Well, apparently all good things must come to end. BMW will likely jump on boost wagon with next generation of M-cars.

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189170

[Edited on December 5, 2008 at 1:41 AM. Reason : f]

12/5/2008 1:40:41 AM

yay torque!


hahahahah coming from a \-/onda guy

[Edited on December 5, 2008 at 8:28 AM. Reason : perspective]

12/5/2008 8:28:03 AM

torque, schmorque. i've never driven a BMW, //M or otherwise, that needed any more torque.

the ease of extracting more power will be nice, though.

12/5/2008 8:43:32 AM

hopefully that will get rid of the gas-guzzler tax on them too

12/5/2008 9:29:52 AM

what's wrong with the boost wagon?

12/5/2008 5:56:56 PM

turbo lag?

poor drivers can't just get in and haul ass... they actually have to learn to spool a turbo...

at least that was what I learned with my A4... it had worse acceleration than Quinn's snatchback if you didn't spool appropriately

of course, with a Vtec you have to make sure your in the Vtack range also in order to produce power... but that's a different conversation



[Edited on December 5, 2008 at 6:00 PM. Reason : no h]

12/5/2008 5:58:10 PM

i highly doubt bmw will be producing a vehicle with chronic turbo lag or "instant on" boost. we're not talking about the mr. hyde version of a stock vehicle cobbled together in someone's garage.

12/5/2008 6:03:02 PM

[old]

they've been talking about doing this for a long time.

12/5/2008 6:23:14 PM

There's no replacement for displacement.

12/5/2008 6:27:35 PM

OH MAN YOU'RE ORIGINAL!!1!

12/5/2008 6:34:12 PM

Quote :

"turbo lag? poor drivers can't just get in and haul ass... they actually have to learn to spool a turbo... at least that was what I learned with my A4..."

seriously? an a4 is at full spool at 1850rpm with a 1.8L motor. what was the lag? 0.8 seconds or so?

12/5/2008 7:12:20 PM

^^ ha, and equally correct.

NA is like a turbo that never spools.

12/5/2008 8:47:37 PM

Quote :

"There's no replacement for displacement."

12/5/2008 8:55:56 PM

Quote :

"[old] they've been talking about doing this for a long time."

no, it is not old. rumors were always there, but this is more official news.

BBR,

nothing wrong with turbos, i just don't think they belong on M cars. These cars are designed for street/track with linear, progressive power delivery that will not die off 2k rpm before red line after turbo starts blowing hot air.

12/5/2008 9:01:22 PM

look at the power band for a 335i. there's not much turbo lag there at all. theyve tuned the 2 turbos quite well to avoid it. i think that's why we're looking at twin turbo on everything else by them

12/5/2008 9:19:03 PM

^^^i can think of a lot of things with equal or less displacement to replace one of those.

^^you must only have experience with the sorts of creations i mentioned earlier... i'm 100% positive bmw's delivery on this will be seamless. lets also keep in perspective that we're not talking about 2.0L'ish 4 cylinders here either, in NA form/off boost situations it's likely these engines will be producing respectable power. the turbo(s) will just be enhancing that even further.

i can certainly understand how this might be a disappointment to purists/owners with it being a step away from the "norm" (has bmw ever had any sort of turbo vehicle?), but from every other aspect as a performance enthusiast i see no downside.

12/5/2008 10:34:38 PM

Quote :

"has bmw ever had any sort of turbo vehicle"

i'm not sure if that's 100% serious..but yea, they've had a few. and all of them that I have any knowledge or have done any reading about pretty much confirm what you're saying. They aren't low compression 2L engines with some turbos slapped on them. They're engines with reasonable or more power on their own that have the extra power of a turbo. They don't have any noticeable turbo lag and well..they're just well designed like you'd expect from BMW. They aren't something you have to "know how to drive" to avoid the turbo lag. Just push the pedal down.

The new X6 actually has a turbo option along with the 2007 and 2008 335i and old school 85ish 524td. I'm thinking there are some more but that's the first ones that come to mind

oh..and where I work does a lot of parts for the newer two models

[Edited on December 5, 2008 at 10:51 PM. Reason : asf]

12/5/2008 10:50:46 PM

uhm, 2002tii, anyone?



I think there was a turbo version of the 3.0 CSL, too.

[Edited on December 5, 2008 at 11:40 PM. Reason : asdfads]

12/5/2008 11:36:49 PM

touche

12/5/2008 11:38:58 PM

nvm....

[Edited on December 5, 2008 at 11:40 PM. Reason : reading skillz=0]

12/5/2008 11:39:48 PM

Some version of the X6 with a turbo? In the US the X6 is ONLY available with a turbo, I6 or V8 powered.

Quote :

"no, it is not old. rumors were always there, but this is more official news. BBR, nothing wrong with turbos, i just don't think they belong on M cars. These cars are designed for street/track with linear, progressive power delivery that will not die off 2k rpm before red line after turbo starts blowing hot air."

I'm aware this is an "official" statement, but ever since they started getting their asses kicked (in straight lines) by supercharged/turbocharged AMG models they talked about going over to FI. Something that is somewhat ironic, since AMG's signature engine is now a naturally aspirated 6.2 liter V8 I mean the writing has been on the wall with their release of a TT I6 and TT V8

[Edited on December 5, 2008 at 11:55 PM. Reason : don't have to be a detective... ]

12/5/2008 11:54:39 PM

Quote :

"Something that is somewhat ironic, since AMG's signature engine is now a naturally aspirated 6.2 liter V8"

which is rumored to be getting b00steses within the next model year or two.

12/6/2008 12:00:43 AM

Quote :

"Some version of the X6 with a turbo? In the US the X6 is ONLY available with a turbo, I6 or V8 powered. "

oops..you're right.. i thought the turbo was an option but apparently it's standard on everything i can find for the X6's.

hell, we just paint interior parts

12/6/2008 12:09:56 AM

ive never never seen this trind before'


audi cs2000
mustang SVO
LeBaron GTC


lolzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

12/6/2008 12:13:02 AM

12/6/2008 12:27:16 AM

eggzactly fag

12/6/2008 12:30:02 AM

TRINDS ARE AWESOME

I THINK EVERZONE AGREZS!@

[Edited on December 6, 2008 at 12:38 AM. Reason : jesus fucking christ you're a god damn retard.]

12/6/2008 12:38:30 AM

meaning forced induction cars should stay BTW

12/6/2008 12:56:17 AM

meaning you should fucking leave BTW

12/6/2008 1:12:35 AM

more than likely not gonna happen broski

12/6/2008 1:22:33 AM

doesn't change the fact that you should..you really embarrass yourself a lot less when you aren't around.

12/6/2008 1:23:29 AM

I'd imagine that this is a move to save money more than anything. Doesn't make sense to produce entirely different engines for limited production cars. It wasn't that long ago that BMW said they will never have a turbocharged M series motor, because it doesn't fit the "dynamics of our most sporting models".

12/6/2008 1:34:46 AM

Quote :

"doesn't change the fact that you should..you really embarrass yourself a lot less when you aren't around"

well when the MOST POPULAR USER IN THE GARAGE cant post pictures 26 or so time in ONE thread im not really bothered by the fact that i dont care about anybody in here.


et







which is the reason thta i havent been banned yet...........



cause i havent done anything wrong
and the PROS of the site are no smarter than me.







I mean your more than welcome to make another thread about how stupid i am but we already know how it turns out.

12/6/2008 1:35:12 AM

nm, i'll keep it in his stupid thread.

[Edited on December 6, 2008 at 1:51 AM. Reason : .]

12/6/2008 1:50:43 AM

omfg you mean when gas prices go up the turbos come out??? OMG NO WAY!

(80s, Now)

my fave comment in here is the one about an n/a car is just a turbo car that never spools

extra horsepower is never a bad thing imho

i just wish they'd over build the snot out of a motor like yota did and ford does... but noooooo their smart engineers will be all precise and shit and not waste money on overly strong components.

12/6/2008 8:35:50 AM

engineering isnt about making the best thing ever, it is about making the best thing for that specific application

and they do that well

12/6/2008 11:57:59 AM

Quote :

"at least that was what I learned with my A4... it had worse acceleration than Quinn's snatchback if you didn't spool appropriately of course, with a Vtec you have to make sure your in the Vtack range also in order to produce power... but that's a different conversation"

I think keeping a honda vtec within its powerband is a lot harder than a turbo A4. My 200hp A4 2.0T even with its "turbo lag" pulls from approx 1800-6000 rpm. The NA civic SI has be have its weak sauce torque vtec engine kept in the high rpm range to extract all 200hp.

I am no pro race driver but i am very confident that even though they ahve the same power i could burn a SI anyday unless there was a really skilled driver behind the civic.

12/6/2008 1:12:10 PM

I perhaps am using the wrong term when I say "turbo lag"

I'm referring to the fact that my 2002 a4 1.8t (that I miss dearly) drove like it had 70hp if you launched below 1800rpms... and like I said... that's completely on me and it's just something that I had to learn to deal with

btw my a4 had a 0-60 time of like 8seconds literally



[Edited on December 6, 2008 at 2:03 PM. Reason : the 1.8t was SLOOOWWWWWW]

12/6/2008 1:59:25 PM

^^

Keep in mind the 400-800 (AWD?) lb weight differential

12/6/2008 2:34:37 PM

Quote :

"i just wish they'd over build the snot out of a motor like yota did and ford does"

wat?

Quote :

"I am no pro race driver but i am very confident that even though they ahve the same power i could burn a SI anyday unless there was a really skilled driver behind the civic."

i am very fully confident that you have no business posting in the garage.

12/6/2008 3:24:45 PM

yeah my A4 weighs about 3500lbs

12/6/2008 5:27:45 PM

my S4 weights about 9600lbs and drives like a rocket

also - 2010 S4s are going to be supercharged v6s instead of NA v8s

12/6/2008 6:55:30 PM

Quote :

"I'm referring to the fact that my 2002 a4 1.8t (that I miss dearly) drove like it had 70hp if you launched below 1800rpms..."

lol my 1.8L Miata has a little blurb in the manual about not allowing the engine to fall below 2000 except as necessary in 1st gear, so this comment amused me

[Edited on December 6, 2008 at 8:39 PM. Reason : .]

12/6/2008 8:39:13 PM

yeah i launch my 91 civic at 2k+. i've been in a 1.8T jetta being launched and shifted at 1800ish R's...that shit's for faggz

Quote :

"^^^i can think of a lot of things with equal or less displacement to replace one of those. "

12/6/2008 9:10:52 PM

Quote :

"launch my 91 civic"

haha 'launch' and '91 civic' look funny together

12/6/2008 9:48:03 PM

dont be fooled, it's a laborious task

12/6/2008 10:02:49 PM

ahhh, yeah haha. I usually engage first gear in my GS-R just over 2,000rpm. And my clutch has over 120k on it, so I know thats not putting excessive wear on it lol.

12/7/2008 12:06:26 AM

Quote :

"wat? "

and stuporcharged mustang....


And aficionato i was kidding... i mean i'd still like a built motor but the bimmer engineers rawk at building for efficiency

12/7/2008 12:50:52 AM

any FACTORY sc'd mustang? true... but that's a pretty damn small minority to say ford in general builds strong motors. if we're including na models sc'd by the aftermarket, most of them become a liability much past 400rwhp. respectable, but nothing to write home about.

toyota i can agree with hands down... but i'd put about 4 more manufacturers between them and ford.

12/7/2008 1:24:36 AM

agreed.. who else would you put in there ?

12/7/2008 1:27:31 AM