Can't stand all these buzzy little engines these days

[Ares]

bodhi said:

I'm with the OP to a degree, not so much bemoaning losing a 2 litre N/A for a 1 litre Turbo, but up a range. I'm lucky enough to drive one of the last BMW's fitted with an N/A Straight 6, and for everyday use it is an absolute joy - tractable and smooth around town, quick when prodded with a big stick, and at all times provides the user with a lovely cultured soundtrack.

I spent 1200 miles in the US driving a 430i with the new 4 Cylinder Turbo replacement, and I'm struggling to see any way it was superior to the old N52. Fuel consumption was about the same (20 - 25 in town, 40 ish on the Highway), it had less power (252bhp vs 265) and didn't sound as good. It was an effective tool, but a definite step back on the old 6 imo.

At least BMW will still offer you a 6, albeit with turbos attached.

That's a slightly tangential comparison. A two-litre 4-pot turbo will seldom hit the spot like a 3litre 6-pot.

But from a technical perspective, the new 30i engine, devoid of character it might be, gives better performance, more drivability and your test notwithstanding, improved fuel consumption.

Nudge up a level, and the technical benefits are easy to see (emotional benefits are another issue). I've just done a weekend in Scotland in my 500bhp saloon. I got just over 500 miles from a 60 litre tank thanks to a predominantly motorway based journey. Thats 40mpg.

3 years ago I did the same journey in an XKR, same horsepower, sat at 5mph less on the motorway and only just got 20mpg. The Jag sounded better, but that's it. It was harder work to 'make progress' due to less engine flexibility and made the journey less fun all round.

Ditto the M3. The shift from 4l V8 to 3l TT S6 might have lost some beard love, but the car is easier to drive, less compromised and far more efficient.

I also drove a new 911.2 Carrera S over the weekend, 3.0T rather than 3.8 NA. Sorry to say, but IMO/IME, it's a better car for it.

[bodhi]

Ares said:

That's a slightly tangential comparison. A two-litre 4-pot turbo will seldom hit the spot like a 3litre 6-pot.

But from a technical perspective, the new 30i engine, devoid of character it might be, gives better performance, more drivability and your test notwithstanding, improved fuel consumption.

Nudge up a level, and the technical benefits are easy to see (emotional benefits are another issue). I've just done a weekend in Scotland in my 500bhp saloon. I got just over 500 miles from a 60 litre tank thanks to a predominantly motorway based journey. Thats 40mpg.

3 years ago I did the same journey in an XKR, same horsepower, sat at 5mph less on the motorway and only just got 20mpg. The Jag sounded better, but that's it. It was harder work to 'make progress' due to less engine flexibility and made the journey less fun all round.

Ditto the M3. The shift from 4l V8 to 3l TT S6 might have lost some beard love, but the car is easier to drive, less compromised and far more efficient.

I also drove a new 911.2 Carrera S over the weekend, 3.0T rather than 3.8 NA. Sorry to say, but IMO/IME, it's a better car for it.

Not really, it's a direct comparison of an "old-school" engine with it's direct replacement, and I'm sorry but I cannot agree with your assessment - the only marginal gains are in economy, and they don't really translate into the real world from my experience. However performance and drvieability are in no way better on the new x30i lump. Power is down vs the old N53 (272 bhp vs 252), and the old lump had a more useable rev range (2,000 all the way to 7,000, whereas the 4 pot loses interest about 5500).

Other examples I would probably agree with you, but not in this case. BMW's cars are worse off now the N/A 6 is history.

[gizlaroc]

Ares said:

That's a slightly tangential comparison. A two-litre 4-pot turbo will seldom hit the spot like a 3litre 6-pot.

But a turbo 3 litre 6 cylinder is a better all rounder than the NA 4 litre V8?


Errr. OK.

[gizlaroc]

Can you not see just how thin your arguments are.

It is about preference, it is personal.

That's all there is to it.

[Ares]

bodhi said:

Not really, it's a direct comparison of an "old-school" engine with it's direct replacement, and I'm sorry but I cannot agree with your assessment - the only marginal gains are in economy, and they don't really translate into the real world from my experience. However performance and drvieability are in no way better on the new x30i lump. Power is down vs the old N53 (272 bhp vs 252), and the old lump had a more useable rev range (2,000 all the way to 7,000, whereas the 4 pot loses interest about 5500).

Other examples I would probably agree with you, but not in this case. BMW's cars are worse off now the N/A 6 is history.

The old 330i revs higher, but that doesn't make it more useable, I'd argue it made it less useable.

On performance, the 4-pot 330i is quicker due to the engine flexibility. Only .3 sec or so to 60mph, but 1.5-2secs quicker to 100mph more. It's also more fuel efficient.

Technicals aside though, and it's a very different case. I had an E90 330i. Loved it. I wouldn't contemplate the new 330i purely as I'd want the 6-pot soundtrack. But I'd accept the newer car/engine is technically superior.

Edited by Ares on Monday 29th October 14:22

[Ares]

gizlaroc said:

Ares said:

That's a slightly tangential comparison. A two-litre 4-pot turbo will seldom hit the spot like a 3litre 6-pot.

But a turbo 3 litre 6 cylinder is a better all rounder than the NA 4 litre V8?


Errr. OK.

As an all rounder, in the M3's case, yes. IMO.

[gizlaroc]

Ares said:

gizlaroc said:

Ares said:

That's a slightly tangential comparison. A two-litre 4-pot turbo will seldom hit the spot like a 3litre 6-pot.

But a turbo 3 litre 6 cylinder is a better all rounder than the NA 4 litre V8?


Errr. OK.

As an all rounder, in the M3's case, yes. IMO.

That wasn't the point.

The point is, for some it is, for some it isn't.

[Ares]

gizlaroc said:

Ares said:

gizlaroc said:

Ares said:

That's a slightly tangential comparison. A two-litre 4-pot turbo will seldom hit the spot like a 3litre 6-pot.

But a turbo 3 litre 6 cylinder is a better all rounder than the NA 4 litre V8?


Errr. OK.

As an all rounder, in the M3's case, yes. IMO.

That wasn't the point.

The point is, for some it is, for some it isn't.

....but it was the point you made...?

....and was pretty much what I said....?

[cerb4.5lee]

I'm on a similar page to Ares, I've had the 4 litre V8 NA M3 and I much preferred the M4 when I drove one. Also had the 3 litre NA in a E90 330i, and I'd prefer the 4 cylinder 2 litre Turbo in the current 330i.

Agree that its all personal preference for sure, I didn't like the fact that you had to thrash the NA 330i and NA M3 to get them to feel lively. I prefer the lower down punch of a Turbo engine much more.

Try driving around everywhere at 8400rpm in the M3...its not that easy or good for keeping your licence! In the NA 330i max power is still high at 6600rpm, both cars feel pretty limp low down because of it.

Agree that the 2 litre Turbo is reluctant over 5500rpm though, you do get a nice shove early doors which I prefer though. Some prefer everything at the top end like the NA 330i/M3, whereas some prefer more punch lower down from the engines with a turbo(or two).

[bodhi]

cerb4.5lee said:

I'm on a similar page to Ares, I've had the 4 litre V8 NA M3 and I much preferred the M4 when I drove one. Also had the 3 litre NA in a E90 330i, and I'd prefer the 4 cylinder 2 litre Turbo in the current 330i.

Agree that its all personal preference for sure, I didn't like the fact that you had to thrash the NA 330i and NA M3 to get them to feel lively. I prefer the lower down punch of a Turbo engine much more.

Try driving around everywhere at 8400rpm in the M3...its not that easy or good for keeping your licence! In the NA 330i max power is still high at 6600rpm, both cars feel pretty limp low down because of it.

Agree that the 2 litre Turbo is reluctant over 5500rpm though, you do get a nice shove early doors which I prefer though. Some prefer everything at the top end like the NA 330i/M3, whereas some prefer more punch lower down from the engines with a turbo(or two).

Yes, but as I am sure you are aware, we disagree on the low down grunt of the N52 as well In the 1 Series it never feels limp at all, just picks up and goes unless you've got the gear selection spectacularly wrong. Can't be a weight thing either, as the E90 and E82 weighed very similar amounts (around 1480 kg).

The old N/A lumps gave the rear tyres far less of a workout than the new turbos as well (unless provoked), so we didn't have to worry about all that X-Drive nonsense either

[gizlaroc]

Ares said:

gizlaroc said:

Ares said:

gizlaroc said:

Ares said:

That's a slightly tangential comparison. A two-litre 4-pot turbo will seldom hit the spot like a 3litre 6-pot.

But a turbo 3 litre 6 cylinder is a better all rounder than the NA 4 litre V8?


Errr. OK.

As an all rounder, in the M3's case, yes. IMO.

That wasn't the point.

The point is, for some it is, for some it isn't.

....but it was the point you made...?

....and was pretty much what I said....?

The point was, people were saying to you, a blown 4 litre doesn't hit the spot like the NA 6.2 litre did and you said it was better all round.
Then you said that the blown 2 litre 4 cylinder couldn't hit the spot like a 3 litre 6 cylinder.

So basically it still comes down to "I only like the cars I like and don't get why someone else likes something else?" again.

[Ares]

gizlaroc said:

The point was, people were saying to you, a blown 4 litre doesn't hit the spot like the NA 6.2 litre did and you said it was better all round.
Then you said that the blown 2 litre 4 cylinder couldn't hit the spot like a 3 litre 6 cylinder.

So basically it still comes down to "I only like the cars I like and don't get why someone else likes something else?" again.

I assume you've jump to the AMG V8?? The 4.0T is a better allrounder IMO.

The BMW V8 was a 4-litre, jumping to 3l 6-pot?

As for the 2l 4-cyl Vs 3l 6-cyl, I did say it was emotion that drove that. Technically, it's a better engine, but jumping down to a 4-pot of any size is never going to universally hit the spot after a charismatic 6-pot.

[Ares]

bodhi said:

cerb4.5lee said:

I'm on a similar page to Ares, I've had the 4 litre V8 NA M3 and I much preferred the M4 when I drove one. Also had the 3 litre NA in a E90 330i, and I'd prefer the 4 cylinder 2 litre Turbo in the current 330i.

Agree that its all personal preference for sure, I didn't like the fact that you had to thrash the NA 330i and NA M3 to get them to feel lively. I prefer the lower down punch of a Turbo engine much more.

Try driving around everywhere at 8400rpm in the M3...its not that easy or good for keeping your licence! In the NA 330i max power is still high at 6600rpm, both cars feel pretty limp low down because of it.

Agree that the 2 litre Turbo is reluctant over 5500rpm though, you do get a nice shove early doors which I prefer though. Some prefer everything at the top end like the NA 330i/M3, whereas some prefer more punch lower down from the engines with a turbo(or two).

Yes, but as I am sure you are aware, we disagree on the low down grunt of the N52 as well In the 1 Series it never feels limp at all, just picks up and goes unless you've got the gear selection spectacularly wrong. Can't be a weight thing either, as the E90 and E82 weighed very similar amounts (around 1480 kg).

The old N/A lumps gave the rear tyres far less of a workout than the new turbos as well (unless provoked), so we didn't have to worry about all that X-Drive nonsense either

It's as much outright power that has led to AWD.

[gizlaroc]

Ares said:

I assume you've jump to the AMG V8?? The 4.0T is a better allrounder IMO.

The BMW V8 was a 4-litre, jumping to 3l 6-pot?

As for the 2l 4-cyl Vs 3l 6-cyl, I did say it was emotion that drove that. Technically, it's a better engine, but jumping down to a 4-pot of any size is never going to universally hit the spot after a charismatic 6-pot.

Hey? Jump to the AMG V8? I don't understand what you mean?
Never mind.

You kept going on about being measurably better, people were saying it isn't always about measurements, sometimes you just prefer one of the other.


Have you read back your posts on the previous page? It may make more sense.

[Ares]

gizlaroc said:

Hey? Jump to the AMG V8? I don't understand what you mean?
Never mind.

You kept going on about being measurably better, people were saying it isn't always about measurements, sometimes you just prefer one of the other.


Have you read back your posts on the previous page? It may make more sense.

I haven't, but I know what thought and will have said about the AMG engine (I just didn't know you'd jumped back 9 months to bring that back in to my comments today), but it's the same thing. The only thing the 4.0T engine loses out to the 6.2 NA is subjectivity and emotion (which for some people will be everything)

With that engine, or the two 330i engines, or the M3 engines, of course they can be measurably better. More powerful, faster, greater flexibility, more fuel efficient, etc etc.... Whether that counters one persons subjective preference for one of the other is a different matter.

[AC43]

I've got a 5.5 V8. It's my 4th V8 in 15 years. My neighbour has an XFR and and XFR. The BIL has an XK8. Mates have an RR Sport s/c,a LR50 V8, an Alpina B-something supercharged V8, a TR6 etc etc.

Still plenty of interesting cars about.

[greenarrow]

I DO Struggle to understand how a 4 cyl boxer engine is an improvement on a flat 6 (when the real world economy is hardly different), or a 4 cyl 250 BHP engine is preferable to the old 6 cyl one (BMW), but in the case of bread and butter cars, I'm all for it. How on earth is a 1 litre turbo less interesting than the previous 1.4 n/a thrash-box (in the case of the Fiesta) or the gutless 1.6 n/a unit in the Focus? (I had one of those).

[Ares]

greenarrow said:

I DO Struggle to understand how a 4 cyl boxer engine is an improvement on a flat 6 (when the real world economy is hardly different), or a 4 cyl 250 BHP engine is preferable to the old 6 cyl one (BMW), but in the case of bread and butter cars, I'm all for it. How on earth is a 1 litre turbo less interesting than the previous 1.4 n/a thrash-box (in the case of the Fiesta) or the gutless 1.6 n/a unit in the Focus? (I had one of those).

It depends on definition of improvement. They can (usually) be lighter/more powerful/more fuel efficient/more flexible/quicker/more durable/etc.... But if improvements includes its application, the 'inferior' larger cylinder count will often be the preferred route.

[white_goodman]

I both agree and disagree. Don't forget that your run-of-the-mill petrol engines 10-15 years ago were pretty poor, which is part of the reason why diesels were so popular. For the most part, pretty gutless, not very economical, high emissions etc. The 1.4/1.6/2.0 FSI NA petrol engines available in VWs/Audis are a case in point. I recently hired a Golf, which I discovered afterwards was a 1.2 TSI and only had 85bhp but felt considerably brawnier than that. It was punchy, refined and averaged 45mpg. A pretty good argument in my book for not buying an agricultural and overly-complex diesel version, whereas back in the day if you wanted performance and economy, diesel would definitely have been the way to go. Even the 2.0 (Zetec or Duratec?) in the mk1/2 Focus and Mondeo despite being from one of the better families of petrol engines was widely considered as being thirsty for its performance and the original mk6 Fiesta ST(150?) and Focus ST170 were widely regarded as cars with great handling crying out for better engines.

On the flipside, I miss the diversity of engines available. Take your mid-size hot hatch. You used to be able to get a high-revving NA screamer (Civic Type-R) or a 5-pot turbo (Focus ST) or a bombastic V6 (Golf R32) and now everything pretty much has a 2 litre 4-pot turbo. The latest Focus ST/Golf R may be quicker, more economical and overall the better cars but they just don't have the character that their predecessors had and for that reason, I just don't want them as much.

Likewise, the majority of new/newish Audis/BMWs/Mercedes/Jaguars are 4-pot petrols/diesels. I just don't see the appeal of a 4-pot Jag/BMW, both cars that always appealed to me for their straight six or V8 petrol powertrains. Of course, the next thing that we'll all have to get used to is all-electric power, so maybe we just have to accept that things are changing and enjoy the cars that we like whilst we still can and can afford to.

[Lester H]

Willy Nilly said:

I know, damn these boring little engines with more power than the interesting big engines. Damn you

They may be technically clever, but how long will they last? Not got a “biggie” in the entire family at the moment but “There’s no replacement for displacement”.