RE: Hit For Six - New BMW Turbos To Replace V8s?
Thursday 25th June 2009
It's not a V8, but it's still pretty tasty...The days of the naturally aspirated BMW V8 could be numbered, as BMW has unveiled two new turbocharged straight-six engines – one diesel and one petrol – that could eventually replace V8 power units for most Bee-em customers.
Hit For Six - New BMW Turbos To Replace V8s?
BMW reveals new turbocharged sixes; the days of the V8 could be numbered
It's not a V8, but it's still pretty tasty...
On the petrol side is a new 3.0-litre unit called TwinPower. Confusingly, the new unit actually uses a twin-scroll single turbo rather than twin parallel turbochargers used in BMW’s existing 3.0-litre turbo six. It’s also the first BMW unit to combine turbocharging and high-pressure injection with Valvetronic variable valve timing.
Although the new twin-scroll turbocharged straight six develops the same 302bhp and 295lb ft as its stablemate, C02 emissions drop from 218g/km to 209g/km. More importantly from the PH point of view, however, is the fact that the full compliment of torque is available from 1200rpm right through to 5100rpm, giving the new engine the same sort of effortless thrust, says BMW, that a normally aspirated V8 provides.
On the diesel front, a new range-topping twin-turbo unit gets extensive modifications that push power up from 282bhp to 302bhp and torque from 427lb ft to a thoroughly healthy 442lb ft. Most significant of the changes is the new ‘variable twin turbo’ arrangement, which uses one low-pressure turbo and one high-pressure turbo.
While the days of the BMW petrol V8 may be numbered (and recent rumours suggest that even the next generation of M cars may get turbo sixes instead of n-a V8s), if the latest developments are anything to go by BMW fans should be able to rest assured that BMW’sdrive for extra efficiency won’t come at the expense of power!
Discussion
Noooo!!!
We want revs...LOTS of 'em! Peak torque ending at 5,100rpm is almost diesel-like, and is entirely NOT in keeping with the M-car philosophy.
A high-revving turbo isn't impossible...not only have F1 managed it but Subaru and Evo have both done very good jobs of it too.
Oh...Riggers...some of us really DON'T care about torque, except insofar as how it relates to gearing...some of us would actually rather we had to use the gearbox to access the power...so don't say "more importantly to PH"!!!
Edit: It's clear why they're doing it - emissions - the Combined Cycle (thanks evo for the explanatory article) favours engines with a lot of low-down torque, hence turbo's and particularly those tuned to kick-in early on...which precludes (to a large degree) high-revs. So the lentilists ARE killing performance cars, at least for those of us who like revvy n/a engines...
We want revs...LOTS of 'em! Peak torque ending at 5,100rpm is almost diesel-like, and is entirely NOT in keeping with the M-car philosophy.
A high-revving turbo isn't impossible...not only have F1 managed it but Subaru and Evo have both done very good jobs of it too.
Oh...Riggers...some of us really DON'T care about torque, except insofar as how it relates to gearing...some of us would actually rather we had to use the gearbox to access the power...so don't say "more importantly to PH"!!!
Edit: It's clear why they're doing it - emissions - the Combined Cycle (thanks evo for the explanatory article) favours engines with a lot of low-down torque, hence turbo's and particularly those tuned to kick-in early on...which precludes (to a large degree) high-revs. So the lentilists ARE killing performance cars, at least for those of us who like revvy n/a engines...
Edited by havoc on Thursday 25th June 13:42
havoc said:
Noooo!!!
We want revs...LOTS of 'em! Peak torque ending at 5,100rpm is almost diesel-like, and is entirely NOT in keeping with the M-car philosophy.
A high-revving turbo isn't impossible...not only have F1 managed it but Subaru and Evo have both done very good jobs of it too.
Oh...Riggers...some of us really DON'T care about torque, except insofar as how it relates to gearing...some of us would actually rather we had to use the gearbox to access the power...so don't say "more importantly to PH"!!!
Edit: It's clear why they're doing it - emissions - the Combined Cycle (thanks evo for the explanatory article) favours engines with a lot of low-down torque, hence turbo's and particularly those tuned to kick-in early on...which precludes (to a large degree) high-revs. So the lentilists ARE killing performance cars, at least for those of us who like revvy n/a engines...
...agreed ...what happens then after 5100rpm..??...no more power..We want revs...LOTS of 'em! Peak torque ending at 5,100rpm is almost diesel-like, and is entirely NOT in keeping with the M-car philosophy.
A high-revving turbo isn't impossible...not only have F1 managed it but Subaru and Evo have both done very good jobs of it too.
Oh...Riggers...some of us really DON'T care about torque, except insofar as how it relates to gearing...some of us would actually rather we had to use the gearbox to access the power...so don't say "more importantly to PH"!!!
Edit: It's clear why they're doing it - emissions - the Combined Cycle (thanks evo for the explanatory article) favours engines with a lot of low-down torque, hence turbo's and particularly those tuned to kick-in early on...which precludes (to a large degree) high-revs. So the lentilists ARE killing performance cars, at least for those of us who like revvy n/a engines...
Edited by havoc on Thursday 25th June 13:42
my car pulls like a train after 5000rpm and goes on to 8000rpm....
said:
On the diesel front, a new range-topping twin-turbo unit gets extensive modifications that push power up from 282bhp to 302bhp and torque from 427lb ft to a thoroughly healthy 442lb ft. Most significant of the changes is the new ‘variable twin turbo’ arrangement, which uses one low-pressure turbo and one high-pressure turbo.
Diesel car are getting seriously quick now.Since passing my driving test (1991) I swore I'd never own a Diesel car. Too slow, noisy, dirty etc.
Bought a VW Golf GT Sport 170 TDI last year (Got bored of the Impreza) after being very supprised at how quick Diesels are now. OK, the Golf is hardly the quickest out there, but BMW are now getting 302bhp & 442lb ft Torque of their engines. Sticking that in a 3 series is going to make one hell of a quick car.
Only problem I find now, is I do miss the higher rev band of a petrol unit, but 40mpg is a good substitute.
Edited by wab172uk on Thursday 25th June 13:53
Edited by wab172uk on Thursday 25th June 13:54
davidcharles said:
havoc said:
Noooo!!!
We want revs...LOTS of 'em! Peak torque ending at 5,100rpm is almost diesel-like, and is entirely NOT in keeping with the M-car philosophy.
A high-revving turbo isn't impossible...not only have F1 managed it but Subaru and Evo have both done very good jobs of it too.
Oh...Riggers...some of us really DON'T care about torque, except insofar as how it relates to gearing...some of us would actually rather we had to use the gearbox to access the power...so don't say "more importantly to PH"!!!
Edit: It's clear why they're doing it - emissions - the Combined Cycle (thanks evo for the explanatory article) favours engines with a lot of low-down torque, hence turbo's and particularly those tuned to kick-in early on...which precludes (to a large degree) high-revs. So the lentilists ARE killing performance cars, at least for those of us who like revvy n/a engines...
...agreed ...what happens then after 5100rpm..??...no more power..We want revs...LOTS of 'em! Peak torque ending at 5,100rpm is almost diesel-like, and is entirely NOT in keeping with the M-car philosophy.
A high-revving turbo isn't impossible...not only have F1 managed it but Subaru and Evo have both done very good jobs of it too.
Oh...Riggers...some of us really DON'T care about torque, except insofar as how it relates to gearing...some of us would actually rather we had to use the gearbox to access the power...so don't say "more importantly to PH"!!!
Edit: It's clear why they're doing it - emissions - the Combined Cycle (thanks evo for the explanatory article) favours engines with a lot of low-down torque, hence turbo's and particularly those tuned to kick-in early on...which precludes (to a large degree) high-revs. So the lentilists ARE killing performance cars, at least for those of us who like revvy n/a engines...
Edited by havoc on Thursday 25th June 13:42
my car pulls like a train after 5000rpm and goes on to 8000rpm....
busta said:
davidcharles said:
havoc said:
Noooo!!!
We want revs...LOTS of 'em! Peak torque ending at 5,100rpm is almost diesel-like, and is entirely NOT in keeping with the M-car philosophy.
A high-revving turbo isn't impossible...not only have F1 managed it but Subaru and Evo have both done very good jobs of it too.
Oh...Riggers...some of us really DON'T care about torque, except insofar as how it relates to gearing...some of us would actually rather we had to use the gearbox to access the power...so don't say "more importantly to PH"!!!
Edit: It's clear why they're doing it - emissions - the Combined Cycle (thanks evo for the explanatory article) favours engines with a lot of low-down torque, hence turbo's and particularly those tuned to kick-in early on...which precludes (to a large degree) high-revs. So the lentilists ARE killing performance cars, at least for those of us who like revvy n/a engines...
...agreed ...what happens then after 5100rpm..??...no more power..We want revs...LOTS of 'em! Peak torque ending at 5,100rpm is almost diesel-like, and is entirely NOT in keeping with the M-car philosophy.
A high-revving turbo isn't impossible...not only have F1 managed it but Subaru and Evo have both done very good jobs of it too.
Oh...Riggers...some of us really DON'T care about torque, except insofar as how it relates to gearing...some of us would actually rather we had to use the gearbox to access the power...so don't say "more importantly to PH"!!!
Edit: It's clear why they're doing it - emissions - the Combined Cycle (thanks evo for the explanatory article) favours engines with a lot of low-down torque, hence turbo's and particularly those tuned to kick-in early on...which precludes (to a large degree) high-revs. So the lentilists ARE killing performance cars, at least for those of us who like revvy n/a engines...
Edited by havoc on Thursday 25th June 13:42
my car pulls like a train after 5000rpm and goes on to 8000rpm....
Just think of the potential tuning possibilities!! 
You'll be able to squeeze a lot of extra power from one of these (30/40/50bhp!!) just by fiddling with the ECU. As has been said already just because the torque runs out at 5100rpm don't assume it will be rubbish thereafter. On a six speed box in 5th or 6th gears 5100 rpm is a lot of MPH.
Those twin scroll turbos are brilliant, much better than the single scroll effort like the VF35 on my scoob because they spool up much earlier. Mind you a turbo that kicks in at 1200rpm will run out of puff well before the redline but then i assume the variable valve timing kicks in just before it runs out of torque to keep it all moving along.
It wouldn't surprise if these new straight 6's easily rev to 7500rpm. Sounds like good times ahead for bimmer drivers!!
You'll be able to squeeze a lot of extra power from one of these (30/40/50bhp!!) just by fiddling with the ECU. As has been said already just because the torque runs out at 5100rpm don't assume it will be rubbish thereafter. On a six speed box in 5th or 6th gears 5100 rpm is a lot of MPH.
Those twin scroll turbos are brilliant, much better than the single scroll effort like the VF35 on my scoob because they spool up much earlier. Mind you a turbo that kicks in at 1200rpm will run out of puff well before the redline but then i assume the variable valve timing kicks in just before it runs out of torque to keep it all moving along.
It wouldn't surprise if these new straight 6's easily rev to 7500rpm. Sounds like good times ahead for bimmer drivers!!
leon9191 said:
"and recent rumours suggest that even the next generation of M cars may get turbo sixes instead of n-a V8s".
And kill off that long legacy of v8 M cars. There has been TWO of them. Like some one said before why not an N/A straight six? The German power wars maybe.
BMW have made some of the best V8's in the business for a long time now, irrespective of the V8 //M dynasty (or lack thereof).And kill off that long legacy of v8 M cars. There has been TWO of them. Like some one said before why not an N/A straight six? The German power wars maybe.
Xerces said:
More importantly are we ever going to see another N/A 'M' six?
No chance as you can't have a M division car withoutSat-nav, electric seats, electric windows, 28 computers, air-con, 57 air bags, HUGE wheels, tv screen, built in phone, stupid pointless gadgets, cruise control, a miles of wiring, a large selection of electric motors etc and so on
asbo said:
leon9191 said:
"and recent rumours suggest that even the next generation of M cars may get turbo sixes instead of n-a V8s".
And kill off that long legacy of v8 M cars. There has been TWO of them. Like some one said before why not an N/A straight six? The German power wars maybe.
BMW have made some of the best V8's in the business for a long time now, irrespective of the V8 //M dynasty (or lack thereof).And kill off that long legacy of v8 M cars. There has been TWO of them. Like some one said before why not an N/A straight six? The German power wars maybe.
davidcharles said:
havoc said:
Noooo!!!
We want revs...LOTS of 'em! Peak torque ending at 5,100rpm is almost diesel-like, and is entirely NOT in keeping with the M-car philosophy.
A high-revving turbo isn't impossible...not only have F1 managed it but Subaru and Evo have both done very good jobs of it too.
Oh...Riggers...some of us really DON'T care about torque, except insofar as how it relates to gearing...some of us would actually rather we had to use the gearbox to access the power...so don't say "more importantly to PH"!!!
Edit: It's clear why they're doing it - emissions - the Combined Cycle (thanks evo for the explanatory article) favours engines with a lot of low-down torque, hence turbo's and particularly those tuned to kick-in early on...which precludes (to a large degree) high-revs. So the lentilists ARE killing performance cars, at least for those of us who like revvy n/a engines...
...agreed ...what happens then after 5100rpm..??...no more power..We want revs...LOTS of 'em! Peak torque ending at 5,100rpm is almost diesel-like, and is entirely NOT in keeping with the M-car philosophy.
A high-revving turbo isn't impossible...not only have F1 managed it but Subaru and Evo have both done very good jobs of it too.
Oh...Riggers...some of us really DON'T care about torque, except insofar as how it relates to gearing...some of us would actually rather we had to use the gearbox to access the power...so don't say "more importantly to PH"!!!
Edit: It's clear why they're doing it - emissions - the Combined Cycle (thanks evo for the explanatory article) favours engines with a lot of low-down torque, hence turbo's and particularly those tuned to kick-in early on...which precludes (to a large degree) high-revs. So the lentilists ARE killing performance cars, at least for those of us who like revvy n/a engines...
Edited by havoc on Thursday 25th June 13:42
my car pulls like a train after 5000rpm and goes on to 8000rpm....
On my B4 its sequential so the primary kicks from 2000-4800 then theres switch over point from 4800 to 5000 where the primary and secondary boost together to 7600rpm....so you get a nice wide band of torque..the problem being the slight drop of in torque you get on the switch over. So in the later model Subaru fitted a Twin scroll to address the issue of the void try and achieve the wide torque curve but its not as good produces the same claimed peak power but is not as quick.
The tt set up on the 335i is one of the best Ive driven I couldn't believe it was only 300bhp...I dont think the twin scroll can emulate it...but as scoobiewrx says the vvt will kick in to compensate for the drop in torque so I could be wrong
Edited by Dagnut on Thursday 25th June 15:08
leon9191 said:
asbo said:
leon9191 said:
"and recent rumours suggest that even the next generation of M cars may get turbo sixes instead of n-a V8s".
And kill off that long legacy of v8 M cars. There has been TWO of them. Like some one said before why not an N/A straight six? The German power wars maybe.
BMW have made some of the best V8's in the business for a long time now, irrespective of the V8 //M dynasty (or lack thereof).And kill off that long legacy of v8 M cars. There has been TWO of them. Like some one said before why not an N/A straight six? The German power wars maybe.
Look back through BMW's lineage though and find me a turbo'd //M car.
Just out of interest, how many people lamenting the demise of the big V8 have ever actually bought one? It's all well and good griping about it on here, but would you actually put your money where your mouth is and buy one? Especially when the same (or more) power can be had with lower consumption but not at the expense of driveability..?
Quoting grammer errors is just childish.
Guess they had no choice, EU emissions regs and high power are more difficult/more expensive to gain hand in hand from NA engines.
Other option is to lose weight but as someone said M cars these days must have all the toys to be economically viable. BMW make lots of money from the options chart.
Guess they had no choice, EU emissions regs and high power are more difficult/more expensive to gain hand in hand from NA engines.
Other option is to lose weight but as someone said M cars these days must have all the toys to be economically viable. BMW make lots of money from the options chart.
Edited by daz05 on Thursday 25th June 15:19
Edited by daz05 on Thursday 25th June 15:23
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff