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 12-25-2012, 03:28 PM
Saintor's Avatar
Saintor Saintor is offline
Abuser of everything
Location: MTL
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,840
Mein Auto: BMW E90 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamesonsviggen View Post
You keep repeating yourself yet when I gave all the examples of your failed logic in reply to your examples you skipped over all the nearly irrefutable information I provided. I dispelled your weak 5-60mph advantage and showed you the muti second advantage of the N20 in 0-100 and 3-50-50-70 top gear acceleration.

Your 184hp straight 6 is a dog, it is smooth. I give you that. It does make nice induction sounds. I give you that. It's called being impartial. BUT, just as it is a deal breaker for some to lose out on those things, it's a deal breaker for me and others to have such a low powered base engine in the 328. In the past, the 328 was something I let my wife drive, and let's face it many base 3's from before, today and the future, those are who is driving them.

Instead, the N20 which I showed you FACTUALLY with your own numbers is SECONDS faster in meaningful measurements, and EPA MPG testing, or more realistic and accurate testing(or members who have had N52s and now have N20's), and the fact is you should know that factory forced induction has a lot of room for improved performance while the N52 had next to nothing. That appeals to plenty of people like me. My car will have an exhaust, tune, downpipe and intercooler and net 300+whp while keeping the 30+ MPG I regularly average. PLEASE PLEASE show me 300whp bolt on N52's with no forced induction where drivers indicate averaging 30+mpg.
My logic is just all fine. Yours clearly lives in fantasy land.

5-60mph is certainly a key feature. 0-60mph 0-100mph and 1/4 mile are irrelevant because people who perform them cheat/abuse the powertrains like mad. When was the last time you pre-rev'ed your engine at 4000rpm to launch on the street?....* there you go *.

If you bought that N20 to have more boost, well that is utterly ridiculous since the 335i will give you all of that and more. Once you have considered the same level of equipment including moonroof and xenon, a 335i M-Sport is only 3700$ over a 328i M-Sport. Too good to pass.

N52 is over, but competition with NA engines gets 300HP and >30mpg highway. Nobody in a gas 3-series gets 30+ mpg average without being always on highways, don't be a fool.
__________________
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; 12-25-2012 at 03:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 12-25-2012, 06:39 PM
Jamesonsviggen Jamesonsviggen is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: NJ
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,250
Mein Auto: '98 M E36/7:'13 F30 RWD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintor View Post
My logic is just all fine. Yours clearly lives in fantasy land.

5-60mph is certainly a key feature. 0-60mph 0-100mph and 1/4 mile are irrelevant because people who perform them cheat/abuse the powertrains like mad. When was the last time you pre-rev'ed your engine at 4000rpm to launch on the street?....* there you go *.

If you bought that N20 to have more boost, well that is utterly ridiculous since the 335i will give you all of that and more. Once you have considered the same level of equipment including moonroof and xenon, a 335i M-Sport is only 3700$ over a 328i M-Sport. Too good to pass.

N52 is over, but competition with NA engines gets 300HP and >30mpg highway. Nobody in a gas 3-series gets 30+ mpg average without being always on highways, don't be a fool.
You cannot be reasoned with. You get obsessed with a trivial figure like 5-65mph, which according to your source is two tenths apart. I explained why. The N20 makes a lot more torque which makes traction an issue much more so than the N52.

How is it ridiculous for me to make more boost with my N20? I got my car for a STEAL due to the missing Bluetooth, almost making my car a one of one. A $380 BMS tune makes figures that meet or exceed the 335. I have modded every car I have ever owned, it's what I do. If an 335 had the same missing Bluetooth and was offered to me at the same price as my N20, yeah-I would be a bit silly to chose the N20.

0-60, 0-100 and 1/4 mile are irrelevant, all classic indicators of performance and a cars capabilities, all things which show DISTINCT advantages to the N20, but you want us to hear you go over and over that the test of 5-65 showed an advantage for the N52? Do you not see how silly that sounds?

