Euro E60 engine options

I was just researching the E60's a little and found out that there are at least 8 engine options available in Europe. 520d, 523i, 525i, 530d, 530i, 535d, 540i, and 550i. I was wondering what is a 540i. 306hp L6? Does anyone have a e60 540i. Why cant we have some of these engine's available in the states, especially, the 535d with a Banks 6-Gun setup pumping out about 350 hp, and 600 lb/ft of torque.

The 540 uses a 4.0 litre V8, not an inline 6.

It is rated 306 hp in the UK (not the same hp measurement standard as is used in North America, but close enough).

We can't get the diesels primarily due to our fuel quality. When the fuel gets better (2006/2007, phased in) the diesels won't meet the new emissions standards, without post-treatment. We may see them, but with expensive add-ons such as urea injection.

Unless you have no emissions testing in your area, that means no aftermarket mods for more hp unless you find a way to keep the emissions down.

Originally Posted by jcl10

We can't get the diesels primarily due to our fuel quality. When the fuel gets better (2006/2007, phased in) the diesels won't meet the new emissions standards, without post-treatment. We may see them, but with expensive add-ons such as urea injection.

What do you mean? In 2006/2007, when our fuel "gets better" any current diesels will need add ons? Wouldn't cleaner fuel = cleaner burning car.... ? Will the diesel standards also be raised or something?

The US currently doesnt have low sulfur diesel available like what is standard in Europe. Sulfur will kill a catalytic converter that would catch the emissions. The sulfur content is about 4-6 ppm in Europe where as here, it can be as high as 200 ppm and usually averages about 60 ppm. The new tier 2 regulations that will go into affect in 2007 will reduce the maximum allowable sulfur to Eurpoean levels, but will basically kill the passenger diesel in the US because of unattainable particulate emissions minimums. This doesnt make sense to me at all. How a H2 can drive on the same roads that do not allow a Jetta TDI boggles my mind. I am not condemming gas guzzlers, as I have a Bronco that gets 8-10 mpg, but why a 48 mpg Jetta, E320 CDI, 5er d's, and other diesels that could really be successful overhere at least in a niche market will be banned does not make sense to me. Besides, Diesels dont dump 300 d cell batterys into landfills after 100k miles like a hybrid does.

Originally Posted by sdriver

In 2006/2007, when our fuel "gets better" any current diesels will need add ons? Wouldn't cleaner fuel = cleaner burning car.... ? Will the diesel standards also be raised or something?

Standards apply to the the year the vehicle was produced, so no, current low-tech diesels will carry on as they are. That is all we get in North America, the low-tech diesels, besides the trucks which generally don't have to meet the same emissions standards. Consider the VW TDI - in Europe there are multiple versions, with a whole range of hp ratings, for the 1.9 litre TDI (I had one with 130 hp in the UK). In Canada we just get the lowest hp model now, and it is nothing like the better versions. Efficient, yes, but smoky and slow. It is the only version of that engine that can survive on the high-sulphur diesel, and even then it is marginal (check the warranty costs that VW is experiencing).

The BMW diesels that we read about are not tolerant of high-sulphur fuel. When they could be sold in North America in 2006/2007, they are able to meet emissions laws on the date of sale, but the EPA (and other regulators) require that the vehicle meet the same emissions test after several years, and that is what they can not do. Systems like urea injection are designed to keep the diesels clean over their useful life.

I agree with hawk2100n, that it doesn't make sense that there are sport utilities (and, for that matter, class 8 highway trucks) not required to meet many of the emissions standards, while those of us with more efficient vehicles are not given access to engines that on balance, likely cause less damage to the environment.

I did some digging around, and it seems that the EPA doesn't want urea injection:
http://www.autoblog.com/entry/1234000893050331/

There is a point to the whole diesels being dirty. When I was in London a couple months ago, everytime I blew my nose I'd have black snot instead of clear... I think the small numbers of cars compared to the states keeps the impact from going out of control.

Originally Posted by sdriver

When I was in London a couple months ago, everytime I blew my nose I'd have black snot instead of clear... I think the small numbers of cars compared to the states keeps the impact from going out of control.

Your quote made me laugh, but it's so true.

It really grossed me out; at that moment, looking at a tissue full of "black tar", I thought, "f--k diesel".

:lol:

Yeah, I'm happy we don't have as many diesel vehicles here as in Europe. THe emissions really are quite gross. One day soon, we'll have diesel techonogy w/ less emssions- then I'll welcome them here. For now, i'd rather have the 10mpg hummer than the TDI JEtta on the highway if the Jetta is emitting htat black smoke and particulates.

BTW, what about bio-diesel? This seems like a real "alternative fuel" and as bonus exiitng diesels run much cleaner on it. Only downside is possible gelling at cold temps, but additives can take care of that. We should force trucks/buses to run on this stuff for now. I'd be psyched to run a BMW diesle on biodiesel!