# New 3.5L engine means model changes!!!



## Thorack (Jun 18, 2003)

Allright,

With the new In-line 6 motor coming out soon, Ive heard it will be and amped up 3.0L or an 3.5L, my bet is 3.5L, and 265-275 hp, what does this mean for the model line ups?

Will the 5 series drop the 525 and make the 530 the smallest stateside motor in the 5er's, makes sense doesnt it?

Will the 3 series just keep the 325s as the smallest BMW and have a 330 and 335 or does the 325 just go away?

This was done before with the 523, 528, and in the 3's the 318 was dropped and and the 323, and 328 were dropped. 

Does all this make sense or am I off balance. BMW is losing the horse power wars and it makes sense to keep the big 5's with at least 225 hp and the 330 is losing its benchmark status as most of its peers have 260hp. They need this new motor but how does it affect the model line ups. 

Waiting for the new motor!

Thorack


----------



## Kaz (Dec 21, 2001)

Where did you see this info? There have been some speculation that the L6s will grow when the Valvetronics come out (probably not till E90 rollout, from what I understand), but wasn't there also some talk that the N62 will get a shrunken 3.5l brother? V8s are more 'marketable' (though I personally would like to see the return of the BigSix) and would trample all over a 3.5l valvetronic L6.


----------



## The Roadstergal (Sep 7, 2002)

Thorack said:


> BMW is losing the horse power wars


Sheesh. :tsk: I'll take a light moderate-hp well-engineered car with great handling over a hp monster.


----------



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

The Roadstergal said:


> Sheesh. :tsk: I'll take a light moderate-hp well-engineered car with great handling over a hp monster.


I'd take both


----------



## Thorack (Jun 18, 2003)

Last months issue of Automobile magazine had an artical about the new 5 series and the the head of BMW drive train department said a new in-line 6 motor with vavle-tronic would be here in less than 2 years. The artical author guessed a 3.0L with 275 hp but the dealer that lives by me here in Germany said it would be a 3.5L and wouldnt guess hp.

There was also an interview with Helmut Panke the new BMW CEO he said alot about the asian markets and expanding market share and that Bangle was still his fair haired boy ie.. not going anywhere.

Thorack


----------



## The HACK (Dec 19, 2001)

BMW already has a 275HP 3.5 liter engine in the up-coming 5 series and the current 7 series. :dunno: 

And 275HP out of the 3.0L with Valvetronic? Wishful thinking. The most we're going to see is probably about 250 out of the 3.0L inline 6.

Despite "losing" the HP war, I seem to recall the 330 beating a lot of cars with 260HP or more on 0-60 times. I'd rather have a car with moderate HP that can go like sh*t, than a 250+ hp PIG that takes more than 6 seconds to get to 60.

That, and the up-coming 500+ V-10 that goes into the M5 and M6 will shut everyone up in terms of HP talk. Try that in a 3,400lbs chasis. :thumbup:


----------



## HW (Dec 24, 2001)

The Roadstergal said:


> Sheesh. :tsk: I'll take a light moderate-hp well-engineered car with great handling over a hp monster.


here here! i don't care for something that chugs more gas. a &lt3000lbs 3er would be great. a stick w/ the 2.5L I6 but allow it to spin faster!


----------



## HW (Dec 24, 2001)

The HACK said:


> And 275HP out of the 3.0L with Valvetronic? Wishful thinking. The most we're going to see is probably about 250 out of the 3.0L inline 6.


why not 360? :dunno: 120HP/L


----------



## ff (Dec 19, 2001)

Thorack said:


> Allright,
> BMW is losing the horse power wars and it makes sense to keep the big 5's with at least 225 hp and the 330 is losing its bechmark status as most of its peers have 260hp they need this new motor but how does it affect the model line ups.
> 
> Waiting for the new motor!
> ...


How can you be losing a war in which your army is outperforming the enemy? Who cares what the HP number is, if the car is still faster?

Don't fall prey to marketing hype.


----------



## Nick325xiT 5spd (Dec 24, 2001)

I think 260hp is quite likely from a Valvetronic 3.0L six. (It corresponds with the 15% increase BMW claims from Valvetronic.) I guess the real question is whether or not they choose to develop the N62B36 a bit more, or release a more fun I6 with similar displacement. Keep in mind that the current 3.6L V8 produces 272hp, so BMW may well just drop that in. In fact, it would be a very good way to differentiate the 330 from the 325, IMHO.