I have owned tons of cars, modified tons of cars, ****-DESIGNED CARS, raced cars, there are facts that you kind of like to skip over to skew whatever your agenda at the moment is, whether it's Camry and Accord V-6 is best, E90 is best, N20 is the worst. Simple things like TRAP speeds are the simplest indicator of a cars performance in a roll on type highway pull. It takes skill and traction out of the launch. The N20 traps at 99-100mph, miles faster than the N52. But wait, lets discount that and any figure you don't like and get hung up on Car and Driver which seems to be the only source who even measures 5-65, a test that does not favor the car with more torque that can struggle for traction.

Your 4000lb pig E93 which someone would not want to flog, that cars magazine tested MPG, that should be counted with clarity as the same as another test years later with how a manual F30 sedan is driven?

I am the fool. Yeah. Sure.

We have a multi-page thread where OWNERS post MPGs averaged. I have no problem averaging 30mpg with traffic, lights, highway mix about 60/40, my speed average below 40.

But keep telling me, and other owners of our cars that we are wrong. I am the one in fantasy land...sure. Except I am the one who has first hand experience in things before I open my mouth, you seem to do a lot of talking(in this section) without much of anything substantial to back it up. You remind me of arguments we had as teenagers of Camaro vs Mustang before having licenses, working on our own cars and having the balls to actually race/head to the strip.
__________________
'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; 12-26-2012 at 10:04 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 12-26-2012, 07:59 AM
kpgray's Avatar
kpgray kpgray is offline
328i xDrive Commuter
Location: Rochester, Michigan
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 399
Mein Auto: 2013 328i xDrive Sport
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamesonsviggen View Post
........We have a multi-page thread where OWNERS post MPGs averaged. I have no problem averaging 30mpg with traffic, lights, highway mix about 60/40, my speed average below 40.......
It was time for a new ride and I drove the E92 coupe and compared to the F30 last spring. I found the F30 far superior in every respect. As for the N20 to the non-turbo I6, the N20 felt better in every respect except the exhaust note. I test drove the F30 335i and did not find the difference justified the $3700 premium. The 328 felt lighter, went in & out of the curves much more level. Also, despite the two cars mileage ratings looking the same on the dealer sticker, my AWD is getting 34 MPG with 60/40 highway/city driving in comfort mode! I have not seen anywhere close on a 335 unless they are in cruise control! That is 20% higher than a E92 with better performance...Amazing!
__________________
Kenneth P. Gray
2013 - 328i xDrive Sport, Imperial Blue/Everest Grey Dakota Leather
2010 Cadillac SRX Performance, Platinum Ice/Ebony (Wife's drive)


2013 328i xDrive / 8-Speed / Imperial Blue / Everest Grey / Sport Package / Premium Package / Tech Package / Heated Seats
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 12-26-2012, 08:40 AM
Jamesonsviggen Jamesonsviggen is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: NJ
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,250
Mein Auto: '98 M E36/7:'13 F30 RWD
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpgray View Post
It was time for a new ride and I drove the E92 coupe and compared to the F30 last spring. I found the F30 far superior in every respect. As for the N20 to the non-turbo I6, the N20 felt better in every respect except the exhaust note. I test drove the F30 335i and did not find the difference justified the $3700 premium. The 328 felt lighter, went in & out of the curves much more level. Also, despite the two cars mileage ratings looking the same on the dealer sticker, my AWD is getting 34 MPG with 60/40 highway/city driving in comfort mode! I have not seen anywhere close on a 335 unless they are in cruise control! That is 20% higher than a E92 with better performance...Amazing!
Your real life experience has no validity here to some of the loud mouths who want to live by hearsay and biased opinions.

The N20, it does not have a bad exhaust note...it has none!

