Last post on May 20, 2009 at 2:33 PM
You are in the BMW 3-Series
What is this discussion about?
Lexus IS, Lexus IS 250, Lexus IS 350, BMW 3 Series, Sedan
#571 of 1527 Re: Biturbo BMW 3 series? [brightness04]
Feb 21, 2006 (9:00 am)
"Supra Turbo, 320hp on 3L), Nissan in 1991 (300ZX, 300hp on 3L"
Forget about the past, they couldn't build the same car today due to changed air pollution regulations. so let's compare 2003 and above. A Duesseldorf also had an incredible engine, you couldn't build the same engine today.
"If you meant the "incredibly well" tuned description for the non-turbo engine, Acura NSX as early as 1991 had close to 300hp from 3L without turbo."
Agreed, not saying BMW is the only one that does it. But the Acura redlined to 9K. Subaru also manages to get 300hp/300 torque out of there 2.5L engine.
We won't know until the do it or don't.
Wow so I guess the other hot engines BMW made in the mid-80's and above doesn't count. The Acura NSX was a $90,000 bust, and you are comparing a $90K vehicle against a $40K vehicle. Let's try this whole conversation again, on a more modern car in the same price range. I guess your point is how Acura, Honda and Lexus and finally playing catch up because other companies have been making engines with the same and better output since the 1930s.
#572 of 1527 Re: Wow... [brightness04]
Feb 21, 2006 (9:03 am)
Have to disagree on SMG, DSG (what ever acronymns Ferrari & Toyota uses) being automatics. I'd classify them as next step in manual trasmission evolution. When I think automatics, I think torque converters.
CVT is an interesting beast. It doesn't have a torque converter, nor does it have gears in the triditional sense. I think of them as next step in automatic transmission evolution, but I can't give you a good reason as to why I think that way.
#573 of 1527 Re: Lexus the Mighty [texasmerq]
Feb 21, 2006 (9:05 am)
The neat bifurcation is probably what people think of the various brands (not car models), people who have no first-hand experience with any of the car models being discussed. The IS350 is a much more sporting machine than any of the rest. For open roads, only the G35 comes close in terms the visceral feel of accelearation. 330i simply does not have the torque to be even in the game.
#574 of 1527 Re: Wow... [dave330i]
Feb 21, 2006 (9:07 am)
Then why is M3 offered as manual and SMG instead of the old manual and torque-converter automatic? SMG is clearly a form of automatic.
#575 of 1527 Re: Lexus the Mighty [brightness04]
Feb 21, 2006 (9:12 am)
"The IS350 is a much more sporting machine than any of the rest."
Well there are a bunch of people who don't share that opinion. While the 330i doesn't have as much torque, the IS and G aremt that much faster and the 3 series handily outhandles both of them.
#576 of 1527 Re: Lexus the Mighty [brightness04]
Feb 21, 2006 (9:25 am)
I have driven them all so I would say I DO have first hand experience. If you would recall my write up of the IS250 and IS350 test drive that I did the day they were made availible to drive, I also drove the competing cars in the class to compare the IS to. Look it up I'm sure it's up here still somewhere in one of the IS threads. Again no one is debating that the IS has more power than anything else in the class currently, but to try to act like the BMW is a Toyota Prius compared to the IS in terms of speed is ridiculous. The IS is marginally faster in the straights and I'm sure the BMW could keep up in the curves.
#577 of 1527 Re: Lexus the Mighty [bdr127]
Feb 21, 2006 (9:44 am)
Speaking about practical...
You'll likely pay through the nose up front to get that superior mileage (not a BMW 330i to be found at Tom Williams BMW for under $41k). Also, you mention the cramped IS350, and yes I find it too be too small also, but no worse than the 325i I sat in at the International Auto Show.
#578 of 1527 Who's sportier? I think BMW [kdshapiro]
Feb 21, 2006 (9:45 am)
I'd buy the Lexus before the Bimmer (for pure reasons of value), but the BMW has the edge in sportiness IMO.
#579 of 1527 While you mention horsepower per liter[brightness04]
Feb 21, 2006 (9:52 am)
Don't forget that Honda achieved 120 hp per liter in its S2000 roadster, and for less money than any of the cars you mention (in today's dollars).
Any major car company should be able to produce at least 100 hp/L engines, but it isn't always cost effective to engineer such engines.
#580 of 1527 Re: Biturbo BMW 3 series? [kdshapiro]
Feb 21, 2006 (9:59 am)
I guess your point is how Acura, Honda and Lexus and finally playing catch up because other companies have been making engines with the same and better output since the 1930s.
What 3L engine in the 1930's made close to 300hp?
Also there's nothing special about 3L making 255hp nowadays, Honda/Acura has a 3L making 240hp and 3.2L making 270hp since 2002; and those are $20-30k cars. Regarding NSX high revving, see my previous post; it made more than 255hp even at 6600rpm anyway; it just allows revving even higher for even more power wereas the BMW engine can't. If you want to talk about turbo engines, Saab makes a 260hp one from 2.3L!
Like I said, there is no manifestation of "incredible engine tuning" in making 255hp 3L NA or a 302hp 3L turbo.
Also, the 300+hp 3L turbo engines from Japan of the early 90's were phased out of the US market not because of air pollutions per se, but the cost of certification vs. produciton volume. Similar to BMW not bothering with bringing the 2.5L to the US in the R6/E90.