or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Cars We Drive!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cars We Drive! - Page 659

post #9871 of 13543
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Y View Post


At what RPM? Quoting HP and torque without reference to an RPM curve doesn't really describe what the engine is like to drive. Honda's VTEC would kick you in the butt over a certain RPM and be anemic below. BMW's M52 felt great down low, but ran out of breath up top. Both produced roughly 190HP.

I think a lot of car "enthusiasts" these days substitute car horsepower for the length of their penis.

A turbo lets BMW balance drivability and economy in an environment of stricter emissions regulations.

 

The point is in 1994 you could buy a 4 cylinder n/a car with nearly 200 hp that was driveable and fun but nearly 20 years later BMW is trying to sell us a 180 hp turbocharged 4 cylinder engine for 35 grand?  I had a 325 with a m50 (no VANOS) which was anemic down low but loved to rev and felt happiest at speed and it too made 190 hp yet 20 years later BMW is attempting to sell a 180hp car for 35k?  Why should I pay top dollar for a car that makes bargain basement power?  A Honda Civic makes 201 hp on a n/a engine for christ sake.  It's not about hp making up for penis size, it's about BMW purposely dumbing down their cars. I just don't understand the logic

 

Personally I think turbos are a cheesy gimmick and cheap power (as opposed to designing a proper engine which is what BMW used to do) but to each his own.


Edited by Rumpelstiltskin - 5/7/13 at 12:43pm
post #9872 of 13543
I think they expect people who opt for the turbo 4 with the sport suspension and 6mt to fiddle with the ECU and likely get quite a bit of a performance boost.
post #9873 of 13543
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Y View Post

At what RPM? Quoting HP and torque without reference to an RPM curve doesn't really describe what the engine is like to drive. Honda's VTEC would kick you in the butt over a certain RPM and be anemic below. BMW's M52 felt great down low, but ran out of breath up top. Both produced roughly 190HP.

I think a lot of car "enthusiasts" these days substitute car horsepower for the length of their penis.

A turbo lets BMW balance drivability and economy in an environment of stricter emissions regulations.

What he said. Would also note that given the overlap in parts between the 320 and 328, should be relatively easy for aftermarket tuners to chip the 320 into a decent HP bump.
post #9874 of 13543

Driving my 2004 BMW E46 M3 Coupe (6MT) at Lime Rock Park.

 

 

CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v80), quality = 100

Driving my 2007 BMW E90 335i Sedan (6MT, ZSP, RWD) at Lime Rock Park.

 

 

Driving a Skip Barber MX-5 Cup car through the optional chicane at "The Uphill" (Turn 5).  This isn't my car, but it’s a “car I drive” occasionally.


Edited by Outlaw 06 - 5/10/13 at 11:51am
post #9875 of 13543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin View Post

The point is in 1994 you could buy a 4 cylinder n/a car with nearly 200 hp that was driveable and fun but nearly 20 years later BMW is trying to sell us a 180 hp turbocharged 4 cylinder engine for 35 grand? 

The engine isn't the only difference between those cars. You are paying for a lot more in a BMW, whether you need it or not. And $35k in 2013 is about $23k in 1994.
Quote:
Personally I think turbos are a cheesy gimmick and cheap power (as opposed to designing a proper engine which is what BMW used to do) but to each his own.

So Audi won 11 Le Mans in 13 years using cheesy gimmicks? What is a proper engine anyway? Some would argue that a small-block Chevy V8 in almost any sports car application is the only proper choice.
post #9876 of 13543
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Y View Post


The engine isn't the only difference between those cars. You are paying for a lot more in a BMW, whether you need it or not. And $35k in 2013 is about $23k in 1994.
 

 

Acura can put a 200 hp 2.4 litre 4 cylinder engine in their Civi...err...TSX and made it pretty driveable and with no emissions issues.  Meanwhile BMW puts a turbocharger on a 2 litre motor for a grand total of 180 hp?  The hell? And your reasoning sounds like the little dick dude explaining to his g/f about motions and oceans.  In the end it is just an excuse for not being able to perform

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Y View Post

So Audi won 11 Le Mans in 13 years using cheesy gimmicks? What is a proper engine anyway? Some would argue that a small-block Chevy V8 in almost any sports car application is the only proper choice.

 

 

BMW established a reputation  for their silky smooth inline 6s and not turbocharged cars like Audi.  Other than a limited production 2002 back in the 70s, has BMW ever made a turbocharged road car?  They shunned forced induction, turned up their noses to them.  Even the vaunted BMW M1 was naturally aspirated. Now every friggin car is turbocharged.  WTF? What's next? Front Wheel Drive? 

post #9877 of 13543
blame CAFE
post #9878 of 13543
Quote:
Originally Posted by HRoi View Post

blame CAFE

 

Imma  give them a piece of my mind while I'm waiting for my ham & swiss croissant and my earl grey tea!

 

 

 

 

that's a joke

post #9879 of 13543
Would it ever be possible to produce big NA engines with decent gas mileage?

Is a V8 that gets 25 mpg on the highway that difficult to produce?!
post #9880 of 13543
Have a big torquey motor and a really tall top gear ratio like the Vette and GT500
post #9881 of 13543
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenFrog View Post

Would it ever be possible to produce big NA engines with decent gas mileage?

Is a V8 that gets 25 mpg on the highway that difficult to produce?!

The Vette has been doing this for a while. Cylinder deactivation will help too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin View Post

Acura can put a 200 hp 2.4 litre 4 cylinder engine in their Civi...err...TSX and made it pretty driveable and with no emissions issues.  Meanwhile BMW puts a turbocharger on a 2 litre motor for a grand total of 180 hp?

Which part of "The engine isn't the only difference between those cars" don't you understand? You are paying for better mechanical engineering and more luxury in a BMW. Why is it that an RSX cannot lap Laguna Seca once without killing its brakes, while my heavier 328 going as fast or faster can deal with it lap after lap? Both cars had stock brakes and suspension, and were driven on the same relatively cool late December day.
Quote:
Other than a limited production 2002 back in the 70s, has BMW ever made a turbocharged road car?  They shunned forced induction, turned up their noses to them.  Even the vaunted BMW M1 was naturally aspirated. Now every friggin car is turbocharged.  WTF? What's next? Front Wheel Drive? 

So you don't like change, but why is turbocharging is bad?
post #9882 of 13543
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Y View Post

Which part of "The engine isn't the only difference between those cars" don't you understand? You are paying for better mechanical engineering and more luxury in a BMW. Why is it that an RSX cannot lap Laguna Seca once without killing its brakes, while my heavier 328 going as fast or faster can deal with it lap after lap? Both cars had stock brakes and suspension, and were driven on the same relatively cool late December day.
 

 

 

 Truth be told a 3 series is not very luxurious.  As far as creature comforts are concerned, a TSX with the technology package is a far better value to the non-driving enthusiast as is the A4 which coincidentally also has a 2.0 litre turbocharged engine...except that the A4 makes 210 hp and 258 ft/lbs of torque (at 1500 rpm). 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Y View Post
Why is it that an RSX cannot lap Laguna Seca once without killing its brakes, while my heavier 328 going as fast or faster can deal with it lap after lap? Both cars had stock brakes and suspension, and were driven on the same relatively cool late December day.
 

 

I said TSX not RSX.  And what is the point of bringing up brakes when we are discussing engine output?

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Y View Post


So you don't like change, but why is turbocharging is bad?

 

I have no problem with change.  I just don't like change for change sake.  A BMW line without a single NA i-6 is a line of soul less beasts...IMHO of course 

 

As far as turbocharging is concerned I just don't like it.  I've never owned a turbocharged car (although I once considered a turbo rx-7) and have no plans on doing so

post #9883 of 13543
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenFrog View Post

Would it ever be possible to produce big NA engines with decent gas mileage?

Is a V8 that gets 25 mpg on the highway that difficult to produce?!

corvette, 4th gen f-bodies, most other cars with LSx blocks... GM seems to know how to do it.
post #9884 of 13543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin View Post

 

 

 Truth be told a 3 series is not very luxurious.  As far as creature comforts are concerned, a TSX with the technology package is a far better value to the non-driving enthusiast as is the A4 which coincidentally also has a 2.0 litre turbocharged engine...except that the A4 makes 210 hp and 258 ft/lbs of torque (at 1500 rpm). 

 

 

 

I said TSX not RSX.  And what is the point of bringing up brakes when we are discussing engine output?

 

 

 

 

I have no problem with change.  I just don't like change for change sake.  A BMW line without a single NA i-6 is a line of soul less beasts...IMHO of course 

 

As far as turbocharging is concerned I just don't like it.  I've never owned a turbocharged car (although I once considered a turbo rx-7) and have no plans on doing so

 

Agreed. 

 

The 3-Series BMW has never been a luxury car. If properly optioned with Sport Package (ZSP), 6-speed manual transmission (6MT) and rear wheel drive (RWD), BMW 3-Series coupes and sedans offer a near-perfect balance of handling, performance and every day practicality (that can even fit 5 people in a pinch).  The 7-Series is BMW's luxury sedan.

 

Regarding turbocharged engines, the best cars I’ve owned have all had naturally aspirated engines while the least reliable most maintenance-intensive cars I’ve owned all had forced induction (turbocharged) engines.

 

The Forced Induction, Direct Injection N54 motor in my E90 335i is definitely more troublesome and maintenance intensive than the S54 motor in my E46 M3. That's my experience anyway.

 

For the past 25 years, BMW M3’s have been built around high-revving, naturally-aspirated, race-inspired, Motorsport engines with impressive HP/Liter ratios. The E46 M3’s S54B32 engine is a smooth, 100HP/Liter masterpiece with a cast iron closed-block design, high-quality motorsport internal, cooling, and lubrication system components, and one of the freest flowing production heads ever made. This is why I believe the S54 will go down in automotive history as one of the finest production engines ever made.

 

That said, I think it’s a real shame that BMW is moving to forced induction motors (especially with the new M3), but that’s probably the effect of CAFE standards more than anything else.  I just hope that BMW offers Motorsport enthusiasts the option of purchasing a track-focused, naturally aspirated, MT, RWD, M3, much like Porsche already does with the GT3...

post #9885 of 13543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumpelstiltskin View Post

WTF? What's next? Front Wheel Drive? 

Next 1-series.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Fine Living, Home, Design & Auto › Cars We Drive!