BMW Brews Twin-Turbocharged 3-SERIES

[Jason C]

New 330bhp 335i arrives in 2006

Following on from our road test on the BMW 330i, posted yesterday, BMW is to launch an uprated version, the 335i. Due on the mainland in just over a year and in the UK six months later, it will feature a turbo-charged version of the 3.0-litre petrol engine found in the 330i. This boosts power by 72bhp to around 330bhp, which is just 13bhp short of the current 3.2-litre M3, and looks likely to get you to 60mph from rest in some six seconds.

The turbos will be fitted so that one works at lower engine speeds to boost low-end torque, while the other picks up higher up the rev range. Autocar speculates that it will be mated to a DSG-alike double-clutch gearbox, for seamless shifting.

According to this week's Autocar, which broke the story, it's intended to plug the gap between the 330i and the forthcoming M3, and will have a 4.0-litre powerplant shoe-horned in, along with a hefty price. That won't launch until 2007.

Source: Piston heads

[rumatt]

:shock:

[TD]

:shock:

It'll still be ugly.

And numb.

[JST]

:shock:

It'll still be ugly.

And numb.

But I'll still buy one.

:)

[Jason C]

:shock:

It'll still be ugly.

And numb.

And here I was thinking that you liked the styling of the E90.

The numb part is all but a given with most of the modern BMWs though.

[TD]

:shock:

It'll still be ugly.

And numb.

And here I was thinking that you liked the styling of the E90.

The numb part is all but a given with most of the modern BMWs though.

It's better, but still wrong.

[JST]

:shock:

It'll still be ugly.

And numb.

And here I was thinking that you liked the styling of the E90.

The numb part is all but a given with most of the modern BMWs though.

It's better, but still wrong.

This car is the car I've been asking for (actually, I've been asking for a 345 or 350, but this is close enough). My only real objection will be price; given the cost of a 330, this will probably be a 50K car even in "enthusiast" spec.

[lemming]

i'd buy one. for sure.

and the funny thing is that it would be so tuneable it will surpass the e90 m3 power and torque outputs easily at much more accessible rpms.

:lol:

if it happens. i still don't believe it. just like the M z4. when it is official from BMW NA is when i'll stop doubting.

[dan]

This boosts power by 72bhp to around 330bhp, which is just 13bhp short of the current 3.2-litre M3, and looks likely to get you to 60mph from rest in some six seconds.


um, why would it be that slow?

[Theo]

:shock:

It'll still be ugly.

And numb.

And here I was thinking that you liked the styling of the E90.

The numb part is all but a given with most of the modern BMWs though.

It's better, but still wrong.

This car is the car I've been asking for (actually, I've been asking for a 345 or 350, but this is close enough). My only real objection will be price; given the cost of a 330, this will probably be a 50K car even in "enthusiast" spec.

Another reason I think the new M3 will be pushing $70K. With the M5 around $84K I don't see this as impossible. :rolleyes:

[Plaz]

This boosts power by 72bhp to around 330bhp, which is just 13bhp short of the current 3.2-litre M3, and looks likely to get you to 60mph from rest in some six seconds.


um, why would it be that slow?

That's what I was thinking... doesn't the NA 3.0 do 0-60 in 6?

[The HACK]

This boosts power by 72bhp to around 330bhp, which is just 13bhp short of the current 3.2-litre M3, and looks likely to get you to 60mph from rest in some six seconds.


um, why would it be that slow?

:cough: GEARING :cough:

Man I must be coming down with a cold.

[lemming]

the e90 330 is damn close to 3400 pounds. that plus really tall gearing are issues for acceleration. it's fast, but not quick.

[dan]

yeah but didn't BMW quote 0-60 in 6 seconds for the E90 330?

why would the 335i be the same?

[lemming]

i think it will be significantly faster than the valvetronic 330 and that car has already been road tested as a sub-6 second car. it will likely be tire-limited acceleration.

[JST]

yeah but didn't BMW quote 0-60 in 6 seconds for the E90 330?

why would the 335i be the same?

It won't be.

I don't care what gears you put into it--with 3.0 liters and sequential turbos, this thing will be a torque monster. It'll be plenty fast--there's no reason to think it would be that much slower than the E46 M3 in a straight line.

[lemming]

yeah but didn't BMW quote 0-60 in 6 seconds for the E90 330?

why would the 335i be the same?

It won't be.

I don't care what gears you put into it--with 3.0 liters and sequential turbos, this thing will be a torque monster. It'll be plenty fast--there's no reason to think it would be that much slower than the E46 M3 in a straight line.

my guesses would be that it will match the S52 M cuope numbers easily with the right rear tires hooking up, i.e. 4.9-5.1 seconds to 60mph and a 13.7 to 14.0 second 1/4 mile.

[Plaz]

This boosts power by 72bhp to around 330bhp, which is just 13bhp short of the current 3.2-litre M3, and looks likely to get you to 60mph from rest in some six seconds.


um, why would it be that slow?

:cough: GEARING :cough:

Man I must be coming down with a cold.

1.96:1 Diff? :lol:

[Doug]

I'd expect more power than 330hp

[Doug]

Just wait till they offer that engine in the Z4

[FC]

Just wait till they offer that engine in the Z4

If they did, and the next gen Z4 looks good and they can keep they weight down to close to 3000lb, it will destroy anything Porsche can offer for anywhere close to the same money.

But BMW will probably goof up the styling yet again, and use the extra power as an excuse to load it up with heavy luxury features. Nevermind a more detached, isolated, numb feel.

Still, I am hopefull, but pessimistic.

[TD]

Just wait till they offer that engine in the Z4

If they did, and the next gen Z4 looks good and they can keep they weight down to close to 3000lb, it will destroy anything Porsche can offer for anywhere close to the same money.

But BMW will probably goof up the styling yet again, and use the extra power as an excuse to load it up with heavy luxury features. Nevermind a more detached, isolated, numb feel.

Still, I am hopefull, but pessimistic.

As, IMO, the current Z4 is the single ugliest BMW ever built, they could put a super light 500 hp engine in it and price it at $20K and I still wouldn't want one.

[clyde]

If they did, and the next gen Z4 looks good and they can keep they weight down to close to 3000lb

Current Z4 is well under 3000 lbs at 2874 (TeamM3's former Z4 last September)

[FC]

If they did, and the next gen Z4 looks good and they can keep they weight down to close to 3000lb

Current Z4 is well under 3000 lbs at 2874 (TeamM3's former Z4 last September)

I know. That is why I said "keep" the weight down. Models seem to get heavier with every iteration. Though, admittedly, BMW has been good about that recently.


This is what bothers me...

If BMW can make a roadster at under 2900lbs, why can't they make a two seater coupe that weight less than 2800lbs instead of giving us a 3400-lb M3?

F*ckers!! :mad:

But of course there will always be the issues of styling, numbness, luxo-crap, etc.

I just want a goddamn Cayman S without Porsche stuffing their pockets with 25K in profits!

..sorry. :eeps:

[John V]

If BMW can make a roadster at under 2900lbs, why can't they make a two seater coupe that weight less than 2800lbs instead of giving us a 3400-lb M3?

Preface: I agree with everything you just posted.

I think the answer to your question is that most of the people who are going to buy an M3 don't care how much the car weighs. They care about what numbers it will put up and the fact that it has a roundel on the hood.

If BMW could make a good looking, fairly light (<3000lbs) sport coupe (not convertible) with room for four, ~250hp naturally aspirated, available with a stick (wankermaticSMGs don't count) and with a proper front suspension for around $30k, I'd run out and buy one. But I suspect that most of the public would be wholly uninterested in such a car and no way in hell would BMW ever make one.

Er, it has to look good, too. (This excludes the Z4 and E90)

[lemming]

the single most consistent thread from CAR, Evo, TopGear and the american magazines is the e90 is a competent vehicle.

i.e. it has no more road feel.

so, the 335i has to be quite the automobile to pique my interest. in contrast, it has been duly noted that in the 997, some of that "feel" is back. it's twitchier and easier to rotate and lets in more road feel than the 996.

by golly, if the future means i have to commute in a 911 and use a corvette z06 as my fun car, so be it. i keep naively thinking BMW cares about enthusiasts, but that hope gets dimmer and dimmer and dimmer.

[clyde]

If BMW can make a roadster at under 2900lbs, why can't they make a two seater coupe that weight less than 2800lbs instead of giving us a 3400-lb M3?

Preface: I agree with everything you just posted.

I think the answer to your question is that most of the people who are going to buy an M3 don't care how much the car weighs. They care about what numbers it will put up and the fact that it has a roundel on the hood.

If BMW could make a good looking, fairly light (<3000lbs) sport coupe (not convertible) with room for four, ~250hp naturally aspirated, available with a stick (wankermaticSMGs don't count) and with a proper front suspension for around $30k, I'd run out and buy one. But I suspect that most of the public would be wholly uninterested in such a car and no way in hell would BMW ever make one.

Er, it has to look good, too. (This excludes the Z4 and E90)

So, we'll be running your 130i next year (or the year after)?

[lemming]

If BMW can make a roadster at under 2900lbs, why can't they make a two seater coupe that weight less than 2800lbs instead of giving us a 3400-lb M3?

Preface: I agree with everything you just posted.

I think the answer to your question is that most of the people who are going to buy an M3 don't care how much the car weighs. They care about what numbers it will put up and the fact that it has a roundel on the hood.

If BMW could make a good looking, fairly light (<3000lbs) sport coupe (not convertible) with room for four, ~250hp naturally aspirated, available with a stick (wankermaticSMGs don't count) and with a proper front suspension for around $30k, I'd run out and buy one. But I suspect that most of the public would be wholly uninterested in such a car and no way in hell would BMW ever make one.

Er, it has to look good, too. (This excludes the Z4 and E90)

So, we'll be running your 130i next year (or the year after)?

my question is whether or not the 130 will outhandle the z4 --that would be so funny that the most entry level vehicle has the best dynamics.

[clyde]

So, we'll be running your 130i next year (or the year after)?

my question is whether or not the 130 will outhandle the z4 --that would be so funny that the most entry level vehicle has the best dynamics.[/quote]

As long as it's classed competitively, I don't care.

[The HACK]

the single most consistent thread from CAR, Evo, TopGear and the american magazines is the e90 is a competent vehicle.

i.e. it has no more road feel.

so, the 335i has to be quite the automobile to pique my interest. in contrast, it has been duly noted that in the 997, some of that "feel" is back. it's twitchier and easier to rotate and lets in more road feel than the 996.

by golly, if the future means i have to commute in a 911 and use a corvette z06 as my fun car, so be it. i keep naively thinking BMW cares about enthusiasts, but that hope gets dimmer and dimmer and dimmer.

Road feel can be "modded" in. A good set of coil-overs and some thicker sways, along with nice set of tires with stiff sidewalls (S-03s or PS2s) you can have the best of both worlds...Luxurious comfort PLUS all the road feel you want.

My 350z has plenty of road feel. In fact, there's so much road feel my @ss is starting to get sore from the pounding the pavement gave me. I miss my 323Ci as a daily driver.

Not that less road feel is good...It's not. But there's a point of diminishing returns. The damn 350z rides like ScottN2Retro's race car. Can't possibly be good for the chassis. And the 323Ci and the Z4 still out runs it on the track.

[FC]

the single most consistent thread from CAR, Evo, TopGear and the american magazines is the e90 is a competent vehicle.

i.e. it has no more road feel.

so, the 335i has to be quite the automobile to pique my interest. in contrast, it has been duly noted that in the 997, some of that "feel" is back. it's twitchier and easier to rotate and lets in more road feel than the 996.

by golly, if the future means i have to commute in a 911 and use a corvette z06 as my fun car, so be it. i keep naively thinking BMW cares about enthusiasts, but that hope gets dimmer and dimmer and dimmer.

Road feel can be "modded" in. A good set of coil-overs and some thicker sways, along with nice set of tires with stiff sidewalls (S-03s or PS2s) you can have the best of both worlds...Luxurious comfort PLUS all the road feel you want.

My 350z has plenty of road feel. In fact, there's so much road feel my @ss is starting to get sore from the pounding the pavement gave me. I miss my 323Ci as a daily driver.

Not that less road feel is good...It's not. But there's a point of diminishing returns. The damn 350z rides like ScottN2Retro's race car. Can't possibly be good for the chassis. And the 323Ci and the Z4 still out runs it on the track.

Well, that is where mass becomes a huge factor.

[lemming]

road feel is also has to do with steering feel and brake pedal feel --you can modify an e46 all that you want but it still will not communicate as much to the driver as an e30 or e36.

i was just at the track in both a c5 z06 and the c6 z51, Hackernaut. the road feel is completely gone in the c6 and as a result, while having a lot more power under the curve, it's at least 1-2 seconds slower on a 2.2 mile road course. the brake pedal doesn't really tell you when you're at the threshold and the steering feel, already marginal in the z06, is buick in the c6.

i could believe that the z4 can outhandle the tuned and tweaked 350z, but the 323ci would stretch my limits of belief.

[Jason C]

road feel is also has to do with steering feel and brake pedal feel --you can modify an e46 all that you want but it still will not communicate as much to the driver as an e30 or e36.

I was going to post something about that - I was wondering if Hack would explain to us how he'd "mod in" a Benz SL with brake-by-wire so that the steering and brake pedal feel would be on par with a 350Z. :P

[FC]

I was wondering if Hack would explain to us how he'd "mod in" a Benz SL with brake-by-wire so that the steering and brake pedal feel would be on par with a 350Z. :P

I've always loved the SL's and I am biased in favor of them, but nothing short of a miracle will make a 4500-lb "roadster" feel much of anything.

[The HACK]

i could believe that the z4 can outhandle the tuned and tweaked 350z, but the 323ci would stretch my limits of belief.

The 323Ci IS faster on certain tracks. At very technical tracks and brake intensive track like Buttonwillow the 323Ci is faster than the 350z, believe it or not.

One of the biggest reason is the brakes. The stock 350z brake (and the brake on the Enthusiast version is TINY) can't handle more than a few laps without fading. The pad material is horrible and the cooling is ineffective. If you can't slow down effectively, you can go fast.

In order to make the 350z faster I will have to put in more effective pads and a better cooling. Right now the limiting factor of the 350z is NOT the HP or suspension but BRAKES.

[Jason C]

http://forums.rennlist.com/upload/img005.jpg

[Theo]

:shock: :cry:

[lemming]

that is truly a cool car.

i'd be amazed when they build it. then i'd actually be a believer again.

[JST]

that is truly a cool car.

i'd be amazed when they build it. then i'd actually be a believer again.

If they build it, and you can get a clutch pedal, let me just go on record as saying I will buy one.

[FC]

Hmmmmm...

Perhaps I could live with the car if it were black on black?

There is still way too much information I'm missing. I want to see reviews. I want to see the new M3, the Ci, weights, tranny options, and most importantly prices.

But it goes without saying that this is good news for a variety of reasons. Aside from redeeming BMW a bit, it will force other companies to respond. Most importantly, with an M3 @400hp and a 3er @320hp, Porsche cannot possibly get way with charging what they do for their cars without bumping hp by quite a bit throughout their lineup.

I've got a few years to see how this all sorts itself out.

[blee]

It sounds like BMW is going to charge a lot of money for their upcoming M3, which means that this model is supposed to bridge the difference between it and the 330i. It sure sounds exciting; I wonder how it drives.

For the purists out there, don't forget that the 2002tii set the mark for performance sedans when it was introduced. Without it, I wonder if BMW would have the same cachet that drew us all to it.

[killerdeck]

Maybe I will have something to look forward to possibly getting in a few years after all. My lease will be up April 07 just in time for something like this.

[lemming]

Maybe I will have something to look forward to possibly getting in a few years after all. My lease will be up April 07 just in time for something like this.

me, too!

but having to break a lease never stopped anyone, did it? :eeps:

i in JeSTer's camp: if it doesn't come with a manual transmission, i might as well buy something stupid like a cadillac.

[FC]

i in JeSTer's camp: if it doesn't come with a manual transmission, i might as well buy something stupid like a cadillac.

I think that is true for most of us here.

[blee]

if it doesn't come with a manual transmission, i might as well buy something stupid like a cadillac.

:lol:

[ff]

If it's no faster than the 330i, then what's the point? Maybe it's the gawd-awful-heavy ZHP wheels on it that effectively erases the additional 72 HP?

[Jason C]

If it's no faster than the 330i, then what's the point? Maybe it's the gawd-awful-heavy ZHP wheels on it that effectively erases the additional 72 HP?

Er, it's just a photochop. :?

No *real* information (ie official figures) have been released yet. Not really relevant for me, purchase wise - as it'll be well out of my price range. I can barely see myself swinging a 330i as it is.

[zach]

...I can barely see myself swinging a 330i as it is.

Yeah, me too. While I wasn't looking, BMWs got really expensive. The cost of a loaded 330i is on the wrong side of $45k. :cry:

[FC]

...I can barely see myself swinging a 330i as it is.

Yeah, me too. While I wasn't looking, BMWs got really expensive. The cost of a loaded 330i is on the wrong side of $45k. :cry:

Which is why I am hanging on to mine for another 4 years at least.

[Jason C]

...I can barely see myself swinging a 330i as it is.

Yeah, me too. While I wasn't looking, BMWs got really expensive. The cost of a loaded 330i is on the wrong side of $45k. :cry:

Which is why I am hanging on to mine for another 4 years at least.

I actually optioned mine out as a stripper using their config tool. All things being equal, more electronic crap = more shit to go wrong. It still came out at nearly $40k. :nono:

[SCA]

...I can barely see myself swinging a 330i as it is.

Yeah, me too. While I wasn't looking, BMWs got really expensive. The cost of a loaded 330i is on the wrong side of $45k. :cry:


No doubt! BMW has pushed me out of their market, unless they build a 1-Series coupe and it is reasonably priced.

[zach]

...reasonably priced.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[SCA]

I actually optioned mine out as a stripper using their config tool. All things being equal, more electronic crap = more shit to go wrong. It still came out at nearly $40k. :nono:

I could get into one for $38,670 (MSRP) SP and Sat. Radio Prep. That's it.

[Jason C]

I actually optioned mine out as a stripper using their config tool. All things being equal, more electronic crap = more shit to go wrong. It still came out at nearly $40k. :nono:

I could get into one for $38,670 (MSRP) SP and Sat. Radio Prep. That's it.

I couldn't go without the fold-down rear seats. But that's just me.

OTOH, I could very well do without that damn moonroof. I wish they packed it in with the premium package like they always use to do so that I could get one without it. :rolleyes:

[TD]

For the purists out there, don't forget that the 2002tii set the mark for performance sedans when it was introduced. Without it, I wonder if BMW would have the same cachet that drew us all to it.

Are you suggesting the 2002tii was a turbo? It was not.

[blee]

For the purists out there, don't forget that the 2002tii set the mark for performance sedans when it was introduced. Without it, I wonder if BMW would have the same cachet that drew us all to it.

Are you suggesting the 2002tii was a turbo? It was not.

Oops. I meant the 2002 Turbo. But that would be somewhat misleading, since the tii had already made a name for itself before the Turbo came on the scene. Mein Fehler.

[ff]

If it's no faster than the 330i, then what's the point? Maybe it's the gawd-awful-heavy ZHP wheels on it that effectively erases the additional 72 HP?

Er, it's just a photochop. :?

Have no fear. BMW will put heavy wheels on the 335i as well. Maybe even some 19" 'ers that weigh 65 lbs each. Every 1" increase in rim diameter at BMW, seems to result in another 10 pounds being tacked on at each corner.

[Jason C]

If it's no faster than the 330i, then what's the point? Maybe it's the gawd-awful-heavy ZHP wheels on it that effectively erases the additional 72 HP?

Er, it's just a photochop. :?

Have no fear. BMW will put heavy wheels on the 335i as well. Maybe even some 19" 'ers that weigh 65 lbs each. Every 1" increase in rim diameter at BMW, seems to result in another 10 pounds being tacked on at each corner.

Bigger, heavier wheels are an industry-wide trend. Even Honda increased wheel size and weight on MY2004+ S2000s. If you're going to pick on BMW, there are far easier areas in which to do so. :rolleyes:

[ff]

Bigger, heavier wheels are an industry-wide trend. Even Honda increased wheel size and weight on MY2004+ S2000s. If you're going to pick on BMW, there are far easier areas in which to do so. :rolleyes:

Do you know that for a fact? The wheels on my S "look" pretty light.

< 2004
http://www.hondapl.org/s2000/galeria-red/right-wheel.jpg

>2003
http://images.autobytel.com/view/aic/HONDA/S2000/cvt/usa_2005_honda_s2000_cvt_2_x_exwheel_x.jpg

[ff]

oh, and the weight increase from the 330i SP wheels+tires to the 330i ZHP wheels+tires is close to 10 pounds each. :rolleyes:

I feel that BMW deserves to be picked on for that, especially considering that the ZHP is supposed to be the performance model. :rolleyes:

but that horse has already been beaten enough.

[dan]

If it's no faster than the 330i, then what's the point? Maybe it's the gawd-awful-heavy ZHP wheels on it that effectively erases the additional 72 HP?

Er, it's just a photochop. :?

Have no fear. BMW will put heavy wheels on the 335i as well. Maybe even some 19" 'ers that weigh 65 lbs each. Every 1" increase in rim diameter at BMW, seems to result in another 10 pounds being tacked on at each corner.

so what are the sizes and weights of your wheels?

[Jason C]

If it's no faster than the 330i, then what's the point? Maybe it's the gawd-awful-heavy ZHP wheels on it that effectively erases the additional 72 HP?

Er, it's just a photochop. :?

Have no fear. BMW will put heavy wheels on the 335i as well. Maybe even some 19" 'ers that weigh 65 lbs each. Every 1" increase in rim diameter at BMW, seems to result in another 10 pounds being tacked on at each corner.

so what are the sizes and weights of your wheels?

http://www.s2ki.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=225434&view=findpost&p=4289535

Come on, this is lame. Ripping on BMW for a photochopped image of a car that hasn't came out, hasn't had an official press release, and doesn't have any concrete info to go by. I'd think with BMW's current releases, there's plenty enough already. :lol:

[Rob]

I would like to say I would buy one if they build it, but I suspect the cost will be prohibitive. I am very happy with my low tech V8 with more hp than this turbo model will have and I bet my car ends up being less expensive, probably substantially less expensive (even without the uber discounts currently available).

Size is a consideration as well with the baby coming soon. Oh well. Good thing I have four years left in the current car before I even think about replacing it (if I keep telling myself that often enough . . .).

[ff]

http://www.s2ki.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=225434&view=findpost&p=4289535

So the fronts stayed basically the same (.1 lb. difference) and the rears increased by 2.9 lbs, when they went from 16" to 17". The rears also increased in section width by 10 mm. So I'd say that the 2004+ wheel design isn't any "heavier".

Given this, I'd say that Honda didn't follow the trend of making their wheels heavier.

To be a little fair, the "ZHP" tires were also 10 mm wider in section width than the SP's. Still...10 lbs increase in weight?

[Plaz]

http://www.s2ki.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=225434&view=findpost&p=4289535

So the fronts stayed basically the same (.1 lb. difference) and the rears increased by 2.9 lbs, when they went from 16" to 17". The rears also increased in section width by 10 mm. So I'd say that the 2004+ wheel design isn't any "heavier".

Given this, I'd say that Honda didn't follow the trend of making their wheels heavier.

To be a little fair, the "ZHP" tires were also 10 mm wider in section width than the SP's. Still...10 lbs increase in weight?

My 18" BBS REs are about the same weight, if not a little lighter than my 17" 68Ms.

:dunno:

[dan]

the rears increased by 2.9 lbs

Given this, I'd say that Honda didn't follow the trend of making their wheels heavier.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

[ff]

the rears increased by 2.9 lbs

Given this, I'd say that Honda didn't follow the trend of making their wheels heavier.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

It kinda made sense to me. The fronts stayed the same, even though they grew 1" in height. Rears grew taller by 1" and wider by 10 mm. They're slightly heavier, but not heavier for the sake of style like the ZHP.

[Rob]

ff,

2.9 lb increase is HUGE. Think about it as a percentage. No, it doesn't mean that BMW wheels aren't heavy, it means that Honda has increased wheel weight just like everyone else. At least in the rear.

[dan]

by over 10%, too

[ff]

by over 10%, too

All in the name of fashion.

[lemming]

I would like to say I would buy one if they build it, but I suspect the cost will be prohibitive. I am very happy with my low tech V8 with more hp than this turbo model will have and I bet my car ends up being less expensive, probably substantially less expensive (even without the uber discounts currently available).

Size is a consideration as well with the baby coming soon. Oh well. Good thing I have four years left in the current car before I even think about replacing it (if I keep telling myself that often enough . . .).

you do realize, of course, that for BMW, 400hp is a really big number to match or exceed because they are pretty reluctant to use displacement (euro displacement taxes? who knows).

that GM probably does this with an engine that only costs $8,000 is both a good and a bad thing --good in the sense that it's easy to do for them and the power is still not fully tapped out at all --bad in the sense that people still laugh at the cam-in-block notion.

i'd love to see BMW move from the larger and larger straight sixes to a smaller and smaller all aluminum v8. that's just me. i would not pay over $35,000 anymore for any vehicle that has less than 250ft#'s of torque.

[SARAFIL]

If it's no faster than the 330i, then what's the point? Maybe it's the gawd-awful-heavy ZHP wheels on it that effectively erases the additional 72 HP?

I'm pretty sure that they use different gearing on US and Euro models that make the Euro models a bit more focussed on high speed driving while the US model benefits from better acceleration. Given that, this car might not have much of an acceleration advantage over a US 330i, but it probably would be noticeable against a Euro 330i.

[Rob]

you do realize, of course, that for BMW, 400hp is a really big number to match or exceed because they are pretty reluctant to use displacement (euro displacement taxes? who knows).

that GM probably does this with an engine that only costs $8,000 is both a good and a bad thing --good in the sense that it's easy to do for them and the power is still not fully tapped out at all --bad in the sense that people still laugh at the cam-in-block notion.

i'd love to see BMW move from the larger and larger straight sixes to a smaller and smaller all aluminum v8. that's just me. i would not pay over $35,000 anymore for any vehicle that has less than 250ft#'s of torque.

Sure. On the other hand, I bet the new M3 has at least 400 hp, although it might lose the torque war. The issue will be cost and the convenience of four doors (although I notice the fathers on the board saying it's not necessary to ever put your kids in the non care-giver's daily driver, but we will see).

I was talking about the turbo 330i concept with mrs rwg last night and she asked if it would have a lsd. Good woman, that. But she's right. It probably won't and that's the feature I appreciated most on the upgrade from the 330 to the e36 M3.

[lemming]

the problem with the modern 3 series as i see it are many, when i stop and seriously consider ownership of one.

1. the clutch; recently the clutches have been terrible and we're not even addressing hi-po M clutches: both feel and engagement point are ridiculous.

2. the DBW is terrible.

3. no mechanical LSD.

4. ever increasing weight.

5. ever increasing subframe isolation.

6. diminishing amount of torque per pound of chassis.

7. increasing price.

8. so-so brakes.

9. nickel & dime options packages

10. ever cheapening of the interior material quality.

honestly, while the car can make sense for a lot of people, if you have had the opportunity to own many cars in the past, particularly BMWs, and have sampled other entry-luxe type vehicles, it's really, really, really difficult to justify buying a non_M BMW because the cost relative to what you get is lame.

it will have to be an incredible powertrain on the 335i to offset these things for me, personally, to seriously sign paperwork on a BMW again.

