PDA

View Full Version : 2007 BMW 335i Coupe - 302 HP Turbo Six



mangoes
03-21-2006, 01:45 AM
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=29&article_id=10753

:-o

Senshi
03-21-2006, 02:25 AM
the new M3 will be pritty cool but it will still be ugly

Chris in SD
03-21-2006, 10:15 AM
the new M3 will be pritty cool but it will still be ugly


I totally agree - all the pics I've seen of the 3-series coupes are butt-ugly...

Absinthe
03-21-2006, 10:43 AM
Its a shame too becuase some of the early spy photo's and photo mock up looked great

Absinthe
03-21-2006, 10:46 AM
http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/21/ih8v106er.jpg

too bad that they couldnt make it look like that I would have spent 70k for that think with the CF roof and 425bhp.

rammsteinmatt
03-21-2006, 11:01 AM
so i dont get it, they need a turbo to get to 302 hp? when the M3 has 333 n/a

Absinthe
03-21-2006, 01:26 PM
cost.

Chris in SD
03-21-2006, 04:32 PM
It's much cheaper to slap some low-compression pistons into an existing engine and turbocharge it than it is to get 100hp/L out of a normally aspirated engine. Think M3, S2000, F430... not many 100hp/L normally-aspirated cars around. Not even the new Z06 is 100hp/L (505 hp @ 7.0L).

alex_alex
03-21-2006, 04:59 PM
so i dont get it, they need a turbo to get to 302 hp? when the M3 has 333 n/a


you're ignoring so many factors.

1. who says they "need" a turbo to get to 302hp?
2. the m3 is a TUNED car, and there isn't much left. you can bet there is a ton of potential in this new twin turbo'ed 3
3. are you ignoring the torque numbers completely?

or you can put it another way: why does the evo "need" a turbo to make 271hp when the S2000 n/a can make 240hp?

rammsteinmatt
03-21-2006, 05:48 PM
so i dont get it, they need a turbo to get to 302 hp? when the M3 has 333 n/a


you're ignoring so many factors.

1. who says they "need" a turbo to get to 302hp?
2. the m3 is a TUNED car, and there isn't much left. you can bet there is a ton of potential in this new twin turbo'ed 3
3. are you ignoring the torque numbers completely?

or you can put it another way: why does the evo "need" a turbo to make 271hp when the S2000 n/a can make 240hp?


ignoring factors by asking a question? wonder how that is even possible. could i acknowledge every factor, and still ask a question? of course i could

1. thats exactly my point, i like how you seemingly talk down to me and prove my point
2. so if you have an engine tuned to 333 hp, um maybe leave it slightly more conservative and settle for something closer to 300. im sure jane grocery-getter will rest in the fact that her car has more potential than an M3 because hers isnt tuned
3. as much as car and driver are. look at the title of their article "News: 2007 BMW 335i Coupe to Have 302-HP Turbo Six" we all know that C&D are bimmerphiles, and they have the gall to not include the torque numbers?

but then again, the idea is to sell cars, why would anyone make themselves look bad by not making the car look good. they mention how good these new turbos are. but wheres the part where the owners will have to use synthetic oil and high octane gas? well a prospective buyer might be scared off hearing that, so they dont say it

oh, and i like your analogy. the evo needs a turbo, first because more air = more power = faster car. last i checked mitsu wanted to win rallys, so they put a turbo in their evo. also people that buy an evo are looking for the fastest thing around, they dont much care if you need to put in expensive gas and synthetic oil - thats the cost of going fast
second, you will probably agree that the s2k is tuned pretty well. 240 n/a hp, thats pretty good. the evo "needs" the turbo because, first mitsu engineers arent as good as honda engineers aparently, second if honda could make 240, how the heck are you going to make more than a supposedly better company without doing something a little extra. but thats not the point. simple logic dictates if one way yields this much at near maximum, you cannot get more than that using the same method

aparently me asking this was the dumbest question ever asked, judging by the responses.

