BMW N54 twin turbo discussion

///M-Spec · Jul 18, 2007

Continued from the "Veyron-rant" thread.

Re: Purists

JCE3000GT
I'm going to reply to this because it warrants it.

What do you mean by "owning"? I do own a car. Are you referring to owning said car in the discussion?

Yeah. Sorry for the confusion.

JCE3000GT
Point?

My only point was you don't have to own a car to understand the car company's principles. The Wolfe/M3 thing was just an example of that.

Re: The N54 is under-rated. Literally.

JCE3000GT
So every number I've seen from magazines, wiki, and the like of 300bhp is wrong? I could believe it, afterall the 2003/2004 Mustang Cobra was only 390bhp.

Yep. It's not uncommon. Like I said Chevy did the same thing with the LS1 F-bods. BMW has done this on at least two other occasions I can recall... probably more.

The N54 is under-rated at "300" in order to protect V8 powered car sales, namely the new M3 (414 hp) and the 550i (360 hp). The rating is especially important in the 5er, where in reality only 35 hp separates the V8 from I6.

I used to lust after the V8 540i/545i/550i. Now that the 535i exists, there is utterly no reason for me to ever consider a 550i anymore. And as much as it would be nice for me to get a new M3 a few years down the road, the 335i's real world performance level and easy tuneability makes me wonder why I should bother.

JCE3000GT
So instead of trying to find the sweet spot between fuel economy and power they chose neither realistically?

Well the 335i is EPA rated at 20/29 with the auto (19/28 with stick). That's pretty damn good for a 300hp, 3,600 lb. car, don't you think?

The Mustang GT, which makes same peak power and is about the same size and weight is rated at 17/23 (17/25 with the manual).

JCE3000GT
Even at 325bhp--if that number is correct--that is still very little for a vehicle with two turbos.

BMW put two small turbos on the car in order to reduce the time it takes for them to spool up, not for power.

If they wanted lots of power (and lots of lag), they would have gone with a single large turbo. You know those 700, 800 hp Supras? Most of them are single turbo conversions because a big single turbo is better for peak top-end power.

JCE3000GT
I didn't say I didn't like the car, I just want more power from a BMW. I understand and agree that the torque is good (30lb.ft. higher than the G37--its cheif rival), but why not more bhp and have it NA. It is easily possible, as you've already said there is a good aftermarket developing. Wouldn't logic dictate that BMW could of easily squeezed an extra 30-80bhp from it?

Not at the expense of cannibalizing M3 and 550i (and 650i/750i in other markets) sales and prestige. ~325ish is "good enough" for the 335 to run with the competition.

EDIT: Also, it's not easy to increase NA power in a BMW 6, actually. BMWs 6s are straight sixes, not V6s. They are also longitudinally mounted in every instance. So if you increase cylinder capacity (like what Nissan did with the VQ), you end up with a much longer engine. V6s are already fairly short, so increasing bore size and cylinder spacing isn't as big an issue. But in a BMW, a long engine creates packaging problems and disrupts the 50/50 weight distribution BMW always shoots for in every car.

They COULD go the high-rev NA route, like the M Division already does. But like I said before, this philosophy isn't really suited for the casual consumer. Expensive, heavy, fuel cons. etc.

...Which left them with FI.

JCE3000GT
Well, my point is simply they could of easily achieved more power by tuning it than just dumping a couple of tiny turbos. Please don't misunderstand, I don't hate the car nor do I think it is trash. I just feel a bit disappointed in what I feel is a lack of power.

First, I know you don't hate the car or think it's crap. I'm not worried about that. The only reason I put in my 2 cents was because you made the comment that you think purists want more power.

I think this may actually be an issue of terminology, because when you say "BMW purist", I think what you mean is "BMW fan".

There is difference between a car fan and a purist. A fan simply likes what the company is doing. A purist believes in the pure, unadulterated essence of what the company stands for, not necessarily what they are doing. A fan believes in products. A purist believes in principles.

A fan of BMW might be excited about new M3 making over 400 hp.

A BMW purist is upset that that it weighs over 3,600 lbs. See the difference? A BMW purist believes in fun to drive cars. The principle factors that contributes to this is light weight, simplicity, agility and driver involvement. Heavy cars are not famous for any of that.

JCE3000GT
Take a poll of 3-series coupe owners and ask what's the number one thing they'd want from their 335i coupe and I almost guarantee that 75% would say more power.

Even if that is true (and I would put the number closer to 50%), the 335i is not attracting 'purists'. The 'purists' are now looking at the 1-Series.

JCE3000GT
You're correct, BMW could of completely gone mad and done the large turbo or gone the supercharger route--but they didn't. However, I gather BMW owners prefer NA over FI so I would again assume that 330bhp-380bhp NA would be preferred over even 500bhp with FI. I think we probably agree on this.

Yeah, I'd agree with that.

Re: The 335 itself

JCE3000GT
Everything in bold is un-BMW like in my eyes. So what you're saying is the new 335i coupe is the polar opposite of the outgoing (and probably incoming) M3? Aren't the BMW purists irritated?

Well again, the 'purists' are not interested in the new M3 OR the 335i. They're busying complaining the 135i doesn't weigh 2,800 lbs (it weighs about 3,400 lbs.) ..and that it's not 1968 anymore.

Here's are some threads from www.bimmerfest.com

E92 335: super fast, handles incredibly, ... and is boring

135i lightweight?

Why can't BMW build a LIGHT Z4M?

BTW, I don't share the majority of those opinions; I'm a pragmatist, not a purist. While I understand and appreciate what the purists want, I don't wet my bed about it. After all when it comes to my needs, a BMW is still better than most of the alternatives.

M

Duke · Jul 18, 2007

[RELOCATED FROM VEYRON THREAD]

JCE3000GT
So instead of trying to find the sweet spot between fuel economy and power they chose neither realistically? Even at 325bhp--if that number is correct--that is still very little for a vehicle with two turbos.

You're just failing to grasp this point, whether intentionally or not I don't know. OF COURSE BMW could have made more power with two turbos. They also would have wound up with a heavier, hotter, peakier engine package - which does not fit with the driving profile they wanted from this car. They didn't want a hyperkinetic Japanese-style hand grenade. They wanted a rich, deep, responsive engine feel from a smaller-displacement engine than is normally required to provide it.

I didn't say I didn't like the car, I just want more power from a BMW...

Well, my point is simply they could of easily achieved more power by tuning it than just dumping a couple of tiny turbos...

I just feel a bit disappointed in what I feel is a lack of power.

What you're really saying here is that you have no idea about the driving experience of the car, and you are looking for an arbitrarily large horsepower number to put on paper. That's not what BMW is about. That's what Japanese manufacturers - and fanboys - are about. Well, and Doug DeMuro.

Take a poll of 3-series coupe owners and ask what's the number one thing they'd want from their 335i coupe and I almost guarantee that 75% would say more power.

Only if they're Doug DeMuro.

Actually, that's not exactly fair to Doug. But your point is incorrect anyway, or at least badly put. Ask ANY group of enthusiast owners what the number one thing they'd want from ANY car that already has decent handling. The answer will be "more power". DUH.

Everything in bold is un-BMW like in my eyes.

Actually, everything bold is very BMW-like, and BMW "purists" have been bitching about it since the E30. Each generation gets bigger, heavier, softer, fancier, more complicated, more expensive, more profitable, and more popular. The fact that LSD stopped being an option on non-M cars in the early '90s is inexcusable... and BMW cares not one bit, because LSD matters to about 10% of the new BMW buyers in the world, and at least a third of those only want it because they can't stand not having every available option and the most expensive trim level of the model they're buying.

///M-Spec · Jul 18, 2007

Wolfe
Haha. Being one of the few people out there who doesn't think an early E30 318i is a waste of time, nor that it requires a turbo to be useful, is probably evidence enough.

But I thank you for the compliment. I was wondering how long it'd take for you to show up to this BMW side-topic.

Credit where credit is due.

I think you and Toronado were doing a fine job of debating it; there were just some technical stuff that I wanted to add.

Wolfe
The more I think about it, the more a 1-series coupe would likely be my choice if I was in the market for a brand-new BMW. The poor 3-series has just suffered a bit too much from inflation over the last 20 years. And I'm not talking about money.

Just think of the E90 as a lighter, cheaper, more powerful replacement for the E39 and the E87 as a much cheaper replacement for the E36 and BMW's doing great :lol:

M

JCE · Jul 18, 2007

///M-Spec
The N54 is under-rated at "300" in order to protect V8 powered car sales, namely the new M3 (414 hp) and the 550i (360 hp). The rating is especially important in the 5er, where in reality only 35 hp separates the V8 from I6.

I'll reply to your post because the other one in here wasn't as cordial. 👍

Oh, and thanks for making a seperate thread. Anyway, I can accept (and have in principal) to the 335i coupe being underrated. If the car has 320bhp-ish at the crank I could accept it. If the car is as smoothe and silky as everyone who's driven one says it is then I must take their word for it. But, I still hold my final judgement for when *I* get to toss it around a bit.

Well the 335i is EPA rated at 20/29 with the auto (19/28 with stick). That's pretty damn good for a 300hp, 3,600 lb. car, don't you think? The Mustang GT, which makes same peak power and is about the same size and weight is rated at 17/23 (17/25 with the manual).

It is, I was only half serious. And, according to Wiki the curb weight of the new Mustang GT coupe is:

3480/3525 lb (V8 coupe MT/AT)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang#Fifth_generation_.282005.E2.80.93present.29

So that puts the gas mileage into a real perspective. I'd call them equal. The Mustang GT has less weight but a large engine (less bhp & more torque) while the 335i coupe is heavier with a smaller engine with more power and less torque.

I have averaged 28mpg highway in the Mustang GT 5spd on several dealer trades. Infact I drove the hell out of a few of them and still managed to keep 18-19mpg. But that's really irrelevant. lol

BMW put two small turbos on the car in order to reduce the time it takes for them to spool up, not for power.

That I know, smaller scroll turbos = less lag. I was speaking of the small PSI number more than the actual physical dimensions itself.

If they wanted lots of power (and lots of lag), they would have gone with a single large turbo. You know those 700, 800 hp Supras? Most of them are single turbo conversions because a big single turbo is better for peak top-end power.

I personally dislike those huge single turbo Supra setups myself. I don't care if they produce more power--I just prefer the twin turbo setup.

Not at the expense of cannibalizing M3 and 550i (and 650i/750i in other markets) sales and prestige. ~325ish is "good enough" for the 335 to run with the competition.

The new M3 should be more than 420bhp--if the estimates hold. But, I guess using your logical arguement then it might cannibalize the M5 sales?

EDIT: Also, it's not easy to increase NA power in a BMW 6, actually. BMWs 6s are straight sixes, not V6s.

I'm aware that BMW uses I6's. You can increase displacement without altering the outside physical size of the engine. I think BMW has plenty of experience getting more power out of their I6's than you give them credit for. I do think they could of easily (but maybe not cost effectively) got more NA power.

They COULD go the high-rev NA route, like the M Division already does. But like I said before, this philosophy isn't really suited for the casual consumer. Expensive, heavy, fuel cons. etc.

Ok, I do agree with this. As long as you see my point I can rest easy.

First, I know you don't hate the car or think it's crap. I'm not worried about that. The only reason I put in my 2 cents was because you made the comment that you think purists want more power.

I'm glad you put in your two cents. Its been a good conversation between the two of us I think. You didn't call me any names like fanboy or whatnot so its all good.

I think this may actually be an issue of terminology, because when you say "BMW purist", I think what you mean is "BMW fan".

There is difference between a car fan and a purist. A fan simply likes what the company is doing. A purist believes in the pure, unadulterated essence of what the company stands for, not necessarily what they are doing. A fan believes in products. A purist believes in principles.

A fan of BMW might be excited about new M3 making over 400 hp.

A BMW purist is upset that that it weighs over 3,600 lbs. See the difference? A BMW purist believes in fun to drive cars. The principle factors that contributes to this is light weight, simplicity, agility and driver involvement. Heavy cars are not famous for any of that.

Point taken.

I think the solution to this is the new 1-series coupe. I think that thing will be a really great car. I'm looking forward to test driving it a bit more than the 335i coupe if you can believe it. 👍

*edit*

Toronado
You own (or maybe owned. I dunno) a 3000GT. They are vehicles with good throttle response and little lag, yet they make good power. Would you have liked it if you had to rev it to 6k to get anything out of it constantly? What if it was marginally faster but there was lag every time you touched the throttle? BMW wanted neither to happen and twin turbos and low boost allowed that (you don't seem to realise that the amount of turbos has nothing to do with power. It only effects how smooth the engine is. Just like cylinder amount).
In any case, with whether it has 300BHP or 325, it still smokes an E36 M3 (which has roughly the same power) and beats the E46 6 times out of 10, despite being down on power. The goals BMW set out to achieve worked in that respect.

I had one, it was almost 8 years ago. :crazy:

They do make good low/mid power. But from experience anything past about 75mph takes way too long. I beat just about everything 0-60 (except for the Viper) but all the other Japanese twin turbo machines had way more top end power and killed me from a roll on the highway.

It would have been, at the expense of fuel mileage and smooth power delivery. The only reason BMW considered turbos was that advances in technology dictated that they could add torque without sacrificing smoothness. That is why they added turbos, period. They didn't care if the car had 300 BHP or 380 BHP.

I am starting to see this same response from more than one person so maybe it makes sense and I don't get it.

YSSMAN · Jul 19, 2007

///M-Spec
Well the 335i is EPA rated at 20/29 with the auto (19/28 with stick). That's pretty damn good for a 300hp, 3,600 lb. car, don't you think?

The Mustang GT, which makes same peak power and is about the same size and weight is rated at 17/23 (17/25 with the manual).

Not to throw a wrench in there, but the 3200lb Corvette gets 18/28 with the 6.0L LS2, making an extra 100 BHP over the BMW. The 2008 Vette gets an extra 30 BHP with the 6.2L LS3, and they're expecting an MPG increase by one or two in both categories, making it probably one of the fastest, and most reasonably fuel-efficient cars on the market.

I've always found the fuel efficiency of BMWs a bit out of whack, but then again, you can only expect so much. It isn't as though they can run M10 manuals with 0.60 final drives, but it isn't as though the ratings are that bad either.

---

And I'm still confused why we're fighting over this...

Wolfe · Jul 19, 2007

YSSMAN
Not to throw a wrench in there, but the 3200lb Corvette gets 18/28 with the 6.0L LS2, making an extra 100 BHP over the BMW. The 2008 Vette gets an extra 30 BHP with the 6.2L LS3, and they're expecting an MPG increase by one or two in both categories, making it probably one of the fastest, and most reasonably fuel-efficient cars on the market.

As I've told others, it's because the Corvette has a 6th gear that's a million miles tall. Also, as you noted here, it's lighter.

YSSMAN · Jul 19, 2007

Yes, the tall gears help, but thats what GM has always done to get the MPGs up. Otherwise, yes, the overall light weight helps as well.

But even then, the previous 400 BHP LS2-powered GTO (3700 lbs) was able to achieve 17/25, which is pretty good IMO. Similarly (sort of), the Pontiac Grand Prix GXP (3600 lbs) was able to achieve 18/27 with the 5.3L LS4 (303 BHP) and a four-speed slushbox. However, I'm sure the cylinder deactivation is partly to blame there...

Duke · Jul 19, 2007

Wolfe
As I've told others, it's because the Corvette has a 6th gear that's a million miles tall.

I'm not being confrontational, but so what? It's still efficiency. And since the LS2's torque curve is the size Montana, that tall 6th gear is very usable in day to day driving, not just as a freeway gear for long trips.

///M-Spec · Jul 19, 2007

JCE3000GT
But, I still hold my final judgement for when *I* get to toss it around a bit.

That's my philosophy too. It's all good and well to hear what other people have to say, but in the end, your own opinion is what counts.

