Do you need anything more than a 320d?

[s m]

RobM77 said:

tgr said:

RobM77 said:

It's a bizarre thought that the 2 litre diesel now has almost the same power as my first E36 325i had all those years ago, and comfortably more than the E30 325!

Sure, but power-to-weight?

However, seeing as you ask... it's tricky because it depends where you look and what's included in the weight. A quick google is coming up with scant info for the E36 328i, but one site (ultimatespecs.com) is quoting 1440kg as the kerb weight (defined as the vehicle with a full tank of fuel, but no driver), but I'm sure I've seen weights down in the 1300s before..

Autocar tested a few variants of the E36 328i and weighed the test cars

Early 95 328i saloon on 15" alloys - 1350kg
328i Touring - 1391kg
328i cabriolet - 1448kg

I had a 98 328i SE saloon - full leather, folding rears, full size spare, sunroof, climate, 16" alloys with 225/50 tyres, pretty much all the kit - it came in at 1420kg with about 1/2 a tank

RobM77 said:

As for the F30 320d, whose power I was comparing with, I can find that listed as 1495 and 1505, depending where you look. ..

There's the one Autocar tested in 2012 - on 18" wheels but came in at 1535kg - no-one on board - 1/2 tank of fuel - Claimed weight was 1495kg - Actual weight 1535kg

RobM77 said:

My E90 320d manual quotes 1505kg including 90% fuel and a 75kg driver, so with a full tank of fuel and no driver (i.e. the defined 'kerb weight'), that would be 1435kg...

Here's the Autocar E90 320d test - on 16" wheels and 205 tyres - claimed weight 1490kg - actual weight 1504kg - no passengers and half tank of fuel. I'd like to see the BMW one for the manual at 1435kg - can't see where you'd save 100kg on the test car below - test car had no sunroof, already has pretty much the smallest wheels and tyres for 300mm brakes (16"), replacing the leather with cloth might save a bit but can't see it being 100kg lighter.

RobM77 said:

With regard to performance, memory is too unreliable to compare against anything other than my last daily driver, a Z4 Coupé, which was most definitely quicker (not surprising that!), but that had 265bhp, very little weight and a low ratio back axle.

I've not seen an Autocar test for the 3 litre coupe Rob but they did weigh the Z4 Mcoupe when they tested it in 2006 - it came in at 1464kg - about 100 kg less than the E46 M3 coupe with the similar engine. You'd think the ordinary 3 litre would be a bit less than that though

The Z4 2.5 convertible from 2003 was a svelte 1335kg

[Ares]

T0MMY said:

Ares said:

Or for some people they just prefer them and are STILL keen drivers? Maybe some keen drivers just see there is more to life than getting past 6,000rpm just to get performance out of their car? Maybe some keen drivers don't want the peaky nature of a 8-10,000rpm screamer in the car that for 90% of the car is a family car?

Different stokes/Different folks.

I can't argue really as we can all define what a keen driver should like but to me that reads like saying "Maybe some keen drivers don't like a car that feels nervous on the road because it's got involving handling and maybe some keen drivers don't want to have to change gear or use a clutch".

In other words it's like saying "some keen drivers don't like the things keen drivers like".

Well you need to improve your reading

Handling wasn't mentioned, nor was nervousness on the road, .....and if keen drivers only change gears themselves, then there are a lot of supercars that won't appeal to keen drivers.

....or your version of keen driving is different to other peoples.

[Ares]

cerb4.5lee said:

Patrick Bateman said:

There are plenty of petrol engines that can shift without having to rev them to death.

I think that is the rub and if you compare a 3 Litre Twin Turbo petrol to a 3 Litre Twin Turbo Diesel other than better range/economy why the hell would you choose diesel when the petrol has the low down shove to pretty much match the diesel anyway.

The petrol sounds better(BMW`s obviously not because its all through the speakers so the diesel sounds the same anyway) the petrol will be smoother and has more revs to play with as well and doesn't sound like a tractor on start up and idle.

Plus you can open a window and listen to the nice petrol engine whereas if you do that in the diesel you keep wondering if there is a tractor/bus/lorry following you.

Because some just do.

I chose 640d over 640i. Two 3l twin turbo. One is quicker, and it doesn't use petrol.

The only aspect of the 640i that I found better than the 640i was the engine note from outside....but as I'm usually inside, it wasn't an issue and the 'd' had it beat in plenty of other areas.

[Ares]

wormus said:

Ares said:

My 3.0l turbo oil burner kicks out 380bhp and 540b ft. What 20yr old 3.0 non-supercar petrol engine manages that?

I don't even think the 1995 (993) 911 turbo got to 380bhp?

Edited by Ares on Wednesday 8th July 18:30

American V8s have been making more than that for donkeys years. My LSA-based V8 makes 133hp/litre with only one cam shaft and a bit of forced induction in a 50 yo design.

It also makes 380hp at about 2000rpm and revs to 7k rpm. So about 830hp. In other words 'kiss my guns'. I'm off to buy some protein shakes.

What 3.0 V8s put out over 380bhp in/before 1995? I thought the 1950s Studebaker was the smallest V8 at 232cu in (4l)?


But again....the comment was merely that technology has given is 20yr old (near) supercar power from diesel engines.


Don't worry, I'm not trying to rip your blinkers off

[Welshbeef]

T0MMY said:

Welshbeef said:

Well my 535d pumps out 104bhp/ltr - once it's remapped it will be up to 127bhp/ltr and a 5,500 red line.

Once remapped the BHP/tonne will be very similar to the C5 RS6 which is nice. It wil sound drive v the petrol clearly but it's a tool for the job

To be fair though, in the context of the diesel vs petrol power debate, that specific output would not be remotely high for a turbocharged petrol engine (even 20 years ago to go back to that argument). It would be closer to a very good n/a figure for a petrol, in fact my MNR makes about 150bhp/litre without forced induction but maybe that's cheating

What?
The 535i petrol is a 3ltr twin turbo with 306bhp so 102 BHP/ltr. That car is for sale today.




How about the 996 Turbo 420bhp 3.6ltr engine "super car" that's a mere 117bhp/ltr
How about the C7 RS6 5ltr v10 580bhp that's 116bhp/ltr.

[anonymous-user]

Ares said:

What 3.0 V8s put out over 380bhp in/before 1995? I thought the 1950s Studebaker was the smallest V8 at 232cu in (4l)?


But again....the comment was merely that technology has given is 20yr old (near) supercar power from diesel engines.


Don't worry, I'm not trying to rip your blinkers off

You are also forgetting the super high pressure common rail diesel, sequential twin turbos and electricery that give you that power, it didn't exist years ago and without it, your derv would make about 40hp, same as comparable diesels of the era. Look at the 0-100mph times as a better indication of progress.

[Welshbeef]

Welshbeef said:

T0MMY said:

Welshbeef said:

Well my 535d pumps out 104bhp/ltr - once it's remapped it will be up to 127bhp/ltr and a 5,500 red line.

Once remapped the BHP/tonne will be very similar to the C5 RS6 which is nice. It wil sound drive v the petrol clearly but it's a tool for the job

To be fair though, in the context of the diesel vs petrol power debate, that specific output would not be remotely high for a turbocharged petrol engine (even 20 years ago to go back to that argument). It would be closer to a very good n/a figure for a petrol, in fact my MNR makes about 150bhp/litre without forced induction but maybe that's cheating

What?
The 535i petrol is a 3ltr twin turbo with 306bhp so 102 BHP/ltr. That car is for sale today.




How about the 996 Turbo 420bhp 3.6ltr engine "super car" that's a mere 117bhp/ltr
How about the C7 RS6 5ltr v10 580bhp that's 116bhp/ltr.

Sorry I forgot the 550d engine so OEM 385bhp from 3ltr (you can remap it to 450bhp if you wished). But this OEM output is 128bhp/ltr which is dry high indeed.

Looking forward to you providing a sample of forced induction petrol a which beat this -

[anonymous-user]

Welshbeef said:

Sorry I forgot the 550d engine so OEM 385bhp from 3ltr (you can remap it to 450bhp if you wished). But this OEM output is 128bhp/ltr which is dry high indeed.

Looking forward to you providing a sample of forced induction petrol a which beat this -

The 2017 Ford GT will be powered by a 3.5L eco boost petrol making 600hp. Diesels will always be second best to petrols.

