BMW to Debut US Turbo 4-cylinder Z4 sDrive28i and 6-series Coupe at NYIAS

[ENINTY]

In every magazine article I have ever read, a smaller turbo motor as compared to an equivelently powered larger n/a motor, has hardly any real gain in fuel mileage. A few months back Car and Driver had an article on this exact point.

Case in point the Chevy Cruize with the 1.3L turbo as compared to the other cars in a recent test (Focus, Mazda 3, Elantra, and Jetta) with lager motors from 2L to 2.4L were faster and got the same or better gas mileage.

I just don't see the advantage, and the way BMW can't build a reliable turbo to save their ass, I'll say "No Thanks".

[teezee]

There is a special preview on Saturday for BMWCCA members-

http://www.nybmwcca.org/events.php?id=40

New York Auto Show 2011

Dear Club Members,
BMW of North America will once again host an early preview for us at the New York Auto Show. This will take place on Saturday, April 23, 2011 at 9:00 am. In order to be able to participate in this event members will need to do the following.
1. YOU MUST PURCHASE your tickets on line from the Javits website. www.autoshowny.com before the event. The price is at $14.00 per Adult, $4.00 per child under 12.
2. Please just send the following info to autoshow@nybmwcca.org with your Name & club ID Number Also the number of guest and their names.
Your e-mail must be sent to me by 11:59 PM April 16,2011. Your name will be on the check off list at the entrance.

Ex. Club Mem. Joe Smith # 123456
Guest Jim Smith ,Tom Jones

3. Arrive at the North Concourse Level - the Lower doorway ( not by 11th Avenue). of the Javits Center by 8:0 am.
4. Bring your BMW CLUB ID; you will need to show it in order to enter the event.
5. The event starts at 9:00 am. If you arrive LATE YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ENTER THE SHOW UNTIL 10:00 am.

[Saintor]

Mercedes has some data of their FI 1.8L 204HP compared to their NA 3.5 306HP revised for 2012 with direct injection.

Frankly, the fuel consumption figures of that small engine are not that great, less than 10% difference.

combined Eu cycle (automatic)
250 6.9
350 7.0

Those FI 4-cyl. in relatively heavy cars are *a joke*.

[sneaks]

a vehicle needs a certain amount of energy to obtain the necessary motive power regardless of the size of engine. So switching an engine in an average or underpowered car with a smaller displacement FI with equal output won't create much increase in economy.
It is the huge engines in the cars like an M5 that will see the largest benefit. This new m5 is a turbo like it or not and is a gross improvement in fuel economy and power.

There is a fuel savings in this new 4 cylinder, but it isn't great. Economy cars get better mileage because of their weight.

[ENINTY]

Originally Posted by sneaks

a vehicle needs a certain amount of energy to obtain the necessary motive power regardless of the size of engine. So switching an engine in an average or underpowered car with a smaller displacement FI with equal output won't create much increase in economy.
It is the huge engines in the cars like an M5 that will see the largest benefit. This new m5 is a turbo like it or not and is a gross improvement in fuel economy and power.

There is a fuel savings in this new 4 cylinder, but it isn't great. Economy cars get better mileage because of their weight.

Then why do it? Why engineer all the complexity, additional parts (to fail), and additional top-end wear to gain a minimal amount of fuel effeciency (if any).

[Saintor]

More evidence that those new 4-cyl. in heavy vehicles are a *joke*

BMW X1 245HP 7.9L/100km Euro cycle (combined)
Mercedes C350 4-Matic 306HP 10% heavier 7.6L/100km Euro cycle (combined)

BTW, a 2008 euro 330i Xdrive 272HP gets 8.0L/100km, only 0.1 worse than the X1 4-cyl.

Pathetic.

[sneaks]

Originally Posted by ENINTY

Then why do it? Why engineer all the complexity, additional parts (to fail), and additional top-end wear to gain a minimal amount of fuel effeciency (if any).

net horsepower (area under the curve of rpm vs torque) is much greater on the FI 4cyl
it creates a greater level of power when driving around from low rpm which is what the majority of these cars spend their time doing.
is it better on a track is a valid debate but when trying to sell cars to the masses, this is the direction everything seems to be going.
I don't think top end wear is an issue so much to a new car buyer these days, especially in a premium model where the consumer is likely to replace the vehicle sooner anyway.
It is interesting though, because 17.4 pounds of boost is a lot for a motor driven everyday. I think time will ultimately tell here.

[Franken///M]

not sure how I would feel about 17.4lbs of boost...

[ENINTY]

Originally Posted by sneaks

net horsepower (area under the curve of rpm vs torque) is much greater on the FI 4cyl
it creates a greater level of power when driving around from low rpm which is what the majority of these cars spend their time doing.
is it better on a track is a valid debate but when trying to sell cars to the masses, this is the direction everything seems to be going.
I don't think top end wear is an issue so much to a new car buyer these days, especially in a premium model where the consumer is likely to replace the vehicle sooner anyway.
It is interesting though, because 17.4 pounds of boost is a lot for a motor driven everyday. I think time will ultimately tell here.