I am counting the days till I have the production catback on my car as the prototype added so much to the driving experience of the N20. It is like having silent sex, sure good things are happening, but without the reassuring soundtrack to back it up-it's just odd.
__________________
'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
  #105  
Old 12-26-2012, 09:35 AM
Saintor's Avatar
Saintor Saintor is offline
Abuser of everything
Location: MTL
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,840
Mein Auto: BMW E90 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamesonsviggen View Post
You cannot be reasoned with. You get obsessed with a trivial figure like 5-65mph, which according to your source is two tenths apart. I explained why. The N20 makes a lot more torque which makes traction an issue much more so than the N20.


Tell me that you were joking. Otherwise, that is just plain retard.

Again, why don't you answer the question. When was the last time that you pre-rev'ed your engine at 3500-4000rpm in order to get the best 0-60mph 0-100mph 0-... you name it?

This is why The 5-60mph is definitely the best figure since it can't be cheated. This is also where the N20 low-torque thing should tremendously and failed to do so. It is common among all FI small displacement engines. By the time that lag is over, there are already at 3000+rpm and didn't deliver the theorical trust at low RPM. What you see on charts are relatively static measurements, varying engine speed slowly. It makes all the difference in the world.

Quote:
I am the fool. Yeah. Sure.
With the above "explanation" that you provided, yes it is a done deal. 26mpg for 55% city as reported by EPA is not bad, but cars like V6 271HP Accord and V6 268HP Camry gets 25mpg and since they run on regular, costs less to operate with more power.

Quote:
We have a multi-page thread where OWNERS post MPGs averaged. I have no problem averaging 30mpg with traffic, lights, highway mix about 60/40, my speed average below 40.
You are expressing again that you don't know what you are talking about. Fantasy land, here you go.
__________________
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; 12-26-2012 at 09:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 12-26-2012, 09:53 AM
Jamesonsviggen Jamesonsviggen is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: NJ
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,250
Mein Auto: '98 M E36/7:'13 F30 RWD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintor View Post


Tell me that you were joking. Otherwise, that is just plain retard.

Again, why don't you answer the question. When was the last time that you pre-rev'ed your engine at 3500-4000rpm in order to get the best 0-60mph 0-100mph 0-... you name it?

This is why The 5-60mph is definitely the best figure since it can't be cheated. This is also where the N20 low-torque thing should tremendously and failed to do so. It is common among all FI small displacement engines. By the time that lag is over, there are already at 3000+rpm and didn't deliver the theorical trust at low RPM. What you see on charts are relatively static measurements, varying engine speed slowly. It makes all the difference in the world.



With the above "explanation" that you provided, yes it is a done deal. 26mpg for 55% city as reported by EPA is not bad, but cars like V6 271HP Accord and V6 268HP Camry gets 25mpg and since they run on regular, costs less to operate with more power.



You are expressing again that you don't know what you are talking about. Fantasy land, here you go.
I can answer questions...can you?

I will admit that I like 5-65 in quite a few instances, like AWD cars like the WRX. They got amazing 0-60 times in magazines, but again with 5-6k clutch dumps. I would race these cars on the street where owners would do soft launches and I would kill them.

But you want to discount 0-60 and 0-100, calling it abusive. Fine, your example is so great, 5-65. But you want to ignore the fact that it is still traction dependent the higher you go in power level?

So how come you have yet to answer ME on the 30-50 and 50-70 passing figures?

Those tests show an engines flexibility, show how important torque is. Those tests have no driveline abuse. Those tests are super relevant in every day driving. Those tests in links you provided, ones which show 1-2 tenth favor your N52, show 1-2 second improvements for the N20.

To answer your question...I soft launch on the street. I am nice to clutches and get 100k out of them or more. So when I do get frisky on the street I rarely do a real hard launch as I have high torque cars...the S52 needs about 1000-1500rpm launch to roast the tires just enough to get me where I need to be once they hook. The N20, so far I have not launched over 2500rpms.

You are simply trying too hard. You want to fight the fight of F30 vs E90, of N52 vs N20, but then you want to muddy the waters with this Camry and Accord V-6 crap. Go buy your automatic V-6 mid size sedan. Please. Go post on their forums about how great that car is and how you saved money versus buying a new 3 series. You just seem so desperate to tell OWNERS they bought the wrong car. It just sounds ridiculous.

I am delusional still with MY and others real world MPG's with the F30? I don't know what I am talking about? Says who-you? You are the most biased person, seemingly lacking real world experience, sounding like a teenager with a riced out slow car-that is how you come across in this section. If I am the one in fantasyland, and you are in some better realm, I would stay put and not want to visit where ever you are.

Here are shots of my screen(I did calculations and found my car was computing within about 2% of actual math).
This is 60% Highway, kept in Sport, plenty of WOT burts:

This is 70% highway, Comfort, no WOT, fair bit of 40mph backroads but few traffic lights:


I am glad I have a camera in fantasyland!

Guy above me with X-drive says he is averaging 34 in COMFORT. He must be in fantasyland too!
__________________
'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; 12-26-2012 at 09:57 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 12-26-2012, 10:23 AM
kpgray's Avatar
kpgray kpgray is offline
328i xDrive Commuter
Location: Rochester, Michigan
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 399
Mein Auto: 2013 328i xDrive Sport
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamesonsviggen View Post
........I am glad I have a camera in fantasyland!

Guy above me with X-drive says he is averaging 34 in COMFORT. He must be in fantasyland too!
I am enjoying fantasyland @ 34 MPG
__________________
Kenneth P. Gray
2013 - 328i xDrive Sport, Imperial Blue/Everest Grey Dakota Leather
2010 Cadillac SRX Performance, Platinum Ice/Ebony (Wife's drive)


2013 328i xDrive / 8-Speed / Imperial Blue / Everest Grey / Sport Package / Premium Package / Tech Package / Heated Seats
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 12-26-2012, 10:28 AM
Jamesonsviggen Jamesonsviggen is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: NJ
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,250
Mein Auto: '98 M E36/7:'13 F30 RWD
A little note, magazine testing MPG.

Not much value to it, sorry.

It's not their car. They admit to driving it like they stole it. I have yet to confirm if they pay for the gas they put in or if that is paid for/reimbursed.

I do not hypermile, I do not drive like a Grandpa. But on my commute to work which is 18 miles, stop and go traffic for 10% of it, about 10 traffic lights, and then 10-12 miles of 80mph on the highway, I hit 39-40mpg everyday by the time I pull into work. That is relate-able to people, that described a lot of people's commutes.

Most times I have it in Sport and still always manage 30+.

This is not fantasy. This is called driving in the real world. Working for a magazine and grabbing keys to a different car day after day, driving it like a rental car and getting paid to do it...THAT is a fantasy!
__________________
'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
  #109  
Old 12-26-2012, 01:06 PM
Saintor's Avatar
Saintor Saintor is offline
Abuser of everything
Location: MTL
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,840
Mein Auto: BMW E90 2007
30+ mpg "average" is clearly fantasy land from people who don't what they are talking about. Wrong methodology and just lack of skills. I can report 6.8L/100km in my car on one ride on highway, but that's doesn't mean overall average by any stretch.

fuelly.com reports 26.3mpg from 17 2012-2013 328i owners. Now THAT makes sense and it is not bad. After all, C&D got 23mpg and 21mpg in two occasions on 300+ miles rides.

However the same result could have been reached with direct injection on the I6. Mercedes and Porsche gained 15% on NA V6 and H6 after they updated them with direct injection. 4-cylinder turbo are a joke in heavy vehicles and totally unfit in this class since they feel like a Civic, clearly a down grade in feel. Talk to Acura who dismissed their 4-cyl. turbo in their RDX, replaced it with a well-done V6 with improved power and fuel costs. THAT's the proper way to do it.

