See the 328i's turbo at work [Archive] - Bimmerfest - BMW Forums

See the 328i's turbo at work

Saintor
02-08-2015, 04:55 AM
One of the reasons why I don't like turbos. This one has a tuning kit, but they all generate massive heat like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGSJmxsU3KE

BTW, this un-BMW engine note could have been from a Civic .

Michael Schott
02-08-2015, 05:12 AM
That's cool. Thanks for posting this. Why does the heat bother you? Turbo cars are designed to deal with the high temperatures.

Kafkaesque328
02-08-2015, 08:11 AM
This being my third turbo car I don't think I'd ever go back.

livfast
02-08-2015, 08:21 AM
Nice video!

elistan
02-08-2015, 08:26 AM
The turbo doesn't generate the massive heat causing the glow, it's the gasoline combustion. Naturally aspirated engine exhaust headers glow too.

http://i.imgur.com/ZZGRTFH.jpg

whitby
02-08-2015, 08:30 AM
Great video, enough to frighten the heck out of you, but that is what they are designed to do.

I used to work for a large supplier of car parts (Prince of Darkness, for those that know) and worked on electronic fuel injection systems. We bench tested engines and we could easily get the exhaust manifolds to glow. I remember one of those Lotus 2.2 L engines which were turbo charged and you could really get them glowing, but they lasted and lasted with many hours of running in that state.

Isn't technology interesting?

RKA
02-08-2015, 09:09 AM
Like any other well made engine, this has little impact on the lifespan of the engine. A good turbo motor can offer fuel efficiency when you want it and lots of torque when you don't care. Some people see value in that, some like the smoothness of an NA engine. But making choices based on fears, well, there is a better way. And a post like this really is a disservice to the community that isn't well educated on these things.

A friend had a 1.8T Audi that he fitted with a big turbo kit at 65K miles. It nearly doubled the factory hp and boost. He sold that car at 200k and it still burned half a quart every 5K (same as it always did). It now has 225k and the new owner enjoys it at the track and as a daily driver. That car was more reliable than an of the AudisI have owned. I have an employee with a NA Mazda 3. He's not even at 150K and any minute now diamonds will be coming out of that tailpipe judging by the carbon on the bumper. The difference between the two, how well the motor was cared for. I can tell you one owner was meticulous with maintenance, and the other changed his plugs for the first time 6 months ago because the engine wouldn't stop misfiring. I'm at 115k on a 4 cyl turbo motor, and while this car can be a PITA at times, none of the thousands I've put into it had anything to do with the turbo or motor. The last two were a bad clutch switch and bad ground wire on a tail lamp cluster.

The reason to avoid a turbo would be the extra parts under the hood. It's more things to potentially break. If you want to own it to 200k, there is a good chance you may need to replace that turbo to get there. But you could argue you saved that much or more upfront by choosing a 4-turbo over an equivalent power 6 cyl (granted BMW took that option away).

At the end of the day, choose based on how they drive and your preferences. A turbo isn't as scary as you think. Only thing better is 2 turbos! :)

John MS
02-08-2015, 09:46 AM
One of the reasons why I don't like turbos. This one has a tuning kit, but they all generate massive heat like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGSJmxsU3KE

BTW, this un-BMW engine note could have been from a Civic .

To be clear the turbo does not generate or create heat. It is just passing on the heat already created in combustion chambers. The exhaust manifold on any engine...even an old Ford Model T will glow visibly under certain high output conditions. Or the exhaust on a lawn mower engine. Internal combustion engines of any design are very inefficient because so much energy is given off as heat rather than being used to turn wheels and do other things. That said the turbo-charged engine in my 328i is comparatively efficient because it can deliver over 40 mpg on the highway and provide excellent acceleration on demand.

Saintor
02-08-2015, 09:48 AM
To be clear the turbo does not generate or create heat. It is just passing on the heat already created in combustion chambers.

Wrong.

100 000rpm will just do that.

This is why they have a cooling system, most of them since mid 80s.

whitby
02-08-2015, 11:29 AM
As per Garrett's turbo site:

Q. Should my turbo/exhaust manifold glow red after driving?
A. Yes, the turbo/exhaust manifold can glow red under certain driving conditions. The exhaust gas temperature can reach over 1600F under high load operating conditions; i.e. towing, extended uphill driving, or extended high rpm/boost conditions.

In other words, it is the high exhaust gas temperatures that cause them to glow. If the bearings are not lubricated, then friction may cause it to glow, but then it is not going to last very long!!

GAS428
02-08-2015, 01:31 PM
Great video, enough to frighten the heck out of you, but that is what they are designed to do.

I used to work for a large supplier of car parts (Prince of Darkness, for those that know) and worked on electronic fuel injection systems. We bench tested engines and we could easily get the exhaust manifolds to glow. I remember one of those Lotus 2.2 L engines which were turbo charged and you could really get them glowing, but they lasted and lasted with many hours of running in that state.

Isn't technology interesting?

You said it!!:thumbup:

elistan
02-08-2015, 01:35 PM
Wrong.

100 000rpm will just do that.

This is why they have a cooling system, most of them since mid 80s.

No - connect the turbo to an electric motor or air blower that can spin it to 100k rpm, and it will not turn red.

They have cooling systems because they get hot, yes, but they don't get hot because of their operation, rather it's the engine exhaust that does it.

For example, here's a non-turbo Yamaha YZ250F with a glowing exhaust header.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NzerTA8c0c

Helrot
02-08-2015, 03:21 PM
Turbo Chargers do create heat but NOT on the exhaust side.

The air on intake side can heat as much at 50+ above ambient temperature as a direct result of being compressed. It depends on the level of boost / compression. This is exactly what the intercooler is for: to cool the compressed air back down to maximize the molecular density of the air.

Turbo charger, super charger or naturally aspirated you can easily make headers and down pipes glow when you run them close to the red line. Much easier to make thin walled headers & down pipes glow red VS cast iron manifolds, but even those can glow. Even when they are cherry red that won't hurt them as long as they are designed correctly. There are parts inside of engines that get this hot every time it gets up to normal operating temperature, Such as exhaust valves.

u3b3rg33k
02-08-2015, 04:09 PM
To be clear the turbo does not generate or create heat. It is just passing on the heat already created in combustion chambers. The exhaust manifold on any engine...even an old Ford Model T will glow visibly under certain high output conditions. Or the exhaust on a lawn mower engine. Internal combustion engines of any design are very inefficient because so much energy is given off as heat rather than being used to turn wheels and do other things. That said the turbo-charged engine in my 328i is comparatively efficient because it can deliver over 40 mpg on the highway and provide excellent acceleration on demand.

Nope. not true. overall engine fuel -> motion conversion efficiency is still in the 30-35% range at best.

pprior
02-08-2015, 08:00 PM
I don't understand people who don't like turbos. The modern twin turbo designs are absolutely STUNNING in generating massive low end torque at very low RPMs. For every day driving at least I just LOVE my turbo engine (both on my ford ecoboost truck which towed like a large diesel engine and my 428 turbo which hums along the road at 1500 rpm at highway speeds).

It takes a massive V8 to get low end torque like that, and even then most of them won't get into the band until higher than we get.

Love your turbo, it's an engineering masterpiece!

Kafkaesque328
02-08-2015, 10:34 PM
^^ well said. Yes, the anti turbo sentiment is old fashioned and honestly, baffling.

u3b3rg33k
02-08-2015, 10:43 PM
I love a good N/A motor - without some form of anti-lag (which the new M cars have), you cannot have the same response from the power request unit (commonly called a "gas pedal") that you can with an NA motor.

I also love torque. I would love to have a 535d, but I'd rather have a 6MT more.

LegendsNeverDie
02-09-2015, 09:22 AM
IMO BMW lost a little bit of appeal ditching the NA I6. While the N20 is a great engine, the market is saturated with the 2.0 Turbo's. Some of them are found in economy cars and are not far behind, if not arguably better (Ex. GTI, Focus ST, WRX). Give me a high revving NA 6 in my 3 series and small 4 cylinder turbo in a hatchback 1 or 2 series.

samualcc
02-09-2015, 02:06 PM
Guys let me help you out here. Two particular posters on this board have this completely nonsensical hatred of turbos. You can't convince them otherwise, and every couple of months one of them posts something negative about turbo design. Then after about 12 replies they jump back in and keep the trolling going. Then the second one shows up, sometimes an hour later, sometimes a day.

The end results is always the same, a multi-page thread about nothing in which they simply ignore reason in an attempt to get everyone riled up.

whitby
02-09-2015, 03:44 PM
I don't understand people who don't like turbos. The modern twin turbo designs are absolutely STUNNING in generating massive low end torque at very low RPMs. For every day driving at least I just LOVE my turbo engine (both on my ford ecoboost truck which towed like a large diesel engine and my 428 turbo which hums along the road at 1500 rpm at highway speeds).

It takes a massive V8 to get low end torque like that, and even then most of them won't get into the band until higher than we get.

Love your turbo, it's an engineering masterpiece!

Absolutely.

pointandgo
02-09-2015, 06:16 PM
I somehow suspect that hundreds of BMW engineers have figured out how to manage the heat...:angel:

Saintor
02-09-2015, 07:32 PM
No - connect the turbo to an electric motor or air blower that can spin it to 100k rpm, and it will not turn red.

They have cooling systems because they get hot, yes, but they don't get hot because of their operation, rather it's the engine exhaust that does it.

They DO get hot because of their operation; it is not because of the bearing friction alone, but the change of pressure and airspeed

"No - connect the turbo to an electric motor or air blower that can spin it to 100k rpm, and it will not turn red." .... because they don't create pressure against backpressure.

Saintor
02-09-2015, 07:37 PM
I don't understand people who don't like turbos. The modern twin turbo designs are absolutely STUNNING in generating massive low end torque at very low RPMs. For every day driving at least I just LOVE my turbo engine (both on my ford ecoboost truck which towed like a large diesel engine and my 428 turbo which hums along the road at 1500 rpm at highway speeds).

It takes a massive V8 to get low end torque like that, and even then most of them won't get into the band until higher than we get.

Love your turbo, it's an engineering masterpiece!

Turbos are overrated big time.

There is not much to brag about when other pedestrian carmakers get more job done for less $ in fuel. They all get quicker to 60mph from idle.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=35330&id=35550&id=35020&id=35735

The N20 sounds like an hairdryer compared to them. So much for the fun factor.

pprior
02-09-2015, 07:47 PM
??? not sure what that even means. The BMW has a higher fuel economy according to that page.

But anyway you obviously didn't read my posting. I never said anything about fuel economy in my posting. Take a look a torque curves. End of story personally. It's like driving a diesel around, instant torque at any RPM. I was a doubter until I drove the ecoboost and I'll NEVER go back to non-turbo engines.

Try reading the post instead of replying with a pre-conceived rebuttal next time. It's what makes discussion interesting.

Kafkaesque328
02-09-2015, 08:12 PM
Turbos are overrated big time.

There is not much to brag about when other pedestrian carmakers get more job done for less $ in fuel. They all get quicker to 60mph from idle.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=35330&id=35550&id=35020&id=35735

The N20 sounds like an hairdryer compared to them. So much for the fun factor.

I still don't understand what you get out of posting things like this. It's always the same thing from you. Just be happy in your 323i or whatever. If you don't want a twin scroll turbo motor like the one's found in BMW now, just stick with buying used I6 Bimmers. There are thousands and thousands of them out there.

GAS428
02-09-2015, 09:09 PM
Jaguar 1.6 liter 4 cylinder 550HP Headers really glow Nicely


http://gas2.org/2012/07/27/jaguars-next-supercar-to-get-550-horsepower-1-6-liter-4-cylinder-engine/

LegendsNeverDie
02-10-2015, 01:25 PM
Guys let me help you out here. Two particular posters on this board have this completely nonsensical hatred of turbos. You can't convince them otherwise, and every couple of months one of them posts something negative about turbo design. Then after about 12 replies they jump back in and keep the trolling going. Then the second one shows up, sometimes an hour later, sometimes a day.

The end results is always the same, a multi-page thread about nothing in which they simply ignore reason in an attempt to get everyone riled up.

Calm down brozart, my next has a 2.0T but it doesn't mean I can't prefer finer NA engnes.

justinnum1
02-10-2015, 02:27 PM
It's saintor. Does anyone care or even take seriously the nonsense he posts?

eazy
02-10-2015, 02:46 PM
Most of the 3 series competitors have or going to have a turbo 4. If you do not want a turbo get an Acura TLX. Turbos get better gas mileage is you do not have a lead foot. By the way I get better gas mileage in my f30 n55 compares to my e90 n52

jlukja
02-10-2015, 03:16 PM
It's saintor. Does anyone care or even take seriously the nonsense he posts?

This.

Every once in a while he shakes our antfarm just to see us all scramble and try to restore order. He must be cracking up reading all this.

Saintor
02-10-2015, 04:25 PM
??? not sure what that even means. The BMW has a higher fuel economy according to that page.

Not if you factor in the HP. All those V6 engines have at least +12% more power. Not that it is critical here, but it is the fuel costs that matter to one's pocket, the real expense.

Interesting related articles
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/02/consumer-reports-finds-small-turbo-engines-don-t-deliver-on-fuel-economy-claims/index.htm

This month' Road&Track

While turbo engines perform well on standardized government fuel-economy tests, out in the real world, we consistently see those boosted engines using more fuel than larger, similarly powerful, naturally aspirated ones. There's science behind our observations. The stoichiometric ratio of air and gasoline is such that it takes 14.7 grams of air to completely combust one gram of gasoline. It's the job of your car's fuel-injection system to measure the amount of air the engine inhales and then provide precisely the correct amount of fuel. Turbos, which are powered by exhaust energy that is otherwise wasted, increase engine output by forcing extra air into the cylinders, prompting the fuel injectors to provide more fuel for combustion. More combustion, alas, means more heat. To keep the engine (and turbo) from overheating, turbo engines inject excess gas under boost. It seems counterintuitive, but this "rich mixture" cools down combustion and reduces exhaust temperatures. It's also a double-whammy fuel-economy killer, because burning that extra fuel doesn't help the engine make more power, it actually reduces output. Government fuel-economy test cycles, especially those in Europe, approximate the driving style of a heavily sedated 83-year-old librarian. Since the engine is rarely taxed, the turbo doesn't spool up, so no extra fuel is used. But purposely driving slowly enough to keep the turbo from generating boost defeats the point of having a turbocharger in the first place. Sadly, out in the real world, riding that big, effortless wave of boosted midrange torque means burning extra fuel***8212;and creating even more CO2.



But anyway you obviously didn't read my posting. I never said anything about fuel economy in my posting. Take a look a torque curves. End of story personally. It's like driving a diesel around, instant torque at any RPM. I was a doubter until I drove the ecoboost and I'll NEVER go back to non-turbo engines.

Try reading the post instead of replying with a pre-conceived rebuttal next time. It's what makes discussion interesting.

You assume too much without supporting *facts*. Guess which one of these 4 will the slower from idle to speed (5-60mph)? Whether you like it or not, yeah the Bimmer even with the very best transmission.... torque curves is a wrong reference. Larger NA powerplants offer more immediacy that can't be matched by the initial turbo spooling of the small 4. Most of them have 80-85% of max torque as soon as 2000rpm; the N20 doesn't do really better than that.

http://media.ed.edmunds-media.com/bmw/3-series/2012/fe/2012_bmw_3-series_det_fe_1016122_600.jpg

u3b3rg33k
02-10-2015, 04:28 PM
Most of the 3 series competitors have or going to have a turbo 4. If you do not want a turbo get an Acura TLX. Turbos get better gas mileage is you do not have a lead foot. By the way I get better gas mileage in my f30 n55 compares to my e90 n52


That's not a comparison you can draw with the data available. you get better MPG because of DI, not because of turbos.

