Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jamesons Viggen
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdong
It's still kind of sad that BMW got praise for "marginally" improving fuel economy during the downsizing, but still, that's way above the norm and there's something to be said about that.
I've been whining about this as soon as I got my A4 2.0T in late 2010. The fuel economy I got was very slimly better than the 3.2 V6 loaners (and IMO that's due to ZF 8HP vs ZF 6HP, not 2.0T vs 3.2), and if I really drove aggressively, the 2.0T guzzled gas in ways I've never seen other cars do.
|
Downsizing while offering more power/torque and improving acceleration. You are forgetting the other half of the equation.
The fact that the base 3(prior to the newly announced 320) does 0-60 in the mid 5's, 14 secs at 99+mph in the 1/4 is crazy. In 95-99 those were M3 stats. |
I mean sure for BMW, both halves of the equation worked and I'm not criticizing BMW. Audi's downsize didn't work as well (very noticeable low end lag, craps out above 4500RPM), and you can see from their articles Ford's EcoBoosts are both slower and less fuel efficient than their competitors despite having class leading EPA numbers.