Say hello to your imaginary friends.
__________________
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; 12-26-2012 at 01:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 12-26-2012, 01:30 PM
Jamesonsviggen Jamesonsviggen is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: NJ
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,250
Mein Auto: '98 M E36/7:'13 F30 RWD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintor View Post
30+ mpg "average" is clearly fantasy land from people who don't what they are talking about. Wrong methodology and just lack of skills. I can report 6.8L/100km in my car on one ride on highway, but that's doesn't mean overall average by any stretch.

fuelly.com reports 26.3mpg from 17 2012-2013 328i owners. Now THAT makes sense and it is not bad. After all, C&D got 23mpg and 21mpg in two occasions on 300+ miles rides.

However the same result could have been reached with direct injection on the I6. Mercedes and Porsche gained 15% on NA V6 and H6 after they updated them with direct injection. 4-cylinder turbo are a joke in heavy vehicles and totally unfit in this class since they feel like a Civic, clearly a down grade in feel. Talk to Acura who dismissed their 4-cyl. turbo in their RDX, replaced it with a well-done V6 with improved power and fuel costs. THAT's the proper way to do it.

Say hello to your imaginary friends.
Fuelly.com from what I remember is more long term. 26.3mpg sounds reasonable. My 30+ averages are per tank and can vary. My last tank was 28.9. Nothing fantasyland about that.

Again, I do not care about C&D and the 21mpg, you ignored all that I stated about people being paid to thrash on cars they do not own. 21mpg vs 26.3 from your Fuelly example, that is over a 20% discrepancy.

There are plenty of people who have switched from e90 to f30 328's, they report living with better mileage. So what, all these people are making it up?

Back to your site, lets see what happens as you get away from the N20, look at how the numbers drop when we get to the E90's.
http://www.fuelly.com/car/bmw/328i

There you go, lets keep on muddying up your argument, lets talk about the RDX, let's bring more lame side steps to the discussion. The 1st gen RDX was known to be a gas guzzler, same thing with Mazdas CX-7. EPA numbers and driver numbers all show this. It's not so much weight that makes it an issue, you are implying the F30 has some kind of weight penalty which it does not, not compared to the E90 and not it's competition.

If BMW skipped the N20 and instead put in a 3.0L direct injected 270hp NA 6 that got 34 on the highway, I still would have happily bought it. The only downside is the lack of upgrades for more power. I ditched my APR stage 2 CC for this car, one of the reasons was knowing the FI would be tuner friendly.

If I Paypal you $1, would you stop bringing up other random cars?

Compare the N20 F30 to the IS, C-Class, A4, ATS, G37, Volvo S60, you know the cars in it's class it's intended to keep up with? Show me how those cars romp the N20 in meaningful ways. I will listen, I promise.

Otherwise hearing you talk about lower fuel costs due to no premium required and Camrys and Accords makes me want to cry.
__________________
'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; 12-26-2012 at 01:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 12-26-2012, 01:35 PM
Saintor's Avatar
Saintor Saintor is offline
Abuser of everything
Location: MTL
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,840
Mein Auto: BMW E90 2007
Quote:
There are plenty of people who have switched from F30 to E90 328's, they report living with better mileage. So what, all these people are making it up?
Nobody is contesting this. Why are you even asking the question?

Quote:
If BMW skipped the N20 and instead put in a 3.0L direct injected 270hp NA 6 that got 34 on the highway, I still would have happily bought it.
Exactly - we agree. The N20 is a 2nd or even 3rd choice. The N53 was the engine to invest in; in a 330Xi, it got the same fuel economy as an Audi TT-S 270HP 2.0T, which was 400lbs lighter.
__________________
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
  #112  
Old 12-26-2012, 01:45 PM
Jamesonsviggen Jamesonsviggen is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: NJ
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,250
Mein Auto: '98 M E36/7:'13 F30 RWD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintor View Post
Nobody is contesting this. Why are you even asking the question?


YOU.

You tried citing examples and state that the N20 is not more fuel efficient in the real world because some magazine posted 21mpg in an f30 and 23 in an E93.

Do I need to dig up your own quotes?

So now you are going to bring up a lame argument, state the same thing more than once, get disproved, and then complain that the thing now disproved is common knowledge to everyone including you who kept saying the opposite?

You are becoming my second favorite poster after BJ. I take back calling you a troll ever. Trolls are rarely ever entertaining.
__________________
'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
  #113  
Old 12-26-2012, 02:02 PM
Jamesonsviggen Jamesonsviggen is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: NJ
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,250
Mein Auto: '98 M E36/7:'13 F30 RWD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintor View Post
.

4-cylinder turbo are a joke in heavy vehicles and totally unfit in this class since they feel like a Civic, clearly a down grade in feel. Talk to Acura who dismissed their 4-cyl. turbo in their RDX, replaced it with a well-done V6 with improved power and fuel costs. THAT's the proper way to do it.


This is not BMW.

This is the direction of the automobile.

Get used to it or just drive a decades old car for the rest of your life.

V-8 trucks...America!

-V-6's are now being embraced. First with Fords Ecoboost, now with the Ram and PentaStar. People pay attention to MPG figures now, even with bigger/heavier vehicles. CAFE standards are not letting up anytime soon. You also see the Ecoboost 2.0 in the Ford Edge, Taurus(Explorer too I think), 4000lb vehicles.

Midsize sedans, V-6=premium!

-I think it started with Hyundai. They ditched the V6 being offered which allowed platform design to be 4 cylinder specific which saved weight. The V6 take rate is always small on these cars, maybe 10-15%, willing to bet the 2.0T is 100% as strong if not stronger. More and more cars followed suit, the Malibu is now 4cyl+turbo only, the Fusion also.

Entry level Luxury, nothing luxurious about a 4 cylinder!

-Might have started with Audi and the B8 A4. It started with the 2.0T and the 3.2 3.2 was canned due to sales. Infiniti brought in a base engine, a lower output V6 and it barely lasted a year. The C class, when the redesign came, brought a 201hp SUB 2.0L 4. Sales seem to be pretty solid considering it's an old platform. The ATS brought with it an 2.0L 4 as well(lets ignore the 2.5L as it's fail city).

So in the proper segment that the 3 series competes in....

IS=out of date, base engine 2.5L V-6 is a dog
ATS=handling/steering aside, the 2.0T is not as smooth as the N20, makes about the same power though claims to have much more, and weights 50-100lbs more than the 328(low weight claim for the ATS is low optioned 2.5).
G37=This is the bang for the buck winner. The 2.5L was dropped. The G is old and the Q V-6 is known to be a bit thrashy and in some ways is faster than the N20, others not. The MPG advantage of the N20 is LARGE. But for a $299 lease, the G37 gives nearly 335 levels of performance to value shoppers
C250=The N20 is far more powerful and offers greater efficiency. The C350 BARELY equals the N20 in terms of performance. Sad.
A4=The Torque rich 2.0TSI is the best competing 4 cylinder in many ways. It is quite underrated just like the N20. The N20 still has a slight edge.
S60=Basically a FWD car with a odd 5 cylinder. Not quite competitive here.

So there you have it. BMW is out to make money and to be competitive. Fact is, the N20 F30 is VERY class competitive if not class leading.

So you can lament all you want. Fact is, this is where the industry is now and is going in the future. Even Jaguar now has the 2.0L 4 in the XF, and V8's replaced in the XJ with a 6. Even the A8 has downsized to a 6 for the base engine(just as the 7series did).

So who is in fantasyland now? This is the real world. Where car companies who want to make money and keep up with CAFE downsize their engines.
__________________
'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; 12-26-2012 at 02:05 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 12-26-2012, 02:12 PM
dtc100 dtc100 is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Norcal
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,694
Mein Auto: 2011 328i
I agree they could have easily kept the N/A I6 and still achieved the mpg. The last 3.0 N/A I6s in the 2012 528s with 8spd, the EPA highway mpg was 32 I recall. That was for a much heavier car.

I think the decision to go 2.0L is for the global market, in Europe 2.0L is pretty much the displacement to have before fees to go up.

