# E90, E91, E92, E93 intro dates



## JPinTO (Dec 20, 2001)

Don't know if this is old new, but autospies reports model designations and intro dates:

http://www.autospies.com/article/index.asp?articleId=3043&categoryId=1

o Sedan (E90) - IAA 2005
o Wagon (E91) - Geneva 2006
o Coupé (E92) - Paris 2006
o Convertible (E93) - Detroit 2007

Motor lineups:

o 316i, 122 HP
o 318i, 150 HP
o 320i, 177 PS
o 323i, 204 HP
o 325i, 231 HP
o 330i, 265 HP
o 330ti, 333 HP
o M3, 401 HP
o 318d, 122 HP
o 320d, 163 HP
o 325d, 204 HP
o 330d, 238 HP


----------



## HW (Dec 24, 2001)

why are they using diff E_n _for the diff bodies now?


----------



## Artslinger (Sep 2, 2002)

Whats a 330ti?


----------



## pmb1010 (Aug 26, 2002)

Artslinger said:


> Whats a 330ti?


Turbo I would suppose.


----------



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

I doubt it (the autospies info, that is)


----------



## el_guineo (Nov 23, 2002)

atyclb said:


> I doubt it (the autospies info, that is)


The t is for compact, I believe (hatchback). They don't have 'em here in the US.


----------



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

el_guineo said:


> The t is for compact, I believe (hatchback). They don't have 'em here in the US.


no the ti listed stands for turbo


----------



## SoN][c (May 25, 2004)

Artslinger said:


> Whats a 330ti?


Its the designation for the new turbocharged engines...


----------



## brkf (May 26, 2003)

SoN][c said:


> Its the designation for the new turbocharged engines...


hmmm, turbo? find that hard to believe. we'll see. the turbo would help with the 3.0's total lack of torque below 4k rpm though.


----------



## Fzara2000 (Jan 22, 2004)

blueguydotcom said:


> hmmm, turbo? find that hard to believe. we'll see. the turbo would help with the 3.0's total lack of torque below 4k rpm though.


Speaking of lack of torque, would you happen to have the torque charts for the different BMW's available? It would help me see what you're thinking.


----------



## rost12 (Dec 22, 2001)

HW said:


> why are they using diff E_n _for the diff bodies now?


I'm not sure if BMW did it before, but I think it started with 7 series, E65 for "i" and E66 for "Li". Now it's 6 series, 63 for coupe, 64 for cabs. Guess it's the new trend


----------



## JPinTO (Dec 20, 2001)

blueguydotcom said:


> the turbo would help with the 3.0's total lack of torque below 4k rpm though.


Let me guess--- You've never driven a turbo charged car before. A Turbo doesn't spool up until 4k.


----------



## JPinTO (Dec 20, 2001)

A 3.0 Turbo is a great move and exciting. 

A non-M motor in the 333hp leaves a "lower cost" alternative to compete with the S4. That positions the V8 M3 to go upscale in pricing.

A 75hp bump from the non-turbo 3.0 to the turbo 3.0 leaves a lot of room for tweaking aftermarket. That should easily be good for ~375hp with a boost controller and 400hp with reasonable modifications.


----------



## Artslinger (Sep 2, 2002)

Hmmm... 330ti, 333 HP... a turbo interesting.


----------



## Tanning machine (Feb 21, 2002)

blueguydotcom said:


> hmmm, turbo? find that hard to believe. we'll see. the turbo would help with the 3.0's total lack of torque below 4k rpm though.


the 330d would probably help that low end torque even more. Too bad that won't come to the US for a few years.

But I highly doubt that the specs of all the engines are already known, let alone do they know which engines will actually be available.

And I'd gues the autoshow debuts are also speculation based on likely time frames and what shows are available. Personally, I'd guess they'll debut the coupe and convertible at the same show, even if only the coupe is available sooner.


----------



## Desertnate (Mar 11, 2002)

atyclb said:


> no the ti listed stands for turbo


  BMW is going to forced induction on a petrol engine?  

I knew this time would probably come, but not so soon...


----------



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

since when is Autospies a source to be believed about stuff like this?

:dunno:


----------



## TLudwig (Mar 30, 2004)

I'm sure that BMW already knows its engine lineup for the E90 series. For production planning purposes, that kind of thing has to be in the pipeline pretty early. 

