RE: BMW 330i M Sport prototype: Driven
Discussion
havoc said:
To pick one example, how many nat-asp manual sports saloons* still exist to buy?!?
(And please don't claim it's down to buyer demand, a lot is down to mfrs either forcing or at the very least nudging buyers towards more fleet-CO2 friendly options (so the mfrs comply with fleet-average emissions regs), both with engines and 'boxes)
Sorry buddy, but it is exactly down to buyer demand. What manufacturer would possibly remove a more popular option? They just wouldn't.(And please don't claim it's down to buyer demand, a lot is down to mfrs either forcing or at the very least nudging buyers towards more fleet-CO2 friendly options (so the mfrs comply with fleet-average emissions regs), both with engines and 'boxes)
Merc realised a long time ago than it's customers didn't buy manuals. BMW customers did for a while (mostly as the manual box was better), but as autos have become better and better, more and more customers have shifted to auto to the extent that it isn't worth making manual options in any thing other than a) pauper/cheap-o variants, or b) more focussed sport-car variants of the range.
2007 I bought a brand new 330i. After having a (then new) 330d in 1999, I swore I'd never 'give up' and get anther auto as, even with a torque rich engine, it was still left wanting compared to the manual. Before ordering the 330i Manual, a friend persuaded me to try the auto. It was better. Even back then, the dealer sold 3 autos for every manual.
With each incarnation of the autobox since then, they have got better and better, the full auto operation has got better and the driver engagement options have taken leaps forward. More and more customers have moved to autos, the demand for manuals in saloons is just drying up hugely in anything above base models.
It is only after that signifiant shift that the CO2 benefit became true, and an issue. Even back in the early part of this decade, autobox fuel consumption was often worse and the cars slower than their manual counterpart.
Mr Tidy said:
Sad to see BMW having to go down the path of down-sized 4 cylinder turbo engines, but I suppose it's inevitable in the emissions race. 
But I can't see much progress - you could buy an E90 330i with an N/A straight 6 petrol that produced 258 bhp in late 2005, but it was noticeably smaller than the current monster!
No thanks.
Still lots of potential. Remember, the legendary E30 M3 has the 4 pot. I'm a fan of displacement as well, but this is a step in the right direction. Recent non-Ms have been far too stale. Will be nice to have some excitement back in the range.But I can't see much progress - you could buy an E90 330i with an N/A straight 6 petrol that produced 258 bhp in late 2005, but it was noticeably smaller than the current monster!
No thanks.
Burningpetrol said:
But I can't see much progress - you could buy an E90 330i with an N/A straight 6 petrol that produced 258 bhp in late 2005, but it was noticeably smaller than the current monster!
No thanks.
Noticeably smaller? The current 3-series is 5cm longer than the E90? That's about 1%.No thanks.
Ares said:
havoc said:
To pick one example, how many nat-asp manual sports saloons* still exist to buy?!?
(And please don't claim it's down to buyer demand, a lot is down to mfrs either forcing or at the very least nudging buyers towards more fleet-CO2 friendly options (so the mfrs comply with fleet-average emissions regs), both with engines and 'boxes)
Sorry buddy, but it is exactly down to buyer demand. What manufacturer would possibly remove a more popular option? They just wouldn't.(And please don't claim it's down to buyer demand, a lot is down to mfrs either forcing or at the very least nudging buyers towards more fleet-CO2 friendly options (so the mfrs comply with fleet-average emissions regs), both with engines and 'boxes)
You've also heard of Nudge Theory, I take it...and I'll wager a fair amount that most main dealer sales teams are well versed in it...at least in part as they may well be incentivised based on it, to ensure borderline buyers are persuaded into the right option: "Oh but sir, there's no market for manuals anymore...the residuals are significantly worse. And you HAVE to have the extended leather too.".
I do agree that only recently have auto-boxes been GENUINELY more economical (mainly due to them all having at least 25 gears
), but if you look back at 'official' CO2 stats, I'd imagine auto-boxes have been better on-paper for maybe 10 years (or at least equal), certainly better for over 5. EDIT: Looks like approx equal for at least 10, better for the last +/-5, presumably with the advent of multi-multi-gear autoboxes. So on balance you've a point - 'German' car buyers (Porsche excepted) have been lazy f'ckers for years!
(But I still maintain the manual gearbox was removed from the F30 / G30 as much to improve CAFE etc. as because a minority of buyers chose it - I bet it's still available in the USA, for example)
Edited by havoc on Saturday 18th August 21:20
nomis36 said:
Agreed, 330i with a 2.0i aint a 3.0 in my book. Half the appeal of powerful BMW's was the sound of the straight 6 motors. As good as 4 pots are these days the sound just isn't there. And don't get me started on the latest fad, farting gear changes ;-(
I don't understand all this rose-tinted nonsense (sorry); you bemoan the lack of a 3.0 straight 6....have you forgotten that BMW still make a 3.0 straight 6 in the 3 series lineup?E65Ross said:
nomis36 said:
Agreed, 330i with a 2.0i aint a 3.0 in my book. Half the appeal of powerful BMW's was the sound of the straight 6 motors. As good as 4 pots are these days the sound just isn't there. And don't get me started on the latest fad, farting gear changes ;-(
I don't understand all this rose-tinted nonsense (sorry); you bemoan the lack of a 3.0 straight 6....have you forgotten that BMW still make a 3.0 straight 6 in the 3 series lineup?There is a very good reason for me why BMW bolted a Turbo to their 3.0 engine, and got rid of the 3.0 NA engine for a 4 cyl Turbo...I'm probably in the minority though.
SidewaysSi said:
The engine will be the least of the new car's problems.
Care to elaborate? Based on the review of someone who's driven it, it sounds like it drives pretty well, and it's lighter than the outgoing model. Edited by SidewaysSi on Sunday 19th August 21:21
Anyway, I guess if what you say is true, it'll be a complete sales flop.
E65Ross said:
SidewaysSi said:
The engine will be the least of the new car's problems.
Care to elaborate? Based on the review of someone who's driven it, it sounds like it drives pretty well, and it's lighter than the outgoing model. Edited by SidewaysSi on Sunday 19th August 21:21
Anyway, I guess if what you say is true, it'll be a complete sales flop.
How a car drives doesn't have a lot to do with sales IMO.
SidewaysSi said:
E65Ross said:
SidewaysSi said:
The engine will be the least of the new car's problems.
Care to elaborate? Based on the review of someone who's driven it, it sounds like it drives pretty well, and it's lighter than the outgoing model. Edited by SidewaysSi on Sunday 19th August 21:21
Anyway, I guess if what you say is true, it'll be a complete sales flop.
How a car drives doesn't have a lot to do with sales IMO.
E65Ross said:
SidewaysSi said:
E65Ross said:
SidewaysSi said:
The engine will be the least of the new car's problems.
Care to elaborate? Based on the review of someone who's driven it, it sounds like it drives pretty well, and it's lighter than the outgoing model. Edited by SidewaysSi on Sunday 19th August 21:21
Anyway, I guess if what you say is true, it'll be a complete sales flop.
How a car drives doesn't have a lot to do with sales IMO.
cerb4.5lee said:
...but I do think that we look at the old NA straight sixes with very rose tinted glasses for sure...but the fact is that they weren't that fast, they were very thirsty and they had sod all torque.
Compared to what? The N52 (and later DI N53) was pretty much on the money for an n/a 3.0...and if you're going to start comparing to other types of engine then:-- a turbo-4 of similar performance (bhp / mpg) doesn't have as much character, and isn't as smooth.
- a V8 of greater cc won't have as good mpg performance, so your argument falls down.
- a turbo'd 6 would be higher-performance without any real-world mpg gain, and would consequently cost more.
I think you like one specific type of engine (fat torque, sod the rpm, by the sounds of many posts), and decry anything different. I like the opposite type of engine, but at least acknowledge the benefits of torquier motors, even if I don't like the un-subtle all-in-a-rush delivery of (modern) powerful blown engines.
havoc said:
Compared to what? The N52 (and later DI N53) was pretty much on the money for an n/a 3.0...and if you're going to start comparing to other types of engine then:-
- a turbo-4 of similar performance (bhp / mpg) doesn't have as much character, and isn't as smooth.
- a V8 of greater cc won't have as good mpg performance, so your argument falls down.
- a turbo'd 6 would be higher-performance without any real-world mpg gain, and would consequently cost more.
I think you like one specific type of engine (fat torque, sod the rpm, by the sounds of many posts), and decry anything different. I like the opposite type of engine, but at least acknowledge the benefits of torquier motors, even if I don't like the un-subtle all-in-a-rush delivery of (modern) powerful blown engines.
Not sure I agree. The F80 M3 has more power and better MPG as a turbocharged 6 compared to the high revving NA V8 in its predecessor.- a turbo-4 of similar performance (bhp / mpg) doesn't have as much character, and isn't as smooth.
- a V8 of greater cc won't have as good mpg performance, so your argument falls down.
- a turbo'd 6 would be higher-performance without any real-world mpg gain, and would consequently cost more.
I think you like one specific type of engine (fat torque, sod the rpm, by the sounds of many posts), and decry anything different. I like the opposite type of engine, but at least acknowledge the benefits of torquier motors, even if I don't like the un-subtle all-in-a-rush delivery of (modern) powerful blown engines.
havoc said:
cerb4.5lee said:
...but I do think that we look at the old NA straight sixes with very rose tinted glasses for sure...but the fact is that they weren't that fast, they were very thirsty and they had sod all torque.
Compared to what? The N52 (and later DI N53) was pretty much on the money for an n/a 3.0...and if you're going to start comparing to other types of engine then:-- a turbo-4 of similar performance (bhp / mpg) doesn't have as much character, and isn't as smooth.
- a V8 of greater cc won't have as good mpg performance, so your argument falls down.
- a turbo'd 6 would be higher-performance without any real-world mpg gain, and would consequently cost more.
I think you like one specific type of engine (fat torque, sod the rpm, by the sounds of many posts), and decry anything different. I like the opposite type of engine, but at least acknowledge the benefits of torquier motors, even if I don't like the un-subtle all-in-a-rush delivery of (modern) powerful blown engines.
As well as the N52/N53 (redline = 7000rpm), the late 200x years also saw a I4 for the 3 series (redline = 6500rpm), a V8 for the M3 (redline = 8400rpm), and a V10 for the M5 (redline = 8250rpm). Seems like this was just the house style at the time. That's great and all, and it would certainly be the enthusiasts' choice, but I wonder just how much of the subsequent change in style is due solely to the drive for lower CO2 emissions...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff