque to whatever the manufacturers want. Cool thing is that you'll get max torque in nearly any situation you ask. Awesome in high altitudes when other cars are wheezing, you're getting full power.


RE: Pretty sad
By YashBudini on 1/29/2011 4:04:04 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
having torque come on at low rpm is a GOOD thing.

Really? At speeds where lugging is likely to occur?

quote:
so the Fast&Furious idiots aren't blowing up engines left & right.

A heavy dose of NOS will overcome that precaution. We're talking revving up turbos here, not brains.


RE: Pretty sad
By DerekZ06 on 1/29/2011 4:41:58 PM , Rating: 2
I am sure the engineers at BMW know what they are doing and know more about the vehicle they created than you do. They obviously have taken lugging into account, and have engineered around it.


RE: Pretty sad
By YashBudini on 1/29/2011 4:46:50 PM , Rating: 2
There are several ways around it, but drive by wire is the obvious choice. Just because they created an engine "capable" of such torque at 1250 rpm doesn't mean it will ever reached a production vehicle. So you're right, perhaps, and if you are, so what?


RE: Pretty sad
By DerekZ06 on 1/29/2011 2:55:44 PM , Rating: 1
I doubt it will have a boost limiter. IF they are great engineers, which no doubt they are, they will just make 1st and 2nd gears taller.

This engine should be able to hold all 260ft.lbs from 1250 to 4850rpms. 4850rpms is the point I calculated that would create 240hp. It will then hold 240hp until close to redline, with another artificial drop off to let the driver feel they need to shift.

The reasons it is artificially limited is for smoothness, predictability, and reliability.


RE: Pretty sad
By YashBudini on 1/29/2011 4:05:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I doubt it will have a boost limiter.

Drive by wire is the new boost limiter.


RE: Pretty sad
By DerekZ06 on 1/29/2011 4:43:55 PM , Rating: 1
O really? Thanks for pointing that out! Douche


RE: Pretty sad
By YashBudini on 1/29/2011 4:48:36 PM , Rating: 2
And given your response drive by wire was obviously created with people like you in mind.


RE: Pretty sad
By vtohthree on 1/28/2011 8:33:24 PM , Rating: 3
Hyundai's new motor is quite commendable, the Kia Optima turbo's figures are: 2.4L, 274hp, 269 lbs/ft @ 1750-4500rpm, 34mpg hwy EPA. In fact, I'd pretty much say it's the current benchmark/state of the art for mainstream cars. This goes for most of their new motors in their line up, I'm also impressed with the new 2011 Elantra, 40mpg hwy, makes my once-hip Mazda3 feel old/dated.

This just raises the bar, though Hyundai may have the crown now, I'm sure all the other motor companies are scrambling to beat it(if their competent and willing). Toyota and Honda seem to be lagging behind these days in efficiency when it was once their game.


RE: Pretty sad
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/28/2011 9:20:30 PM , Rating: 2
The NA motor is a 2.4, the turbo is a 2.0. I have the engine in my Sonata Turbo and it is a gem. I did a 70 mile highway jaunt this afternoon at 75 mph and average 32.3 mpg.

And I too had a Mazda3. My Sonata has over a hundred more horsepower and gets better fuel economy.


RE: Pretty sad
By Hulk on 1/28/2011 9:54:57 PM , Rating: 2
The Sonata Turbo is a nice car but in my opinion (and test drive) it's not a sports sedan. It feel much closer to my Mom's Lexus ES330 than my 325i. Way too much wallowing around turns and the steering is too uncommunicative. I do love the engine and the ability to run regular fuel. Now if they could just put a real sport suspension on it. And yes, I test drove the "stiffer" SE model.

I'm sure BMW's new 3 will kick the crap out of every other sport sedan and pretender like it has for the past 30 years.