Okay, so maybe there's some low RPM torque available and the car feels faster at lower RPM, but if the game is fuel effeciency such as in the Chevy Cruze rather than performance, it still is not worth the extra cost and complexity.

[DASHOCKER]

This motor better not have hpfp issues. How are the turbocharged motors in the V8 models holding up?

[DDS2015]

This engine makes a lot of sense for the lower price range where these cars will be situated. I mean, people that get the N52 engine over the N54/55 are the people who are not pushing their cars as much (IMO and I know there will be exceptions). These people drive their cars daily and probably never go above 3K rpm. So why not put in an engine that develops torque lower in the RPM range and then you save on fuel.

I would also wager that the N20 weighs less than the N52 (IDK by how much or if at all, just speculation), so the dynamics of the car would be improved as well. I would also wager that the N20 revs faster than the N52 (again just speculation) so it would probably feel more sporty. I doubt that the N20 will be as smooth of an engine, but again I will point out that most of the people that buy cars with this engine probably won't rev it so high so this won't be a problem.

Additionally, the reason why they are going FI over NA is so that they will not have to pay those crazy fines in EU. Everybody knows this so we should stop complaining about it and accept it already.

[Technic]

Originally Posted by ENINTY

In every magazine article I have ever read, a smaller turbo motor as compared to an equivelently powered larger n/a motor, has hardly any real gain in fuel mileage. A few months back Car and Driver had an article on this exact point.

Case in point the Chevy Cruize with the 1.3L turbo as compared to the other cars in a recent test (Focus, Mazda 3, Elantra, and Jetta) with lager motors from 2L to 2.4L were faster and got the same or better gas mileage.

I just don't see the advantage, and the way BMW can't build a reliable turbo to save their ass, I'll say "No Thanks".

x2

[335togo]

Originally Posted by cuban335i

wow those figures are impressive for the N20!

Sure they are..compared to what....for a reality check look at a 2011 Hyundai Sonata Turbo 2.0....274 hp with a four cylinder with same mileage...family mobile!

now are you impressed....

[sneaks]

that sonata uses 87 octane too

[pyrat]

good luck selling a 4-cylinder roadster in America.

I am well aware that this engine on-par or out performs the NA engine it replaces, but the general public is not

and the general public (and enthusiasts) love themselves 6-cylinder roar.

[pyrat]

Originally Posted by ENINTY

In every magazine article I have ever read, a smaller turbo motor as compared to an equivelently powered larger n/a motor, has hardly any real gain in fuel mileage. A few months back Car and Driver had an article on this exact point.

Case in point the Chevy Cruize with the 1.3L turbo as compared to the other cars in a recent test (Focus, Mazda 3, Elantra, and Jetta) with lager motors from 2L to 2.4L were faster and got the same or better gas mileage.

I just don't see the advantage, and the way BMW can't build a reliable turbo to save their ass, I'll say "No Thanks".

+1

but BMW doesn't really see this as a fuel efficiency booster - they see it as a money maker.

[positiveions]

when the 4 cylinder debuted in the E30, it was good; the chassis was light.
When it debuted in the E36, it was slowwwwwww.
BMW made a smart move to phase out the 4 cylinder in the US.
However, a turbo-4 cylinder is a good idea for an entry level that will bring about a "fresh" change to the company. Annnnd it has some good amount of horsepower and torque.

[mkoesel]

Since almost every Audi TT roadster ever sold in the US has a turbo-charged 4 cylinder, I don't think there will be any issue at all finding buyers for the Z4 28i. I humbly predict that sales will increase, not decrease, with the introduction of this new model.

Originally Posted by pyrat

good luck selling a 4-cylinder roadster in America.

I am well aware that this engine on-par or out performs the NA engine it replaces, but the general public is not

and the general public (and enthusiasts) love themselves 6-cylinder roar.

[JasonCSU]

Originally Posted by pyrat

good luck selling a 4-cylinder roadster in America.

How about the MX-5 Miata? Early Z3's also had a 1.9 liter 4 cylinder.

[HpDellNestle]

Yea, but it is a TURBO!! It is fast cause it is a TURBO. What do you have in your car? Not TURBO? Mine is sporty, cause it is a TURBO!!

Originally Posted by pyrat

good luck selling a 4-cylinder roadster in America.

I am well aware that this engine on-par or out performs the NA engine it replaces, but the general public is not

and the general public (and enthusiasts) love themselves 6-cylinder roar.

[Diver]

The iconic Porsche 944 Turbo had a four cylinder motor. 'Nuf said! If it drives better than the N52, nobody will care how many big holes are in the block.

[nyte3k]

Originally Posted by Diver

The iconic Porsche 944 Turbo had a four cylinder motor. 'Nuf said! If it drives better than the N52, nobody will care how many big holes are in the block.

+10000