130i........doesn't feel as fast as it should?

[Mike335i]

I have heard good things about the eibach proline and Koni FSD set up, but can get pricey. Some have rated the H&R springs quite highly.

Anti lift kit is supposed to be really good for getting the power down so I would head down that route first.

Intake wise I would look at something like a BSH or a Twintake. Downpipes can be as simple as smashing out the cat internals if brave. Remap wise I would go with R Tech as he supposed to be the best and is tailor made for your car, but APR or Revo are also good for more off the shelf maps.

S3 / Leon Cupra brakes are a natural upgrade, but some go down the porsche route.

[swanny71]

cerb4.5lee said:

I genuinely find it hard to believe that anyone can call the N52 a torquey engine, it's as flat as a pancake for me regards torque.

Really don't get this, nor your oft repeated belief that the S65 is similarly torque poor. Neither engine is lacking low down and both are, in their own way, fabulous up top.

Said it before but the N52 is an absolute peach. 144k on mine now, uses zero oil, smooth as silk, pulls like a train and has averaged over 32mpg in my ownership. Perfect package for me in the 1 series.

[selym]

swanny71 said:

Really don't get this, nor your oft repeated belief that the S65 is similarly torque poor. Neither engine is lacking low down and both are, in their own way, fabulous up top.

Said it before but the N52 is an absolute peach. 144k on mine now, uses zero oil, smooth as silk, pulls like a train and has averaged over 32mpg in my ownership. Perfect package for me in the 1 series.

Agreed. 32mpg though......how?!

[gizlaroc]

Mine has averaged 31mpg, but then I use it to go up and down the M11 too, which raises it considerably.

[cerb4.5lee]

swanny71 said:

cerb4.5lee said:

I genuinely find it hard to believe that anyone can call the N52 a torquey engine, it's as flat as a pancake for me regards torque.

Really don't get this, nor your oft repeated belief that the S65 is similarly torque poor. Neither engine is lacking low down and both are, in their own way, fabulous up top.

For me though both the N52/S65 are lacking torque low down without question, yet I do like both engines only not in the heavy 3 series, and in fairness I've had the N57 in a 330d and that blitzed both the 330i/M3 for torque so I think that spoiled me too much, and that's why I feel the 330i/M3 engines feel flat low down.

[ManaghGB]

cerb4.5lee said:

For me though both the N52/S65 are lacking torque low down without question, yet I do like both engines only not in the heavy 3 series, and in fairness I've had the N57 in a 330d and that blitzed both the 330i/M3 for torque so I think that spoiled me too much, and that's why I feel the 330i/M3 engines feel flat low down.

I had an E92 330d (245ps version) before the 130i and even I was shocked how torquey the 130i felt. It's no V8 but for an N.A. engine it's brilliant.

Mpg wise I can easily get 35mpg without even trying. Just cruising to work 25 miles each way on A roads sees 40mpg regularly.

[cerb4.5lee]

ManaghGB said:

I had an E92 330d (245ps version) before the 130i and even I was shocked how torquey the 130i felt. It's no V8 but for an N.A. engine it's brilliant.

Not for me though and my 330i has 221 torque and my 330d had 369 torque, and it's a massive difference and you can really feel it.

My 330i feels gutless most of the time as did my M3, my 330d never felt gutless and the 330d made the 330i feel like it has a 1 litre engine in it in comparison.

[Mr Tidy]

cerb4.5lee said:

ManaghGB said:

I had an E92 330d (245ps version) before the 130i and even I was shocked how torquey the 130i felt. It's no V8 but for an N.A. engine it's brilliant.

Not for me though and my 330i has 221 torque and my 330d had 369 torque, and it's a massive difference and you can really feel it.

My 330i feels gutless most of the time as did my M3, my 330d never felt gutless and the 330d made the 330i feel like it has a 1 litre engine in it in comparison.

I had a 123d with 295 before I got my Z4 Coupe with "just" 232, and although I was expecting the Z4C to feel gutless it really didn't! Then once you got the revs up a bit it was the 123d that felt gutless - you just have to drive them differently!

I know the diesels have pretty much instant grunt in 6th at 60ish, but slot the petrol down a few gears and it really flies!

I prefer to drive something more involving but realise it doesn't suit everyone, and for commuting and/or motorway mile munching the diesels are probably easier to live with! But thankfully I no longer have to do that stuff, so every drive in the Z4C puts a smile on my face!

But cerb4.5lee I can understand, and respect, your preference for a diesel as it presumably suits your needs better!

Seriously though for an early Sunday morning blast on quiet roads what would you choose, a 640d or a manual M3?

[selym]

Some engines just need to be worked a little. You just need to alter your approach accordingly, or get a diesel.

[swanny71]

selym said:

Agreed. 32mpg though......how?!

Mostly long runs on quick/quiet A roads and M'ways. It was over 33mpg but I have to use it in town more often now.
Figures are from a fuel app (not onboard computer) and over 90k miles/6 years.

[HannsG]

I thought the 231bhp in my 3.0i Z4 was fairly swift.

[cerb4.5lee]

Mr Tidy said:

But cerb4.5lee I can understand, and respect, your preference for a diesel as it presumably suits your needs better!

Seriously though for an early Sunday morning blast on quiet roads what would you choose, a 640d or a manual M3?

