[Tony]

Originally Posted by whippersnapper

Trust me, the criticism will increase over time, especially once the car get involved in comparos which tend to amplify differences

Didn't a Subaru legacy with a 2.5 Liter Turbo engine beat an E90 325i in a comparison test? It did. So there goes your comparison test analogy. The only “differences” that were amplified was that 325’s inability to keep up with the Subaru. And believe me the BMW’s turbo system will be much more refined than the Subarus’. I’m willing to bet the farm that the 335 will beat out the 330i in every performance category (including “feel” and “response”).

[330m]

Having just sold a A3 with the new 2.0T FSI engine (which shares not 1 part with the age old 1.8T), I can tell you it did suffer from very noticeable lag high up in the rev range. At regular speeds the lag was disguised by a strong natural torque helped by DI and variable valve timing.

Turbo LAG is not only at low revs, in fact it is usually more noticeable at high rev / high power situations immediately after you have eased back on the throttle then re-applied it. Because the engine needs more charge volume at high revs the turbo has to spin even faster (i.e. needs more exhaust pressure) to flow the intake volume at the required pressure.

The lag time will therefore be longer at higher rpm/output than at low rpms.

However in theory the 3.0TT should be off the turbos some what by the upper rev range, helping to reduce the problem.

But to also quote edmunds:

...the turbocharged 335i has a more docile, relaxed manner. It feels confidently capable but doesn't tug at the leash like an M3...

nuff said... NA all the way?

[Bimmerista]

Originally Posted by Tony

Didn't a Subaru legacy with a 2.5 Liter Turbo engine beat an E90 325i in a comparison test? It did. So there goes your comparison test analogy. The only “differences” that were amplified was that 325’s inability to keep up with the Subaru. And believe me the BMW’s turbo system will be much more refined than the Subarus’. I’m willing to bet the farm that the 335 will beat out the 330i in every performance category (including “feel” and “response”).

And your point is what exactly A 250hp turbo engine with turbo lag the size of the North Pole beat out 218 NA engine-our discussion focuses on turbo lag and those who DO NOT LIKE IT. Not on thefact that turbo increase top end performance-we all know that, it the reason why turbos exist-increase hp and torque without increasing displacement.

I truly hope that the 335 will not suffer from it - I can live with some lag at high rpms, since that will be less of an everyday annoyance, given that to feel the lag you will need to drive in a very spirited way.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by 330m

Having just sold a A3 with the new 2.0T FSI engine (which shares not 1 part with the age old 1.8T), I can tell you it did suffer from very noticeable lag high up in the rev range. At regular speeds the lag was disguised by a strong natural torque helped by DI and variable valve timing.

Fisrt time hearing that one. Tubo lag at high RPMs? Check out the link below. Folks there are claiming that the 2.0t doesn't suffer from any noticeable turbo lag. I've alway's read/heard that the 2.0t doesn't suffer from turbo lag, so I'm guessing that something was wrong with your car.
http://www.neowin.net/forum/lofivers...p/t369709.html

[Tony]

Originally Posted by Bimmerista

And your point is what exactly A 250hp turbo engine with turbo lag the size of the North Pole beat out 218 NA engine-our discussion focuses on turbo lag and those who DO NOT LIKE IT.

How can they "NOT LIKE IT" or even know what the response will feel like without actually driving the car? Seems more like Turbo prejudice than anything else IMO.

[Bimmerista]

Originally Posted by Tony

How can they "NOT LIKE IT" or even know what the response will feel like without actually driving the car? Seems more like Turbo prejudice than anything else IMO.

Sorry I was not clear enough-I DO NOT LIKE TURBO LAG; there. I have driven and owned turbo cars, I like the power and flat torque curves (on the better turbo engines), but I have yet to drive a turbo that does not have a turbo lag.

And the 2.0 t in the VW/Audi empire uses the same block as the 1.8t, so while the electronics, Di etc are all new, it is not a clean-sheet design.

Now I HOPE that the 335 does not have it (turbo lag), because I like the spec sheet on that engine, but none of us can really say since no one has really driven the new engine. As tests and first drives such as the Edmunds article review come out, we can all get more info. We shall see - ultimately the only way for me to overcome my turbo alergy is to drive the 335-Ah well, there are worse things in life


PS "NOT LIKE IT", the "it" referred to the turbo lag, not the 335 engine.

[330m]

Originally Posted by Tony

Fisrt time hearing that one. Tubo lag at high RPMs? Check out the link below. Folks there are claiming that the 2.0t doesn't suffer from any noticeable turbo lag. I've alway's read/heard that the 2.0t doesn't suffer from turbo lag, so I'm guessing that something was wrong with your car.
http://www.neowin.net/forum/lofivers...p/t369709.html

Spent a lot of time debating the 2.0T in UK forums. Most people say - great engine, no lag. Then they realise it aint true.

The VAG 2.0T FSI engine (Golf / A3 etc) is very good at hiding low rpm turbo lag so most users, most of the time experince very little sensation of response lag. It is still there, but the natural torque of the engine helps to hide it whilst the turbo spins up to do it's business. BTW this engine uses a relatively LARGE low pressure turbo, not a small one as indicated in the article you linked to.

Day to day regular driving it is great. But just like the Edmunds reviewer says about the 335i, it's when you're modulating the throttle at high revs/outputs that the feeling of 'elasticity' is present between throttle on and power rise.

I also had mine on a dyno and the lag was there for all to see and hear at high outputs. Then had it chipped to 259bhp / 299lbft and, of course, the lag was worse.

BTW : the 2.0TFSI does LESS to the gallon than my 330i, so much for turbo MPG.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by 330m

BTW : the 2.0TFSI does LESS to the gallon than my 330i, so much for turbo MPG.

The 335i should get the same MPG as the 330i. And diesel Turbo engines get 40mpg+ all while providing torque that N/A engines (of the same size) could only dream about. "So much for turbo MPG"?

[Bimmerista]

Originally Posted by Tony

The 335i should get the same MPG as the 330i. And diesel Turbo engines get 40mpg+ all while providing torque that N/A engines (of the same size) could only dream about. "So much for turbo MPG"?

Come on Tony-keep it real-the torque and MPG of the diesel turbos have more to do with the diesel part than the turbo part.

The turbos on the diesels add to the top end power to enhance their acceleration. Diesels have tremendeous low-end torque, but (traditionally) run of steam very quickly, which made their acceleration numbers in the past horrible-turbos are there to aleviate this.

If your going to compare comparables, keep the apples together and the oranges together. Otherwise, you're making a great fruit salad but not much of a meaningfull discussion.

BTW-I a not a turbo hater, I have just gotten sick of the lag on my A4 1.8t after four years, which was by far the best (smoothest) turbo that I drove up to that point. So from the moment I drove the e90 I promissed myself not to touch a turbo again unless that lag has been dealt with to my satisfaction (there will ALWYAS be turbo lag-the only question is how toned down it is-on the 335 it seems to have been toned down at low rpms to the point of irrelevancy, which is good).

[330m]

Originally Posted by Bimmerista

Come on Tony-keep it real-the torque and MPG of the diesel turbos have more to do with the diesel part than the turbo part.

If your going to compare comparables, keep the apples together and the oranges together. Otherwise, you're making a great fruit salad but not much of a meaningfull discussion.

BTW-I a not a turbo hater, I have just gotten sick of the lag on my A4 1.8t after four years, which was by far the best (smoothest) turbo that I drove up to that point. So from the moment I drove the e90 I promissed myself not to touch a turbo again unless that lag has been dealt with to my satisfaction (there will ALWYAS be turbo lag-the only question is how toned down it is-on the 335 it seems to have been toned down at low rpms to the point of irrelevancy, which is good).

Well said that man!

If it's acceptable 90% of the driving time then people will buy it. I like the last 10% from time to time though.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by Bimmerista

If your going to compare comparables, keep the apples together and the oranges together. Otherwise, you're making a great fruit salad but not much of a meaningfull discussion.

The difference between the 335i's mpg and the 330i's mpg will be minimal. In fact the 335i's MPG promises to be better than that of the 3.5 liter G35's engine. How about them apples?

[whippersnapper]

This has gone on far too long, so I'm bowing out of this thread.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by whippersnapper

This has gone on far too long, so I'm bowing out of this thread.

Tony I'll give you this, for someone so ignorant you sure have a surfeit of confidence

Ignorant? What's up with the name calling? Did I call you ignorant or any other name for that matter? I guess that's how some folks respond when they cannot prove a point. Better luck next time

[wyrm11]

If you have to resort to insults, you're usually standing on shaky ground.

[stressdoc]

Too much turbo whining.

[Insider]

Originally Posted by Bimmerista

Come on Tony-keep it real-the torque and MPG of the diesel turbos have more to do with the diesel part than the turbo part.

The turbos on the diesels add to the top end power to enhance their acceleration. Diesels have tremendeous low-end torque, but (traditionally) run of steam very quickly, which made their acceleration numbers in the past horrible-turbos are there to aleviate this.

If your going to compare comparables, keep the apples together and the oranges together. Otherwise, you're making a great fruit salad but not much of a meaningfull discussion.

BTW-I a not a turbo hater, I have just gotten sick of the lag on my A4 1.8t after four years, which was by far the best (smoothest) turbo that I drove up to that point. So from the moment I drove the e90 I promissed myself not to touch a turbo again unless that lag has been dealt with to my satisfaction (there will ALWYAS be turbo lag-the only question is how toned down it is-on the 335 it seems to have been toned down at low rpms to the point of irrelevancy, which is good).

Actually a normally aspirated diesel will have about the same low-end torque as a normally aspirated gas engine of the same size. It is the turbo that gives the diesel all its power. That's why all the modern diesels have turbos, because the performance would be unaccaptable without a turbo. Unlike a gas engine which has plenty of power without a turbo do to the fact that a gas engine can hold its torque over a much larger RPM range, therefore allowing lower gearing and conqequently more torque to the wheels.

[Bimmerista]

Originally Posted by Insider

Actually a normally aspirated diesel will have about the same low-end torque as a normally aspirated gas engine of the same size. It is the turbo that gives the diesel all its power. That's why all the modern diesels have turbos, because the performance would be unaccaptable without a turbo. Unlike a gas engine which has plenty of power without a turbo do to the fact that a gas engine can hold its torque over a much larger RPM range, therefore allowing lower gearing and conqequently more torque to the wheels.

No, you are half right, the bit about the power given by the turbo is correct. However, diesels have a lot more torque at low rpms (standing start than NA gasoline engines of same displacement.)

[Bimmerista]

Originally Posted by stressdoc

Too much turbo whining.

[Bimmerista]

Originally Posted by Tony

The difference between the 335i's mpg and the 330i's mpg will be minimal. In fact the 335i's MPG promises to be better than that of the 3.5 liter G35's engine. How about them apples?

You are correct on this - the 335 will get better mileage here (NA) once the Di can fully be exploited and do the lean burn that it can do (and does) in Europe, where the improvement in fuel efficiency is in the order of 15% compared to the 3.0 litre non DI non turbo engine.

[picus]

Interesting debate. I, like Bimmerista, decided after my last turbo engine'd car that I would avoid turbo until lag was dealt with in a way that satisfied me. Until now that hasn't been done, however I am hoping the 335i does it. All indications at this point are that it will, since as far as I can tell it will feel "lagless" during 99% of my regular driving (and will have all the benefits of a turbo throughout). Obviously a healthy test drive is in order; In any even the fact that we can have this discussion at all means BMW has done (or at least we think that have) something right with this engine. This is the first turbo I've had any interest in at all in almost 10 years.

Cheers.

[Frosty]

...it always amazes me when enthusists resort to insulting retorts etc. on message boards... this is for fun right?

~Frost

[gohawks23]

Originally Posted by Frosty

...it always amazes me when enthusists resort to insulting retorts etc. on message boards... this is for fun right?

~Frost

Fun with an edge...