[Tsuvoi]

Originally Posted by 335BBS

They are all over the place up here.

I don't know if you get the European version or the US version of it in Canada, but I know the very few who bought the Smart in the US got fucked since the imported model has an engine that makes like 30 mpg... Talk about getting the worst of both worlds.

[335BBS]

Originally Posted by Jamesons Viggen

Look at dynos.

What you say does not apply here as the n20 makes more torque than the n52 at any and all rpms.

On my many dyno pulls with the n20, there was also little hp fall off all the way to 6700, it seemed to be within 10-15% of its peak. Considering the nearly 40whp advantage of n20 to n52, again, rpms do not matter if the n20 makes more power low or high.

I agree with Viggen. Big block engines can make a ton of tq and HP but small displacement NA engines can't make both. Porsche 911 makes 350 hp at 7400 rpm and only 287 lbs/ft of tq and that cant be had until upper revs. BMW 335 makes 300 and 300 starting at about 1500 rpm. I think there might be something to this turbocharging thing............

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by Jamesons Viggen

Look at dynos.

What you say does not apply here as the n20 makes more torque than the n52 at any and all rpms.

On my many dyno pulls with the n20, there was also little hp fall off all the way to 6700, it seemed to be within 10-15% of its peak. Considering the nearly 40whp advantage of n20 to n52, again, rpms do not matter if the n20 makes more power low or high.

Torque is irrelevant without rpm.

The N52 3l detuned to 245HP that would have been instead of the N20 for the states, produces the same power, but the turbos are probably a little underrated so there is some advantage there.
My main point is that it is not nearly as fast as it feels compared to an NA, because the turbo coming on suddenly is felt as a kick in the pants but it doesn't last. Also, there is turbo lag.

[Jamesons Viggen]

Originally Posted by grimlock

Torque is irrelevant without rpm.

The N52 3l detuned to 245HP that would have been instead of the N20 for the states, produces the same power, but the turbos are probably a little underrated so there is some advantage there.
My main point is that it is not nearly as fast as it feels compared to an NA, because the turbo coming on suddenly is felt as a kick in the pants but it doesn't last. Also, there is turbo lag.

The numbers are out there like 30-50 and 50-70 acceleration in top gear (6mt) which is a test which highlights tq and flexibility, this test shows the n20 is 1+ second faster in each test than an n52. Pretty hard to argue with that.

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by 335BBS

I agree with Viggen. Big block engines can make a ton of tq and HP but small displacement NA engines can't make both. Porsche 911 makes 350 hp at 7400 rpm and only 287 lbs/ft of tq and that cant be had until upper revs. BMW 335 makes 300 and 300 starting at about 1500 rpm. I think there might be something to this turbocharging thing............

Sure, turbo charging has some unique characteristics.
But in a perfect world without eco and econ considerations, turbos are like drinking your own piss.. there is no reason why you would want to do it (except min. weight at the expense of response, and driving pleasure)

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by Jamesons Viggen

The numbers are out there like 30-50 and 50-70 acceleration in top gear (6mt) which is a test which highlights tq and flexibility, this test shows the n20 is 1+ second faster in each test than an n52. Pretty hard to argue with that.

Tha N52 was rated at 230hp? The n20 is at 245 and underrated.
part of the 0-63 figures I suspect are using launch which eliminated the lag factor, or if not, the a turbo could win the 0-63 but lose a distance race due to the back-loaded velocity curve (for turbos to load)

Just as BMW goosed the N20 to 245hp, if they would have given you the N52@258hp or 272 .. do you not think you would be a happier man?

It's just cuz they detuned the crap out of the N52 and now they do the opposite with the intrinsically inferior N20 so you feel its a lot better, they just did it to make more money.

[335BBS]

Originally Posted by grimlock

Sure, turbo charging has some unique characteristics.
But in a perfect world without eco and econ considerations, turbos are like drinking your own piss.. there is no reason why you would want to do it (except min. weight at the expense of response, and driving pleasure)

I hate to be like this but you had better get this information out FAST because every manufacturer in the world is headed towards smaller displacement forced induction engines. Send a note to Bernie Eccelstone quickly because he is considering the same thing....HURRY!

[Carnook]

Consumer Reports sounds increasingly like a bunch of grumpy old geezers sitting around complaining about modern day living.

"These young whippersnappers with their turbo-whatchmacallit engines... When I was young engines only had 3 parts and I could fix any problem with a dirty towel and a wrench. And my fingers are too big for these virtual keyboards on those fancy touch phones. And who is this Tweet guy? In my day famous people went on the Johnny Carson show. Now those people had talent!"

[Jamesons Viggen]

Originally Posted by grimlock

Tha N52 was rated at 230hp? The n20 is at 245 and underrated.
part of the 0-63 figures I suspect are using launch which eliminated the lag factor, or if not, the a turbo could win the 0-63 but lose a distance race due to the back-loaded velocity curve (for turbos to load)

Just as BMW goosed the N20 to 245hp, if they would have given you the N52@258hp or 272 .. do you not think you would be a happier man?