Let's stop calling each other names. Some of you make it hard to believe BMW's average driver's age is 50

Last edited by dtc100; 12-26-2012 at 02:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 12-26-2012, 02:17 PM
Jamesonsviggen Jamesonsviggen is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: NJ
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,250
Mein Auto: '98 M E36/7:'13 F30 RWD
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtc100 View Post
I agree they could have easily kept the N/A I6 and still achieved the mpg. The last 3.0 N/A I6s in the 2012 528s with 8spd, the EPA highway mpg was 32 I recall. That was for a much heavier car.

I think the decision to go 2.0L is for the global market, in Europe 2.0L is pretty much the displacement to have before fees to go up.

Let's stop calling each other names. Some of you make it hard to believe BMW's average driver's age is 50+
It's not just that.

If they make a certain number of a certain engine, it's economies of scale to put it in as many cars as they can.

BMW would not do this if it put them at a competitive disadvantage or seemed to buck a trend.

But fact is, this is what the competition has been doing for years, downsizing-which includes 4 cylinders. Fact is, out of the lot of entry level luxury cars, the N20 is about as good as it gets. Audi had years of nothing but praise for the 2.0TSI(the FSI before that) and wound up on Wards engines of the year list countless times. Now the N20 is just as good and better and what do you know, winds up on the same list.

Be thankful of my age, it helps bring the average down.
__________________
'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; 12-26-2012 at 02:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 12-26-2012, 04:22 PM
boltjaM3s's Avatar
boltjaM3s boltjaM3s is offline
BMW Platinum Visa® Member
Location: USA
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,803
Mein Auto: BMW L328i
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtc100 View Post

Let's stop calling each other names. Some of you make it hard to believe BMW's average driver's age is 50
Let it be known that the only actual F30 owner in this debate is in his 30's.

The rest of them don't even own F30's yet think they are experts because they have old E90's.

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
  #117  
Old 12-26-2012, 05:50 PM
Chris90's Avatar
Chris90 Chris90 is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: Massachusetts
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 13,797
Mein Auto: '04 330i
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamesonsviggen View Post
We have a multi-page thread where OWNERS post MPGs averaged. I have no problem averaging 30mpg with traffic, lights, highway mix about 60/40, my speed average below 40.
This is frankly why I can't see buying an E90 328i now that the F30 is out. I get like 18-19 mpg in my commute in my loaner E90 328s, that blows, it's even worse than my ZHP which gets like 21-22 mpg on the same route. The entry-level 3 needed much better gas mileage than that, and that's why BMW went with the turbo four.

EPA ratings may not show the advantage but it seems like real world owners' results do.
__________________
"When you were born, you cried and the world rejoiced. Live your life so that when you die, the world cries and you rejoice." - Cherokee Expression
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 12-26-2012, 05:57 PM
bmw_or_audi bmw_or_audi is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: California
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 898
Mein Auto: Passat 1.8T MT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintor View Post
A
The funny little thing is that the E90 328i is *quicker* at this game. More immediacy and no turbo lag. 5-60mph in 6.4s rather 6.6s.
The numbers are out there. Even consumer reports confirms the F30 does better in 0-60 and 1/4 mile.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 12-26-2012, 06:01 PM
justinnum1's Avatar
justinnum1 justinnum1 is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: South Florida
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,737
Mein Auto: F30 328i Sport
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintor View Post
And I have no idea why people think that the 2012 328i performance is night and day difference with the 2011 328. This is flat-out wrong.

If there is a spec where the turbo should shine because of "torque", this would be 5-60mph; from idle, you just mash the throttle and *gone*.

The funny little thing is that the E90 328i is *quicker* at this game. More immediacy and no turbo lag. 5-60mph in 6.4s rather 6.6s. This despite the fact that the F30 has short gear ratios! And icing on the cake, they observed an better real-world fuel economy on the E90, 25mpg vs 23mpg for the F30.

