The smooth-running Inline 6 to be replaced?

Page 1 of 3  
http://www.dailytech.com/Fuel+Efficiency+is+King+Turbo+Four+to+Replace+BMWs+Naturally+Aspirated+Inline6/article20779.htm
"...BMW is now looking to make another leap in fuel efficiency, and it
means that the company's normally aspirated inline-6 could get the axe in favor of a new 2.0-liter, turbocharged inline-4 engine. The new engine produces 240hp @ 5,000 rpm and 260 lb-ft of torque at just 1,250 rpm...."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I wonder how that will work if the petrol/gasoline isn't of the highest quality....
A product from supermarket or independent petrol station in some E European countries might be slightly dodgy...
DAS
--
To reply directly replace 'nospam' with 'schmetterling'
--
"bjn" < snipped-for-privacy@example.com> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
bjn wrote:

Torquey little bugger.
I would not be surprised if the NA I6 was obsoleted in favor of the turbo 4. But you'll still be able to get a turbo I6.
For the foreseeable future, the engine bays will continue to be made to hold the I6, and it will be offered as an option.
I would like see them continue to offer an NA I6 (with direct injection, please!) as on option for those who favor the I6 smoothness and refinement, and who don't need the turbo's extra power.
I've driven a recent 328. It was plenty fast, IMO.
I'd love to see a real, apples-to-apples fuel-economy comparison between a direct-injected 3.0 I6 and the new 2.0 turbo 4. I'd bet the difference would not be worth caring about, to many of us.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yes but no standard 328 (even the 328iS) was as quick as the current I6 330d so why flirt with fuel consumption hell for a slower car?

Absolutely.
But, if BMW *and* performance *and* fuel economy are requirements then diesel is the way to do it IMHO. I'm not sure if the Americans have spotted this one yet but the Europeans certainly have.
Yes the low capacity high output turbo petrol/gas engines are interesting and have superb *tested* fuel economy *but* you will be able to hear the fuel gushing into the cylinders if you try using that power.
--
Z

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You might not be able to hear that, but after say 100Mm* you will probably be hearing something and it will be expensive

that's 62,000 miles in the US - just after the warranty runs out...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 01:47:06 -0000, "R. Mark Clayton"

Are you talking about turbo failure or premature damage to engine internals?
--
Z

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think much of the point is just that the turbo system puts a lot more stress on a lot more parts than a normally-aspirated engine that spends most of its time just loping along anyway.
I've seen plenty of folks get 500,000 miles on the older BMW inline sixes. The newer lubricant formulations help that a lot. I would be very surprised to see anyone manage that with the 4-cylinder Kompressor engine.
You want performance in a small package, and you want efficiency, and long-term reliability is going to be the price you'll pay. That seems to be fine for most people who don't intend on keeping their cars for very long anyway. --scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As a percentage very few cars indeed get anywhere near 500,000 miles before being scrapped - my guess is the vast majority at way less than half that. So is there any point in designing for that sort of life?
--
*I don't work here. I'm a consultant

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, there are a bunch of issues mixed up in this. First of all, as lubrication improves, engines last longer. So it's possible that as lubrication continues to improve, the high peformance 4-cylinder engines might start lasting longer too.
Secondly, the point you bring up. In the sixties, GM did some studies that basically determined their cars were lasting too long and people were keeping old cars rather than buying profitable new ones. So some serious engineering went into making the time to failure of all parts of the vehicle about the same and about 80,000 miles. In the end, this came to kill GM when the customer did start demanding a more durable vehicle.
On the other hand, there are folks out there who get a new car every year because they have to have the latest model. And there are also a lot of people who seem to have a vehicle-totalling accident every year too.
But, if people had cars that lasted longer, would they keep them? At what point does maintenance cost exceed new car cost? I don't know any of this. But then, I only have 480,000 miles so far. --scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Most engines outlive the car these days - unless they get damaged by a broken can belt etc or a failed cooling system. They don't wear out as once was the case. In the UK when I were a lad cars might have two reconditioned engines fitted in its life. They wore out and started burning lots of oil. The US with its generally larger lightly stressed engines might have been different.

The buying pattern must be very different in the US. Here, most who could afford a new car changed it regularly. Perhaps the majority of other than small cars were bought initially by companies, and tax allowances made it such that they'd be replaced every 3 years max. An 80,000 mile car would have been at the end of its life anyway at perhaps 8 years old.

Given the average mileage in the UK of about 10,000 a year, your car would date from the 60s/70s. And finding spares not easy. ;-)
--
*I used to have an open mind but my brains kept falling out *

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Scott Dorsey wrote:

I wouldn't worry about that... Sure, the motor has smaller size and few cylinders to spread the power across, but that can all be engineered-for. Plus, they are designed for fewer RPM's, both in normal use and the redline, which must save wear...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Both, but mostly the latter as everything is stress that much more and you have to trash the engine to get sparkly performance. The nice thing about [big] BMW I6's and V8's is the good torque at moderate revs'

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
R. Mark Clayton wrote:

The turbo motors should need to be "thrashed" less, due to their low-end torque. I think that's the whole point of them (fewer revs for better efficiency).
Compare the 3.0L M54B30 with 231hp @ 5900 rpm and 220 lb-ft @ 3500 to the new 2.0 turbo 4, with 240hp @ 5,000 rpm and 260 lb-ft of torque at just 1,250 rpm.
Don't confuse old-school turbo motors with these new direct-injected turbo motors...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Good post!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 01:47:06 -0000, "R. Mark Clayton"

I've noticed for years that the extended warranties on turbo-based cars are significantly more expensive than the extended warranties on the non-turbo models.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Is that a surprise?
DAS
--
To reply directly replace 'nospam' with 'schmetterling'
--
"bjn" < snipped-for-privacy@example.com> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not at all.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
bjn wrote:

How about some numbers?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Last time I looked (a few years ago) there was a 25 to 30% premium for an extended warranty on a turbo.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Zathras wrote:

Well, the turbo 6's, gas or diesel, do carry a significant price-premium...

This was discussed in here recently. I'm skeptical, personally. I like gas motors.
I guess I really should drive the 335d. This Spring I'll make a point of doing just that.

That's what I'm thinking.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.