It's just cuz they detuned the crap out of the N52 and now they do the opposite with the intrinsically inferior N20 so you feel its a lot better, they just did it to make more money.

Incorrect.

I listed 30-50 and 50-70, you are already moving. You can also look at trap speeds which correlate more to power than the launch of 0-60. The n20 trap speed is 3-5mph faster than the n52. This is not opinion but recorded data.

While the higher output n52 is nice, extracting power out of an na engine is far more expensive than a turbo car. My tuned n20 is at a level an n52 is not seeing without $$$$$$ invested. So I am happy with the n20 regardless of what n52 was offered if it does not have a turbo attached.

[tdizzle]

Originally Posted by reedo302

Ford's pricing models are pretty wacky. I know a lot of people put off by the way Ford does their pricing, because every single engine option is a different price. Instead of doing one trim level with one engine, there are 2 or 3 engine options in some trim levels. It's pretty ridiculous.
.

I'd have to disagree there. Having the ability to chose pretty much any feature you want (thinking trucks here) and line then add which engine suits you best gives the most flexibility to the customer. You can mix and match to your hearts content. What's the downside in that?

And specific engines come standard in each line, usually the more expensive/premium the line package the more powerful the standard engine will be for that trim. For the most part though you can get any engine you want regardless of your trim line or features.

All that said, the fact that they offer engines for a single vehicle probably makes that more useful for customers as it gives them the most flexibility.

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by 335BBS

I hate to be like this but you had better get this information out FAST because every manufacturer in the world is headed towards smaller displacement forced induction engines. Send a note to Bernie Eccelstone quickly because he is considering the same thing....HURRY!

Porsche, Ferrari, Lamborghini.
What you mean is NA is moving upmarket as it becomes expensive eco-tax wise..
But the Japanese have yet to go this route, keeping their workhorse 4-cylinders.
Ford is actually doing everybody with a bit of knowledge a favor - they charge more to 'upgrade' to the turbo-4 from the V6.. now if you go by the triusm "you get what you pay for" you are in a world of hurt. But if you know your stuff, thank you Ford!

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by Jamesons Viggen

Incorrect.

I listed 30-50 and 50-70, you are already moving. You can also look at trap speeds which correlate more to power than the launch of 0-60. The n20 trap speed is 3-5mph faster than the n52. This is not opinion but recorded data.

While the higher output n52 is nice, extracting power out of an na engine is far more expensive than a turbo car. My tuned n20 is at a level an n52 is not seeing without $$$$$$ invested. So I am happy with the n20 regardless of what n52 was offered if it does not have a turbo attached.

You don't know if those figures are for off-boost or on, for overtaking. It makes that much difference. Two cars can cross at the same time but one can trap faster due to the different nature of acceleration.
Sure, if you're going to boost you need a turbo.

[Jamesons Viggen]

Originally Posted by grimlock

You don't know if those figures are for off-boost or on, for overtaking. It makes that much difference. Two cars can cross at the same time but one can trap faster due to the different nature of acceleration.
Sure, if you're going to boost you need a turbo.

Huh?

You pin the throttle and they use a vbox to measure time. Its that simple.

I have a few hundred passes at the drag strip. You dont let off until you cross the line. Otherwise its called Sandbagging which no magazine test would bother doing.

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by Jamesons Viggen

Huh?

You pin the throttle and they use a vbox to measure time. Its that simple.

I have a few hundred passes at the drag strip. You dont let off until you cross the line. Otherwise its called Sandbagging which no magazine test would bother doing.

Was talking about the 50-70 overtaking times given by the manufacturers.. they don't really say if they are on throttle or not.. and it makes a bigger difference for turbo cars. Wasn't talking about trap times..

[eric@helix]

The mileage delta between a turbo 4 and a 6 will get larger if more highway driving is done. My guess is that CR has a driving cycle for testing mileage which puts an emphasis on light-to-light driving, where the difference is smaller.

I'm always a little suspicious of CR. They definitely have integrity and do a good service to the public, but I've often been struck with their persnickety findings that really don't relate to my car driving experience. If you're looking for an appliance with wheels to roll you back and fourth to work, use their advice. If you value a visceral experience along with your commute, they're not the ones. They're kind of the anti-Clarkson (who is hilarious and interesting, but not a good source of automotive advice).

[tony20009]

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.

...

That marginality only applied to the SUV in the excerpt above. They were pleased with both the performance and economy on the 328i.

[Jamesons Viggen]

Originally Posted by grimlock

Was talking about the 50-70 overtaking times given by the manufacturers.. they don't really say if they are on throttle or not.. and it makes a bigger difference for turbo cars. Wasn't talking about trap times..

The figures were not from the manufacturer but magaZines, same mag, same testing, but a couple years apart. That is pretty straight forward and 1+ seconds faster in 50-70 top gear acceleration is substantial.