Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





High End Luxury Cars

1756757759761762771

Comments

  • anthonypanthonyp Posts: 1,857
    I gathered that, but just thought that maybe a bit or re-inforcement wouldn`t hurt....It was quite firm in its seat and ride.....Ironically I had a couple of cups of the coffee you were writing about today--just by accident---and it really was quite good... In other words I could tell the difference Tony
  • hpowdershpowders Posts: 4,269
    I have to give up some performance for a more practical vehicle. If I could have a weekend toy, the 335i convertible would suit me just fine, I'm sure.
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    You know what I'm gonna say, right? :shades:
  • brightness04brightness04 Posts: 3,151
    Did anyone else notice this piece of gem? A 4.0L V8 weighing less than a 3.2 I-6! So much for the officious "lecture" that I was given a few weeks ago here on the inherent weight advantage of I-6 over V engines. I wonder how much additional weight saving BMW is going to realize in the next generation of 3 series and 5 series by replacing the turbo charger plus I-6 with a new V8.
  • lexusguylexusguy Posts: 6,419
    Did anyone else notice this piece of gem? A 4.0L V8 weighing less than a 3.2 I-6! So much for the officious "lecture" that I was given a few weeks ago here on the inherent weight advantage of I-6 over V engines. I wonder how much additional weight saving BMW is going to realize in the next generation of 3 series and 5 series by replacing the turbo charger plus I-6 with a new V8.

    You don't have all of the facts here, brightness. The M3 I6 is not related to the I6s in the regular 3 series cars, just as the new 4.0L M3 V8 has no relation to BMW's standard V8s. It was made from steel and iron, not the ultra-light magnesium and aluminum of the 25\28\30i engines. The 35i engine is all aluminum to strengthen it to handle the forced induction. BMW is not going to kill off their I6s.
  • brightness04brightness04 Posts: 3,151
    Good catch. Nonetheless, why is the I6 in M3 made of iron block instead of aluminum? For compactness, so we are told. In other words, packaging. Apparently there is not enough room for the bore diameter corresponding to an aluminum 3.2L built for horsepower instead of torque. The very fact that BMW would go for a cast iron block instead of aluminum on the performance-oriented M3 goes to show that weight savings is no longer an advantage for I-6 in today's performance compact sedan, due to packaging requirement (engien length vs. crumple zone). An aluminum V6 would have fit the "compactness" requirement (i.e. shorter in a longitudanal mount) and weigh substantially less; heck the new V8 M3 is the living proof of a V8 going in there and still weigh less. Of course BMW is not going to kill off their I6's; BMW still has I4! With no bore increase beyond the current 3.0 liter in a regular production engine, I6's are destined to move lower into the food chain . . . with the higher models of even the 3 series to take in V engines . . . perhaps in this case V8 just so as not to make a joke of all the old I-6 marketting literature :-)
  • tagmantagman Malibu, CaliforniaPosts: 8,441
    ...I6's are destined to move lower into the food chain . . . with the higher models of even the 3 series to take in V engines...

    To cut through all that, just look at the bottom line facts. The 300 HP I6 twin-turbo is one of the best powerplants to grace our shores in generations. It is nearly the performer of previous M3s. Thus, the requirement of something even more significant had to be slated for the next M3's engine compartment... voila - cast iron V8.

    As the logical thinker you are, you are adapting the logical thought that the V8 is therefore a better engine, afterall it's a V8 that's going to power the M3 and an I6 is the engine of choice for the regular 3-series.

    But it's not quite like that. The M3 requires an inherent performance advantage, due to its badge, and the marketing that surrounds it, but all that does not necessarily mean that the cast iron V8 is better... it just means that it will do the job that the M3's engine bay requires.

    So, don't jump to conclusions by stating that this M3 V8 engine will be the mainstream 3-series engine any time soon.

    TagMan
  • houdini1houdini1 Kansas City areaPosts: 5,925
    Hmmmm...that seems to be the Acura RL's argument that no one pays any attention to. :)

    2013 LX 570 2010 LS 460 2002 Tacoma 4x4

  • lexusguylexusguy Posts: 6,419
    To cut through all that, just look at the bottom line facts. The 300 HP I6 twin-turbo is one of the best powerplants to grace our shores in generations. It is nearly the performer of previous M3s.

    Not to mention the fact that it outmuscles both the state-of-the-art Lexus 3.5L and Infiniti 3.7L V6 engines. I did find it a bit interesting though that Edmunds, who has never really liked the G, found that the new coupe handled better than the 335i coupe, and while the BMW over heated and had to limp home, the G37 had no such issues.
  • brightness04brightness04 Posts: 3,151
    Not sure where the "cast iron V8" came from. I was talking about aluminum V8 having lower weight than cast iron I6; perhaps even aluminum I-6 with turbo charger strapped to the top of it. A turbo charger is certainly much more complicated and weighs more than a V6 with bigger bore would have been, if the goal is 306hps.

    "The 300 HP I6 twin-turbo is one of the best powerplants to grace our shores in generations."

    The best for BMW, perhaps. Turbo-charged 6 cylinder developing more than 300hp were available nearly a decade a half ago from Toyota (Supra Turbo), Nissan (300Z) and Mitsubushi (3000GT). It's no co-incidence that BMW is sourcing the turbo charger itself from Mitsubishi. For what it's worth, the 1993 Supra Turbo had 320hp! That's the state of art at Toyota a decade and half ago, if it bothers to play with the turbo charger.

    So, don't jump to conclusions by stating that this M3 V8 engine will be the mainstream 3-series engine any time soon.

    I take it that you are preparing to defend yourself in the future by emphasizing "_this M3_ V8 engine" as opposed to just any other V8 engine finding its way into regular 3 series :-)

    BTW, just to reinterate, my point was that, if the inline configuration is limiting BMW to 3 liters for practical packaging reasonss, the I-6's is an evolutionary dead end. To keep 3 series competitive in the future, BMW will have to bring in the V8 unless it joins the club and make V6.
  • brightness04brightness04 Posts: 3,151
    Like I said before, turbo is a make-do measure when the company doesn't feel like spending more money on researching and developing a new and more powerful engine block. Hopefully BMW at least did the plumbing right, and this overheating thing is not a common phenomenom when driven enthusiasticly.
  • tagmantagman Malibu, CaliforniaPosts: 8,441
    BTW, today's horsepower ratings are generally more conservative as well as subject to regulatory rating standards that were not in place back then.

    I'm not trying to disqualify your statements, just making some clarification when we are slinging HP numbers around.

    TagMan
  • tagmantagman Malibu, CaliforniaPosts: 8,441
    You know, I really want to test this twin-turbo engine for myself. It continues to get so much praise heaped on top of even more praise... the reviews are terrific.

    Wow... such an incredible engine... and to think that it's only an I6. ;)

    TagMan
  • houdini1houdini1 Kansas City areaPosts: 5,925
    Apparently an incredibly bad engine. It was throughly trounced by the Infinity G37 in a recent Edmunds test. The 335I overheated and had to retire from the competition. Even when they could keep it running the BMW was beaten badly in the turns. Not as "sporty" as the Infinity.

    When you take your test drive be careful that you don't get stranded!

    2013 LX 570 2010 LS 460 2002 Tacoma 4x4

  • brightness04brightness04 Posts: 3,151
    I see what you are trying to insinuate, and that would be very wrong. HP has been defined for well over a cetury. The exact testing method for engines used in cars get refined by various industrial associations from time to time on an on-going basis, as usual. The fluctuation has not been huge since the 1970's. Much of the advertised HP numbers for the early 90's turbo engines had a lot to do with drive train ability to put power to the ground, marketting and gentlemen's agreements in Japan. There were quite a few Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4 that had more than 400+hp, some of which I witnessed first-hand on dynometers.
  • tagmantagman Malibu, CaliforniaPosts: 8,441
    Apparently an incredibly bad engine.

    Do you really believe that? Or are you milking the Edmunds situation for all its worth?

    The reason I ask, is whether or not you want to be on record as saying that the twin-turbo I6 is a bad engine... or not.

    TagMan
  • tagmantagman Malibu, CaliforniaPosts: 8,441
    I see what you are trying to insinuate, and that would be very wrong.

    You actually believe it is wrong of me to remind you that today's HP numbers have an updated standard for measurement compared to decades ago? You should check the facts first.

    In addition, I mentioned that any HP differences were not worthy of argument anyway, only for clarification.

    Sorry you misunderstood my post.

    TagMan
  • tagmantagman Malibu, CaliforniaPosts: 8,441
    turbo is a make-do measure when the company doesn't feel like spending more money on researching and developing a new and more powerful engine block.

    Gee, I'll let Porsche know that you disapprove of the 911 Turbo, and that they should have spent more money on researching a better engine block.

    Give it a break. Yikes!

    TagMan
  • houdini1houdini1 Kansas City areaPosts: 5,925
    Do you really believe that? Or are you milking the Edmunds situation for all its worth?

    Milking? Oh, you mean in the same way you carried on about the
    brakes on the pre production LS 460 and what a dangerous situation that was? I would think complete engine failure would be somewhat more serious and certainly just as dangerous.

    By the way, you kept wanting a definitive answer on the LS brakes. Since the very positive answer was posted I haven't heard a peep out of you on the subject.

    2013 LX 570 2010 LS 460 2002 Tacoma 4x4

  • brightness04brightness04 Posts: 3,151
    The minute difference in testing method is easily swamped by the margin of superiority the early 90's 3 liter turbos, not to mention that some of those specific turbos of the early 90's were grossly understated for their output. The clarification you proferred is like saying 335i gets quicker 0-60 than an Accord from the test numbers that we have, but let's not forget different drivers with different weight ran those two tests.
  • brightness04brightness04 Posts: 3,151
    In case it is not obvious, Porsche was run on a shoe-strong engine R&D throughout most of its existence. Yes, profit margin per vehicle is high, but the total profit was low, and the company was on the verge of bankruptcy several times. It had to rely on VW to get a V8. I mean, seriously, how long did it take Porsche to move from air-cooled engine to water-cooled engine? Decades after the rest of the industry made the switch. Porsche has a lot of talent massaging existing engine blocks, but the moolah for coming up with new engine blocks is hard to come by when the production volume is that low. Take a loot at Brabus and Alpina: both are good at massaging engines; sometimes even strap on a supercharger or turbo-charger, but they don't have the R&D funds to come up with entirely new engines.
  • brightness04brightness04 Posts: 3,151
    There is nothing special about a twin-turbo I-6 that develops 300hp. Toyota had one as early as the 1993 model year in the Supra Turbo. Yes, that was an I-6 engine. Toyota strapped on a turbo, too, until a new V6 engine with greater bore diamter and hence power output than the normally aspiriated I-6 became available in the following economic cycle. BMW is simply a decade or more behind in that evolutionary path.

    The test vehicle failure is very disconcerting, especially since it's not the first BMW 3 series to fail catastrophicly in tests in recent memory. It's not like they do comparos on thousands of 3 series cars, for crying out louder.
  • houdini1houdini1 Kansas City areaPosts: 5,925
    Yes, two for two. The engine quit on one and the other one spun out of control. Some record.

    Not to mention that these things are tiny. Made for teen age girls and diminutive grown ups.

    2013 LX 570 2010 LS 460 2002 Tacoma 4x4

  • tagmantagman Malibu, CaliforniaPosts: 8,441
    Take a loot at Brabus and Alpina: both are good at massaging engines; sometimes even strap on a supercharger or turbo-charger, but they don't have the R&D funds to come up with entirely new engines.

    I beg to differ... I believe that the latest Brabus engine is almost entirely "Brabus". And just "strapping on" components is a pitifully weak explanation for the serious work that goes into some of those engine modifications and reconstructions.

    TagMan
  • tagmantagman Malibu, CaliforniaPosts: 8,441
    There is nothing special about a twin-turbo I-6 that develops 300hp.

    I completely disagree with you... as usual.

    Too bad that you do not know much about the merits of this engine... with its almost non-existent turbo lag.

    TagMan
  • lexusguylexusguy Posts: 6,419
    Too bad that you do not know much about the merits of this engine... with its almost non-existent turbo lag.

    Right, there's more to it than just horsepower per litre. Volvo's S60R makes 300hp from just a 2.5L five. BMW could easily get 400hp out of the 335i if they wanted to. They don't want to. They are more interested in BMW smoothness throughout the rev range and banishing turbo lag. This is a luxury-sports car, not a Lancer EVO. Having zilch for power below 3000rpm is just not acceptable.
  • deweydewey Posts: 5,243
    Your knowledge of BMW biturbos is equivalent to your knowledge of BMW V6s. I found your posts in another forum quite amusing. :P

    Well at least your knowledge of BMW biturbo engines is a bit better than your knowledge of how "realized resale values and inflated residuals are linked." ;)
  • mariner7mariner7 Posts: 509
    I urge caution on the edmunds test between G37 and 335Ci, because it was set up by Infiniti. It wouldn't be the first time a comparo set up by a manufacturer manages to make that manufacturer's car shine.

    I remember a few years back journalists coming out of an introductory comparo set up by Lincoln raved about the Aviator against X5 and MDX. Can anyone even remember what the Aviator looks like if it runs over you, if one exists to run over you? Maybe the manufacturer tunes their cars and detunes the rivals.

    But it's worrisome when BMW's keep go belly up during strenuous tests. A year ago the BMW 330i that won the C&D multicar comparo also gave up.

    1st gen G coupe was one of the best looking non-exotics ever, IMO. But new one looks much worse, reminds me of SC430!
  • brightness04brightness04 Posts: 3,151
    I believe that the latest Brabus engine is almost entirely "Brabus".

    You gotta be kidding on this one. Brabus takes a MB production car off the production line then do modifications to it. Apparently Brabus has progressed to boring/stroking out existing engine cylinders; that's the next step among mod shops, after years of strapping turbo chargers and superchargers onto existing engines. Porsche turbo and BMW turbo's are not even messing with bore or stroke cylinders. In the case of BMW, it entails the taking away of maganesium components that were hailed as the best thing since sliced bread only a few years before.
Sign In or Register to comment.