06-13-2010, 12:24 AM | #23 | |
I'm just a cook
26
Rep 971
Posts |
Quote:
I would prefer a 4 cylinder with a turbo over a 128. If it can match a 135-6, even better. What you get is more MPG, less weight equating to better handling, more fun to drive because you will have a power curve biased up top. I love the I6, spent half of my life driving them, power curve is perfect for daily driver. But if you put a I4-Turbo in a lighter car, it can only get better. Don't worry, the M1 will be an I6. What you really need to worry about is if it gets FWD for next generation. Please check the poll @ http://www.1addicts.com/forums/showthread.php?t=389203 |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-13-2010, 11:17 PM | #25 |
Private First Class
15
Rep 115
Posts |
Six will p'bly have a better torque curve than a four. I don't want to have to wait to 5-6K before making power.
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-13-2010, 11:45 PM | #26 |
I'm just a cook
26
Rep 971
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-14-2010, 06:44 PM | #28 | |
European Editor
10757
Rep 22,992
Posts |
Quote:
Once you get acustomed to the silky smoothness of a straight six.... it is very hard to go back to a four pot banger. I think this is why for many years BMW's over here in europe, came with both a 4 cylinder and 6 cylinder engines of simular performance & specs. In the old e46... you could have a 320i with either a six or a four. I think they were fairly close in Hp too. I think, 150 PS for the six and 140ish for the four. ??? Someone feel free to correct me here. Anyway... my point is that the six always sold better and was the "drivers car" preferred car. BMW has gotten away from offering customers engine with so simular specs. btw.... that little 2.0L six was put into ALOT of BMW models. Z3's and Z4's, e46's, e39's and more that I am forgetting right now! |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-14-2010, 07:40 PM | #29 |
Private First Class
15
Rep 115
Posts |
Oh, I am in full agreement on wanting a 6 more than a 4 cylinder. I just want to let it be known my opinion of 4 cylinders. Subaru makes the only decent one.
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-22-2010, 01:09 AM | #30 |
Captain
71
Rep 954
Posts |
This! I'm glad someone said it. Fewer cylinders doesn't mean reduced power. Engine technology evolves quickly.
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-22-2010, 01:37 AM | #31 | |
Captain
76
Rep 676
Posts |
Quote:
__________________
135i // M-Sports Package // RR Oil Catch Can // Black Kidneys // iCarbon Hood // Alum Pedals // KW v2 Coilovers // Vorshlag Camber Plates // Hotchkis Sway Bar // Wheel Studs. Best mod ever? Tires. 255's in front, 275's in back.
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-22-2010, 04:19 PM | #32 |
Captain
73
Rep 922
Posts |
lighter and more powerful....these are people after my own heart. Leave the extra weight and power to the 3 series. Just keep the 1 RWD so we can have the great driving dynamic. If we didn't mind wrong wheel drive we could have just bought a mini.
__________________
18 X6M, 22 Tesla MYP, 21 Plaid, 19 Ram
|
Appreciate
0
|
12-23-2010, 10:37 AM | #33 |
Got Boost?
8
Rep 234
Posts |
But you can be fairly certain that it still does in terms of modability given the dame manufacturer and production year...outside of shit (or just old) design displacement wins out in the end when it comes to power.
__________________
- - My Car Domain - -
2010 BMW 135i AT, AW, ///M Sport JB4|BMS DCI|MS 3" cattless DPs|Golf Tee|33% Tint|///M Pedals |
Appreciate
0
|
12-27-2010, 03:45 PM | #34 | |
First Lieutenant
61
Rep 300
Posts |
Quote:
a friend of mine has an 08 STi, and I consistently get better MPGs than he does, both on the street and during HPDEs. Plus, my car is faster in the top-end. I think it has more to do with his gearing, though.
__________________
2016 M4 MG 6MT, sunroof. Some audio mods, Swift springs (so far). |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-09-2011, 03:41 PM | #35 |
Major
182
Rep 1,008
Posts |
The 330 will be a 2.0 l turbo, the 335 a 3,0 liter six with turbo.Probably the same with the 1 series. This according to Auto motor und sport.
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-24-2011, 07:44 AM | #37 |
Brigadier General
504
Rep 3,445
Posts |
My guess is the recently announced 245 hp turbo four is going to be the most powerful non M engine available in the new 1 series.
__________________
See my photography at http://ronscubadiver.wordpress.com
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-31-2011, 01:28 AM | #39 |
Private
0
Rep 91
Posts |
I don't mind. If they neuter the 1 I will just get a 3 next time. The 135i a pretty insane package if you look at bmws history.
__________________
2008 White 135i 6spd
Red Leather BMW Performance Exhaust |
Appreciate
0
|
01-31-2011, 05:45 AM | #40 |
Resident Kerbalnaut
479
Rep 10,703
Posts |
My question is why can't we have a 2L I6 or bring back the 2.5L six.
It seems that BMW is trying to hop on the Audi bandwagon with the 2.0T. They should differentiate themselves by making a different engine rather than saying look! Our 2.0T is better than yours made 5 years ago. Of course it's going to be better damn it. My 3600 lb 135 nets 33-35 MPG consistently and that's a turbo I-6. You can't argue that an I6 is the more efficient design. A four banger is so unbalanced...it just fights itself and vibrates like crazy...guess I'm just preaching to the choir |
Appreciate
0
|
01-31-2011, 10:39 AM | #41 | |
Major General
4457
Rep 9,160
Posts |
Quote:
First, even if your 135i mileage is true, it's certainly not representative of most of us. Mine gets an average of 21 mpg in mixed driving and has never gotten above 28 mpg with pure highway driving. Second, a 2.0l I6 just on principal costs more than a 2.0l I4, what with 50% more reciprocating parts. Finally, in order to meet fuel and ,this is the more important aspect, CO2 requirements, forced induction is becoming more and more important in new engine designs. Perhaps if BMW didn't have a long history with I4's, there'd be reason for concern, but personally, I'm actually pretty excited about an I4 with tuning potential and better efficiency than "base" I6's we've been getting for years. I've wanted a 3er wagon for years, but have avoided the 328i due to the lack of power without much advantage in efficiency. If it was either powerful or efficient, it would be worthy, but sadly, the base I6 has been a bit of a lame duck for the last decade or so. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-31-2011, 11:09 AM | #42 |
Resident Kerbalnaut
479
Rep 10,703
Posts |
This is very common mileage for me on my trip to and from my university.
http://www.1addicts.com/forums/showt...hlight=Mileage I'm fully aware of bmws history with I-4s but I just like how unique an I-6 is and how ubiquitous a 2.0T I-4 is...I guess I'm just a douche like that. And I never said that you couldnt turbocharge a 2.0 I-6. I suggested it because the potential fuel savings over a 2.0 I-4 can't be ignored. An I-6 is simply a better design and it would lower CO2 emissions by being more efficient. I used my 33.6 to illustrate that point. That matches the mileage of many 2.0T I-4 while having 1 extra liter of displacement and over 100 HP more. |
Appreciate
0
|
01-31-2011, 11:20 AM | #43 | |
Major General
4457
Rep 9,160
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
01-31-2011, 12:48 PM | #44 |
Resident Kerbalnaut
479
Rep 10,703
Posts |
^i'm used to a Ford 302 that redlined at 5500 and loses all of it's torque after 4000 rpm in a 5000lb AWD truck...so to me the N54 is a high revving engine haha
It's more of an image thing for BMW in the US than anything. Thats why they stopped offering 4 bangers in the first place. And it's possible that they want toantain that premium image with a small I-6 rather than an I-4. It's another marketing technique to keep them above Audi. That would be what my argument would revolve around for the most part. If it was all about dollars and cents BMW wouldn't be making any I-6s at all as they are more expensive and harder to package than an equivalent sized V-6. |
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|