I wonder if they're trying to "look" more eco-friendly.

A 3 litre twin turbo "seems" more eco-friendly than a 6 litre normally aspirated block, but we know it isn't. I changed from a 2.7L V6 TT to this 4.5L V8 NA and there's no difference in fuel consumption.

It's hard to imagine the smaller engines are cheaper to make considering all the extra parts/systems needed to be turbocharged.

 

I think BMW is trying to keep it simple from a global perspective. A lot of countries have taxes on cars by displacement. By going away from displacement to turbochargers, BMW is able to get smaller engines to perform like a larger displacement engine. In addition, I think that smaller engines are lighter.

 

Fleet fuel economy standards...they already had to pay fines,you think with it being raised to 35mpg by 2016 will help?
They have already said get ready for the return of the I4's and more DI with Turbos... next m3 I6 with turbos, next M5 V8 with turbos ( already well known around here), the M1/1 M edition/Ti what ever I6 turbos...535i I6 with Twin turbos to I6 with DI and dual scroll single turbo...

It's all about the gas milage

 

Yeah, but the problem is BMW is lagging far behind other makers with V6 engines. Even Chevy has a V6 that produces 270HP and gets decent fuel economy. So do Nissan, Toyota, Honda, et al - without turbos. It's sad that a company known for HP in the upper RPM range cannot come close to "lesser" competitors offerings.

 

True...

 

 

that is B.S. cuz my buddy has one and his AveMPG is 16. My 10k lb diesel truck gets 18 MPG on ave

 

dont get me wrong I love the bmw I6 engine but the technology has come so far that no longer do you need a perfectly naturally balanced I6 engine or V12 to run "smoothly" The technology lets even a large v6 operate very smoothly as in the cadillac or new mustang with computer compensation and proper waiting. The engines are as good or better on gas, get more power and torque and are the same or near same weight.

When you take the fact bmw is not known for reliabiliaty either--you start wondering what is going on. I think they are losing their advantage to the system as other companies technology is simply overtaking them.

They used to be able to churn out lower horsepower cars then the field (its alwyas been that way-relatively underpowered to the competition) but in the past what made up for it was the torque curve, smooth power delivery and light nimble handling car.

Well all of that is either gone or has been matched and bettered. NO longer are they "light and nimble", they still handle well, but no longer are they the only smooth revving/running engines, no longer are they the only ones to have a flat wide torque curve--basically every other big company has designed and built an engine with as good or better output/specs at half the cost and as smooth and great sounding..

Just not sure their point of continuing on wiht the same strategy.

 

As I started reading through this thread, Skele scared me with his letter number combination in post #7 so I am out.

 

Huh? In post 7 theres only one number?!? And its at the end of the thread