The 'Veyron-rant' rant

[Speedster502]

But I can't appreciate it in a technical sort of way because it's so expensive. I could build a car that ran on water, but if no one could afford it then it's a waste of technology. VAG could have easily put the R&D money into something that would benefit the great car buying public. This is what I truly dislike about the car...it's so out of reach for a majority of the world's population.

Yes, but If you go by that statement then you also must think that Mclaren's and Koenigseggs aren't good to the public as they are ridiculously expensive. I mean how many people do you know with £400-600,000 spare to spend on a car? I bet not many. So does that mean they aren't supposed to be appreciated technically as they are to far out of reach for the public?

I have never said that I liked the Veyron, but I am just making a point that most super cars are too far out of reach for the buying public anyway. But that doesn't mean that people shouldn't appreciate them because of their technology.

Just my opinion, but this doesn't change the way I think about the Veyron...Sorry Interceptor......

 

[the Interceptor]

Just my opinion, but this doesn't change the way I think about the Veyron...Sorry Interceptor......

There's no need to apologize for that, as long as you accept it in a technical kind of way. And it was built to comfort rather than to frighten you, so if it doesn't do the latter, that's okay as well. And I didn't do all this work to convince everybody that the Veyron is brilliant. I just tried to make those that "hate the thing" at least accept it.

 

[Speedster502]

I certainly will admit that the technology in the Veyron is amazing, I mean that car has more radiators than my house! The technology to get 1001 BHP onto the road must have been amazing as well as the tires! But it doesn't make me like it as you quite clearly said.

 

[Joey D]

As far as I know the Veyron is the only car touted as doing it for the technology, I think if you are going to pump millions into R&D you should do it for something useful. I don't hate F1 because those are purpose built racing cars and public use things have come out of it...or so I'm told.

 

[Dave A]

Oh god now I am going to go into one of these moods again......

Look...erm...how can I put this? I just don't like the car. Lets take an example: A Kia Rio, I know no-one that likes this car, but for what it is and how much it costs it is brilliant. But do you know any one that likes one? Apart from owners?

Thats what I am like with the Veryon, it may well be technically perfect but that doesn't mean that I have to like it. For all you know a Veryon could have run over someone that I know, you just don't know.

At one point of my life I did start to like the Veryon because of Top Gear (Veryon race from Italy to London), I started to see the real purpose of this car, it sounded like it actually had a soul. I started to love it, it moved up my cool wall very quickly that night. Few months later I start talking about a certain Veyron that happens to have crashed, I may have had a go at the car. Then people were basically shouting at me because of my own opinion.

It's not the cars fault sometimes that I don't like it, it's the people who think that you have to like it.

EDIT: Just realised I spelt Veyron wrong through all of that, Doh!

Sorry if you missunderstood, by calling the car undeniably good, I'm not calling it undeniably likable. Good and likable are two seperate things entierly. My point is that when you have a car that has accomplished what the Veyron has, it's pretty off cue to claim it's not good. To say you don't like it is a much more personal point of view. I would never tell anyone that they should like the car if they say they don't, if it simply doesn't inspire them or whatever. But if someone says that the car is no good, they're making a different statement. When pepel say it's not impressive because a tuner company can make a car that goes xxx fast, then I'll dissagree. The like or disslike side is a side I dion't get involved in, we all have our own personal opinions and fellings towards things and facts don't always dictate thoes.

 

[Dave A]

EDIT: Double post.

 

[Tornado]

I still think the 3-series coupe is a waste. They put turbos on it, it should develop a minimum of 400bhp...a MINIMUM. This is BMW, they are known for squeezing out high power from engines.

They wanted an engine that was smooth as silk but still got high power, with low enough boost pressure that you can't even tell it is a forced induction engine. 300BHP allows that, makes it very compareable to its competitors and is a nice round number. That was the Interceptors point, as the same points apply to the Veyron as well.
Why in hell would they sell it with 400BHP anyways? It would have worlds more torque than the upcoming M3 engine, and is probably infinitely more tunable as well.

I said barely because I gave it the benefit of the doubt by having slightly more than 300bhp like everyone lists. Seriously, as smooth as it may be (and I know it is) 300bhp isn't all that much these days.

