colejl

Nope, can't see the same level of detail and the official annoucement?

colejl

No offence taken...

I understand your point but it looks like BMW have been taking their time to do it 'right'...

UUronL

Anyone else notice that this new engine has direct injection? This is new and not present in the N52. Also, I think that this engine's presence in the 3 series in the US will bring the tuners out of the woodwork. This will bring about a wide range of performance mods, remaps... you name it. Sequential setups are far harder to tune than non-sequential. The setup BMW chose is actually a good thing from a performance mod perspective.

BetterMakeWay

I do think that if they go turbo crazy and start implementing turbos an most of the petrol engines AND especially on the M cars in the future, the sales might drop a little. But that's been made only by speculating bmw's next move. I for one hope this is an isolate case and no more turbo petrols are being made in the future. At least not many....If they touch the M cars by adding turbos, i think they would have so dissapointed customers in the future, unless they find a way to keep screaming engines that rev up to 8000-8500rpm and still turbo them, wich i think it's quite impossible. You either have NA engines that rev very very high (in the Ms) or turbo that rev lower. It's hard to find turbos that keep the boost on the whole wide revband...and if you do find a set-up at those high rpms you'll need alot of cooling for the engine cuz the turbos are going to "ignite".
Why do you guys think that even the tuners choose superchargers if they decide to modd bmw engines especially M engines? Because turbos are too much pain in the ass to even consider the option. Superchraging (at low boost) keeps the natural feel of the M engines, the natural power delivery, only makes the power/torque curves sit a bit higher but doesn't change their shape too much. By adding turbo to a NA the shape of the power/torque curve begins to change even by going biturbo. Even if the turbo lag will be reduced (i am sure it will not be eliminated in the 3 liter engine) i really feel unsure for the top end of the rev band. I'll just have to drive it and see it.
Also turbos (i know because i owned a few turbo cars and i have some experience with them) are the worst, or should i say the biggest enemy of the engine when it comes to engine life. Becasue they generate alot of heat and because of their construction there will always be a chance for smth to go wrong (be it diesel or petrol).

UUronL

Shrug.

BMW seems to know a thing or two about turbocharging cars. The diesels are nothing short of paradigm-breaking.

Other far less talented engineering teams have been wildly successful with turbos - just look at VW/Audi. There are many highly reliable cars on the road that are turbocharged. I've had two myself, and longevity was never an issue.

I think this engine will be wildly successful in the 3 series where performance is king, and a V8 option isn't readily available. Chances are it will do well in other cars too.

0700700

the last page of the thread come on mate , look it up

BetterMakeWay

Ok, so you have a point there. In a way i talked about the engine life (like smth about 400 000km) wich is alot and few or none of us will reach that number with a car (be it diesel or petrol). Also from what i else knew diesels (if they are well taken care of and not abused) can easily surpass the petrol engine life (as a general rule), especially if the petrol is turboed. That's because of their construction.

GPS

The rationale behind it must indeed be a marketing one. Namely, IMHO, it is an attempt to produce an engine which manages to put together the best of two worlds: a huge level of torque between 1600 and 5000 rpm (400Nm flat throughout that range) like a diesel, while at the same time having a petrol engine which can be revved up until 7000 rpm to produce its maximum output.
I'm keen to test it, the feeling must be great.

BetterMakeWay

Belive me when i say that if you have a great petrol engine that revs quite high and puts out a reasonable hp figure, torque will not be an issue anymore. I mean yeah it will if you drive the car in city and you keep it under 2000-2500 rpm wich in a petrol is really low. But i wouldn't drive a petrol like that...only 3500 up suits it best. It's about the rev band wich in a petrol is essential.
Another example: my 535d puts out 560 NM of torque wich is 40 NM more then the M5. And we are talking about the emmy here. So yes i have more torque but the m5 has a screaming engine that revs way higher than mine. AND it's so perfectly balanced (hp/torque) It has 507 and 520 NM or torque wich is the best way to have a powerfull engine (similar hp, torque numbers). Belive me when i say the m5 feels 3-4 times faster than my 535d. That's what i felt anyway...even though i have the torque. Of course if the m5 is kept below 3000rpm then of course it will be a slouch and i would smoke it's ass. But let's be serious who drives an m5 and keeps it most of the time below 3000rpm?

Ricracing

The new direct injection engines are interesting,
and even more interesting it makes that BMW
will start their DI engines with a twin, small-turbo
engine!

The current 3 litre engines has now 265 hp and a
nice torgue of 300 Nm at 2500 rpm.

So there will by also non turbo DI engines soon after
with more torque, ready for the more pollution strained
regulations.

I kind of have the feeling that this new 335i engine will
bring expensive cars and also be a kind of on experiment
engine - with some problems...