Michael Schott
02-10-2015, 05:46 PM
Not if you factor in the HP. All those V6 engines have at least +12% more power. Not that it is critical here, but it is the fuel costs that matter to one's pocket, the real expense.

Interesting related articles
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/02/consumer-reports-finds-small-turbo-engines-don-t-deliver-on-fuel-economy-claims/index.htm

This month' Road&Track







You assume too much without supporting *facts*. Guess which one of these 4 will the slower from idle to speed (5-60mph)? Whether you like it or not, yeah the Bimmer even with the very best transmission.... torque curves is a wrong reference. Larger NA powerplants offer more immediacy that can't be matched by the initial turbo spooling of the small 4. Most of them have 80-85% of max torque as soon as 2000rpm; the N20 doesn't do really better than that.

http://media.ed.edmunds-media.com/bmw/3-series/2012/fe/2012_bmw_3-series_det_fe_1016122_600.jpg

What that R & T link fails to mention that under steady state driving turbos are barely running. Also the N20 makes max torque 1000 RPM's lower than the N52 and makes 50 more of ft/lb.

Kafkaesque328
02-10-2015, 07:49 PM
Not if you factor in the HP. All those V6 engines have at least +12% more power. Not that it is critical here, but it is the fuel costs that matter to one's pocket, the real expense.

Interesting related articles
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/02/consumer-reports-finds-small-turbo-engines-don-t-deliver-on-fuel-economy-claims/index.htm

This month' Road&Track







You assume too much without supporting *facts*. Guess which one of these 4 will the slower from idle to speed (5-60mph)? Whether you like it or not, yeah the Bimmer even with the very best transmission.... torque curves is a wrong reference. Larger NA powerplants offer more immediacy that can't be matched by the initial turbo spooling of the small 4. Most of them have 80-85% of max torque as soon as 2000rpm; the N20 doesn't do really better than that.

http://media.ed.edmunds-media.com/bmw/3-series/2012/fe/2012_bmw_3-series_det_fe_1016122_600.jpg

Again, your motivation behind these posts is perplexing. Turbo 4's are not going away. Engineering is neat. Being able to make V6 power out of a little forced induction 4 banger with a flat torque curve is neat. No matter how much you don't like them or what you say about them, technology has passed you by. I'm not going around on the E90 forum and talking about how antiquated the inline 6 is because it was a great engine. I just don't understand your motivation. YOu can't be passed off as a mere troll. You're too persistent and your mission is too focused.

eazy
02-10-2015, 08:42 PM
That's not a comparison you can draw with the data available. you get better MPG because of DI, not because of turbos.

Not exactly true since the N54 was not a fuel efficient engine when you compare it to the N55 engine and that has Di as well. The toyota 3.5DI is not as fuel efficient as their non DI 3.5. The reason why due to the High sulfur content of american gasoline you can not run the car on lean mode. Turbo DI engines can not run on lean mode.

As soon as electronic turbos become available the fuel efficiency gap will be even be greater.

u3b3rg33k
02-10-2015, 10:34 PM
Not exactly true since the N54 was not a fuel efficient engine when you compare it to the N55 engine and that has Di as well. The toyota 3.5DI is not as fuel efficient as their non DI 3.5. The reason why due to the High sulfur content of american gasoline you can not run the car on lean mode. Turbo DI engines can not run on lean mode.

As soon as electronic turbos become available the fuel efficiency gap will be even be greater.

we don't get "lean mode" combustion because of NOx emissions.
https://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=491905&d=1423636382

The US has much tighter NOx rules than Europe does. Once we start putting urea NOx SCR systems on cars, then you'll get your lean burn. right now no one wants to pay for it, so it's not happening. Think 3-way cat + diesel exhaust system - DPF. it'll probably add another $1k to the price tag and 50lbs in weight to every car made.

as for DI - stratified fuel injection allows you to have most of the cylinder be lean, while the area around the plug that actually combusts is stoich. the N54 was a first gen DI motor with relatively basic "tricks" up it's sleeve - it was also more performance envelope oriented when compared toe hte single turbo N55 (not that that matters off boost).

??? not sure what that even means. The BMW has a higher fuel economy according to that page.

But anyway you obviously didn't read my posting. I never said anything about fuel economy in my posting. Take a look a torque curves. End of story personally. It's like driving a diesel around, instant torque at any RPM. I was a doubter until I drove the ecoboost and I'll NEVER go back to non-turbo engines.


BTW in a roundup of the light duty pickups from the big 3, the ford ecoboost was the only one that didn't match it's EPA fuel consumption ratings - basically you get the benefits of the "bigger engine" OR the economy, but not both at the same time. maybe you could have it all, but not on 87 octane you won't (e.g. in the ford truck).

eazy
02-11-2015, 05:11 AM
we don't get "lean mode" combustion because of NOx emissions.
https://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=491905&d=1423636382

The US has much tighter NOx rules than Europe does. Once we start putting urea NOx SCR systems on cars, then you'll get your lean burn. right now no one wants to pay for it, so it's not happening. Think 3-way cat + diesel exhaust system - DPF. it'll probably add another $1k to the price tag and 50lbs in weight to every car made.

as for DI - stratified fuel injection allows you to have most of the cylinder be lean, while the area around the plug that actually combusts is stoich. the N54 was a first gen DI motor with relatively basic "tricks" up it's sleeve - it was also more performance envelope oriented when compared toe hte single turbo N55 (not that that matters off boost).



