RE: New BMW 1.5-litre engine revealed
Discussion
currybum said:
The Nur said:
Just to clarify, because I am a little confused, you are comparing the new road engine to the old f1 engine, right?
Yes, but the f1 engine ran on over 80% toluene....they are not really comparable.The F1 engine would probably not fare well on your Tesco 95ron….it would be fun to see the new engine try and run on toluene though !!!!
I posted a picture. Just a picture, nothing more. I did not compare the engines, their individual fuels, power outputs, constituent parts, etc etc etc
I posted a picture.
Please try to completely miss the point somewhere else in the future.
The Nur said:
Another photo of a proper 1.5l BMW engine
As much as I want to like the old M10, from an engineering perspective it's completely outclassed by the newer engines from BMW. Same goes for the M20 and M30.
BeirutTaxi said:
The Nur said:
Another photo of a proper 1.5l BMW engine
As much as I want to like the old M10, from an engineering perspective it's completely outclassed by the newer engines from BMW. Same goes for the M20 and M30.
FFS, one is an F1 engine, the other is intended for road cars, what do you think I meant? It was a light hearted post of one picture that, so far, 2 people have got their knickers in a twist over.
Also, at what point did I say anything at all about the new engine? Why did neither of you two pedantic b
ds have a go at the chap who originally posted above mine with not one, but two pictures of BMW F1 engines?I can't help being concerned with these new small capacity engines.
They obviously work well in the city and on motorways, but throw them onto rural roads with a normal driver and they're a liability.
I was following a Fiat Twin Air a few weeks ago (in a 2 litre Vauxhal Vivaro with a 58 MPH limiter) and I was being dropped on the flats but on one hill the way it lost speed nearly meant I wiped it off the road. (Unlike "typical" van drivers I wasn't tailgating!)
The problem (i believe) is that these small engines depend on Turbos to deliver the power and if the driver doesn't keep the engine on the boil they lose performance at an alarming rate, after all a 1.5 litre turbo outside the turbo band is merely a 1.5 litre. This isn't a problem for enthusiastic drivers as we'd see this coming and drop a cog, but the average driver would try to ride the torque and drop out of the powerband.
I for one will be moving from my current e90 320d to a f30 330d when the time comes to change cars!
They obviously work well in the city and on motorways, but throw them onto rural roads with a normal driver and they're a liability.
I was following a Fiat Twin Air a few weeks ago (in a 2 litre Vauxhal Vivaro with a 58 MPH limiter) and I was being dropped on the flats but on one hill the way it lost speed nearly meant I wiped it off the road. (Unlike "typical" van drivers I wasn't tailgating!)
The problem (i believe) is that these small engines depend on Turbos to deliver the power and if the driver doesn't keep the engine on the boil they lose performance at an alarming rate, after all a 1.5 litre turbo outside the turbo band is merely a 1.5 litre. This isn't a problem for enthusiastic drivers as we'd see this coming and drop a cog, but the average driver would try to ride the torque and drop out of the powerband.
I for one will be moving from my current e90 320d to a f30 330d when the time comes to change cars!
The Nur said:
At which point did I even begin to compare the fuel that they ran on?
I posted a picture. Just a picture, nothing more. I did not compare the engines, their individual fuels, power outputs, constituent parts, etc etc etc
I posted a picture.
Please try to completely miss the point somewhere else in the future.
But you did make the comment that your picture was of a proper - your italics - 1.5l BMW engine which would infer that this new BMW engine is not. I posted a picture. Just a picture, nothing more. I did not compare the engines, their individual fuels, power outputs, constituent parts, etc etc etc
I posted a picture.
Please try to completely miss the point somewhere else in the future.
I believe this new 3 pot engine is replacing the PSA blocked BMW headed engine that's in their current range and assembled at Hams Hall.
Up to now I believe MINI's have been powered by engines that are not completely BMW. Therefore this proper BMW engine replaces one that isn't. You posted an interesting picture but perhaps if you'd have worded your remark differently you might have avoided some flak
;-)
The Nur said:
Please try to completely miss the point somewhere else in the future.
I love this website sometimes.Someone posts something as a relatively throw away comment.
Arrogant prick jumps down his throat and tells him not to post anything in reply to him.
Hilarity ensues.
I think someone is missing the point of the Internet in actual fact.
jontysafe said:
Terminator X said:
Find it all very depressing as it's not cars causing "climate change" 
TX.
This is soo true. Just one container ship going from Taiwan to San Francisco and back again uses 1.5million gallons (albeit US gallons) of bunker fuel. There are almost 90,000 of these vessels travelling almost continuosly. Bunker fuel is THE dirtiest most polluting carcinogenic fuel in the world. It is estimated that 60,000 die every year as a direct result of micro particles which result in the burning of this bunker fuel.TX.
Even this pales into insignificance looking at the green house gas emissions of energy generation and industry.
Read this if interested, and yes I know it`s the Guardian (I did eat my muesli this morning)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/feb/13/...
The car industry is leading the way cleaning up it`s act on emissions but shipping emissions aren`t even on the agenda to be discussed on UK gree house gas emissions and look to increase by 30% in the coming years.
I want my V10 back
So go calculate the fuel consumption of 7500 lorries doing the same journey as a ship
Thermal efficiency of lorry is 35 to 40% at very very best while a ship engine is 50% plus
kambites said:
Well can you think of any other petrol car engines that have 1/4 of their usable rev range above peak power? Maybe it's more common that I realise, but I've never owned a car that's even close to that.
Most turbocharged petrol engines of the last 10 years I reckon. It doesn't make the rev range above peak power useless as it will still be making more torque at the wheels than changing up earlier, and when you do change up it will put the revs in the sweet spot (generally).The last two turbo petrol engines i have owned had peak power around 6000rpm but rev limit at 7500rpm. I would bet your engines in your cars make peak power around 1500rpm before the limiter.
nickfrog said:
kambites said:
Pistonwot said:
kambites said:
Pistonwot said:
Could be worthwhile if BMW's rediculously fat cars were halved in weight. But they wont be and the tiny engine will be screaming its nuts off nearly all of the time returning poor MPG.
Why woult it be "screaming its nuts off"? It'll probably have more torque lower down the rev range than a similarly powerful N/A engine of twice the capacity. No power, the engine drops revs, car slows down from drop in revs, engine labours, you change down gears to compensate, engine screams its nuts off, you shift up 1 gear.
Process begins again.
This engine is insufficient for the dire tonne+ barges BMW builds, not even the silly Mini objects are under a tonne in weight.
1.5L dragging 1+tonne barges around = ha, haaaa, haaaa
threespires said:
But you did make the comment that your picture was of a proper - your italics - 1.5l BMW engine which would infer that this new BMW engine is not.
I believe this new 3 pot engine is replacing the PSA blocked BMW headed engine that's in their current range and assembled at Hams Hall.
Up to now I believe MINI's have been powered by engines that are not completely BMW. Therefore this proper BMW engine replaces one that isn't. You posted an interesting picture but perhaps if you'd have worded your remark differently you might have avoided some flak
;-)
With all due respect, bugger off I believe this new 3 pot engine is replacing the PSA blocked BMW headed engine that's in their current range and assembled at Hams Hall.
Up to now I believe MINI's have been powered by engines that are not completely BMW. Therefore this proper BMW engine replaces one that isn't. You posted an interesting picture but perhaps if you'd have worded your remark differently you might have avoided some flak
;-)
I meant proper as in it an old school, iron blocked (I think), high power output, short lifetime, glowing red turbo, screaming, bat out of hell, 200mph, no regard to emissions or fuel efficiency, proper BMW engine
You know what I meant. There may have been room to pick holes but the intention of my original post was perfectly clear (in my eyes). If it was misconstrued as a direct comparison to the newer engine (although where that idea could be obtained from still eludes me) then I do feel that says more about your interpretation of my post than it does the intent of it.
RhysGTI said:
I can't help being concerned with these new small capacity engines.
They obviously work well in the city and on motorways, but throw them onto rural roads with a normal driver and they're a liability.
I was following a Fiat Twin Air a few weeks ago (in a 2 litre Vauxhal Vivaro with a 58 MPH limiter) and I was being dropped on the flats but on one hill the way it lost speed nearly meant I wiped it off the road. (Unlike "typical" van drivers I wasn't tailgating!)
The problem (i believe) is that these small engines depend on Turbos to deliver the power and if the driver doesn't keep the engine on the boil they lose performance at an alarming rate, after all a 1.5 litre turbo outside the turbo band is merely a 1.5 litre. This isn't a problem for enthusiastic drivers as we'd see this coming and drop a cog, but the average driver would try to ride the torque and drop out of the powerband.
I for one will be moving from my current e90 320d to a f30 330d when the time comes to change cars!
The boost threashold will be at about tickover. I don't think they'll have a problem keeping it cooking, especially when compared to a n/a car.They obviously work well in the city and on motorways, but throw them onto rural roads with a normal driver and they're a liability.
I was following a Fiat Twin Air a few weeks ago (in a 2 litre Vauxhal Vivaro with a 58 MPH limiter) and I was being dropped on the flats but on one hill the way it lost speed nearly meant I wiped it off the road. (Unlike "typical" van drivers I wasn't tailgating!)
The problem (i believe) is that these small engines depend on Turbos to deliver the power and if the driver doesn't keep the engine on the boil they lose performance at an alarming rate, after all a 1.5 litre turbo outside the turbo band is merely a 1.5 litre. This isn't a problem for enthusiastic drivers as we'd see this coming and drop a cog, but the average driver would try to ride the torque and drop out of the powerband.
I for one will be moving from my current e90 320d to a f30 330d when the time comes to change cars!
Pistonwot said:
nickfrog said:
kambites said:
Pistonwot said:
kambites said:
Pistonwot said:
Could be worthwhile if BMW's rediculously fat cars were halved in weight. But they wont be and the tiny engine will be screaming its nuts off nearly all of the time returning poor MPG.
Why woult it be "screaming its nuts off"? It'll probably have more torque lower down the rev range than a similarly powerful N/A engine of twice the capacity. No power, the engine drops revs, car slows down from drop in revs, engine labours, you change down gears to compensate, engine screams its nuts off, you shift up 1 gear.
Process begins again.
This engine is insufficient for the dire tonne+ barges BMW builds, not even the silly Mini objects are under a tonne in weight.
1.5L dragging 1+tonne barges around = ha, haaaa, haaaa
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff