23i vs 30i.. or 4 pot?

RFT tramline when starting to wear, my car gearbox a bit crunchy into 2nd, but improved a lot, rarely crunches after filling with Redline MT-LV oil.
 
2.0 gearbox has a less notchy 1st-2nd shift than my previous couple of 3litre zeds, the throw itself may be slightly longer though. Clutch effort is definitely less than before which helps in traffic.
Rob
 
BMW Professional hifi... not sure what this system is.. any good? To be honest i dont listen to much music in the car but when I do I like a quality sound
 
mr.tourette said:
BMW Professional hifi... not sure what this system is.. any good? To be honest i dont listen to much music in the car but when I do I like a quality sound
I have this in my 35iS, I love it, my music choice is Metallica, Slayer, Anthrax and anything loud which the system delivers more than adequately, but to be honest I mainly have the stereo off as the sound of the engine and exhaust note are addictive and really enhance my enjoyment of the car :driving:
 
mr.tourette said:
Incidentally how are the gear boxes on the e89, i remember test driving a few e85s before I bought my auto and the boxes where somewhat "agricultural" :D Have they improved in the e89 and do they need a cdv delete? Ive clocked a nice model but its on run flats..how are they on the e89 do you still get tramlining? I'd obviously be looking to change them at some point but perhaps not straight away until I can save a few pennies again

Runflats on a previous E85 were the work of the devil, tramlining was horrendous. Then I bought the first of my E89s and although it had Runflats, it wasn’t not bad. I’m sure as many have testified that a set of Michelin’s will improve it, I’m in no great rush.
 
I have always tried to get the biggest engine possible as I like torque more than BHP! It really is horses for courses. Smaller engines and especially those with turbos love to be revved and can be very rewarding. But I like the slow smooth pull of a larger engine. Probably because I am a bit old and boring. I am told that the extra weight of the 3.0 in the nose can make it a little less agile but you would probably only notice that on a track. I do worry that turbocharging can lead to less reliability but that is less the case these days. I think I am right in saying that BMW were the very first manufacturer to put a turbo in a road car...?
 
Interesting discussion,... some might say that at 120K a 3.0 N52 will be nicely run in (if serviced correctly) but that most turbo chargers will be significantly worn at the same mileage... especially on a mapped car.

My next door neighbour had a 23i, he loved the sound and it was certainly a looker in Alpine white, but he sold it as he felt it didn’t feel fast enough or special enough to drive... at least that’s what he told me.
 
montymoore said:
I have always tried to get the biggest engine possible as I like torque more than BHP! It really is horses for courses. Smaller engines and especially those with turbos love to be revved and can be very rewarding. But I like the slow smooth pull of a larger engine. Probably because I am a bit old and boring. I am told that the extra weight of the 3.0 in the nose can make it a little less agile but you would probably only notice that on a track. I do worry that turbocharging can lead to less reliability but that is less the case these days. I think I am right in saying that BMW were the very first manufacturer to put a turbo in a road car...?
I'm also in the bigger engine the better, not bothered about turbo's just another thing to go wrong give me a 3.0 unadulterated straight 6 fast enough to get me into trouble and out .Rather have an engine pottering along than being pushed. Again might also be because I am also a bit old hopefully not to boring.
 
montymoore said:
I have always tried to get the biggest engine possible as I like torque more than BHP! It really is horses for courses. Smaller engines and especially those with turbos love to be revved and can be very rewarding. But I like the slow smooth pull of a larger engine. Probably because I am a bit old and boring. I am told that the extra weight of the 3.0 in the nose can make it a little less agile but you would probably only notice that on a track. I do worry that turbocharging can lead to less reliability but that is less the case these days. I think I am right in saying that BMW were the very first manufacturer to put a turbo in a road car...?

But if torque was your priority,[ref]Pbondar[/ref]'s earlier post should be leading you to a 28i 4-pot surely? :poke: :D
 
montymoore said:
I have always tried to get the biggest engine possible as I like torque more than BHP! It really is horses for courses. Smaller engines and especially those with turbos love to be revved and can be very rewarding. But I like the slow smooth pull of a larger engine. Probably because I am a bit old and boring. I am told that the extra weight of the 3.0 in the nose can make it a little less agile but you would probably only notice that on a track. I do worry that turbocharging can lead to less reliability but that is less the case these days. I think I am right in saying that BMW were the very first manufacturer to put a turbo in a road car...?

Without wishing to persuade anyone from their preferences the idea that these little 4 pot engines are old school turbo rev-ers like the old Saab Turbos is a long way from contemporary design..

The N20 in the 18i,20i and 28i has a bore /stroke of 84 x 90.1 mm ie a long stroke motor

The successor the B48 has bore /stroke of 82 x 94.6 mm ie a much long stroke motor

The N54 had a bore/stroke of 84 x 89.6 ie slightly more oversquare than the N20!

The rev-ers all were oversquare, these are all undersquare designed to generate large amount of torque at low revs..

The N20 produces peak power around 5,000 rpm the N52 at 6,400 rpm and the N54 at 5,800

N20 peak torque is much lower and fatter than the N52 and N54 which helps with short shifting auto boxes..

So in fact they spend much more of their lives operating at lower rpms (especially when allied to very wide ratio autoboxes) compared early engines especially those with manual boxes..

There is nothing wrong in being old and boring and I wouldn't let facts get in the way of historical bias.. :thumbsup:
 
enuff_zed said:
But if torque was your priority,[ref]Pbondar[/ref]'s earlier post should be leading you to a 28i 4-pot surely? :poke: :D
It was my priority so I went down the 35is Route when I changed from 3.0l NA
Torque 500 Nm (369 lb-ft) @ 1500 rpm
 
ronk said:
enuff_zed said:
But if torque was your priority,[ref]Pbondar[/ref]'s earlier post should be leading you to a 28i 4-pot surely? :poke: :D
It was my priority so I went down the 35is Route when I changed from 3.0l NA
Torque 500 Nm (369 lb-ft) @ 1500 rpm
He was replying to montymoore who has a 3.0 na :poke:
Rob
 
Smartbear said:
ronk said:
enuff_zed said:
But if torque was your priority,[ref]Pbondar[/ref]'s earlier post should be leading you to a 28i 4-pot surely? :poke: :D
It was my priority so I went down the 35is Route when I changed from 3.0l NA
Torque 500 Nm (369 lb-ft) @ 1500 rpm
He was replying to montymoore who has a 3.0 na :poke:
Rob
You’re just jealous Rob because yours sounds like a Moulinex food blender :poke: :lol:

Steve
 
I realised that but was intending to show I had the advantage of a big six and the advantages of a twin blower. Coupled with this I didn’t need to remap the system. That is an option tho!
I wanted power and torque and decided this was my only route.
 
Huzee4 said:
Smartbear said:
ronk said:
It was my priority so I went down the 35is Route when I changed from 3.0l NA
Torque 500 Nm (369 lb-ft) @ 1500 rpm
He was replying to montymoore who has a 3.0 na :poke:
Rob
You’re just jealous Rob because yours sounds like a Moulinex food blender :poke: :lol:

Steve

Oh no here we go again.. :headbang:

If you can’t win on facts then go down the non quantifiable ‘but it sounds better’ yawn.. :tumbleweed:
 
ronk said:
I realised that but was intending to show I had the advantage of a big six and the advantages of a twin blower.
I wanted power and torque and decided this was my only route.

The advantage is not from the six nor the capacity but from the twin turbos ..to be pedantic..

It could have been a 3 litre 4 cylinder and it would have made almost the same power..
 
I think the missing thing here is that a straight 6 is an inherently naturally balanced engine - that’s why you don’t see 4cyl over 3.0l

On reflection, perhaps that’s why I like the straight 6 - it’s probably more about power delivery than the amount of power or torque available.

I can still remember all those years ago (1967) as a junior Draughtsman being asked to take the chief engineers triumph Vitesse for tyres. That free revving engine was very addictive and smoother than my Cooper S
I came back to the office the very long way!

The last 4cyl I owned was 2006 - you could probably say with some justification that I’m hooked .
 
Pbondar said:
Huzee4 said:
Smartbear said:
He was replying to montymoore who has a 3.0 na :poke:
Rob
You’re just jealous Rob because yours sounds like a Moulinex food blender :poke: :lol:

Steve

Oh no here we go again.. :headbang:

If you can’t win on facts then go down the non quantifiable ‘but it sounds better’ yawn.. :tumbleweed:

The fact is, it does sound better ! I had an E89 20i from new, kept it for 3 years and loved it, however there was always something missing for me and the 35iS has been outstanding and performance wise in another class, didn’t mean to cause upset just a bit of banter, forgot how sensitive some people get :poke:
 

Attachments

  • B645CE95-E6C5-4B3D-9CA1-6AF0F0CDD091.jpeg
    B645CE95-E6C5-4B3D-9CA1-6AF0F0CDD091.jpeg
    389 KB · Views: 518
Huzee4 said:
Pbondar said:
Huzee4 said:
You’re just jealous Rob because yours sounds like a Moulinex food blender :poke: :lol:

Steve

Oh no here we go again.. :headbang:

If you can’t win on facts then go down the non quantifiable ‘but it sounds better’ yawn.. :tumbleweed:

The fact is, it does sound better ! I had an E89 20i from new, kept it for 3 years and loved it, however there was always something missing for me and the 35iS has been outstanding and performance wise in another class, didn’t mean to cause upset just a bit of banter, forgot how sensitive some people get :poke:

Your 20i was obviously in standard trim, the performance chasm you mention reduces substantially after these cars are tweaked.
I don’t like to bang on about it as i know how sensitive you guys can get :poke:
Rob
 
Back
Top Bottom