BTW in a roundup of the light duty pickups from the big 3, the ford ecoboost was the only one that didn't match it's EPA fuel consumption ratings - basically you get the benefits of the "bigger engine" OR the economy, but not both at the same time. maybe you could have it all, but not on 87 octane you won't (e.g. in the ford truck).


Your wrong like I said again the reason why we do not get lean mode is the high sulfur content http://m.wardsauto.com/ar/mercedes_dirty_fuel_110315

LegendsNeverDie
02-11-2015, 12:36 PM
Most of the 3 series competitors have or going to have a turbo 4. If you do not want a turbo get an Acura TLX. Turbos get better gas mileage is you do not have a lead foot. By the way I get better gas mileage in my f30 n55 compares to my e90 n52

I averaged about 18-19 mpg with a E90 N55 vs 22-23 mpg with a E90 N52 both automatics on the same exact type of commute. We also had a heat wave at the time and the 335 got so heat soaked I thought it will go into limp mode. The N52 is probably still more fuel efficient even without the DI and 8 speed auto.

eazy
02-11-2015, 02:57 PM
I averaged about 18-19 mpg with a E90 N55 vs 22-23 mpg with a E90 N52 both automatics on the same exact type of commute. We also had a heat wave at the time and the 335 got so heat soaked I thought it will go into limp mode. The N52 is probably still more fuel efficient even without the DI and 8 speed auto.


Same commute my n52 e90 got 20-22 mph while my n55 f30 get 23-25mph. Both rwd automatics.

The f30 has a better auto, steering system to help Efficiency, and start stop system. My e90 had 16in all seasons tires while the has f30 18in summer tires (winter tires are on now).

Saintor
02-11-2015, 03:26 PM
What that R & T link fails to mention that under steady state driving turbos are barely running. Also the N20 makes max torque 1000 RPM's lower than the N52 and makes 50 more of ft/lb.

Forget the 2005 N52, introduced more than 10 years ago. A diversion, at best.

N20 must be compared to modern V6, such as the Honda, Nissan, Toyota V6 3.5L. Now imagine if they had the ZF8 and other optimization such as cylinder dis-activation.

LegendsNeverDie
02-11-2015, 03:40 PM
Same commute my n52 e90 got 20-22 mph while my n55 f30 get 23-25mph. Both rwd automatics.

The f30 has a better auto, steering system to help Efficiency, and start stop system. My e90 had 16in all seasons tires while the has f30 18in summer tires (winter tires are on now).

It also depends on the climate and terrain. I live 45 minutes from the ocean, looking at your profile pic it seems like anything NA will have a harder time generating power thus affecting fuel economy.

LegendsNeverDie
02-11-2015, 03:41 PM
Forget the 2005 N52, introduced more than 10 years ago. A diversion, at best.

N20 must be compared to modern V6, such as the Honda, Nissan, Toyota V6 3.5L. Now imagine if they had the ZF8 and other optimization such as cylinder dis-activation.

Yeap. The new Honda engines are remarkable.

eazy
02-11-2015, 03:47 PM
Forget the 2005 N52, introduced more than 10 years ago. A diversion, at best.



N20 must be compared to modern V6, such as the Honda, Nissan, Toyota V6 3.5L. Now imagine if they had the ZF8 and other optimization such as cylinder dis-activation.


Vqv6 is being replaced by a turbo.
Toyota 2.5 v6 being replaced by the turbo 4
Honda is starting to introduce turbos in their line up. The civic type r and the new NSX are both turbos.
On a side note Honda's turbo V6 for the 2015 f1 season sounds like a dragon http://youtu.be/vJ9AE5QRb_8

eazy
02-11-2015, 03:58 PM
It also depends on the climate and terrain. I live 45 minutes from the ocean, looking at your profile pic it seems like anything NA will have a harder time generating power thus affecting fuel economy.


That pic was taken in Austria during my ED trip

Michael Schott
02-11-2015, 04:04 PM
Forget the 2005 N52, introduced more than 10 years ago. A diversion, at best.

N20 must be compared to modern V6, such as the Honda, Nissan, Toyota V6 3.5L. Now imagine if they had the ZF8 and other optimization such as cylinder dis-activation.

Except both V6's get terrible fuel economy. The Nissan in the Altima is rated at 22-32 with the CVT which is more fuel efficient than the ZF 8AT. With the auto in cars like the Q37 it regularly in reviews got less than 20 mpg.

The Toyota V6 is rated at 21-31.

Saintor
02-11-2015, 04:05 PM
Vqv6 is being replaced by a turbo.
Toyota 2.5 v6 being replaced by the turbo 4
Honda is starting to introduce turbos in their line up


Unimpressed.

Acura original RDX 2.3Turbo got replaced by a world-class 3.5L V6 in the 2012+RDX and NOBODY complains.

Feels more upscale.

Saintor
02-11-2015, 04:06 PM
Except both V6's get terrible fuel economy. The Nissan in the Altima is rated at 22-32 with the CVT which is more fuel efficient than the ZF 8AT. With the auto in cars like the Q37 it regularly in reviews got less than 20 mpg.

The Toyota V6 is rated at 21-31.


You have the 'terrible' reference too easy. Fact is that those 3 V6 cost less in fuel than the N20.


In EPA I trust.

eazy
02-11-2015, 04:24 PM
You have the 'terrible' reference too easy. Fact is that those 3 V6 cost less in fuel than the N20.





