|
|
|
|
 |
carcrazy84
 |
|
Owe:
| resort to childish namecalling |
...
You never fail to deliver hypocrisy in this area. It's fun to criticize people, but its hard to live up to that standard isn't it?
|
Powered by Honda
|
|
mobis21 wrote:
I would give the win to the Volvo.
It's by far the best looking inside and out. The BMW was a freakish 47% more expensive than the Swede. Sorry, that's an entirely different playing field at that much more.
Volvo for the win.
|
go sit in the volvo feels pure cheap. I was disappointed. However, as always Volvo has the most comfortable SEATS in the industry. Amazing.
I like the new 3er styling looks classic yet has a modern twist on the legendary design. The longer hood brings some grace to the profile as well.
|
carcrazy84
|
|
| I am going to jump right in to the deep end of the pool and say that if car crazy thinks that the EPA does its test to get the 'bell curve' of driving habits he is indeed crazy. |
It's good that you've looked up the EPA testing procedures a little and provided some info here. The aspect of their testing that I'm talking about that is supposed to represent the average driver is the acceleration plot that test drivers follow by varying the gas. It was certainly standardized to represent the average driver.
Yes, I'm sure it is possible to game the test. But then, if you look at all the fuel economy results from drivers on fueleconomy.gov, most cars get above their combined rating. In Consumer Reports highway tests, most cars get above the highway ratings. See the article posted in this thread. There is another one like it elsewhere. So gaming the test does not seem to be case for most cars, even the turbo DI ones.
|
Powered by Honda
|
|
CR-V9 wrote:
A77 wrote:
[ ... ]
As fas as the TSX' less grippy tires are concerned you get to a point where super grippiness is just boring. Cars are only really entertaining to corner at their limits of adhesion. While you have to have a decently high level for safety sake, the fact is that if the limits are so high they can only be safely explored on a track, then the car is going to be less interesting on road. Probably stirring up a hornets' nest here.
[ ... ]
|
|
ROFL!
hahahahahaha
Honda always cheaps out on tires and brakes. Always!
|
carcrazy84
|
|
carcrazy84 wrote:
Owe, you can type so many words and still miss the underlying point. Even if know where, when, how long, and by whom the cars were driven...
You do not know HOW the cars were driven. You know, how much gas they were giving the cars at any given moment; the number one factor in fuel economy.
Just because they went along the same route and may have arrived at similar times (which is disputable in this case), and by the same drivers, does not mean they were DRIVEN the same. You can make inferences and assumptions. That's all.
That is why the EPA tests are done by a driver matching an acceleration plot, and not some guy on a road just seeing what it does.
|
Also, you seem to have missed what I wrote about full-throttle/heavy-throttle driving and why it does not necessarily yield results that are proportional to the EPA results, but more in proportion to torque and weight. And I'll add that when you have a turbocharged car like the BMW, with its low torque peak, at a large throttle opening it will be burning more fuel at lower rpm than something like the TSX, which is not producing nearly as much torque. This does not mean the BMW is "gaming" the EPA tests either. It's just the result of an engine designed to have a low, flat torque curve.
In other words, conceding that they were driven the same, it's not really surprising that they got similar mileage. But then, the BMW is at a disadvantage under hard driving that does not necessarily reflect what most drivers would see, and thus the EPA numbers would not be inaccurate.
Just wait for more numbers on the BMW, k? My only ideology is to be skeptical and wait until sufficient amounts of data come in. Thus far, only Motortrend has numbers for the auto, as far as I know.
|
Hondarulez
|
|
carcrazy84 wrote:
| I am going to jump right in to the deep end of the pool and say that if car crazy thinks that the EPA does its test to get the 'bell curve' of driving habits he is indeed crazy. |
It's good that you've looked up the EPA testing procedures a little and provided some info here. The aspect of their testing that I'm talking about that is supposed to represent the average driver is the acceleration plot that test drivers follow by varying the gas. It was certainly standardized to represent the average driver.
Yes, I'm sure it is possible to game the test. But then, if you look at all the fuel economy results from drivers on fueleconomy.gov, most cars get above their combined rating. In Consumer Reports highway tests, most cars get above the highway ratings. See the article posted in this thread. There is another one like it elsewhere. So gaming the test does not seem to be case for most cars, even the turbo DI ones.
|
You are talking about this list from Consumer Reports:
+11 Volkswagen Passat TDI 40 51
+8 Honda Civic LX 39 47 +8
+8 Honda CR-Z EX 37 45 +8
+7 Toyota Prius 48 55 +7
+7 Scion xD 33 40 +7
+7 Volkswagen Golf 42 49 +7
+7 Volkswagen Jetta Wagon 42 49 +7
+7 Lexus CT 200h 40 47 +7
+7 Toyota Prius V 40 47 +7
+6 Honda Civic Hybrid 44 50 +6
+6 Toyota Corolla 34 40 +6
+6 Toyota Camry 35 41 +6
+6 Ford Fiesta SE 39 45 +6
+5 Ford Focus SE 38 43 +5
+5 Toyota Camry Hybrid 38 43 +5
+5 Mazda2 Sport 35 40 +5
+5 Hyundai Accent GLS 40 45 +5
+4 Honda Civic EX 39 43 +4
+4 Fiat 500 Sport 38 42 +4
+4 Fiat 500C Pop 38 42 +4
+4 Ford Fiesta SES 38 42 +4
+4 Mini Cooper 37 41 +4
+4 BMW 335d 36 40 +4
+4 Ford Fusion 36 40 +4
+3 Volkswagen Jetta TDI 42 45 +3
+3 Mazda3 i Touring 40 43 +3
+2 Nissan Versa SV 38 40 +2
+1 Honda Insight EX 44 45 +1
0 Hyundai Santa Fe 26 26 0
0 Hyundai Tucson 28 28 0
0 Kia Forte EX Hatchback 36 36 0
0 Kia Optima LX 34 34 0
0 Kia Sorento 28 28 0
0 Hyundai Sonata Hybrid 40 40 0
-1 Hyundai Santa Fe 4-cyl 25 24 -1
-1 Hyundai Elantra 40 39 -1
Yes, there are cars that can do better than EPA ratings for sure. As you can see from above, Honda models and a few other NA cars and hybrids dominate the top half of the table. The ones that are with turbo are diesel engines. I don't think there's any car powered by a turbocharged petrol engine in that list. This is not to say that turbocharged petrol cars can't do better than EPA ratings in the real world, but I think the above list shows a trend. And yes, you can also game the system with a NA petrol car (i.e. gearing, shift points, etc).
|
Hondarulez
|
|
carcrazy84 wrote:
carcrazy84 wrote:
Owe, you can type so many words and still miss the underlying point. Even if know where, when, how long, and by whom the cars were driven...
