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

RE: Just wish it ran on regular
By Brandon Hill 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
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
lumped you into with the crowd.

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

"Google fired a shot heard 'round the world, and now a second American company has answered the call to defend the rights of the Chinese people." -- Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.)

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki