528 vs 535 biturbo
#1
Members
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2008 528i Titanium Silver built 03/11/2007, delivered 04/25/2007,
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Hey Guys:
I'm not an expert at this at all so I'm asking for some explanations.
The BMWUSA website has the gas mileage of the 535 at just 1mpg worse than the 528.
That's 1mpg less for 70 more horsepower! I never realize turbos are so efficient at producing hps without increasing gas use. (More I think about it more I should have dished out a little more $ for the 535) I don't suppose a quad turbo can make 370hp for a less mile than the 535? Is twin turbo the most efficient system there is in terms of turbos achieving an ideal compression for the most efficient combustion?
Also, what would be the gas mileage of a naturally aspirated engine that produces 300 be versus the turbo of the 535?
Also, I noticed that gas mileage dropps quite a bit from the 535 to the 550, why does this extra 60hp cost so much more than the +70 gain going from 528 to 535?
Finally, if turbos increase power so efficiently, as it appears to be doing for our 5 series, why isin't it used more universally if for nothing but for improving gas mileage over naturally aspirated engines producing similar power? Cost? turbo lag?
I'm not an expert at this at all so I'm asking for some explanations.
The BMWUSA website has the gas mileage of the 535 at just 1mpg worse than the 528.
That's 1mpg less for 70 more horsepower! I never realize turbos are so efficient at producing hps without increasing gas use. (More I think about it more I should have dished out a little more $ for the 535) I don't suppose a quad turbo can make 370hp for a less mile than the 535? Is twin turbo the most efficient system there is in terms of turbos achieving an ideal compression for the most efficient combustion?
Also, what would be the gas mileage of a naturally aspirated engine that produces 300 be versus the turbo of the 535?
Also, I noticed that gas mileage dropps quite a bit from the 535 to the 550, why does this extra 60hp cost so much more than the +70 gain going from 528 to 535?
Finally, if turbos increase power so efficiently, as it appears to be doing for our 5 series, why isin't it used more universally if for nothing but for improving gas mileage over naturally aspirated engines producing similar power? Cost? turbo lag?
![Think](https://5series.net/forums/images/smilies/imported/think.gif)
#2
Members
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nieuw-Lekkerland, The Netherlands
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by dohboydds' post='423350' date='May 11 2007, 07:00 PM
Hey Guys:
I'm not an expert at this at all so I'm asking for some explanations.
The BMWUSA website has the gas mileage of the 535 at just 1mpg worse than the 528.
That's 1mpg less for 70 more horsepower! I never realize turbos are so efficient at producing hps without increasing gas use. (More I think about it more I should have dished out a little more $ for the 535) I don't suppose a quad turbo can make 370hp for a less mile than the 535? Is twin turbo the most efficient system there is in terms of turbos achieving an ideal compression for the most efficient combustion?
Also, what would be the gas mileage of a naturally aspirated engine that produces 300 be versus the turbo of the 535?
Also, I noticed that gas mileage dropps quite a bit from the 535 to the 550, why does this extra 60hp cost so much more than the +70 gain going from 528 to 535?
Finally, if turbos increase power so efficiently, as it appears to be doing for our 5 series, why isin't it used more universally if for nothing but for improving gas mileage over naturally aspirated engines producing similar power? Cost? turbo lag?![Think](https://5series.net/forums/images/smilies/imported/think.gif)
I'm not an expert at this at all so I'm asking for some explanations.
The BMWUSA website has the gas mileage of the 535 at just 1mpg worse than the 528.
That's 1mpg less for 70 more horsepower! I never realize turbos are so efficient at producing hps without increasing gas use. (More I think about it more I should have dished out a little more $ for the 535) I don't suppose a quad turbo can make 370hp for a less mile than the 535? Is twin turbo the most efficient system there is in terms of turbos achieving an ideal compression for the most efficient combustion?
Also, what would be the gas mileage of a naturally aspirated engine that produces 300 be versus the turbo of the 535?
Also, I noticed that gas mileage dropps quite a bit from the 535 to the 550, why does this extra 60hp cost so much more than the +70 gain going from 528 to 535?
Finally, if turbos increase power so efficiently, as it appears to be doing for our 5 series, why isin't it used more universally if for nothing but for improving gas mileage over naturally aspirated engines producing similar power? Cost? turbo lag?
![Think](https://5series.net/forums/images/smilies/imported/think.gif)
Well, as being a driver of turbo cars (tuned and non tuned) and normally aspirated engines it's as follow:
a V8 like an 550i needs the cil. always filled with air and gasoline. A smaller turbo engine has a smaller capacity, thus needs with lower rpm less fuel.
However when stretched out, the turbo comes in play while it is driven by the exhaust gasses, and produces pressurized air. To combust these large amount of air you need a lot more fuel to have a combustible mixture.
On the test cyclus 50-70 mph, a turbo engine works at an rpm range of about 2500. (the bigger the engine, the slower). At that rpm the turbo produces few extra air, so no fuel is needed. Stepping on the gas will produce a healty thirst. On a chiptuned car, this effect is even stronger. BTW my last car was a VW Passat 1.8 turbo with 150hp 210 nm. After tuning it had 204hp/260nm. Fuel usage was with easy driving 48 mpg, with sporty driving 40 mpg, wiith a really heavy right foot 25 mpg. Which is fairly equal to a V8.
If you dont push the car, it will use less fuel compared to an V8, if you step it and use the power, there won't be as much difference.
Turbo cars a a lot more expensive than a normal engine (turbo, intercooler, extra hoses/pipes, electronics etc. ).
The new CO2 discussions in Europe and US (Al Gore btw) force the car manufacturers to develop cars with smaller engines but equal performance (downsizing), For example VW has an engine 1.4 ltr with direct injection, a turbo AND supercharger and produces 170 hp. Compare that to the above mentioned 1.8 turbo with 150hp.
Eddy.
#3
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by eddy' post='423361' date='May 11 2007, 10:25 AM
Well, as being a driver of turbo cars (tuned and non tuned) and normally aspirated engines it's as follow:
a V8 like an 550i needs the cil. always filled with air and gasoline. A smaller turbo engine has a smaller capacity, thus needs with lower rpm less fuel.
However when stretched out, the turbo comes in play while it is driven by the exhaust gasses, and produces pressurized air. To combust these large amount of air you need a lot more fuel to have a combustible mixture.
On the test cyclus 50-70 mph, a turbo engine works at an rpm range of about 2500. (the bigger the engine, the slower). At that rpm the turbo produces few extra air, so no fuel is needed. Stepping on the gas will produce a healty thirst. On a chiptuned car, this effect is even stronger. BTW my last car was a VW Passat 1.8 turbo with 150hp 210 nm. After tuning it had 204hp/260nm. Fuel usage was with easy driving 48 mpg, with sporty driving 40 mpg, wiith a really heavy right foot 25 mpg. Which is fairly equal to a V8.
If you dont push the car, it will use less fuel compared to an V8, if you step it and use the power, there won't be as much difference.
Turbo cars a a lot more expensive than a normal engine (turbo, intercooler, extra hoses/pipes, electronics etc. ).
The new CO2 discussions in Europe and US (Al Gore btw) force the car manufacturers to develop cars with smaller engines but equal performance (downsizing), For example VW has an engine 1.4 ltr with direct injection, a turbo AND supercharger and produces 170 hp. Compare that to the above mentioned 1.8 turbo with 150hp.
Eddy.
a V8 like an 550i needs the cil. always filled with air and gasoline. A smaller turbo engine has a smaller capacity, thus needs with lower rpm less fuel.
However when stretched out, the turbo comes in play while it is driven by the exhaust gasses, and produces pressurized air. To combust these large amount of air you need a lot more fuel to have a combustible mixture.
On the test cyclus 50-70 mph, a turbo engine works at an rpm range of about 2500. (the bigger the engine, the slower). At that rpm the turbo produces few extra air, so no fuel is needed. Stepping on the gas will produce a healty thirst. On a chiptuned car, this effect is even stronger. BTW my last car was a VW Passat 1.8 turbo with 150hp 210 nm. After tuning it had 204hp/260nm. Fuel usage was with easy driving 48 mpg, with sporty driving 40 mpg, wiith a really heavy right foot 25 mpg. Which is fairly equal to a V8.
If you dont push the car, it will use less fuel compared to an V8, if you step it and use the power, there won't be as much difference.
Turbo cars a a lot more expensive than a normal engine (turbo, intercooler, extra hoses/pipes, electronics etc. ).
The new CO2 discussions in Europe and US (Al Gore btw) force the car manufacturers to develop cars with smaller engines but equal performance (downsizing), For example VW has an engine 1.4 ltr with direct injection, a turbo AND supercharger and produces 170 hp. Compare that to the above mentioned 1.8 turbo with 150hp.
Eddy.
When I drive the crap out of my 530-pretty much same as a 528-I get 15mph and that is flooring it at every change. Still not bad when you think of it. Even driving pretty racey for tank but not full out-I can get 19-20 and that is still driving like crap. These machines and engines are pretty damn fuel efficientl
Now once you go V8 or higher mileage just tends to suck as you climb over 350 horses
#4
Contributors
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 2,303
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
My Ride: 2008 535i: June 6th start build, complete June 17th, at NY Port July 5th, at dealer July 10th, took delivery Friday July 13- Plantimum Bronze/Natural Brown Leather/Light Poplar, Sport Package, Sport Auto, Active Steering, Premium Package, CWP & PDC. Dinan Performance Software 384hp & 421 ft/lbs.
![Default](https://5series.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
A good example is comparing the 530i and 535i with the old 545i:
Both the 535 and 545 cars have similar acceleration numbers.
Both the 530 and 535 cars have 3.0 liter engine displacement. The 545 has a 4.4 liter engine displacement or a 50% increase over the 530/535 engine.
The turbo is a "demand type" boosting system that can make the engine act like anything between 3.0-4.4 liters, and as it acts like the bigger motor its fuel consumption will act like it as well.
The extremes are driving on a highway at a steady speed (no boost and great gas mileage) and driving like the cars on the TV show "COPS" where you drive it like you stole it (full boost and bad gas mileage).
Both the 535 and 545 cars have similar acceleration numbers.
Both the 530 and 535 cars have 3.0 liter engine displacement. The 545 has a 4.4 liter engine displacement or a 50% increase over the 530/535 engine.
The turbo is a "demand type" boosting system that can make the engine act like anything between 3.0-4.4 liters, and as it acts like the bigger motor its fuel consumption will act like it as well.
The extremes are driving on a highway at a steady speed (no boost and great gas mileage) and driving like the cars on the TV show "COPS" where you drive it like you stole it (full boost and bad gas mileage).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
bestofthebest
Complete Car Sales
5
01-05-2016 07:47 PM
E61mendo
E61 Touring Discussion
1
09-15-2015 03:55 AM