# E90 M3 vs. E90 330i Turbo



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

OK, I'm only speculating based on the bits of information I've gathered from the media. 

The E90 M3 is coming with a V8 engine, probably producing around 400hp. The 330i Turbo, although not acknowledged for production yet, will probably have a 3.0 Liter I-6, producing 300 hp. 

I am guessing that the M3 will cost a leg and an arm, but the turbo 330i will not be a cheap car either. On the other hand, it could definitely fill the gap between the 258hp and 400hp, which is quite a gap. 

I don't know if the Valvetronic engine can be successfully turbo charged as it's been supercharged by Alpina (although expensive and complicated, requiring special craftmanship for a small number of engines that's being produced in a 'workshop'). I'm not very familiar with turbo charging, but if reliability is an issue, I'm guessing that it's not just plug-and-play or is it ?

On the performance side, I'd say that they will be quite close to each other, in terms of accelaration and overall performance throughout the rpm range. 

OK, other than just a game of hp numbers, what purpose will a 330i Turbo serve ?

What do you think ?

And those who would willing to spend the money on an M3, would they consider the Turbo instead ? I know it's too early to be able to say, but what the heck


----------



## mng (Oct 15, 2003)

i'd say it's like comparing the performance of a E36 M3 and a E46 330. Close on paper, but different animals...


----------



## Nick325xiT 5spd (Dec 24, 2001)

If there's a 330i turbo, it pretty much guarantees that the M3 will be a $75-80K car.

Whether or not I'd consider the 330 turbo would depend a lot on the presence of aftermarket LSD options. (I'm assuming that BMW will NOT offer this OEM.) The open diff in my 323 is already pretty frustrating, I can't imagine driving something more powerful...


----------



## LarryN (Dec 24, 2001)

Nick325xiT 5spd said:


> If there's a 330i turbo, it pretty much guarantees that the M3 will be a $75-80K car.
> 
> Whether or not I'd consider the 330 turbo would depend a lot on the presence of aftermarket LSD options. (I'm assuming that BMW will NOT offer this OEM.) The open diff in my 323 is already pretty frustrating, I can't imagine driving something more powerful...


I can pretty much guarantee the e90 m3 will not be $75-$80k. The 330i turbo, if produced, would simply be a niche car without LSD. It would be just too much power for it to not have LSD. The extra weight of the turbo and plumbing, for the (presumably) extra ~40 hp, would not be worth it, imho. If it did have the limited slip, then it would be worth while. I would think it would be:

e90 330i Turbo ~$42k base list
e90 M3 ~$52k base list


----------



## PhilH (Jun 7, 2002)

I don't like the non linear power delivery of turbos, and since we had to replace one in our Passat to the tune of over $2k, I'm wary of their reliability too. I'd take a 330i or an M3, but I'd pass on the 330 turbo.


----------



## Nick325xiT 5spd (Dec 24, 2001)

LarryN said:


> I can pretty much guarantee the e90 m3 will not be $75-$80k. The 330i turbo, if produced, would simply be a niche car without LSD. It would be just too much power for it to not have LSD. The extra weight of the turbo and plumbing, for the (presumably) extra ~40 hp, would not be worth it, imho. If it did have the limited slip, then it would be worth while. I would think it would be:
> 
> e90 330i Turbo ~$42k base list
> e90 M3 ~$52k base list


 Given that BMW puts an open diff on the 545, I can't see any reason why they'd do it on the 330 turbo.

Realistically, the M3 is currently a $55-60K car. If you insert a car in between the 330 and the M3, it has to go up pretty substantially. So if not 75-80K, then it becomes at least $65-70K.


----------



## Mr. The Edge (Dec 19, 2001)

300 hp doesn't make sense to me. It would have to be closer to 330


----------



## Artslinger (Sep 2, 2002)

Nick325xiT 5spd said:


> If there's a 330i turbo, it pretty much guarantees that the M3 will be a $75-80K car.
> 
> Whether or not I'd consider the 330 turbo would depend a lot on the presence of aftermarket LSD options. (I'm assuming that BMW will NOT offer this OEM.) The open diff in my 323 is already pretty frustrating, I can't imagine driving something more powerful...


That M3 price would be a shame; a big price increase on the M3 will be inevitable if they offer a 330 turbo with a "special package" though.


----------



## philippek (Jul 31, 2003)

Alex Baumann said:


> it could definitely fill the gap between the 258hp and 400hp, which is quite a gap.


I think it's all about filling every possible niche in the market, although in this case I think you dilute the model, especially if the M3 is available in sedan form.

If the E90 M3 is strictly coupe and cabrio, then it makes some sense. Or maybe they'll put the 3.0L turbo in the wagon, and satisfy the die-hard touring guys.


