335i - twin turbo 3 series

Is that a Petrol model? Thats a pretty crap power output from a 3.0 24v Twin Turbo surely?

110bhp/litre sounds about right to me.

It's a sequential turbo rather than 'twin' turbo. So the response should be instant without lag...

Justin.

Is it? The twin turbo Supra came also with a 3.0 24V and 330 HP. It's about the same HP/liter figure that other petrol turbo engines (Cosworth, Subara etc)

The new BMW will be compliant with much more restrictif environment legislation. The HP-figure is best as low as possible for fiscal and insurance reasons. Under the bonnet there is then a big red bolt: "Strictly forbidden to turn this bolt. Every turn gives 30 extra HP."

Needless to say that tuners will quikly find the way to turn that bolt 10 times for some extra herds of ponies.

It will be quite interesting to see how long it will take tuners to crack the twin turbo engine and produce more power than the newly annonced V8 M3. The next barrier is 200 HP/liter or to put it in BMW-terms: aiming at the M-series V10-engine.

Petrol turbo is back... at last or must I say at first with BMW because they had but very few petrol turbo'd cars (a 2002 back in the stone age and a 745 in the Middelages)

Tom De Moor

It'll be tuned for torque and flexibility - for headline power figures wait until the tuners get hold of it.

Saw one of them while browsing the Jap car auctions yesterday, in excellent condition with only 28k miles. Unfortunately the starting price worked out around £16k OTR.

That some sort of Russian Fiat come Jap street racer? :-D

Ignore me

Ta, G.

335d...

You are a sick, sick bunny :)

A

I'm going to suggest that article is infact, bollocks.

Firstly because BMW have publicly stated that they have no intention of using forced-induction on their mainstream petrol engines. I don't believe they're stupid enough to contradict themselves so blatently.

Secondly because "The 3.0-litre straight six (right) is said to produce around 330bhp". Yeah, right. They make almost 100bhp-per-litre from their NA lumps (more than that from the M3 and M5). And they're hardly going to go to all that trouble for a low-blow setup.

Thirdly because "Nothing?s official, but a 0-60mph time of around 6.0sec appears to be on the cards". With 330bhp ? Er, no. Either somebody's spouting s**te, or that engine is manufactured from depleted uranium.

But they get almost that from their NA engines ?

Yep. But if it's sequential, then the second blower is *big*. If it wasn't, then it wouldn't need the first blower.

...well over ten years ago !

Things have moved on somewhat :) 90bhp-per-litre is considered perfectly normal from an NA engine these days.

Er, see above :) They're hardly using modern-tech.

...get a nice 280bhp-ish from their current 2.0 4-cyl.

But the 5.0 V10 makes about 100bhp-per-litre. And it's normally aspirated.

Agreed. But BMW have stated that they don't intend to be part of the revolution.

Yeah, there is that. But then, why bother ? They already have suitable 330bhp engines in the fold, don't they ?

So?

Have in those 10 years the demands on engines through environmental issues diminished? Do new cars drink fuel as did for instance the Lotus Carlton (which had 360 HP out of a 6 cylinder 3.6 liter engine)?

Is that so? Where are all the 1 liter/90 Hp, 2 liter/ 180 HP, 3 liter / 270 HP engines?

Oops : I've got one and it is still considered an exotic. Not many around, even very few :)

Engines producing around 90 HP/liter do it in the 7500-8000 RMP-range, the range where titanium parts in the engine become needed. Those engines are for obvious reasons not so common.

A turbo engine however will rev no higher than 6500 in order to obtain the same HP/liter-figure.

Define "modern-tech": twin overhead cams, 4 valves / cilinder, sodiumfilled (and buggerly expensif) exhaust valves.

If the Cosworth (head) is not "modern-tech", it still holds its value pretty good. I would be the first to encourage a drop in prices of Cosworth-parts "because they are surpassed of bettered".

Psst : turbo and it's not their standard car either. Maserati 2.0 V6 turbo: 306 HP... also 10 years ago.

My 2.0 l turbo: 350 HP at the wheels. Rebuild time every 15000 km.

Sure but only 500 HP during a very short time. After that burst it falls back to 374 HP... meaning the engine can not support 500 HP all the time and retain a decent life expectancy.

Not mentionning that the production cost of the 5.0 V10 engine is more than double of that of a 3 liter twin turbo engine.

Check the pictures of the V10 BMW-engine: the exhaust collectors are pure art and will ruin one's health and sanity when they have to be replaced.

If they don't they will miss the ride a second (or third) time.

BMW did allready endorce frontwheel drive and old fashion superchargers in the Mini, it would be plain stupid not to make a petrol turbo engine since they have allready big succes with their bi-turbo Diesel engines.

BWM's aura is build on sportscars, it guess that the fact that their diesel cars is about a fast of faster that their regular petrol car is making them unhappy.

M3/M5/M6 engines do not count: those engines are so expensif to make that even BMW-margins are slim on them.

Tom De Moor

Honda have quite a few. Pug/Renault have 180bhp 2.0 engines, Toyota, hell, even Ford managed a 170bhp 2.0.

bah its gotta be a hoax...

and yes the M5 is NA it essentially comes with throttle bodies... so...

1.6 = 115bhp (72bhp/l) 1.8 = 129bhp (72bhp/l or really 65bhp/l as it's detuned 2.0l) 2.0 = 150bhp (75bhp/l) 2.5 = 215bhp (86bhp/l) 3.0 = 258bhp (86bhp/l) 4.4 = 333bhp (76bhp/l) 4.8 = 362bhp (76bhp/l) 110bhp/l looks pretty good to me? ;-)

Standard 330i hits 62mph in 6.3secs. 6.0 seems very conservative...

Justin.

Correct: are those modells (clio 182, S2000, Ford ST170) the common or most sold versions of their modell range?

Renault for one has also a 225 HP-Megane out of a 2 liter.... turbo. Strange isn't it: one can buy a 280HP 2 liter atmo-engine of the shelf at Renault Sport but maybe the price tag (11.000 UKP) is somewhat disturbing.

Bottomline is that atmosferic engines with 90 HP/liter are expensif, let alone engines with 110 HP/liter or more.

You like Pug? Well: remember the 167 HP Mi16-engine in the 405? When cats came on it, the nice engine was struggling to see 150 HP, but when on the very same engine a turbo was bolted 225 HP were reliable.

Turbo-engines with 110 HP/liter are cheap and BMW has a lot of old 6-in-line engines waiting to receive one or two turbo's and become state of the art again (while costing BMW peanuts).

That 3-liter biturbo engine fits like a glove in their catalogue: on paper faster (because more HP) and cheaper (less parts) than their actual V8 engines (how much HP does the 535i produce?) and a whole bucket cheaper than the M- series (but in standard trim marginally slower)

Tom De Moor

Yes they do. Discounting that it's a hoax, it could be because of emissions?

Maybe we're in for a surprise, and the new V8 M3 is gonna be closer to 450 bhp which would leave a huge gap between 330i and M3.