Spot on

I do prefer the torque shove and low down pull of a turbo petrol or turbo diesel for sure, but if the roads were clear and open without traffic and there weren't any speed limits I would go for a high rev N/A engine for certain.

The 640d is dull to drive and I would never just jump in it for fun, but as a daily I find it miles more suited to the roads around me than I ever did the M3.

[selym]

swanny71 said:

selym said:

Agreed. 32mpg though......how?!

Mostly long runs on quick/quiet A roads and M'ways. It was over 33mpg but I have to use it in town more often now.
Figures are from a fuel app (not onboard computer) and over 90k miles/6 years.

Fair play, I do get between 400-450 miles to the tank when i drive 'home' via motorway - a 220 mile journey. I just drive a lot of B roads etc.

[rm163603]

selym said:

swanny71 said:

selym said:

Agreed. 32mpg though......how?!

Mostly long runs on quick/quiet A roads and M'ways. It was over 33mpg but I have to use it in town more often now.
Figures are from a fuel app (not onboard computer) and over 90k miles/6 years.

Fair play, I do get between 400-450 miles to the tank when i drive 'home' via motorway - a 220 mile journey. I just drive a lot of B roads etc.

I can second this, the n52 is really good on fuel. 30mpg is pretty much the average. I achieved over 40mpg a few times in my 130 on long motorway runs driving at the speed limit.

The N54 I have now though is terrible in comparison, I'm getting 24mpg driving 'normally'.

The small tank on the 1 series doesn't help either.

[GusWilliams]

rm163603 said:

I can second this, the n52 is really good on fuel. 30mpg is pretty much the average. I achieved over 40mpg a few times in my 130 on long motorway runs driving at the speed limit.

The N54 I have now though is terrible in comparison, I'm getting 24mpg driving 'normally'.

The small tank on the 1 series doesn't help either.

We're only averaging around 22mpg in it (130i) - but that's because it's mostly just very local driving. On the occasions I have taken it down the M5 then it starts to climb considerably (I can see it returning over 30pmg).... but if you are local driving (while occasionally driving enthusiastically around A/B roads ;-) then don't expect over 25mpg.

[Mike335i]

rm163603 said:

I can second this, the n52 is really good on fuel. 30mpg is pretty much the average. I achieved over 40mpg a few times in my 130 on long motorway runs driving at the speed limit.

The N54 I have now though is terrible in comparison, I'm getting 24mpg driving 'normally'.

The small tank on the 1 series doesn't help either.

The n54 does like a drink! Having said that, it is much, much better now it's warmer. I am easily seeing 34mpg on a 60mph country a road run. Round Europe last year (including autobahn, Alps, driving round cities and blasting through Italian tunnels I saw around 31mpg over 3k miles.

In the colder months, I was getting 22mpg from my 8 mile commute (60%country and the rest urban).

[Mr Tidy]

cerb4.5lee said:

Spot on

I do prefer the torque shove and low down pull of a turbo petrol or turbo diesel for sure, but if the roads were clear and open without traffic and there weren't any speed limits I would go for a high rev N/A engine for certain.

The 640d is dull to drive and I would never just jump in it for fun, but as a daily I find it miles more suited to the roads around me than I ever did the M3.

Thanks for that - I have an E46 for daily duties which it does just fine!

My Z4 Coupe is reserved for entertainment purposes!

So maybe the only difference we have is budget! (or in my case, lack of it)

[nickfrog]

cerb4.5lee said:

I do prefer the torque shove and low down pull of a turbo petrol or turbo diesel for sure

Neither have any shove or low down pull though, have they ? The N52 picks up cleanly at 1200rpm but the typical turbo's don't. I think you refer to mid-range and I can see why you perceive the N52 as low on torque - I perceive it as quite torquey.

Edited by nickfrog on Thursday 29th June 17:54

[cerb4.5lee]

nickfrog said:

cerb4.5lee said:

I do prefer the torque shove and low down pull of a turbo petrol or turbo diesel for sure

Neither have any shove or low down pull though, have they ? The N52 picks up cleanly at 1200rpm but the typical turbo's don't. I think you refer to mid-range and I can see why you perceive the N52 as low on torque - I perceive it as quite torquey.

Edited by nickfrog on Thursday 29th June 17:54

If I compare the two cars I have currently the 330i is 221 ib/ft at 2500-4000 rpm and the 640d is 465 ib/ft at 1500 rpm, to me the 330i is completely gutless low down whereas the 640d picks up almost instantly with a twitch of a toe.

Granted it's not fair to compare a forced induction engine to a N/A engine, but that's a good example of why I've gone off a N/A engine as a daily and prefer a forced induction engine much more, I can't be arsed revving the 330i to 6600rpm to get max power(equally with my M3 at 8300rpm for its max power).

As a weekend only car a N/A engine is spot on, but for me I much prefer the performance to be there straight away in a daily, rather than having to work an engines nuts off to deliver the performance.

[DoubleSix]

cerb4.5lee said:

If I compare the two cars I have currently the 330i is 221 ib/ft at 2500-4000 rpm and the 640d is 465 ib/ft at 1500 rpm, to me the 330i is completely gutless low down whereas the 640d picks up almost instantly with a twitch of a toe.

Change down!!

You can't expect an N/A to have the same in gear pull as the diesel. You're just using the tool wrong and then criticising it as not fit for purpose. If you can't be bothered working the box then that's not a failing of the car.