In EPA I trust.


Yes the rdx had a terrible engine since it was not high tech turbo. But the x5 with the n55 is just as efficient as a MDX. From personal experience the g37 is not as fuel efficient as a 335i. Vqv6 + CVT has been a reliability nightmare for nissan.
Do you trust Hyundai's epa numbers?

u3b3rg33k
02-11-2015, 04:31 PM
Your wrong like I said again the reason why we do not get lean mode is the high sulfur content http://m.wardsauto.com/ar/mercedes_dirty_fuel_110315

lol read your article!
But until the U.S. cleans up its gasoline, those engines will not be available here because the excessive sulfur would overwhelm and poison the trap that captures oxides of nitrogen from the exhaust stream.

The trap is necessary because the Stratified combustion cycle inherently creates higher concentrations of NOx. A conventional 3-way catalyst will not work with a lean-burn engine, so NOx must be adsorbed and stored in a specially designed trap before it is burned off.

I just said that we need a NOx cat!

eazy
02-11-2015, 04:33 PM
lol read your article!





I just said that we need a NOx cat!


I said before high sulphur that was my point

u3b3rg33k
02-11-2015, 05:27 PM
well then I'm not wrong, am I? :p

Saintor
02-11-2015, 05:40 PM
But the x5 with the n55 is just as efficient as a MDX.?


So "as efficient" is not good enough.

eazy
02-11-2015, 05:48 PM
well then I'm not wrong, am I? :p

No I said you can not run lean mode due the high Sulfur content which would damage the cat converter. High Sulfur content in our gasoline is the main culprit we do not get lean. Having an urea system is not going to fix the problem.

eazy
02-11-2015, 05:55 PM
So "as efficient" is not good enough.

an X5 the gets the same gas milage as a MDX along with better performance that pretty good if you ask me. Also if read the magazines the BMW with the N55 get better real world gas mileage than the competition.
When VW replaced the POS 5 cylinder with 1.8T gas mileage improved significantly.

You anti turbo rant is getting old.

Saintor
02-11-2015, 07:00 PM
an X5 the gets the same gas milage as a MDX along with better performance that pretty good if you ask me.

Really?

Instumented test at C&D

5-60mph X5 7.0s MDX 6.7s
EPA city/highway driving: 18/27 mpg in both cases

eazy
02-11-2015, 07:34 PM
Really?

Instumented test at C&D

5-60mph X5 7.0s MDX 6.7s
EPA city/highway driving: 18/27 mpg in both cases
Like I said the BMW gets better performance. Their is more to performace than 5-60. Another good performance SUV (Porsche Cayenne) is also turbocharged.
Look also join the turbo family http://www.evo.co.uk/ferrari/15210/2015-ferrari-488-gtb-everything-you-need-to-know-specifications-pictures-and-more now with improve gas mileage

LegendsNeverDie
02-12-2015, 05:49 AM
Like I said the BMW gets better performance. Their is more to performace than 5-60. Another good performance SUV (Porsche Cayenne) is also turbocharged.
Look also join the turbo family http://www.evo.co.uk/ferrari/15210/2015-ferrari-488-gtb-everything-you-need-to-know-specifications-pictures-and-more now with improve gas mileage

The X5 is really overpriced in comparison to the MDX. In real world driving the MDX gets slightly better mileage while the X5 gets slightly better performance. The MDX does this without FI and older 6 speed auto. The '15 models got a 9 speed auto.

LegendsNeverDie
02-12-2015, 05:52 AM
Really?

Instumented test at C&D

5-60mph X5 7.0s MDX 6.7s
EPA city/highway driving: 18/27 mpg in both cases

Another thing to consider is that the Acura will still feel like new in 5 years while the X5 will likely rack up thousands of dollars in repair and maintenance bills.

u3b3rg33k
02-12-2015, 09:37 AM
The X5 is really overpriced in comparison to the MDX. In real world driving the MDX gets slightly better mileage while the X5 gets slightly better performance. The MDX does this without FI and older 6 speed auto. The '15 models got a 9 speed auto.

FI doesn't give better economy, it allows for a smaller motor - that's where the economy comes from. Turbos just give you back the power you gave up. An n/a 2L engine in a 4000lb car would really suck.

LegendsNeverDie
02-12-2015, 09:53 AM
FI doesn't give better economy, it allows for a smaller motor - that's where the economy comes from. Turbos just give you back the power you gave up. An n/a 2L engine in a 4000lb car would really suck.

I know that.

jlukja
02-12-2015, 03:23 PM
FI doesn't give better economy, it allows for a smaller motor - that's where the economy comes from. Turbos just give you back the power you gave up. ...

Turbos also allow for better packaging - smaller, lighter, and therefore more advantageous placement within the structure between the 4 wheels.

LegendsNeverDie
02-12-2015, 03:32 PM
Turbos also allow for better packaging - smaller, lighter, and therefore more advantageous placement within the structure between the 4 wheels.

More heat, more complexity and not always lighter.

Saintor
02-12-2015, 04:03 PM
Like I said the BMW gets better performance. Their is more to performace than 5-60. Another good performance SUV (Porsche Cayenne) is also turbocharged.

Like WHAT? :dunno:

The 5-60mph means that full acceleration is started from idle; it shows very well the engine's flexibility so dear to turbo fan.

In theory, turbo low-end + better ZF8 should win. In real-life, the facts are just not there to support that little theory.

Saintor
02-12-2015, 04:06 PM
Another thing to consider is that the Acura will still feel like new in 5 years while the X5 will likely rack up thousands of dollars in repair and maintenance bills.

Make no mistake here. I would still buy the X5. Like I am not interested in the vehicles that host the V6 I listed above.

It is nothing new under the sun that German vehicles are +15-20% priced.

This discussion is about turbo factual efficiency in real-life vs NA alternatives, but certainly not about one specific vehicle to another.

eazy
02-12-2015, 04:50 PM
Like WHAT? :dunno:



The 5-60mph means that full acceleration is started from idle; it shows very well the engine's flexibility so dear to turbo fan.



In theory, turbo low-end + better ZF8 should win. In real-life, the facts are just not there to support that little theory.


The x5 weights a couple 100 lbs more than the mdx

eazy
02-12-2015, 08:52 PM
Another thing to consider is that the Acura will still feel like new in 5 years while the X5 will likely rack up thousands of dollars in repair and maintenance bills.

According to talking cars with consumer reports episode 54 they were saying the acura's reliability record has been mixed. Also from personal experience Acura's interior gets worn down very quickly.

Gary J
02-13-2015, 05:13 AM
The energy analysts on CNBC are starting to do a turnaround saying gas powered cars will not be on the decline after all. The reason - they have about perfected the turbo.

LegendsNeverDie
02-13-2015, 05:40 AM
The energy analysts on CNBC are starting to do a turnaround saying gas powered cars will not be on the decline after all. The reason - they have about perfected the turbo.

Far from it. Current turbo systems are already outdated. Besides EV's are the future. Gas powered cars will be obsolete.

http://www.autoblog.com/2014/08/08/audi-electric-turbocharging-feature/

LegendsNeverDie
02-13-2015, 05:42 AM
According to talking cars with consumer reports episode 54 they were saying the acura's reliability record has been mixed. Also from personal experience Acura's interior gets worn down very quickly.

Small stuff vs HPFP and other serious failures associated with BMW's FI engines.

Gary J
02-13-2015, 05:56 AM
Far from it.

That kind of stretch makes me disinterested in the link. lol

LegendsNeverDie
02-13-2015, 06:50 AM
That kind of stretch makes me disinterested in the link. lol

Not a stretch. The new design will be mainstream within the next 5 years or so. You don't have to read it lol.

eazy
02-13-2015, 06:51 AM
Small stuff vs HPFP and other serious failures associated with BMW's FI engines.


Hpfp failure is from an engine that bmw no longer produces. N20/n55 are more reliable engines than the n54

LegendsNeverDie
02-13-2015, 06:57 AM
Hpfp failure is from an engine that bmw no longer produces. N20/n55 are more reliable engines than the n54

Sure but there are still failures and stuff like carbon buildup on top of much more expensive parts. They generate much more heat and are more complex. I wouldn't hesitate to own a used Acura like the MDX without warranty but would never consider a FI BMW without one. On the other hand I would lease the X5 over the MDX since I have a BMW dealer relatively close if things do go south.

eazy
02-13-2015, 07:06 AM
Sure but there are still failures and stuff like carbon buildup on top of much more expensive parts. They generate much more heat and are more complex. I wouldn't hesitate to own a used Acura like the MDX without warranty but would never consider a FI BMW without one. On the other hand I would lease the X5 over the MDX since I have a BMW dealer relatively close if things do go south.


Yes turbo cause more heat but the Honda J series engine is pretty complex since it has cylinder deactivation. You also get carbon buildup from non turbo di engines

Mark K
02-13-2015, 07:08 AM
So ... wait a minute ... should I buy a turbo-charged car or not? :dunno:

:D

One more thing ... I used to be in the camp "gone and never to be seen again" for few things automotive - like low gas prices and NA engines. But we might still see a surprise or two. Just wait and see where is this story about 1,000 hp F1 going to go.

Car companies have marketers as well as engineers for a reason. Marketers are paid way more than engineers also for a reason. No matter how elegant and logic a solution, it might be utterly unappealing and un-sellable. For example, F1 cars in 2014 were faster with 600 hp ICE than cars running 1,000+ hp for qualifying in the late 80s while consuming almost 50% less fuel (130 liters vs about 190 liters) over race distance of 300 km roughly. And they sound like crap. Nobody wants to see a race like that. Now marketers won and they will slowly release the pinch of fuel-flow restriction (allowing higher rpm and better sound) and go full-berserk with 1,000 hp, wider tires and more aero allowed for 2017 season.

The more things change ... the more people want the old stuff back :)

Michael Schott
02-13-2015, 07:34 AM
Small stuff vs HPFP and other serious failures associated with BMW's FI engines.

Not fair. There haven't been widespread HPFP issues in 5-6 years and the N20 has not suffered these at all nor have the recent iterations of the N55. BMW has pretty much worked out all the turbo bugs.

chiefneil
02-13-2015, 07:50 AM
Interesting discussion. At the end of the day my F30 335i is bigger and heavier than my E46 330i. The F30 is also a crap ton faster at all rpm's under all conditions, and gets ~2pmg better mileage to boot. I don't know and don't care if it's due to the turbos or DI or the ZF8. BMW has the engineers and they're fanatical about the environment and mileage, so I trust that the various technologies are all pulling in the same direction.

That said, the M54 engine from my E46 330i was a beauty. Fun, charming, and just an absolute joy to run up to redline. The N55 kinda takes all the fun out of running up to redline, it's just so damn fast at any rpm. But with respect to turbo lag.... well the M54 had very oomph below 4k rpm. So you either had to downshift or wait for it to wind up. Weighed against a touch of turbo-lag in the N55, the N55 wins all day and twice on Sunday.

I won't say I'm a turbo fanboy necessarily. I'm just a fan of the results. We only have to look at the Corvette to see what kind of crazy amazing things can be done with a NA engine in terms of both power and efficiency to know that there's more than one way to skin a cat.

BTW with respect to turbos burning more fuel to stay cooler. BMW runs the engines hotter during relaxed driving for better economy and cooler during spirited driving for power. From that I draw the inference that there's sufficient excess cooling capacity and tolerance that they're not wasting an unreasonable amount of fuel keeping the engine cool. Otherwise they'd just let the engine run hotter under all conditions.

u3b3rg33k
02-13-2015, 12:06 PM
BTW with respect to turbos burning more fuel to stay cooler. BMW runs the engines hotter during relaxed driving for better economy and cooler during spirited driving for power. From that I draw the inference that there's sufficient excess cooling capacity and tolerance that they're not wasting an unreasonable amount of fuel keeping the engine cool. Otherwise they'd just let the engine run hotter under all conditions.

That trick debuted in the N52 -

112C ECO mode (economy)
105C Normal mode
95C High mode
80C High+mapped thermostat mode

The coolant control sets a higher cylinder head temperature (112C) if the engine control unit determines ECO mode based on the current operating conditions.
The engine is operated with relatively low fuel consumption in this temperature range as the internal friction is reduced.
An increase in temperature therefore favors lower fuel consumption in the low load range. In HIGH and mapped thermostat mode, the driver wishes to utilize the optimum power development of the engine. The cylinder head temperature is therefore reduced to 80 C.
This results in improved volumetric efficiency, thus increasing the engine torque. The engine control unit can therefore set a certain operating mode adapted to the respective driving situation. Consequently, it is possible to influence fuel consumption and power output by means of the cooling system.


cool trick, eh?

Saintor
02-13-2015, 03:39 PM
That trick debuted in the N52 -


cool trick, eh?

Another utter-German useless idea, IMO.

I don't think that the N52 ever got better fuel economy because of that. This electrical system eventually fails and this spells 1200-1500$. Water pumps replacements are legions and worse, they are sudden.

I wonder if other carmakers adopted an electrical water pump?

u3b3rg33k
02-13-2015, 08:26 PM
Another utter-German useless idea, IMO.

I don't think that the N52 ever got better fuel economy because of that. This electrical system eventually fails and this spells 1200-1500$. Water pumps replacements are legions and worse, they are sudden.

I wonder if other carmakers adopted an electrical water pump?

Wow, someone is cranky.

minn19
02-14-2015, 06:22 AM
Wow, someone is cranky.


No, that is normal Saintor. No amount of facts or reasonable discussion is going to get him off of his hatred for the N20 or apparently turbo engines in general.

It must be really cold where he is and he got bored so started another flamefest thread.

Saintor
02-14-2015, 08:59 AM
No, that is normal Saintor. No amount of facts or reasonable discussion is going to get him off of his hatred for the N20 or apparently turbo engines in general.

It must be really cold where he is and he got bored so started another flamefest thread.

You guys have a thin skin. :tsk:

My reply was just impersonal, not cranky, at all. I used "IMO" and asked a legitimate question that nobody is able to answer apparently, preferring smart-*** replies. :bigpimp:

u3b3rg33k
02-14-2015, 09:05 AM
Other car makers are adopting electrics over belt driven bits. Look at steering racks, cooling fans, fuel pumps, etc. electrically driven bits will become more prevalent with the push for lower fuel consumption - it is inevitable.

Saintor
02-14-2015, 09:09 AM
Other car makers are adopting electrics over belt driven bits. Look at steering racks, cooling fans, fuel pumps, etc. electrically driven bits will become more prevalent with the push for lower fuel consumption - it is inevitable.

Everybody knows this but it doesn't answer the specific question. :dunno:

minn19
02-14-2015, 09:32 AM
You guys have a thin skin. :tsk:

My reply was just impersonal, not cranky, at all. I used "IMO" and asked a legitimate question that nobody is able to answer apparently, preferring smart-*** replies. :bigpimp:

Not really. What do you expect when you have the attitude and a history of your own cantankerous/smart ass replies.

Was the specific question are others car manufacturers using electric water pumps? If that is it, then yes, they are for various reasons.

If not, what was the specific question again?

Saintor
02-14-2015, 04:01 PM
Not really. What do you expect when you have the attitude and a history of your own cantankerous/smart ass replies.

Was the specific question are others car manufacturers using electric water pumps? If that is it, then yes, they are for various reasons.

If not, what was the specific question again?

Feels better after vent your little frustrations? :bigpimp:

Let somebody more skilled than you answer the question if *you just don't know*.

minn19
02-14-2015, 04:05 PM
Feels better after vent your little frustrations? :bigpimp:

Let somebody more skilled than you answer the question if *you just don't know*.

What are you talking about? I'm not venting. Just stating an observation.

I don't specifically know the question. If it is as simple as what you asked your question has been answered multiple times. Do you really need specifics?