As far as a turbo charger, that seems highly doubtful to me, but BMW has been surprising me a lot recently (and rarely in a good way). Also, the turbo charger doesn't give you low end torgue. That's the whole problem with turbo chargers (and why many choose to supercharge instead); they don't spool up until later in the rev band. And I'm not sure why you're complaining about low end torque in the 330 anyways. In proportion to its overall power (which is admittedly somewhat weak compared to the competition right now), the BMW has TONS of low end torque. :dunno: 

Anyways, atyclb is right, autospies has published constant misinformation during the last 6 months about the E90, much of it contradictory and very little of it will likely be accurate. Why would we suddenly take their recent claims as gospel truth?


----------



## swchang (Oct 5, 2003)

TLudwig said:


> I'm sure that BMW already knows its engine lineup for the E90 series. For production planning purposes, that kind of thing has to be in the pipeline pretty early.
> 
> As far as a turbo charger, that seems highly doubtful to me, but BMW has been surprising me a lot recently (and rarely in a good way). Also, the turbo charger doesn't give you low end torgue. That's the whole problem with turbo chargers (and why many choose to supercharge instead); they don't spool up until later in the rev band. And I'm not sure why you're complaining about low end torque in the 330 anyways. In proportion to its overall power (which is admittedly somewhat weak compared to the competition right now), the BMW has TONS of low end torque. :dunno:
> 
> Anyways, atyclb is right, autospies has published constant misinformation during the last 6 months about the E90, much of it contradictory and very little of it will likely be accurate. Why would we suddenly take their recent claims as gospel truth?


What's the difference between turbo and supercharging? I know turbo kicks in at some rpm threshold. Does supercharging not?


----------



## TLudwig (Mar 30, 2004)

swchang said:


> What's the difference between turbo and supercharging? I know turbo kicks in at some rpm threshold. Does supercharging not?


Turbocharging doesn't kick in at a set rpm threshold, but rather it kicks in when it is "spooled" up enough to sufficiently compress air and force it into your engine. Turbos rely on exhaust gases to drive the compressor. The spooling up occurs due to the wait on exhaust gases from the combustion process. Once the turbo is finally powered up, usually around 3K rpm, you feel the power kick in as the turbo delivers the compressed air to the engine.

Superchargers, on the other hand, are always compressing air as long as the engine is turning. The compresser in in a SC runs off of the crankshaft rather than exhaust gases. This is good in that you get constant and more linear boost (no lag). The bad thing about a supercharger is that because it runs off the crankshaft, it draws power away from the normal operation of the engine. You generally don't get as good of a boost with a supercharger. It's kind of a tradeoff between low-end boost and maximum boost. This is really an oversimplification because there are several different types of supercharges (and the centrifugal SC behaves very similarly to a turbo), but you get the overall picture.

If I had to put one in my car, I'd probably go with the SC because in my experience and that of my friends, the SC is just a bit more reliable and doesn't put quite as much stress on the engine. But there is a huge debate on this, so not to start up an OT discussion.


----------



## swchang (Oct 5, 2003)

Jeff_DML said:


> as far as I know Audi ditched a engine with the new A6, just the 3.2l and 4.2l, no more 2.7T option anymore so maybe it didnt do that hot?


Yeah, I was just re-reading Edmunds.com's first drive analysis. Dropped the 2.7T, going with the two engines you mentioned. This puts BMW, MB, and Audi models in all the same categories now. Too bad BMW and MB probably won't come up with a counter to the RS4... I wonder what an M3 counterpart would be called. I'd vote for MM3...

Anyway, I wish I could find a good Audi site. audiworld.com's forums don't have much news. I like the setup here where there's a good mix of news, tech/mods, etc.


----------



## Jeff_DML (Mar 13, 2002)

swchang said:


> Yeah, I was just re-reading Edmunds.com's first drive analysis. Dropped the 2.7T, going with the two engines you mentioned. This puts BMW, MB, and Audi models in all the same categories now. Too bad BMW and MB probably won't come up with a counter to the RS4... I wonder what an M3 counterpart would be called. I'd vote for MM3...
> 
> Anyway, I wish I could find a good Audi site. audiworld.com's forums don't have much news. I like the setup here where there's a good mix of news, tech/mods, etc.


M3 CSL == RS4 :dunno:

or even M3 == RS4 

~~~~~~~~~~~

vwvortex.com seems to get more up to date info. More oriented towards VW but they cover audi too.


----------



## swchang (Oct 5, 2003)

Jeff_DML said:


> M3 CSL == RS4 :dunno:
> 
> or even M3 == RS4
> 
> ...


Does the M3 CSL have a different engine than the M3? Anything different other than use of CF?


----------



## HW (Dec 24, 2001)

Jeff_DML said:


> M3 CSL == RS4 :dunno:
> 
> or even M3 == RS4
> 
> ...


more like if bmw shoehorned the M5 engine into the M3. doesn't the RS4 have an S6 engine? 2.7L twin turbo w/ 380HP.


----------



## Kaz (Dec 21, 2001)

How can the CSL=RS4 if the CSL is lighter than normal and the RS4 is heavier?

The RS4 should be a S4 SSH (Sedan, Sport, Heavyweight)


----------



## Jeff_DML (Mar 13, 2002)

HW said:


> more like if bmw shoehorned the M5 engine into the M3. doesn't the RS4 have an S6 engine? 2.7L twin turbo w/ 380HP.


RS4 had a more highly tuned S4 engine but you are correct on the configuration. The RS6 had a twin-turbo V8, S6 a NA V8. Lastest S4 has a NA V8, new RS4 hasnt been annouced yet. Rumors are a twin-turbo V8 or a twin-turbo version of the currently 3.0l. New RS6 is supposed to get a V10 like the new M5.


----------



## Jeff_DML (Mar 13, 2002)

Kaz said:


> How can the CSL=RS4 if the CSL is lighter than normal and the RS4 is heavier?
> 
> The RS4 should be a S4 SSH (Sedan, Sport, Heavyweight)


true  , audi likes weight

but I was just considering performance

RS4 > S4 > A4 
vs 
M3CSL > M3 > 3 series


----------



## dusterbuster (Jan 29, 2003)

swchang said:


> Does the M3 CSL have a different engine than the M3? Anything different other than use of CF?


i believe the csl does have some tweaks to the engine for a modest gain in HP, iirc. :dunno:

according to this site: http://www.fast-autos.net/bmw/bmwm3csl.html, 360 bhp, 273 lb-ft torque.


----------



## Jeff_DML (Mar 13, 2002)

dusterbuster said:


> i believe the csl does have some tweaks to the engine for a modest gain in HP, iirc. :dunno:


you believe correct


----------



## dusterbuster (Jan 29, 2003)

this month's automobile magazine has a little blurb about the next gen m3. a csl version is also planned (don't know if it's coming to the states, but i wouldn't be terribly surprised). there's also been repeated talk in the auto mags about bmw considering the addition of a turbo to the non-m3 lineup due to the huge gap in HP between the normally aspirated v6 and the new m3's v8 monster.


----------



## Kaz (Dec 21, 2001)

Jeff_DML said:


> you believe correct


Like that bigass CF intake plenum.


----------



## JPinTO (Dec 20, 2001)

blueguydotcom said:


> You'd guess wrong. And you'd be wrong about turbos too. The turbo on my 1.8T pulled strong from 2k on. That's part of the reason I feel like my 330i ZHP is dead. I was used to getting pretty quick full-torque. I remember driving my Jetta after getting the BMW and I kept thinking wow, this car is so much peppier than I remembered.
> 
> Of course it was wheezing by 4500 rpm. On the other hand it's around there that the BMW engine finally comes to life.
> 
> Also, the WRX's turbo pulls nicely from about 2500k. I considered that car but passed as the build quality of the car and the class it sprang from made me feel uncomfortable.


If the 1.8T motor has a power band of 2000-4500, that indicates that a small turbo charger is being employed. Small turbos have very little inertia, allowing the turbine to spool up quickly. Unfortunately, it also runs out of breath quicker.

I've had a Saab and Eagle Turbo motor both 2.0L which employed larger units from the factory. Both motors would be lagging heavily until 3000 rpm, but when finally online would pull ferociously to redline. My old 2.3L Volvo Turbo motor behaved similarly.

So, it's all compromises on turbine size to the powerband it's meant to service.

Hypothetically, in the case of a 3.0L Turbo from BMW, a small turbine makes little sense. To get the specified 333hp, it's probably going to have to make it up high, dovetailing the high revving attributes of the 3.0 motor with a larger turbo. This turbo should exhibit lag down low, and IMO won't be helping with low end torque.

At that power output, what makes the most sense to me is to use the formula used by the Nissan 300ZX, Mitsubishi 3000GT and Supra in the early 90s.... and twin turbo charge the motor. Use a small, light turbine that spools up quickly, to help down low, and when it runs out of juice, the bigger one is up to speed to keep the power on all the way to redline. The Twin Turbo Dodge Stealth I drove years back had this setup and was tons of fun with power throughout the band.

So, hopefully Autolies is on the right track with a 3.0L Turbo, but hopefully it's also wrong about it being a single "T" rather than a "TT". A Twin turbo 3.0L would be an incredibly potent motor with tweakability... more desirable than the V8 for fun.


----------



## Donnalee (Dec 13, 2003)

Guys 

BMW are going to use Variable geometry turbo's just like the new 535d

So it kicks in at low rpm and varies the blade angle so it doesnt run out of breath

Look up BMW's data for the E60 535d


----------



## hector (Jul 14, 2003)

JPinTO said:


> If the 1.8T motor has a power band of 2000-4500, that indicates that a small turbo charger is being employed. Small turbos have very little inertia, allowing the turbine to spool up quickly. Unfortunately, it also runs out of breath quicker.
> 
> I've had a Saab and Eagle Turbo motor both 2.0L which employed larger units from the factory. Both motors would be lagging heavily until 3000 rpm, but when finally online would pull ferociously to redline. My old 2.3L Volvo Turbo motor behaved similarly.
> 
> ...


of the 3 cars that you mentioned, only the supra had a sequential turbo system as you describe, the 300zx and mitsu had non-sequential twin turbo set-ups, i owned a 1991 300zx twin-turbo so i'm pretty sure of that, btw, the 90's rx7 twin turbo was also sequential.


----------



## JPinTO (Dec 20, 2001)

hector said:


> of the 3 cars that you mentioned, only the supra had a sequential turbo system as you describe, the 300zx and mitsu had non-sequential twin turbo set-ups, i owned a 1991 300zx twin-turbo so i'm pretty sure of that, btw, the 90's rx7 twin turbo was also sequential.


What does the the 300ZX use-- 2 identically sized turbos, one on each bank of the V6?


----------



## JPinTO (Dec 20, 2001)

Donnalee said:


> Guys
> 
> BMW are going to use Variable geometry turbo's just like the new 535d
> 
> ...


That sounds cool and in keeping with BMW's technological abilities. Are you certain that the diesel and gas engines can utilize the same turbines?

I'm always dreaming of my old turbo car days and sometimes browse autotrader for a used Supra TT. A 3.0 Turbo BMW would be a blast.


----------



## rruiter (Feb 10, 2004)

swchang said:


> What's the difference between turbo and supercharging? I know turbo kicks in at some rpm threshold. Does supercharging not?


Turbo is fed by the exhaust air. A supercharger is beltdriven from the crank. It used to be that a turbo would only work at higher engine rpm's (mor exhaust flow), they would not really spin at lower rpm's. Modern turbo's (usually smaller ones) spin quite well at lower rpm's and there is hardly/no turbo lag.
Just look at modern turbo diesels. They all spin at lower enigne rpm's quite well.


----------



## swchang (Oct 5, 2003)

rruiter said:


> Turbo is fed by the exhaust air. A supercharger is beltdriven from the crank. It used to be that a turbo would only work at higher engine rpm's (mor exhaust flow), they would not really spin at lower rpm's. Modern turbo's (usually smaller ones) spin quite well at lower rpm's and there is hardly/no turbo lag.
> Just look at modern turbo diesels. They all spin at lower enigne rpm's quite well.


So no lag in turbo diesels? Just a whole ton of torque?


----------



## JPinTO (Dec 20, 2001)

rruiter said:


> Modern turbo's (usually smaller ones) spin quite well at lower rpm's and there is hardly/no turbo lag.
> Just look at modern turbo diesels. They all spin at lower enigne rpm's quite well.


Diesels are inherently high torque, low revving motors... so it's easy to put a small, low inertia turbine to complement the narrower power band of a diesel. That doesn't necessarily apply to high performance engines.


----------



## hector (Jul 14, 2003)

JPinTO said:


> What does the the 300ZX use-- 2 identically sized turbos, one on each bank of the V6?


that's exactly right.


----------