RE: Pretty sad
By CoreGamer on 1/29/2011 12:02:49 PM , Rating: 1
Wow are you serious? The sonata is a mid-size car and the Mazda3 is a compact car, comparing them is ridiculous. "State of the art"? Mazda's Direct Injected 2.3 Turbo has been putting out similar or higher numbers since....5 years ago. There is no need for a turbo engine in a compact car for mainstream buyers, and if you really want one the Mazdaspeed will run circles around anything Hyundai or Kia can manage with four cylinders.


RE: Pretty sad
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/29/2011 1:14:48 PM , Rating: 2
What are you rambling about? My point is my Mazda3s was an economy car with 160hp that weighed around 2800 pounds. You would THINK that it would get good fuel economy.

My Sonata turbo has 274 hp, weighs around 3400 pounds and gets HIGHER fuel economy than my econobox Mazda 3s ever did.

What is so hard to understand? Sure, my Mazda 3s can run circles around my Sonata SE 2.0T, but the topic of discussion here is fuel economy.


RE: Pretty sad
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/29/2011 1:17:59 PM , Rating: 2
By running circles around my Sonata, I mean as far as handling goes. My Sonata blows the doors off the 3s when it comes to acceleration.


RE: Pretty sad
By vtohthree on 1/30/2011 5:43:12 AM , Rating: 2
Mazdaspeed 3:
2.3L turbo
263 hp @5500rpm
280 lb/ft @3000rpm
18/25MPG EPA
3272 lbs curb weight

vs

Hyundai Sonata turbo:
2.0L turbo*
274 hp @6000rpm*
269 lb/ft @1750-4500*
22/33MPG*
3452 lbs curb weight*

*indicates advantage

Smaller engine, more hp, more versatile/useable torque range, has to haul more weight, and yet it gets 32% better gas mileage and you say it's not more advanced?

If you ask me the Mazda's DISI turbo doesn't have much against the Hyundai GDI turbo, and I would be gutsy to say that it is more "state of the art" than the Mazda's, but like you stated, it's older, my point is Hyundai's current motor is quite impressive. Especially when the Hyundai Sonata is just an everyday sedan compared to a sports compact car.

*note1: Brandon Hill corrected my typo, I said it was 2.4L but it's 2.0L(Hyundai motor)
*note2: It's true that the Mazda 3 characteristically handles better, but again, the Sonata is just a family sedan(good enough when comparing to other everday drivers in it's class), however is quite luxurious given it's price point.

Hate it/deny it all you want, but VW was once seen as the epitome of economical cheap cars(remember the first VW bug?), but it has progressively evolved to a more prestigious brand, just like Toyota, Honda, and now Hyundai have all done as well. Capitalism in a free market, you gotta evolve to survive. Sadly, despite objective analysis of facts and figures, people will still hate Hyundai because they associate it with what it was years ago, if I was going to buy a car for my needs today, I too, like Brandon, would purchase the turbo Sonata as it's a very competent player.


RE: Pretty sad
By sorry dog on 2/1/2011 9:32:53 AM , Rating: 2
I'm confused...

how is a 180lb greater curb weight an advantage?

also I would think the Speed3 also has an advantage in power as well since it's power to weight ratio is better.

But as someone else said this is a funny comparison since these two cars are targeted at completely different customers.


RE: Pretty sad
By YashBudini on 1/29/11, Rating: -1
RE: Pretty sad
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/29/2011 5:26:01 PM , Rating: 3
My Sonata has very little if any torque steer that I can detect -- all of the professional reviews of the car confirm this.

As for fuel economy, the actual EPA ratings are higher city/highway for my Sonata versus my Mazda 3s. And as I have observed after putting 4,000 miles on my Sonata, it has already put in better fuel economy per tank than the Mazda -- and I put over 60,000 miles on that car.

I never got more than 31 mpg out of the Mazda on the highway. What more do I need to say? Who cares about vacuum readings? All I care about are results.

The only reason why I even brought it up is because I find it funny that a much larger midsize sedan that is heavier and more powerful was getting better fuel economy than my older compact.