JCE3000GT
It is, I was only half serious. And, according to Wiki the curb weight of the new Mustang GT coupe is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang#Fifth_generation_.282005.E2.80.93present.29

So that puts the gas mileage into a real perspective. I'd call them equal. The Mustang GT has less weight but a large engine (less bhp & more torque) while the 335i coupe is heavier with a smaller engine with more power and less torque.

I have averaged 28mpg highway in the Mustang GT 5spd on several dealer trades. Infact I drove the hell out of a few of them and still managed to keep 18-19mpg. But that's really irrelevant. lol

Not to knock the Mustang --it is after all, a very good car for the money and almost half the price of the 335i-- but given it's slightly lighter, geared more conservatively and has similar frontal area, I would have expected it to be slightly more fuel efficient. I picked the Mustang precisely because it had a V8 (what the 335 is trying to mimick) and is a similar package.

The main point was to say the 335i is a pretty fuel efficient package when you compare it against similar cars --(similar weight, dimensions, frontal area, gearing)

Compared against direct competitors...

G35 Coupe ('06) 6MT 19/26
G35 Sedan ('07) 6MT 19/27
IS350 RWD 21/28

It doesn't blow them away, but it is plenty competitive.

JCE3000GT
That I know, smaller scroll turbos = less lag. I was speaking of the small PSI number more than the actual physical dimensions itself.

It's a trade off. If they programed the car for more boost, there would be more power, but also more lag and more heat. Not to mention the additional beefing up of drivetrain and cooling parts would lead to an even heavier car, etc.

JCE3000GT
The new M3 should be more than 420bhp--if the estimates hold. But, I guess using your logical arguement then it might cannibalize the M5 sales?

The new M3 makes 414 SAE hp in the US.

And I am certain the M3 sedan will end up snatching some M5 sales. But there is enough perceived distance between the 3-series and 5-series that BMW doesn't have to worry too much about it.

If they did, then they wouldn't have promised a sedan version of the M3

JCE3000GT
I'm aware that BMW uses I6's. You can increase displacement without altering the outside physical size of the engine. I think BMW has plenty of experience getting more power out of their I6's than you give them credit for. I do think they could of easily (but maybe not cost effectively) got more NA power.

It depends on which exact engine family you're talking about.

The previous generation of M5x series of motors (in the old E46 330i and 325i) could have probably been bored out to 3.3 safely and reliably. Any more than that and you run out of space between cylinders. You can increase the stroke to get 3.4 or possibly more, but then you lose some of the ability to rev. Not a desirable trait in a BMW, anyway.

The S5x series of M motors (M3, CSL, Z4M) is absolutely capped out at 3.2 liters. BMW has said on numerous occasions there is no room left in the block to increase capacity and that the engine is as good as its going to get. (hence the move to V8 power for the new M3)

I don't know about the most recent N52/53 series of Valvetronic engines (like in the 330i, 325i and 328i). They are roughly the same size as the old M52 motors and probably have same bore spacing... I don't know for sure. Without changing anything else, a 3.2 N52 would probably push out 270ish, far below the 300 target. And I think it would be safe to say 3.6 or 3.8 liters is out of the question for the N52/53.

And that is still below what BMW targeted as the NA capacity level they wanted to hit with the twin turbo. Keep in mind they not only wanted to match the NA competition, they wanted a motor that still had plenty of development room.

JCE3000GT
I'm glad you put in your two cents. Its been a good conversation between the two of us I think. You didn't call me any names like fanboy or whatnot so its all good.

Likewise. 👍 +rep

JCE3000GT
I think the solution to this is the new 1-series coupe. I think that thing will be a really great car. I'm looking forward to test driving it a bit more than the 335i coupe if you can believe it. 👍

I can totally believe it. Just make sure when you get a chance to drive either car, you get into one with a 6MT and the Sport suspension. The standard cars are really mushy nowadays. And don't forget to turn off the DSC with a 3 second hold (at your own risk :mischievous:

)

----------------------------------------

YSSMAN
Not to throw a wrench in there, but the 3200lb Corvette gets 18/28 with the 6.0L LS2, making an extra 100 BHP over the BMW. The 2008 Vette gets an extra 30 BHP with the 6.2L LS3, and they're expecting an MPG increase by one or two in both categories, making it probably one of the fastest, and most reasonably fuel-efficient cars on the market.

Engine efficiency aside (for the moment), the most important factors that affect a vehicle's fuel economy is gearing, rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag. (and of course driving habits, but let's assume they're equal)

We all know a stock Corvette is geared conservatively. We also know the Corvette is much lighter than the 335, which greatly reduces rolling resistance. What we may forget is the Corvette has a much smaller total frontal area, making it more aerodynamic than the 335.

So what you have here is an apple to oranges comparison. Yes, the Vette is a fuel efficient CAR. I've pointed this out myself on NUMEROUS occasions.

Take the LS2 out of the Corvette and put it in a heavier, bigger Coupe and the numbers change. As you said yourself in your later post, the LS2 Goat, (which is a much better comparison for the 335i) is rated at 17/25.

Which I agree is still pretty darn good.

The GXP is another apples/oranges comparison; it's FWD, which has a sizable inherent drivetrain efficiency advantage.

YSSMAN
I've always found the fuel efficiency of BMWs a bit out of whack, but then again, you can only expect so much. It isn't as though they can run M10 manuals with 0.60 final drives, but it isn't as though the ratings are that bad either.

Non-M BMWs deliver fairly good fuel economy compared to other similar cars.

M powered BMWs are gas hogs. You pay to play. Ask me how I know.

YSSMAN
And I'm still confused why we're fighting over this...

Who's fighting?

M

Orion · Jul 19, 2007

I agree with YSSMAN, the tall gears help gas mileage. That is the main reason why the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution VII GSR has a tall 5th gear, for better fuel economy. Same goes for the Dodge Ram SRT-10's, Dodge Vipers, as well as many more.

JCE · Jul 19, 2007

///M-Spec
Not to knock the Mustang --it is after all, a very good car for the money and almost half the price of the 335i-- but given it's slightly lighter, geared more conservatively and has similar frontal area, I would have expected it to be slightly more fuel efficient. I picked the Mustang precisely because it had a V8 (what the 335 is trying to mimick) and is a similar package.

I can agree with that completely. What gets me is the people who insist that the Mustang GT is a waste of money. (obviously) I disagree--hell its probably responsible for Toyota and Hyundai getting together a mid-sized sport coupe together for roughly the same money.

The main point was to say the 335i is a pretty fuel efficient package when you compare it against similar cars --(similar weight, dimensions, frontal area, gearing)

Compared against direct competitors...

G35 Coupe ('06) 6MT 19/26
G35 Sedan ('07) 6MT 19/27
IS350 RWD 21/28

It doesn't blow them away, but it is plenty competitive.

I'll agree. It does have some decent mpg. Then again so does the G35. 👍

It's a trade off. If they programed the car for more boost, there would be more power, but also more lag and more heat. Not to mention the additional beefing up of drivetrain and cooling parts would lead to an even heavier car, etc.

That is my main problem with turbo cars is the cooling issue. Its a hell of a thing to balance--power vs cooling.

The new M3 makes 414 SAE hp in the US.

And I am certain the M3 sedan will end up snatching some M5 sales. But there is enough perceived distance between the 3-series and 5-series that BMW doesn't have to worry too much about it.

If they did, then they wouldn't have promised a sedan version of the M3

I suspect the M3 WILL eat some M5 sales while the new 1-series M-sport (can't call it the M1 for obvious reasons) WILL eat M3 sales. Its almost like BMW is cannabalizing themselves? How ironic.

It depends on which exact engine family you're talking about.

The previous generation of M5x series of motors (in the old E46 330i and 325i) could have probably been bored out to 3.3 safely and reliably. Any more than that and you run out of space between cylinders. You can increase the stroke to get 3.4 or possibly more, but then you lose some of the ability to rev. Not a desirable trait in a BMW, anyway.

The S5x series of M motors (M3, CSL, Z4M) is absolutely capped out at 3.2 liters. BMW has said on numerous occasions there is no room left in the block to increase capacity and that the engine is as good as its going to get. (hence the move to V8 power for the new M3)

I don't know about the most recent N52/53 series of Valvetronic engines (like in the 330i, 325i and 328i). They are roughly the same size as the old M52 motors and probably have same bore spacing... I don't know for sure. Without changing anything else, a 3.2 N52 would probably push out 270ish, far below the 300 target. And I think it would be safe to say 3.6 or 3.8 liters is out of the question for the N52/53.

Thanks for the engine family information. I learned something today.

Likewise. 👍 +rep

+rep Recipricated. I like it when I learn some new stuff.

I can totally believe it. Just make sure when you get a chance to drive either car, you get into one with a 6MT and the Sport suspension. The standard cars are really mushy nowadays. And don't forget to turn off the DSC with a 3 second hold (at your own risk )

Thanks for the tip. I really can't wait to drive the 1-serious coupe--I'd even drive the base model as long as its a proper manual transmission.

Tornado · Jul 19, 2007

JCE3000GT
I can agree with that completely. What gets me is the people who insist that the Mustang GT is a waste of money.

Who says that?

JCE3000GT
I suspect the M3 WILL eat some M5 sales while the new 1-series M-sport (can't call it the M1 for obvious reasons) WILL eat M3 sales.

I have to disagree. I see it killing Z4 M Coupe sales more than M3 sales. I could see it taking 335Ci sales as more likely, however.

m7ammed · Jul 19, 2007

JCE3000GT
I suspect the M3 WILL eat some M5 sales while the new 1-series M-sport (can't call it the M1 for obvious reasons) WILL eat M3 sales. Its almost like BMW is cannabalizing themselves? How ironic.

the M sport is not an M car it just has the M package and sport supension thats it , no M diff , or M engine ...ect so I don't the 1 series eating the M3s sales

harrytuttle · Jul 20, 2007

///M-Spec
There is difference between a car fan and a purist. A fan simply likes what the company is doing. A purist believes in the pure, unadulterated essence of what the company stands for, not necessarily what they are doing. A fan believes in products. A purist believes in principles.

A purist also thinks he knows what's right for the company, or that he knows what the company stands for or should stand for. Said companies often ignore such people, as they not part of their larger target market: people with more money than brains.

JCE · Jul 20, 2007

BMW318ciC
the M sport is not an M car it just has the M package and sport supension thats it , no M diff , or M engine ...ect so I don't the 1 series eating the M3s sales

Didn't you read what I wrote in parenthesis? I wrote that I couldn't call it an M1 so I choose to call it something else. I'm well aware what an M-sport trim is. Tell me what the official name is going to be of the M tuned 1-series coupe and I'll glady use it.

Toronado
Who says that?

There are plenty of people on this forum who've said this--I'm not going to dig through thousands of posts to find it.

I have to disagree. I see it killing Z4 M Coupe sales more than M3 sales. I could see it taking 335Ci sales as more likely, however.

Granted the new 1-series coupe will probably eat some of the 335i coupe's sales--but I think the top of the line sport model will eat some of the M3's sales.

YSSMAN · Jul 20, 2007

I'm in the camp that says the 135i is a stupid idea, but so what? IMO, if BMW was to go about it the right way, they'd be running a lot of the "old" engines from the 3-series in there to make it a bit more "spunky" and "natural" compared to the way they are going, and to furthermore keep it off the toes of it's older sibling.

But hey, I'm the crazy GM guy, so what do I know? Hell, we invented stepping on model sibling's toes...

Wolfe · Jul 20, 2007

YSSMAN
I'm in the camp that says the 135i is a stupid idea, but so what? IMO, if BMW was to go about it the right way, they'd be running a lot of the "old" engines from the 3-series in there to make it a bit more "spunky" and "natural" compared to the way they are going, and to furthermore keep it off the toes of it's older sibling.

But hey, I'm the crazy GM guy, so what do I know? Hell, we invented stepping on model sibling's toes...

I still think BMW could stand to offer the stateside 1-series with 4-cylinder engines. That would theoretically allow the base model to come in at a very competitive price.

YSSMAN · Jul 20, 2007

That would be my assumption as well. More so, I'd dig up the old 3.0L lump out of the previous 330i (good for 255 BHP) and call it a day after that. If they want this to be not only their "entry-level" model, but also one that beckons back to the 1-series, they're going to need some lower-cost, lower-performance alternatives.

I, however, continue to hope they will offer a diesel model...

///M-Spec · Jul 20, 2007

harrytuttle
A purist also thinks he knows what's right for the company, or that he knows what the company stands for or should stand for.

Absolutely.

harrytuttle
Said companies often ignore such people, as they not part of their larger target market: people with more money than brains.

I understand and appreciate what purists want. But I am also a pragmatist and understand and appreciate the fact that BMW, like any company, exists to make money for its owners.

For BMW, the brand purist/ultra rabid enthusiast is probably 1 person in every 1000. If BMW did nothing but build cars for these people (and I would be in line to buy one), it would have cease to exist as an independent company years ago. In fact, it would probably be a division of Mercedes-Benz (who was interested in buying the company in the early 60s)

YSSMAN
I'm in the camp that says the 135i is a stupid idea, but so what? IMO, if BMW was to go about it the right way, they'd be running a lot of the "old" engines from the 3-series in there to make it a bit more "spunky" and "natural" compared to the way they are going, and to furthermore keep it off the toes of it's older sibling.

But hey, I'm the crazy GM guy, so what do I know? Hell, we invented stepping on model sibling's toes...

The more I think about it, the more I can convinced BMW is building the 135i to try and capture the 25-35 yr old sport compact tuner crowd. It's an interesting alternative to the Evo and STI, especially considering the next version of both cars will run into the 3,500 lb/$35k+ range.

Wolfe
I still think BMW could stand to offer the stateside 1-series with 4-cylinder engines. That would theoretically allow the base model to come in at a very competitive price.

You know what would be awesome?

A 120si Club Sport. Take the 173 hp N45 homologation 4 banger from the 320si. Drop it in a 1er Coupe with M-Sport suspension, strip out the insulation/sound deadening, make the A/C and radio deletable options and make the doors/hood/trunk out of aluminum. Ditch the run-flats, throw a splitter and wing in the trunk with a "off road use only" sticker on them and you're good to go. I bet they can get the car under 2,700 lbs. Comes in "Alpine White" only.

They can totally sell this car in the US too. Maybe, 20 or 30 of them :lol:

M

Wolfe · Jul 22, 2007

///M-Spec
You know what would be awesome?

A 120si Club Sport. Take the 173 hp N45 homologation 4 banger from the 320si. Drop it in a 1er Coupe with M-Sport suspension, strip out the insulation/sound deadening, make the A/C and radio deletable options and make the doors/hood/trunk out of aluminum. Ditch the run-flats, throw a splitter and wing in the trunk with a "off road use only" sticker on them and you're good to go. I bet they can get the car under 2,700 lbs. Comes in "Alpine White" only.

They can totally sell this car in the US too. Maybe, 20 or 30 of them

M

Hell yes.

I just think it's silly to market a turbo 6-cylinder car that weighs a billion pounds more than it should as "the return of the 2002." I mean, the 135i is neat and fast and all, but why chicken out on offering 4-cylinder engines in the u.s. when the whole point of the car is to be a cheap(er) and light(er) entry model that appeals to both purists and aspiring yuppies that can't quite afford a brand-new 3er?

1X83Z · Jul 22, 2007

Duke
Only if they're Doug DeMuro.

Actually, that's not exactly fair to Doug.

No, it's dead true.

Today I was thinking to myself - 'I would give up 80% of the handling of this thing if it meant I could have 35% more power.'

But then 80% of the handling would probably put me in a tree somewhere.

BMW N54 twin turbo discussion

///M-Spec

Duke

Keep 'em separated

///M-Spec

JCE

YSSMAN

Super-Cool Since 2013

Wolfe

Physics Critic

YSSMAN

Super-Cool Since 2013

Duke

Keep 'em separated

///M-Spec

Orion

JCE

Tornado

m7ammed

harrytuttle

JCE

YSSMAN

Super-Cool Since 2013

Wolfe

Physics Critic

YSSMAN

Super-Cool Since 2013

///M-Spec

Wolfe

Physics Critic

1X83Z

Similar threads

Latest Posts