Xoutpost.com

Xoutpost.com (https://xoutpost.com/forums.php)
-   X1 (E84) Forum (https://xoutpost.com/bmw-sav-forums/x1-e84-forum/)
-   -   BMW Four Cylinder 28xdrive (https://xoutpost.com/bmw-sav-forums/x1-e84-forum/78702-bmw-four-cylinder-28xdrive.html)

JCL 01-19-2011 05:35 PM

BMW Four Cylinder 28xdrive
 
So, wondering what people think about the 28 six cylinder, used in the 1, 3, 5, and X3, going to a new 28 four cylinder, in the X1? Lots of technology, four cylinder 2 litre direct injection twin-scroll turbo, and it will compete directly with the VW 2.0 turbo engine used in lots of different models.

I really like six cylinder BMW engines, so it is a little sad, even though I enjoyed my 318i way back in the early '90s. I think we will see a lot more BMW four cylinder engines coming up. This appears to be the beginning of the end for the N52/N53, a couple of great engines.

AzNMpower32 01-19-2011 07:04 PM

I never fell in love with the N52. It's a good motor, technologically advanced, and does everything really well. Low emissions, fuel consumption, and broad torque. But it lacked the crispness (Valvetronic probably) and throaty nature of the M54. Never sounded as thrilling either.

I do like the shift towards turbo 4 cylinders. The Opel Insignia I drove with the 2 litre turbo had serious punch and torque, yet was docile and smooth when driven lightly, with just a hint of whistle if you listen for it. Too bad the Insignia is so heavy- the fuel consumption takes a bit of a hit.

NIGHTMAREuki 01-19-2011 08:10 PM

I'm a Huge fan of low end TQ, and this new inline 4 with 250TQ from 1200rpms makes me drool.
I loved to be able to accelerate from 35mph in 5th gear and pass cars on the highway in 6th in my maxima with VQ35
I dont think it will be as refined as N52 or sound as good but more TQ and extra power from tuning will make this a great engine.

Fraser 01-19-2011 08:12 PM

The move from bigger atmo engines to smaller turbo engines is inevitable due to the demand for clean trailpipe and low fuel use. I too will lament the passing of the atmo petrol six if it comes to pass as good as the turbo fours may be. Interesting that BMW in the meantime has 'detuned' the three litre six for the X1 and X3 for the same economy and emission reasons. Here in Oz we get an X1 badged as a 25i even though it has a three-litre six. It loses about 40kW off the top end but has far stronger mid-range power with max torque already on tap at an almost diesel-like 2500rpm. It's actually a really nice drive with so much useable low-rpm power but still with the ability to keep revving at the way to 7000rpm.

FSETH 01-19-2011 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL (Post 797627)
So, wondering what people think about the 28 six cylinder, used in the 1, 3, 5, and X3, going to a new 28 four cylinder, in the X1? Lots of technology, four cylinder 2 litre direct injection twin-scroll turbo, and it will compete directly with the VW 2.0 turbo engine used in lots of different models.

I really like six cylinder BMW engines, so it is a little sad, even though I enjoyed my 318i way back in the early '90s. I think we will see a lot more BMW four cylinder engines coming up. This appears to be the beginning of the end for the N52/N53, a couple of great engines.

As long as it provides similar/better economy and performance as the six cylinder, why should it matter? :stickpoke

Fraser 01-19-2011 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FSETH (Post 797679)
As long as it provides similar/better economy and performance as the six cylinder, why should it matter? :stickpoke

An inline six sounds and feels completely different to an inline four, smoother too. There's more at stake here than performance and economy.

FSETH 01-19-2011 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fraser (Post 797684)
An inline six sounds and feels completely different to an inline four, smoother too. There's more at stake here than performance and economy.

I was just ribbing JCL from a different thread regaring the Ford Mustang's live axle. He said if it goes around a track as fast as an M3 with an independent rear suspension, then it doesn't matter. Essentially saying, it is the end result, not the means of getting there. I saw similarities here.

I know what you mean about the difference between the 4 and 6 cylinder engines, though. I have put over 300,000 miles on BMW straight six engines. I love the silky smoothness and balance, but BMW needs to give the North American versions more power. Detuned versions such as the base 1 and 3 series just don't cut it, imo. They just don't have enough oomph.

At the end of the day, if using 4 cylinders allows BMW to reduce emmissions and maintain/improve overall performance while also reducing vehicle weight (and shift some of it off the front axle), it will be a good thing, imo.

Fraser 01-19-2011 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FSETH (Post 797687)
Detuned versions such as the base 1 and 3 series just don't cut it, imo. They just don't have enough oomph.


Yes, the tuned sixes are down on top-end zip but are still very pleasant to drive and, depending on the road, very handy too. I'm driving a (3-litre) X1 25i (loaner) right and I love the way it's so tractable out of slow corners but still has heaps of rpm to play with. Plus its economy is almost diesel-like.

FSETH 01-19-2011 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fraser (Post 797696)
Yes, the tuned sixes are down on top-end zip but are still very pleasant to drive and, depending on the road, very handy too. I'm driving a (3-litre) X1 25i (loaner) right and I love the way it's so tractable out of slow corners but still has heaps of rpm to play with. Plus its economy is almost diesel-like.

Well, I would think with 245 hp and 258+/- lb. ft. torque (350 nm) available at only 1,250 RPM, the 4 cylinder would pull harder out of low speed corners than the model you are driving. Plus economy would be better and the car would be lighter. I am not sure what the redline is on the 4 cylinders, but wouldn't it be close to that of the 6 cylinder?

Fraser 01-20-2011 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FSETH (Post 797762)
Well, I would think with 245 hp and 258+/- lb. ft. torque (350 nm) available at only 1,250 RPM, the 4 cylinder would pull harder out of low speed corners than the model you are driving. Plus economy would be better and the car would be lighter. I am not sure what the redline is on the 4 cylinders, but wouldn't it be close to that of the 6 cylinder?

Yes, the turbo four would be stronger off the bottom but has the extra complication of the turbo system and the power wouldn't possibly be as liner as the atmo six, depending on how well the turbo works. Either way, it still wouldn't be a smooth and sweet as the six and I doubt it would rev to 7000rpm. I'm not saying the detuned six is the last word in great engines, it's just that it works really well in as much as its tractable but revvy, smooth-as-silk, and surprisingly economical. Believe me, I'm a card-carrying diesel head and for a petrol engine to please me, it has to be good.

JCL 01-20-2011 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FSETH (Post 797679)
As long as it provides similar/better economy and performance as the six cylinder, why should it matter? :stickpoke

Because the six has perfect primary and secondary balance, and the four only has primary balance. It shakes.

Also, the six represents heritage and tradition.

With the Mustang discussion, it was about keeping the tradition. But then I owned a Morgan with sliding pillar front suspension and pressurized oil lines from the engine galleries to lubricate that suspension, so the live axle was pretty far advanced by comparison.

JCL 01-20-2011 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FSETH (Post 797687)
At the end of the day, if using 4 cylinders allows BMW to reduce emissions and maintain/improve overall performance while also reducing vehicle weight (and shift some of it off the front axle), it will be a good thing, imo.

I agree with that, especially the vehicle weight.

JCL 01-20-2011 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FSETH (Post 797762)
Well, I would think with 245 hp and 258+/- lb. ft. torque (350 nm) available at only 1,250 RPM, the 4 cylinder would pull harder out of low speed corners than the model you are driving. Plus economy would be better and the car would be lighter. I am not sure what the redline is on the 4 cylinders, but wouldn't it be close to that of the 6 cylinder?

I would expect the same red line.

Thinking about the specific output, a 2 litre engine making 245 hp equates to 368 hp for a 3 litre. Not bad for the first generation.

FSETH 01-20-2011 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL (Post 797790)
I would expect the same red line.

Thinking about the specific output, a 2 litre engine making 245 hp equates to 368 hp for a 3 litre. Not bad for the first generation.

Not bad at all. Just thinking about the possibilities for future 1 and 3 series cars is quite exciting actually. A lighter 1-series with this engine and a slightly better looking body would be fantastic, imo.

I know what you mean about the smooth 6's though.

Fraser 01-20-2011 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JCL (Post 797790)
I would expect the same red line.

That means it would rev 2000rpm beyond peak power whereas at 7000rpm the 'detuned' six is only 900rpm above peak power. I can't see it myself.

AzNMpower32 01-20-2011 01:04 PM

Cool, apparently it only needs regular (91 RON) fuel. So its less thirsty and no longer needs midgrade.

JCL 01-20-2011 11:42 PM

I think that is the same as the current turbo engines. The 35i has a minimum of 87 AKI noted in the manual. You won't necessarily get full power out of that fuel, and they are likely to word it differently in the BMW USA owner's manuals given the variability in fuels in North America.

Fraser 01-21-2011 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzNMpower32 (Post 797877)
Cool, apparently it only needs regular (91 RON) fuel. So its less thirsty and no longer needs midgrade.

I'm sure it will run on 91RON but no doubt it will deliver optimum performance and economy on 95RON or 98RON.

AzNMpower32 01-21-2011 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fraser (Post 798115)
I'm sure it will run on 91RON but no doubt it will deliver optimum performance and economy on 95RON or 98RON.

BMW used to be more specific on these requirements. In the 2007 3er manual, it states that 98 be used for the advertised economy and power, with lower grades to 91 possible (the N54 engine requires 95 minimum).

In the new X3 and 5er manuals, it simply states quality of the fuel is more important, and that 91 is the minimum octane level.

Wonder if and why they're leaving things out of the owner's manual. :dunno:

Fraser 01-21-2011 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzNMpower32 (Post 798159)
BMW used to be more specific on these requirements. In the 2007 3er manual, it states that 98 be used for the advertised economy and power, with lower grades to 91 possible (the N54 engine requires 95 minimum).

In the new X3 and 5er manuals, it simply states quality of the fuel is more important, and that 91 is the minimum octane level.

Wonder if and why they're leaving things out of the owner's manual. :dunno:

I guess the newer engines have 'smarter' ECUs that are more adept at managing the different fuel grades.

AzNMpower32 01-21-2011 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AlexK (Post 798237)
What are you talking about - the current US manual for new X3 says "BMW recommends AKI 91 or 89", in addition to saying that "minimum AKI rating is 89" and "do not use E85 fuel", plus stuff like "Fuels containing up to and including 10 % ethanol or other oxygenates with up to 2.8 % oxygen
by weight, that is, 15 % MTBE or 3 % methanol plus an equivalent amount of co-solvent, will not void the applicable warranties with respect to
defects in materials or workmanship." That, to me, is a pretty specific information.

BMW prints that in the US manual because they know that fuels in the US vary widely in quality and tend to be poorer than those sold in the EU.

The German version of those manuals (which are the ones I go primarily by) states what I mentioned in the other post, and I believe the Australians and other non-US members can back me up.

JCL 01-22-2011 01:59 AM

My 2008 535i owner's manual (Canada) says minimum 87 AKI, and some other words about recommended AKI. They appear to be more relaxed about Canadian fuels. Your problem is that you get too much crap fuel in the US, so BMW has always recommended higher AKI as an insurance policy to allow for the fact that some of your 91 AKI isn't really 91 AKI despite being so labelled. They have been doing it for years, and have many owners in the US convinced that their BMW engines can only run on 91 AKI.

91 RON is pretty close to 87 AKI for many fuels.

I do agree with Fraser that the newer engines have better DME controls over knock.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:12 AM.

vBulletin, Copyright 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0
2017 Xoutpost.com. All rights reserved.