RE: Pretty sad
By YashBudini on 1/29/2011 5:39:19 PM , Rating: 1
My '96 Avalong comes in about 3100 pounds and has reached 32 mpg. 60 mph is 2050 rpm with just a 4 speed. If I had their current 6 speed auto I'd probably have lower gears for better acceleration and a taller final drive for better mileage.

So yeah you beat me, but the improvement is not that huge. The Mazda was not the correct measuring stick. And whether you reach 265,000 miles after 15 years remains to be seen.

I also lost 1 mpg by staying with high performance wider tires, ie not low rolling resistance.

quote:
Who cares about vacuum readings? All I care about are results.

That's where the best results would occur, I figured you had some tools.

Next up - The 300+ hp Mustang V6 driven "conservatively", instead of bleeding heart liberally, right Fit?


RE: Pretty sad
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/29/2011 5:43:54 PM , Rating: 2
My Hyundai has a 10 year powertrain warranty. I probably won't keep it longer than 6 or 7 years anyway.

That being said, Hyundai seems pretty confident in the powertrain to warranty it for that long.


RE: Pretty sad
By YashBudini on 1/29/2011 5:53:33 PM , Rating: 2
Long warranties were usually given when the reputation was in question. Dodge Omnis had long warranties. That's not saying H has a problem with anything, just stating how warranties have typically worked in the past.

Today they simply do anything and everything to make a sale.

A friend of mine got a new H after suing via the Lemon Law. Uncommon? Absolutely, but sheer hell if its your problem.


RE: Pretty sad
By FITCamaro on 1/29/2011 7:42:26 PM , Rating: 1
I actually had a typo in there. But point is that GMs 2.0L Turbo Ecotec made 260 hp and torque in stock form (stage 1 with full warranty went to 290/290). And it went into lighter cars than a 3 series.


RE: Pretty sad
By EricMartello on 2/2/2011 3:18:26 PM , Rating: 2
The turbo Ecotec is a solid engine...but when you're dealing with elitists something from GM or Ford is never good enough.

It's like trying to explain to them why the "low tech" Chevy LSx V8 engines are superb examples of engineering because they LACK all that tech that many import nameplates rely on; yet the LSx engines consistently outperform the high tech, superior import engines in both performance and efficiency.


RE: Pretty sad
By shabby on 1/28/2011 7:56:11 PM , Rating: 2
Clearly bmw is going for low end response, meaning tiny turbo/instant boost therefore a somewhat low hp rating since the turbo is running out of breath.
The lnf ecotec has peak torque at 2000rpm and still is capable of more as seen with the 290hp/340trq gm turbo upgrade kit.


RE: Pretty sad
By pnyffeler on 1/28/2011 8:44:05 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget that BMW's engine has to be smooth and quiet. A loud, buzzy 4 cylinder is almost anticipated in a Hyundai. Drop 40 large on a European import, and it better be damn quiet. Unfortunately, there's almost no way it's going to be as incredible as the inline 6, but we'll have to wait and see.


RE: Pretty sad
By dsx724 on 1/28/11, Rating: -1
RE: Pretty sad
By semiconshawn on 1/28/2011 11:08:40 PM , Rating: 1
I agree. Although I have no idea why anyone would keep a car more than 3 years.


RE: Pretty sad
By dsx724 on 1/28/2011 11:53:59 PM , Rating: 2
They're probably car collectors.


RE: Pretty sad
By YashBudini on 1/29/2011 4:00:00 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
. Although I have no idea why anyone would keep a car more than 3 years.

Are you serious? Can you spell massive depreciation? At 265,000 miles and 15 years, my 1 car cost what compared to your 5 cars? Never towed and only routine maintenance, not to mention my collision insurance currently is a whopping $9.54/month. And my car doesn't have "drive by wire" nonsense, thank God.


RE: Pretty sad
By semiconshawn on 1/30/2011 1:54:21 AM , Rating: 2
Cool a car with with old everything. Im glad you spend 10 bucks a month on insurance but I like nice cars. You have a 1996 something? I bet it smells awesome inside. Enjoy.