----------



## Sean (Dec 22, 2001)

I had a discuss with our BMW Sales Rep of 20 plus years yesterday regarding this. He believes that the E90 M3 base MSRP will start around $60k. Add options and you are bound to push it close to $70k. :tsk:


----------



## beewang (Dec 18, 2001)

Hey Baumann, Howzagoing??!!  

Funny you mentione it. From what heard it is a Twin Turbo being fitted w/ the 330.

Is that consistance w/ the info you got??!!

cheers,

beewang :bigpimp: 

P.S. See ya in Koln on Oktober


----------



## Kaz (Dec 21, 2001)

Isn't the 330 turbo still speculation? :dunno:

For the sake of discussion let's say it happens.

With the M5 and M6 being $90-110k (the M6 in Germany was announced at EUR106.5k) there is plenty of room to move the M3 pricing up to E39M5 territory ($60k base). There's currently a ~25% upcharge from a base 330 to a M3. Working backwards, that puts the E90 330 at $48k, which is too high.

So if we put the 330 at 40k to start, I'm seeing a 330is/345i whatever you want to call it, at $45k. What this will probably do is put the M3 back in the position it was in E30 guise; that is a much more exclusive car. The E36M3 suffered from being a 'everyone and their uncle' car, and the E46M3 was only partly successful in changing that. This should put that to rest.

I think from a hardware and performance perspective, BMW will do one of two things: Make the 'is' (what, do we want to start calling the 'THP' or something?) a performance bargain, with 85% of the M3 ability at 75% of the money, or seriously dumb-down its potential (dare I say it, a ZHP redux) to protect the M3, especially if the M3 comes in sedan form.

A turbo, even with relatively mild boost, should make for a 30% HP increase, which would put it at 325bhp. 350 is in easy reach, and 400 isn't much further (though probably not at the off-the-lot level). So where would BMW position it? It's for the ///Marketers to decide.


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

In this speculation, shouldn't the M version(s) of the 1/2 series factor in to the full spectrum of the M brand?


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

beewang said:


> Hey Baumann, Howzagoing??!!
> 
> Funny you mentione it. From what heard it is a Twin Turbo being fitted w/ the 330.
> 
> ...


Hey Bee !

The diesel is probably getting a twin turbo (a la 535d, 3.0 Liter I-6). But I guess the patrol engine will get a single turbo.

Oktober ? :yikes:


----------



## Jeff_DML (Mar 13, 2002)

nice thing about a turbo would be the extra torque. Also turbolag doesnt bug me that much, gives the car a sporty personality and it rewards proper shifting. Sometimes I miss a nice linear power curve though


----------



## ///M-Spec (Jun 3, 2004)

Alex Baumann said:


> OK, other than just a game of hp numbers, what purpose will a 330i Turbo serve ?
> 
> What do you think ?


I think a Turbo model will serve nothing but the purpose of hp numbers... Not that that's a bad thing. In fact, I think it is an important mission. In an age of 260 hp Altimas and 240 hp Accords, BMW is hard pressed to make a case for a car that costs 10 grand more, but is smaller and less (or barely more) powerful. There is a lot I love about my 330, but its lack of power in its price range is not on that list.

When it comes down to it, many people shop by crunching numbers and hp is an important number. At least in the US market, people equate hp with performance, and rarely allow a good chassis to help them overlook a power deficit. While there is less of a problem for the M brand to maintain it's performance image, I think the core brand has some tough battles ahead.

For BMW to successfully sell a sedan/coupe in the 40-45k range, it needs to make closer to 300-320 hp in order for most people to rationalize spending the extra money over, say a G35 Sport or TL or even a GTO.

I would have much prefered BMW solved the problem by introducing a new generation of "big block" sixes in the 3.5-3.8 liter range based on R6 architecture, which would have no problems making the power. But I suspect the length of such a large block will only cause problems on the packaging and weight side of the equation. This is probably why they decided to go with FI, because the alternative is to go with a V6 configuration, which is against the BMW ethos. A V8 would be out of the question because of the 5er.

Turbocharging was probably chosen as a solution for a couple of reasons. 1) BMW has probably worked out lag to it's satisfaction somehow, using a new technique or more likely refinement of an existing method and 2) BMW has at least some history with turbocharging and could at least mount a semi-plausable marketing campaign around it ---at least more so than supercharging-- despite having poo-poo'd it for 20 years. Obviously turbos have their own weight and packaging issues, but perhaps BMW was simply choosing the least negative option out of a list of negative options.

A third supporting reason is to give BMW a token presence in the import-turbo scene, although I doubt the managment based it's decision on this benefit. For a few grand in the aftermarket, turbo cars will run like mad and provide a bang for the buck factor no NA BMW can ever hope to match. It is not hard to look at the aftermarket success of the 1.8T and 2.7TT VAG cars (Jetta, Golf, B5 S4, TT), not to mention the SRT-4, WRX, and Evo and wonder what answer BMW has in the face of these cars in terms of mod potential.

As for pricing, I would guess (and it would be a just a guess) BMW would start a 330iT/345i--whatever-- at about 44-46k with sports package items standard. ~52k for a well optioned car.

I would also guess the V8 M3 will start at ~60k, incurring the same ~15-20k jump the M5 took from the E39 to E60 version. I think a well optioned car will come to 65-70k easy, but this will still undercut the 997 by 15 grand.

As for which to choose, I couldn't begin to fathom. Once the aftermarket figures out whatever tricks BMW dropped in the ECU to prevent them from turning up the boost, it will be tough to rationalize the 15k spread out to the M3. Assuming the stock turbo can flow enough air to blow.. say 18 lbs. of boost, you're most of the way to V8 M3 power levels.

Shoot, sorry for the long post.


----------



## MG67 (Aug 19, 2003)

I'm not a fan of turbo's and I will probably wait for the M3 to come out in the Sedan version. But I would want to drive that turbo to see what it does and how it handles... only then I could make a decision... But I'm curious, a first BMW gas turbo in quite a few years...


----------



## Josh (PA) (Jan 21, 2002)

When I first read of a 4 door version, I was initially very excited about the possibility of an e90 M3 sedan as my next car in '08. The more I think about it though, I can't find one reason why I should pay $65-75k for a new E90 when by then I could get an 03-04 E39 M5 with better looks, better depreciation, a MANUAL transmission, better ergonomics and probably similar performace for no more than $40 - $50k.


----------



## SONET (Mar 1, 2002)

Single turbo. Hmm...

In a way I'm kind of surprised that they aren't going with a two-stage biturbo setup (one dedicated to lower revs, the other for high revs) since this would have the ability to deliver a flatter power curve. But then again that adds to the costs, weight and complexity. I'm sure there will be some sort of design innovation involved (a more sophisticated/programmable BOV maybe?); I'm really looking forward to seeing how they engineer the system. :thumbup:

--SONET


----------



## RSPDiver (Jul 14, 2004)

A random thought: would it be easier and more cost effective to introduce a turbo system for one model, or maybe try to use the existing e46 M3 S54 (possibly in some state of lessened tune) in the similarly sized new car? Seems like BMW hasn't screwed around with turbocharging for a long time on purpose, even during the turbo-laden 80's.


----------



## Moderato (Nov 24, 2003)

Josh (PA) said:


> When I first read of a 4 door version, I was initially very excited about the possibility of an e90 M3 sedan as my next car in '08. The more I think about it though, I can't find one reason why I should pay $65-75k for a new E90 when by then I could get an 03-04 E39 M5 with better looks, better depreciation, a MANUAL transmission, better ergonomics and probably similar performace for no more than $40 - $50k.


Yeah really, for 75K you can get an E46 330 for an everyday driver and a 25-30K "sports car" of your liking, mod the crap out of it and it will probably hang with the E90 M3 at the track. I can't see paying 75K for the E90 M3. :dunno:


----------



## TeenerPaul (Jan 22, 2005)

*No way*

There is ablsolutely no way BMW will make a 330 turbo. BMW has said on several occasions (mostly after Merc. came out with blown S-Classes and Maybachs and the press was compliaing that the 760 and Rolls Royce were seriously outgunned) that they will only use forced induction on their diesels. BMW has also said that the R6 is capable of being stretched out to 3.5 liters. Let's do the math on that one: 258hp*3.5/3.0 and the magic number is 301hp, what a coincidence.

Speaking of E90 engines, don't new low sulpher fuels regulations come into effect sometime in 2006. I don't know much about why we can't get diesels in the US, but maybe the low sulpher fuel would make the diesels emissions friendly and we would finally get engines like the awesome new 3 liter bi-turbo with over 270hp and a massive 413lbft of torque, but your guess is as good as mine.

As for prices I'd bet:
335i: $45K
M3: $55K


----------



## Matthew330Ci (Sep 9, 2002)

I agree it is highly unlikely we'll ever see a turbo petrol bmw anytime in the near future.

ditto with honda.


----------



## Bob Clevenger (Dec 17, 2004)

I don't see the sense of producing a 3 litre turbocharged engine at 300 bhp when BMW already has a 3 litre NA engine that produces 330 BHP.

Just use the engine from the E46 M3. The E90 M3 will have a larger engine, so that won't be a conflict.

However, What I think has nothing to do with what Alex has heard. He's probably more likely to be right than I.


----------



## Moderato (Nov 24, 2003)

Bob Clevenger said:


> I don't see the sense of producing a 3 litre turbocharged engine at 300 bhp when BMW already has a 3 litre NA engine that produces 330 BHP.


I think that the 3.0T could achieve the 300hp number with a lower redline and perhaps more longevity and cheaper maintenance then the M3 engine, and this would be good for marketing to the everyday driver.


----------



## Nick325xiT 5spd (Dec 24, 2001)

Bob Clevenger said:


> I don't see the sense of producing a 3 litre turbocharged engine at 300 bhp when BMW already has a 3 litre NA engine that produces 330 BHP.
> 
> Just use the engine from the E46 M3. The E90 M3 will have a larger engine, so that won't be a conflict.
> 
> However, What I think has nothing to do with what Alex has heard. He's probably more likely to be right than I.


 How about because that engine has an iron block, gets comical fuel efficiency, requires absurd levels of maintenance, and would freak out many customers with odd noises?


----------



## TeenerPaul (Jan 22, 2005)

Are you guys even reading my post? The R6 will be able to punch out 300 bhp without a turbo. Plus why does the 330 need 300 bhp? Why not make it lighter, like with an all aluminum frame like the A8 and XJ8? Any racer will tell you less weight is better then more power, more expensive but better.

Paul


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

TeenerPaul said:


> Are you guys even reading my post? The R6 will be able to punch out 300 bhp without a turbo. Plus why does the 330 need 300 bhp? Why not make it lighter, like with an all aluminum frame like the A8 and XJ8? Any racer will tell you less weight is better then more power, more expensive but better.
> 
> Paul


All aluminum frame is expensive (yet) and not repair friendly.


----------



## hugh1850 (Jun 20, 2003)

I really don't care how they do it, but I would like to have a 300 bhp+ 4 door.


----------



## TeenerPaul (Jan 22, 2005)

Then why are the A8 and XJ8 cheaper base then the 745i(in the US)?

Paul


----------



## Nick325xiT 5spd (Dec 24, 2001)

TeenerPaul said:


> Then why are the A8 and XJ8 cheaper base then the 745i(in the US)?
> 
> Paul


 Because no one wants to buy them?

Aluminum frames are EXTREMELY difficult to repair, and would probably drive insurance rates through the roof in a mass market vehcile like the 3 series.


----------



## DaveH (Sep 25, 2003)

TeenerPaul said:


> There is ablsolutely no way BMW will make a 330 turbo. BMW has said on several occasions (mostly after Merc. came out with blown S-Classes and Maybachs and the press was compliaing that the 760 and Rolls Royce were seriously outgunned) that they will only use forced induction on their diesels. BMW has also said that the R6 is capable of being stretched out to 3.5 liters. Let's do the math on that one: 258hp*3.5/3.0 and the magic number is 301hp, what a coincidence.
> 
> Speaking of E90 engines, don't new low sulpher fuels regulations come into effect sometime in 2006. I don't know much about why we can't get diesels in the US, but maybe the low sulpher fuel would make the diesels emissions friendly and we would finally get engines like the awesome new 3 liter bi-turbo with over 270hp and a massive 413lbft of torque, but your guess is as good as mine.
> 
> ...


I agree wholeheartedly with your statements above. I am not a fan of forced induction on any gas engine car. I have talked many people out of buying cars with such enhancements even if they are sold by the factory.

The only engine I would use forced induction on is a diesel-and that depends on the Hp/liter value. You can run a diesel all day long on 50Hp/Liter or below without overstressing components. Go above that ratio and you are looking a shortened major overhaul periods. My experience with large diesel engines spans over many years with the marine industry. Proper maintenance is key to long term diesel performance.

If BMW folks are listening, here's my wish list:
* Forget gas engine turbos
* As much as I admire diesels, do not waste money to Federalize them for this country. Most Americans would rather use "cleaner" technology such as hybrids a means of increased fuel economy. BMW must decide if its image is in performance driver cars or commuter gas savers. I think extracting better performance, better handling and increased reliability should be your goals.
* Lighten the car, even at the risk of increased MSRP
* Make your technology enhancements e.g. Direct Injection, Lightened flywheel, etc. as an option for those who understand what they are. Possibly part of a true Sports Package
* Allow BMW Individual into the North American scene: Make all special orders subject to a non-refundable $5K deposit to protect the dealerships.
* Create a 4-door M3 or,
* If the proper 50:50 weight distribution supports it, a 345i E90 or 348 M3 works for me.

my 2 cents..


----------



## Nick325xiT 5spd (Dec 24, 2001)

Non-refundable deposits are illegal.

Most consumers don't want a lighter car.


----------



## philippek (Jul 31, 2003)

Nick325xiT 5spd said:


> Non-refundable deposits are illegal.
> 
> Most consumers don't want a lighter car.


:stupid: on both.

Most consumer equate weight with safety.


----------



## DaveH (Sep 25, 2003)

Nick325xiT 5spd said:


> Non-refundable deposits are illegal.
> 
> Most consumers don't want a lighter car.


If non-refundable deposits are truly illegal-call it a progress payment. We're playing with semantics here.

BMW buyers are not "most consumers". Some buy for a supposed image, others like you and me, buy because of the performance, safety and build quality. If BMW would support factory or dealer installed enhancements through Individual without voiding their warranty, you might have quite an aftermarket sales group. I know I would visit the dealer Individual store quite often.


----------



## iateyourcheese (Sep 9, 2004)

My wife has a turbo Subaru and that thing can kick the crap out of my 330i in 0 - 60 (C&D did it in 5.3s). Did I mention it's an SUV? 

Turbo lag? Not bad at all. The WRX with its 2.0L setup has a noticeable lag, but the larger 2.5L setups of the Forester, Legacy, and STi manage a much smaller lag. But this could be partly the use of a supercharger and turbo. It's so much fun to drive -- but not the best in the twisties. Not the best looking car, either.

A 3.0L inline six from BMW with turbo would be awesome. But I'm not sure about the reliability. Hopefully some of their turbo diesel engineers will get on that.

Will it happen? Part of me doesn't think so. Adding a turbo would boost the torque and would close the gap between M3 and 330i dramatically, at least in 0 - 60 times. That would eat into the M3 sales, wouldn't it?

On the Subie forums, there is a sig that just cracks me up.

"Having no turbo is like having never ending turbo lag."


----------



## Nick325xiT 5spd (Dec 24, 2001)

DaveH said:


> If non-refundable deposits are truly illegal-call it a progress payment. We're playing with semantics here.
> 
> BMW buyers are not "most consumers". Some buy for a supposed image, others like you and me, buy because of the performance, safety and build quality. If BMW would support factory or dealer installed enhancements through Individual without voiding their warranty, you might have quite an aftermarket sales group. I know I would visit the dealer Individual store quite often.


 Bull****. Most BMW buyers are exactly like that.

And semantics are important. Somethign equivalent to a deposit, but called somethign else would be EASILY challenged in court.


----------



## rfpesq (Jan 27, 2004)

Nick325xiT 5spd said:


> Non-refundable deposits are illegal.


Where did you hear that non-refundable deposits are illegal? I'm almost certain that's not the case in the majority of states.


----------



## racerdave (Sep 15, 2003)

Also, don't foget the S60/V70R from Volvo. Yes, you can feel some turbo spool-up, but it makes 300 ft/lb from about 1850-5500 RPM. It's a flat torque curve in this range. Sequential turbos, or even twin-scoll setups can reduce lag a lot. Also, having a slightly higher compression ratio with a smaller turbo can eliminate a lot of lag too.

It'd be interesting to see BMW's solution. I hope they do it.


----------



## DaveH (Sep 25, 2003)

rfpesq said:


> Where did you hear that non-refundable deposits are illegal? I'm almost certain that's not the case in the majority of states.


I agree.

Nick you're going to have to support your statement about non-refundable deposits being illegal in the automobile industry nationwide. I cannot find anything on law web sites other than real estate law regarding security deposits. Since your profile states you're a student studying real estate developement, maybe you are applying that law it too broadly.

Please advise me on your source about clearly defined, contractural non-refundable deposits being illegal in the automobile industry.


----------



## philippek (Jul 31, 2003)

DaveH said:


> I agree.
> 
> Nick you're going to have to support your statement about non-refundable deposits being illegal in the automobile industry nationwide. I cannot find anything on law web sites other than real estate law regarding security deposits. Since your profile states you're a student studying real estate developement, maybe you are applying that law it too broadly.
> 
> Please advise me on your source about clearly defined, contractural non-refundable deposits being illegal in the automobile industry.


They are illegal in California. Don't ask me to quote the penal code section, that ain't my bag.


----------



## TeenerPaul (Jan 22, 2005)

Everyone slings 0-60mph times around like they are the measure of the car. They aren't. 0-60 times tell more about tires and the road surface then they do about the car and the Subaru WRX STi is a perfect example. Subaru puts über-sticky rubber and four wheel drive on the STi to make 7000 rpm clutch drops. Problem is that the tyres wear out quickly, are expensive, and if you replace them with rubber that will last then your 0-60 time increases by a second or two. Plus I hate to think what happens if you are in a freak snow storm in June (it happens). A better test would be a 5-100-0 test. This would give us info on the torque, gearing, brakes, suspension(indirectly), and horsepower. 

As for most consumers believing that weight=safety, most consumers are stupid and also follow US crash tests. So as long as the car does well in crash tests the cars should still sell. Too bad our crash tests are insurance driven so an aluminum car would probably do poorly because of the cost to repair.

As a final rant, why does everyone strive for a 50:50 weight distribution then put wider rear tyres on the car. 50:50 isn’t ideal it’s average, look at Porsche, McLaren (the F1, not the McMerc), Ferrari, Pagani, Lotus and any purpose built racecar if you need proof. If the car is too nose heavy use a trans-axle to balance the car rearward, with SMG/SSG and automatics dominating the general market the shift linkage issues wouldn't be a problem. And if a car is nose heavy put larger front tyres on, this way you won’t have to visit understeer city at the slightest provocation.

Paul


----------



## philippek (Jul 31, 2003)

TeenerPaul said:


> As a final rant, why does everyone strive for a 50:50 weight distribution then put wider rear tyres on the car.


Someone important has apparently decided that a slight-to-moderate understeering attitude is a safer set up for the average consumer. That same consumer that equates weight with safety.


----------



## iateyourcheese (Sep 9, 2004)

TeenerPaul said:


> Everyone slings 0-60mph times around like they are the measure of the car. They aren't. 0-60 times tell more about tires and the road surface then they do about the car and the Subaru WRX STi is a perfect example. Subaru puts über-sticky rubber and four wheel drive on the STi to make 7000 rpm clutch drops. Problem is that the tyres wear out quickly, are expensive, and if you replace them with rubber that will last then your 0-60 time increases by a second or two. Plus I hate to think what happens if you are in a freak snow storm in June (it happens). A better test would be a 5-100-0 test. This would give us info on the torque, gearing, brakes, suspension(indirectly), and horsepower.


I think I struck a nerve... :dunno:

All I was saying was that her car has an absolute rush of power when you hit the gas. All that for $23k. Do I like driving my Bimmer more? Absolutely. The 330i is more of an all around performer. But people compare cars with the 0 - 60 stat all the time. If anything it's something they can feel and appreciate. How many times have I gunned the car on a freeway onramp? It's basically a 10 - 70 mph test. And her Subaru would trash my BMW every time doing it. She doesn't spin the tires and she's got just average all seasons on it.

The discussion here was about BMW adding a turbo to the 3 series. My post dealt with the huge improvement a turbo makes in acceleration (when done right), and that modern turbos don't have the lag they used to have. Is that the whole measure of a car? Nope. But it's one of the absolute best things in a car.  You want that sucker to jump off the line when you hit the gas. Joe six-pack just doesn't get excited about brakes...


----------



## marvelphx (Mar 23, 2002)

Here is my take on this:

The M3 will make 400hp

The stock 3.0 will make 255hp

Im gonna bet the 3.0 Turbo (if it makes it to the dealers), will only come in sedans and will make more than 300hp. 45hp more for the cost, complexity, and warrantability is not worth it. It's gonna be closer to 325hp at least. This gives BMW a niche in the higher powered sedan market, while leaving the king M leader in the sport coupes.

As for LSDs, they just don't understand the market there. You can get a Sentra SE-R with an LSD for god's sake. Any performance package or above should at least come with the option of one. Keep it a standard LSD, and leave the M-Power diff in the M3 if need be.

Just my .02


----------



## Moderato (Nov 24, 2003)

TeenerPaul said:


> Everyone slings 0-60mph times around like they are the measure of the car. They aren't. 0-60 times tell more about tires and the road surface then they do about the car and the Subaru WRX STi is a perfect example. Subaru puts über-sticky rubber and four wheel drive on the STi to make 7000 rpm clutch drops. Problem is that the tyres wear out quickly, are expensive, and if you replace them with rubber that will last then your 0-60 time increases by a second or two. Plus I hate to think what happens if you are in a freak snow storm in June (it happens). A better test would be a 5-100-0 test. This would give us info on the torque, gearing, brakes, suspension(indirectly), and horsepower.
> 
> As for most consumers believing that weight=safety, most consumers are stupid and also follow US crash tests. So as long as the car does well in crash tests the cars should still sell. Too bad our crash tests are insurance driven so an aluminum car would probably do poorly because of the cost to repair.
> 
> ...


 :stupid: :thumbup:


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

Alex Baumann said:


> I don't know if the Valvetronic engine can be successfully turbo charged as it's been supercharged by Alpina (although expensive and complicated, requiring special craftmanship for a small number of engines that's being produced in a 'workshop'). I'm not very familiar with turbo charging, but if reliability is an issue, I'm guessing that it's not just plug-and-play or is it ?


I wondered this too. There are, to my knowledge, no turbo kits for any BMW Valvetronic engine; I wonder what the lack of throttle body does for the traditional turbocharger application, and the impact on things like inlet manifold pressure at part throttle (and a bunch of other fluid dynamics stuff I've clean forgotten). And would Valvetronic exacerbate turbo lag at anything less than full throttle because the valve lift is so widely variable?


> On the performance side, I'd say that they will be quite close to each other, in terms of accelaration and overall performance throughout the rpm range.
> 
> OK, other than just a game of hp numbers, what purpose will a 330i Turbo serve ?


