Hold on to your straight 6 cylinder BMW engines!
- Thread starter Breaker
- Start date
As an engineer I can appreciate what they are trying do, improve efficiency, whilst maintaining the bit that makes BMW's great. As someone who follows her heart the love I have for that six upfront at full song is pure bliss, if they take that away what will I be left with.... An Audi with inferior build quality?
and I havent even been in the fortunate position to own one yet... :xsars said:
And so say all of us
A
Anonymous
Guest
Liverpool
I'm afraid to say that the only way I'm going to be going is backwards - to either another e34 M5, or e46 CSL.
I've driven all the latest versions, and the rot started to appear with the V8 e39 M5.
There's no cachet to an ///M any more, it's assembled by the same people who build your 116i/X1/etc. and to them it's simply a job, not a passion.
Whilst I understand the aims of these changes (mainly to get their overall average emissions down), I can't but think that the relatively small number of ///M motors wouldn't affect that average as much as a small change to the rest of the models.
As it is now, there's no reason to buy an ///M version of any of the current range as there's not a lot to differentiate it from the rest of the market.
For example:
I've driven all the latest versions, and the rot started to appear with the V8 e39 M5.
There's no cachet to an ///M any more, it's assembled by the same people who build your 116i/X1/etc. and to them it's simply a job, not a passion.
Whilst I understand the aims of these changes (mainly to get their overall average emissions down), I can't but think that the relatively small number of ///M motors wouldn't affect that average as much as a small change to the rest of the models.
As it is now, there's no reason to buy an ///M version of any of the current range as there's not a lot to differentiate it from the rest of the market.
For example:
- Want a 300bhp+ heavy V8/10 powered bruiser, then go for an RS4/RS8 or C63/E63 AMG, or XFR, or VXR8, or M3/M5
- Want a 300bhp+ heavy turbo-charged sports-saloon, then go for an I'llpeenher B5S/B3S or wait for the new M3/M5
- Want a 300bhp+ 2-seater roadster, then go for a TTRS, or SLK55, or Boxster, or e89 Z4
- Want a 300bhp+ 2-seater coupe, then go for a TTRS, or Cayman
- Want a 300bhp+ screaming 3 litre 6-pot, then buy an 'old' S5x or S3x ///M car (i.e. e28 M5, e36 M3, e34 M5, e46 M3, e8x Z4M)
I'll give BMW the benefit of the doubt. While the 3cyl engines are clearly for the bottom end of the range, the 4cyl engines are quite exciting. Afterall the E30 M3 had a 4cyl engine.
BMW make quite possibly the best engines in the world (or at least tied with Mercedes). Think about what we're getting here - an engine with the same performance, 'just as good' sound, similar response - but with a massively increased mpg. It'll be a case of, sure you could have a 3 litre l6 Z4 with 265bhp @ 32mpg. Or a 2 litre Z4 l4 with 245bhp @ 50mpg. What with petrol prices, surely the slight drop in performance and aural enhancement is offset by the savings. It's not like a tuned exhaust mixed with a tuned induction system can't make the sound just as good. And I'm talking proper sound tuning - not just bolting parts on but the whole system designed to sound like a 6cl from the ground up.
BMW make quite possibly the best engines in the world (or at least tied with Mercedes). Think about what we're getting here - an engine with the same performance, 'just as good' sound, similar response - but with a massively increased mpg. It'll be a case of, sure you could have a 3 litre l6 Z4 with 265bhp @ 32mpg. Or a 2 litre Z4 l4 with 245bhp @ 50mpg. What with petrol prices, surely the slight drop in performance and aural enhancement is offset by the savings. It's not like a tuned exhaust mixed with a tuned induction system can't make the sound just as good. And I'm talking proper sound tuning - not just bolting parts on but the whole system designed to sound like a 6cl from the ground up.
The only problem will be that the 2.0 turbo I4 will only give you 50mpg if you drive according to the 'official' test for measuring mpg, not in real world driving.
If you use the full power of the 2.0 I4, then you'll probably notice turbo lag and a fuel economy well below the 'official' figures, and emissions no different to a 3.0. But the point is to pass the test with the lower figure so that the tax is less.
Who cares that you gave to spend an extra £4 a week on road tax, when you've just spent £30k on a new car
If you use the full power of the 2.0 I4, then you'll probably notice turbo lag and a fuel economy well below the 'official' figures, and emissions no different to a 3.0. But the point is to pass the test with the lower figure so that the tax is less.
Who cares that you gave to spend an extra £4 a week on road tax, when you've just spent £30k on a new car
mmm-five said:
But do you redline your Z4 on a daily basis? When commuting I don't generally go above 3k rpm and use gentle acceleration. When I'm just going somewhere at the weekend, most of the time I'm hovering around 2k rpm for extended periods. Fact is turbo cars in general use tend to get better mpg than NA simply because to get the same kind of actual acceleration you don't need to climb up the revs so much. This is especially apparent on motorways where diesels and turbo petrols can change speed relatively effortlessly while NA you're more likely to drop a cog. A lower capacity also generally means more mpg when cruising.
Since these engines won't be replacing 6 cylinders until maybe 2013 at the earliest, I think they'll be coming in at just the right time. At the moment fuel is £1.33 a litre, based on the way it's been increasing I wouldn't be surprised if we're pushing £2 a litre at the end of 2013 - it'll take a doubling in economy just to keep the fuel bills the same as they are now.
Of course the car isn't driven at 7900rpm all day long, but I do use the acceleration when I need to.Boogle said:
If we take this argument to it's logical conclusion, then we should all be driving around in whatever car we like, but will all be limited to the government-sanctioned turbocharged 250cc diesel single with 25bhp/100lbft - after all you don't need 100/200/300bhp just to get to work and it's the torque that gives you your acceleration.
mmm-five said:
That's ignoring the mpg gains though, just side-stepping the discussion. But your conclusion isn't far off - for a commuting car it's probably perfect! But we're all enthusiasts here, there needs to be a compromise that doesn't use too much fuel for commuting, but offers fun at the weekend.
It's not like BMW are saying they're scrapping 6cyl engines full stop. The high-end (which your M would certainly fall in to) will hang on to the enjoyment factor for as long as possible - regardless of cost. Lamborghini are sticking with 12 cylinders, naturally aspirated. Ferrari refuse to use 4cyl engines in their cars even though they have to with F1. So for people who can afford to buy and run Ms, then this 'omg omg world's ending' is nonsense.
For mere mortals who have to balance a car with other expenses, a 4cyl engine that offers the same performance (and largely sound) as a 6cyl but with the running costs of a 4cyl. Surely that's a good thing?
In fact I don't care if the engine is a single cylinder powered by dog poo. If it sounds really good, performs well and the car handles well - then it's totally irrelevent what's going on under the bonnet. Not like I've got a glass bonnet to even be able to tell visually what's going on.
A
Anonymous
Guest
mmm-five said:
I don't think so - I've always understood, that it's the torque that gets the wheels moving to overcome the inertia from standstill. It also helps maintain speed when the engine is loaded - such as climbing hills.
For real acceleration you need high revs to create high power, thus we have Lambo V10 and Ferrari V12 engines with smaller moving parts - valves and pistons etc. to enable them to rev higher.
HP = TORQUE x RPM ÷ 5252
then by rearranging the equation:
TORQUE = HP x 5252 ÷ RPM
Power is directly proportional to rpm but torque inversely proportional to rpm