[Jason C]

the problem with the modern 3 series as i see it are many, when i stop and seriously consider ownership of one.

1. the clutch; recently the clutches have been terrible and we're not even addressing hi-po M clutches: both feel and engagement point are ridiculous.

2. the DBW is terrible.

3. no mechanical LSD.

4. ever increasing weight.

5. ever increasing subframe isolation.

6. diminishing amount of torque per pound of chassis.

7. increasing price.

8. so-so brakes.

9. nickel & dime options packages

10. ever cheapening of the interior material quality.

honestly, while the car can make sense for a lot of people, if you have had the opportunity to own many cars in the past, particularly BMWs, and have sampled other entry-luxe type vehicles, it's really, really, really difficult to justify buying a non_M BMW because the cost relative to what you get is lame.

it will have to be an incredible powertrain on the 335i to offset these things for me, personally, to seriously sign paperwork on a BMW again.

#1 can be mitigated somewhat by removing the CDV, but it'll never feel like an E30.

#2 is supposedly better on the ZHP, did that carryover to the E90? :dunno:

#3 irritates me. Having the rear brake pads go left-right-left-right-left-right is a somewhat poor compromise.

#4 and #5 are an unfortunate side effect of increasing body rigidity (always a goal of engineering department) and added features. From an intellectual standpoint, I know more rigidity = for teh win, but I still don't like weight.

#6 can be solved by an infusion of pushrod power, and that'll happen as soon as TD buys a Z4. :lol:

#7... *sigh* That and #9.

#8 is supposedly taken care of by the DBC's anti-fade feature. Right.

#10, I dunno, I actually got some time with the E90 and it's remarkably similar to the E46. I think the problem is the interior looks cheaper, not that it is. The X3, on the other hand - that's just blatant cost-cutting.

Despite it's problems, I know that it would make a nice daily driver. The question (for me) is whether or not I'm willing to deal with the kind of work that this car needs. Although there's that factory warranty. But it's still a lot of electronics.

[ff]

[re: DBW throttle] #2 is supposedly better on the ZHP, did that carryover to the E90? :dunno:


I could detect no difference in throttle response between the base 330 and the ZHP 330. That's with 25-30K miles behind the wheel of each.

[Jason C]

[re: DBW throttle] #2 is supposedly better on the ZHP, did that carryover to the E90? :dunno:


I could detect no difference in throttle response between the base 330 and the ZHP 330. That's with 25-30K miles behind the wheel of each.

http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25954&highlight=zhp+dbw

:scratch:

[FC]

[re: DBW throttle] #2 is supposedly better on the ZHP, did that carryover to the E90? :dunno:


I could detect no difference in throttle response between the base 330 and the ZHP 330. That's with 25-30K miles behind the wheel of each.

http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25954&highlight=zhp+dbw

:scratch:

Funny that this comes up again. As I have become more and more comfortable with my ZHP-330i, I have come to notice that the DBW lag is a far bigger issue when wanting to engage after having cruised in neutral, say towards a red light, and then rev-matching if the light goes green. In other words, making the engine "wake up" from idle to ~3K will give away awful amounts of lag. However, in regular driving and shifting from one gear to another, the reving is not so drastic, and the car doesn't exhibit too much lag (say ~3K to ~4K rpm).

[lemming]

DSC must be "complicated" because every GM product I own or have owned with DBW was invisible and the same for Nismo and Fuji Heavy Industries products.

:P

now, i know that no one could possibly come close to the complexity of Dynamic Stability Control plus traction, but the other systems still seem to be quite good at what they do.

[ff]

[re: DBW throttle] #2 is supposedly better on the ZHP, did that carryover to the E90? :dunno:


I could detect no difference in throttle response between the base 330 and the ZHP 330. That's with 25-30K miles behind the wheel of each.

http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25954&highlight=zhp+dbw

:scratch:

Good for them. I could detect no difference in throttle response, and I lived with the 2 cars for an adequate number of miles.