Quote:
Originally Posted by ndog14
Because 230HP > 240HP and 200 Torq > 250(?)Torq and 30 mpg > 33 mpg, amirite?
|
So let's wait a while and see what the real-world MPG is for the N20. It is one thing to develop an engine that makes good grades in the EPA MPG test (even though the N20 has already been downgraded from 36 Highway MPG to 33), but it's been my observation through magazine test data and a few friends with turbo cars, that the real-world MPG numbers are not that significantly better than a NA engine of larger displacement and equal horsepower ratings. Certainly not worth the added cost, complexity, and reliability risks as trade for a few thousand of dollars in saved fuel use over the life of the vehicle.
I really can’t see why BMW could not have downsized the N52, gave it direct injection (maybe HPFP reliability is BMW's Achilles heal) and achieved similar performance to the E90 328 and improved MPG by a few percent.
As a previous poster said, a four cylinder is a four cylinder and comes with harmonics that are just not in the I-6 engine configuration. The N20 can have all the balance shafts and hydraulic engine mounts it wants, it is still going to be a 4 cylinder engine.
As a BMW owner that has been driving a BMW I-6 for the past 24 years (and who also owns a 4-cylinder Z3 as well), it will be a very hard sell for the dealer to convince me a F30 328i is worth my consideration. I plan on a test drive soon (as soon as I can find a MT car) and I'll make an assessment too.
Looking forward to the OP's post on his update today.