You do not know HOW the cars were driven. You know, how much gas they were giving the cars at any given moment; the number one factor in fuel economy.
Just because they went along the same route and may have arrived at similar times (which is disputable in this case), and by the same drivers, does not mean they were DRIVEN the same. You can make inferences and assumptions. That's all.
That is why the EPA tests are done by a driver matching an acceleration plot, and not some guy on a road just seeing what it does.
|
Also, you seem to have missed what I wrote about full-throttle/heavy-throttle driving and why it does not necessarily yield results that are proportional to the EPA results, but more in proportion to torque and weight. And I'll add that when you have a turbocharged car like the BMW, with its low torque peak, at a large throttle opening it will be burning more fuel at lower rpm than something like the TSX, which is not producing nearly as much torque. This does not mean the BMW is "gaming" the EPA tests either. It's just the result of an engine designed to have a low, flat torque curve.
In other words, conceding that they were driven the same, it's not really surprising that they got similar mileage. But then, the BMW is at a disadvantage under hard driving that does not necessarily reflect what most drivers would see, and thus the EPA numbers would not be inaccurate.
Just wait for more numbers on the BMW, k? My only ideology is to be skeptical and wait until sufficient amounts of data come in. Thus far, only Motortrend has numbers for the auto, as far as I know.
|
The bolded part is exactly one of the points we are trying to make - turbocharged cars will just consume as much gas as a conventional NA car with larger displacement under hard driving.
And yes, weight is a huge factor too. This is why C/D didn't get any better real world mpg in the Q5 2.0T than the 3.2 V6 model.
We understand that there aren't a lot of numbers for the new 328i. However, for me, I'm looking at a trend for the many cars for the past several years. And the trend is that, turbocharged cars in MOST cases (not all) don't get superior real world mpg than a larger NA engine with similar power output. No, this is not conclusive. And no, I don't have a statistics report on this. It's just a trend that can be easily spotted by checking out many cars for their real world/observed mpg with different sources.
|
CarPhreakD
|
|
Powered by Honda wrote:
mobis21 wrote:
I would give the win to the Volvo.
It's by far the best looking inside and out. The BMW was a freakish 47% more expensive than the Swede. Sorry, that's an entirely different playing field at that much more.
Volvo for the win.
|
go sit in the volvo feels pure cheap. I was disappointed. However, as always Volvo has the most comfortable SEATS in the industry. Amazing.
I like the new 3er styling looks classic yet has a modern twist on the legendary design. The longer hood brings some grace to the profile as well.
|
I thought it was really cheap. A VW GTI had a better layout and feel inside.
|
CarPhreakD
|
|
owequitit wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
Hondarulez wrote:
Of course, more speeds does not automatically = faster. With that said, the lower shift times, lower parasitic losses, and perhaps better gear ratios should all contribute to faster acceleration.....vs the TSX.
|
You're forgetting that you're comparing a car that is rated at -40 SAE hp. And the data suggests that yes, the BMW gets off the line faster; however, the TSX passes it at the end of the 1/4 mile, suggesting that it is more powerful. Which shouldn't be surprising
Beyond that, keep in mind that the curb weight of the BMW being lighter than the TSX is likely partially a result of the N20's compact architecture. The TSX V6 weighs 180 lbs. more than the I4 version, a change that also slightly affects weight distribution. The heaviest and most complex component of the N20 that isn't really feasible is that double VANOS system. The complexity of that system makes Fiat's Multiair look like a joke, and I imagine that a mainstream manufacturer can do well enough without it.
Owe, what I think carcrazy is saying is that the mpg might not be indicative because there is no indication what sort of fuel loop MT used in their testing, if they did so at all. Frankly, none of the cars in the test achieved their FE rating, and most were within +/-2 mpg of each other, leading me to believe that MT did very short, track focused testing on all the vehicles.
|
1) SAE RATED HP is not as important as actual output. If Honda re-rated the J35 at 240HP does it make it any more impressive knowing that it is under-rated by 50HP? From a marketing standpoint to a layman it matters. From a data gathering standpoint, the N20 is a 260-270HP engine no matter what "rating" BMW slaps on it. Just like the muscle cars were sandbagged back in the day, it is just an arbitrary number. When dynos confirm that it is actually about a 260-270HP, then it should behave as such. Again, to avoid getting flamed, I am not blaming BMW for sandbagging the output, but realistically, we all KNOW that it isn't a 240HP engine, and thus is not overcoming some insurmountable challenge.
2) A big part of the BMW's weight savings also came from the fact that exterior wise it is quite a bit smaller than the TSX. Also, not all of the TSX's weight gain is from the engine. It also carries quite a bit of weight in wheels and tires, features etc.
3)MT did discuss the loop. I love how everybody says that they don't clarify XYZ when it benefits them, but usually they have. Sort of like how they pointed out why the BMW was so much more expensive, but still got accused of not clarifying it. Reading comprehension is obviously a failing artform.
Also, regardless what the test loop was, or how it was configured, ALL cars were driven in the same conditions. Like every other business, they have cost and time constraints to meet. Now, I am going to address carcrazy's other post about how much I don't know in a second, but the way these tests work, is a group of the journalists all spend a few days driving the cars back to back over a predetermined route. It does not take place over course of several months, several sessions, or different groups. That would render the objective and subjective evaluations much less meaningful, because it would remove the short turn around between drives. Now, you can disagree all you want, but the reality of the way these tests work is that they get all of the cars together at one time, they get a group of drivers, and they all follow each other in a loop. Same times, same speeds, same fuel stops, same destinations. There is not nearly the level of variability in the testing as most assume. Generally, there is a track testing session where they do instrumented testing on the cars, and then there is the closed driving loop, which could be any number of destinations, plans, routes. But, all cars are being evaluated in real time, against one another, and by the same group in the same conditions. They develop a rotation schedule ahead, they all compile their notes, tallies and points, and then they have some predetermined system to put it altogether into final results.
Not only is this system more efficient, but it is more effective from a validity standpoint. Yes, there is a lot of subjectivity in certain areas, but then again, there is a lot of subjectivity in many forms of science.
Realistically, while carcrazy doesn't want to admit it, and while it clearly counters his philosophy of technology, the TSX was subjected to the same testing conditions as the BMW as much as humanly possible in the real world. Most likely there was less than 30 seconds variation at any point in time, so to dismiss it as completely useless is just ignorant of how the process works. No matter how hard the BMW was driven, the TSX was driven in direct proportion and intensity, and that is just the way it is. The farther back in the pack the car was, the harder it was driven just to keep up with the herd. Then again, they rotate that order too, although it may be random.
If there is any doubt in your mind as to whether or not my description of the method is correct, you can A) go back and read many of the intro sections for comparison tests B) write them a letter and confirm, or C) research it in some other way. But I bet I am correct. ;)
|
That's great Owe, but what you're saying is kind of hypocritical. Nobody has ever criticized Honda for sandbagging its engines (witness the last K20s off the line), and it makes no sense for BMW to make the power claims it does for shits and giggles. More likely, the engine is rated at 240hp to protect against all conditions in which the engine would pull back boost; most of the time it punches above its weight. Secondly, you are forgetting that the BMW has actually grown in dimensions while shrinking in weight.
MT's "loop" description was also far from scientific. What we do have, that isn't subjective, is FE data. And that data shows that none of the vehicles met their combined FE rating, which indicates the engines were either pushed really hard, or MT was testing in some unusual conditions. While it is true that the EPA standardized loop doesn't capture real world driving habits, neither does MT's. All it shows is that these vehicles when flogged under the same conditions, produce similar FE numbers regardless of power, displacement, or induction type. Similar meaning +/- 3 mpg, except for the Infiniti. SMeanwhile, rated output of these engines vary between 70hp and displacements range from 2 litres to 3.5. Trying to draw some sort of conclusion of this scattershot test about the real world FE of all these vehicles isn't realistic, and it's one test involving these two vehicles. All it does show is that the BMW and TSX make largely the same numbers, largely the same FE under these conditions, and the BMW is lighter and rated lower. For all we know, "real world" FE might show that the BMW's FE is far superior to the TSXs, or vice versa. I'm actually really surprised that you are trying to defend this approach from MT, of all magazines.
And please, don't talk to me about subjectivity in science. You hate to admit it, but Car Crazy is correct in saying that this is by no means some sort of carefully administrated test with same variables and driving styles. Unlike say, the EPA test, which tests every vehicle in the same exact way. Hondarulez said something as laughable as "Jeff indicates he gets about 30mpg", which is about as useful as me saying that "Insideline got 24.6 mpg over a year in the (heavier) wagon" -which is also true, another post in which you again attacked car crazy. And if the magazine truly wanted to make any bearing on real world fuel economy, the only way is to add these vehicles to a long term fleet in a similar city and calculate FE averages over the course of mileage and years, such as InsideLine's test fleet.
What I can tell you from what I have seen is the BMW N20 engine has an extremely high BSFC in comparison to most other engines we have taken a look at. This is factual, whether you care to admit it or not.
|
DCR
|
|
So, better brakes, better tires, updated transmission and Acura could play the game?
Why don't they play the game?
|
owequitit
|
|
CarPhreakD wrote:
owequitit wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
Hondarulez wrote:
Of course, more speeds does not automatically = faster. With that said, the lower shift times, lower parasitic losses, and perhaps better gear ratios should all contribute to faster acceleration.....vs the TSX.
|
You're forgetting that you're comparing a car that is rated at -40 SAE hp. And the data suggests that yes, the BMW gets off the line faster; however, the TSX passes it at the end of the 1/4 mile, suggesting that it is more powerful. Which shouldn't be surprising
Beyond that, keep in mind that the curb weight of the BMW being lighter than the TSX is likely partially a result of the N20's compact architecture. The TSX V6 weighs 180 lbs. more than the I4 version, a change that also slightly affects weight distribution. The heaviest and most complex component of the N20 that isn't really feasible is that double VANOS system. The complexity of that system makes Fiat's Multiair look like a joke, and I imagine that a mainstream manufacturer can do well enough without it.
Owe, what I think carcrazy is saying is that the mpg might not be indicative because there is no indication what sort of fuel loop MT used in their testing, if they did so at all. Frankly, none of the cars in the test achieved their FE rating, and most were within +/-2 mpg of each other, leading me to believe that MT did very short, track focused testing on all the vehicles.
|
1) SAE RATED HP is not as important as actual output. If Honda re-rated the J35 at 240HP does it make it any more impressive knowing that it is under-rated by 50HP? From a marketing standpoint to a layman it matters. From a data gathering standpoint, the N20 is a 260-270HP engine no matter what "rating" BMW slaps on it. Just like the muscle cars were sandbagged back in the day, it is just an arbitrary number. When dynos confirm that it is actually about a 260-270HP, then it should behave as such. Again, to avoid getting flamed, I am not blaming BMW for sandbagging the output, but realistically, we all KNOW that it isn't a 240HP engine, and thus is not overcoming some insurmountable challenge.
2) A big part of the BMW's weight savings also came from the fact that exterior wise it is quite a bit smaller than the TSX. Also, not all of the TSX's weight gain is from the engine. It also carries quite a bit of weight in wheels and tires, features etc.
3)MT did discuss the loop. I love how everybody says that they don't clarify XYZ when it benefits them, but usually they have. Sort of like how they pointed out why the BMW was so much more expensive, but still got accused of not clarifying it. Reading comprehension is obviously a failing artform.
Also, regardless what the test loop was, or how it was configured, ALL cars were driven in the same conditions. Like every other business, they have cost and time constraints to meet. Now, I am going to address carcrazy's other post about how much I don't know in a second, but the way these tests work, is a group of the journalists all spend a few days driving the cars back to back over a predetermined route. It does not take place over course of several months, several sessions, or different groups. That would render the objective and subjective evaluations much less meaningful, because it would remove the short turn around between drives. Now, you can disagree all you want, but the reality of the way these tests work is that they get all of the cars together at one time, they get a group of drivers, and they all follow each other in a loop. Same times, same speeds, same fuel stops, same destinations. There is not nearly the level of variability in the testing as most assume. Generally, there is a track testing session where they do instrumented testing on the cars, and then there is the closed driving loop, which could be any number of destinations, plans, routes. But, all cars are being evaluated in real time, against one another, and by the same group in the same conditions. They develop a rotation schedule ahead, they all compile their notes, tallies and points, and then they have some predetermined system to put it altogether into final results.
Not only is this system more efficient, but it is more effective from a validity standpoint. Yes, there is a lot of subjectivity in certain areas, but then again, there is a lot of subjectivity in many forms of science.
Realistically, while carcrazy doesn't want to admit it, and while it clearly counters his philosophy of technology, the TSX was subjected to the same testing conditions as the BMW as much as humanly possible in the real world. Most likely there was less than 30 seconds variation at any point in time, so to dismiss it as completely useless is just ignorant of how the process works. No matter how hard the BMW was driven, the TSX was driven in direct proportion and intensity, and that is just the way it is. The farther back in the pack the car was, the harder it was driven just to keep up with the herd. Then again, they rotate that order too, although it may be random.
If there is any doubt in your mind as to whether or not my description of the method is correct, you can A) go back and read many of the intro sections for comparison tests B) write them a letter and confirm, or C) research it in some other way. But I bet I am correct. ;)
|
That's great Owe, but what you're saying is kind of hypocritical. Nobody has ever criticized Honda for sandbagging its engines (witness the last K20s off the line), and it makes no sense for BMW to make the power claims it does for shits and giggles. More likely, the engine is rated at 240hp to protect against all conditions in which the engine would pull back boost; most of the time it punches above its weight. Secondly, you are forgetting that the BMW has actually grown in dimensions while shrinking in weight.
MT's "loop" description was also far from scientific. What we do have, that isn't subjective, is FE data. And that data shows that none of the vehicles met their combined FE rating, which indicates the engines were either pushed really hard, or MT was testing in some unusual conditions. While it is true that the EPA standardized loop doesn't capture real world driving habits, neither does MT's. All it shows is that these vehicles when flogged under the same conditions, produce similar FE numbers regardless of power, displacement, or induction type. Similar meaning +/- 3 mpg, except for the Infiniti. SMeanwhile, rated output of these engines vary between 70hp and displacements range from 2 litres to 3.5. Trying to draw some sort of conclusion of this scattershot test about the real world FE of all these vehicles isn't realistic, and it's one test involving these two vehicles. All it does show is that the BMW and TSX make largely the same numbers, largely the same FE under these conditions, and the BMW is lighter and rated lower. For all we know, "real world" FE might show that the BMW's FE is far superior to the TSXs, or vice versa. I'm actually really surprised that you are trying to defend this approach from MT, of all magazines.
And please, don't talk to me about subjectivity in science. You hate to admit it, but Car Crazy is correct in saying that this is by no means some sort of carefully administrated test with same variables and driving styles. Unlike say, the EPA test, which tests every vehicle in the same exact way. Hondarulez said something as laughable as "Jeff indicates he gets about 30mpg", which is about as useful as me saying that "Insideline got 24.6 mpg over a year in the (heavier) wagon" -which is also true, another post in which you again attacked car crazy. And if the magazine truly wanted to make any bearing on real world fuel economy, the only way is to add these vehicles to a long term fleet in a similar city and calculate FE averages over the course of mileage and years, such as InsideLine's test fleet.
What I can tell you from what I have seen is the BMW N20 engine has an extremely high BSFC in comparison to most other engines we have taken a look at. This is factual, whether you care to admit it or not.
|
It is not hypocritical.
Honda sandbags their engines. Great. I NEVER said it was a bad thing. What I DID say was that it is not really a 240HP engine. Period. Dynos clearly back that up. It is no different then when we have had conversations about the J30A4/A5 around here and I have REPEATEDLY said that it was under-rated (especially in MT form) and that is actually closer to 260HP. Same with the K20Z3, which despite its 197HP rating is actually closer to 210HP. The only thing a lower advertised rating proves is that they gave it a lower advertised rating. Nothing wrong with over-delivering, but you and I both know that the N20 is NOT a 240HP engine. You assume that because I am saying BMW's PAPER rating of the engine is sandbagged that I am somehow criticizing the engine. I didn't say that. What I was responding to was your claim that the engine is down ~40 SAE HP in the rating, but accelerates faster than the J35. And that is true. But it is also sandbagged, and it accelerates like a 260-270HP engine, because it is one. Would it be more impressive if they rated it at 200HP, but it achieved the same results because it isn't actually 200, it is 270? To me, it is nothing more than changing a number. So an engine of similar power, similar peak torque (maybe slightly more), but with a narrower powerband is accelerating like a larger NA version of an engine with *hark* equal output. No magic or special physics there, only marketing. Nothing else was implied or stated in my post.
All real world driving is far from "scientific." That doens't make it invalid. Go tell the average driver that there reality is invalid because it doesn't jive with a lab test. There is a whole lot more to science than just regimented lab testing. Not sure why you guys are continually trying to downplay the benefits of real world results of such engines, but they DO have bearing on reality. For a test having 8 cars all being compared directly, at the same time, it was about as scientific as it was going to get. Same driver pool, same route, same days, same speeds, same gas stations. The major variables are worked out relatively well in an environment that is IMPOSSIBLE to control completely. You guys can stand and argue about whether it was reflective of real world driving, average norms, whatever you want, but the reality is that the data was collected in as similar circumstance as possible, and thus it IS valid, it IS relevant, and it IS comparable.
P.S. This is MT's second reported MPG of the 328i, and in both cases (where they reported a 300 mile drive at 30.6MPG), the car didn't do as well as advertised. The first test of 300 miles at 75-80MPH steady state cruising is as close to "real world" as it gets for highway mileage. In this first test of highway driving (reported in the first drive article), it was off by 15%. In this comparison test where the argument has been presented that the results are invalid, it still only scored in the lower midpack, despite having a CLEAR advantage in rated MPG (~3 city on average and ~6-7HWY on average). I have heard it is turbo, the results aren't valid because it wasn't a lab, and every other lame excuse under the stars, but the reality is that vs NA competitors (both small and large) as well as several other turbo competitors, it clearly scored in the middle. I suppose next you are going to tell me that the other boosted cars are less affected by the laws of physics than the BMW...
The ironic thing here is that I didn't attack a damn thing. I made a statement about his attempt to belittle the Acura's FE value in a larger, and inferior NA setup, while simultaneously trying to build up the BMW's outstanding acceleration.
Never did I claim that MT's loop was "scientific." What I did say was that comparable to its fellow test mates it was absolutely valid. Completely different claims. You and Car Crazy keep chanting the "controlled test" mantra, but ironically, the most closely controlled test in the system can't replicate "real world" values. On the one hand, I am supposed to accept that a sample of real world data is "invalid" because it isn't structured or regimented, but then we ignore the fact that the tests that ARE regimented but can't produce more accurate results are better. Garbage in, garbage out. I completely agree that these cars were driven outside the norm. IIRC, the test article even mentioned it specifically. However, I completely disagree that some cars were more affected by reality than others. As the size of the data pool increases, it only becomes more and more valid with respect to what people can expect to find in reality, and not a test lab. I still stand by the fact that it will be interesting to see a bit down the road what it will look like. It will also be interesting to see what you guys will be saying if 6 months to year down the road the car is still not delivering EPA mileage in most real world cases, and better yet, is not significantly outperforming its lower rated rivals in similar conditions.
As for BSFC, I don't really care. It is one singular metric in a universe of metrics that affect an engines real world performance. When I see a huge dataset of the N20 clobbering the shit out of everything else MPG wise, then I will consider the BSFC to be the tell all for MPG. It is an important metric, but it is not the only metric.
P.S. as the data continues to accrue, I keep hearing that it isn't enough, there aren't enough tests, the tests are skewed, etc. The problem with that is that the trend is already developing, it isn't developing in the way everyone attacking me said it would, and it is mirroring the reality of mostly every other small displacement boosted engine that is already on the market. Ironically, I didn't make any concrete absolute conclusions about the N20, other than the FACT that in this comparable test, it did no better than a large displacement, NA V6 which is SUPPOSED to be the undoing of the world, technology inferior, and unable to compete, yet results speak differently.
I still do not buy into the common logic that smaller, boosted engines are the saviors of MPG. When I see a vast majority of boosted engines delivering vastly superior MPG than their larger, NA counterparts, then I will buy it. In the meantime, Acura's (and most of the other's MPG results) are really no less impressive than BMW's ability to get a small engine to go fast. Either give credit where it is due, or don't.
|
superchg2
|
|
DCR wrote:
So, better brakes, better tires, updated transmission and Acura could play the game?
Why don't they play the game?
|
Why don't they get in the game?
|
owequitit
|
|
carcrazy84 wrote:
Owe:
| resort to childish namecalling |
...
You never fail to deliver hypocrisy in this area. It's fun to criticize people, but its hard to live up to that standard isn't it?
|
The funny part is that the name calling I used were all directly used on me prior to responding to you. So in reality, I was merely using your childish name calling against you.
So, it would appear that it is hard for you to stand up to the standard you set. And yes, I called you an ass, because you were clearly trying to put words into my mouth that never came out of it.
|
superchg2
|
|
|
Deja Vu
|
owequitit
|
|
carcrazy84 wrote:
carcrazy84 wrote:
Owe, you can type so many words and still miss the underlying point. Even if know where, when, how long, and by whom the cars were driven...
You do not know HOW the cars were driven. You know, how much gas they were giving the cars at any given moment; the number one factor in fuel economy.
Just because they went along the same route and may have arrived at similar times (which is disputable in this case), and by the same drivers, does not mean they were DRIVEN the same. You can make inferences and assumptions. That's all.
That is why the EPA tests are done by a driver matching an acceleration plot, and not some guy on a road just seeing what it does.
|
Also, you seem to have missed what I wrote about full-throttle/heavy-throttle driving and why it does not necessarily yield results that are proportional to the EPA results, but more in proportion to torque and weight. And I'll add that when you have a turbocharged car like the BMW, with its low torque peak, at a large throttle opening it will be burning more fuel at lower rpm than something like the TSX, which is not producing nearly as much torque. This does not mean the BMW is "gaming" the EPA tests either. It's just the result of an engine designed to have a low, flat torque curve.
In other words, conceding that they were driven the same, it's not really surprising that they got similar mileage. But then, the BMW is at a disadvantage under hard driving that does not necessarily reflect what most drivers would see, and thus the EPA numbers would not be inaccurate.
Just wait for more numbers on the BMW, k? My only ideology is to be skeptical and wait until sufficient amounts of data come in. Thus far, only Motortrend has numbers for the auto, as far as I know.
|
This post is absolutely nonsensical.
First, both engines' transmissions are going to put the car in the optimal part of the powerband. I.E. if you are standing on the gas, they are not going to be loafing around in top gear. These aren't manual transmissions that will just lug around. Excepting someone FORCING them to stay in a high gear, it just isn't going to happen, so playing the "BMW has more torque at low RPM" so it SHOULD get crappy mileage" card won't work. Furthermore, you attack any assumption that isn't your own, but here you are ASSUMING that someone was actually doing that. Even if being operated in manual mode, it is far more likely that said driver was using the manumatic function to optimize power delivery, not to lug the engine at low RPM.
The second flaw in your theory is that because the J35 MAY have lower torque at lower RPM (it produces 90+% as low as 2K), it would actually need to be at a higher load in order to produce acceleration on par with the more powerful engine in that range. I.E. the TSX driver would need MORE throttle to keep up with the BMW under the same conditions, because he has less power at any low RPM. It reduces pumping losses, but he spends a higher % of the time at a bigger throttle settings to overcome whatever HP disadvantage exists at such low RPM.
The third flaw in your theory is assuming that the cars were being wrung out all the time. Considering that the MT driving loop was 150 miles on public roads, it is unlikely that they were at their max potential for any length of time other than on the test track. In well under 10 seconds, either car is supralegal with regard to ANY national speed limit. While they were surely being driven enthusiastically, it is unlikely that the loop kept them at such high power settings for the duration of the drive that the smaller boosted cars would not have had some time to recover some MPG on the slower, less boosted sections.
The fourth flaw in your theory is that in a non-VCM NA engine there is no ability to drastically alter the amount of engine being throttled. While a low loads, non-boosting N20 would behave much like an NA 2.0L, the J35 is still a 3.5L engine no matter how much it is loafing. It still has six cylinders that still need the required amount of fuel. That means that the BMW should be soundly beating it on anything even resembling a public drive (even an enthusiastic one). Ironically, some of the cars did quite better than the Acura, the BMW just wasn't one of them.
Finally, you neglect that to an incremental degree, the V6 has more reciprocating mass, more friction, etc, all of which are detrimental to efficiency under ALL conditions. It was in a heavier car with fewer gears to boot.
The term fanboy which you tried to criticize me on your other post was used directly because you used to the term to try and justify my position, when here you are doing the same thing for the BMW. The main difference though is that I didn't downplay the BMW. I simply mentioned that its acceleration was just as impressive of an achievement as the Acura's ability to match it in MPG, and that is STILL true. Similar power, similar MPG and two totally different approaches, one of which is widely held to be inferior in MPG. Clearly that is not the case, and clearly you don't want to accept that. The only fanboy here is you.
|
Powered by Honda
|
|
CarPhreakD wrote:
Powered by Honda wrote:
mobis21 wrote:
I would give the win to the Volvo.
It's by far the best looking inside and out. The BMW was a freakish 47% more expensive than the Swede. Sorry, that's an entirely different playing field at that much more.
Volvo for the win.
|
go sit in the volvo feels pure cheap. I was disappointed. However, as always Volvo has the most comfortable SEATS in the industry. Amazing.
I like the new 3er styling looks classic yet has a modern twist on the legendary design. The longer hood brings some grace to the profile as well.
|
I thought it was really cheap. A VW GTI had a better layout and feel inside.
|
Are you agreeing with me? or are you saying you thought the 3 series was cheap?
|
loveturtle
|
|
I'm not going to get mixed up in this BMW vs TSX argument but I just wanted to share last night's Miami run to pick up my laptop in my "old" J35. No attempt what so ever to conserve fuel, quite the opposite really. 80% turnpike 20% terrible stop and go Miami traffic with hard acceleration & passing. Plenty of full throttle bursts on the turnpike as well.
|
CarPhreakD
|
|
owequitit wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
owequitit wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
Hondarulez wrote:
Of course, more speeds does not automatically = faster. With that said, the lower shift times, lower parasitic losses, and perhaps better gear ratios should all contribute to faster acceleration.....vs the TSX.
|
You're forgetting that you're comparing a car that is rated at -40 SAE hp. And the data suggests that yes, the BMW gets off the line faster; however, the TSX passes it at the end of the 1/4 mile, suggesting that it is more powerful. Which shouldn't be surprising
Beyond that, keep in mind that the curb weight of the BMW being lighter than the TSX is likely partially a result of the N20's compact architecture. The TSX V6 weighs 180 lbs. more than the I4 version, a change that also slightly affects weight distribution. The heaviest and most complex component of the N20 that isn't really feasible is that double VANOS system. The complexity of that system makes Fiat's Multiair look like a joke, and I imagine that a mainstream manufacturer can do well enough without it.
Owe, what I think carcrazy is saying is that the mpg might not be indicative because there is no indication what sort of fuel loop MT used in their testing, if they did so at all. Frankly, none of the cars in the test achieved their FE rating, and most were within +/-2 mpg of each other, leading me to believe that MT did very short, track focused testing on all the vehicles.
|
1) SAE RATED HP is not as important as actual output. If Honda re-rated the J35 at 240HP does it make it any more impressive knowing that it is under-rated by 50HP? From a marketing standpoint to a layman it matters. From a data gathering standpoint, the N20 is a 260-270HP engine no matter what "rating" BMW slaps on it. Just like the muscle cars were sandbagged back in the day, it is just an arbitrary number. When dynos confirm that it is actually about a 260-270HP, then it should behave as such. Again, to avoid getting flamed, I am not blaming BMW for sandbagging the output, but realistically, we all KNOW that it isn't a 240HP engine, and thus is not overcoming some insurmountable challenge.
2) A big part of the BMW's weight savings also came from the fact that exterior wise it is quite a bit smaller than the TSX. Also, not all of the TSX's weight gain is from the engine. It also carries quite a bit of weight in wheels and tires, features etc.
3)MT did discuss the loop. I love how everybody says that they don't clarify XYZ when it benefits them, but usually they have. Sort of like how they pointed out why the BMW was so much more expensive, but still got accused of not clarifying it. Reading comprehension is obviously a failing artform.
Also, regardless what the test loop was, or how it was configured, ALL cars were driven in the same conditions. Like every other business, they have cost and time constraints to meet. Now, I am going to address carcrazy's other post about how much I don't know in a second, but the way these tests work, is a group of the journalists all spend a few days driving the cars back to back over a predetermined route. It does not take place over course of several months, several sessions, or different groups. That would render the objective and subjective evaluations much less meaningful, because it would remove the short turn around between drives. Now, you can disagree all you want, but the reality of the way these tests work is that they get all of the cars together at one time, they get a group of drivers, and they all follow each other in a loop. Same times, same speeds, same fuel stops, same destinations. There is not nearly the level of variability in the testing as most assume. Generally, there is a track testing session where they do instrumented testing on the cars, and then there is the closed driving loop, which could be any number of destinations, plans, routes. But, all cars are being evaluated in real time, against one another, and by the same group in the same conditions. They develop a rotation schedule ahead, they all compile their notes, tallies and points, and then they have some predetermined system to put it altogether into final results.
Not only is this system more efficient, but it is more effective from a validity standpoint. Yes, there is a lot of subjectivity in certain areas, but then again, there is a lot of subjectivity in many forms of science.
Realistically, while carcrazy doesn't want to admit it, and while it clearly counters his philosophy of technology, the TSX was subjected to the same testing conditions as the BMW as much as humanly possible in the real world. Most likely there was less than 30 seconds variation at any point in time, so to dismiss it as completely useless is just ignorant of how the process works. No matter how hard the BMW was driven, the TSX was driven in direct proportion and intensity, and that is just the way it is. The farther back in the pack the car was, the harder it was driven just to keep up with the herd. Then again, they rotate that order too, although it may be random.
If there is any doubt in your mind as to whether or not my description of the method is correct, you can A) go back and read many of the intro sections for comparison tests B) write them a letter and confirm, or C) research it in some other way. But I bet I am correct. ;)
|
That's great Owe, but what you're saying is kind of hypocritical. Nobody has ever criticized Honda for sandbagging its engines (witness the last K20s off the line), and it makes no sense for BMW to make the power claims it does for shits and giggles. More likely, the engine is rated at 240hp to protect against all conditions in which the engine would pull back boost; most of the time it punches above its weight. Secondly, you are forgetting that the BMW has actually grown in dimensions while shrinking in weight.
MT's "loop" description was also far from scientific. What we do have, that isn't subjective, is FE data. And that data shows that none of the vehicles met their combined FE rating, which indicates the engines were either pushed really hard, or MT was testing in some unusual conditions. While it is true that the EPA standardized loop doesn't capture real world driving habits, neither does MT's. All it shows is that these vehicles when flogged under the same conditions, produce similar FE numbers regardless of power, displacement, or induction type. Similar meaning +/- 3 mpg, except for the Infiniti. SMeanwhile, rated output of these engines vary between 70hp and displacements range from 2 litres to 3.5. Trying to draw some sort of conclusion of this scattershot test about the real world FE of all these vehicles isn't realistic, and it's one test involving these two vehicles. All it does show is that the BMW and TSX make largely the same numbers, largely the same FE under these conditions, and the BMW is lighter and rated lower. For all we know, "real world" FE might show that the BMW's FE is far superior to the TSXs, or vice versa. I'm actually really surprised that you are trying to defend this approach from MT, of all magazines.