E90 328i manual

F30 328i manual

The I6 just needed direct injection and all this N20 nonsense would have been avoided...
Barely any turbo lag>200lb of torque...pathetic lol
__________________
F30 335 Estoril Blue Msport with performance exhasut and black grilles
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 12-26-2012, 06:04 PM
bmw_or_audi bmw_or_audi is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: California
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 898
Mein Auto: Passat 1.8T MT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintor View Post
...comparo over 300 miles, C&D observed only 21mpg, again much worse than what they observed in any I6 E9X ...
C&D is a joke for such things. Consumer reports does test mpgs with precision instrumentation. The 328i posted the same exact numbers as a 335d. That's right. True highway cruising yielded 40mpg versus 33mpg for the 6-cyl 328i wagon.

The reason why small turbo engines are far more efficient is because when there is no turbo boost, such as when cruising on the highway, you get the gas mileage of a small engine. A 2.0T with the turbo not boosting has significantly less compression resistance than a 3.0L. It is as simple as that.
Reply With Quote
  #121  
Old 12-26-2012, 06:05 PM
Jamesonsviggen Jamesonsviggen is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: NJ
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,250
Mein Auto: '98 M E36/7:'13 F30 RWD
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw_or_audi View Post
The numbers are out there. Even consumer reports confirms the F30 does better in 0-60 and 1/4 mile.
Didn't you read his replies?

0-60 and 1/4 mile are abusive and should not be counted. Only Car and Drivers test of 5-65 matters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by justinnum1 View Post
Barely any turbo lag>200lb of torque...pathetic lol
LOL.

No, somewhere on the rpms the N52 is making more power than the laggy low torque N20. Its on the tachometer when the car is parked with the ignition off.
__________________
'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 12-26-2012, 06:06 PM
bmw_or_audi bmw_or_audi is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: California
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 898
Mein Auto: Passat 1.8T MT
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintor View Post
Power is what matters most at any speed. Torque is for tractors. In any given gear, you will get maximum trust at peak power, not peak torque.
Absolutely true. But the F30 328i has more peak power and a much fatter lower power curve than the 3.0L I6. So it wins at peak power and it wins even more convincingly at lower rpms, which is most relevant for daily driving.
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 12-26-2012, 06:07 PM
Jamesonsviggen Jamesonsviggen is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: NJ
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,250
Mein Auto: '98 M E36/7:'13 F30 RWD
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmw_or_audi View Post
C&D is a joke for such things. Consumer reports does test mpgs with precision instrumentation. The 328i posted the same exact numbers as a 335d. That's right. True highway cruising yielded 40mpg versus 33mpg for the 6-cyl 328i wagon.

The reason why small turbo engines are far more efficient is because when there is no turbo boost, such as when cruising on the highway, you get the gas mileage of a small engine. A 2.0T with the turbo not boosting has significantly less compression resistance than a 3.0L. It is as simple as that.
Consumer Reports must do it's testing in fantasyland too!
__________________
'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
  #124  
Old 12-26-2012, 06:08 PM
bmw_or_audi bmw_or_audi is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: California
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 898
Mein Auto: Passat 1.8T MT
Quote:
Originally Posted by dtc100 View Post
When I talk about power, I think of horsepower, not torque. In that sense, power does not correspond to torque in a turbo engine with peak torque at low end, when horsepower is still low. Since most people drive in that low end power band, power can mean very different things.

N20 feels more powerful at low RPM than N52, N52 feels the best at high RPM or WOT.
Power = torque * rotation engine speed.

You know one, then you know the other.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 12-26-2012, 06:11 PM
bmw_or_audi bmw_or_audi is offline
Officially Welcomed to the 'Fest
Location: California
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 898
Mein Auto: Passat 1.8T MT
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdong View Post
Seeing how the power drops by 10% past the peak, I don't know why you'd want to do that though.
Well, how much past peak power you want to go depends on where the next gear puts you. You always want to go a little past peak power rpm, but how much depends on the gearing.
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 11:20 AM.


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