Thursday 21st April 2005

BMW brews turbocharged 3-Series

New 330bhp 335i arrives in 2006

---

BMW 330i. Photo by Nick Hall

Following on from our road test on the BMW 330i, posted yesterday, BMW is to launch an uprated version, the 335i. Due on the mainland in just over a year and in the UK six months later, it will feature a turbo-charged version of the 3.0-litre petrol engine found in the 330i. This boosts power by 72bhp to around 330bhp, which is just 13bhp short of the current 3.2-litre M3, and looks likely to get you to 60mph from rest in some six seconds.

The turbos will be fitted so that one works at lower engine speeds to boost low-end torque, while the other picks up higher up the rev range. Autocar speculates that it will be mated to a DSG-alike double-clutch gearbox, for seamless shifting.

According to this week's Autocar, which broke the story, it's intended to plug the gap between the 330i and the forthcoming M3, and will have a 4.0-litre powerplant shoe-horned in, along with a hefty price. That won't launch until 2007.

Links

• BMW330i road test
• Autocar

[off_again]

oh no, confusion rains....

So, its a 330BHP engine in a BMW 335 which has a 3.0 turbo engine..... so what is it? A 330 turbo, a 335i or a 330BHP tarmac eating monster?

...and I wont even start on the 318i / 320i / 322i / 325i..... yada yada....

Why do German manufacturers insist on doing this? Why not simply call them the nice and simple designations?

Oh, from what I understand about the latest 330i its going to be a corker. Around £40k fully loaded and pretty understated looks means it a classic q-car. Something to look out for in a few years me thinks!!!

[_VTEC_]

Surely supercharging would have been more appropriate?

[gofasterrosssco]

330 Bhp as standard from a twin-turbochared 3 Litre is nothing amazing these days, just means German tuners will be extracting 400+ Bhp in no time.....

[Witchfinder]

_VTEC_ said:

Surely supercharging would have been more appropriate?

But turbocharging is cheaper. I understand that even Mercedes are planning to ditch superchargers in favour of turbos.

[robdickinson]

Is it april 1st again, BMW going the FI route.

Why not just use the old M3 engine? Is that more expensive than adding a sequential turbo setup?

And who'd buy the M3 with a 400bhp v8 (I guess old M5 engine) when you can buy a 330T and tweak it somewhere close easy, and it'll be lighter and cheaper...

[Beefmeister]

I beleive the new M3 will have an all new V8, based on the modular design of the M5's V10.

Apparently it can easily work as 500bhp 5.0 V10, 400bhp 4.0 V8 and 300bhp 3.0 V6, all on the same basic architecture.

I can't help thinking though that by releasing details of the 335, they're hinting that the M3 will have more than 400bhp...

I'd wager it'll have c.420bhp.

[tuscanboy]

robdickinson said:

And who'd buy the M3 with a 400bhp v8 (I guess old M5 engine) when you can buy a 330T and tweak it somewhere close easy, and it'll be lighter and cheaper...

Won't be the M5 engine as that is a 5 Litre

[robdickinson]

tuscanboy said:

Won't be the M5 engine as that is a 5 Litre

D'oh true. Still suprised BMW have gone for Fi on petrol, this mean they think they've gone as far as they can with NA straight 6's? , or the old 3.2 m3 engine was to highly tuned?

[fid]

Car and Driver did 0-60mph in 5.6 seconds in the new 330i, so I think it'd do a bit better than 6 seconds turbocharged!

[Davislove]

i thought BMw didn't 'do' turbocharging?

[htsd]

Its just that the gap between the M3 and the 330i was getting so big they needed something in between. Gaps in lineups look clumsy, especially when its the flagship model stomping all over the underlings. It then looks like the technology in the base models is inferior.

I'm in two minds about the turbocharging route though. The only advantage that I see is that you can have a reasonably tractable engine when you're not thrashing it but when you want the power its there- as opposed to having the M3 engine which I imagine is a fairly all-or-nothing affair. It'll be a shame to see the M3 go to a bent-eight as well. Major shakeups for the Germans.

[Miguel]

fid said:

Car and Driver did 0-60mph in 5.6 seconds in the new 330i, so I think it'd do a bit better than 6 seconds turbocharged!

I find that the acceleration figures quoted by German companies tend to be conservative. BMW's, in particular, tend to feel quicker and perform better than their power to weight ratios suggest. I think that BMW underrates their engines, but I also think that they're so good at making modern engines with all the tricks, such as variable timing, valvetronic, etc. that it really is true that they seem to find power through the rev range where other manufacturers don't, comparing similar engines.

That being said, I believe that acceleration figures printed in the mainstream American magazines, such as Car & Driver, Motor Trend, and Road & Track, can often be very optimistic. This is because they don't publish the raw data. They "correct" the acceleration figures they get for whatever they consider to be "standard" temperature, humidity, and barometric pressure figures. Motor Trend sometimes has incredible numbers because they will do several acceleration runs, but instead of averaging them, will print only the best numbers. Car & Driver's numbers also often defy reality, usually being the most unrealistic. They claim that they use "proprietary formulas" to do their "corrections." A friend of mine suggests that they correct their acceleration numbers for a 75 hp shot of nitrous... I think that these numbers are only good for comparing to those of other cars when tested by the same magazine.

As far as other American publications go, I don't know if Automobile Magazine or Autoweek do this or not. I do know that Grassroots Motorsports does publish the true numbers without any funny business. At least, it's what they claim. And while their numbers don't necessarily seem slow to me, they might be since the magazine is located and does their tests in Florida, where it's warm, though they are not in the southern part of the state, where it's even hotter. They might not test too many cars in the summer, since testing cars isn't their main thing, anyway. It's a magazine made more for people intested in different kinds of (usually low budget) amateur racing, autocrossing, etc.

Miguel

[gazzab]

Davislove said:

i thought BMw didn't 'do' turbocharging?

What like the
2002 turbo (first road going turbo).
330d
525tds
525d
530d
535d
etc etc

Also - dont forget that a turbo is actually a supercharger but driven by gasses rather than a belt.

[Davislove]

gazzab said:

Davislove said: i thought BMw didn't 'do' turbocharging? What like the 2002 turbo (first road going turbo). 330d 525tds 525d 530d 535d etc etc Also - dont forget that a turbo is actually a supercharger but driven by gasses rather than a belt.

Yes I know they turbocharge diesels!

but, i've read several reports that BMW were dead against turbocharging petrol engines because of engine life and efficiency

[dcb]

gazzab said:

Also - dont forget that a turbo is actually a supercharger but driven by gasses rather than a belt.

Nearly.

A turbo is driven by exhaust gases, and they
only really kick in at high revs.

A supercharger is driven off the crankshaft and provides substantial amounts of extra power across almost all the rev range.

Which is why a supercharger almost always beats a turbo.

[_VTEC_]

htsd said:

The M3 engine which I imagine is a fairly all-or-nothing affair.

You'd think so but it's simply not the case. It pulls hard all the way through the rev range. A magnificent power plant quite frankly, and I too am a little bit sad that BM are ditching it.

[pentoman]

745i turbo..


The S54 M3 engine is A) expensive to make, not least because it's separately built by M GMBH, B) explosive, not their best engine what with the big end issues. OK in a performance model, not great in a more 'mainstream' non-M model.

I guess they found the limits of how high you can make a long-stroke high momentum straight six rev; the turbo brings less revs and more torque to the party.

I hope they can make it as good to use as an NA engine, or else it's a sad day.. Will we just have the Japanese to go to for NA thrills soon?


Russell

[Miguel]

gazzab said:

2002 turbo (first road going turbo).

The Oldsmobile F85 and Chevrolet Corvair had optional turbocharged engines--the aluminum Buick 215 (later, it became the Rover engine) and the Chevy flat six, respectively--back in the early 1960's. These two were the first road-going, turbocharged production cars.

As a side note, although it was never produced as a road car, only a prototype, BMW also used the 2002 Turbo's engine in an absolutely beautiful mid-engined, gullwing door exotic--the BMW Turbo--with the engine in a higher state of tune.

Miguel

[Miguel]

Davislove said:

i thought BMw didn't 'do' turbocharging?

Yeah, I'm with you. I had read quotes from BMW people who were adamant that BMW did not and would not produce any turbocharged cars (other than diesels). I think that part of the reason is also that they don't want to compromise the throttle response and a linear power delivery of a naturally aspirated engine, although today's turbocharged engines can be quite incredible in those regards as well. It is for those reasons that Gordon Murray wants nothing to do with turbocharged engines.

Miguel

[Miguel]

dcb said:

Nearly. A turbo is driven by exhaust gases, and they only really kick in at high revs. A supercharger is driven off the crankshaft and provides substantial amounts of extra power across almost all the rev range. Which is why a supercharger almost always beats a turbo.

Turbo is short for turbine supercharger.

There was a time when these were the typical characteristics of turbocharged engines: nothing on the bottom, then too much too fast at the high end. Nowadays, and for quite a few years, that is no longer the case, unless they want the engine to make just insane amounts of power, such as a racing engine, which will be driven at high RPM's all the time.

Look at the output of today's turbocharged production road cars. Very often, peak torque is reached at extremely low RPM's, such as 2000 or less--and I'm talking about petrol/gasoline engines--not just diesels. Also, they can also have a very flat torque curves that either doesn't dip or barely does after the peak RPM's for another 1500 or more RPM's. Turbocharged engines are no longer all or nothing.

Miguel