The only car in its class that has more power than the 335Ci is the G37 coupe, and the G37 suffers for it's high power for the reasons that BMW set out to fix.

This car is a Bugatti, it has a huge engine and 4 turbos. The displacement may be more than double that of the EB110--granted the EB110 has 2 less cylinders--but the point is it follows directly in its footsteps as far as I'm concerned.

There is a very, very major problem with that point. The EB110 was an Italian car, built by an Italian company with Italian money. Bugatti was originally a builder of French cars in French factories with French money. The current Bugatti is niether. Bugatti Automobili SPA was not the Bugatti of old, nor is it the Bugatti of new. I'm sure that fitting 4 turbos to the EB16.4 had something to do with keeping people who remembered the EB110 from crying foul, but in all honesty it probably had more to do with power delivery and smoothness than anything else.
In any case, I believe that part of the reason the EB110 failed (besides recession) was that the company of 1989 also had little to do with the company of 1909, and the EB110 could have been badged a Lamborghini and noone would have been the wiser.
That same conclusion can be drawn for the EB16.4, and if it had a little wilder styling the car could also just as easily be badged a Lamborghini as well as an Audi. All that really detracts from is its ability to be a Bugatti, however.


All that being said, the car is a technical achievement in the very least; and while I feel no great yearning to own one, I at least recognize that plenty of brilliant minds were used to labor over the car during its development time, and that it is the best car money can buy (alot of money, for sure, but still).
the Interceptor summed up my points better than I could right now, and I have to say that I find it disgusting that people are actually neg. repping him because he made a level headed and unbiased series of counterpoints.


@ Joey D: Do you like the 959? Or the EB110?

 

[Joey D]

I don't really know enough about either the 959 or the EB110 to comment on them, let me look into the more before I give you an answer.

 

[McLaren]

I still think the 3-series coupe is a waste. They put turbos on it, it should develop a minimum of 400bhp...a MINIMUM. This is BMW, they are known for squeezing out high power from engines.

So, besides safety and comfort, it needs to push 400Bhp, too? How about no? If you want 400 horses from a 3 Series, there's a little thing called an M3.

And BMW has never been known for squeezing out high powered engines. The E46 and E30 M3s were prime examples of medium-ranged horsepower, and still took the competition to school. If BMW wanted high powered engines, we'd be seeing a 600Bhp M6, but BMW doesn't make supercars because they don't need to.

So why does Wiki and everyone else rate the 3-series coupe @ 300bhp?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_3_Series#E90

Does it matter though? It will still easily take on competition. Again, if you want 300+, get a M3. Until then, the 335i is perfect for what it does.

I said barely because I gave it the benefit of the doubt by having slightly more than 300bhp like everyone lists. Seriously, as smooth as it may be (and I know it is) 300bhp isn't all that much these days.

But since when did a car rely solely on its horsepower to be better or just as good?

2002 NSX-R Vs. Ferrari 360 Challenge Stradale. 1 from Japan, 1 from a world famous company. That's 300 horses against 456 horses. On Motegi and Tsukuba, the NSX-R was only 1 second off.

Power means nothing to companies who have great suspension technology because with 300 horses, these companies (Honda, BMW, Porsche) can then easily tweak suspension setups to match even 500 horsepower cars. Another good example. A 355Bhp Carrera S has times less than 3 seconds next to a 500Bhp Z06. So yes, even in the 300-350Hp area, you can still have plenty to work with. You just have to know how to gain the advantage in other locations.

 

[land sea air]

I've got to agree with the Interceptor big time on one part of his argument. Why would anyone argue about how practical a car like this is for daily driving? This car is just as practical as an Enzo or an F50 or a Konegsiggsesgig. For those who ask where would you drive it? I'm sure this car would be fast on a track, albeit not as fast as cars that were designed to do so. Other than the track, where are you going to drive the SLR or the 599 or the SL65, you drive them occasionally to parties or down your favorite road, even if you would want to drive cars like these every day, the Veyron would probably keep you perfectly happy with it's smoothness and comfort levels. High performance cars like these are not going to be as practical as normal every day cars...

 

[Wolfe]

And BMW has never been known for squeezing out high powered engines. The E46 and E30 M3s were prime examples of medium-ranged horsepower, and still took the competition to school.

I don't think JCE3000GT was talking about overall power numbers, but rather high specific outputs -- something BMW's ///M division has been known for since they were created.

To address your two examples, the E30 M3's ~85hp/L was rather high for the 1980s (when it first came out, the contemporary Porsche 944 Turbo needed forced induction just to make 88hp/L), and the limited Sport Evo version made 95hp/L. Meanwhile, the E46 M3 easily surpassed the 100hp/L barrier, making up to 111hp/L in the CSL. Other examples range from the 81hp/L M5 and M6 of the '80s to the 101hp/L M5 and M6 of today.

The only problem here is that the 335i isn't an M car.

 

[harrytuttle]

The Interceptor, that was a wonderful read! I think that the Veyron goes into the "Ultracar" category.

I would almost second that, except that I think the Veyron defined the Ultracar category, and I don't think there's too many other cars in it. In fact, I don't think there's any other cars in that category. It's the one car that has gone far beyond the law of diminishing returns, and into the realm of...well, pointlessness. Wonderful, blissful, pointlessness.

 

[Wolfe]

I would almost second that, except that I think the Veyron defined the Ultracar category, and I don't think there's too many other cars in it. In fact, I don't think there's any other cars in that category. It's the one car that has gone far beyond the law of diminishing returns, and into the realm of...well, pointlessness. Wonderful, blissful, pointlessness.

Except what Volkswagen did here is quite reminiscent of what their #1 shareholder did 20+ years ago.

 

[harrytuttle]

Except what Volkswagen did here is quite reminiscent of what their #1 shareholder did 20+ years ago.

You mean make a car that truly is the fastest in the world and doesn't break down halfway down the runway?

In any event, does anyone know more about the supposed rust? Should have gone with the gold leaf....

 

[YSSMAN]

Thats interesting. You'd think they would have some sort of coating on there (or is it, in there?) to prevent such a thing from happening... That would definitely be an "ooops" for Volkswagen if I've ever seen one. Then again, rust is one of those things that slowly (and I mean SLOWLY) eat away at most VWs I look at.

Plus, I've figured out what I'd buy instead of a Veyron:

1) $610,00 home in Cascade

2) Ferrari 599 GTB, somewhere around $300K

3) Aston Martin V8 Vantage, about $130K

4) 1967 Chevrolet Corvette 427 Convertible, $160K

5) Mercedes-Benz S65 AMG, about $200K

6) Cadillac Escalade, about $58K

7) Ron Fellows Special Edition Corvette Z06, about $92K

...which still leaves me with about $450,000 which would likely be blown on insurance, much less taxes, not to mention finding extra storage space for the vehicles. Particularly the Corvette. The Ferrari can sit outside.

 

[JCE]

In short, and also explained in my essay, they basically use a couple of turbos to imitate a bigger engine. Therefor, this machine has little to nothing to do with a conventional turbo, and for the same reason, it is not meant to generate that much horsepower.

That's a really good point. I'll agree in principal to it 👍

So, besides safety and comfort, it needs to push 400Bhp, too? How about no? If you want 400 horses from a 3 Series, there's a little thing called an M3.

The new M3 is supposed to have well over 400bhp isn't it? What's wrong with safety and comfort followed by 400bhp? HSV GTO anyone?

And BMW has never been known for squeezing out high powered engines.

Look at this car and repeat that statement again. 360bhp (or so?) from a naturally aspirated 3.2L I6, that's quite high powered to me in my opinion. And the noise alone is worth the price of admission. I'll take this engine naturally aspirated versus the two turbos on the new 335i coupe's I6.

Does it matter though? It will still easily take on competition. Again, if you want 300+, get a M3. Until then, the 335i is perfect for what it does.

It does matter to me. And again, the new M3 is supposed to be a 400bhp+ V8 isn't it? I personally think that's a mistake and the 335i coupe needs to fill in that gap for those who still want a screaming BMW I6. Trust me, there will be some BMW purists who will be (or are) disappointed at the new 335i coupe due to the lack of power.

But since when did a car rely solely on its horsepower to be better or just as good?

2002 NSX-R Vs. Ferrari 360 Challenge Stradale. 1 from Japan, 1 from a world famous company. That's 300 horses against 456 horses. On Motegi and Tsukuba, the NSX-R was only 1 second off.

