[RAV]

What is the general consensus out there, will BMW at least offer one NA 6 cyl for the F30. In Europe, the N53 direct injected engine with 272 hp gets 25% better gas milage than the 335i, which I believe will equal if not be better than a 4 cyl turbo. The n53 milage will even get better when the add valvetronic to it like they did the 335i. Any thoughts ?

[lyndon_h]

yes, they will offer an N/A engine. There are people who will steer clear of turbos because they have heard stories of the maintenance required for them.

[Digitalinkartist]

Originally Posted by lyndon_h

yes, they will offer an N/A engine. There are people who will steer clear of turbos because they have heard stories of the maintenance required for them.

+1

[bavarian19]

I would go NA 6 over turbo 4 any day of the week.

Turbo 6 over the NA 6 though.

[Tari]

I think they will make the 330 the lower N/A model and make something like a 340 take the 335's spot

[noro]

Originally Posted by bavarian19

I would go NA 6 over turbo 4 any day of the week.

Turbo 6 over the NA 6 though.

Based on what are you saying that? forced induction engines have been making large leaps lately because of promising fuel economy they can deliver. Keep your mind open, you might be surprised.

[jopa489]

Some have been saying F30 will bring the death of the BMW NA I6. We'll see, I really don't know.

[VTECaddict]

If they introduce turbo 4's with the F3x, I don't see a reason for them to keep an NA I6 (sadly). A turbo 4 can easily top the output of an NA I6 in both hp and torque. So unless they severely cripple the turbo 4 banger (or bring over an NA I4), the NA I6 will have nowhere to go in the lineup because it will have similar HP and less torque than a turbo 4.

[carrabassett786]

If its not ugly, I could see a F30 330i as my next car. (assuming its coming out next year)

I really hate turbo whine. But at the same time, I think a 323d is the best car strategically to introduce here.

[shockin330i]

turbo whine is so sexy....

[cstavaru]

If their turbo-4 engines will have a nice exhaust sound, there is no reason not to choose on e of them over a more thirsty I-6 engine.

[MikeTerp]

Originally Posted by cstavaru

If their turbo-4 engines will have a nice exhaust sound, there is no reason not to choose on e of them over a more thirsty I-6 engine.

I'm waiting to see the MPG numbers on a turbo four. No doubt in highway cruising on light throttle it will do better than the six; however, I am not so sure that overall MPG will be that much better. People are going to want these cars to perrform and will be "on the boost" a lot. Turbos suck gas in those situations. I'll take the six if they offer one.

[jopa489]

Originally Posted by MikeTerp

I'm waiting to see the MPG numbers on a turbo four. No doubt in highway cruising on light throttle it will do better than the six; however, I am not so sure that overall MPG will be that much better. People are going to want these cars to perrform and will be "on the boost" a lot. Turbos suck gas in those situations. I'll take the six if they offer one.

I see your point, but it's the enthusiasts who are "on the boost" a lot. Mainstream buyers (the vast majority of BMW sales) are probably not, and it's those buyers who care more about highway MPG going from 24 to 26 than the performance/MPG of the engine under an aggressive foot.

[RAV]

Many in this forum as welkl as others have been extolling the gas milage benefits of turbo charging a smaller displacment engine. When I llok at present examples it just does not pencil out. Below are some examples. If a car required premium fuel in the following comparisons, I lowered the milage by 10% to offset the premium fuel penalty. PLease tell me what I'm missing here I just do not see the benefits. I have used Hyundai in ,anmy of these expamples, not because I'am a fan but they do offer class leading fuel economy.

1. Acura RDX 240 Hp 2.4 Turbo. 22 mpg premium nets to 19.8 because of premium fuel
Hyundai Sante Fe 3.5 liter 276 HP gets 26 mpg.

2. Ford Tarus 3.5 Eccoboost Turbo = 25 mpg that nets to 22.5 It is an all wheel drive car but runs in front wheel when cruiseing down the highway.
Hyundai Genesis 4.6 liter 368 HP with regular = 25 MPG. Going to a 5.0 liter with 429 HP and direct injection that will improve its milage.

3. VW Passatt 2.0 200 HP turbo = 31 mpg that nets to 28 mpg.
Hyundai Sonata 2.4 liter 200 HP. 35 mpg

4. Fords own 3.7 liter 305 HP NA Mustang gets 31 mpg with regular and the Tarus with the 3.5 liter eccoboost nets 22.5. Ford should have made this a 4.0 liter increased the redline a little bit and the miage would still be in the upper twenties with the same HP.

5.BMW's 272 HP N53 in Europe gets 25% better milage than the N54 335 Turbo. If we apply this same 25% increase to our N54 335, the milage of the N53 ( Still no valvetronic ) in US standards would be 32.5 mpg. I really doubt the 4 cylinder will do any better than this. All we will have gotten is a coarser less refined engine.

[MikeTerp]

Originally Posted by RAV

Many in this forum as welkl as others have been extolling the gas milage benefits of turbo charging a smaller displacment engine. When I llok at present examples it just does not pencil out. Below are some examples. If a car required premium fuel in the following comparisons, I lowered the milage by 10% to offset the premium fuel penalty. PLease tell me what I'm missing here I just do not see the benefits. I have used Hyundai in ,anmy of these expamples, not because I'am a fan but they do offer class leading fuel economy.

1. Acura RDX 240 Hp 2.4 Turbo. 22 mpg premium nets to 19.8 because of premium fuel
Hyundai Sante Fe 3.5 liter 276 HP gets 26 mpg.

2. Ford Tarus 3.5 Eccoboost Turbo = 25 mpg that nets to 22.5 It is an all wheel drive car but runs in front wheel when cruiseing down the highway.
Hyundai Genesis 4.6 liter 368 HP with regular = 25 MPG. Going to a 5.0 liter with 429 HP and direct injection that will improve its milage.

3. VW Passatt 2.0 200 HP turbo = 31 mpg that nets to 28 mpg.
Hyundai Sonata 2.4 liter 200 HP. 35 mpg

4. Fords own 3.7 liter 305 HP NA Mustang gets 31 mpg with regular and the Tarus with the 3.5 liter eccoboost nets 22.5. Ford should have made this a 4.0 liter increased the redline a little bit and the miage would still be in the upper twenties with the same HP.

5.BMW's 272 HP N53 in Europe gets 25% better milage than the N54 335 Turbo. If we apply this same 25% increase to our N54 335, the milage of the N53 ( Still no valvetronic ) in US standards would be 32.5 mpg. I really doubt the 4 cylinder will do any better than this. All we will have gotten is a coarser less refined engine.

+1. Nice post. Maybe BMW will surprise us, but I don't see most people as getting much better mileage with the turbo 4 than with an I6. Of course, as some have noted, BMW has done any number of things with their cars over the past several years that are not exactly "enthusiast friendly" as they seem more intent on overall sales, many of which go to people only concerned about having a roundel on their hood, and who will never seriously "drive" the car. My experience with three different turbo cars was that the gas mileage was not particularly noteworthy, even when I tried to drive with a light throttle. Maybe the new blown F30 will be different - we can hope - but I would prefer that they put more tech on the I6 and get some of the weight out of the F30 to boost mileage without hurting performance.

[MassBimmer]

The more information that comes out about the F30, the more references there are of BMW planning to introduce turbo 4 cylinders to the 3 series lineup...

The new 5 has a 3 engine lineup so that could be what is coming for the 3...a N/A 6, turbo 4 and turbo 6, possibly? Let's just hope there's no N/A 4

[Saintor]

Originally Posted by RAV

Many in this forum as welkl as others have been extolling the gas milage benefits of turbo charging a smaller displacment engine. When I llok at present examples it just does not pencil out. Below are some examples. If a car required premium fuel in the following comparisons, I lowered the milage by 10% to offset the premium fuel penalty. PLease tell me what I'm missing here I just do not see the benefits. I have used Hyundai in ,anmy of these expamples, not because I'am a fan but they do offer class leading fuel economy.

1. Acura RDX 240 Hp 2.4 Turbo. 22 mpg premium nets to 19.8 because of premium fuel
Hyundai Sante Fe 3.5 liter 276 HP gets 26 mpg.

2. Ford Tarus 3.5 Eccoboost Turbo = 25 mpg that nets to 22.5 It is an all wheel drive car but runs in front wheel when cruiseing down the highway.
Hyundai Genesis 4.6 liter 368 HP with regular = 25 MPG. Going to a 5.0 liter with 429 HP and direct injection that will improve its milage.

3. VW Passatt 2.0 200 HP turbo = 31 mpg that nets to 28 mpg.
Hyundai Sonata 2.4 liter 200 HP. 35 mpg

4. Fords own 3.7 liter 305 HP NA Mustang gets 31 mpg with regular and the Tarus with the 3.5 liter eccoboost nets 22.5. Ford should have made this a 4.0 liter increased the redline a little bit and the miage would still be in the upper twenties with the same HP.

5.BMW's 272 HP N53 in Europe gets 25% better milage than the N54 335 Turbo. If we apply this same 25% increase to our N54 335, the milage of the N53 ( Still no valvetronic ) in US standards would be 32.5 mpg. I really doubt the 4 cylinder will do any better than this. All we will have gotten is a coarser less refined engine.

A few months ago, I compared the N53 in a 330Xi Coupe vs TTS engine. Both 270HP, the same fuel economy but the E92 is almost 400lbs heavier! BTW, the 306HP 3.7L in the Mustang gets better fuel economy than a N54.... and runs on regular.

[Gavin@MMW]

A RWD Turbo 4 could be fun. It would be just a matter of time before BMS gets a hold of one and the "JB4" is made, and your boosting the crap out of the little thing. A Turbo 6 is better for power, but a 4 has potential.

I dont really buy a BMW for gas mileage, if i wanted that id get a TDI.

[mkoesel]

Given that BMW has evicted the naturally aspirated V12 and V8 from their series lineup, it follows that the naturally aspirated I6 is not long for this world. The naturally aspirated M V8 and V10 are also being phased out.

It's always possible they will keep a naturally aspirated I6 around, but I suspect they are planning to replace it with turbo I4 in most regions, including the US.

[lyndon_h]

Originally Posted by mkoesel

...but I suspect they are planning to replace it with turbo I4 in most regions, including the US.

But why would they do that? Its only going to hurt the fuel economy and hurt reliability.

[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by lyndon_h

But why would they do that? Its only going to hurt the fuel economy and hurt reliability.

I'll bet BMW can improve both, or at least the latter. Surely you aren't suggesting that its impossible for a turbo 4 to be made more efficient than an N/A 6, right?

[noro]

Originally Posted by RAV

Many in this forum as welkl as others have been extolling the gas milage benefits of turbo charging a smaller displacment engine. When I llok at present examples it just does not pencil out. Below are some examples. If a car required premium fuel in the following comparisons, I lowered the milage by 10% to offset the premium fuel penalty. PLease tell me what I'm missing here I just do not see the benefits. I have used Hyundai in ,anmy of these expamples, not because I'am a fan but they do offer class leading fuel economy.

1. Acura RDX 240 Hp 2.4 Turbo. 22 mpg premium nets to 19.8 because of premium fuel
Hyundai Sante Fe 3.5 liter 276 HP gets 26 mpg.

2. Ford Tarus 3.5 Eccoboost Turbo = 25 mpg that nets to 22.5 It is an all wheel drive car but runs in front wheel when cruiseing down the highway.
Hyundai Genesis 4.6 liter 368 HP with regular = 25 MPG. Going to a 5.0 liter with 429 HP and direct injection that will improve its milage.

3. VW Passatt 2.0 200 HP turbo = 31 mpg that nets to 28 mpg.
Hyundai Sonata 2.4 liter 200 HP. 35 mpg

4. Fords own 3.7 liter 305 HP NA Mustang gets 31 mpg with regular and the Tarus with the 3.5 liter eccoboost nets 22.5. Ford should have made this a 4.0 liter increased the redline a little bit and the miage would still be in the upper twenties with the same HP.

5.BMW's 272 HP N53 in Europe gets 25% better milage than the N54 335 Turbo. If we apply this same 25% increase to our N54 335, the milage of the N53 ( Still no valvetronic ) in US standards would be 32.5 mpg. I really doubt the 4 cylinder will do any better than this. All we will have gotten is a coarser less refined engine.

This is a nice attempt but the flaw is that you are considering the horsepower numbers and not the torque curves. Max horsepower rating it just ONE point on the torque curve. 2 engines with identical max horsepower rating may have very different personalities. Consider for example the M3 and the 335. Under normal driving circumstances they have essentially the same oomph, but on paper they are 100+ horsepower apart.

To me a good metric of a daily driving car is the time it takes to cover 5-60MPH in 2nd gear.