The New E-Class Coupe

[Tave]

How many Camcords are bought with the V6 engine? Maybe 1 in 10, or 1 in 9 if we're feeling generous. The base I4s in the Honda and Toyota are just too good to be worth the extra costs.

[GoCougs]

How many Camcords are bought with the V6 engine? Maybe 1 in 10, or 1 in 9 if we're feeling generous. The base I4s in the Honda and Toyota are just too good to be worth the extra costs.

This is a good point (I've heard the V6 take rate was a smidgen higher at ~15%). If I had to buy a CamCord today it'd be a tough choice between the 6MT Accord Sport and Camry XSE V6.

Either way, the V6 mills are still far better with NVH and power.

[Morris Minor]

The down side of a loaded V6 Camcord is you have to rub shoulders with the peasantry in the dealerships. No massages, no personal service, no quiet classical music, no free loaners, snacks & beverages. The Honda & Toyota dealerships round here are huge noisy madhouses.

[MX793]

2. Any engine that runs on premium has to watch for knock. E9x M3/E60 M5 both employed super high tech knock sensors. All engine tuning is pretty much dictated by the available octane.

Can't say I've heard of many modified NA engines melting holes through their pistons because the owner undersized the injectors.  I remember seeing a lot of that on the web back in the early 2000s when tFatF was all the rage and everybody was slapping huge snails onto their turbo Eclipses and MkIV Supras.

3. On these dieselfied GDI engines lag is non-existent. They all spool at like 2000 RPM... some even lower than that in high gear where the engine will actually hang out at those speeds.

Gotta be careful with spec sheets.  The reported peak torque RPMs on these turbo motors is on a dyno at WOT.  Real world behavior doesn't always jive, and these numbers do not take into account throttle response.  Porsche advertises that the new turbo motor in the 911 Carrera hits peak torque at 1800 RPM, but what their standard spec sheet doesn't say is that you have to hold the motor at WOT for 3 full seconds at 1800 RPM before the turbos have full spooled to make that torque, which is impossible in actual driving environments unless you want to fry your clutch (IOW, it's only practically possible on a brake dynometer).  C&D did a great piece comparing turbos to similar NA motors and did some tests to show turbo lag is still there, even on fast-spooling, twin-scroll setups like the Ford EcoBoost motors that advertise peak torque at low RPM.  In fact, even stepping on the gas when cruising at 2500 RPM, the EB23's advertised peak torque RPM, the NA V6 Camaro had a throttle response time that was nearly 30% better and was 30% quicker to the target acceleration level.

http://blog.caranddriver.com/turbo-vs-non-turbo-putting-throttle-response-to-the-test/

And turbo engines do deliver on fuel economy promises. Actually, when you look at the lawsuits over fuel economy, most if not all are over hybrids and naturally aspirated engines. A couple of people on a forum don't count. I used to average 22-23 MPG in my old Accord because I was doing 100% of my driving on ~60-70 MPH stop and go highways.

Fuel economy lawsuits are all based on manufacturers either applying incorrect factors when determining the "sticker number" (which is not the directly measured fuel economy of the vehicle) or not performing the test correctly.  Whether the engine was blown or not had nothing to do with it.  Hyundai, for instance, got in trouble across their whole lineup, and if they had had any turbocharged engines in their products at the time, those would have been cited as well.

[GoCougs]

^ Word. That C&D feature was fantastic. I wish they'd do more of that.

Just in the Q50 RS 400 I recently drove, lag was noticeable, and that is a fairly advanced system with turbos that bolt directly to the exhaust manifolds which are now cast as part of the heads.

Turbos will always have lag - air is compressible and a turbo has inertia - neither is ever going to change. You'll need some new magic (such as the Audi's electric supercharger) to deal with it.

[Tave]

3. On these dieselfied GDI engines lag is non-existent. They all spool at like 2000 RPM... some even lower than that in high gear where the engine will actually hang out at those speeds.

It doesn't sound like much but 1,000 RPMs off-idle in a diesel is like 1/3-1/4 of the useable power band. There's definitely a dead spot down low in those engines although they also give you plenty of midrange torque.