----------



## Kaz (Dec 21, 2001)

Huh, I musta completely been asleep when the N62B36 was announced. I will have to read up on that more. 

Even more compelling argument against a 3.5l L6.


----------



## SARAFIL (Feb 19, 2003)

Kaz said:


> but wasn't there also some talk that the N62 will get a shrunken 3.5l brother?


There is already an E65 735i in Europe, and it is using a 3.5L V8. It's putting out as much power as the old non-Valvetronic 4.4L, so I'll assume that it is already a smaller version of the N62 Valvetronic motor we see in the 745.

EDIT: oops, posted this before I noticed that others already pointed this out above.


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

Hello,

are we talking about a 3.5 Liter inline-six ? 

Never heard or read about it yet.

AFAIK, there's no new engine plans for the E46.


----------



## Nick325xiT 5spd (Dec 24, 2001)

i *think* he's talking about the E90.


----------



## JPinTO (Dec 20, 2001)

HW said:


> here here! i don't care for something that chugs more gas. a &lt3000lbs 3er would be great. a stick w/ the 2.5L I6 but allow it to spin faster!


Hehheheh! My 3.2L takes only 1L/100 more gas than my old 323i did. Let's put it this way... it's worth it for double the hp!

RE: 3.5L---
BMW needs an intermediary motor between the 3.0L and the M-motors... particularly for the piggly wiggly platforms like the X5 and 5er... and the 3er for that matter.

Where's the info on the this motor??


----------



## Alex Baumann (Dec 19, 2001)

JPinTO said:


> RE: 3.5L---
> BMW needs an intermediary motor between the 3.0L and the M-motors... particularly for the piggly wiggly platforms like the X5 and 5er... and the 3er for that matter.
> 
> Where's the info on the this motor??


3.4 Liter Alpina !!  :angel:


----------



## Nick325xiT 5spd (Dec 24, 2001)

All over the place. It's replacing the I6 in the X5 this fall, I'm told.


----------



## JPinTO (Dec 20, 2001)

Alex Baumann said:


> 3.4 Liter Alpina !!  :angel:


 :blah: :blah: :blah:

Don't brag--- you guys get everything!


----------



## JPinTO (Dec 20, 2001)

Nick325xiT 5spd said:


> All over the place. It's replacing the I6 in the X5 this fall, I'm told.


Where's the release info for this??


----------



## LeucX3 (Dec 26, 2001)

Just give me a powerful diesel and everything will be fine. Oh yeah, i forgot that the diesel fuel in this country is sludge. :thumbdwn:


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

JPinTO said:


> glaws said:
> 
> 
> > it rides quite a bit "firmer" than a regular 3er, gets about 18 MPG in city driving and the engine lacks the almost turbine smoothness that you associate with BMW in-line six's.
> ...


----------



## TGD (Aug 7, 2002)

*Claims...*



Nick325xiT 5spd said:


> It corresponds with the 15% increase BMW claims from Valvetronic.


The magic word is "claims". The last version of the 1.6lt engine still sold in Greece gives 115HP. The 1.8lt Valvetronic gives 116HP. That's why the 1.8lt model is called 316. The improved fuel economy and decreased exchaus gases are absolutely true though.


----------



## SpeedFreak! (May 1, 2005)

It's fun digging through the archives.


----------



## Pinecone (Apr 3, 2002)

All diesels are injected so d and i would be repetative. Bujt since all gasloine engines these days are injected, the i is redundant anyway. 

The current baby 6 is limited to about 3.4 L displacement due to the maximum bore size, that is limited byt the centerline distance of the bores. A 3.5L I6 would be a completely new engine, and I doubt that they will develop such an engine in I6 configuration.


----------



## SpeedFreak! (May 1, 2005)

Pinecone said:


> All diesels are injected so d and i would be repetative. Bujt since all gasloine engines these days are injected, the i is redundant anyway.
> 
> The current baby 6 is limited to about 3.4 L displacement due to the maximum bore size, that is limited byt the centerline distance of the bores. A 3.5L I6 would be a completely new engine, and I doubt that they will develop such an engine in I6 configuration.


