- Startseite
- Forum
- Auto
- BMW
- 3er
- E90, E91, E92 & E93
- Vierzylinder E9X vs VAG TFSI
Vierzylinder E9X vs VAG TFSI
AMS 06/09 have a comparison-test between BMW 320i and Audi A5 2,0TFSI (and Laguna GT)
As we all know the 320i is a very good handling car which also have a great deal of comfort-talent.
So far so good.
But the big "aber" here is the engine. The gasoline X18i and X20i shows its incapability in test after test. Lack of torque and power is the "fazit" in almost every single test.
In this test the 320i MT needs 9,4 sec from 0-100. The Audi A5 do the same in 7,8 sec. On top of that the Audi drinks less fuel.(9,4 vs 9,6 l/100 km)
In the end the Audi wins this test with a narrow margin,but with a decent engine the BMW would have been unbeatable...
We all know that BMW have 4-sylindre turbocharged DI gasoline engines in development,but how long do we have to wait for them?
Or how long can BMW sit and watch their own engines being smashed by VAG in all tests involving 4-sylindre gas engines?
BMW have the 1,6DI turbo in the MINI. Why not convert it to RWD and in few months they could have a competitor towards Audi TFSI 180 hp. The MINI-engine can easily pump out 180 hp and 260-280 nm,which would have given the E9X a 0-100 time in ca 7,5 sec with a combined consumption of ca 150 g/km.
From my point of wiew the X18i and X20i-engine stinks,and BMW should be doing something very quick. 2 years waiting for the new engine will be a very expensive waiting time for BMW AG...
Beste Antwort im Thema
AMS 06/09 have a comparison-test between BMW 320i and Audi A5 2,0TFSI (and Laguna GT)
As we all know the 320i is a very good handling car which also have a great deal of comfort-talent.
So far so good.
But the big "aber" here is the engine. The gasoline X18i and X20i shows its incapability in test after test. Lack of torque and power is the "fazit" in almost every single test.
In this test the 320i MT needs 9,4 sec from 0-100. The Audi A5 do the same in 7,8 sec. On top of that the Audi drinks less fuel.(9,4 vs 9,6 l/100 km)
In the end the Audi wins this test with a narrow margin,but with a decent engine the BMW would have been unbeatable...
We all know that BMW have 4-sylindre turbocharged DI gasoline engines in development,but how long do we have to wait for them?
Or how long can BMW sit and watch their own engines being smashed by VAG in all tests involving 4-sylindre gas engines?
BMW have the 1,6DI turbo in the MINI. Why not convert it to RWD and in few months they could have a competitor towards Audi TFSI 180 hp. The MINI-engine can easily pump out 180 hp and 260-280 nm,which would have given the E9X a 0-100 time in ca 7,5 sec with a combined consumption of ca 150 g/km.
From my point of wiew the X18i and X20i-engine stinks,and BMW should be doing something very quick. 2 years waiting for the new engine will be a very expensive waiting time for BMW AG...
Ähnliche Themen
12 Antworten
100% agree!
Zitat:
Original geschrieben von wiederbmw
100% agree!
Or why not a 1,5 and 1,8 litre 6-cylindre turbo?
That would have been the perfect compromise between BMW-traditions and todays demand for powerful high-torque-engines with low fuel consumption.
Zitat:
Original geschrieben von Oslolosen
Zitat:
Original geschrieben von wiederbmw
100% agree!
Or why not a 1,5 and 1,8 litre 6-cylindre turbo?
That would have been the perfect compromise between BMW-traditions and todays demand for powerful high-torque-engines with low fuel consumption.
I like this idea.
Chris
rasenmähermotoren will ich nicht. 2,5l 6 zylinder und 3,0l 6 zylinder sind ok. wobei der 2,0l auch ein 6 zylinder sein könnte.
Technically the perfect capacity for a cylinder is just about 0,5 Liter, a 1,5 Litre 6 cylinders would have 0,25 Litre. That's nothing. The car would run smoothly but without torque.
The BMW 4 cylinders aren't as bad as they are said to be. Well, I own one, but the consumption in the higher Revs is definately less than with the Audi engines. The BMW 4 cylinders are better than the Merc ones but not as good as the Audi engines. The next generation Mark 3 will have downsized, turbo charged 4 cylinders.
As i guess from your Nick your Norwegian, with your speedlimit and fines for speeding, even a 318i is much too fast. :)
1. MT ist ein deutschsprachiges Forum
2. ist es ja nix neues .. und wenn deppen Sauger mit Turbomotoren vergleichen, kann bei dem Test auch nix vernünftiges rauskommen
3. SuFu nutzen
Zitat:
Original geschrieben von Gunmetal
Technically the perfect capacity for a cylinder is just about 0,5 Liter, a 1,5 Litre 6 cylinders would have 0,25 Litre. That's nothing. The car would run smoothly but without torque.
The BMW 4 cylinders aren't as bad as they are said to be. Well, I own one, but the consumption in the higher Revs is definately less than with the Audi engines. The BMW 4 cylinders are better than the Merc ones but not as good as the Audi engines. The next generation Mark 3 will have downsized, turbo charged 4 cylinders.
As i guess from your Nick your Norwegian, with your speedlimit and fines for speeding, even a 318i is much too fast. :)
Technically a 1,5 turbocharged R6 will have as much power and torque as you want it to have..
Most minicars nowadays have 1,0 litre R4 engines available. Their specific torque and power is no less than a normal 2-litre.
The highest specific output from a production car is from a 1,3 litre 1994 JDM Suzuki Cultus. 145,2 hp/litre.
I know that there will be new downsized engines,but why waiting so long. BMW already has one great engine that will fit perfect in the E9X.
Yes,I am Norwegian,but I'm allowed to like engines with power :) The BMW 4-cylinder hasn't got that. BMW 4-pot diesel are suberb. We had a 2008 118d. The engine was great.
Zitat:
Original geschrieben von Gunmetal
Technically the perfect capacity for a cylinder is just about 0,5 Liter, a 1,5 Litre 6 cylinders would have 0,25 Litre. That's nothing. The car would run smoothly but without torque.
The BMW 4 cylinders aren't as bad as they are said to be. Well, I own one, but the consumption in the higher Revs is definately less than with the Audi engines. The BMW 4 cylinders are better than the Merc ones but not as good as the Audi engines. The next generation Mark 3 will have downsized, turbo charged 4 cylinders.
As i guess from your Nick your Norwegian, with your speedlimit and fines for speeding, even a 318i is much too fast. :)
They are definitely not bad, BUT in normal driving-situations one can drive more easily more efficient with a turbo-charged engine due to the torque. That makes the difference. At 2000rpm, there's nothing coming from the x20i. Even the x25i isn't running better than the 2.0TFSI of VAG.
Besides, what was said concerning the Mini-engine, there is a little problem. It is designed to be build in crosswise, whereas the 3series has its engine embedded longitudinal.
Zitat:
Besides, what was said concerning the Mini-engine, there is a little problem. It is designed to be build in crosswise, whereas the 3series has its engine embedded longitudinal.
I know,but my point was:
Instead of waiting for the new generation turbo-4,BMW can convert the Cooper S engine into a RWD-layout. I can not understand why that should be a big problem and cost much money/resources....
Zitat:
Original geschrieben von Oslolosen
Zitat:
Besides, what was said concerning the Mini-engine, there is a little problem. It is designed to be build in crosswise, whereas the 3series has its engine embedded longitudinal.
I know,but my point was:
Instead of waiting for the new generation turbo-4,BMW can convert the Cooper S engine into a RWD-layout. I can not understand why that should be a big problem and cost much money/resources....
because the cooper s engine does NOT belong to bmw but to PSA (if i am not mistaken)...
But i agree with you - turbo charged engines is the future...
Also Entschuldigung, aber das ist doch absoluter Schwachsinn.
Gerade weil BMW an neuen 4 Zylinder Benzinern arbeitet, müssen die doch nicht so eine bescheu... Übergangslösung machen. Alles müsste umgestellt werden: PSA müsste aufeinmal noch mehr Motoren liefern, es müsste so viel am Auto umgebaut werden, dass die Kosten explodieren würden.
Warum sollte man für ein paar Jährchen so viel Aufwand betreiben, wenn sowieso ein neuer Motor kommt, der direkt, ohne viel Aufwand, ins Auto gebaut werden kann. Nur um VAG in den Testberichten nicht nachzustehen? Aus BMWs Sicht absolut nicht nachzuvollziehen.
Alles andere ist reine Gehirnkapazitätsverschendung überhaupt darüber nachzudenken.
Warum bauen die net gleich von nem Jet den Raketenantrieb hinten dran ... ach ich will mich garnet aufregen ...
Fazit: Warten und alles wird gut !! =)
Es heißt nicht umsonst "Bayerische Motorenwerke".
Beim Direkteinspritzer-Diesel hing man auch erst der Konkurrenz (VAG), dann MB (beim Common Rail) hinterher. Letztendlich baut BMW heute mit die besten Dieselmotoren, v.a. der 120/320/520d ist hier hervorzuheben, welcher derzeit der wohl beste und ausgewogenste 2l Turbodiesel sein dürfte.
Wenn die kleinen Benziner-Turbos kommen, dann wohl in einer Art und Weise, welche dem Firmennamen BMW gerecht werden wird.
Also lässt man sich wohl lieber länger Zeit und liefert ein gutes Produkt...
Viele Grüße
"Steve"