Power means nothing to companies who have great suspension technology because with 300 horses, these companies (Honda, BMW, Porsche) can then easily tweak suspension setups to match even 500 horsepower cars. Another good example. A 355Bhp Carrera S has times less than 3 seconds next to a 500Bhp Z06. So yes, even in the 300-350Hp area, you can still have plenty to work with. You just have to know how to gain the advantage in other locations.

I didn't say power was everything, I just think with MORE than the 300bhp the car could of been BETTER. Imagine the exact same car with 80bhp more, the output would be even higher on the track. I think it would just be that much better.

I don't think JCE3000GT was talking about overall power numbers, but rather high specific outputs -- something BMW's ///M division has been known for since they were created.

Thank you for getting it. 👍

To address your two examples, the E30 M3's ~85hp/L was rather high for the 1980s (when it first came out, the contemporary Porsche 944 Turbo needed forced induction just to make 88hp/L), and the limited Sport Evo version made 95hp/L. Meanwhile, the E46 M3 easily surpassed the 100hp/L barrier, making up to 111hp/L in the CSL. Other examples range from the 81hp/L M5 and M6 of the '80s to the 101hp/L M5 and M6 of today.

The only problem here is that the 335i isn't an M car.

Thank you again for getting it. 👍 I'd +rep but I've apparently given some to you already.

 

[McLaren]

Thats interesting. You'd think they would have some sort of coating on there (or is it, in there?) to prevent such a thing from happening... That would definitely be an "ooops" for Volkswagen if I've ever seen one. Then again, rust is one of those things that slowly (and I mean SLOWLY) eat away at most VWs I look at.

Plus, I've figured out what I'd buy instead of a Veyron:

1) $610,00 home in Cascade

2) Ferrari 599 GTB, somewhere around $300K

3) Aston Martin V8 Vantage, about $130K

4) 1967 Chevrolet Corvette 427 Convertible, $160K

5) Mercedes-Benz S65 AMG, about $200K

6) Cadillac Escalade, about $58K

7) Ron Fellows Special Edition Corvette Z06, about $92K

...which still leaves me with about $450,000 which would likely be blown on insurance, much less taxes, not to mention finding extra storage space for the vehicles. Particularly the Corvette. The Ferrari can sit outside.

A Veyron doesn't cost $1.5 million, yet your purchases exceed it at $1,550,000. Add that $450,000 and you're way over the price of it. $2 million which is $600,000 over the Veyron.

Look at this car and repeat that statement again. 360bhp (or so?) from a naturally aspirated 3.2L I6, that's quite high powered to me in my opinion. And the noise alone is worth the price of admission. I'll take this engine naturally aspirated versus the two turbos on the new 335i coupe's I6.

I was more referring to high output engines like 400 horses, but after re-reading, I see what you mean.

It does matter to me. And again, the new M3 is supposed to be a 400bhp+ V8 isn't it? I personally think that's a mistake and the 335i coupe needs to fill in that gap for those who still want a screaming BMW I6. Trust me, there will be some BMW purists who will be (or are) disappointed at the new 335i coupe due to the lack of power.

My fault, lack of explaining it. I meant if you want something well over the 335i, there's the M3. But as pointed out before, the G37 is higher, and it comes 2nd to a 335i. It doesn't need more power to be better. It's fine on it's own.

I didn't say power was everything, I just think with MORE than the 300bhp the car could of been BETTER. Imagine the exact same car with 80bhp more, the output would be even higher on the track. I think it would just be that much better.

But it doesn't need more power. 80 more horses? I'm pretty sure we'd see it going against different opponents. The point is though, it doesn't need it. BMW offers a M3 for track enthusiasts.

 

[Joey D]

Everything I've seen puts the Veyron at 1.7million USD.

 

[McLaren]

Everything I've seen puts the Veyron at 1.7million USD.

They're $1.4 million according to their PRs. Even then, YSSMAN exceeds it by $300K.

EDIT* Yep, YSSMAN greatly exceeds it. The Veyron is $1,440,800.

 

[Joey D]

Hmmm...ok. I wonder why I keep seeing 1.7 million, maybe that's what dealers sell them on a mark up? Although I only know one Bugatti dealership and that's Bugatti of Troy.

http://www.suburbancollection.com/bugatti.aspx

 

[McLaren]

Hmmm...ok. I wonder why I keep seeing 1.7 million, maybe that's what dealers sell them on a mark up? Although I only know one Bugatti dealership and that's Bugatti of Troy.

http://www.suburbancollection.com/bugatti.aspx

Not sure why the markup would be that high as the options of a Veyron are pretty much included within the cost, unless someone has developed $300,000 Carbon Ceramic brakes the size of a midget for this car.

 

[Leonidae]

because you have to pay about 300 000$ just to reserve the car for yourself, before you get to choose the colour, interior materials etc..

 

[///M-Spec]

Trust me, there will be some BMW purists who will be (or are) disappointed at the new 335i coupe due to the lack of power.

Do you count yourself as a purist? A BMW purist?


M

 

[JCE]

My fault, lack of explaining it. I meant if you want something well over the 335i, there's the M3. But as pointed out before, the G37 is higher, and it comes 2nd to a 335i. It doesn't need more power to be better. It's fine on it's own.

G37 > 335i

One of the snotrags in America already said they'd prefer the G37 (Motor Trend?)...and I agree with them. But, then again I am bias.

But it doesn't need more power. 80 more horses? I'm pretty sure we'd see it going against different opponents. The point is though, it doesn't need it. BMW offers a M3 for track enthusiasts.

You have a really good point. But, 80bhp more isn't much to ask from a German manufacturer. And it wouldn't hurt the drivability of the car what-so-ever. Infact I'm pretty sure it would add to the experience. The M3 should have more than 420bhp (or so) like the suspected numbers suggest.

Do you count yourself as a purist? A BMW purist?

To be honest, no. And the reason why is I've never owned one. You can't be a purist if you don't or haven't even owned a said manufacturer's product. Which is why I am a Nissan purist--I've owned 4 of them. 👍 I would of been upset if the new G37 had less than 320bhp, so 330bhp to me is a good thing.

But, I would think the real BMW purist would have to agree with me on the power of the 335i. Even 30bhp would still help this car. I just can't see 300bhp being enough. They could of just dropped the CSL drivetrain in it and had themselves one badass ride. What bothers me as a BMW fan is they went to forced induction in the first place...and when they did the power output was measly in my opinion.

But, I'm way off topic talking about BMW. Back to the regularly scheduled topic.

I can say this on topic however, the 335i has some in common with the Veyron in that the manufacturer COULD have increased the power output (probably considerably actually) but choose to keep the power mark where they wanted it. Would anyone else agree with that?

 

[McLaren]

G37 > 335i

One of the snotrags in America already said they'd prefer the G37 (Motor Trend?)...and I agree with them. But, then again I am bias.

Well, overall, yes, they do. But in the performance page, I'm pretty sure the 335i had it.

You have a really good point. But, 80bhp more isn't much to ask from a German manufacturer. And it wouldn't hurt the drivability of the car what-so-ever. Infact I'm pretty sure it would add to the experience. The M3 should have more than 420bhp (or so) like the suspected numbers suggest.

Adding power to almost any BMW or German automobile increases the experience. But those witty Germans know they'll only need it for when the competition bumps up allowing them to make 500Bhp Carrera S when Chevy stops putting out 1,000 horsepower in 2020.

 

[JCE]

Well, overall, yes, they do. But in the performance page, I'm pretty sure the 335i had it.

The 335i does have slightly better performance--but only slightly. The G37's weight and lack of torque is what does it in.

Adding power to almost any BMW or German automobile increases the experience. But those witty Germans know they'll only need it for when the competition bumps up allowing them to make 500Bhp Carrera S when Chevy stops putting out 1,000 horsepower in 2020.

Haha, brilliant! 👍

 

[///M-Spec]

To be honest, no. And the reason why is I've never owned one. You can't be a purist if you don't or haven't even owned a said manufacturer's product. Which is why I am a Nissan purist--I've owned 4 of them. 👍 I would of been upset if the new G37 had less than 320bhp, so 330bhp to me is a good thing.

Actually owning a car might give you better perspective, but I don't think that's needed to consider yourself a 'purist'. I haven't owned a Porsche yet, but I guarantee you I understand and embrace Dr. Porsche's ideals better than the typical Trophey Wife with the Tiptronic Boxster does.