RE: Pretty sad
By YashBudini on 1/30/2011 11:39:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but I like nice cars.

Feel free to be a slave to your car, I like the situation reversed. Same story will cell phones, I own mine, it does not own me.

quote:
Im glad you spend 10 bucks a month on insurance

It's not about what I spend, it's about what I save.

quote:
You have a 1996 something? I bet it smells awesome inside.

You are correct, all those cancer causing aromas found in new cars are no longer present. Frankly it doesn't smell like anything.

Let the downratings continue.

New shiny stuff rules!
</infantilism>


RE: Pretty sad
By dubyadubya on 1/28/2011 9:36:02 PM , Rating: 3
It would have been nice if they would have made a mini 2L inline 6 and turbo'd it. Might not be as compact or quite as efficient but so what. Inline six's are so smooth, they rule!


RE: Pretty sad
By lagomorpha on 1/29/2011 12:35:55 AM , Rating: 1
If I may remind you, this is the BASE ENGINE. BMW likely wants a decent distance between this and the next model up, and whatever they decide to stick in the next M3.


RE: Pretty sad
By FITCamaro on 1/29/2011 7:44:54 PM , Rating: 1
Still doesn't help you when you get your ass whooped on the freeway or even from a light by a car that cost $15,000-20,000 less.


RE: Pretty sad
By walk2k on 1/30/2011 2:20:08 AM , Rating: 2
Not really since only idiots "race" on the street.

Though I think the Z4 is a little too heavy for it I bet a 2.0T like that would be a blast in a roadster. Maybe swap one into a Miata and go whoop ass on some wanna-bes in their ponycars at the track LOL nothing better than passing big stupid mustangs and camaros all day in a "chick car" LOL


RE: Pretty sad
By YashBudini on 2/1/2011 8:53:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
go whoop ass on some wanna-bes in their ponycars at the track LOL

Uh, you were just talking to one.


RE: Pretty sad
By YashBudini on 1/31/2011 12:08:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Still doesn't help you when you get your ass whooped on the freeway or even from a light by a car that cost $15,000-20,000 less.

I rest my case.


RE: Pretty sad
By lagomorpha on 1/31/2011 2:04:04 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think I have a sufficient supply of facepalm for your post.

This is the engine option for people that are a little older and want a BMW as a status symbol but don't care that it doesn't accelerate as much as pocket rockets. Think more along the lines of a modern 318i.

For the people that want to piss away extra money on a BMW badge AND have a powerful engine there will be much more expensive models available as usual.


confusing model names..
By zhivaji on 1/28/11, Rating: -1
RE: confusing model names..
By vol7ron on 1/28/2011 7:43:59 PM , Rating: 1
second?


RE: confusing model names..
By zhivaji on 1/29/11, Rating: 0
RE: confusing model names..
By Tabinium on 1/31/2011 10:41:24 AM , Rating: 2
"FIRST" is not appreciated, although a downrating is a little harsh.


kids..
By zodiacfml on 1/29/11, Rating: -1
300 HP from Turbo 6 Cyl
By faster on 1/29/11, Rating: -1
RE: 300 HP from Turbo 6 Cyl
By YashBudini on 1/30/2011 11:48:50 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Its not all that fuel efficient (20 / 17)

Bloody awful is more like it.


Smoothness
By KorruptioN on 1/28/11, Rating: -1
RE: Smoothness
By djcameron on 1/28/11, Rating: -1
RE: Smoothness
By Netjak on 1/29/2011 11:47:32 AM , Rating: 5
quite contrary, turbo 4's run at lower rpms. naturaly aspirated engine needs higher rpms for torque and power. for example, VW 2.0 turbo has flat torque from 2000 to 5500 and flat power in range from 5000 to redline. for naturaly aspirate engine that's imposible.


RE: Smoothness
By Chaser on 1/29/11, Rating: -1
RE: Smoothness
By Pryde on 1/29/2011 9:34:22 PM , Rating: 3
I think you should re read the article

260 lb-ft of torque at just 1,250 rpm to what we could assume close to peak power at 5,000 rpm.

That certainly dosen't sound like no sluggish laggy high revving EVO or WRX engine that revs to 7,000+.


RE: Smoothness
By EricMartello on 1/29/2011 11:21:43 PM , Rating: 2
The Evo 8 was using the older 4G63 engine found in turbo eclipses and the eagle talon. It did not have some of the more advances features that the newer 4G63 engine found in the Evo 9 does...mainly Mivec which is the variable valve and timing.

There is no real turbo lag on an Evo 9, and unlike turbo cars that compensate for lag with smaller, faster spooling turbos, the Evo 9 has a wide powerband that extends past 7K RPM so it's really the best of both worlds - point being that modern 4-cyl turbo engines are not necessarily what you described.

A V8 is always going to be smoother than an I4 engine turbo'd or NA due to its flat torque curve and higher number of cylinders...generally, more cylinders means smoother operation due to there being more powerstrokes per revolution.

In my opinion the V8 is probably the best type of internal combustion engine we have due to its overall versatility, efficiency and smoothness, and nothing beats the sound of a V8 roar.


RE: Smoothness
By dsumanik on 1/30/11, Rating: -1
RE: Smoothness
By EricMartello on 1/30/11, Rating: 0
RE: Smoothness
By YashBudini on 1/30/2011 11:50:27 PM , Rating: 2
m = milli
M = Mega

You know something we don't?


RE: Smoothness
By EricMartello on 1/30/2011 11:56:40 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, that there is no such thing as a "megameter" and I used capital for EMPHASIS.


RE: Smoothness
By Nexos on 1/31/2011 2:45:52 AM , Rating: 2
The STUPID.... it hurts!

caps makes it true


RE: Smoothness
By DerekZ06 on 1/29/2011 2:05:28 PM , Rating: 1
With the amount of torque it makes it doesn't need to run higher rpms. It makes 260ftlbs at 1250 rpms. If you plug that into the hp equation: 260*1250/5252= 62hp at only 1250rpm.

Lets compare this to Toyota's current corporate 2.0L engine. It is used in the Camry and Rav4's. It creates 148hp@6000, 142 ft.lbs@4000 in the Rav4 and slightly less in the Camry. When its spinning at 4000rpm it is making 108hp.

At 1250 rpm it is most likely making 15% (+/-5%) less torque than its peak for about ~121 ft.lbs. That would generate about a grand total of 30hp. This 4cyl would have to rev to about 2500rpms to make the same power. As you can see, BMW's 4cyl would not have to spin very fast at all.


RE: Smoothness
By YashBudini on 1/29/11, Rating: 0
RE: Smoothness
By DerekZ06 on 1/29/2011 4:28:08 PM , Rating: 1
Other unpleasantries such as what?

What would be the problem with buying this car used?

I doubt either of us have sampled the real life drive ratio used on this car. Also I said "WOULD NOT HAVE TO." This 4cyl WOULD NOT HAVE TO spin as fast compared to other 4cyl or the BMW 3Liter to generate the same amount of power. I never said it DOES NOT spin as fast.

However, BMW is a performance car and will most likely not be eco tuned. So in reality, yes, it may spin fast so the driver has instant potential power without having to shift. If it was tuned for economy, it may only take 40hp to cruise down the road at 60mph which leaves 22 hp left over to accelerate without shifting @1250rpm. But being a performance car instead of a eco car, it may spin at 2200rpm at 60mph generating a potential output of 108hp. This leaves 68hp of potential output that is instantly available without shifting.

*These numbers are not accurate. They are for an example only.


RE: Smoothness
By Iketh on 1/29/2011 6:38:38 PM , Rating: 1
What you say about the oil is true. There is more power being leveraged against much less piston/engine contact surfaces, not to mention there is a turbo to lube now. This increase of metal-to-metal pressure does to decrease even if the average driver runs the engine at half the RPMs as in the 6.

As for gear ratios, I'm sure BMW will make use of the torque in the lower ranges. Assuming otherwise is the same as calling BMW engineers idiots.


RE: Smoothness
By Iketh on 1/29/2011 6:54:37 PM , Rating: 2
does to increase = does not increase


RE: Smoothness
By YashBudini on 1/30/11, Rating: 0
RE: Smoothness
By Dr of crap on 1/31/2011 9:00:24 AM , Rating: 1
And those two comments above are why small cars don't sell in the here!
A 4 cyclinder is fine.

Maybe if you didn't talk while driving it wouldn't be to loud for you!


RE: Smoothness
By lagomorpha on 1/29/2011 12:32:13 AM , Rating: 2
A horizontally opposed 4 is naturally balanced as well. Unless you get really creative with the exhaust system you're left with a boxer-4's rumbly uneven exhaust note but I've never met anyone with male genitalia that's complained about that.


RE: Smoothness
By Runiteshark on 1/29/2011 4:30:58 AM , Rating: 1
Flat 4's are not balanced, you're thinking of flat 6's.


RE: Smoothness
By Runiteshark on 1/29/2011 6:18:26 AM , Rating: 2
Also the rumbly exhaust is caused by subaru's unequal length headers. Any car with shit headers like that will sound "rumbly" because the exhaust pulses aren't synced up to take advantage of scavenging. This is why any guy with a built boxer sounds like every other 4 banger, because they'll replace it with either a proper exhaust manifold, or a twinscroll setup to minimize lag on a bigger turbo.

Furthermore, the engine in this BMW will sound like every other decently built turbo 4 since it has a twinscroll setup.


RE: Smoothness
By lagomorpha on 1/31/2011 1:59:19 PM , Rating: 2
All boxer engines are inherently balanced thanks to having companion cylinders opposite each other in pairs (except for a certain Porsche racing engine but that was a unique case). Even boxer twins, which is one reason BMW stuck with them for motorcycles for so long.


RE: Smoothness
By walk2k on 1/29/2011 1:26:29 AM , Rating: 2
LOL guess you've never heard of a little thing called a boxer yeah it's okay they are pretty new.... as of like 50 years ago...


RE: Smoothness
By Runiteshark on 1/29/2011 6:12:14 AM , Rating: 1
LOL NO.

Boxers (flat 4s) are NOT naturally balanced. The minimum cylinder requirement for flatties is 6, staying balanced as many even cylinders you want.


RE: Smoothness
By KorruptioN on 1/29/2011 4:07:51 PM , Rating: 1
Not sure why Runiteshark keeps getting rated down when he's right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat-four_engine


RE: Smoothness
By YashBudini on 1/29/11, Rating: 0
RE: Smoothness
By dsx724 on 1/29/2011 4:16:47 PM , Rating: 2
Too many Apple users.


RE: Smoothness
By YashBudini on 1/29/2011 4:38:21 PM , Rating: 4
And they're holding it wrong no less.


RE: Smoothness
By walk2k on 1/30/2011 2:03:31 AM , Rating: 1
Oh you mean like where it says "The configuration results in inherently good balance of the reciprocating parts"LOL


RE: Smoothness
By Runiteshark on 1/30/2011 2:36:12 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, its the best balanced out of any 4 cylinder configuration.

It is not naturally balanced. It says so right there in the article if you continue reading.


RE: Smoothness
By lagomorpha on 1/31/2011 6:41:01 PM , Rating: 2
"This is because the cylinders cannot be directly opposed, but must be offset somewhat so the piston connecting rods can be on separate crank pins, which results in the forces being slightly off-centre. The vibration is usually not serious enough to require balance shafts."

I don't think you understand just how tiny that imbalance is, you can't really compare it to the vertical vibration of an Inline 4.


"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis











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