February 20, 2006

[Redwood]

-BMW Unveils New Biturbo Petrol Straight Six Engine
-Sirius posts bigger loss; subscribers jump
-GM Design Chief Focuses on Brand Character
-TCC Tip: Talking To Your Mechanic
-Mechanic’s Tale: No Good Deed…
-Geneva Motor Show Preview
-Hummer looking at options for new entries to lineup
-Ford's Future Looks Leaner
-More BMW 1-Series Cabrio Spy Photos
-As gas prices fall, station owners' profits rise
-Spy Video: 2007 Mini Cooper S
-GM price cuts may not be a better deal
-Jeremy Clarkson drives the Volkswagen Jetta
-Motorola Offers Cheap Digital Radio Service For Cars
-Lexus Mulls Small Crossover
-Five picks for cheap fun
-Shots of Koenigsegg CCX surface pre-Geneva
-MPH Rumors: No more Ford Ranger, more MGs, word on Camaro production and more.

[hancheyb]

Re: February 20, 2006

-BMW Unveils New Biturbo Petrol Straight Six Engine

NOOOOOO!!!!! I'm already having bad dreams about RX-7s. I would SO crush that intake plumbing when I had to do the oil pump nut. I think it runs on the back side of the motor.

[Redwood]

Re: February 20, 2006

NOOOOOO!!!!! I'm already having bad dreams about RX-7s. I would SO crush that intake plumbing when I had to do the oil pump nut. I think it runs on the back side of the motor.

I still wonder why they are so opposed to increasing the engine size like everybody else. Maybe some sort of tax increase on greater than 3.0L engines in Europe? Ease of making the same size engine/block for all I-6 engines? Better fuel economy than bumping up size? Anybody have any insight? For those wondering, 400N-m torque is about 295lb-ft.

[hancheyb]

Re: February 20, 2006

I think it is just a natural course of the auto industry. They all follow each other through "in vogue" technologies and trends. Remember a couple of years ago it was "the year of the car" then "the year of the truck" then "the year of the SUV". Now we're back to cars.

In the 80s turbo charging was "the thing" to do. Dodge GLH, Mustang SVO, blah blah blah. Then they all blew up and they started making N/A motors again in the 90s. Now we're back. S54s are known to blow up. Whether it is the owner's fault or BMWs, they gone as far as they can go with N/A motors without going to bigger displacement.

This BMW thing is funny too. "We've eliminated turbo lag.". Well, yeah! You put two tiny turbos on it, left the compression high and only gained 15% power?? That could have been done YEARS ago. There won't be any big gains in that setup in the aftermarket in my opinion. No ability to add boost without blowing it up.

[Redwood]

Re: February 20, 2006

I think it is just a natural course of the auto industry. They all follow each other through "in vogue" technologies and trends. Remember a couple of years ago it was "the year of the car" then "the year of the truck" then "the year of the SUV". Now we're back to cars.

In the 80s turbo charging was "the thing" to do. Dodge GLH, Mustang SVO, blah blah blah. Then they all blew up and they started making N/A motors again in the 90s. Now we're back. S54s are known to blow up. Whether it is the owner's fault or BMWs, they gone as far as they can go with N/A motors without going to bigger displacement.

This BMW thing is funny too. "We've eliminated turbo lag.". Well, yeah! You put two tiny turbos on it, left the compression high and only gained 15% power?? That could have been done YEARS ago. There won't be any big gains in that setup in the aftermarket in my opinion. No ability to add boost without blowing it up.

You're probably not far off base. BMW did do Turbo stuff in the 80s too, I believe. When Steve Dinan came to speak at the opening of the Momentum BMW performance center/track in Houston, he said the Dinan turbos on the BMWs engines were actually more reliable than the Supercharged engines, but everybody in the late 90s was wanting superchargers so they gave the customer what they wanted.

[Fair!]

Re: February 20, 2006



Great googily moogily! That is ridiculous!



225 kilowatts = 301.72997 hp! That's ALL THEY COULD MUSTER with that giant clusterf**k of a package?!?!

Toyota managed 306 hp with their 3.5L V6 in the Lexus IS350, Nissan squeaks out 300 hp in the 300Z and 298 hp in the Infiniti G35 engines of the same displacement. Those are naturally aspirated, of course, and both brand's offerings were chosen on the 2006 Ward's Auto 10 Best Engines. Its got to be cheaper to build and package those two NA engines than THAT BMW MONSTROUSITY. ^^^

[beavis]

Re: February 20, 2006

Is it just me, or does the intercooler look smaller than the evaporator on your car's A/C? Of course tiny turbos may not need a big intercooler....

[Fair!]

Re: February 20, 2006

Is it just me, or does the intercooler look smaller than the evaporator on your car's A/C? Of course tiny turbos may not need a big intercooler....

• BMW N52 3.0L = 265 hp in N.A. trim
• In twin turbo trim = 301 hp
• Adding 36 hp = not much boost used, nor need for much intercooler

I am thoroughly unimpressed with this engine's numbers.

[hancheyb]

Re: February 20, 2006

• BMW N52 3.0L = 265 hp in N.A. trim
• In twin turbo trim = 301 hp
• Adding 36 hp = not much boost used, nor need for much intercooler

I am thoroughly unimpressed with this engine's numbers.

Well, you read why they did it. More power, better fuel economy, NO LAG. There is no way to create a turbo with tons of power and no lag UNLESS you make a weak, over complicated TinyTurbo system. RX-7, can you feel the love??!? We're headed down the cyclical part of the curve that I don't like. 10 years everyone will be making N/A motors again.