[Welshbeef]

swerni said:

Welshbeef said:

tgr said:

RobM77 said:

It's a bizarre thought that the 2 litre diesel now has almost the same power as my first E36 325i had all those years ago, and comfortably more than the E30 325!

Sure, but power-to-weight?

Well my 535d pumps out 104bhp/ltr - once it's remapped it will be up to 127bhp/ltr and a 5,500 red line.

Once remapped the BHP/tonne will be very similar to the C5 RS6 which is nice. It wil sound drive v the petrol clearly but it's a tool for the job

Still sounds like a taxi.
It's a tool for what job?

Noise is certainly not a plus - no diesel owner would disagree. Though they keep improving in this area from what they once were
Ideal for commuting and doing notable annual miles while having a decent amount of poke. Clearly we'd all like to have 9ltr supercharged cars but people have their own individual compromises.

[Fastdruid]

Welshbeef said:

Welshbeef said:

T0MMY said:

Welshbeef said:

Well my 535d pumps out 104bhp/ltr - once it's remapped it will be up to 127bhp/ltr and a 5,500 red line.

Once remapped the BHP/tonne will be very similar to the C5 RS6 which is nice. It wil sound drive v the petrol clearly but it's a tool for the job

To be fair though, in the context of the diesel vs petrol power debate, that specific output would not be remotely high for a turbocharged petrol engine (even 20 years ago to go back to that argument). It would be closer to a very good n/a figure for a petrol, in fact my MNR makes about 150bhp/litre without forced induction but maybe that's cheating

What?
The 535i petrol is a 3ltr twin turbo with 306bhp so 102 BHP/ltr. That car is for sale today.




How about the 996 Turbo 420bhp 3.6ltr engine "super car" that's a mere 117bhp/ltr
How about the C7 RS6 5ltr v10 580bhp that's 116bhp/ltr.

Sorry I forgot the 550d engine so OEM 385bhp from 3ltr (you can remap it to 450bhp if you wished). But this OEM output is 128bhp/ltr which is dry high indeed.

Looking forward to you providing a sample of forced induction petrol a which beat this -

Focus RS500, it makes 138BHP/litre.
Focus RS (2016) it'll make 150BHP/litre
Ecoboost 1l makes nearly the same as the 550d at 123BHP/litre.
Ecoboost 2.3 Makes 134BHP/litre (mustang)

Edited by Fastdruid on Wednesday 8th July 21:24

[lostkiwi]

Welshbeef said:

Welshbeef said:

T0MMY said:

Welshbeef said:

Well my 535d pumps out 104bhp/ltr - once it's remapped it will be up to 127bhp/ltr and a 5,500 red line.

Once remapped the BHP/tonne will be very similar to the C5 RS6 which is nice. It wil sound drive v the petrol clearly but it's a tool for the job

To be fair though, in the context of the diesel vs petrol power debate, that specific output would not be remotely high for a turbocharged petrol engine (even 20 years ago to go back to that argument). It would be closer to a very good n/a figure for a petrol, in fact my MNR makes about 150bhp/litre without forced induction but maybe that's cheating

What?
The 535i petrol is a 3ltr twin turbo with 306bhp so 102 BHP/ltr. That car is for sale today.




How about the 996 Turbo 420bhp 3.6ltr engine "super car" that's a mere 117bhp/ltr
How about the C7 RS6 5ltr v10 580bhp that's 116bhp/ltr.

Sorry I forgot the 550d engine so OEM 385bhp from 3ltr (you can remap it to 450bhp if you wished). But this OEM output is 128bhp/ltr which is dry high indeed.

Looking forward to you providing a sample of forced induction petrol a which beat this -

As mentioned previously... Brabus Smart Roadster... 102hp from 0.7 litres so by my reckoning 145bhp per litre. Single turbo, single cam, 6 valves and 3 cylinders. No three turbo trickery or complexity. Remaps can take them to 125hp so that's around 170hp per litre.

Mazda RX7 twin turbo is 250hp from a real displacement of just 1300cc. That's almost 200hp per litre if you ignore the stupid fudge factor applied to rotaries. RX8 without any turbos isn't far behind either.

[Welshbeef]

wormus said:

Welshbeef said:

Sorry I forgot the 550d engine so OEM 385bhp from 3ltr (you can remap it to 450bhp if you wished). But this OEM output is 128bhp/ltr which is dry high indeed.

Looking forward to you providing a sample of forced induction petrol a which beat this -

The 2017 Ford GT will be powered by a 3.5L eco boost petrol making 600hp. Diesels will always be second best to petrols.

I'd call that a supercar/hypercar? Certainly in the 200mph club -- anyway that offers up 171bhp/ltr



Let's compare the M5 v 550d
550d is 128bhp/ltr
M5 is a 560bhp with 4.4 ltrs .... Guess what specific output it has....127bhp/ltr
That was chosen purely by chance

[ORD]

I was going to write something meaningful about looking back in 20 years time (when petrol and diesel cars will be banned) and thinking 'Why on Earth was I driving around in an eco-engined diesel car?!'

But I couldn't get deeply into that thought experiment because I kept getting sidetracked thinking about how many things (and it is a lot) taste better than a six pack feels.

Fillet steak
Rib eye steak
Peppercorn sauce
Good roast potatoes
Hazelnut ice cream
Seafood risotto
Lamb curry
....

[Patrick Bateman]

[cerb4.5lee]

ORD said:

I was going to write something meaningful about looking back in 20 years time (when petrol and diesel cars will be banned) and thinking 'Why on Earth was I driving around in an eco-engined diesel car?!'

But I couldn't get deeply into that thought experiment because I kept getting sidetracked thinking about how many things (and it is a lot) taste better than a six pack feels.

Fillet steak
Rib eye steak
Peppercorn sauce
Good roast potatoes
Hazelnut ice cream
Seafood risotto
Lamb curry
....

Brilliant!

[Welshbeef]

Fastdruid said:

Focus RS500, it makes 138BHP/litre.
Focus RS (2016) it'll make 150BHP/litre
Ecoboost 1l makes nearly the same as the 550d at 123BHP/litre.
Ecoboost 2.3 Makes 134BHP/litre (mustang)

Edited by Fastdruid on Wednesday 8th July 21:24

So what your saying is the 996 Turbo, M5 v8 twin turbo RS6 v10 bi turbo have pretty rubbish BHP/ltr may as well buy a Focus hot hatch instead....

You see my point

[Welshbeef]

M550d is 381bhp (corrected) so 127bhp/ltr
Hartage upgrade takes this to 438bhp so that is 146bhp/ltr not far off the Ford GT mentioned earlier and significantly above the M5.



Also those posting up pea shooter capacity engines v a 3ltr lets play in the same ball park else let's post up Radio Controlled car turbo engines or turno hybusa units.

[rb5er]

My car is 16 years old. It manages 120 bhp/ltr, thats with no mods at all.

An evo 9 fq360 from 9 years ago manages 180 bhp/ltr and its not even the most powerful version of the car.

Diesels are slowly catching up with 15 year old petrol cars in this regard but they are still sounding like tractors and generally not much fun at all.

Life is too short to drive around in diesels and try and pretend they are just as good as the petrol equivalent when you know they just aren`t.

[Fastdruid]

Welshbeef said:

Fastdruid said:

Focus RS500, it makes 138BHP/litre.
Focus RS (2016) it'll make 150BHP/litre
Ecoboost 1l makes nearly the same as the 550d at 123BHP/litre.
Ecoboost 2.3 Makes 134BHP/litre (mustang)

So what your saying is the 996 Turbo, M5 v8 twin turbo RS6 v10 bi turbo have pretty rubbish BHP/ltr may as well buy a Focus hot hatch instead....

You see my point

Not really because you keep changing your mind. You asked for examples that beat 128BHP/litre. I gave you 3 and one common engine that nearly matches it off the top of my head.

If you want the RS6 V10 *does* have pretty rubbish BHP/litre because that's not what they aimed for when they designed it.

[Fastdruid]

Welshbeef said:

M550d is 381bhp (corrected) so 127bhp/ltr
Hartage upgrade takes this to 438bhp so that is 146bhp/ltr not far off the Ford GT mentioned earlier and significantly above the M5.



Also those posting up pea shooter capacity engines v a 3ltr lets play in the same ball park else let's post up Radio Controlled car turbo engines or turno hybusa units.

No. The Current Ford GT is a 3.5l making 600hp so 171BHP/Litre. The old one was only 101BHP/litre.