Area under the graph comparing real world performance of engines

[ronk]

There’s no doubt from the evidence demonstrated here that there’s little or no performance difference in the 3.0 v 2.0 remapped cars - but I would like to see how they compare at 100k

 

[Smartbear]

There’s no doubt from the evidence demonstrated here that there’s little or no performance difference in the 3.0 v 2.0 remapped cars - but I would like to see how they compare at 100k

Didn’t you look at the dyno results on the thread Ron? The 2litre cars have a lot more grunt than the 3litre and they do enjoy a performance advantage because of it.
Rob

 

[Anonymous]

There’s no doubt from the evidence demonstrated here that there’s little or no performance difference in the 3.0 v 2.0 remapped cars - but I would like to see how they compare at 100k

Oh dear he’s forgetting everything again...

 

[ronk]

There’s no doubt from the evidence demonstrated here that there’s little or no performance difference in the 3.0 v 2.0 remapped cars - but I would like to see how they compare at 100k

Didn’t you look at the dyno results on the thread Ron? The 2litre cars have a lot more grunt than the 3litre and they do enjoy a performance advantage because of it.
Rob

You’ve misunderstood me Rob, I was agreeing that performance wasn’t an issue - but what I really wanted to understand was how the engine will be at elevated mileages. The 3.0 are often for sale on here at 100k and wonder how the more stressed engine will fair at those miles?

Only performance has ever been discussed which Is not in dispute - but I’ve not seen any ref to long term engine life except that some re- mappers reduce / tweak the tune down from max due to potential failure. Sounds to me like they are treading a fine line to achieve the resultant performance.

If I was to go down the 2.0l remapping route it’s a question I would need to know - any economy gained would be wiped out if the engine let’s go.

 

[Smartbear]

There’s no doubt from the evidence demonstrated here that there’s little or no performance difference in the 3.0 v 2.0 remapped cars - but I would like to see how they compare at 100k

Didn’t you look at the dyno results on the thread Ron? The 2litre cars have a lot more grunt than the 3litre and they do enjoy a performance advantage because of it.
Rob

You’ve misunderstood me Rob, I was agreeing that performance wasn’t an issue - but what I really wanted to understand was how the engine will be at elevated mileages. The 3.0 are often for sale on here at 100k and wonder how the more stressed engine will fair at those miles?

Only performance has ever been discussed which Is not in dispute - but I’ve not seen any ref to long term engine life except that some re- mappers reduce / tweak the tune down from max due to potential failure.

If I was to go down the 2.0l remapping route it’s a question I would need to know - any economy gained would be wiped out if the engine let’s go.

They should be fine Ron, don’t forget the 28i has an identical engine that’s sold with over 240bhp. Remapping a 20i only adds to that figure by a relatively small amount of around 30bhp or so.
I should think the petrol will have run out before most owners reach 100k miles anyway
Rob

 

[ronk]

That’s what I wanted to know
There’s a place near me who are doing full Ev conversions - not something needed by me just yet - but when the time comes who knows what we will be forced to do.

 

[Anonymous]

Generally with modern engines unless there is a design related fault...like early Audi direct injection engines with their piston rings, these engines run forever providing they keep getting clean oil at frequent intervals..the engines that have failed, all were subject to the extreme stress of racing..with obscure issues like oil moving around in the sump repeatedly circuit after circuit..

Several N20 engines in 28i tune have gone past 120K miles...according to Autotrader..that engine was fitted to dozens of BMW models..1,2,3,4,5,X1,X3 etc..

A 28i Z4 has gone past 500k miles with no issues..

Many 2 litre 4 pot engines now are running past 300bhp as stock..

You simply can’t extend these engines for that long on uk roads..so providing you keep below rpm and thermodynamic stress thresholds it should be ok..

That’s another reason to go 4 pot if you want a lower mileage choice...most if the 6 potters have racked up more miles simply cause they are 3-7 years older..

 

[ronk]

That was my doubt - the 6‘s seemed to have a generally good expected life span - I hadn’t heard about any big miles on a 4

150 Bhp / ltr is incredible when not really long ago 100Bhp /ltr was race spec (mid 1960‘s)

 

[Silverstar]

Playing around the country roads over this neck of the woods it is sticking firmly at 36.6mpg.
Gave it a good old blast on the 80 odd mile detour I did coming home from the remap (sorry, that word again), got home, checked the consumption...................still 36.6mpg.

This is what I mean though the N20 is not a world apart to the N52 in terms of fuel economy. A couple months back on a blast up the mountain roads around here everything in sport mode and trying to keep up with an Ariel Atom my 30i gained 37 MPG which is the same as your N20 before you had it remapped. On motorway run at around 80 I get 36 to 40MPG and on drive down from London to here over 1400 miles or so I got 44 MPG, only in city driving does it drop to around 22-23 MPG. Only the tax on the N20 is significantly less than the 30i but even that what are we talking about a couple hundred quid or thereabouts for the year.

 

[Smartbear]

Playing around the country roads over this neck of the woods it is sticking firmly at 36.6mpg.
Gave it a good old blast on the 80 odd mile detour I did coming home from the remap (sorry, that word again), got home, checked the consumption...................still 36.6mpg.

This is what I mean though the N20 is not a world apart to the N52 in terms of fuel economy. A couple months back on a blast up the mountain roads around here everything in sport mode and trying to keep up with an Ariel Atom my 30i gained 37 MPG which is the same as your N20 before you had it remapped. On motorway run at around 80 I get 36 to 40MPG and on drive down from London to here over 1400 miles or so I got 44 MPG, only in city driving does it drop to around 22-23 MPG. Only the tax on the N20 is significantly less than the 30i but even that what are we talking about a couple hundred quid or thereabouts for the year.

Your location is probably helping your economy which does sound better than average from a 3litre, warmer climes allow leaner running & quicker warm ups
Rob

 

[Silverstar]

Your location is probably helping your economy which does sound better than average from a 3litre, warmer climes allow leaner running & quicker warm ups
Rob

Whilst that might be true (although what I am getting is pretty much BMW say this engine should give) the point I was getting at is that the difference in running costs between the two isn't huge! It isn't like say the difference between running a 118d and M3 V8. In this case the difference for most people in monetary terms will be so small it will be insignificant to most people. Only if you do mega miles a year may you see any significant savings if that.

 

[R.E92]

Your location is probably helping your economy which does sound better than average from a 3litre, warmer climes allow leaner running & quicker warm ups
Rob

Whilst that might be true (although what I am getting is pretty much BMW say this engine should give) the point I was getting at is that the difference in running costs between the two isn't huge! It isn't like say the difference between running a 118d and M3 V8. In this case the difference for most people in monetary terms will be so small it will be insignificant to most people. Only if you do mega miles a year may you see any significant savings if that.

I think running costs across the range are close enough for it to not matter. Considering the chasm of performance between a 18i and 35is it seems a no brainer considering how little extra the 35is will cost to keep on the road.

 

[Silverstar]

Your location is probably helping your economy which does sound better than average from a 3litre, warmer climes allow leaner running & quicker warm ups
Rob

Whilst that might be true (although what I am getting is pretty much BMW say this engine should give) the point I was getting at is that the difference in running costs between the two isn't huge! It isn't like say the difference between running a 118d and M3 V8. In this case the difference for most people in monetary terms will be so small it will be insignificant to most people. Only if you do mega miles a year may you see any significant savings if that.

I think running costs across the range are close enough for it to not matter. Considering the chasm of performance between a 18i and 35is it seems a no brainer considering how little extra the 35is will cost to keep on the road.

100% correct the difference in running costs i.e. fuel and tax between all the Zeds isn't great enough to influence me as to which engine to choose.

 

[ronk]

Depreciation is generally the biggest running cost and comes with a wallop at the end. It’s generally swept under the carpet in the new car enthusiasm / euphoria - The costs of modifications is probably lost just the same as speccing a car with loads of extras when new.

All the extra comfort packs/ technology packs/ msport packs don’t seem to have any impact on the price offered. So whatever you spend on the car to improve it, just accept its money down the pan and enjoy what you’ve spent your cash on.

 

[MACK]

Your location is probably helping your economy which does sound better than average from a 3litre, warmer climes allow leaner running & quicker warm ups
Rob

Whilst that might be true (although what I am getting is pretty much BMW say this engine should give) the point I was getting at is that the difference in running costs between the two isn't huge! It isn't like say the difference between running a 118d and M3 V8. In this case the difference for most people in monetary terms will be so small it will be insignificant to most people. Only if you do mega miles a year may you see any significant savings if that.

I do agree the difference isn't going to be huge but it's there. 20% up on the older i6 engines they replaced is what BMW claim and I think that's probably pretty accurate. Not a game changer for most granted, but if it's your only transport and you do significant annual miles, say 12k a year it works out at circa £5-600pa. Enough to influence some no doubt

 

[Silverstar]

Your location is probably helping your economy which does sound better than average from a 3litre, warmer climes allow leaner running & quicker warm ups
Rob

Whilst that might be true (although what I am getting is pretty much BMW say this engine should give) the point I was getting at is that the difference in running costs between the two isn't huge! It isn't like say the difference between running a 118d and M3 V8. In this case the difference for most people in monetary terms will be so small it will be insignificant to most people. Only if you do mega miles a year may you see any significant savings if that.

I do agree the difference isn't going to be huge but it's there. 20% up on the older i6 engines they replaced is what BMW claim and I think that's probably pretty accurate. Not a game changer for most granted, but if it's your only transport and you do significant annual miles, say 12k a year it works out at circa £5-600pa. Enough to influence some no doubt

If you look at what I am getting and what enuff_zed said he was achieving there is no difference, granted I am in hotter climes so maybe mine is a bit more fuel efficient but even so over 12K miles a year I think the real world difference will be more like around a couple of hundred quid a year for most people. Sure if you were doing mega mileage like 50K and up you might start to see more of a monetary difference. For the average mileage driver, if you are worried about a couple of hundred extra quid in fuel bills is this really the type of car you should be buying?

 

[MACK]

Whilst that might be true (although what I am getting is pretty much BMW say this engine should give) the point I was getting at is that the difference in running costs between the two isn't huge! It isn't like say the difference between running a 118d and M3 V8. In this case the difference for most people in monetary terms will be so small it will be insignificant to most people. Only if you do mega miles a year may you see any significant savings if that.

I do agree the difference isn't going to be huge but it's there. 20% up on the older i6 engines they replaced is what BMW claim and I think that's probably pretty accurate. Not a game changer for most granted, but if it's your only transport and you do significant annual miles, say 12k a year it works out at circa £5-600pa. Enough to influence some no doubt

If you look at what I am getting and what enuff_zed said he was achieving there is no difference, granted I am in hotter climes so maybe mine is a bit more fuel efficient but even so over 12K miles a year I think the real world difference will be more like around a couple of hundred quid a year for most people. Sure if you were doing mega mileage like 50K and up you might start to see more of a monetary difference. For the average mileage driver, if you are worried about a couple of hundred extra quid in fuel bills is this really the type of car you should be buying?

Well we'll have to agree to disagree on economy because I'm definitely seeing better returns than your figures in the given situations. I'm getting mid to high 40's at 80mph on cruise for example and never less than 30mpg around town. My 3.0 E85 is someway behind the E89 on the same journey's in the economy stakes.

My economy has actually improved since it was remapped which on the face of it might sound a bit ridiculous. But when you take into consideration BMW deliberately mapped both the 18/20i extremely poorly (mainly through retarding the ignition timing quite considerably) to hit a predetermined output and even the 28i was left with some clear head room, it's not really a much of a surprise.

I do agree though it's not a huge difference in the grand scheme of things but for some just seeing it was a "2.0l petrol" rather than "3.0l petrol" would be enough to sway their buying decision. Something I'm sure BMW would have made the most of.

 

[enuff_zed]

Your location is probably helping your economy which does sound better than average from a 3litre, warmer climes allow leaner running & quicker warm ups
Rob

Whilst that might be true (although what I am getting is pretty much BMW say this engine should give) the point I was getting at is that the difference in running costs between the two isn't huge! It isn't like say the difference between running a 118d and M3 V8. In this case the difference for most people in monetary terms will be so small it will be insignificant to most people. Only if you do mega miles a year may you see any significant savings if that.

I think running costs across the range are close enough for it to not matter. Considering the chasm of performance between a 18i and 35is it seems a no brainer considering how little extra the 35is will cost to keep on the road.

Either your needle is stuck or you are setting us all up for the impending sale of your 35iS

 

[sars]

Your location is probably helping your economy which does sound better than average from a 3litre, warmer climes allow leaner running & quicker warm ups
Rob

Whilst that might be true (although what I am getting is pretty much BMW say this engine should give) the point I was getting at is that the difference in running costs between the two isn't huge! It isn't like say the difference between running a 118d and M3 V8. In this case the difference for most people in monetary terms will be so small it will be insignificant to most people. Only if you do mega miles a year may you see any significant savings if that.

I do agree the difference isn't going to be huge but it's there. 20% up on the older i6 engines they replaced is what BMW claim and I think that's probably pretty accurate. Not a game changer for most granted, but if it's your only transport and you do significant annual miles, say 12k a year it works out at circa £5-600pa. Enough to influence some no doubt

As the saying goes, you don’t get something for nothing, to produce the same amount of power you have to burn a similar amount of fuel, regardless of configuration excepting the improvement in efficiency. Whilst turbocharging improves efficiency this is not going to be a 20% improvement, the purpose of downsizing from a six cylinder naturally aspirated to a four cylinder turbocharged engine was in BMW’s drive to lower average co2 levels across the range and nothing more.

 

[ronk]

They should be fine Ron, don’t forget the 28i has an identical engine that’s sold with over 240bhp. Remapping a 20i only adds to that figure by a relatively small amount of around 30bhp or so.
Rob

If the 28i engine with 240bhp is identical, can that be remapped or has the limit of that configuration very reached?
Are 28i owners stuck with the output they’ve got plus the 30bhp or so?