Wolfe doesn't own an M3. But he's more of a BMW purist than most M3 owners I've met.

But, I would think the real BMW purist would have to agree with me on the power of the 335i. Even 30bhp would still help this car. I just can't see 300bhp being enough.

More about what 'real purists' think later, but you know the motor is under-rated from the factory, right? It's making closer to 325hp. Everything from real-world dyno runs and 1/4 mile traps speeds support this. Hell, Automobile magazine even did a short article about it.

The 335i makes "300" hp for the same reason LS1 Camaros and T/As made "315" hp; so that M3 and Corvette owners didn't get butthurt.

They could of just dropped the CSL drivetrain in it and had themselves one badass ride.

It's expensive. It's heavy. It will not pass future emissions standards. It needs to be flogged hard to produce power. The gas milage is pretty piss poor. My Z4 M basically has the same motor; it's a great sports car motor for hardcore gearheads... but not ideal for a mass produced 3-series that's supposed to appeal to a wider audience.

The N52 is lighter, cheaper to produce, passes forseeable emissions standards world wide, makes great torque and is hugely more fuel efficient. The car's been available for less than 1 year and there are already sub-$3,000 aftermarket solutions that boost power into the 380hp range. What's not to like?

What bothers me as a BMW fan is they went to forced induction in the first place...and when they did the power output was measly in my opinion.

The reason why the N54 makes 'only' ~325hp is precisely because they engineered the motor to please the 'purists'. As you said, purists didn't want an FI motor in their BMW. Turbo motors have turbo lag and throttle response issues, not to mention add heat, weight and complexity into the drive train. Responsiveness being a BMW 'core value', they didn't set out to produce huge peak power; they wanted to produce an FI motor that didn't have all the traditional FI drawbacks. That means in order to maintain good throttle response, the turbos are small and only product 8.6 lbs. of boost max.

BMW could have easily designed a large, single turbo that blew 20+ lbs. and produced 450+ hp. It's not hard to do, tuners all over the world do it. But that wasn't the point. What they wanted to do was make an FI engine feel and behave like a large capacity NA engine, which I think BMW has done very well.

The BMW purists I've seen (I don't count myself as one) ranting and raving in forums all over the intraweb aren't worried about power. They're b****ing about the weight, the size, the overheating issues in the early builds, the lack of an LSD, the crappy runflats, the amount of refinement (as in TOO MUCH, believe it or not), the ride/handling compromise, the brakes, pretty much everything but the power and torque.

But, I'm way off topic talking about BMW. Back to the regularly scheduled topic.

Funny you didn't have a problem posting 3-4 times already on the topic before I chimed in... What? You worried about getting an infraction?

Stuff goes OT all the time here. So long as the conversation is productive, I don't see a problem with it.

I can say this on topic however, the 335i has some in common with the Veyron in that the manufacturer COULD have increased the power output (probably considerably actually) but choose to keep the power mark where they wanted it. Would anyone else agree with that?

Sure, I'd agree. But every manufacturers does that.


M

 

[the Interceptor]

I added this review from Revlovers.com to my article:

The handling of the car is the second most surprising aspect of this machine. The car’s "over weight" has been an issue widely discussed, however astonishingly the car feels agile happy to turn in and is definitely a blast on country roads. It always stays stable and very neutral through long sweeping turns. Even when turns tighten up, the car seems to carry at least 500 kilos less than it actually does. On country roads one begins to learn that the car offers extremely high grip levels which one is unable to be fully exploit on public roads due to legal and safety issues.

Having tested the car intensively on the Hockenheim Ring, my admiration for the car grew even more. It is tremendously quick, absolutely stable under all conditions. There is no sign of nervousness, on the contrary the car gives you so much confidence that it is relatively easy to quickly find its limits. Its traction out of tighter turns is mind-blowing. Switch off ESP and discover its absolute neutral behaviour sliding over all four wheels when accelerating out of turns. However, when using the brakes for a few laps on the limit one starts noticing the incredible speed with which you approach turns and the sheer mass which is carried around. In comparison to other supercars, the brake needs to compensate for the huge speed advantage and for the big weight disadvantage, which one starts feeling after a few flying laps. The reason for this small let down is that brake cooling has not been optimised for track use in order to achieve the aerodynamic efficiency needed to reach its proven top speed.

