Why is BMW turbo charging all of their new models?

by Bimmerfest.com Member - gosee on August 29, 2011, 11:52 am
  tags:
n55 n20 bmw turbo bmw 335i  
Is it just me that noticing that BMW is putting a turbo in almost all of of their new models? I remember when the 335i first came out, and that was like the only car that was turbo charged in their line up, and now almost every car has a turbo. Also the current M3 will be the last M with a naturally aspirated engine.

I think BMW doesn't know how to make a good turbo charged car, given all of the problems the N54 has.

I could be wrong, and all comments are welcomed.


Leave a Comment

You must be a registered member to comment on stories. Please take a moment to register for your free account now. If you already have an account, log in using fields below.










61 responses to Why is BMW turbo charging all of their new models?

Campfamily commented:
August 29, 2011, 12:02 pm

Fuel mileage vs horsepower. BMW isn't the only one, look at the most recent V6 that Ford is putting in their pickups, has equal hp and more torque than their V8, with far better fuel mileage.
SD Z4MR commented:
August 29, 2011, 2:47 pm

Turbocharging an engine allows it to put out more horsepower more efficiently allowing for smaller (lighter weight) engines. All of this is done to meet increasing stringent mileage and emission standards. All manufacturers are looking for any way they can for their cars to get better mileage and reduce emissions.

The HPFP is only one component of the turbocharger system on a BMW and just because it failed doesn't mean that BMW doesn't know how to make a turbocharged engine.
Kamdog commented:
August 29, 2011, 2:54 pm

And, the HPFP is not even part of the turbocharging system. It is part of the direct injection system.

As to why, well, I can do 0-60 in the mid 5s, and get almost 30 mpg on the highway.
SD Z4MR commented:
August 29, 2011, 3:07 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamdog View Post
And, the HPFP is not even part of the turbocharging system. It is part of the direct injection system.
Yes, but I mentioned it in this context because the turbo charged engines are using the HPFP and the NA engines aren't.
cwinter commented:
August 29, 2011, 3:23 pm

Had the Internet existed, the same threads would have popped up about going from carbureted engines to fuel injected ones. Somehow everyone made it through to the other side alright, as far as I can tell...I expect the same to happen with wide-spread use of turbos.
Kamdog commented:
August 29, 2011, 4:02 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by SD 335is View Post
Yes, but I mentioned it in this context because the turbo charged engines are using the HPFP and the NA engines aren't.
I understand that, I was only pointing out that it was not a turbo issue, and other, non-turbo cars with an HPFP are out there (and Porsche has its fair share of problems with it too).
tagheuer commented:
August 29, 2011, 5:32 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by cwinter View Post
Had the Internet existed, the same threads would have popped up about going from carbureted engines to fuel injected ones. Somehow everyone made it through to the other side alright, as far as I can tell...I expect the same to happen with wide-spread use of turbos.
but this is different...not necessary evolution and better from a pure performance perspective...

the switch to turbos is a compromise/sacrifice...not simply because they are "better"...

BMW is doing this for fuel economy reasons, not performance.

one of almost everyone's reasons for not buying an A4 over a 3 series was "I shouldn't be paying $40k for a luxury car with a 4 cylinder"...

And when driven hard, turbos often get the same or worse mileage...than a comparable 6 cylinder...

But BMW is becoming more like Toyota every day, the new 3 series is coming in packages, i.e. option groups, instead of pure a la carte options...its obviously a cost saving move...yet another reason BMW is changing its corporate identity for the worse.
hotrod2448 commented:
August 29, 2011, 5:37 pm

I think it's combination of consumers wanting better fuel economy without giving up power and increasingly high fuel mileage standards brands are required to meet like CAFE.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpora...e_Fuel_Economy
sno_duc commented:
August 29, 2011, 6:47 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by SD 335is View Post
The HPFP is only one component of the turbocharger system on a BMW and just because it failed doesn't mean that BMW doesn't know how to make a turbocharged engine.
The wife and I both drive BMWs with the direct injected engine (N54/55), neither of us have had any trouble with the HPFP. Of coarse Alaska does not have E-10.
IMHO the problem is ethanol in the fuel, mixed with high humidity. Any alcohol has an affinity for water, the ethanol sucks moisture out of the air, and the ethanol water mix is what kills the HPFP.
gosee commented:
August 29, 2011, 7:13 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by tagheuer View Post
But BMW is becoming more like Toyota every day, the new 3 series is coming in packages, i.e. option groups, instead of pure a la carte options...its obviously a cost saving move...yet another reason BMW is changing its corporate identity for the worse.
I agree! BMW doesn't feel as special as they used to be
ProRail commented:
August 29, 2011, 7:18 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by gosee View Post
I agree! BMW doesn't feel as special as they used to be
Well, maybe to some.
ProRail commented:
August 29, 2011, 7:24 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by tagheuer View Post
but this is different...not necessary evolution and better from a pure performance perspective...

the switch to turbos is a compromise/sacrifice...not simply because they are "better"...

BMW is doing this for fuel economy reasons, not performance.

one of almost everyone's reasons for not buying an A4 over a 3 series was "I shouldn't be paying $40k for a luxury car with a 4 cylinder"...

And when driven hard, turbos often get the same or worse mileage...than a comparable 6 cylinder...

But BMW is becoming more like Toyota every day, the new 3 series is coming in packages, i.e. option groups, instead of pure a la carte options...its obviously a cost saving move...yet another reason BMW is changing its corporate identity for the worse.

This is a BMWNA decision. In Europe they still have "a la carte" selections.
SD Z4MR commented:
August 29, 2011, 8:52 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamdog View Post
I understand that, I was only pointing out that it was not a turbo issue, and other, non-turbo cars with an HPFP are out there (and Porsche has its fair share of problems with it too).
I understand your point, but I thought I was safe in assuming that we were talking about BMWs, and specifically turbocharged BMWs.
Zeichen311 commented:
August 30, 2011, 12:36 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by tagheuer View Post
the switch to turbos is a compromise/sacrifice...not simply because they are "better"...

BMW is doing this for fuel economy reasons, not performance.
No, they're doing it because both are important to defining a BMW. Like it or not, they must comply with ever-more-stringent emissions regulations, while delivering the performance customers expect. Forced induction is, at the moment, their best option for resolving that dilemma. If it was only about economy they'd just cut emissions (and power) and be done with it. Instead, they gave us efficient turbocharged engines that outperform all their normally-aspirated, non-M predecessors. My kind of compromise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ProRail View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by tagheuer
But BMW is becoming more like Toyota every day, the new 3 series is coming in packages, i.e. option groups, instead of pure a la carte options...its obviously a cost saving move...yet another reason BMW is changing its corporate identity for the worse.
This is a BMWNA decision. In Europe they still have "a la carte" selections.
+1, because we Americans collectively are impatient car buyers with an annoying, stubborn resistance to custom-ordering a car and waiting for it to be built and delivered. It's hard to fault NA for reducing the variety dealers must stock when we keep behaving that way. The a la carte choice is still there, for the fortunate, polite and patient: You can special-order a car with off-the-(US-)menu options as long as (a) the options are DOT-legal in the US and (b) the order is approved by the dealership GM and BMW NA. (Oh, and you have to pay for the car before it's built. )

On the other hand, trim lines may help BMW be more competitive on price without changing content, by creating the appearance of a bargain. Remember the breadth of that option list: You can strip a 3er sedan down to $35,475 or load it up to $61,350 (and that's excluding the M3). With fewer choices, some buyers will be less prone to feel they're being nickel-and-dimed to death.
tagheuer commented:
August 30, 2011, 9:49 am

I'm just not that impressed with the new 4 cylinder turbocharged 4 cylinder that makes 260bhp.

You can get a direct injection, turbo 4 cylinder in a $24k Kia/Hyundai that makes 274bhp and 269lb ft torque...and also has great FE....

But when BMW does it, and offers it in a car costing $10-15k more, its a "technological marvel"

Where did you hear that you'll still be able to order BMWs with full a la carte options from US Dealers?

I thought they were only coming in certain trim levels...

Please provide a link or source, because I'd really like to know for my next car purchase.

Thanks.
Saintor commented:
August 30, 2011, 8:35 pm

Just another foolish Euro fashion.

Given the level of technology, 4-cyl. don't take less fuel for the same power of NA 6-cyl. It is a myth.
dalekressin commented:
August 30, 2011, 8:47 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Campfamily View Post
Fuel mileage vs horsepower. BMW isn't the only one, look at the most recent V6 that Ford is putting in their pickups, has equal hp and more torque than their V8, with far better fuel mileage.
yep absolutely true

Porsche has the natuarlly aspirated 911 GT3 and the 911 Turbo S PDK.
You will also see change ups with the wheel base to recategorize the cars for fuel consumption
3ismagic# commented:
August 30, 2011, 8:47 pm

I hope they continue to view diesel as part of that strategy.

Also there is only so much power you can squeez out of a NA engine. Given the never-ending HP arms race turbo engines just make sense.

Everything I've read about the new turbo 4 has been very positive.
Saintor commented:
August 30, 2011, 8:58 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by dalekressin View Post
yep absolutely true
Actually that's *false*.

http://news.consumerreports.org/cars...-v6-vs-v8.html

Both V8 5.0 and V6 Ecoboost got the same fuel economy under and without load.

At best, EPA gives only 1mpg advantage to the Ecoboost. If the V8 had direct injection (as the Ecoboost), it would probably have a better fuel economy than the Ecoboost!!!
Jashley73 commented:
August 30, 2011, 9:03 pm

The efficiency gains with a turbo-4 are seen at light-throttle cruising, where you're not having to feed and move two extra cylinders. The power gains are seen at heavy-throttle, at the low to mid rpm range, where the turbo can fill in. With small turbo-4's you can have your cake and eat it too (gains in efficiency and power) but not at the same time. During heavy-throttle situations, (where you see the power gains) there might be an actual loss in effiency trying to keep the engine fueled and cool. But on the whole, for everyday cruising, the small turbo-4's should be more fuel efficient.
Saintor commented:
August 30, 2011, 9:11 pm

Quote:
With small turbo-4's you can have your cake and eat it too (gains in efficiency and power) but not at the same time.
FYI, the 272HP 6-speed N53 direct injected Euro 330i Xdrive gets the same combined fuel economy as the 240HP 8--speed N20 X1.
beeemerdude commented:
August 31, 2011, 4:37 am

read on other web forums, that the t/chargers are a ticking time bomb for huge $$ maintenance/replacement precisely at the moment the warranty is up....not sure if true...just read it s-where else, so posting as that stuck in my mind about them...
hotrod2448 commented:
August 31, 2011, 7:22 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by beeemerdude View Post
read on other web forums, that the t/chargers are a ticking time bomb for huge $$ maintenance/replacement precisely at the moment the warranty is up....not sure if true...just read it s-where else, so posting as that stuck in my mind about them...
If you ever want to be talked out of buying a car, go read a forum for that car. You'll read about problems you never knew cars had and it will sound like every one of those cars is either a death trap or a mechanically unreliable thief just waiting for the right time to strike and leave you stranded somewhere penniless and crying.

With proper maintenance their is no reason turbochargers shouldn't live a long and happy service life. Look at tractor trailers they rack up hundreds of thousands of miles on turbos.
tagheuer commented:
August 31, 2011, 9:35 am

yeah, I don't think reliability is a huge concern....turbos have been around for a while, and can be implemented reliably...maybe except for BMW...which thinks it needs to use two, or even three, to avoid turbo lag...

But again, why is everyone kissing BMW's a$$....Hyundai/Kia already have a turbocharged, direct injection engine that makes more HP and torque.

and for all the added complexity and heat (i.e. stress) that turbos add, the fuel economy benefit is very marginal, and that is only when they are driven gently...

who wants to drive a 3 series sedan with four adults using a 4 cylinder turbo....gently?

You might as well buy a true economy car at that point.

But if you drive the turbo moderately hard, whoops, there goes all your perceived FE benefit.
Jashley73 commented:
August 31, 2011, 1:36 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by tagheuer View Post
and for all the added complexity and heat (i.e. stress) that turbos add, the fuel economy benefit is very marginal, and that is only when they are driven gently... But if you drive the turbo moderately hard, whoops, there goes all your perceived FE benefit.
I couldn't agree more. I guess I should have stated that I'm not a particular fan of smaller turbo engines. And this is part of the reason why...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintor View Post
FYI, the 272HP 6-speed N53 direct injected Euro 330i Xdrive gets the same combined fuel economy as the 240HP 8--speed N20 X1.
And this is the direction I'd like to have seen them gone. I don't know much about the N53 engine, but that's an example that there is still room for improvement for the I-6 engines (for the US market) in both power and fuel economy gains. Not to mention that the I-6 engine will be smoother and probably more pleasurable to drive. And when driven hard, it will be much more throttle-responsive and powerful near the top-end.
jatbeni commented:
August 31, 2011, 4:47 pm

I think the two distinct considerations are the standardized EPA tests vs. the real world fuel economy.

BMW needs to do better on those standardized EPA tests, without going to diesel or hybrid (as much as I would like to see the 2 liter diesel, I don't think diesels in BMW's sell very well at the moment - though, I would buy one in a heartbeat)...

And there may be the possibility of further improvements down the line. I believe (from what I read) that BMW was getting frustrated with how much power it could get out of the inline 6, without expanding it beyond 3 liters.
Saintor commented:
August 31, 2011, 6:11 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jashley73 View Post
And this is the direction I'd like to have seen them gone. I don't know much about the N53 engine, but that's an example that there is still room for improvement for the I-6 engines (for the US market) in both power and fuel economy gains. Not to mention that the I-6 engine will be smoother and probably more pleasurable to drive. And when driven hard, it will be much more throttle-responsive and powerful near the top-end.

Direct injection is important, but it doesn't explain everything.

See current Car&Driver magazine with their comparo;

Accord V6 5-sp. no direct injection; 27mpg
Passat V6 DSG, direct injection; 27mpg
Sonata 4-cyl. turbo, direct injection; 26mpg

So the 4-cyl. gets the worse real-life mileage.
johndp commented:
August 31, 2011, 7:08 pm

Well when I went to the Motion Auto Show in Long Beach, CA two weeks or so ago I noticed several cars from MFEST installed supercharges in their cars instead of turbochargers. Even the Bimmer M3's that came stock with turbos installed had been converted into superchargers! Hell i figure if this many people are willing to remove their turbo for a super, BMW might as well start making M3's and M5's with the supercharger as a stock option. Or maybe they have already done so idk, let me know.
ventsyv commented:
September 1, 2011, 4:54 pm

What happened with engines that run on a different number of cylinders depending on conditions? When you are cruising on the highway, or driving in the city, 2 cylinders turn off, when you punch the gas, you start running all 6.
How about making cars lighter. Dragging 3000 lbs of crap around can't be good for fuel economy.
MrZip commented:
September 1, 2011, 10:02 pm

My wife bought a Mazda Speed 3 - 4 cy turbo - she loves the car and the cost was like 25 grand
Turbosmart commented:
September 1, 2011, 10:57 pm

Turbocharging definitely looks like its becoming the way to the future for BMW.

Its a lot more efficient, not to mention the greater HP that can be achieved much easier.
You don't need many mods on a turbo setup to really increase the HP, which costs a whole lot less than modifying a naturally aspirated setup.
Munich77 commented:
September 2, 2011, 10:48 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbosmart View Post
Turbocharging definitely looks like its becoming the way to the future for BMW.

Its a lot more efficient, not to mention the greater HP that can be achieved much easier.
You don't need many mods on a turbo setup to really increase the HP, which costs a whole lot less than modifying a naturally aspirated setup.
The downside is that BMW has not yet perfected the combination of turbo charging and direct injection.
JimD1 commented:
September 2, 2011, 2:55 pm

Turbochargers use energy that is otherwise wasted to raise the pressure of the air/fuel mixture coming in to raise hp. Their effiency advantage is due to the use of the energy in the exhaust. Superchargers use engine power to raise the air pressure so the do not increase theoretical effiency. To reduce turbo lag for every day driving requires a relatively small turbo charger that will not provide the same over-pressure at high rpm. Twin scroll helps resolve this conflict but does not eliminate it. It is a good tradeoff to get everyday low end torque in exchange for high rpm power you use only occasionally but that sort of tradeoff is inherent in turbo motors.

Big trucks go millions of miles on turbo-diesel engines. Not turbo-gas engines.

Turbos also raise the temperature of the incoming air and thus the engine. That is good for power but not longevity. I would shorten the oil change interval to help. Even with that, I would expect more issues with gaskets and other non-metallic components.

Gas mileage is driven by a lot more than just engine effiency. Gearing our bimmers to turn lower rpm on the highway would help but then we would have to downshift to pass. I would take the trade but I think BMW worries about it. Smaller tires at higher pressure would help but then we wouldn't be able to corner as well.

I worry about longevity and harshness of turbo 4s. I think they are more appropriate for a hot hatchback than for a sporty luxury car.

Jim
Michael Schott commented:
September 5, 2011, 4:23 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintor View Post
Direct injection is important, but it doesn't explain everything.

See current Car&Driver magazine with their comparo;

Accord V6 5-sp. no direct injection; 27mpg
Passat V6 DSG, direct injection; 27mpg
Sonata 4-cyl. turbo, direct injection; 26mpg

So the 4-cyl. gets the worse real-life mileage.
It's not a good idea to use a car magazine's test mileage to make your point. These figures are always way lower than you and I would get due to the nature of the testing procedure and the tester's heavy foot. Turbo's do poorly in these tests as well as the test driver's are in to the throttle more than even hard driving owners like you and I. Under normal cruising the turbo 4 should easily beat its V6 competition.
JimD1 commented:
September 6, 2011, 8:27 am

I don't remember anybody mentioning this but adding a turbo is less expensive than adding two additional cylinders. Turbo motors are cheaper, in other words. That has to be part of BMW's logic.

You can't prove anything based upon a test with a lot of uncontrolled variables and a 1 mpg difference. Maybe there was more traffic so longer stops at lights in the Sonata test. Maybe they "enjoyed" the turbo power more. Maybe the cars are geared differently or there is a weight or aerodynamic difference. Lots of things can cause a 1mpg difference in economy. On the other hand, the similarity of the result shows there is more than one way to get good mileage. Perhaps that was the point.

I think the points about turbo's not getting the best mileage if you are really using them is probably correct but the reason may not be obvious. One of the risks of raising the inlet temperature with a turbo is detonation. Higher octane fuel is indicated but that may be be enough and not all owners may spend the extra. I believe that the air fuel ratio is different for a turbo motor under significant boost to help control detonation. They run rich under heavy boost. Which does not help gas mileage. NA engines do not need to be run rich at high output. If you get on them a lot, you may also have to replace the catalytic converter early for the same reason.

Jim
tagheuer commented:
September 6, 2011, 10:33 am

if adding turbos are less expensive than adding two cylinders, do you think BMW will pass the savings along to their customers?

of course not.

Plus, BMW doesn't look to do anything cheaply...if they wanted a cheap, reliable direct injection 4 cylinder turbo charged motor that generates more hp and torque than their own motor, they could buy one in a $24,000 Kia/Hyundai.

But of course BMW will make their motor more expensive, less reliable...and claim its "better"...and maybe it will be a little smoother, and suffer from a little less turbo lag...but the fact remains that BMW is getting closer and closer to its rivals, and is nothing really special any longer...
Munich77 commented:
September 6, 2011, 11:10 am

I doubt that turbos are really that much cheaper than adding two cylinders. To withstand turbo charging, the block has to be stronger. Also, the turbos themselves are not that cheap. Yes there are a lot more parts to go from a 4 cylinder to a 6 cylinder - additional valves, injectors, pistons etc. However, I think there are even more parts to go from a 4 cylinder to a 4 cylinder turbo charged engine such as the turbo chargers, intercoolers etc. Of course economies of scale come into play.

BMW will never pass the savings onto their customers. I just read a letter to the Roundel and a BMW customer asked to have the spark plugs changed at 45,000 miles as required by the manual on BMW's time (under the free maintenance). BMW took the stance that spark plugs are not due until 60K!!?
Jashley73 commented:
September 7, 2011, 3:54 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Munich77 View Post
I doubt that turbos are really that much cheaper than adding two cylinders. To withstand turbo charging, the block has to be stronger. Also, the turbos themselves are not that cheap. Yes there are a lot more parts to go from a 4 cylinder to a 6 cylinder - additional valves, injectors, pistons etc. However, I think there are even more parts to go from a 4 cylinder to a 4 cylinder turbo charged engine such as the turbo chargers, intercoolers etc. Of course economies of scale come into play.
This. People don't realize the added expense of the turbocharger, intercooler, additional oil cooling (possibly) charge-pipes, and various other turbo-specific components not needed in an otherwise naturally aspirated engine. The cost of 2 extra pistons, connecting rods, 8 extra valves and springs, all made on high-volume multi-tasking CNC machines that require almost no additional secondary operations or assembly, is not that much greater than it would be for a 4 cylinder engine...
mujjuman commented:
September 7, 2011, 5:24 am

I'm surprised they aren't adding electric motors to every line up to make hybrid
RaggedEdge commented:
September 16, 2011, 12:12 pm

I've owned three turbo 4's, all Saabs. One of them had a turbo failure at right around 50k miles due to a bad bearing, but it was replaced under warranty. My last Saab had a low pressure turbo with almost zero lag. Here's what I've experienced with turbos:

1. The technology keeps getting better.
2. Heat is your enemy. On hot summer days the intercooler struggles to keep up with the heat generated by the turbo. On cold winter days its smooth and runs like a champ.
3. Heat damages the bearings, so oil temp and circulation are key. The oil filter is the linchpin in the whole operation. If it gets clogged, you're screwed.
4. There are a lot of places to burn your hands if you have to get to something under the hood, i.e. lightbulbs. The extra pipes get hot!
5. Cars with 100k miles required a little extra maintenance budget. Double that budget for turbos because there are more moving parts, more opportunities for failure.
6. Small turbo engines get really good gas mileage on the highway. I used to get 35+ mpg with the cruise set at 80 mph.

If you plan to lease your car and return it while it's still under warranty, there's nothing to worry about. If you're the type of buyer to keep a car for a long time, start saving now for the repairs after 100k miles...the extra heat, pressure, and moving parts comes at a price.

I went with a NA I-6 because I'm tired of sweating bullets over the 100k+ repairs. I like paying off my cars and living with no car payments, so that means keeping them well past their warranties.
need4speed commented:
September 16, 2011, 12:44 pm

I wonder if BMW will even make their cars lighter in order to get better mpg. I don't want a golf cart, but many BMW's are on the hefty side. N4S
Jashley73 commented:
September 16, 2011, 3:14 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by need4speed View Post
I wonder if BMW will even make their cars lighter in order to get better mpg. I don't want a golf cart, but many BMW's are on the hefty side. N4S
Yes, this is true. I wonder why vehicle weight is neglected as part of their efficient dynamics initiative. It does seem counter intuitive to strive for better fuel economy, yet continue to build heavier vehicles...
Jashley73 commented:
September 16, 2011, 3:26 pm

Edit: Duplicate post.
Goettler412 commented:
September 16, 2011, 3:43 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3ismagic# View Post
I hope they continue to view diesel as part of that strategy.

Also there is only so much power you can squeez out of a NA engine. Given the never-ending HP arms race turbo engines just make sense.

Everything I've read about the new turbo 4 has been very positive.
This.

Plus Obama forcing the companies to raise their fleet's average MPG, there is no other choice.
Tom K. commented:
September 16, 2011, 4:55 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by need4speed View Post
I wonder if BMW will even make their cars lighter in order to get better mpg. I don't want a golf cart, but many BMW's are on the hefty side. N4S
Good luck with that!

To compare just one model: the E30 323ic convertible weighed about 3,000 pounds some 20 years ago and the current 335i 'vert is 4,000 lbs.

Tom
1985mb commented:
September 16, 2011, 5:16 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by need4speed View Post
I wonder if BMW will even make their cars lighter in order to get better mpg. I don't want a golf cart, but many BMW's are on the hefty side. N4S
That would be great, but the loss of which of the following features would you or the market tolerate to achieve this goal?
  1. Adaptive xenon headlights
  2. X-way adjustable, multi-contour seats
  3. Heated and/or ventilated seats
  4. LCD screen/multimedia interface/navigation
  5. X speakers (BMWNA already tried that, didn't work)
  6. X airbags
  7. All the latest safety & stability systems
  8. Wood trim
  9. 17-18-19 inch wheels
Zeichen311 commented:
September 16, 2011, 7:00 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1985mb View Post
That would be great, but the loss of which of the following features would you or the market tolerate to achieve this goal?
  1. Adaptive xenon headlights
  2. X-way adjustable, multi-contour seats
  3. Heated and/or ventilated seats
  4. LCD screen/multimedia interface/navigation
  5. X speakers (BMWNA already tried that, didn't work)
  6. X airbags
  7. All the latest safety & stability systems
  8. Wood trim
  9. 17-18-19 inch wheels
All good except for that one. The wood trim is a veneer over plastic; adds a few ounces if anything.
AndyMpire commented:
September 16, 2011, 7:08 pm

Hello. Did anyone forget that BMW has been turbocharging since the 70's! Come on guys the 2002Tii is an awesome piece of automotive machinery!
1985mb commented:
September 16, 2011, 8:31 pm

Bottom line is we'll never get back to the weight of the e30 era, let alone the 2002 or earlier... But BMW could at least take a leaf out of Audi's book (quattro A6 3.0t is lighter than rwd 535i?)
bmw325 commented:
September 16, 2011, 8:34 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyMpire View Post
Hello. Did anyone forget that BMW has been turbocharging since the 70's! Come on guys the 2002Tii is an awesome piece of automotive machinery!
The tii was fuel injected but not turbo charged. The 2002 turbo is what you are thinking of
Jashley73 commented:
September 17, 2011, 6:01 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1985mb View Post
That would be great, but the loss of which of the following features would you or the market tolerate to achieve this goal?
  1. Adaptive xenon headlights Is this a significant weight increase?
  2. X-way adjustable, multi-contour seats Possibly. Some of the older, read E30 sport seats are quite comfy without all the power adjustments. Don't get me wrong, I doubt BMW would do away with power memory seats, but 20 way? I don't think all that's needed.
  3. Heated and/or ventilated seats Ductwork perhaps? Maybe the cushioning is different, but again, is that a signifigant increase?
  4. LCD screen/multimedia interface/navigation I could do without this one.
  5. X speakers (BMWNA already tried that, didn't work) Could definitely cut some fat here. Not sure what the total savings would be, but those magnets aren't light.
  6. X airbags Probably won't happen. Can't say I blame them.
  7. All the latest safety & stability systems Probably consists of electronic modules mostly. But won't be gone without. Same reason as airbags...
  8. Wood trim As far as I know, only some of the older 7-series had real wood trim. (Maybe newer?) Not much of a weight increase honestly. All the rest of the trim, is simply ABS plastic that's molded over a thin printed film.
  9. 17-18-19 inch wheels You have to balance in the weight of aluminum, versus the weight of rubber. Maybe a larger wheel and less rubber (smaller tire aspect ratio) is lighter in the end. It comes down to the wheel/tire combo.
Where weight savings really start to add up, comes with the use of aluminum components in the sub-frame components, and formed-shape body components (under the skin). Think stiffening material here. The E60 is a great example of using aluminum sub-frame and suspension components. According to Automobile Magazine (who claims "per manufacturer") a US-spec E60 528i weighs in at just 3,571 lbs. Not bad for a full size luxury sedan.

Now, as technology and manufacturing of lighter weight components becomes less expensive, BMW should RUN with this technology and go wild with it, from an engineering standpoint that is. Once they *almost* have it, they should sharpen their pencils, simplify the design (without sacrificing the engineering goals) to make the whole design easier to manufacture, thus controlling costs. Man, I should have been an engineer...
kmorgan_260 commented:
September 17, 2011, 6:33 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by tagheuer View Post
But BMW is becoming more like Toyota every day, the new 3 series is coming in packages, i.e. option groups, instead of pure a la carte options...its obviously a cost saving move...yet another reason BMW is changing its corporate identity for the worse.
I don't think this is saving BMW money. Turbos are not cheap to manufacture and integrating them into their engine is not without risk. BMW has always been about high performance engines that are small and light. Frankly I was surprised that it took them this long to start using turbo technology. Maybe they just wanted to make sure their solution was mature enough to minimize the risk.

My 335i has 75K on the clock and not a single problem so far. I was very satisfied with how BMW handled the HPFP recall so I am not counting that as a problem. And I do enjoy having all that power and 28 mpg on the highway. I actually get 24-25 mpg overall and I drive it hard. That is roughly the same mileage you get with an e36 325i.
Saintor commented:
September 18, 2011, 9:25 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Schott View Post
It's not a good idea to use a car magazine's test mileage to make your point. These figures are always way lower than you and I would get due to the nature of the testing procedure and the tester's heavy foot. Turbo's do poorly in these tests as well as the test driver's are in to the throttle more than even hard driving owners like you and I. Under normal cruising the turbo 4 should easily beat its V6 competition.

Actually C&D uses a 850 miles trip to compile their mpg and their results are nowhere "low", and "no" to your last part as well.

Mercedes reports 21mpg city for their 2012 4-cyl. turbo C250 and 20mpg for their 306HP C350. 1mpg is not significant and a 250HP V6 version would easily match the 4-cyl. turbo.
mujjuman commented:
September 18, 2011, 11:08 am

Every turbo car I came across was problematic when the mileage got high... say 100k miles. But what car doesn't? Maybe BMW will be the company to increase that mileage and make turbocharging more reliable.

I love the extra low rpm torque though. It's very addicting.
Michael Schott commented:
September 18, 2011, 9:26 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintor View Post
Actually C&D uses a 850 miles trip to compile their mpg and their results are nowhere "low", and "no" to your last part as well.

Mercedes reports 21mpg city for their 2012 4-cyl. turbo C250 and 20mpg for their 306HP C350. 1mpg is not significant and a 250HP V6 version would easily match the 4-cyl. turbo.
And you know this how? Tell me that C and D drivers don't have a heavier foot than the normal driver. Of course they do. And prove to me that a 3.0l 6 cylinder will get equivalent mileage to a 2.0 4 cylinder on the highway.
mujjuman commented:
September 19, 2011, 10:33 am

Ok just comparing the BMW 328 engine to a few 2.0T's:

328: 230hp, 200ftlb, 18mpg city, 28mpg hwy

VW GTI 2.0T: 200hp, 207ftlb, 21mpg city, 31mpg hwy

Sonata 2.0T: 274hp, 269ftlb, 22mpg city, 34mpg hwy

C250 2.0T: 201hp, xxxftlb, 21mpg city, 31mpg hwy

C300 3.0: 228hp, 221ftlb, 18mpg city, 25mpg hwy

The cars all weigh differently I'm sure, so that factors in for the mpg as well. Also, the GTI's engine can make more power when chipped... but also it has a smaller turbo. The sonata in my opinion makes a ton of power stock, but I never drove one to judge it's turbo lag. It probably also has a taller 6th gear for hwy cruising. The gti barely has any lag. As for the C300, I put that in there for good measure. I feel like these 4 banger turbos have lots of potential, if done correctly.

All facts were taken from their company websites.
hotrod2448 commented:
September 19, 2011, 1:29 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Schott View Post
And you know this how? Tell me that C and D drivers don't have a heavier foot than the normal driver. Of course they do. And prove to me that a 3.0l 6 cylinder will get equivalent mileage to a 2.0 4 cylinder on the highway.
I agree.

I have a hard time believing that someone driving what is basically a rental car with a company fuel card isn't going to drive just a bit more spiritedly than your average driver who is footing the bill for everything.

And regarding the other point, the easiest way I've found to think about it is to look at a turbocharger as almost being able to vary the displacement of an engine. When not in boost (atmospheric pressure) it is effectively a 2.0 liter engine and therefore only has to inject enough fuel to reach the desired AFR for 2 liters of air. Now get up to 15psi of boost and the engine is effectively drawing in 4 liters of air and must increase fueling accordingly. The beauty of that is most of the time on the highway you don't need to be in boost to maintain speed.

The downside a larger engine has is regardless of the power it's making it is still drawing in the same displacement to maintain a given speed and therefore has to inject the appropriate amount of fuel for that displacement to maintain an acceptable AFR.
Jashley73 commented:
September 19, 2011, 4:17 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by hotrod2448
And regarding the other point, the easiest way I've found to think about it is to look at a turbocharger as almost being able to vary the displacement of an engine. When not in boost (atmospheric pressure) it is effectively a 2.0 liter engine and therefore only has to inject enough fuel to reach the desired AFR for 2 liters of air. Now get up to 15psi of boost and the engine is effectively drawing in 4 liters of air and must increase fueling accordingly. The beauty of that is most of the time on the highway you don't need to be in boost to maintain speed.

The downside a larger engine has is regardless of the power it's making it is still drawing in the same displacement to maintain a given speed and therefore has to inject the appropriate amount of fuel for that displacement to maintain an acceptable AFR.
Almost. Either engine flows less air than it's "displacement" with anything less than full throttle. Let's say that our run of the mill BMW 3.0L I-6 engine can cruise at highway speeds at 1/3 throttle. In theory at least, it's only drawing 1/3 of it's total volumetric capacity when the throttle plate is closed, since the cylinders are not allowed to completely fill to their full capacity... The same is true for the smaller turbo engine, until it begins to build boost (more than atmospheric pressure) where only then will it begin flowing more air than it's "displacement."
hotrod2448 commented:
September 19, 2011, 6:38 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jashley73 View Post
Almost. Either engine flows less air than it's "displacement" with anything less than full throttle. Let's say that our run of the mill BMW 3.0L I-6 engine can cruise at highway speeds at 1/3 throttle. In theory at least, it's only drawing 1/3 of it's total volumetric capacity when the throttle plate is closed, since the cylinders are not allowed to completely fill to their full capacity... The same is true for the smaller turbo engine, until it begins to build boost (more than atmospheric pressure) where only then will it begin flowing more air than it's "displacement."
Yeah, I didn't do a good job explaining what happens during part throttle. Lunch break was almost over.

With valvetronic engines the throttle plate is wide open once the engine is running, more like a diesel, and the variable valve lift works as a throttle while reducing pumping losses (vacuum). Obviosly less lift and similar duration likely mean less flow but, since it's main function is to reduce pumping losses I've got to assume that it's letting the engine draw air in easier than a throttle plate would.

Either way when it's not in boost it's still a smaller displacement engine that all things being equal should be more fuel efficient than a larger displacement NA engine of similar HP.
mujjuman commented:
September 19, 2011, 7:11 pm

But don't these newer turbo engines have negligible lag? I would imagine that they are boosting at 1500rpm.

Btw the Genesis 2.0T makes 210hp/220torks and same mpg as Sonata 2.0T according to website.
ProRail commented:
September 19, 2011, 7:14 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by gosee View Post
Is it just me that noticing that BMW is putting a turbo in almost all of of their new models? I remember when the 335i first came out, and that was like the only car that was turbo charged in their line up, and now almost every car has a turbo. Also the current M3 will be the last M with a naturally aspirated engine.

I think BMW doesn't know how to make a good turbo charged car, given all of the problems the N54 has.

I could be wrong, and all comments are welcomed.


Yes, you could. 1. There are lots of BMW models that are not turboed. 2. BMW knows how to make many different kinds of cars, turbo included. Some of us are turned on by turbo, and some of us are not. Buyer's choice.