RE: New tri-turbo BMW 550d to get 381hp, 516lb ft

[E38Ross]

Welshbeef said:

What you are saying is if it rev more it would produce more power. However if an engine produces way more than enough power at 4,200rpm why would you need more revs?

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying. And hey, why not limit it further because hey, 100bhp is enough.

I don't know why I'm arguing this, i think the 550d is a great idea.

[Welshbeef]

The Stiglet said:

Welshbeef said:

Zwolf said:

Welshbeef said:

Isn't there also a new gearbox being developed that allows it to coast

The PDK 'box in the 991 does that, which is why it's official figures are markedly better than the manual. However, in practice there's little to stop people coasting in manuals either, or dropping a TC auto into neutral...

Fully agree on the manual ability to coast - but the new gearox would be doing this o and off on the mway, I'd not bother to put it in neutral then back into 6th manual gear constantly that should be a robotised task.


have never put my car from D to N while the car is moving didnt think it was possible but again it would be a lot of additional in ad out over & over spending a lot of time

And how tight would you have to be to do that?! Very improbable verging on urban myth.

Thats the point though, the difference between the 6 speed and 8 speed already has increased mpg from mid 30's to 51mpg.... so when the 9 speed with coast function comes along then that will deliver yet another notable increase.

[Zwolf]

9 gears and paddles - I can see me playing tunes with it more than actually driving.

[tinoproductions]

bhing and moaning aside, if we all step back and think what BMW are proposing would be unthinkable 10 years ago.

As much power as an e39 M5, with circa half or less the fuel consumption.

Wonder where we will be in another 10 years time?

[ikarl]

E38Ross said:

ikarl said:

E38Ross said:

thinfourth2 said:

It would be even faster then my old caterham

But somehow i belive it might be less fun

Rofl, you really know how to compare apples with oranges don't you! Why on earth would you compare a big executive saloon to a Caterham? I wonder if any person ever has gone into the market looking for a powerful big saloon car and bought a Caterham instead.

I believe it was done in response to the 'traffic light Grand Prix' point.....did you not bother reading that?

Yes I did, but fail to see, in that case, why he bothered to mention the fun factor then. In fact, why not say a rolls Royce phantoms faster to 100 than a Caterham, but it's less fun. That means the caterham is better, ya know.

I think you are still missing the point

When talking about the 'TLGP' the poster said it would be awesome... it's not comparing apples with oranges when thinforth said that it would be faster than his caterham, though it wouldn't be as much fun. I believe the whole point of it is to point out that 0-60 at traffic lights will not make it an awesome car, that there are probably a lot more cars more 'awesome' than one that has 400hp and can do one thing well

HTH

[Welshbeef]

What will it's top gear lap time be

[Johnboy Mac]

E38Ross said:

For the person who said I can't understand why people would buy this, think of it from another perspective. If this costs similar to a 550i, why would some people buy a 550i when this offers similar power without a need for regular trips to the pumps.

I'll personally prefer the v8 petrol...

[E38Ross]

Johnboy Mac said:

Nice of you to cut the rest of the quote I said I'd have the v8 but only for subjective matters, doesn't mean some people don't want a fast car without poor fuel economy.

Straight six bmw diesels are great engines.

[Johnboy Mac]

E38Ross said:

Straight six bmw diesels are great engines.

^^^ anything enlightening to say?


Look, you get on here with OTT fanboy attitude and it's tiresome and some more. Get a life, drive a vast array of different makes & models including owning them, not just two old BM's and then the likes of myself (owner of 7 or 8 Bm's) and no doubt some others may actually respect you OTT opinions. Until then I will if I feel like it reply to you using 'smilies' even if you don't quote me directly.

[ZeeTacoe]

doogz said:

ZeeTacoe said:

Brill but you can only do that once every 15 seconds.That's no power at all.

Every 15 seconds? You've lost me now. Although you're starting to get the point, it's about power, and not just torque. IMO power is the more useful figure, my old 6 litre Merc had something like 300lbft of torque. Slowest thing i've ever driven though. And yeah, weight was a big part of that, but so was the 130 odd horsepower it produced.

I was thinking how long it would take for you to stand on a 1 foot breaker bar , turn it through 90deg and then reset. I was thinking how many rpm you could output your 250 lbft.

Dagnut said:

ZeeTacoe said:

Brill but you can only do that once every 15 seconds.That's no power at all.

How torque do you think an F1 car makes?

Not many but they rev to 18000 rpm and probably make peak power at many multiples of the important 5252 number hence the oft quoted power outputs of 740hp

Welshbeef said:

What will it's top gear lap time be

Quick like the 535d but secretly everyone still wants an M5(an e60 or e34 deep down)

[E38Ross]

Johnboy Mac said:

^^^ anything enlightening to say?


Look, you get on here with OTT fanboy attitude and it's tiresome and some more. Get a life, drive a vast array of different makes & models including owning them, not just two old BM's and then the likes of myself (owner of 7 or 8 Bm's) and no doubt some others may actually respect you OTT opinions. Until then I will if I feel like it reply to you using 'smilies' even if you don't quote me directly.

just because i've only owned 2, doesn't mean i haven't driven more.

just for clarity though, is my saying i'd rather have a V8 petrol over the diesel being fanboy-like, or my saying that the diesel is still a good engine?

the fact i've been saying multiple times through the thread why petrols tend to produce more power because some seem to think torque alone is the be all and end all.

[Zwolf]

ZeeTacoe said:

doogz said:

ZeeTacoe said:

Brill but you can only do that once every 15 seconds.That's no power at all.

Every 15 seconds? You've lost me now. Although you're starting to get the point, it's about power, and not just torque. IMO power is the more useful figure, my old 6 litre Merc had something like 300lbft of torque. Slowest thing i've ever driven though. And yeah, weight was a big part of that, but so was the 130 odd horsepower it produced.

I was thinking how long it would take for you to stand on a 1 foot breaker bar , turn it through 90deg and then reset. I was thinking how many rpm you could output your 250 lbft.

Exactly, at what rate can work be done (a given amount of torque can be applied): (force x distance)/time = power.

To apply that to shaft power, that equation becomes:



250 lb ft x 1 rpm (a quarter turn every 15 secs)/5252 = 0.0476 horsepower.

250 lb ft x 4,000 rpm / 5,252 = 190 horsepower.

250 lb ft x 8,000 rpm / 5,252 = 381 horsepower.

250 lb ft x 17,000rpm / 5,252 = 809 horsepower.

They're all the same amount of work, but the rate at which that can be applied is what gives rise to the resultant power figure.

Note that the 5,252 is a mathematical constant, not an rpm figure.

Edited by Zwolf on Friday 25th November 15:02

[jamesghwilson]

Zwolf said:

ZeeTacoe said:

doogz said:

ZeeTacoe said:

Brill but you can only do that once every 15 seconds.That's no power at all.

Every 15 seconds? You've lost me now. Although you're starting to get the point, it's about power, and not just torque. IMO power is the more useful figure, my old 6 litre Merc had something like 300lbft of torque. Slowest thing i've ever driven though. And yeah, weight was a big part of that, but so was the 130 odd horsepower it produced.

I was thinking how long it would take for you to stand on a 1 foot breaker bar , turn it through 90deg and then reset. I was thinking how many rpm you could output your 250 lbft.

Exactly, at what rate can work be done (a given amount of torque can be applied): (force x distance)/time = power.

To apply that to shaft power, that equation becomes:



250 lb ft x 1 rpm (a quarter turn every 15 secs)/5252 = 0.0476 horsepower.

250 lb ft x 4,000 rpm / 5,252 = 190 horsepower.

250 lb ft x 8,000 rpm / 5,252 = 381 horsepower.

250 lb ft x 17,000rpm / 5,252 = 809 horsepower.

They're all the same amount of work, but the rate at which that can be applied is what gives rise to the resultant power figure.

Note that the 5,252 is a mathematical constant, not an rpm figure.

Edited by Zwolf on Friday 25th November 15:02

Like!

[thinfourth2]

E38Ross said:

Yes I did, but fail to see, in that case, why he bothered to mention the fun factor then. In fact, why not say a rolls Royce phantoms faster to 100 than a Caterham, but it's less fun. That means the caterham is better, ya know.

yeah why bother with the fun factor

What kind of retard would want a fun car when they can have a fast one instead

[E38Ross]

thinfourth2 said:

E38Ross said:

Yes I did, but fail to see, in that case, why he bothered to mention the fun factor then. In fact, why not say a rolls Royce phantoms faster to 100 than a Caterham, but it's less fun. That means the caterham is better, ya know.

yeah why bother with the fun factor

What kind of retard would want a fun car when they can have a fast one instead

well there is no point in comparing a caterham with a 5 series diesel ffs.

as i said, could you imagine walking into a rolls royce dealership, test driving a phantom and thinking "hmmm, this isn't as fun as a caterham or ariel atom, so i think i'll leave the roller and go for one of those"

in the case of caterham vs 550d, one of built primarily for fun, the other is built to be comfortable, quiet, refined, reasonably economical and quick and more than survivable over extremely long drives whilst being able to carry 4-5 adults in comfort with luggage. they're not in the same market segment.

you should really be comparing how fun it is to drive compared to its rivals (e.g. audi A6, merc E class and so on).

i understand what you mean about a fun car, but at least compare similar cars.

[thinfourth2]

E38Ross said:

well there is no point in comparing a caterham with a 5 series diesel ffs.


.

Pistonheads

diesel powered leather armchairs matter

[E38Ross]

thinfourth2 said:

E38Ross said:

well there is no point in comparing a caterham with a 5 series diesel ffs.


.

Pistonheads

diesel powered leather armchairs matter

Good, well thought out response that

[thinfourth2]

E38Ross said:

Good, well thought out response that

Okay lets look at what i said that put your nose out of joint

thinfourth2 said:

Mr.Jimbo said:

I'm still imagining what an AWD M550Dx or whatever they'll call it would be like at the traffic light GP, Mental! Imagine with a DSG box, that would be awesome.

It would be even faster then my old caterham

But somehow i belive it might be less fun

MENTAL and AWESOME are really not words that can be applied to a lardy diesel saloon car.

MENTAL and AWESOME are normally applied to things that are on the fringe and are silly

A diesel saloon car is quite sensible and dull



if this offends you

I really don't care

[thinfourth2]

inkiboo said:

thinfourth2 said:

MENTAL and AWESOME are really not words that can be applied to a lardy diesel saloon car.

I'd say a 550d is more MENTAL and AWESOME than a 1.6 Focus.

OH MY GOD you insulted my car

Thats it I'm not playing any more

No you are right a 1.6 focus is not mental or awesome but it cost me 400 pounds its allowed to be st nor am i claiming it to be awesome

however on the mental/awesome scale its only a few rad points behind the diesel saloon car

[thinfourth2]

inkiboo said:

My suggestion was given you have never owned a BMW 5 series saloon you have no idea what you are talking about.

My owning a focus means i'm not allowed to get in any BMW let alone test drive one so you are completely correct