Comments on: Turbocharged BMWs: Back with a vengeance http://www.bmwblog.com/2009/07/05/turbocharged-bmws-back-with-a-vengeance/ BMW News, Reviews, Test Drives, Photos And Videos Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:16:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: L1ndja http://www.bmwblog.com/2009/07/05/turbocharged-bmws-back-with-a-vengeance/#comment-136349 L1ndja Thu, 09 Jul 2009 15:41:58 +0000 http://www.bmwblog.com/?p=16791#comment-136349 Thank you guys. Thank you guys.

]]> By: pandamalone http://www.bmwblog.com/2009/07/05/turbocharged-bmws-back-with-a-vengeance/#comment-136222 pandamalone Thu, 09 Jul 2009 01:44:24 +0000 http://www.bmwblog.com/?p=16791#comment-136222 The question is not stupid at all--at least not every part of it is:D To get something like turbocharged S54 is definitely not realisitic for a mass production car, as THE LEE expalined. However to explain why turbo charged engine won't go high-revving really costs time and knowledge. One thing i'd come up with is that, as engine revs high, the exhaust volumetric rate is simply too high even a fully open bypass valve cannot handle, which in turn makes the engine breath not freely enough, as a result engine torque output drops as RPM raises over a certain number, say 5500rpm. (look at the torque vs rpm chart of N54 and you'll know what i mean.) eventually the drop in torque cancelled the higher-revving's contribution to power (which is equal to constant*rpm*torque), peak power is reached, and then dropped as rev goes higher. The same thing actually happens for all engines, but it's just for turbo engines the exhaust problem makes peak power rpm comes even earlier. The question is not stupid at all–at least not every part of it is:D To get something like turbocharged S54 is definitely not realisitic for a mass production car, as THE LEE expalined. However to explain why turbo charged engine won’t go high-revving really costs time and knowledge. One thing i’d come up with is that, as engine revs high, the exhaust volumetric rate is simply too high even a fully open bypass valve cannot handle, which in turn makes the engine breath not freely enough, as a result engine torque output drops as RPM raises over a certain number, say 5500rpm. (look at the torque vs rpm chart of N54 and you’ll know what i mean.) eventually the drop in torque cancelled the higher-revving’s contribution to power (which is equal to constant*rpm*torque), peak power is reached, and then dropped as rev goes higher. The same thing actually happens for all engines, but it’s just for turbo engines the exhaust problem makes peak power rpm comes even earlier.

]]> By: pandamalone http://www.bmwblog.com/2009/07/05/turbocharged-bmws-back-with-a-vengeance/#comment-136220 pandamalone Thu, 09 Jul 2009 01:31:23 +0000 http://www.bmwblog.com/?p=16791#comment-136220 turbocharging won't increase, by any means, the compression ratio. However even at the same CR, since the number of moles of air/fuel mix molecules are greater than that of the NA engine, the engine will experience a harder time against detonation given other factors fixed. That's why old (none DI) turbo engines have to get a smaller CR compared to NA engines at the same tech level. However, with direct injection things become quite different. Injections can be made either during the compression stroke or even right before ignition, and with HPI there can be multi injection events, which partly solved the low CR problem for classic turbo engine. the N54 got a CR of 10.5:1, and that's already impressive even as an NA engine. But anyway, 11.5 CR is just too high even for most NA engines, and i agree it's hard to get a turbo engine with 11.5 CR even with the DI 2. turbocharging won’t increase, by any means, the compression ratio. However even at the same CR, since the number of moles of air/fuel mix molecules are greater than that of the NA engine, the engine will experience a harder time against detonation given other factors fixed. That’s why old (none DI) turbo engines have to get a smaller CR compared to NA engines at the same tech level. However, with direct injection things become quite different. Injections can be made either during the compression stroke or even right before ignition, and with HPI there can be multi injection events, which partly solved the low CR problem for classic turbo engine. the N54 got a CR of 10.5:1, and that’s already impressive even as an NA engine. But anyway, 11.5 CR is just too high even for most NA engines, and i agree it’s hard to get a turbo engine with 11.5 CR even with the DI 2.

]]> By: pandamalone http://www.bmwblog.com/2009/07/05/turbocharged-bmws-back-with-a-vengeance/#comment-136217 pandamalone Thu, 09 Jul 2009 01:23:56 +0000 http://www.bmwblog.com/?p=16791#comment-136217 yepp you are right. I later followed the the N55 thread and realized they actually use a single twin-scroll charger instead of two. I think the primarly advantage of single twin-scroll charger over twin-turbo is basically it requires less room and lighter, also with lower cost. Probably response is still not as good (though the difference might not be significant) as the tt setup. At the same time, the N55 is equipped with a VALVETRONIC system which help improve engine response. probably that's why they are encouraged to use single twin-scroll charger. my 2 cents. yepp you are right. I later followed the the N55 thread and realized they actually use a single twin-scroll charger instead of two. I think the primarly advantage of single twin-scroll charger over twin-turbo is basically it requires less room and lighter, also with lower cost. Probably response is still not as good (though the difference might not be significant) as the tt setup. At the same time, the N55 is equipped with a VALVETRONIC system which help improve engine response. probably that’s why they are encouraged to use single twin-scroll charger. my 2 cents.

]]> By: The Lee http://www.bmwblog.com/2009/07/05/turbocharged-bmws-back-with-a-vengeance/#comment-136157 The Lee Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:39:25 +0000 http://www.bmwblog.com/?p=16791#comment-136157 The S54 engine has a compression ratio of 11.5:1. Turbo charging is nothing more than a method of artificially increasing the compression of an engine. The higher you go with compression, the higher octane you need in order to prevent detonation. 11.5:1 + turbo would likely need race gas in order to operate at an efficient and safe level, or you'd have to have the timing pulled out of it almost completely. Either way, it's not a realistic combination for a warrantied, mass-produced engine. The S54 engine has a compression ratio of 11.5:1. Turbo charging is nothing more than a method of artificially increasing the compression of an engine. The higher you go with compression, the higher octane you need in order to prevent detonation. 11.5:1 + turbo would likely need race gas in order to operate at an efficient and safe level, or you’d have to have the timing pulled out of it almost completely. Either way, it’s not a realistic combination for a warrantied, mass-produced engine.

]]> By: L1ndja http://www.bmwblog.com/2009/07/05/turbocharged-bmws-back-with-a-vengeance/#comment-136147 L1ndja Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:47:33 +0000 http://www.bmwblog.com/?p=16791#comment-136147 Im sry this might be a stupid question.Why dont they just make a high revving twinturbocharged engine?I mean like taking a similar engine as the E46 M3 add twin-scroll turbocharging and sound good,improved performance and better efficiency? Im sry this might be a stupid question.Why dont they just make a high revving twinturbocharged engine?I mean like taking a similar engine as the E46 M3 add twin-scroll turbocharging and sound good,improved performance and better efficiency?

]]> By: Jordan http://www.bmwblog.com/2009/07/05/turbocharged-bmws-back-with-a-vengeance/#comment-136098 Jordan Wed, 08 Jul 2009 12:56:52 +0000 http://www.bmwblog.com/?p=16791#comment-136098 The twin-scroll turbocharger I believe will only be a single on the I6 engine. It will not be a twin-scroll twin turbo. Using a single twin-scroll vs a twin-turbo BMW has been able to get more power (probably just tuning more, they could have easily got more power with the twin-turbo setup) and better fuel economy. And yes I do hope they use a twin-scroll turbo on their new I4 engines! The twin-scroll turbocharger I believe will only be a single on the I6 engine. It will not be a twin-scroll twin turbo. Using a single twin-scroll vs a twin-turbo BMW has been able to get more power (probably just tuning more, they could have easily got more power with the twin-turbo setup) and better fuel economy. And yes I do hope they use a twin-scroll turbo on their new I4 engines!

]]> By: pandamalone http://www.bmwblog.com/2009/07/05/turbocharged-bmws-back-with-a-vengeance/#comment-136079 pandamalone Wed, 08 Jul 2009 08:40:42 +0000 http://www.bmwblog.com/?p=16791#comment-136079 " new line of straight six engines will also be released upon the launch of the new 5 Series GT, the petrol N55 (adds High Precision Injection, Valvetronic technology and twin-scroll turbocharging) " A little problem with this sentence. First, HPI (or DI 2, the spray guided direction injection with piezo injector and higher injection pressure) has already been employed on the N54, so i'm puzzled on this "add" thing. 2nd. The primary purpose to introduce valvetronic system, is to use the valvetrain instead of the throttle valve as the controller of engine output, with the former capable of better fuel efficiency (by reducing the pumping loss) and better engine response (think about the S54B32 on E46 M3 which have individual throttle valve for each cylinder and you'll know how valvetronic helps.). However, for DI+turbo engines, like the N54 or the rumored N55, the engine load can be also controlled by the injector (by injection different amount of fuel to the cylinder) then the pumping loss is not as significant, while engine response has already improved by the innovative control logic from BMW with help from the combination of blowoff valve and bypass valve. As a result i really doubt the necessity of introducing valvetronic into the new DI turbo engine (and i think that's also the reason why they didn't do it for the N54). Also, for the twin-scroll turbocharger, it will have a better application on I4/V8(twin turbo) engines instead of the inline 6 which is already twin-turbo charged which means each turbo charger takes charge of 3 cylinders. In this case the aid from twin-scroll might be not as significant compared to its application on I4, when1-4 and 2-3 cylinders have a 180 degree timing difference and a twin-scroll turbocharger perfectly separates this. Anyway, compared to the valvetronic, this will do more good to the engine IMHO. ” new line of straight six engines will also be released upon the launch of the new 5 Series GT, the petrol N55 (adds High Precision Injection, Valvetronic technology and twin-scroll turbocharging) ”

A little problem with this sentence.

First, HPI (or DI 2, the spray guided direction injection with piezo injector and higher injection pressure) has already been employed on the N54, so i’m puzzled on this “add” thing.

2nd. The primary purpose to introduce valvetronic system, is to use the valvetrain instead of the throttle valve as the controller of engine output, with the former capable of better fuel efficiency (by reducing the pumping loss) and better engine response (think about the S54B32 on E46 M3 which have individual throttle valve for each cylinder and you’ll know how valvetronic helps.). However, for DI+turbo engines, like the N54 or the rumored N55, the engine load can be also controlled by the injector (by injection different amount of fuel to the cylinder) then the pumping loss is not as significant, while engine response has already improved by the innovative control logic from BMW with help from the combination of blowoff valve and bypass valve. As a result i really doubt the necessity of introducing valvetronic into the new DI turbo engine (and i think that’s also the reason why they didn’t do it for the N54).

Also, for the twin-scroll turbocharger, it will have a better application on I4/V8(twin turbo) engines instead of the inline 6 which is already twin-turbo charged which means each turbo charger takes charge of 3 cylinders. In this case the aid from twin-scroll might be not as significant compared to its application on I4, when1-4 and 2-3 cylinders have a 180 degree timing difference and a twin-scroll turbocharger perfectly separates this. Anyway, compared to the valvetronic, this will do more good to the engine IMHO.

]]> By: pandamalone http://www.bmwblog.com/2009/07/05/turbocharged-bmws-back-with-a-vengeance/#comment-136078 pandamalone Wed, 08 Jul 2009 08:23:55 +0000 http://www.bmwblog.com/?p=16791#comment-136078 well, the BMW way to turbocharge an existing engine is not cheap. Actually, it's much more expensive. Taking the N52/N54 rivalry for example. In order to achieve excellent response for the N54, BMW not only use bi-turbo charger, but also introduce the 2nd gen direct injection (DI 2) into the engine. The high pressure (~200bar) common rail direct injection system itself cost lots of money. Not to say you have to strengthen the crankshaft, engine block, improve heat releasing, to list a few. Also, i think one reason why bmw don't come up with a 6-banger with larger displacement and instead introduce turbocharging, goes to that with the inline cylinder arrangement and given the limited room under the hood, probably a, say 3.5L NA I6, is simply too long. Just my 2 cents. well, the BMW way to turbocharge an existing engine is not cheap. Actually, it’s much more expensive. Taking the N52/N54 rivalry for example. In order to achieve excellent response for the N54, BMW not only use bi-turbo charger, but also introduce the 2nd gen direct injection (DI 2) into the engine. The high pressure (~200bar) common rail direct injection system itself cost lots of money. Not to say you have to strengthen the crankshaft, engine block, improve heat releasing, to list a few. Also, i think one reason why bmw don’t come up with a 6-banger with larger displacement and instead introduce turbocharging, goes to that with the inline cylinder arrangement and given the limited room under the hood, probably a, say 3.5L NA I6, is simply too long. Just my 2 cents.

]]> By: Zagreb http://www.bmwblog.com/2009/07/05/turbocharged-bmws-back-with-a-vengeance/#comment-136021 Zagreb Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:07:46 +0000 http://www.bmwblog.com/?p=16791#comment-136021 The old Z4 3.0si had 1385kg and 265HP and the new sDrive30i Z4 had 1490kg and 258HP and not a Textilroof.M BMW will in the Future had only Turboengines like the X5 M V8. The old Z4 3.0si had 1385kg and 265HP and the new sDrive30i Z4 had 1490kg and 258HP and not a Textilroof.M BMW will in the Future had only Turboengines like the X5 M V8.

]]> By: _Auday_ http://www.bmwblog.com/2009/07/05/turbocharged-bmws-back-with-a-vengeance/#comment-136012 _Auday_ Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:20:35 +0000 http://www.bmwblog.com/?p=16791#comment-136012 20KG less is not enough to put the cars back on the right diet, the new Z4 already gained almost 300KG. 330hp is good enough for the new 3 series IMO and I hope that BMW stops getting dragged into the HP madness. Turbo would make sense in the 3 series too, and it's working well so far in the E90. All I'm saying is keep the Turbo and that stuff away from the M cars. I'm not sure what BMW winning the F1 championship with Turbo has to do with using Turbo in M cars. However I would like to mention that in that same year (1983) cars like Mclaren and Williams had the advantage in more curvy tracks because they were naturally aspirated, i.e. no Lag and more predictable throttle behavior that helps throttle steering. 20KG less is not enough to put the cars back on the right diet, the new Z4 already gained almost 300KG.
330hp is good enough for the new 3 series IMO and I hope that BMW stops getting dragged into the HP madness. Turbo would make sense in the 3 series too, and it’s working well so far in the E90. All I’m saying is keep the Turbo and that stuff away from the M cars.

I’m not sure what BMW winning the F1 championship with Turbo has to do with using Turbo in M cars. However I would like to mention that in that same year (1983) cars like Mclaren and Williams had the advantage in more curvy tracks because they were naturally aspirated, i.e. no Lag and more predictable throttle behavior that helps throttle steering.

]]> By: Doug http://www.bmwblog.com/2009/07/05/turbocharged-bmws-back-with-a-vengeance/#comment-135994 Doug Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:34:30 +0000 http://www.bmwblog.com/?p=16791#comment-135994 Hey... we (the dinosaurs) did fine with enormous CO2 levels due to volcanoes, meteor strikes, continent-scale forest fires, etc. Hey… we (the dinosaurs) did fine with enormous CO2 levels due to volcanoes, meteor strikes, continent-scale forest fires, etc.

]]> By: Dede http://www.bmwblog.com/2009/07/05/turbocharged-bmws-back-with-a-vengeance/#comment-135970 Dede Tue, 07 Jul 2009 05:05:13 +0000 http://www.bmwblog.com/?p=16791#comment-135970 Hopefully it's about a new turbo 4. Can't wait to read it. Hopefully it’s about a new turbo 4. Can’t wait to read it.

]]> By: Zagreb http://www.bmwblog.com/2009/07/05/turbocharged-bmws-back-with-a-vengeance/#comment-135931 Zagreb Mon, 06 Jul 2009 19:28:48 +0000 http://www.bmwblog.com/?p=16791#comment-135931 BMW had opend last thursday a new Press Plant in Dingolfing so the Autobodyweight will be about 20 kilos lighter,also they a rumors that the new 340i Turbo in the 2012 3Series will have about 330HP,so the Car has the Power of an V8 but the consumption of an 6 Zyl.It will be a more efficiency and lighter car then the competitors have.The BMW Turbo Story will continuing. Remember BMW was the first Turbo Worldchampion in the F1 BMW had opend last thursday a new Press Plant in Dingolfing so the Autobodyweight will be about 20 kilos lighter,also they a rumors that the new 340i Turbo in the 2012 3Series will have about 330HP,so the Car has the Power of an V8 but the consumption of an 6 Zyl.It will be a more efficiency and lighter car then the competitors have.The BMW Turbo Story will continuing.
Remember BMW was the first Turbo Worldchampion in the F1

]]> By: _Auday_ http://www.bmwblog.com/2009/07/05/turbocharged-bmws-back-with-a-vengeance/#comment-135907 _Auday_ Mon, 06 Jul 2009 17:09:42 +0000 http://www.bmwblog.com/?p=16791#comment-135907 IMO, I dont think fuel effecincy is exactly BMW's reason for Turbo, I think it's more of adding more HP in a cheaper way. Turbo charged engines are not really lighter if the numbers of cylinders are the same, and BMW did its magic with the weight of the S65 (E90/2 M3) engine using effeicnt materials, but that cost them money. They could also go back to the lighter less cylinders config and increase the RPM but that makes the engine more expensive too due to hi-RPM standing parts. So basicsally Turbo is the cheapest way to keep the engine weight Low and HP high, but not necessarly the best. IMO, if BMW is all about efficincy they should put all their focus on low weight materials of the car itself rather than keeping their cars going fatter and fatter, and for M cars this should go along with less cyliners, but higher-revving engines rather than turbo. This will make M engines where they should be in the real sport cars category and far from HP monsters like the AMG, RS, CTS-V, and other sports cars wannabe. Also BMW should focus on drivers feedback to get back the lost spirit of E30M3 where the driver feels one with the car. Unfortunately this will not happen because 1) the car will be more expensive and 2) it will not work well for HP hungery, show off people who buy M cars for the brand name, the luxury, and the raw HP. So why would BMW do it? they wouldnt, they will go to Turbo engines and leave us in the dark looking somewhere else for the Ultimate Driving Machine :( IMO, I dont think fuel effecincy is exactly BMW’s reason for Turbo, I think it’s more of adding more HP in a cheaper way. Turbo charged engines are not really lighter if the numbers of cylinders are the same, and BMW did its magic with the weight of the S65 (E90/2 M3) engine using effeicnt materials, but that cost them money. They could also go back to the lighter less cylinders config and increase the RPM but that makes the engine more expensive too due to hi-RPM standing parts. So basicsally Turbo is the cheapest way to keep the engine weight Low and HP high, but not necessarly the best.

IMO, if BMW is all about efficincy they should put all their focus on low weight materials of the car itself rather than keeping their cars going fatter and fatter, and for M cars this should go along with less cyliners, but higher-revving engines rather than turbo. This will make M engines where they should be in the real sport cars category and far from HP monsters like the AMG, RS, CTS-V, and other sports cars wannabe. Also BMW should focus on drivers feedback to get back the lost spirit of E30M3 where the driver feels one with the car.

Unfortunately this will not happen because 1) the car will be more expensive and 2) it will not work well for HP hungery, show off people who buy M cars for the brand name, the luxury, and the raw HP. So why would BMW do it? they wouldnt, they will go to Turbo engines and leave us in the dark looking somewhere else for the Ultimate Driving Machine :(

]]> By: DailyDriver http://www.bmwblog.com/2009/07/05/turbocharged-bmws-back-with-a-vengeance/#comment-135904 DailyDriver Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:11:02 +0000 http://www.bmwblog.com/?p=16791#comment-135904 By going back in history you mean 10 million years right? By things were ok back then do you mean when there weren't 6 billion people on earth? You must be talking about when the sea levels were around 300 feet higher on average, right over where 4 billion people live right about now? I'm glad you did you're own research and figured all that out. I'm curious what methods did you use? Was it a long term study? Can you publish the results of your study so that I can review them? It seems only fair since I'm allowed to check the work of those bought and paid for scientists By going back in history you mean 10 million years right? By things were ok back then do you mean when there weren’t 6 billion people on earth? You must be talking about when the sea levels were around 300 feet higher on average, right over where 4 billion people live right about now?
I’m glad you did you’re own research and figured all that out. I’m curious what methods did you use? Was it a long term study? Can you publish the results of your study so that I can review them? It seems only fair since I’m allowed to check the work of those bought and paid for scientists

]]> By: Artmic http://www.bmwblog.com/2009/07/05/turbocharged-bmws-back-with-a-vengeance/#comment-135897 Artmic Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:05:35 +0000 http://www.bmwblog.com/?p=16791#comment-135897 I want to puke every time i read anything to do with CO2. Why are people so gullible and believe everything the press, tv-news and a bunch of UN paid for Scientists and special interest bought politicians? Why don't people just do their own research on CO2 content of our earthly atmosphere, and then take a look of how much of that CO2 is contributed by humans, and then go back into history to discover CO2 levels being 10 to 16 times larger than they are now, and things were ok back then. I want to puke every time i read anything to do with CO2.
Why are people so gullible and believe everything the press, tv-news and a bunch of UN paid for Scientists and special interest bought politicians?

Why don’t people just do their own research on CO2 content of our earthly atmosphere, and then take a look of how much of that CO2 is contributed by humans, and then go back into history to discover CO2 levels being 10 to 16 times larger than they are now, and things were ok back then.

]]> By: Mauro Corti http://www.bmwblog.com/2009/07/05/turbocharged-bmws-back-with-a-vengeance/#comment-135878 Mauro Corti Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:07:04 +0000 http://www.bmwblog.com/?p=16791#comment-135878 @JKP You're right, I do agree with you, completely. With turbo engine we will have more power, more efficiency and lighter car, I want them :) @JKP

You’re right, I do agree with you, completely. With turbo engine we will have more power, more efficiency and lighter car, I want them :)

]]> By: Stjepan http://www.bmwblog.com/2009/07/05/turbocharged-bmws-back-with-a-vengeance/#comment-135812 Stjepan Sun, 05 Jul 2009 22:03:34 +0000 http://www.bmwblog.com/?p=16791#comment-135812 Just wait for our next article then, it deals with four cylinders Just wait for our next article then, it deals with four cylinders

]]> By: Jordan http://www.bmwblog.com/2009/07/05/turbocharged-bmws-back-with-a-vengeance/#comment-135811 Jordan Sun, 05 Jul 2009 21:56:59 +0000 http://www.bmwblog.com/?p=16791#comment-135811 I totally agree. I totally agree.

]]>