 

[Wolfe]

One of the snotrags in America already said they'd prefer the G37 (Motor Trend?)...and I agree with them. But, then again I am bias.

Road & Track, a publication I greatly respect, took the neutral approach and said the 3-series was clearly the better driver's car, while the G37 was clearly the better cruising car and the better deal.

Actually owning a car might give you better perspective, but I don't think that's needed to consider yourself a 'purist'. I haven't owned a Porsche yet, but I guarantee you I understand and embrace Dr. Porsche's ideals better than the typical Trophey Wife with the Tiptronic Boxster does.

I consider myself the same way with Porsche. It probably helps that back in high school I was a fan of Porsche the same way I'm a fan of BMW today, and that I had convinced myself that I'd own a 9x4 for a first car.

Wolfe doesn't own an M3. But he's more of a BMW purist than most M3 owners I've met.

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.

*paragraphs about the choice of the N54B30 over the S54B32 for the 335i*

👍

The BMW purists I've seen (I don't count myself as one) ranting and raving in forums all over the intraweb aren't worried about power. They're b****ing about the weight, the size, the overheating issues in the early builds, the lack of an LSD, the crappy runflats, the amount of refinement (as in TOO MUCH, believe it or not), the ride/handling compromise, the brakes, pretty much everything but the power and torque.

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.

 

[JCE]

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

Actually owning a car might give you better perspective, but I don't think that's needed to consider yourself a 'purist'. I haven't owned a Porsche yet, but I guarantee you I understand and embrace Dr. Porsche's ideals better than the typical Trophey Wife with the Tiptronic Boxster does.

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

Wolfe doesn't own n M3. But he's more of a BMW purist than most M3 owners I've met.

Point?

More about what 'real purists' think later, but you know the motor is under-rated from the factory, right? It's making closer to 325hp. Everything from real-world dyno runs and 1/4 mile traps speeds support this. Hell, Automobile magazine even did a short article about it.

The 335i makes "300" hp for the same reason LS1 Camaros and T/As made "315" hp; so that M3 and Corvette owners didn't get butthurt.

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.

It's expensive. It's heavy. It will not pass future emissions standards. It needs to be flogged hard to produce power. The gas milage is pretty piss poor. My Z4 M basically has the same motor; it's a great sports car motor for hardcore gearheads... but not ideal for a mass produced 3-series that's supposed to appeal to a wider audience.

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.

The N52 is lighter, cheaper to produce, passes forseeable emissions standards world wide, makes great torque and is hugely more fuel efficient. The car's been available for less than 1 year and there are already sub-$3,000 aftermarket solutions that boost power into the 380hp range. What's not to like?

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?

The reason why the N54 makes 'only' ~325hp is precisely because they engineered the motor to please the 'purists'. As you said, purists didn't want an FI motor in their BMW. Turbo motors have turbo lag and throttle response issues, not to mention add heat, weight and complexity into the drive train. Responsiveness being a BMW 'core value', they didn't set out to produce huge peak power; they wanted to produce an FI motor that didn't have all the traditional FI drawbacks. That means in order to maintain good throttle response, the turbos are small and only product 8.6 lbs. of boost max.

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. 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.

BMW could have easily designed a large, single turbo that blew 20+ lbs. and produced 450+ hp. It's not hard to do, tuners all over the world do it. But that wasn't the point. What they wanted to do was make an FI engine feel and behave like a large capacity NA engine, which I think BMW has done very well.

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.

The BMW purists I've seen (I don't count myself as one) ranting and raving in forums all over the intraweb aren't worried about power. They're b****ing about the weight, the size, the overheating issues in the early builds, the lack of an LSD, the crappy runflats, the amount of refinement (as in TOO MUCH, believe it or not), the ride/handling compromise, the brakes, pretty much everything but the power and torque.

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?

Funny you didn't have a problem posting 3-4 times already on the topic before I chimed in... What? You worried about getting an infraction?

Stuff goes OT all the time here. So long as the conversation is productive, I don't see a problem with it.

No, I'm not worried about "infractions". Its an online forum and I post my opinions. As someone who's had their topics go out of wack I felt it needed to stop my off topic posts. I just simply wanted to make sure the topic didn't get off topic too much.