[slubu]

I was shopping for a car today and got a chance to check out the LCI 335i E92/93. Here are my thoughts:

Appearance:
- Looks a bit convoluted in the front. All those extra gills/things going on I think distract and make it look worse.
- Angel eyes look better, look almost like xenon angels. Whiter and bigger.
- Taillights look the same, although I guess they are LED.

Engine:
- The N55 seems smoother than the N54, but the N54 feels like it has less lag and maybe a bit faster. (I drove them back to back, and I have an N54.)
- You can hear the turbos a LOT more in the N55.

That's about it. Overall I like the N54 better than the N55, and the changes aren't that significant to warrant ponying up money for an N55 right now - maybe after they drop the rates.

[citrixscu]

Any comments on the exhaust note? Stock E92s, especially early production models have a pretty burly sound out the back.

Can you elaborate more on the perceived lag? Marketing materials claim less lag on the N55.

[saifsiddiqui]

agree'd with citrixscu

[blue2fire]

Used N54 cars cost half as much as new N55 ones right now.

Unless there is evidence of fixed reliability issues and no real compromise in driveability, it is useless to go for one. Plus, they made it ugly (this is surprising as i expected more blandness).

[The J-Man]

Where did you drive one already? The new engine is supposed to have less turbo lag, and the magazines have commented that it is quieter. Both items contrary to what you are saying. Compared to your N54, did the N55 car have the same tranny, and were they both awd or rwd?

[The J-Man]

Originally Posted by blue2fire

Unless there is evidence of fixed reliability issues and no real compromise in driveability, it is useless to go for one. .

You never know, but you have got to assume that BMW got it right with this new engine, at least in terms of HPFP issues. A lot is riding on the N55. It will be found in the 1,3,5,7 and X5. They will be alienating their entire range of customers (including flagship model buyers) if the N55 has widespread issues like the N54 did.

[cstavaru]

Originally Posted by slubu

Engine:
- The N55 seems smoother than the N54, but the N54 feels like it has less lag and maybe a bit faster. (I drove them back to back, and I have an N54.)

I was expecting this...especially the lag. There is no way a single turbine working at 10-11psi produces less lag than twins working at 7-8psi, regardless of valvetronic. Until you have boost, you can't have valvetronic supply the power.
As a magazine noted while driving the 5-series GT with N55, the engine doesn't have quite the low-end of the N54. I think that there was the lag they perceived at lower RPMs.

But, maybe the N55 was not fully broken in...or maybe the N55 car had lower quality gas (but I don't think the dealer would be so stupid if he wanted to sell N55).

The only reason I see BMW sticking with the same power/torque in the N55 was to not increase the lag...because let's face it, even claiming 310hp instead of the old 300hp would have been enough for many to not regret the N54. But they didn't...why ? Every other company ups the power when introducing a new engine.

[cotmfk]

Only time will tell on the N55. N54 has been a pretty good application thus far, overall.

[Tuce]

Though according to the N55 specs, the peak torque comes on sooner than the N54 (1200 RPM versus 1500 for the N54).

[John 070]

Originally Posted by cstavaru

I was expecting this...especially the lag. There is no way a single turbine working at 10-11psi produces less lag than twins working at 7-8psi, regardless of valvetronic. Until you have boost, you can't have valvetronic supply the power.
As a magazine noted while driving the 5-series GT with N55, the engine doesn't have quite the low-end of the N54. I think that there was the lag they perceived at lower RPMs.

But, maybe the N55 was not fully broken in...or maybe the N55 car had lower quality gas (but I don't think the dealer would be so stupid if he wanted to sell N55).

The only reason I see BMW sticking with the same power/torque in the N55 was to not increase the lag...because let's face it, even claiming 310hp instead of the old 300hp would have been enough for many to not regret the N54. But they didn't...why ? Every other company ups the power when introducing a new engine.

Hopefully the HPFP gets solved over the next 6 1/2 years--that's how much warranty on it the original 2k7 owners have. If so, maybe we don't have to jump on the bigger number (55>54) or newer is always better bandwagon.

The N54 was great when we all took delivery. It's only after well for me 3 years that things went down the drain. If the problem can be fixed, we can relive the glory days. Also I found it interesting that the "335is" uses the N54, so there has to be something redeeming about it.

Let's face it, regardless of how little resale a 335i has, the price of any new BMW is outrageous as they keep increasing list prices and removing standard equipment.

[cstavaru]

Originally Posted by Tuce

Though according to the N55 specs, the peak torque comes on sooner than the N54 (1200 RPM versus 1500 for the N54).

The N54 full torque (400Nm) comes at 1300RPM. The more powerful N54 in the 740i has full torque (450Nm) coming at 1500RPM but 400Nm are still available at 1300RPM.

But anyone here can testify that this is not achievable in real life driving. The same is probably true for N55.

[TheRox]

Originally Posted by The J-Man

Where did you drive one already? The new engine is supposed to have less turbo lag, and the magazines have commented that it is quieter. Both items contrary to what you are saying. Compared to your N54, did the N55 car have the same tranny, and were they both awd or rwd?

Oh please...magazines hype every single car. Have you ever really read a bad review?

There is some good advertising money. car reviews like a review of anything is just entertainmentr

[slubu]

Originally Posted by citrixscu

Any comments on the exhaust note? Stock E92s, especially early production models have a pretty burly sound out the back.

Can you elaborate more on the perceived lag? Marketing materials claim less lag on the N55.

That turbo whine seemed to come from behind me, so maybe it was echoed from the exhaust. Otherwise no real burly difference to be honest. But definitely could hear the turbo hissing more in the N55. The salesman commented on it too, as it was the first time he was in the N55 too.

To elaborate more on the perceived lag - I was watching the RPMs very carefully as I accelerated. It seemed a bit flat in the early part of the RPM range, and started to pick up about 2500 or so. Once it picked up it was very very smooth, which based on preference may be a big plus. But having also driven the N54 a few minutes prior, and having an N54 myself, to me it seemed a little more dead on the early part than the N54.

Originally Posted by The J-Man

Where did you drive one already? The new engine is supposed to have less turbo lag, and the magazines have commented that it is quieter. Both items contrary to what you are saying. Compared to your N54, did the N55 car have the same tranny, and were they both awd or rwd?

I was at my dealership test driving an E93 because I was about to get one. I asked if they happened to have an N55 to drive, and they said they just PDI'd one today so yes. It also happened to be an E93. So I drove back to back E93s, first N54 then N55. They were the exact same cars - sport and auto convertibles (rwd).

Originally Posted by Tuce

Though according to the N55 specs, the peak torque comes on sooner than the N54 (1200 RPM versus 1500 for the N54).

Again, just from my perception, I disagree.

[The J-Man]

Originally Posted by slubu

That turbo whine seemed to come from behind me, so maybe it was echoed from the exhaust. Otherwise no real burly difference to be honest. But definitely could hear the turbo hissing more in the N55. The salesman commented on it too, as it was the first time he was in the N55 too.

To elaborate more on the perceived lag - I was watching the RPMs very carefully as I accelerated. It seemed a bit flat in the early part of the RPM range, and started to pick up about 2500 or so. Once it picked up it was very very smooth, which based on preference may be a big plus. But having also driven the N54 a few minutes prior, and having an N54 myself, to me it seemed a little more dead on the early part than the N54.



I was at my dealership test driving an E93 because I was about to get one. I asked if they happened to have an N55 to drive, and they said they just PDI'd one today so yes. It also happened to be an E93. So I drove back to back E93s, first N54 then N55. They were the exact same cars - sport and auto convertibles (rwd).



Again, just from my perception, I disagree.

Cool, thanks for the info - some surprising points that you bring up. I didn't think the N54 could get much smoother, so at least the N55 has something going for it, assuming it will actually be the weaker engine with more lag than the N54.

[TheRox]

A lot of people said the N54 output more than 300 HP and 300 tq. I wonder if the N55 has been "detuned" to reflect true 300 HP and 300 TQ.


Either way, I'm sure its a fine engine; i personally find enough lag in the N54...couldn't possibly stand more in the N55.

[e90David335i]

Originally Posted by TheRox

A lot of people said the N54 output more than 300 HP and 300 tq. I wonder if the N55 has been "detuned" to reflect true 300 HP and 300 TQ.


Either way, I'm sure its a fine engine; i personally find enough lag in the N54...couldn't possibly stand more in the N55.

Indeed, the n54 is majorly underrated!
Automobile performed a dyno test and found the 335 was actually putting 300 to the wheels. Given a 15% power-train loss, that's about 350 at the crank.

[BMW269]

The 335i has to be worse in order to justify the price of the next TT I6 M3.

[Manboy]

Originally Posted by slubu

Engine:
- The N55 seems smoother than the N54, but the N54 feels like it has less lag and maybe a bit faster. (I drove them back to back, and I have an N54.)

Maybe it came with 29.2

[cstavaru]

Originally Posted by e90David335i

Indeed, the n54 is majorly underrated!
Automobile performed a dyno test and found the 335 was actually putting 300 to the wheels. Given a 15% power-train loss, that's about 350 at the crank.

Haven't you noticed the hunderds of 335i stock dynos on these forums that show about 273whp everytime ?

[Weaselboy]

Originally Posted by The J-Man

Where did you drive one already? The new engine is supposed to have less turbo lag, and the magazines have commented that it is quieter. Both items contrary to what you are saying. Compared to your N54, did the N55 car have the same tranny, and were they both awd or rwd?

His other posts seem to point to Orange County CA. I was under the impression no 2011 MY 3-series had been released to US dealers yet (something about EPA cert. on 4/15), but maybe I misunderstood.

[gowitFlow]

saw the 2011 e92 convertible this weekend....

http://www.flickr.com/photos/wah00wa...7623806828398/

[Oulixes]

Originally Posted by blue2fire

...
Unless there is evidence of fixed reliability issues and no real compromise in driveability, it is useless to go for one. Plus, they made it ugly...

+1, except for the usual accolades on the engine, there is nothing of substance published about the fuel delivery system used in N55. And, yes, they always make the first version ugly, likely to allow for easy cosmetic fixes later on.