The current engine in the E90/E60 is capable of 3.5L

No need for a completely new engine. BMW already has it.


----------



## tierfreund (Nov 12, 2004)

SpeedFreak! said:


> The current engine in the E90/E60 is capable of 3.5L
> 
> No need for a completely new engine. BMW already has it.


I´ve seen a lot of pictures of the NG6 block. I really have a problem believing it can be bored out much further. So that leaves only stroke (and maybe a little bore). I find it hard to believe that the NG6 is capable of going much further than 3.2 or 3.3 Litres.

But hey, your quite insistant on that 3.5 issue, so I´ll be happy to wait and see. And i for one (beeing in Europe, where the biturbo seems more likely) would welcome a NA 3.5 NG (maybe with direct injection as well) more than the biturbo. I´ve never driven a turbo or even biturbo that I really like. Allways loved BMW´s NA I-6es though.


----------



## Double Vanos (Aug 20, 2003)

If BMW can get 343hp from a 3.2 inline 6 they should have no problem extracting 250-260 hp from a 3.0-3.5 liter.


----------



## tierfreund (Nov 12, 2004)

Double Vanos said:


> If BMW can get 343hp from a 3.2 inline 6 they should have no problem extracting 250-260 hp from a 3.0-3.5 liter.


No kidding :rofl:

What were the specs of the N52 engine in the 06 330i again 3Liters? 255hp ?

QED anyone ?


----------



## Rowag (Nov 12, 2004)

andy_thomas said:


> Blame BMW NA, not the factory. Other-market suspension tuning is very firm indeed, especially in "sport" trim.


 :stupid:

After our 325ci with the Sport Package, I seriously would have considered other cars if BMW NA hadn't released the ZHP package. The Sport Package wheels/suspension don't do it for me, and I really don't like the base leather they use, either.

Different suspension/bushings and alcantara, and I'm sold. :thumbup: But wait... everybody outside of the U.S. has had cloth and other cool "a la carte" options available for years! :bawling:


----------



## SpeedFreak! (May 1, 2005)

tierfreund said:


> I´ve seen a lot of pictures of the NG6 block. I really have a problem believing it can be bored out much further. So that leaves only stroke (and maybe a little bore). I find it hard to believe that the NG6 is capable of going much further than 3.2 or 3.3 Litres.
> 
> But hey, your quite insistant on that 3.5 issue, so I´ll be happy to wait and see. And i for one (beeing in Europe, where the biturbo seems more likely) would welcome a NA 3.5 NG (maybe with direct injection as well) more than the biturbo. I´ve never driven a turbo or even biturbo that I really like. Allways loved BMW´s NA I-6es though.


I'm certainly no tech... but when I held the block it looked as though it could be done. All I know is what I have been told by reliable sources high up in the BMW NA organization. At this point, I would say anything is possible. As much as I love a great NA power plant... the idea of a Turbo was extremely exciting to me. I believe they are holding the DI for the face-lift. With the addition of DI... it would be simple to bump the power another 40hp, a traditional BMW bump.

I can hardly wait for something official. This whole thing is driving me nuts.


----------



## The HACK (Dec 19, 2001)

The HACK said:


> And 275HP out of the 3.0L with Valvetronic? Wishful thinking. The most we're going to see is probably *about 250 out of the 3.0L inline 6.*


Sometimes I'm so f**kin' good I scare myself.

This was posted more than 2 years ago.


----------



## tierfreund (Nov 12, 2004)

The HACK said:


> Sometimes I'm so f**kin' good I scare myself.
> 
> This was posted more than 2 years ago.


And you were wrong. We´re at 255 hp with valvetronic in the 330 from the 3.0 I-6
263hp in the 130i with the valvetronic I-6

Give it a little direct injection and the 270hp from a 3.0 I-6 is easily within reach....


----------



## JonMarks330i (Apr 9, 2005)

The HACK said:


> Sometimes I'm so f**kin' good I scare myself.
> 
> This was posted more than 2 years ago.


What is wrong with you :thumbdwn:


----------



## iateyourcheese (Sep 9, 2004)

tierfreund said:


> And you were wrong. We´re at 255 hp with valvetronic in the 330 from the 3.0 I-6
> 263hp in the 130i with the valvetronic I-6
> 
> Give it a little direct injection and the 270hp from a 3.0 I-6 is easily within reach....


Dumb question, why don't they put the 263 hp version from the 130i into the heavier 330i?


----------



## doeboy (Sep 20, 2002)

iateyourcheese said:


> Dumb question, why don't they put the 263 hp version from the 130i into the heavier 330i?


I'll take a wild guess and say it's likely something emissions related with the CAFE regulations or something like that...


----------



## hugh1850 (Jun 20, 2003)

doeboy said:


> I'll take a wild guess and say it's likely something emissions related with the CAFE regulations or something like that...


Is the horsepower calculated differently? SAE vs. :dunno:


----------



## doeboy (Sep 20, 2002)

hugh1850 said:


> Is the horsepower calculated differently? SAE vs. :dunno:


Oh yeah... Could be.... in the UK they use brake horse power don't they? (bhp) :dunno:


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

doeboy said:


> Oh yeah... Could be.... in the UK they use brake horse power don't they? (bhp) :dunno:


The kW is a souless type of measurement, better suited to power stations than to cars. But people who use it have a point, since you can cut all the bull relating to exactly how "big" 1 unit's-worth of it actually is.

In the UK, the 330i makes 258 bhp. The 130i makes 265 bhp; I have no idea why they chose to give this car a whopping 3% more horsepower. If one put the 265 bhp engine into a 330i it would make bugger-all difference.

258 bhp (DIN) is about 255 hp (SAE). By the same token, 265 bhp (DIN) is about 262 hp (SAE).

Again, that's 7 more hp that you'll not notice unless you're on a dyno :dunno:.


----------



## The HACK (Dec 19, 2001)

tierfreund said:


> And you were wrong. We´re at 255 hp with valvetronic in the 330 from the 3.0 I-6
> 263hp in the 130i with the valvetronic I-6
> 
> Give it a little direct injection and the 270hp from a 3.0 I-6 is easily within reach....


How do you know direct injection is compatible with Valvetronic? How would you know that the 263 HP in the 130i isn't due to the fact that they do not need to meet certain emissions controls? Have they actually made the 3.0 liter with 275HP yet?

And for a wild @ss guess from 2+ years ago, I'd say my guess of *about* 250 HP is a lot more DEAD ON then the other wild @ss guesses of 275 hp with the 3.0L valvetronic engine.

I didn't see YOUR prognostication.  Come back later when you can accurately guess the output of BMW's next generation of inline 6 engines within 5 HP 2 years before they're released.


----------



## hugh1850 (Jun 20, 2003)

...and BOOM goes the dynamite! :rofl:


----------



## The HACK (Dec 19, 2001)

Double Vanos said:


> If BMW can get 343hp from a 3.2 inline 6 they should have no problem extracting 250-260 hp from a 3.0-3.5 liter.


If PTG can extract close to 400 HP from the 3.2 liter M3 engine, why can't BMW do the same and build a 3.0 engine more than capable of extracting 330+ hp? Heck, if BMW can extract 900+ hp from a 3.0 liter engine in their F1 program, why can't they do the same for the 3.0 liter in the 3 series? Why are we stuck on 255 when we all know very well that BMW is more than capable of extracting 900 HP out of 3.0 liter?! 

Surely there's more than 255 HP to be had from the 3.0 liter engine, no?


----------



## LegoGT (Aug 3, 2005)

The HACK said:


> Heck, if BMW can extract 900+ hp from a 3.0 liter engine in their F1 program, why can't they do the same for the 3.0 liter in the 3 series? Why are we stuck on 255 when we all know very well that BMW is more than capable of extracting 900 HP out of 3.0 liter?!


Isn't that a 3.0L V10? I imagine that has _something_ to do with it.


----------



## hugh1850 (Jun 20, 2003)

LegoGT said:


> Isn't that a 3.0L V10? I imagine that has _something_ to do with it.


That and the Sum Beech revs to 19,000 rpm.


----------



## cwsqbm (Aug 4, 2004)

The HACK said:


> If PTG can extract close to 400 HP from the 3.2 liter M3 engine, why can't BMW do the same and build a 3.0 engine more than capable of extracting 330+ hp? Heck, if BMW can extract 900+ hp from a 3.0 liter engine in their F1 program, why can't they do the same for the 3.0 liter in the 3 series? Why are we stuck on 255 when we all know very well that BMW is more than capable of extracting 900 HP out of 3.0 liter?!
> 
> Surely there's more than 255 HP to be had from the 3.0 liter engine, no?


Race motor vs. street motor. Also, difference between M and non-M. Most people don't want to rev high in normal driving. Consider that Honda added displacement to the S2000 motor and lowered its rpm limit to increase low end torque without a horsepower increase. Peak horsepower numbers aren't everything.


----------



## hugh1850 (Jun 20, 2003)

cwsqbm said:


> Race motor vs. street motor. Also, difference between M and non-M. Most people don't want to rev high in normal driving. Consider that Honda added displacement to the S2000 motor and lowered its rpm limit to increase low end torque without a horsepower increase. Peak horsepower numbers aren't everything.


I think you missed his sarcasm. :dunno:


----------



## hawk2100n (Sep 19, 2005)

I would be willing to bet that the 3.5, if it is turbo, is direct injection. DI cools of the intake charge, giving an intercooler effect, which would allow for more boost, and higher compression than just regular port FI. Think Audi A3 2.0 FSI, Turbo 197hp, 207lb/ft, 10.2 to 1 compression ratio, and almost 0 lag. This seems like too good of a system for BMW to pass up. Add a litre, and HORRAY, 300hp light pressure, high torque turbo motor with very little lag, and returns better economy than a lexus IS.
Car and Driver Article

310 ft lb in a 3er :drive:


----------



## iateyourcheese (Sep 9, 2004)

hawk2100n said:


> I would be willing to bet that the 3.5, if it is turbo, is direct injection. DI cools of the intake charge, giving an intercooler effect, which would allow for more boost, and higher compression than just regular port FI. Think Audi A3 2.0 FSI, Turbo 197hp, 207lb/ft, 10.2 to 1 compression ratio, and almost 0 lag. This seems like too good of a system for BMW to pass up. Add a litre, and HORRAY, 300hp light pressure, high torque turbo motor with very little lag, and returns better economy than a lexus IS.
> Car and Driver Article
> 
> 310 ft lb in a 3er :drive:


My understanding was that direct injection tends to lower fuel economy because the fuel and air don't mix as well. This results in some remaining unburnt fuel that, of course, is wasted.

Does Audi (and for that matter, BMW) have a solution to this?


----------



## JonMarks330i (Apr 9, 2005)

The HACK said:


> I didn't see YOUR prognostication.  Come back later when you can accurately guess the output of BMW's next generation of inline 6 engines within 5 HP 2 years before they're released.


We all know your guess was luck ... stop being so high on yourself bud and give others some credit


----------



## tierfreund (Nov 12, 2004)

The HACK said:


> How do you know direct injection is compatible with Valvetronic? How would you know that the 263 HP in the 130i isn't due to the fact that they do not need to meet certain emissions controls? Have they actually made the 3.0 liter with 275HP yet?
> 
> And for a wild @ss guess from 2+ years ago, I'd say my guess of *about* 250 HP is a lot more DEAD ON then the other wild @ss guesses of 275 hp with the 3.0L valvetronic engine.
> 
> I didn't see YOUR prognostication.  Come back later when you can accurately guess the output of BMW's next generation of inline 6 engines within 5 HP 2 years before they're released.


Whassup ? Did I say something to make you upset?

I rightly pointed out that your prognosis was wrong. You said the a 3.0 Liter would be a MAX of 250hp. Now the I-6 is 255. And as for the 130i, insiders will admit that the N52 in the 130 is exactly the same as in the 330. So it meets all emission standards. The reason why it´s rated higher is because it turns out that most production versions of the N52 actually do put out more than 255hp. Closer to 263hp. They´ll just not rerate the 330 because they´d have to go through new homologations.
Btw. The 130i is rated for the exact same emission standards as the 330 in Europe. As far as I know, nowadays the European emission standards are actually stricter than the US standards (except for CA of course).

