Welcome to Bimmerfest -- The #1 Online Community for BMW related information! Please enjoy the discussion forums below and share your experiences with the 200,000 current, new and past BMW owners. The forums are broken out by car model and into other special interest sections such as BMW European Delivery and a special forum to voice your questions to the many BMW dealers on the site to assist our members!

Please follow the links below to help get you started!

Go Back   Bimmerfest - BMW Forums > BMW Model Discussions > 3 Series / 4 Series > F30 / F31 / F32 / F33 (2012 - current)

F30 / F31 / F32 / F33 (2012 - current)
The sixth generation 3 series, chassis code F30. 2013 model year 328i and 335i sedans now in production. Read the F30 frequently asked question thread for all your basic question and dive into all the details in the ultimate F30 information thread.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 02-23-2012, 01:37 PM
dtc100 dtc100 is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Norcal
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,694
Mein Auto: 2011 328i
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.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 02-23-2012, 01:51 PM
raleedy's Avatar
raleedy raleedy is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Oregon
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,129
Mein Auto: 2013 F10 528i
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtc100 View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 02-23-2012, 02:05 PM
justinnum1's Avatar
justinnum1 justinnum1 is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: South Florida
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,736
Mein Auto: F30 328i Sport
Quote:
Originally Posted by raleedy View Post
It's hell, isn't it, worrying so much about what other people think?
lol
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 02-23-2012, 03:13 PM
Halo05 Halo05 is offline
Registered User
Location: Pensacola, FL
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 13
Mein Auto: 2012 328i
Quote:
Originally Posted by 16n69 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 02-23-2012, 04:50 PM
dtc100 dtc100 is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Norcal
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,694
Mein Auto: 2011 328i
Quote:
Originally Posted by raleedy View Post
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.

Last edited by dtc100; 02-23-2012 at 04:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 02-23-2012, 04:58 PM
Saintor's Avatar
Saintor Saintor is offline
Abuser of everything
Location: MTL
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,815
Mein Auto: BMW E90 2007
Quote:
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).
__________________
2007 E90 AW 323i Step | Lowered 1.25"/1" | BMW Performance Exhaust | Debadged | Scangauge II | Style 162 18" & 161 17" wheels & rear 15mm spacers

Last edited by Saintor; 02-23-2012 at 05:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 02-23-2012, 05:02 PM
dtc100 dtc100 is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Norcal
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,694
Mein Auto: 2011 328i
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintor View Post
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.

Last edited by dtc100; 02-23-2012 at 05:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 02-23-2012, 05:06 PM
bayoucity's Avatar
bayoucity bayoucity is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Houston
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,033
Mein Auto: 2011 335d & 2014 535i
Lexus is a rebadged Toyota.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 02-23-2012, 05:06 PM
Saintor's Avatar
Saintor Saintor is offline
Abuser of everything
Location: MTL
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,815
Mein Auto: BMW E90 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtc100 View Post
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*.
__________________
2007 E90 AW 323i Step | Lowered 1.25"/1" | BMW Performance Exhaust | Debadged | Scangauge II | Style 162 18" & 161 17" wheels & rear 15mm spacers
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 02-23-2012, 06:03 PM
raleedy's Avatar
raleedy raleedy is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Oregon
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,129
Mein Auto: 2013 F10 528i
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtc100 View Post
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.

Last edited by raleedy; 02-23-2012 at 06:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 02-23-2012, 09:50 PM
Emission's Avatar
Emission Emission is offline
Automotive Monomaniac
Location: North of Los Angeles, CA
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 10,688
Mein Auto: Schnelle Autos
Quote:
Originally Posted by AutoUnion View Post
This. The N55 Is a noticeable downgrade to the N54
+1

- Mike
__________________
I am fortunate to have unique press cars delivered weekly, but I own:

'13 Audi Q5 2.0T Quattro 8AT
'86 Porsche 911 Turbo 4MT


Gone, but never forgotten... my E70 X5 35d, E90 335i, E46 330i, E36 328i, E70 X5 3.0si, E53 X5 3.0i.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read my work as West Coast Editor for Autoblog!
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 02-23-2012, 10:50 PM
dtc100 dtc100 is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Norcal
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,694
Mein Auto: 2011 328i
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintor View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 02-23-2012, 10:59 PM
dtc100 dtc100 is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Norcal
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,694
Mein Auto: 2011 328i
Quote:
Originally Posted by raleedy View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 02-24-2012, 08:13 AM
16n69 16n69 is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: LV NV
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 513
Mein Auto: BMW 3 Series M3
Quote:
Originally Posted by bayoucity View Post
Lexus is a rebadged Toyota.
BMW has become a re-badged Lexus
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 02-05-2013, 02:56 PM
Saintor's Avatar
Saintor Saintor is offline
Abuser of everything
Location: MTL
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,815
Mein Auto: BMW E90 2007
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

__________________
2007 E90 AW 323i Step | Lowered 1.25"/1" | BMW Performance Exhaust | Debadged | Scangauge II | Style 162 18" & 161 17" wheels & rear 15mm spacers
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 02-05-2013, 03:01 PM
Emission's Avatar
Emission Emission is offline
Automotive Monomaniac
Location: North of Los Angeles, CA
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 10,688
Mein Auto: Schnelle Autos
NA cars make no sense, as turbochargers work.

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

- Mike
__________________
I am fortunate to have unique press cars delivered weekly, but I own:

'13 Audi Q5 2.0T Quattro 8AT
'86 Porsche 911 Turbo 4MT


Gone, but never forgotten... my E70 X5 35d, E90 335i, E46 330i, E36 328i, E70 X5 3.0si, E53 X5 3.0i.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read my work as West Coast Editor for Autoblog!
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 02-05-2013, 03:10 PM
boltjaM3s's Avatar
boltjaM3s boltjaM3s is offline
BMW Platinum Visa® Member
Location: USA
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,743
Mein Auto: BMW L328i
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emission View Post
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
__________________

2013 BMW L328i Luxury Sedan | Premium Package | Technology Package | Lighting Package | Steptronic® | PDC | Apps
Mineral Grey Metallic | Saddle Leather | Anthracite | Camera | Sirius | Rolex | Trophy Wife | Beach House | Status Package®
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 02-05-2013, 03:15 PM
Jamesonsviggen Jamesonsviggen is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: NJ
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,241
Mein Auto: '98 M E36/7:'13 F30 RWD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintor View Post
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.
__________________
'98 M Roadster+'06 Saab 9-5 Combi 5mt
'11 Saab 9-3 XWD
'13 M-Sport 328i 6mt FOR SALE


E36/7: Dinan/RMS stage 2+ blower@13lbs of BOOST! 18" BBS LM's, too much more to list
F30: 6mt, for sale 9/14

'06 Saab 9-5 wagon 5mt TUNED

Last edited by Jamesonsviggen; 02-05-2013 at 03:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 02-05-2013, 03:22 PM
Saintor's Avatar
Saintor Saintor is offline
Abuser of everything
Location: MTL
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,815
Mein Auto: BMW E90 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamesonsviggen View Post
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.
__________________
2007 E90 AW 323i Step | Lowered 1.25"/1" | BMW Performance Exhaust | Debadged | Scangauge II | Style 162 18" & 161 17" wheels & rear 15mm spacers
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 02-05-2013, 03:23 PM
Jamesonsviggen Jamesonsviggen is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: NJ
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,241
Mein Auto: '98 M E36/7:'13 F30 RWD
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.
__________________
'98 M Roadster+'06 Saab 9-5 Combi 5mt
'11 Saab 9-3 XWD
'13 M-Sport 328i 6mt FOR SALE


E36/7: Dinan/RMS stage 2+ blower@13lbs of BOOST! 18" BBS LM's, too much more to list
F30: 6mt, for sale 9/14

'06 Saab 9-5 wagon 5mt TUNED
Reply With Quote
  #121  
Old 02-05-2013, 03:24 PM
Jamesonsviggen Jamesonsviggen is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: NJ
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,241
Mein Auto: '98 M E36/7:'13 F30 RWD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintor View Post
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.
__________________
'98 M Roadster+'06 Saab 9-5 Combi 5mt
'11 Saab 9-3 XWD
'13 M-Sport 328i 6mt FOR SALE


E36/7: Dinan/RMS stage 2+ blower@13lbs of BOOST! 18" BBS LM's, too much more to list
F30: 6mt, for sale 9/14

'06 Saab 9-5 wagon 5mt TUNED
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 02-05-2013, 04:13 PM
Saintor's Avatar
Saintor Saintor is offline
Abuser of everything
Location: MTL
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,815
Mein Auto: BMW E90 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamesonsviggen View Post
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 *.
__________________
2007 E90 AW 323i Step | Lowered 1.25"/1" | BMW Performance Exhaust | Debadged | Scangauge II | Style 162 18" & 161 17" wheels & rear 15mm spacers

Last edited by Saintor; 02-05-2013 at 04:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 02-05-2013, 04:13 PM
jfox335i jfox335i is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: PA
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 261
Send a message via Skype™ to jfox335i
Mein Auto: 2010 E90 M3
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.
__________________
Current: 2010 E90 M3 - JBM PP,TP,ES,CW,Beast
Retired: 2012 F30 335i Sedan - Sport Line

BMWCCA #471315
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 02-05-2013, 04:15 PM
LegendsNeverDie LegendsNeverDie is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: NJ
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 950
Mein Auto: BMW 328i SP
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".
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 02-05-2013, 04:27 PM
Emission's Avatar
Emission Emission is offline
Automotive Monomaniac
Location: North of Los Angeles, CA
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 10,688
Mein Auto: Schnelle Autos
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
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Lambo_Roadster_L_34.jpg
Views:	37
Size:	86.1 KB
ID:	360981  
__________________
I am fortunate to have unique press cars delivered weekly, but I own:

'13 Audi Q5 2.0T Quattro 8AT
'86 Porsche 911 Turbo 4MT


Gone, but never forgotten... my E70 X5 35d, E90 335i, E46 330i, E36 328i, E70 X5 3.0si, E53 X5 3.0i.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read my work as West Coast Editor for Autoblog!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Forum Navigation
Go Back   Bimmerfest - BMW Forums > BMW Model Discussions > 3 Series / 4 Series > F30 / F31 / F32 / F33 (2012 - current)
Today's Posts Search
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2001-2011 performanceIX, Inc. All Rights Reserved .: guidelines .:. privacy .:. terms