It partly depends on weight. I hope the adoption of weight-saving techniques on the M6 filters down through the range to the point where the M3 retains a weight advantage over the alternative. Typical comments from BMW M engineers and bosses tend to be on the "we're not interested in straight-line grunt" side, so whilst there may only be a small difference (if any) in performance at low speeds, I would expect the high-speed performance to be better, and the dynamics to be improved. Otherwise, as you say, folks will just opt for 95% of the peformance for 75% of the price.

If the rumours of the 4-litre V8 are true, 400 bhp and 320 lb-ft sound plausible. Similar torque to, but more power than, a turbocharged 330i making 330 bhp and 315 lb-ft.

Compare E30 325i and early M3:

325i: 170 bhp, 167 lb-ft
M3: 200 bhp, 177 lb-ft

About the turbo 330i rumours, every year or so I read a comment in either the German press (or UK's CAR magazine, which is the only one I take much notice of here) from a BMW high-up saying something along the lines of "we will not turbocharge a petrol car unless we can guarantee throttle response equivalent to a well-tuned, high-compression, high-revving alternative". That's a pretty tall order.


----------



## Dinan e32 (Feb 10, 2005)

*e90 330i turbo*

Guys come on now. Its been 30 yrs since bmw has ever used a turbo in any of there cars.
Bmw is known for there Natural asperation power. so whoever started this roumer about a 330 turbo???? I dont think one is comeing out. I highyly doubt it. Especially when bmw direct inject engines are built out of magnisum.....


----------



## Dinan e32 (Feb 10, 2005)

*e30m3 and e30 325i*

ok about the comment on the e30 m3 and the e30 325i bmw was not worried about acceleration they were more concerned with how fast they can take an s turn or a hair pin with the car!!!!


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

Dinan e32 said:


> ok about the comment on the e30 m3 and the e30 325i bmw was not worried about acceleration they were more concerned with how fast they can take an s turn or a hair pin with the car!!!!


...which is exactly as it should be


----------



## DaveH (Sep 25, 2003)

Dinan e32 said:


> Bmw is known for there Natural asperation power. so whoever started this roumer about a 330 turbo???? I dont think one is comeing out. I highyly doubt it. Especially when bmw direct inject engines are built out of magnisum.....


Dinan e32:
Source: _Autoweek _November 1, 2004
"We can confirm BMW is plotting the return of turbocharging to the lineup with a 3.0 liter, 240Hp I6 in a proposed 330Ti. It is aimed at bridging the gap between the regular line and a new 4.0-liter, 400Hp V8 powered M3. BMW also is developing a limited number of fwd 3s using the electronically controlled xDrive system found in the X3."


----------



## marvelphx (Mar 23, 2002)

If that is true, I don't see why you would pay for a turbo that makes less than the NA version... I don't think that is accurate.


----------



## CoasterLonghorn (Jan 10, 2005)

They probably wouldn't be able to call it a Ti anyways, because that would become confusing, or just funny (imagine 330TiT). Not to mention that the NA version has 255hp, so the fi version would have at least 300, not 240.


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

I'm guessing that they'll call it 335i, just like they did with the twin turbo E60 diesel models (535d, 3.0 liter twin turbo)

BMW totally messed up the model designation anyway. It's not matching the engine displacement on some models anymore.


----------



## ObD (Dec 29, 2001)

PhilH said:


> I don't like the non linear power delivery of turbos, and since we had to replace one in our Passat to the tune of over $2k, I'm wary of their reliability too. I'd take a 330i or an M3, but I'd pass on the 330 turbo.


 :stupid:


----------



## Nick325xiT 5spd (Dec 24, 2001)

Alex Baumann said:


> I'm guessing that they'll call it 335i, just like they did with the twin turbo E60 diesel models (535d, 3.0 liter twin turbo)
> 
> BMW totally messed up the model designation anyway. It's not matching the engine displacement on some models anymore.


 It's not a new idea... Remember the original 745i?


----------



## machmeter (Aug 6, 2002)

I doubt that I would even consider buying a turbocharged BMW. Never been a fan of the turbo (no pun intended). I'd rather spend the difference and have the M3.


----------



## wookiehoth (Jun 14, 2003)

The most I'd pay for an M3, E90 or E46, would be $55K. For me to buy a car more expensive than that, I'd most likely throw in another $25K and get a Porsche 911.


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

DaveH said:


> Dinan e32:
> Source: _Autoweek _November 1, 2004
> "We can confirm BMW is plotting the return of turbocharging to the lineup with a 3.0 liter, 240Hp I6 in a proposed 330Ti. It is aimed at bridging the gap between the regular line and a new 4.0-liter, 400Hp V8 powered M3. BMW also is developing a limited number of fwd 3s using the electronically controlled xDrive system found in the X3."


Almost everything is wrong with this:

Return of turbocharging to the line-up? BMW has had umpteen turbodiesels since the 2002 turbo.

3.0 litres and 240 bhp? When the standard car makes 258 bhp? With a Valvetronic head?

330Ti? I thought BMW NA said "never again" to a compact.

FWD 3s? Why, when the chassis is built (with all the downsides that entails) for RWD?


----------



## DaveH (Sep 25, 2003)

andy_thomas said:


> Almost everything is wrong with this:
> 
> Return of turbocharging to the line-up? BMW has had umpteen turbodiesels since the 2002 turbo.
> 
> ...


Andy:

I didn't say it was accurate. I just wanted to post one of the sources of the turbo talk here in North America.

The reference to the turbo returning to the lineup was meant for cars brought to North America. We haven't had any of the diesel models in the states that I can recall in recent history (Canada may be another story, though). My opinion is that _Autoweek_ stated 240Hp when they meant 340Hp. That would indeed bridge the gap between the naturally aspirated engines and the purported 400Hp M3.

The "FWD" notation is not front-wheel drive, but rather four-wheel drive. Note they mention the X3's drivetrain which would replace the present Xi drivetrain here in North America.


----------



## ALEX325i (Dec 19, 2001)

PhilH said:


> I don't like the non linear power delivery of turbos, and since we had to replace one in our Passat to the tune of over $2k, I'm wary of their reliability too. I'd take a 330i or an M3, but I'd pass on the 330 turbo.


Phil, that's the way it _used_ to be... Don't you think power delivery is linear in the Passat? I used to think it was pretty linear on my former A4.

I agree though. More moving parts = higher risk.

I honestly don't think BMW will release a turbocharged 330... However, if they do, expect to see E90 M3s getting smoked by tweaked 330s.


----------



## ALEX325i (Dec 19, 2001)

TeenerPaul said:


> As a final rant, why does everyone strive for a 50:50 weight distribution then put wider rear tyres on the car. 50:50 isn't ideal it's average, look at Porsche, McLaren (the F1, not the McMerc), Ferrari, Pagani, Lotus and any purpose built racecar if you need proof. If the car is too nose heavy use a trans-axle to balance the car rearward, with SMG/SSG and automatics dominating the general market the shift linkage issues wouldn't be a problem. And if a car is nose heavy put larger front tyres on, this way you won't have to visit understeer city at the slightest provocation.


You can do all that and the laws of physics would still apply... I can't think of one "nose heavy" car that doesn't understeer... Audi and others try to offset that with AWD, but...


----------



## ALEX325i (Dec 19, 2001)

DaveH said:


> BMW also is developing a limited number of fwd 3s using the electronically controlled xDrive system found in the X3."


Damn! Why FWD?!? What for?!? :dunno: :yikes:

Edit: Ok, never mind. I'd never seen anyone use "FWD" that way before... :rofl:


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

DaveH said:


> Andy:
> 
> I didn't say it was accurate. I just wanted to post one of the sources of the turbo talk here in North America.
> 
> ...


Oh, sorry now I see what you mean (I was questioning Autoweek's odd reportage, not yours; I am still to be convinced that "FWD" is an unambiguously appropriate way to denote four-wheel-drive ). 340 bhp would be about right for a naturally-aspirated variant normally producing 258 bhp, so perhaps you are onto something there...


----------



## dredder (Jul 17, 2005)

As far as pricing goes, I totally believe this statement


KAZ said:


> The E36M3 suffered from being a 'everyone and their uncle' car, and the E46M3 was only partly successful in changing that. This should put that to rest.


10% inflation for 330's and 15% for M3's 
330= 38500 for base model
M3 = 56995 for base model
when and if BMW does offer Turbo then I would believe the price model around 42000 for base


----------



## TempmewithanM3 (Aug 9, 2005)

I'm not sure if anyone else metioned it but Active Autowerks was working on a E46 M3 twin turbo kit, does anyone know any more about that?


----------



## hector (Jul 14, 2003)

according to a post by "e90fleet" on e90post.com, the 335i is "confirmed". he states: "a number of parts already say they are for the 330i and 335i on the bmw identification sticker".


----------



## ViperSSD (Jul 16, 2005)

hector said:


> according to a post by "e90fleet" on e90post.com, the 335i is "confirmed". he states: "a number of parts already say they are for the 330i and 335i on the bmw identification sticker".


a lot of these sites confirm them based on the spy pics of a turbo 3er


----------



## Chris90 (Apr 7, 2003)

TeenerPaul said:


> Everyone slings 0-60mph times around like they are the measure of the car. They aren't.


Yes, I can personally attest that my girlfriend's stock WRX pulls dead even with my unmodified 325i, above about 60 mph. A 330i would easily pull away on the highway. I can't imagine trying to hit 5.3 seconds in the WRX, the clutch would go down the ****ter.

I hate the WRX's rubbery power delivery, but other turbo'd cars I've driven, like the S4 or Supra, felt great.


----------