And please, don't talk to me about subjectivity in science. You hate to admit it, but Car Crazy is correct in saying that this is by no means some sort of carefully administrated test with same variables and driving styles. Unlike say, the EPA test, which tests every vehicle in the same exact way. Hondarulez said something as laughable as "Jeff indicates he gets about 30mpg", which is about as useful as me saying that "Insideline got 24.6 mpg over a year in the (heavier) wagon" -which is also true, another post in which you again attacked car crazy. And if the magazine truly wanted to make any bearing on real world fuel economy, the only way is to add these vehicles to a long term fleet in a similar city and calculate FE averages over the course of mileage and years, such as InsideLine's test fleet.
What I can tell you from what I have seen is the BMW N20 engine has an extremely high BSFC in comparison to most other engines we have taken a look at. This is factual, whether you care to admit it or not.
|
It is not hypocritical.
Honda sandbags their engines. Great. I NEVER said it was a bad thing. What I DID say was that it is not really a 240HP engine. Period. Dynos clearly back that up. It is no different then when we have had conversations about the J30A4/A5 around here and I have REPEATEDLY said that it was under-rated (especially in MT form) and that is actually closer to 260HP. Same with the K20Z3, which despite its 197HP rating is actually closer to 210HP. The only thing a lower advertised rating proves is that they gave it a lower advertised rating. Nothing wrong with over-delivering, but you and I both know that the N20 is NOT a 240HP engine. You assume that because I am saying BMW's PAPER rating of the engine is sandbagged that I am somehow criticizing the engine. I didn't say that. What I was responding to was your claim that the engine is down ~40 SAE HP in the rating, but accelerates faster than the J35. And that is true. But it is also sandbagged, and it accelerates like a 260-270HP engine, because it is one. Would it be more impressive if they rated it at 200HP, but it achieved the same results because it isn't actually 200, it is 270? To me, it is nothing more than changing a number. So an engine of similar power, similar peak torque (maybe slightly more), but with a narrower powerband is accelerating like a larger NA version of an engine with *hark* equal output. No magic or special physics there, only marketing. Nothing else was implied or stated in my post.
All real world driving is far from "scientific." That doens't make it invalid. Go tell the average driver that there reality is invalid because it doesn't jive with a lab test. There is a whole lot more to science than just regimented lab testing. Not sure why you guys are continually trying to downplay the benefits of real world results of such engines, but they DO have bearing on reality. For a test having 8 cars all being compared directly, at the same time, it was about as scientific as it was going to get. Same driver pool, same route, same days, same speeds, same gas stations. The major variables are worked out relatively well in an environment that is IMPOSSIBLE to control completely. You guys can stand and argue about whether it was reflective of real world driving, average norms, whatever you want, but the reality is that the data was collected in as similar circumstance as possible, and thus it IS valid, it IS relevant, and it IS comparable.
P.S. This is MT's second reported MPG of the 328i, and in both cases (where they reported a 300 mile drive at 30.6MPG), the car didn't do as well as advertised. The first test of 300 miles at 75-80MPH steady state cruising is as close to "real world" as it gets for highway mileage. In this first test of highway driving (reported in the first drive article), it was off by 15%. In this comparison test where the argument has been presented that the results are invalid, it still only scored in the lower midpack, despite having a CLEAR advantage in rated MPG (~3 city on average and ~6-7HWY on average). I have heard it is turbo, the results aren't valid because it wasn't a lab, and every other lame excuse under the stars, but the reality is that vs NA competitors (both small and large) as well as several other turbo competitors, it clearly scored in the middle. I suppose next you are going to tell me that the other boosted cars are less affected by the laws of physics than the BMW...
The ironic thing here is that I didn't attack a damn thing. I made a statement about his attempt to belittle the Acura's FE value in a larger, and inferior NA setup, while simultaneously trying to build up the BMW's outstanding acceleration.
Never did I claim that MT's loop was "scientific." What I did say was that comparable to its fellow test mates it was absolutely valid. Completely different claims. You and Car Crazy keep chanting the "controlled test" mantra, but ironically, the most closely controlled test in the system can't replicate "real world" values. On the one hand, I am supposed to accept that a sample of real world data is "invalid" because it isn't structured or regimented, but then we ignore the fact that the tests that ARE regimented but can't produce more accurate results are better. Garbage in, garbage out. I completely agree that these cars were driven outside the norm. IIRC, the test article even mentioned it specifically. However, I completely disagree that some cars were more affected by reality than others. As the size of the data pool increases, it only becomes more and more valid with respect to what people can expect to find in reality, and not a test lab. I still stand by the fact that it will be interesting to see a bit down the road what it will look like. It will also be interesting to see what you guys will be saying if 6 months to year down the road the car is still not delivering EPA mileage in most real world cases, and better yet, is not significantly outperforming its lower rated rivals in similar conditions.
As for BSFC, I don't really care. It is one singular metric in a universe of metrics that affect an engines real world performance. When I see a huge dataset of the N20 clobbering the shit out of everything else MPG wise, then I will consider the BSFC to be the tell all for MPG. It is an important metric, but it is not the only metric.
P.S. as the data continues to accrue, I keep hearing that it isn't enough, there aren't enough tests, the tests are skewed, etc. The problem with that is that the trend is already developing, it isn't developing in the way everyone attacking me said it would, and it is mirroring the reality of mostly every other small displacement boosted engine that is already on the market. Ironically, I didn't make any concrete absolute conclusions about the N20, other than the FACT that in this comparable test, it did no better than a large displacement, NA V6 which is SUPPOSED to be the undoing of the world, technology inferior, and unable to compete, yet results speak differently.
I still do not buy into the common logic that smaller, boosted engines are the saviors of MPG. When I see a vast majority of boosted engines delivering vastly superior MPG than their larger, NA counterparts, then I will buy it. In the meantime, Acura's (and most of the other's MPG results) are really no less impressive than BMW's ability to get a small engine to go fast. Either give credit where it is due, or don't.
|
"Trend is already developing". That's really funny, considering you consider two tests by one magazine to be a "trend". Meanwhile, another "trend" is developing where BMW's 2 litre engine is reliably developing 250-270 hp in instrumented testing and proving to have great real world efficiency, where owners of the F30 have talked about achieving FE numbers easily without much regard for hypermiling, and where the TSX V6 has proven to have mid-20's average fuel economy. What's the saying about opinions and different assholes?