[FoMoJo]

Gotta be careful with spec sheets.  The reported peak torque RPMs on these turbo motors is on a dyno at WOT.  Real world behavior doesn't always jive, and these numbers do not take into account throttle response.  Porsche advertises that the new turbo motor in the 911 Carrera hits peak torque at 1800 RPM, but what their standard spec sheet doesn't say is that you have to hold the motor at WOT for 3 full seconds at 1800 RPM before the turbos have full spooled to make that torque, which is impossible in actual driving environments unless you want to fry your clutch (IOW, it's only practically possible on a brake dynometer).  C&D did a great piece comparing turbos to similar NA motors and did some tests to show turbo lag is still there, even on fast-spooling, twin-scroll setups like the Ford EcoBoost motors that advertise peak torque at low RPM.  In fact, even stepping on the gas when cruising at 2500 RPM, the EB23's advertised peak torque RPM, the NA V6 Camaro had a throttle response time that was nearly 30% better and was 30% quicker to the target acceleration level.

Of course in real world driving habits of the common hoard, this is all meaningless.  It remains that a smaller displacement, more conveniently packaged, most likely lighter engine can provide notably better fuel efficiency, yet have power on hand when needed.  In that respect, auto manufacturers have achieved their goal.  Those who wish to stomp on the accelerator from idle, perhaps a stop light race, are rather rare in a vehicle sold to the general public and .8 of a second is meaningless to them.  Besides, foot on the brake and foot on the throttle to about 3000 rpm pretty well ensures that boost is there on take-off.

Fuel economy lawsuits are all based on manufacturers either applying incorrect factors when determining the "sticker number" (which is not the directly measured fuel economy of the vehicle) or not performing the test correctly.  Whether the engine was blown or not had nothing to do with it.  Hyundai, for instance, got in trouble across their whole lineup, and if they had had any turbocharged engines in their products at the time, those would have been cited as well.

As for achieving "sticker number" mileage, it depends on driving style.  I've, consistently, gotten better than advertised mileage when exercising a gentle right foot; which is, pretty much, normal driving.  Obversely, achieving poor efficiency is just as easy.

[pendyman]

Spot on!

It's really funny when people, so-called "car enthusiasts", claim that "A 4-cylinder Porsche is not a real Porsche."

Umm, what's this then? Oh yeah, a faster Beetle... 

I used to own this car way way back in the day. 1957 Porsche, silver, no bumpers front or rear. Not the fastest, but the coolest car in the parking lot when I was in grad school.

[MX793]

Of course in real world driving habits of the common hoard, this is all meaningless.  It remains that a smaller displacement, more conveniently packaged, most likely lighter engine can provide notably better fuel efficiency, yet have power on hand when needed.  In that respect, auto manufacturers have achieved their goal.  Those who wish to stomp on the accelerator from idle, perhaps a stop light race, are rather rare in a vehicle sold to the general public and .8 of a second is meaningless to them.  Besides, foot on the brake and foot on the throttle to about 3000 rpm pretty well ensures that boost is there on take-off.

As for achieving "sticker number" mileage, it depends on driving style.  I've, consistently, gotten better than advertised mileage when exercising a gentle right foot; which is, pretty much, normal driving.  Obversely, achieving poor efficiency is just as easy.

C&D's test was how quickly they dialed up .2 g of acceleration from steady state.  This is not a particularly high level of acceleration.  I'd wager most cars are capable of at least 2x that at full throttle in their lowest gear.  I've recorded over .6g of forward acceleration in my Mustang from a roll.

[FoMoJo]

C&D's test was how quickly they dialed up .2 g of acceleration from steady state.  This is not a particularly high level of acceleration.  I'd wager most cars are capable of at least 2x that at full throttle in their lowest gear.  I've recorded over .6g of forward acceleration in my Mustang from a roll.

The whole test seems rather unrelated to anything involving real world driving.  Yes, we know that turbos need to spool up to generate additional power and it takes a small amount of time.  We also know that development in turbos have shrunk that time considerably until it is not/barely noticeable by most drivers.  As well, turbos are now largely used for the expressed purpose of gaining efficiency while retaining the potential of more power; rather than just as a power boost.

To anyone with a fundamental understanding of turbo technology, this article is quite useless.  It informs us of nothing we don't already know; other than specific measures of time.

[12,000 RPM]

I wouldn't go that far. It was an interesting test. But my take away from it was

- learn and anticipate a car's powerband
- if you need more power, downshift

which I do anyway. It does suck that the EB 2.3 is no match for the 3.7, but it's just one engine. Some of the turbo engines overdeliver on their promises.







Granted these are not transient tests but they are delivering.

[MX793]

The whole test seems rather unrelated to anything involving real world driving.  Yes, we know that turbos need to spool up to generate additional power and it takes a small amount of time.  We also know that development in turbos have shrunk that time considerably until it is not/barely noticeable by most drivers.  As well, turbos are now largely used for the expressed purpose of gaining efficiency while retaining the potential of more power; rather than just as a power boost.

To anyone with a fundamental understanding of turbo technology, this article is quite useless.  It informs us of nothing we don't already know; other than specific measures of time.

Unrelated to real world driving?  You've never toed the throttle a bit when cruising at steady speed to squirt into a hole in traffic or to clear another car alongside so you could merge?

[MX793]

I wouldn't go that far. It was an interesting test. But my take away from it was

- learn and anticipate a car's powerband
- if you need more power, downshift

which I do anyway. It does suck that the EB 2.3 is no match for the 3.7, but it's just one engine. Some of the turbo engines overdeliver on their promises.

And what does BMW claim the peak torque RPM on the N20 is?  1250 RPM.  On that chart, the plateau shows up at closer to 2000.

The N54 in the '10 335i is supposed to make peak torque at 1400 RPM, several hundred RPM earlier than where that chart plateaus.  The N55 advertises peak torque at 1300 RPM, which is about 1000 RPM later than where the chart plateaus.

Granted these are not transient tests but they are delivering.

Stock VWAG 2.0T curve shows peak torque at ~2600 RPM, but VW advertises a 1500 RPM peak torque on the Mk7 GTI.  Again, illustrates that what the manufacturers find on a brake dyno doesn't jive with how the engine actually creates power when on the roll.

[FoMoJo]

Unrelated to real world driving?  You've never toed the throttle a bit when cruising at steady speed to squirt into a hole in traffic or to clear another car alongside so you could merge?

Of course I have.  The transmission immediately drops 2-4 gears causing the engine to shoot up a couple of thousand or so revs spinning up the turbo and a fraction of a second later a blast of acceleration snaps my head back and off we go.  Those few with sticks would take longer to shift down a gear or two and, if you didn't, whether NA or turbo, you wouldn't get a satisfactory power surge to get you where you wanted to go; unless you had a voodoo under the hood.

[MX793]

Of course I have.  The transmission immediately drops 2-4 gears causing the engine to shoot up a couple of thousand or so revs spinning up the turbo and a fraction of a second later a blast of acceleration snaps my head back and off we go.  Those few with sticks would take longer to shift down a gear or two and, if you didn't, whether NA or turbo, you wouldn't get a satisfactory power surge to get you where you wanted to go; unless you had a voodoo under the hood.

I'm talking about situations that don't warrant a downshift.  If I'm cruising down the highway at 70-75 and just want to put on another 5 mph to get by a semi a little quicker, I don't drop a gear (and certainly don't drop 2).  I tip into the throttle in gear, accelerate past, then merge back into my lane.

I will say that automatics do somewhat mask the softness of a turbo's response because the automatic gearbox introduces a certain amount of softness into the drivetrain as well.  Many are programmed to first decouple and slip the torque converter to build some RPMs before they surrender to dropping a gear when you command a small amount of acceleration, even on naturally aspirated motors.  I had a hard time separating transmission lag from turbo lag on the Ecoboost Edge I had as a rental earlier this year.

[FoMoJo]

I'm talking about situations that don't warrant a downshift.  If I'm cruising down the highway at 70-75 and just want to put on another 5 mph to get by a semi a little quicker, I don't drop a gear (and certainly don't drop 2).  I tip into the throttle in gear, accelerate past, then merge back into my lane.

I will say that automatics do somewhat mask the softness of a turbo's response because the automatic gearbox introduces a certain amount of softness into the drivetrain as well.  Many are programmed to first decouple and slip the torque converter to build some RPMs before they surrender to dropping a gear when you command a small amount of acceleration, even on naturally aspirated motors.  I had a hard time separating transmission lag from turbo lag on the Ecoboost Edge I had as a rental earlier this year.

Was that the 2.0 I4 or the 2.7 V6? 

For a brief while, we were considering the Edge Sport with the 2.7T.  For the most part, with all options, it was a better choice than the Discovery Sport; except for the styling and the name.  A bit overweight as well.

[MX793]

Was that the 2.0 I4 or the 2.7 V6? 

For a brief while, we were considering the Edge Sport with the 2.7T.  For the most part, with all options, it was a better choice than the Discovery Sport; except for the styling and the name.  A bit overweight as well.

2.0T.  It was a mid-range model, not the Sport.

[12,000 RPM]

I don't think lag is so bad in these things you will need to drop a gear to make a 5-10 MPH pass.

[GoCougs]

The whole test seems rather unrelated to anything involving real world driving.  Yes, we know that turbos need to spool up to generate additional power and it takes a small amount of time.  We also know that development in turbos have shrunk that time considerably until it is not/barely noticeable by most drivers.  As well, turbos are now largely used for the expressed purpose of gaining efficiency while retaining the potential of more power; rather than just as a power boost.

To anyone with a fundamental understanding of turbo technology, this article is quite useless.  It informs us of nothing we don't already know; other than specific measures of time.

I found quite interesting because turbo lag was worse than I would have guessed. And it is 100% related - it quantifies part throttle performance, where most drivers spend the vast majority of their driving time.

Turbos are indeed better than they used to but but the lag will always be there - has to be there, because as I stated, air is compressible and turbos have inertia.

[MrH]

Yeah, I'm all about that NA life.

[12,000 RPM]

NA comes with too many asterisks. Civic feels like a rocket now compared to how it is in the summer. Z had the same problem. I feel like turbo cars don't lose as much edge when its hot. NA has no headroom. It's all or none all the time.

[GoCougs]

Yeah, I'm all about that NA life.

Or supercharged, if it absolutely HAS to be F/I. Thing is (positive displacement) supercharging is more expensive (at least vs. single turbo) and harder to package (hood height). Audi had a VERY good thing going with its 3.0T. The B8 S4 a stellar 18/28 rating with the DSG, and it led the class (335i Xdrive, G37X, TL-SHAWD) despite being the heaviest. Audi got efficiency/mpg to match that of a turbo using a simple bypass at no/easy throttle, with no detriment to driveability. Unfortunately it wasn't long for this world as these days platform design is ever more integrated and scaled, such that uber attention has to be given to packaging, and turbo motors are just easier to package (or, at least that's what I think happened - no official word from Audi that I can find).

I hate turbocharging but the day is fast approaching that most everything will be so afflicted, so it's probably in my near future (if I don't decide on a B8 S4, but at this stage it'd be a tossup vs. the Golf R).

[MX793]

NA comes with too many asterisks. Civic feels like a rocket now compared to how it is in the summer. Z had the same problem. I feel like turbo cars don't lose as much edge when its hot. NA has no headroom. It's all or none all the time.

Turbos don't lose power when it's hot?  Turbos are way more prone to heat issues.  Spend some time at an auto-X and you'll see all of the guys with T/Ced cars spraying down their intercoolers with water after every run to keep heat soak in check and prevent power loss.

[GoCougs]

I also think electric supercharging has some promise (an electric motor, powered by a hybrid system, drives the supercharger). Gone are the problems with turbo life and lag, plus this system would be more efficient. There's been talk of such systems for some time but it hasn't happened it. Probably expense - that's a fair bit pricier than a turbo setup.

[12,000 RPM]

Hybrid systems in general are the way forward. Add thrust when needed, eliminate pumping losses when needed, enable the engine to stop running at idle etc. I'd prefer a mild hybrid setup to F/I any day.

[CaminoRacer]

If your N/A car has enough power, you won't notice atmospheric changes.

[GoCougs]

Oh, I don't know about that. I frequently drive mountain passes around here, up to 4,100', and I notice a drop in power. Various online calculators say it's a ~15% loss from sea level (where I about live), or 50 hp for a 328 hp engine.

[CaminoRacer]

That means you don't have enough power

[12,000 RPM]

Turbos don't lose power when it's hot?  Turbos are way more prone to heat issues.  Spend some time at an auto-X and you'll see all of the guys with T/Ced cars spraying down their intercoolers with water after every run to keep heat soak in check and prevent power loss.

This is a worst case scenario for any kind of driving. High load + little to no air flow over and over. On the street in traffic you don't need a ton of power, and moving on the highway you will have airflow. Big thing with turbos is even if there is heatsoak they can just up the boost or w/e to maintain output. N/A can't

[CaminoRacer]

N/A cars never get hot during autox. In fact, I can leave my fans off and the engine will get a little warm while in line to go, then cool down perfectly during the lap. A good driver can go fast enough to get plenty of wind, and high engine speeds get the water pump moving nicely.