that's only 100hp/liter. honda routinely had production vehicles at
120. non-turbo.
That's also stock. A simple flash tune (e.g. Cobb) or piggyback (BMS
JuiceBox) can get you to 350-375 easily; more with a larger intercooler
and freer-flowing cats/downpipes. Tony Vargas just dynoed a car on 91
octane pump gas with "full bolt ons" (generally, that means intake,
exhaust, and intercooler and possibly a larger oil cooler as well) and a
set of larger turbos but no internal engine work at 575 wheel HP. That
sure sounds "phenomenal" to me, and reminiscent of what was being done
with Supras 10 years ago or so - and keep in mind that tuners have only
had since 2007 to work on the N54 engine. I suspect that there's more
to be had (and in fact there are people getting more power out of them
using methanol injection.)
I'm sure that BMW knows that there is more potential in that engine but
they likely don't want the x35is a) competing with the M-cars or b)
making so much power that they start to have internal engine part
warranty claims at an unacceptable rate. (because, let's be honest, the
types of people that buy 500+ HP cars tend to want to use that power on
a regular basis.)
bmw are pioneers in transmission life limitation. gm and frod used to
do this by simply using cheapo clutch packs in their automatics, and
cheapo steel in their sticks so they'd wear out or spall respectively.
bmw didn't like these failure modes, so, not content with "sealed for
life", they decided to design fatigue /into/ their cogs so they'd
fatigue and break. [the beauty of fatigue is that you don't get "whiny
transmission" or slippage symptoms that develop over time - one second
it works, the next, it's a catastrophic failure.] i know this because
one of my old profs was their outside consultant, and it was interesting
to us as students because the metallurgical problem was how to ensure
that individual ratios would fail when each one operates somewhere
within the three [very different mechanism] fatigue "regimes". it's a
"phenomenal" technical achievement and one that bmw paid a lot of money
to solve. all the majors are now reputed to have followed their lead to
some extent. the real kicker is that it costs bmw ~20% more in
materials and q.c. to ensure this life limitation, but the mba's did
their math and it pays because it causes big ticket repairs to vehicles
that are depreciated thus ensuring that the vehicle gets junked.
I would never advise anyone to buy a German car with an automatic
transmission. (and you know that BMW don't actually make the
transmissions correct?
uh, you know that bmw /spec/ their transmission to their contractor,
correct???
Of course, but my point is, that just like headlamps, German mfgrs. seem
to punish Americans by making their automatics as shitty as possible.
Stick with stickshift or DSG and you'll be fine. I'm in no way excusing
the German slushboxes, but their shittiness has not been a secret for
the last 30+ years.
nate nate nate, when will you ever learn to read? i specifically stated
that bmw's /method/ was pioneering but you didn't read that.
everybody else has been having their crap /wear out/ since the 50's and
customers hate it. bmw's "genius" was sudden failure that took the
customer unawares, /and/ presented them with a huge bill that makes the
majority give up on the vehicle and buy a new one.
You just perfectly described why I drive German cars and *not* Hondas.
Technically, you are correct, but in practice - it works phenomenally
well. (and actually the rear suspension is a multi-link with shocks,
not a strut type suspension.)
we'll come to fronts in a moment, but did you not read what i said about
rears??? [rhetorical]
Again, it may be cheap, but it works.
yeah, a wheel barrow works. particularly when you have tires 30% wider
than a comparable vehicle that has camber control.
Actually BMW tire sizes are pretty narrow comparatively, 225s on the
front of a vehicle that curbs around 3400? And that's the M-sport
package. BMW's tire choices are a good example of one of the instances
where they have made questionable choices however; the Bridgestone
run-flats do appear to have been made from actual rocks, without
actually providing superior tread life.
Another thing you're not considering is that a strut-type front
suspension allows room for things like big v-engines in the front of the
car (remember, the current M3 uses a 4.7 liter overhead cam V-8,) and is
simpler and may very well weigh less than a comparable SLA design.
these are all things that must be considered when you're looking at a
car designed for performance first.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not slagging Honda for using a SLA suspension -
far from it - but there are several ways to peel a feline. Honda chose
one way and makes some very nice handling cars (albeit FWD.) BMW and
Porsche chose another and also make some very nice handling cars (but
you can criticize Porsche for sticking with hanging the big heavy bits
out behind the rear axle, but I suspect that that is in large part due
to the Porsche faithful not accepting anything else - look at the
relative failure of the 928 for example - just like we probably won't
see a Harley-Davidson with anything other than a v-twin in our lifetimes.)
macpherson is garbage. by definition. go out to any parking lot and
look at the inside tire of any macpherson vehicle parked with steering
angled. look at the camber. look at the percentage of tire left on the
pavement. /that/ is a fundamental problem that can't be solved.
macpherson is adequate for the straight-ahead and delightfully cheap for
manufacturers. and that's where the story ends.
Hmm. Doesn't seem to hurt any of the top competitors in DTM, BTCC, etc.
etc. etc. How far are the wheels generally turned in high-G cornering
maneuvers, anyway? And if you'd ever owned a Bimmer you would know that
any tire wear problems generally experienced are NOT in the front but in
the rear, which has an "acceptable" suspension design according to you
but since BMW's alignment specs have aggressive camber for better
handling the rears tend to wear the snot out of the insides of the tires
when the car is driven non-aggressively.
Finally, if you hate struts so much, why are you constantly slagging the
Germans, who nobody can deny build beautiful handling cars (and I have
never driven a car that had as nice steering feel as my old E28 chassis
535i, I suppose that that is unacceptable though because it used a
recirc ball steering box which is "outdated" compared to modern R&P?)
and yet I haven't yet seen you criticize Ford for the execrable
Twin-I-Beam front end which was unmitigated garbage and arguably
inferior to a simple straight axle, and was used pretty much unchanged
save for a swap from kingpins to ball joints (a step backward, IMHO)
through the mid-late 90's!
It's not an excuse, customers don't care about such things generally.
What they do care about is handling and ride. If it is provided by
means of transverse leaf springs and using the driveshafts as suspension
links, nobody gives a crap so long as it works well.
I suppose given the choice between, say, a BMW E30 M3 and a SLA Honda
Civic, in similar condition, you would pick the Civic because it has a
more sophisticated suspension design, EVEN THOUGH THE BIMMER IS BETTER
IN EVERY RESPECT when it comes to what matters to the driver?
Did you miss the bit where the BMW 3-series has made C&D's 10 best list
for over 20 consecutive years now? And also the bit where the new
Accord made this year's list as well, *despite* having the struts that
you hate so much?
and efficiency of the power train;
yet, just as clearly, overall product quality is NOT even on their
radar screens.
it most definitely is. bmw are the pioneers of modern life limitation
control. nobody has spent more on ensuring that whatever they use works
for a closely defined period, and not a moment longer. as said before,
it costs more to do this, but it pays. customers buying new are snowed
into believing this "ultimate driving machine" advertising [the ultimate
meaningless tagline!] so they don't care. and second [or later] owners
have no recourse. it gets older bmw's [and their parts] off the road,
and keeps sales up.
Hmm, I see more older Bimmers on the road than I do GM, Ford, etc. (I
still see a surprisingly large number of E36 3-series and occasionally
even older ones - I actually saw a 2002 on Thursday - probably the only
manufacturers that I see *more* 80's era cars still running around would
be Honda, Toyota, and/or VW and one would ASSume that that's because
they sold more of them.
again, you can't read. you see OLD bmw's and you see modern bmw's, but
you see nothing in between. the old stuff was that brief period when
they had the engineering right but bmw's financials were in the crapper.
then in came the mba's, so their engineering focus changed. the
results are right there on the road in front of you every single day.
Where I live Bimmers seem to be one of the most popular cars (along with
Toyota Camrys and various SUVs,) and I see a whole range of them on the
road. The very early 3-series cars seem to have mostly disappeared, as
well as most of the cars that predate the 3/5/6/7/8xx naming convention,
but then again, I did see another 2002 coupe while out and about this
morning. If you're looking for any particular design of 3-series
however, save for the E30, you're likely to spot one within 10 minutes
or so simply by driving around and looking. I probably see more E46 and
E36 than I do E9x or F30s.
nate