[Opening a can of worms] Did anyone else test drive 328i and miss the N52?

Ignore is over rated, it is not as if I put someone on ignore, he no longer exists. The opposite is true, he can continue to counter your opinions, but you do not respond because you can not see him.

An outsider looking in will think you have lost the argument.

Originally Posted by dtc100

Ignore is over rated, it is not as if I put someone on ignore, he no longer exists. The opposite is true, he can continue to counter your opinions, but you do not respond because you can not see him.

An outsider looking in will think you have lost the argument.

It's hell, isn't it, worrying so much about what other people think?

Originally Posted by raleedy

It's hell, isn't it, worrying so much about what other people think?

lol

Originally Posted by 16n69

I really don't give a rat's a$$ what you or anyone else believes...at the time I was impressed and thrilled to get an early preview of the cars...I am a fan of BMW and maybe I did over react...I want to always like a new bimmer...but they have made that increasingly more difficult...the F30 SUCKS compared to Bimmers past...period.

You are certainly welcome to your new and improved opinion, but the raw numbers point to the F30 being an improvement in a great many measurable ways.

Originally Posted by raleedy

It's hell, isn't it, worrying so much about what other people think?

I assume when someone posts on a forum he/she wants the audience to hear it? After all why make the effort if no one could possibly care about your effort? And more so than not you want your effort to receive some positive results.

If so, it makes no sense to take an action (like ignore) that may lead to more negative results, for the same effort you are making.

Of course some might say, I don't give a #%&& what other readers think, but I think it is a lie. In my life, I have not met one person of normal capacity, who absolutely did not want to be heard.

Originally Posted by 16n69

it doesn't feel or sound like a true BMW.

If your reference is a M54/N52 or even a Toyota/Honda V6, it is definitely a step back. It wouldn't prevent me from buying a 328i, though if the price gap with the 335i is too big (like in Canada).

Originally Posted by Saintor

If your reference is a M54/N52 or even a Toyota/Honda V6, it is definitely a step back. It wouldn't prevent me from buying a 328i, though if the price gap with the 335i is too big (like in Canada).

Not a Toyota V6. In fact when I revved the N20 to 5000, it reminded me of the Lexus V6 I test drove, which isn't a bad thing if the goal is to grab more Lexus drivers.

Lexus is a rebadged Toyota.

Originally Posted by dtc100

Not a Toyota V6. In fact when I revved the N20 to 5000, it reminded me of the Lexus V6 I test drove, which isn't a bad thing if the goal is to grab more Lexus drivers.

Crappy video but nice growl of the engine at redline.


In short; * I disagree*.

Originally Posted by dtc100

I assume when someone posts on a forum he/she wants the audience to hear it? After all why make the effort if no one could possibly care about your effort? And more so than not you want your effort to receive some positive results.

If so, it makes no sense to take an action (like ignore) that may lead to more negative results, for the same effort you are making.

Of course some might say, I don't give a #%&& what other readers think, but I think it is a lie. In my life, I have not met one person of normal capacity, who absolutely did not want to be heard.

You make a good point. My comment, though, was directed at your not wanting to screen out posts from someone whose posts really annoy you, because you said you were worried about how those annoying posts might inform other readers' view of you. I was sort of making fun of that, since I think most of us would be fairly comfortable letting readers make their own judgment based on what we say, regardless of what others say about what we say. But I think I could have skipped my snarky comment, so I owe you an apology.

Originally Posted by AutoUnion

This. The N55 Is a noticeable downgrade to the N54

+1

- Mike

Originally Posted by Saintor

Crappy video but nice growl of the engine at redline.


In short; * I disagree*.

Couldn't make a definitive judgement from the youtube clip but I trust your view, assume you had driven the Toyota V6. I never drove it, I was referring to the Lexus V6s, which I did drive.

Originally Posted by raleedy

I was sort of making fun of that, since I think most of us would be fairly comfortable letting readers make their own judgment based on what we say, regardless of what others say about what we say. But I think I could have skipped my snarky comment, so I owe you an apology.

First off no apology needed, I was never offended by your comments. I actually agree with your above 100%, so apparently I misunderstood you.

Of course if some posters are really annoying, by all means put them on ignore. I just found it difficult to be annoyed by someone who I don't even know. Sometimes people take online opinions too seriously.

Originally Posted by bayoucity

Lexus is a rebadged Toyota.

BMW has become a re-badged Lexus

Here is the final proof of what I always maintained. Most turbo vehicles make no sense. Notice also that the CR's 0-60mph X3 N20 is no quicker than the X3 N52 because they do it like a 5-60mph - real life wins.

http://www.leftlanenews.com/consumer...o-engines.html

NA cars make no sense, as turbochargers work.

CU is only in it for the headlines — they are not enthusiasts.

- Mike

Originally Posted by Emission

NA cars make no sense, as turbochargers work.

CU is only in it for the headlines - they are not enthusiasts.

- Mike

I was going to buy a 5 Series or defect to Mercedes Benz due to the 4 cylinder engine and the perception I had about it.

Reading your review about the 328i and then taking a test drive, couldn't believe it. The N20 is a rocket. Makes for a crazy-fast car. Who needs cylinders when you have turbos?

VROOM.

BJ

Originally Posted by Saintor

Here is the final proof of what I always maintained. Most turbo vehicles make no sense. Notice also that the CR's 0-60mph X3 N20 is no quicker than the X3 N52 because they do it like a 5-60mph - real life wins.

http://www.leftlanenews.com/consumer...o-engines.html

You skipped the part of the article that says the n20 f30 is an example of the good downsizing as it gets the mpg claimed as CR is averaging 28mpg.
"One benefit to the turbocharged engines is an abundance of torque at low to mid rpm. In daily driving, this means a more effortless feeling of thrust with reduced need to downshift while climbing hills or when delivering the kind of moderate acceleration most drivers demand. That can make a car feel more responsive, even if its actual acceleration times from a standstill are slower. However, not all of these turbocharged models deliver that benefit. Many, especially those smaller 1.4- and 1.6-liter engines, still downshift frequently to keep up with traffic. And all but one of the tested cars have slower mid-range acceleration from 45-65 mph.
In contrast, BMW's turbocharged four-cylinder engines seem to deliver both good fuel economy and acceleration: The 2.0-liter turbocharged four cylinder contributes to 28 mpg overall in our last tested 328i sedan. It improved mileage only marginally in the 2013 X3 SUV compared to the six-cylinder 2011 X3 we tested, with essentially identical power and acceleration but somewhat comprised refinement."

So you took an article which is slamming the small displacement turbos for not offering better speed or mpg compared to larger displacements, yet specifically praises the F30 and you omit that and focus on the X3(in the F30 section no less) to try and prove your (biased)agenda.

Wow.

Way to be impartial.

Originally Posted by Jamesonsviggen

You skipped the part of the article that says the n20 f30 is an example of the good downsizing as it gets the mpg claimed as CR is averaging 28mpg.
"One benefit to the turbocharged engines is an abundance of torque at low to mid rpm. In daily driving, this means a more effortless feeling of thrust with reduced need to downshift while climbing hills or when delivering the kind of moderate acceleration most drivers demand. That can make a car feel more responsive, even if its actual acceleration times from a standstill are slower. However, not all of these turbocharged models deliver that benefit. Many, especially those smaller 1.4- and 1.6-liter engines, still downshift frequently to keep up with traffic. And all but one of the tested cars have slower mid-range acceleration from 45-65 mph.
In contrast, BMW's turbocharged four-cylinder engines seem to deliver both good fuel economy and acceleration: The 2.0-liter turbocharged four cylinder contributes to 28 mpg overall in our last tested 328i sedan. It improved mileage only marginally in the 2013 X3 SUV compared to the six-cylinder 2011 X3 we tested, with essentially identical power and acceleration but somewhat comprised refinement."

So you took an article which is slamming the small displacement turbos for not offering better speed or mpg compared to larger displacements, yet specifically praises the F30 and you omit that and focus on the X3(in the F30 section no less) to try and prove your (biased)agenda.

Wow.

Way to be impartial.

You invented that 328i reference and it is not in that specific article. The only N20 reference is the X3, and the results speak for themselves.

Way to distort the facts.

Some of CR's logic is flawed


The Sonata for example.

The Turbo is the replacement for the V-6 which did not have that high of a take rate. The point is to offer V-6 performance with 4 cylinder economy, not to BETTER the 4 cylinders economy.

We had a '09 Sonata V-6 Limited, it did 0-60 in the high 6 second range and struggled to average 22-23mpg. So here you see the 2.0T Sonata gets very close to the 2.4's economy while giving it acceleration in-line or better than the former V-6.

Some of their other examples, the trucks and suv's, I think the big weight vehicles are more taxing, and less of an ideal fit for small displacement.

Originally Posted by Saintor

You invented that 328i reference and it is not in that specific article. The only N20 reference is the X3, and the results speak for themselves.

Way to distort the facts.

Que?

Consumer Reports finds small turbo engines don't deliver on fuel economy claims
Feb 5, 2013 12:01 AM

Small turbocharged engines are marketed as delivering the power of a large engine, with the fuel economy of a smaller one. That's a tempting proposition, but our testing shows these small-displacement turbos are not delivering on the promises.
By now, we've tested many cars with these engines, and lots of competitors with traditional, naturally-aspirated powerplants, big and small. Generally, the turbocharged cars have slower acceleration and no better fuel economy than the models with bigger, conventional engines. Looking at EPA fuel-economy estimates (calculated based on laboratory tests), some of these cars' turbocharged engines seem to have an advantage. But we found those results don't match the findings from our own fuel-economy tests.
The latest example is the collection of EcoBoost Ford Fusions we tested, which come with small, direct-injection, turbocharged four-cylinder engines. The smallest one—a 1.6-liter producing 173 hp—is a $795 option over the basic conventional 2.5-liter four cylinder on Fusion SE models. But that car's 0-60 mph acceleration time trails most competitors, and its 25 mpg overall places it among the worst of the crop of recently-redesigned family sedans. The Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, and Nissan Altima, all with conventional 2.4- or 2.5-liter four-cylinder engines, get an additional 2, 5, and 6 mpg, respectively. And all accelerate more quickly.
The larger among Ford's EcoBoost four-cylinder engines, the turbocharged 231-hp, 2.0-liter, is billed as having the power of a V6 but delivering the fuel economy of a four-cylinder. However, our so-equipped Fusion Titanium returned 22 mpg (which pales against the 25 and 26 mpg we recorded for the best V6 family sedans), slower acceleration and reduced refinement compared to its V6-powered peers.
Another example is our tests of the Chevrolet Cruze. Our base Cruze had the 1.8-liter four-cylinder; our higher-end 1LT version came with the 1.4-liter turbo four cylinder. While the 1.4-liter feels marginally more powerful in daily driving, it was barely faster to 60 mph, and it got the same fuel economy as the larger engine—26 mpg overall.
Turbochargers pump extra air into the engine to deliver more power. But all engines have to be operated at a very specific air-to-fuel ratio. So this extra air has to be augmented with extra fuel, which may offset any savings from shrinking engine sizes.
One benefit to the turbocharged engines is an abundance of torque at low to mid rpm. In daily driving, this means a more effortless feeling of thrust with reduced need to downshift while climbing hills or when delivering the kind of moderate acceleration most drivers demand. That can make a car feel more responsive, even if its actual acceleration times from a standstill are slower. However, not all of these turbocharged models deliver that benefit. Many, especially those smaller 1.4- and 1.6-liter engines, still downshift frequently to keep up with traffic. And all but one of the tested cars have slower mid-range acceleration from 45-65 mph.
In contrast, BMW's turbocharged four-cylinder engines seem to deliver both good fuel economy and acceleration: The 2.0-liter turbocharged four cylinder contributes to 28 mpg overall in our last tested 328i sedan. It improved mileage only marginally in the 2013 X3 SUV compared to the six-cylinder 2011 X3 we tested, with essentially identical power and acceleration but somewhat comprised refinement. The 2.0-liter turbo four cylinder engine we've tested in Audis and Volkswagens usually return impressive mileage, though we haven't tested any identical model powered by two different engines for such a direct comparison.

Originally Posted by Jamesonsviggen

Que?

Consumer Reports finds small turbo engines don't deliver on fuel economy claims
Feb 5, 2013 12:01 AM

Small turbocharged engines are marketed as delivering the power of a large engine, with the fuel economy of a smaller one. That's a tempting proposition, but our testing shows these small-displacement turbos are not delivering on the promises.
By now, we've tested many cars with these engines, and lots of competitors with traditional, naturally-aspirated powerplants, big and small. Generally, the turbocharged cars have slower acceleration and no better fuel economy than the models with bigger, conventional engines. Looking at EPA fuel-economy estimates (calculated based on laboratory tests), some of these cars' turbocharged engines seem to have an advantage. But we found those results don't match the findings from our own fuel-economy tests.
The latest example is the collection of EcoBoost Ford Fusions we tested, which come with small, direct-injection, turbocharged four-cylinder engines. The smallest one-a 1.6-liter producing 173 hp-is a $795 option over the basic conventional 2.5-liter four cylinder on Fusion SE models. But that car's 0-60 mph acceleration time trails most competitors, and its 25 mpg overall places it among the worst of the crop of recently-redesigned family sedans. The Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, and Nissan Altima, all with conventional 2.4- or 2.5-liter four-cylinder engines, get an additional 2, 5, and 6 mpg, respectively. And all accelerate more quickly.
The larger among Ford's EcoBoost four-cylinder engines, the turbocharged 231-hp, 2.0-liter, is billed as having the power of a V6 but delivering the fuel economy of a four-cylinder. However, our so-equipped Fusion Titanium returned 22 mpg (which pales against the 25 and 26 mpg we recorded for the best V6 family sedans), slower acceleration and reduced refinement compared to its V6-powered peers.
Another example is our tests of the Chevrolet Cruze. Our base Cruze had the 1.8-liter four-cylinder; our higher-end 1LT version came with the 1.4-liter turbo four cylinder. While the 1.4-liter feels marginally more powerful in daily driving, it was barely faster to 60 mph, and it got the same fuel economy as the larger engine-26 mpg overall.
Turbochargers pump extra air into the engine to deliver more power. But all engines have to be operated at a very specific air-to-fuel ratio. So this extra air has to be augmented with extra fuel, which may offset any savings from shrinking engine sizes.
One benefit to the turbocharged engines is an abundance of torque at low to mid rpm. In daily driving, this means a more effortless feeling of thrust with reduced need to downshift while climbing hills or when delivering the kind of moderate acceleration most drivers demand. That can make a car feel more responsive, even if its actual acceleration times from a standstill are slower. However, not all of these turbocharged models deliver that benefit. Many, especially those smaller 1.4- and 1.6-liter engines, still downshift frequently to keep up with traffic. And all but one of the tested cars have slower mid-range acceleration from 45-65 mph.
In contrast, BMW's turbocharged four-cylinder engines seem to deliver both good fuel economy and acceleration: The 2.0-liter turbocharged four cylinder contributes to 28 mpg overall in our last tested 328i sedan. It improved mileage only marginally in the 2013 X3 SUV compared to the six-cylinder 2011 X3 we tested, with essentially identical power and acceleration but somewhat comprised refinement. The 2.0-liter turbo four cylinder engine we've tested in Audis and Volkswagens usually return impressive mileage, though we haven't tested any identical model powered by two different engines for such a direct comparison.

Well, assuming what you report is founded, it iis not even helping significantly.

For one, there is no evidence that the reported 28mpg is the same routine as the comparative tests above. A 328i can be anywhere between 22mpg and 34mpg (EPA.) . Apple to orange situation to start with.

For two, Car&Driver reported 26mpg on a 40000miles 2006 N52 330i. Its real-life 5-60mph is even quicker than a 2012 N20 328i. With direct injection, it would only improve.
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...6-bmw-330i.pdf

For three, even assuming 28mpg / 240HP running on premium is no better by any mean than 26mpg / 270HP running on regular. * So CR is quite right *.

I thought the N20 was laggy off the line and sluggish at low speeds. Once it's up to speed, it has nice power but for a 45-49K car well equipped, I expected better. The 335 satisfied those expectations and is what the 328 should be. Sorry, but the 328 isn't close in driving experience to a 335. It's a fine car if MPG's and price are a concern.

I don't think it has anything to do with the N20 being a 4 banger either. The Japanese have done some pretty amazing stuff with 4 bangers. Give BMW some time, they should be able to shore up the deficiencies of the N20.

Also, Those of you ragging on the N55, I can't tell if your underestimating it or overestimating the N54. I've driven both. Both are great engines, and I think saying the N54 is exponentially better then the N55 is an incorrect statement. I think N55 is strong, has a wide powerband, pulls fiercely in all gears, and has a great engine note when pushed. (At idle, it's unimpressive, though its nothing an AM exhaust can't help) This engine is highly underrated, and I am biased because I own one but that doesn't mean it's not true.

The N20 is a very good turbo four but at the end of the day and in "real world" driving I found this to be very true..."There is not replacement for displacement".

Turbocharged engines burn MORE fuel under full throttle acceleration, but are much more efficient during cruise. Naturally aspirated engines take the middle road and are rather consistent with consumption.

Most drivers prefer turbocharged engines as today's variants make gobs of torque down low and have minimal lag. I prefer turbo, unless you give me a NA engine over 5.0-liters.

Last week, I had the opportunity to spend time in a CL65 AMG (twin-turbo 6.0-liter V12 making 621 hp and 738 lb-ft) and a Lamborghini Aventador (NA 6.5-liter V12 making 700 hp and 608 lb-ft). Both deliver power very differently — one is a screamer and the other is a torque monster. That's me in the Lambo on the banking at Homestead.

- Mike