View Full Version : why is BMW resistant to moving up in displacement?
lemming
08-23-2006, 01:50 PM
http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/08/22/more-details-on-nissans-new-35l-vq-engine/
MB has, up to 3.5.
Audi will certainly go there.
It isn't that i do not appreciate the twin turbo straight six --i just would have preferred a 3.5litre engine from BMW (n/a).
Nick M3
08-23-2006, 01:55 PM
http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/08/22/more-details-on-nissans-new-35l-vq-engine/
MB has, up to 3.5.
Audi will certainly go there.
It isn't that i do not appreciate the twin turbo straight six --i just would have preferred a 3.5litre engine from BMW (n/a).
I'm guessing that it's an I6 problem.
They'd have to go to a V6 or a loooong block on the i6
They'd have to go to a V6 or a loooong block on the i6
You mean like the old 3.5L "Big Six"?
I think another reason is that they want their cars to be more tax-friendly -- Most European countries base their road tax (ie registration taxes) on engine size. I know there is a huge increase in the tax rate at 2.0 liters -- which is why so many "2.0" cars are always 1.995L displacement. There might be something similar above 3.0L...
For global companies, there is a consideration for RoW. In Europe (not sure about asia), most places have/had severely increasing taxation based on displacement. Back in the 80's, our displacement classes were <1.7lt, 1.7 - 2.0lt, 2.0 and above (which was the large class).
Note that bmw has dropped the 318 for the US. The 320 is a relic of the past. The 323 became 325 which became 328. The 325 became 328 which became 330.
In the global scheme of things, these are quite large displacements.
It isn't that i do not appreciate the twin turbo straight six --i just would have preferred a 3.5litre engine from BMW (n/a).
:+1
iateyourcheese
08-23-2006, 03:54 PM
http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/08/22/more-details-on-nissans-new-35l-vq-engine/
MB has, up to 3.5.
Audi will certainly go there.
It isn't that i do not appreciate the twin turbo straight six --i just would have preferred a 3.5litre engine from BMW (n/a).
The twin turbo sounds like a monster of an engine. It's going to be much wilder than any 3.5L they would have engineered.
lemming
08-23-2006, 04:59 PM
The twin turbo sounds like a monster of an engine. It's going to be much wilder than any 3.5L they would have engineered.
ah.
but here's the crux of my question: everyone has a 3.5litre motor putting out power that is already AT the level of the twin turbo BMW engine. ergo, imagine the power the 3.5litre TURBO would have put out.
imagine a 335i "standard" or "base" 3 series with 300hp/280-300#ft and the "wild" 335Ti version hitting 370-380hp. i would be shocked if the BMW 3.0turbo gets same or better mileage than the new nissan VQ35 or the toyota 3.5vvti, for example.
as for the european taxation on engines displacing over 3.0litres --it does not appear to stop VAG and DC from this. do you really think BMW's core audience, even in Europe, cares that much about the tax?
I'm guessing that it's an I6 problem.
You could lengthen the stroke? ;)
iateyourcheese
08-23-2006, 06:11 PM
Well I think Nick nailed why BMW doesn't have a 3.5. I guess I fail to see the big deal, anyway. :dunno: I drove the G35 and TL first and yet I still bought the lowly 225hp 330i instead.
There is also one fatal BMW marketing flaw in your plan. If there existed a 335i NA base 3er and a turbo one as the top-of-the-line car, then the new M3 would need to put out closer to 500 hp to set itself apart. Then what for the M5/M6? 600 hp?
ah.
but here's the crux of my question: everyone has a 3.5litre motor putting out power that is already AT the level of the twin turbo BMW engine. ergo, imagine the power the 3.5litre TURBO would have put out.
imagine a 335i "standard" or "base" 3 series with 300hp/280-300#ft and the "wild" 335Ti version hitting 370-380hp. i would be shocked if the BMW 3.0turbo gets same or better mileage than the new nissan VQ35 or the toyota 3.5vvti, for example.
as for the european taxation on engines displacing over 3.0litres --it does not appear to stop VAG and DC from this. do you really think BMW's core audience, even in Europe, cares that much about the tax?
lemming
08-23-2006, 06:40 PM
Well I think Nick nailed why BMW doesn't have a 3.5. I guess I fail to see the big deal, anyway. :dunno: I drove the G35 and TL first and yet I still bought the lowly 225hp 330i instead.
There is also one fatal BMW marketing flaw in your plan. If there existed a 335i NA base 3er and a turbo one as the top-of-the-line car, then the new M3 would need to put out closer to 500 hp to set itself apart. Then what for the M5/M6? 600 hp?
i'll bet you still bought the 330i for other reasons like chassis balance and other more subjective things. i cannot speak for the TL and how it drives, but there is no question to me that driving a VQ engine, in a car or SUV, is a lot punchier than the BMW 3.0 engine. everywhere in the power band.
and i've been dying to own a BMW that will deliver that sort of punch. i don't care about refined power. i'd just like the power, please.
i don't care about refined power. i'd just like the power, please.
I need some refinement in my power.
I need some refinement in my power.
How do you know? You don't have any power.
:box:
How do you know? You don't have any power.
:box:
:(
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.