[E90Fleet]

Thanks to maximinimaus for the headsup

1st pic is N54 turbo engine

2nd pic is the New Direct Injection 330i engine ( thanks to Jason )

[E90Fleet]

Some technical specs

First engine is e90 330i N52
2nd is the new Direct injection 330i engine
3rd is 335i engine

Ill post the english one when available

[Jason]

Life in the 335i turbo between 1200rpm and 5000rpm is going to be heaven

[E90Fleet]

Notice the Turbos Octane requirement is now 95-100 RON

Other engines used to be 91-98 RON

[stressdoc]

I wonder if the USA version is tuned to deal with lower octane than 95-100 RON. If they can tune the N54 to have a flat torque curve like that then my guess is there is still a lot of potential. Perhaps the 400Nm limit is constrained by other drivetrain reliability issues. Hence the wait on the 335si with DSG.

I am thinking the turbo should be pretty reliable and long lasting, given proper care. Nice to have solid aluminum, given the heat range the N54 is likely to generate -- expansion/contraction curves of the mag and alu alloys are not identical. It will be interesting to compare service recommendations. The DI also looks like a wonderful engine.

[E90Fleet]

Originally Posted by stressdoc

I wonder if the USA version is tuned to deal with lower octane than 95-100 RON.

Remember US gas stations show PON, which is (RON+MON)/2

So US 91 is about Euro 95 or so

[EnI]

Btw, the new NA HPI engine is coded N53.

[stressdoc]

Right, 91 PON ~ 95 RON. Most US states have gas stations with premium at 91. My guess is that will be borderline unless the engine is tuned differently. I will be looking for stations with 93 PON.

[MMira]

aren't figures in the first column valid for N52 but si version? at least here in Europe N52 has power of 190 kW and si version of it (in 130i) has 195 kW

[maximinimaus]

Does anyone know why BMW reduced stroke/bore to odd 89,6/84 mm, resulting in a volume of 2979 cml? 90/84 mm would have resulted in 2993 cml, same as 330D which also uses a aluminum crankcase and closer to 3000 cml(3.0 L)! Does BMW use the E46 330I crankcase(has identical specs, including compression ratio!) because of development and production costs? I think the next change is programmed.

[E90Fleet]

Originally Posted by MMira

aren't figures in the first column valid for N52 but si version? at least here in Europe N52 has power of 190 kW and si version of it (in 130i) has 195 kW

The 130i uses the exact same engine as the 330i
But it has a less restrictive exhaust, giving it the 5Kw more and the louder sound.

[stressdoc]

Anyone found data on the US 328 engine? Which intake will it have? Any parts #s available yet?

[E90Fleet]

Originally Posted by stressdoc

Anyone found data on the US 328 engine? Which intake will it have? Any parts #s available yet?

Euro info isnt even available in English yet

Part numbers for what ?

Anyway, the first oppertunity they would have to add it to the parts system is 1 May and if not then the next time is 1 June.

Full info will be posted here whn they do

[maximinimaus]

Originally Posted by E90Fleet

Notice the Turbos Octane requirement is now 95-100 RON

Other engines used to be 91-98 RON

Same as E46 M3 and derivates(Z4M). That's very interesting. Are both lines approaching?
Could it be, they now take advantage of 100 RON fuel.
In the past, filling in fuel of 100 RON was only wasting money, according to some studies I read.

[human]

Impressive...

[E90Fleet]

Originally Posted by maximinimaus

Same as E46 M3 and derivates(Z4M). That's very interesting. Are both lines approaching?
Could it be, they now take advantage of 100 RON fuel.
In the past, filling in fuel of 100 RON was only wasting money, according to some studies I read.

No, our M3's can run on 93 ( the highest we had till this year )

[RPM90]

Originally Posted by maximinimaus

Same as E46 M3 and derivates(Z4M). That's very interesting. Are both lines approaching?
Could it be, they now take advantage of 100 RON fuel.
In the past, filling in fuel of 100 RON was only wasting money, according to some studies I read.

Higher octane fuels are a waste of money if your engine is not tuned to be able to utilitze what higher octane fuel can provide, and that is a greater resistance to detonation (knock) and helping with
pre-ignition (such as from hot spots).
Higher octane fuel has a greater ability to resist high compression/high heat environment thus allowing proper air/fuel mixture compression and timely ignition, giving your the best engine performance and power output.
For those reasons turbo engines LOVE high/er octane fuel as it helps allow maximum boost pressure above atmosphere.
And, with direct injection engines, they benefit from increased compression rations, which can contribute to detonation/knock with lower octane fuel.
More boost, then you want a higher octane fuel.

If an engine has been factory tuned to extract the best power out of 89 US octane, then using 93 will not give an added benefit and will waste money. But, if your engine is tuned to use 93 octane to extract maximum power, then spend the money for the proper fuel and get the best performance.
Using lower octane fuel in many modern engines designed for higher octane is ok with the help modern engine controls and knock sensors. The ECU/ECM can cut back timing to reduce knock if/when it occurs and is detected. But, that will also result in lower power output.
If you're paying top dollar for top performance, then use the recommended fuel and it'll be money properly spent..

[RPM90]

Originally Posted by maximinimaus

Does anyone know why BMW reduced stroke/bore to odd 89,6/84 mm, resulting in a volume of 2979 cml? 90/84 mm would have resulted in 2993 cml, same as 330D which also uses a aluminum crankcase and closer to 3000 cml(3.0 L)! Does BMW use the E46 330I crankcase(has identical specs, including compression ratio!) because of development and production costs? I think the next change is programmed.

I'm not sure.
In general increasing stroke will give a better/great torque production at lower rpm, but could reduce the overall top rpm as pistons speed can get too high for the increased stroke (piston trave). I can't read the chart that well, but it does seem the longer stroke engine does have better torque at lower rpm, but it's overall rpm is quite a bit lower. So, it produces great lower rpm power at the expense of producing that power for a shorter total rev band.
That can allow for taller gearing in the 4-6th range for higher top end and with lower rpm and better MPG.
Maybe not a "racer's" engine, but should be pretty nice on the street.

[MIKEYMIKE]

So what does this mean? The 2007 E90 330i is going to have more power than the current '06 model?

If this is true, is there going to be a price increase that's signicificantly greater?

[RPM90]

Originally Posted by MarkE90M3

Talk about flat torque.... holy shit......... This is one unreal engine, cant wait to try it

It should be sweet, but short.

Big torque is in a 3700rpm rev band.
The non turbo 3.0 has a 5000rpm rev band.

Interesting.

[Garissimo]

Originally Posted by RPM90

It should be sweet, but short.

Big torque is in a 3700rpm rev band.
The non turbo 3.0 has a 5000rpm rev band.

Interesting.

Even though the turbo engine's torque tails off after 5000rpm, it's still making more torque than the NA engine does all the way past 6500rpm.

[E90Fleet]

Here are the english Specs