So if we´re really at 263hp now and your orignal arguement was 250hp max vs. some others prognosis of 275 hp, then we´re closer to the other fellows prognosis than yours (275-250=25/2=12,5+250=262,5 would be the split)

So there you are. We´re seeing engines of 3.0Liter that are over the rated hp you stated as the maximum we would see. Hence your original statement is worng. Not that far off actually, but wrong enough not to be good enough for bragging now.

As for DI and valvetronic: BMW is not disputing that an upgrade to DI is planned for the N52. And that will incorporate valvetronic of course. Otherwise the improved efficiency of the DI would be overcompensated by the loss of the valvetronic hence make no sense. Expect the DI to come soon. And you can expect it to either deliver the same hp as before but with improved fuel efficiency. Or a slight power increase. That would void your statment even further.

I´m really not out to spoil your fun here. But your statement from 2 years ago is simply not in any way outstanding or even correct. So what exactly are you bragging about?

As for my prognostication: I never made one. But I´m not claiming any titles for them either. 
But then really, guessing the future output of the next generation engine is not all that difficult. With engine technology no longer taking any huge leaps, my guess for any generation change would be (if displacement and induction are not altered): the current output plus 10%. Now let´s see thats 231hp * 1.1 = 254,1 hp Good guess huh?

But I´ll put my prognostication down right here: The N52 with DI (N53) will be round 273-275hp. Reasoning: It´ll only be a half engine generation and the n52 will have been in production a bit shorter than the M54 was. So I´ll give it 7%

If I´m within 5hp, do I get to brag as well?


----------



## tierfreund (Nov 12, 2004)

iateyourcheese said:


> My understanding was that direct injection tends to lower fuel economy because the fuel and air don't mix as well. This results in some remaining unburnt fuel that, of course, is wasted.
> 
> Does Audi (and for that matter, BMW) have a solution to this?


I believe your understanding of DI is wrong. I can´t disect it properly but I´m pretty sure there´s a misunderstanding. Unburnt fuel is certainly not an effect of DI.

The main reason for DI is improved fuel efficiency with a slight power increase.

Trivia fact: Did you know that the Audi R8 that won the LeMans 24h three times in a row had DI ?


----------



## ObD (Dec 29, 2001)

tierfreund said:


> If I´m within 5hp, do I get to brag as well?


Only if you own an E46 ZHP.


----------



## tierfreund (Nov 12, 2004)

I once had a 330Ci SMG. Does that count ? (Remeber, we never had a ZHP in germany)

I wanna be part of a club, an elite whatever. PLEEAASSSEE


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

The HACK said:


> Surely there's more than 255 HP to be had from the 3.0 liter engine, no?




Damn straight. BMW got 1,500 bhp from a 1.5 F1 engine TWENTY YEARS AGO. Jesus, you'd figure that after TWENTY YEARS of development, BMW could make a streetable engine with the same specific output. Hell, all the other manufacturers do - you can buy a 1.2 litre VW Lupo econocar with over 1,000 bhp. BMW? Barely 90 bhp/litre. What's up with that? :dunno:


----------



## hawk2100n (Sep 19, 2005)

andy_thomas said:


> Damn straight. BMW got 1,500 bhp from a 1.5 F1 engine TWENTY YEARS AGO. Jesus, you'd figure that after TWENTY YEARS of development, BMW could make a streetable engine with the same specific output. Hell, all the other manufacturers do - you can buy a 1.2 litre VW Lupo econocar with over 1,000 bhp. BMW? Barely 90 bhp/litre. What's up with that? :dunno:


Repost within the same thread :tsk:



The HACK said:


> If PTG can extract close to 400 HP from the 3.2 liter M3 engine, why can't BMW do the same and build a 3.0 engine more than capable of extracting 330+ hp? Heck, if BMW can extract 900+ hp from a 3.0 liter engine in their F1 program, why can't they do the same for the 3.0 liter in the 3 series? Why are we stuck on 255 when we all know very well that BMW is more than capable of extracting 900 HP out of 3.0 liter?!
> 
> Surely there's more than 255 HP to be had from the 3.0 liter engine, no?





cwsqbm said:


> Race motor vs. street motor. Also, difference between M and non-M. Most people don't want to rev high in normal driving. Consider that Honda added displacement to the S2000 motor and lowered its rpm limit to increase low end torque without a horsepower increase. Peak horsepower numbers aren't everything.


You can get a 1000 hp car, Bugatti 16.4 veyron. $1 million +. You actually have to make it last, start up every day, and at least be able to be maintained by someone. And, I would like to see this alleged VW Lupo with 1000 hp.

Anyways, DI doesnt inject the fuel at top dead center, but during the intake and compression stroke. This way, the fuel has _more_ time to mix than with Port FI. Also, the cooling effect from the DI can make way for higher compression ratios, up to 12 to 1 in NA, and 10.5 to 1 in light pressure turbo setups. The reason that it hasnt overwhelmed the market yet is that it is more expensive than Port FI to produce. The Lexus IS 350 has Both Port FI and DI and makes the best of both worlds by combining the 2 systems. Easier cold start with Port FI and High Performance and economy with DI.


----------



## andy_thomas (Oct 7, 2002)

hawk2100n said:


> Repost within the same thread :tsk:


Ya, but the original post didn't include the bit about the Lupo


----------



## armaq (Apr 18, 2003)

I think I read somewhere that the 130i has a "sportier" exhaust system. Also the 130i is targeted at a niche market, in which the consumers prefer a much sportier car than the 330i is.


----------



## Pinecone (Apr 3, 2002)

The HACK said:


> If PTG can extract close to 400 HP from the 3.2 liter M3 engine, why can't BMW do the same and build a 3.0 engine more than capable of extracting 330+ hp? Heck, if BMW can extract 900+ hp from a 3.0 liter engine in their F1 program, why can't they do the same for the 3.0 liter in the 3 series? Why are we stuck on 255 when we all know very well that BMW is more than capable of extracting 900 HP out of 3.0 liter?!
> 
> Surely there's more than 255 HP to be had from the 3.0 liter engine, no?


So you want to rebuild your engine every 5K miles, if you are lucky to go that long?

You can build an S54 to make 500 HP if you can live with the short life.

Look at AA/Fueler drag racers. thousands of HP, but a life span of about 5 - 8 SECONDS at full throttle.


----------



## tierfreund (Nov 12, 2004)

armaq said:


> I think I read somewhere that the 130i has a "sportier" exhaust system. Also the 130i is targeted at a niche market, in which the consumers prefer a much sportier car than the 330i is.


Whenever a manufacturer changes the output claim for an engine when it´s put in a different car, they´ll claim it´s the different exhaust. It´s code for "it really is the same engine, we only changed the hp claim for marketing reasons"


----------



## iateyourcheese (Sep 9, 2004)

tierfreund said:


> I believe your understanding of DI is wrong. I can´t disect it properly but I´m pretty sure there´s a misunderstanding. Unburnt fuel is certainly not an effect of DI.
> 
> The main reason for DI is improved fuel efficiency with a slight power increase.
> 
> Trivia fact: Did you know that the Audi R8 that won the LeMans 24h three times in a row had DI ?


I'm pretty sure incomplete ignition has been a huge problem for DI. So I did some more research on this to find the difference. I'm pulling this from the book by Lumley, one of the preeminent mechanical engineers of today.

Remember DI has been around since the late 1800's. The main problem with DI engines -- with regards to emissions -- is that the fuel spray does not evaporate fully upon injection. When combustion occurs significant fuel is left unburnt, which comes out as carbon particulates (sort of like diesel soot).

I agree with the latter comments that DI leads to increased efficiency. Increased compression ratios due to charge cooling, charge stratification for lean operation, etc.

But it seems that improvements in injectors have lead to better fuel vaporization, allowing engines to finally realize the benefits of DI.


----------



## hawk2100n (Sep 19, 2005)

Dont confuse DI with Compression Ignition. DI can make a more complete burn than Port FI. DI can inject as soon as the valve opens through the intire intake and compression stroke which can allow for much better atomization. Port FI can only inject it while the valve is open. The soot problems of Compression Ignition is due to the fact that the Fuel is injected at Basicially TDC of the compression stroke which gives it a mere instant to inject all of the fuel. With todays advanced computer controls, DI will start becoming more and more popular. The reason that it is not very common already is that adequate power and emmisions is available through the cheaper Port FI. So why change a good thing if you dont have to.


----------