If you're going to bring up the "real world trend" angle, the only data I would trust is from people with accumulated mileage and magazines with long term test fleets. Or even a longer drive. But this performance test by MT reflects nowhere even close to "real world" performance, because how can you say that everyone who buys any of these cars are going to consistently get 15-18 mpg? IL's V6 TSX wagon achieved a 24.9 mpg average over 20k miles and a year... playing your game, are you going to give me some bs about poor aerodynamics and extra weight and extra aggressive driving?
I did not say that boosted engines are the "saviours" of fuel saving technologies, but I will say that the BMW N20 is one of the few correct implementations of the technology. It's not necessarily the turbocharging aspect of the engine that increases efficiency (i.e. there's still an "effective displacement" affect from the boost), but also the supporting ancillaries, including friction reduction and strong thermal management.
|
superchg2
|
|
CarPhreakD wrote:
I did not say that boosted engines are the "saviours" of fuel saving technologies, but I will say that the BMW N20 is one of the few correct implementations of the technology. It's not necessarily the turbocharging aspect of the engine that increases efficiency (i.e. there's still an "effective displacement" affect from the boost), but also the supporting ancillaries, including friction reduction and strong thermal management.
|
The 8 speed automatic ain't too shabby, either!
|
Powered by Honda
|
|
superchg2 wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
I did not say that boosted engines are the "saviours" of fuel saving technologies, but I will say that the BMW N20 is one of the few correct implementations of the technology. It's not necessarily the turbocharging aspect of the engine that increases efficiency (i.e. there's still an "effective displacement" affect from the boost), but also the supporting ancillaries, including friction reduction and strong thermal management.
|
The 8 speed automatic ain't too shabby, either!
|
Who would ever buy an Automatic BMW? Might aswell drive a camry.
|
superchg2
|
|
Powered by Hyundai wrote:
superchg2 wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
I did not say that boosted engines are the "saviours" of fuel saving technologies, but I will say that the BMW N20 is one of the few correct implementations of the technology. It's not necessarily the turbocharging aspect of the engine that increases efficiency (i.e. there's still an "effective displacement" affect from the boost), but also the supporting ancillaries, including friction reduction and strong thermal management.
|
The 8 speed automatic ain't too shabby, either!
|
Who would ever buy an Automatic BMW? Might aswell drive a camry.
|
All 8 cars in this comparison were automatic's, trollmaster.
|
Grace141
|
|
Powered by Honda wrote:
superchg2 wrote:
The 8 speed automatic ain't too shabby, either!
|
Who would ever buy an Automatic BMW? Might aswell drive a camry.
|
I would buy a non-M 3 or 5-series BMW with an automatic instead of a manual shift. I've never driven a Camry so no comment there. I've driven a Mercedes with the 7-speed automatic and felt it was constantly shifting gears so I'm not sure more gears equals better gears.
One point to make is that when Americans readily purchased sedans having manual shifts most of those sedans had less than 150hp. A 90hp straight-6 with a 3-on-the-tree was a piece of cake to drive smoothly.
|
JeffX
|
|
loveturtle wrote:
I'm not going to get mixed up in this BMW vs TSX argument but I just wanted to share last night's Miami run to pick up my laptop in my "old" J35. No attempt what so ever to conserve fuel, quite the opposite really. 80% turnpike 20% terrible stop and go Miami traffic with hard acceleration & passing. Plenty of full throttle bursts on the turnpike as well.
|
is that an Accord Coupe V6? Or a TL Type-S? I don't think I've ever seen that trip computer display with that info on one page on any of the Honda or Acura MIDs
|
loveturtle
|
|
It's an '08 TL-S. :-D
|
Hondarulez
|
|
Jeff wrote:
loveturtle wrote:
I'm not going to get mixed up in this BMW vs TSX argument but I just wanted to share last night's Miami run to pick up my laptop in my "old" J35. No attempt what so ever to conserve fuel, quite the opposite really. 80% turnpike 20% terrible stop and go Miami traffic with hard acceleration & passing. Plenty of full throttle bursts on the turnpike as well.
|
is that an Accord Coupe V6? Or a TL Type-S? I don't think I've ever seen that trip computer display with that info on one page on any of the Honda or Acura MIDs
|
I think it's a TL-S:
http://www.netcarshow.com/acura/2007-tl_type-s/1600x1200/wallpaper_32.htm
|
Mikeydred
|
|
|
I don't think I have ever seen the TL S interior at night. Nice that was a great way to separate the model lines. Maybe a tad too much red but still nice. I would love for Acura to spread the type s line across the board with a slight bump in hp for each model with sporty upgrades to the interior. They were one of the few to do this and like other things abandoned it, now you have brands with no sporty history like Lexus advertising sport.
|
Powered by Honda
|
|
Grace141 wrote:
Powered by Honda wrote:
superchg2 wrote:
The 8 speed automatic ain't too shabby, either!
|
Who would ever buy an Automatic BMW? Might aswell drive a camry.
|
I would buy a non-M 3 or 5-series BMW with an automatic instead of a manual shift. I've never driven a Camry so no comment there. I've driven a Mercedes with the 7-speed automatic and felt it was constantly shifting gears so I'm not sure more gears equals better gears.
One point to make is that when Americans readily purchased sedans having manual shifts most of those sedans had less than 150hp. A 90hp straight-6 with a 3-on-the-tree was a piece of cake to drive smoothly.
|
3 series even in base trim is a joy to drive with a manual. You are really missing out if you buy a bmw in automatic.
|
CarPhreakD
|
|
superchg2 wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
I did not say that boosted engines are the "saviours" of fuel saving technologies, but I will say that the BMW N20 is one of the few correct implementations of the technology. It's not necessarily the turbocharging aspect of the engine that increases efficiency (i.e. there's still an "effective displacement" affect from the boost), but also the supporting ancillaries, including friction reduction and strong thermal management.
|
The 8 speed automatic ain't too shabby, either!
|
In all fairness, you can credit ZF with that creation. It's used in an increasing number of Chryslers too
|
carzak
|
|
http://www.autoblog.com/2012/03/20/bmw-forced-to-lower-2012-3-series-auto-fuel-economy-to-33-mpg/#continued
In a surprising turn of events, the "EPA estimates" by BMW have been challenged by the EPA, and the 328i has been revised down. Its rating is now 23/33 from 24/36 for the auto. So... credit to the EPA? And egg-on-face for BMW. I guess we should be reminded that most EPA estimates are actually provided by the manufacturers, and not by the EPA.
|
superchg2
|
|
|
Probably a little closer to reality.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - 1 2 [3] 4 |
| |
|
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