but why i really asked, BMW is not really a turbo company. sure saab, subaru, and volvo offer turbos in almost every model. those are turbo companies. but bmw, when was the last time the offered a turbo in a production car? why would they spend the time and money to develop a twin turbo system to get an extra 47 hp? oh look C&D answered my question for me.............it saves gas. oh yeah, thats right. im sure bimmer owners worry about the oil reserves, if they were so concerned, they would have bought a diesel, hybrid, or a toyota, not a BMW

a turbo saving gas? dont piss on my back and tell me its raining. adding a turbo forces more air into the engine, thats the definition of their existance. adding more air requires more fuel to maintain combustion. so no, adding the turbo did not save fuel, somthing else they did to the engine did.

alex_alex
03-21-2006, 05:59 PM
so i dont get it, they need a turbo to get to 302 hp? when the M3 has 333 n/a


you're ignoring so many factors.

1. who says they "need" a turbo to get to 302hp?
2. the m3 is a TUNED car, and there isn't much left. you can bet there is a ton of potential in this new twin turbo'ed 3
3. are you ignoring the torque numbers completely?

or you can put it another way: why does the evo "need" a turbo to make 271hp when the S2000 n/a can make 240hp?


ignoring factors by asking a question? wonder how that is even possible. could i acknowledge every factor, and still ask a question? of course i could

1. thats exactly my point, i like how you seemingly talk down to me and prove my point
2. so if you have an engine tuned to 333 hp, um maybe leave it slightly more conservative and settle for something closer to 300. im sure jane grocery-getter will rest in the fact that her car has more potential than an M3 because hers isnt tuned
3. as much as car and driver are. look at the title of their article "News: 2007 BMW 335i Coupe to Have 302-HP Turbo Six" we all know that C&D are bimmerphiles, and they have the gall to not include the torque numbers?

but then again, the idea is to sell cars, why would anyone make themselves look bad by not making the car look good. they mention how good these new turbos are. but wheres the part where the owners will have to use synthetic oil and high octane gas? well a prospective buyer might be scared off hearing that, so they dont say it

oh, and i like your analogy. the evo needs a turbo, first because more air = more power = faster car. last i checked mitsu wanted to win rallys, so they put a turbo in their evo. also people that buy an evo are looking for the fastest thing around, they dont much care if you need to put in expensive gas and synthetic oil - thats the cost of going fast
second, you will probably agree that the s2k is tuned pretty well. 240 n/a hp, thats pretty good. the evo "needs" the turbo because, first mitsu engineers arent as good as honda engineers aparently, second if honda could make 240, how the heck are you going to make more than a supposedly better company without doing something a little extra. but thats not the point. simple logic dictates if one way yields this much at near maximum, you cannot get more than that using the same method

aparently me asking this was the dumbest question ever asked, judging by the responses.

but why i really asked, BMW is not really a turbo company. sure saab, subaru, and volvo offer turbos in almost every model. those are turbo companies. but bmw, when was the last time the offered a turbo in a production car? why would they spend the time and money to develop a twin turbo system to get an extra 47 hp? oh look C&D answered my question for me.............it saves gas. oh yeah, thats right. im sure bimmer owners worry about the oil reserves, if they were so concerned, they would have bought a diesel, hybrid, or a toyota, not a BMW

a turbo saving gas? dont piss on my back and tell me its raining. adding a turbo forces more air into the engine, thats the definition of their existance. adding more air requires more fuel to maintain combustion. so no, adding the turbo did not save fuel, somthing else they did to the engine did.


:outofcloset:

i stopped reading the verbal diarrhea after the first few incoherent sentences. to make my life easier, you're right, i'm wrong, you're the genius, i'm the retard, and so on and so forth.

whatever make corky happy, Alex do

http://www.dsawm.org/images/ChrisJoeJohn.jpg

Absinthe
03-21-2006, 06:37 PM
Dude calm down its getting tiresome, read the article 34% increase in tq you are good at math do it (294 tq for the lazy), further more the article states less gas used than a comprably performing V8. Bimmer owners do care about gas prices there is this thing called the rest of the western world where BMW sells a shit ton of cars and guess what gass in some of those places approaches $10 a gallon, and cars are taxed wierdly sometimes on both consumption and engine displacement so small motor, less gas, less tax, would mean a substantial savings over time.

As for point you made about the M3 motor it is invalid take a solid look at that motor's arcitecture and you'll see why, ITB's, intake, etc are way to expensive you cant just "de-tune" them you would have to fundamentally change the way the motor was designed and that costs loads then you'd be left with a similar motor from a reliability and power curve stand point except with the top end and tq scaled back to reflect the breathing might come out with something like 280 hp 220tq with the reliability of the M3 motor, just not viable. Especially when for comparable pitance you can bolt two small turbos on and get 300/300.

Oh and bmw made a production turbo car awhile back. and a kickass turbo F1 motor; but as I posted above it all comes down to cost; its cheaper, easier, and more profitable for BMW to put this car here in the range and then push the m3 into 911 price land with its coming 425bhp.

rammsteinmatt
03-21-2006, 07:11 PM
Dude calm down its getting tiresome


well actually what i find to be tiresome is that i ask a question. you kinda answer the question. chris completely answers the question. then alex is out to make me look like a complete fool? of course i would pe pissed off and make a long post

i dont get it. i asked an honest question, or what i thought was an honest question, hoping to find an answer and instead get put down for it? ok....................

outside of socal, i have never experienced behavior this before, whatever happened to helping out someone? hell even the "snobby" ferrari owners are more friendly to an alleged dumb question

volcomguy84
03-21-2006, 07:47 PM
Dude calm down its getting tiresome


well actually what i find to be tiresome is that i ask a question. you kinda answer the question. chris completely answers the question. then alex is out to make me look like a complete fool? of course i would pe pissed off and make a long post

i dont get it. i asked an honest question, or what i thought was an honest question, hoping to find an answer and instead get put down for it? ok....................

outside of socal, i have never experienced behavior this before, whatever happened to helping out someone? hell even the "snobby" ferrari owners are more friendly to an alleged dumb question
i agree with you matt, some people dont understand that not everybody knows everything, or at least what they know.......so they are assholes about it because they dont understand. Im honestly starting to get tired of people always flaming someone with a question. NOT EVERYBODY KNOW EVERYTHING! if you are gonna be a dick or have a negative response about a question, leave it to yourself instead of being a dick in your post...........

Absinthe
03-22-2006, 11:31 AM
I thought my tone matched Matts, sorry you were offended but the answers to your questions were either in the article or common sense based.

As for Volcom, genuine questions dont really get flamed the tone of matts second post in which he admits he was upset combined with his penchant for the long highly technical post is what got his chops busted.

EvoRution
03-23-2006, 07:34 AM
regardless of cost and product placement.. I seem to remember another 3.0L twin turbo inline 6 thats a terror on the open highway. ;) Maye this will be the next big bimmer to mod...? nah.

kipper215
03-23-2006, 07:58 AM
regardless of cost and product placement.. I seem to remember another 3.0L twin turbo inline 6 thats a terror on the open highway. ;) Maye this will be the next big bimmer to mod...? nah.



I do see that as a possibility...for a gajillion dollars. turbos are popular and the germans know there is a lot of power to be had from forced induction. it's about time they caught on. Merc has been doing it for a while and AMG is killin BMW in the UBER sedan scene.

emperor_gp
03-23-2006, 08:23 AM
i'm sure they're using turbos similar in size to the ones on the audi 2.7 bi-turbo (bmw claims to have virtually eliminated lag) and pushing low boost (the K03's are pretty small). A gain of 47 hp is no joke and i'm sure there is more to be had when this vehicle is finally released and tuners get a hold of one.

hell, i'd like to have one just to see how much more hp can be had from the stock setup :)

Absinthe
03-23-2006, 12:04 PM
hell yes look at the 1.8t you can get 20% more power out of those motors like its nothing, you imagine that thing with a remapped ECU, intake, and uprated exhaust perhaps from Dinan with warrenty? 350bhp/330 tq in a three series would be fun and have a warranty.

Timujin
04-18-2006, 07:09 PM
N.A. M-series BMWs take special BMW Castrol $9.00 per quart synthetic oil.

My jaw dropped when I found that out.

Here's a bit of info on some BMW turbo R&D:

http://autospeed.drive.com.au/cms/A_2544/article.html


BMW is selling lots of international turbo diesel models badged as "1,3,etc.-Series"

white power
04-23-2006, 09:35 AM
As an Ex C36 AMG owner I was really interested when I saw the TT335i. having 271/271 inline power before in my benz I know how nice it will be to drive this car. NO vibration and flat power curve. I dont mind my solid motor mounted RS as it is basicly a road legal rally car but from a luxo-performance standpoint the new Bimmer looks awesome. A Benz tuner TT's a C36 a long time ago and got 560hp. Heres the scanned article....

http://www.silcom.com/~neilv/C36turbo/index.htm

jayvolution
04-23-2006, 09:57 AM
dont piss on my back and tell me its raining.


LOL... sorry i know off-topic... i'll leave this thread now.

Timujin
04-23-2006, 11:03 AM
Bad mothafacker IMO. As previously mentioned, the luxosport aspect of this one makes it very attractive. The price will probably cure a cronic hard on.

http://socalevo.net/gallery/albums/userpics/11674/02_800x600.jpg

http://socalevo.net/gallery/albums/userpics/11674/normal_08_800x600.jpg

Timujin
09-15-2006, 07:26 PM
Drove an automatic with the paddles today & here's a first impression:

Off the line auto is quick and boost is there like now
You can feel the combination of two turboS and the variable vavle timing kick in and it's nice
Exhaust note is very fukin sweet
The robotic arm that comes out of the rear qtr panel to hand you the seat belt strap has gotta GO
Shifts with the paddles are prompt and not laggy. Better than any SMG IMHO
Downshifts are rev matched
Steering wheel is nice
Brakes are really good
Ride quality is firm and very comfortable
Sales rep didn't know if the engine needed to idle after being driven hard or on the FWY
Again jet plane runway like thrust though the silky smooth tranny

Too bad it's $40000.00 + dollars

We'll see what first year problems there are if any

gofaster87
09-15-2006, 08:19 PM
I thought my tone matched Matts, sorry you were offended but the answers to your questions were either in the article or common sense based.

As for Volcom, genuine questions dont really get flamed the tone of matts second post in which he admits he was upset combined with his penchant for the long highly technical post is what got his chops busted.


Comon Dave, youre not sorry.

mangoes
09-16-2006, 09:08 PM
The robotic arm that comes out of the rear qtr panel to hand you the seat belt strap has gotta GO



hahah wth, thats pretty cool / scary / wierd at the same time

ebevo
09-17-2006, 09:18 PM
Drove an automatic with the paddles today & here's a first impression:

Off the line auto is quick and boost is there like now
You can feel the combination of two turboS and the variable vavle timing kick in and it's nice
Exhaust note is very fukin sweet
The robotic arm that comes out of the rear qtr panel to hand you the seat belt strap has gotta GO
Shifts with the paddles are prompt and not laggy. Better than any SMG IMHO
Downshifts are rev matched
Steering wheel is nice
Brakes are really good
Ride quality is firm and very comfortable
Sales rep didn't know if the engine needed to idle after being driven hard or on the FWY
Again jet plane runway like thrust though the silky smooth tranny

Too bad it's $40000.00 + dollars

We'll see what first year problems there are if any


which dealer was this at?

can the auto hold the gear until redline/does it upshift when you hit it?

sedan or coupe ver?

Timujin
09-17-2006, 10:10 PM
which dealer was this at? Savage in Ontario, but they say all dealers must have two demos for people to drive.

can the auto hold the gear until redline/does it upshift when you hit it? YES/YES (downshifts too). It seems somewhat DSG ish without the wierd jerky launch/engagement.

sedan or coupe ver? Coupe