"1.6-litre TwinPower engine as the 316i but with 170hp"
Discussion
Captain Muppet said:
Quat said:
....News on the new 3 series.
I remember when you needed 2.5L and Six cylinders for 170 BHP. I can’t help but be impressed.
Honda had a 160bhp 1.6 twenty years ago.I remember when you needed 2.5L and Six cylinders for 170 BHP. I can’t help but be impressed.
20 years for 10bhp and some torque, that's progress.
Quat said:
Should have included the torque and eco figures - 184lb ft and 53.3mpg - impressed yet?
No not really. Like others have said, that sort of specific bhp has been around for ages and the mpg simply will not be attainable by normal people in normal driving conditions.So for me, life goes on as it was.
Also, there is already a news thread running this feature if you want to join the conversation. http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyI...
Captain Muppet said:
Quat said:
....News on the new 3 series.
I remember when you needed 2.5L and Six cylinders for 170 BHP. I can’t help but be impressed.
Honda had a 160bhp 1.6 twenty years ago.I remember when you needed 2.5L and Six cylinders for 170 BHP. I can’t help but be impressed.
20 years for 10bhp and some torque, that's progress.
So BMW have managed to produce a 1.6 turbo petrol engine capable of 170bhp and 184lbs/ft?? its hardly amazing performance figure wise as pretty much ANY 1.6 petrol turbo engine can make the same figures easily! as said honda managed the same without the turbo yet with admittedly 30mpg possibility 20 years ago.
Add the fact that BMW are optomistic about their power figures anyway and as mentioned above in the real world you will never get anywhere near the mpg figures they quote, means Im impressed only by the fact they are including turbo's to their line up
at least BMW's will now possibly be worth tuning!
Add the fact that BMW are optomistic about their power figures anyway and as mentioned above in the real world you will never get anywhere near the mpg figures they quote, means Im impressed only by the fact they are including turbo's to their line up
at least BMW's will now possibly be worth tuning!excel monkey said:
Captain Muppet said:
Quat said:
....News on the new 3 series.
I remember when you needed 2.5L and Six cylinders for 170 BHP. I can’t help but be impressed.
Honda had a 160bhp 1.6 twenty years ago.I remember when you needed 2.5L and Six cylinders for 170 BHP. I can’t help but be impressed.
20 years for 10bhp and some torque, that's progress.
djfaulkner said:
Ford offer a 1.6 ecoboost with 182Bhp
Add a warranty friendly Mountune upgrade and get 200
VAG offer the 1.4 TSi with ~160bhp.Add a warranty friendly Mountune upgrade and get 200
F1 engines were making up to 1500bhp from 1500cc in the mid-80s. Getting a 106 bhp/liter from a turbocharged engine is not particularly notable.
Edited by Mr2Mike on Tuesday 4th September 17:53
Vauxhall Astra has 178 PS from 1.6 and thats hardly an earth shattering car!!
In fairness though 53 MPG (combined) from a 170 BHP 1.6 petrol car is pretty good, wasnt long ago diesels couldnt do that. Even if the car only does low 40 mpg in the real world I suppose its reasonable for a petrol engined car..
Hope it does better than the BMW X1 123 owned by one of my family that is only averaging 35 MPG....barely better than his old E60 530d.
In fairness though 53 MPG (combined) from a 170 BHP 1.6 petrol car is pretty good, wasnt long ago diesels couldnt do that. Even if the car only does low 40 mpg in the real world I suppose its reasonable for a petrol engined car..
Hope it does better than the BMW X1 123 owned by one of my family that is only averaging 35 MPG....barely better than his old E60 530d.
doogz said:
Because forged race engines running on toluene for a few minutes at a time before they blow up is relevant to modern day road engines...
Does the 1.4 TSi run on toluene then?How about a modern superbike, making 200bhp from a 1000cc normaly aspirated engine on pump fuel...
Edited by Mr2Mike on Tuesday 4th September 18:29
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff