CarSPIN Forums

Full debut is tomorrow the 14th.

http://www.leftlanenews.com/2018-mercedesbenz-eclass-coupe-leaked-93531.html (http://www.leftlanenews.com/2018-mercedesbenz-eclass-coupe-leaked-93531.html)

(http://photos5.leftlanenews.com/content/january2016/thumbnailsnew/2018-mercedes-benz-e-class-coupe-leak-1_1200.jpg)

(http://photos5.leftlanenews.com/content/january2016/thumbnailsnew/2018-mercedes-benz-e-class-coupe-leak-2_1200.jpg)

(http://photos5.leftlanenews.com/content/january2016/thumbnailsnew/2018-mercedes-benz-e-class-coupe-leak-3_1200.jpg)

(http://photos5.leftlanenews.com/content/january2016/thumbnailsnew/2018-mercedes-benz-e-class-coupe-leak-4_1200.jpg)

(http://photos5.leftlanenews.com/content/january2016/thumbnailsnew/2018-mercedes-benz-e-class-coupe-leak-5_1200.jpg)

(http://photos5.leftlanenews.com/content/january2016/thumbnailsnew/2018-mercedes-benz-e-class-coupe-leak-6_1200.jpg)

(http://photos5.leftlanenews.com/content/january2016/thumbnailsnew/2018-mercedes-benz-e-class-coupe-leak-7_1200.jpg)

(http://photos5.leftlanenews.com/content/january2016/thumbnailsnew/2018-mercedes-benz-e-class-coupe-leak-8_1200.jpg)

(http://photos5.leftlanenews.com/content/january2016/thumbnailsnew/2018-mercedes-benz-e-class-coupe-leak-9_1200.jpg)

(http://photos5.leftlanenews.com/content/january2016/thumbnailsnew/2018-mercedes-benz-e-class-coupe-leak-10_1200.jpg)

(http://photos5.leftlanenews.com/content/january2016/thumbnailsnew/2018-mercedes-benz-e-class-coupe-leak-11_1200.jpg)

There will be an E50 AMG (in place of an E43, using the new inline-6) and an E63 AMG.

Looks great.  Interesting they said AWD only available in their highest end model engine.  Also no AMG variant to be done.  Interesting they're planning on unveiling it in Detroit as opposed to LA.

Is this one gonna be based on the E class this time?

(http://photos5.leftlanenews.com/content/january2016/thumbnailsnew/2018-mercedes-benz-e-class-coupe-leak-3_1200.jpg)

^ That panel in the roof is really irritating, at least with high contrast colors.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 13, 2016, 05:49:17 AM
Is this one gonna be based on the E class this time?

Assuming it's like the c and s class coupes then yes.

Quote from: Galaxy on December 13, 2016, 06:15:29 AM
(http://photos5.leftlanenews.com/content/january2016/thumbnailsnew/2018-mercedes-benz-e-class-coupe-leak-3_1200.jpg)

^ That panel in the roof is really irritating, at least with high contrast colors.

I'm sure you can order it without that panoramic roof

I don't care for the fold in the middle.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 13, 2016, 05:49:17 AM
Is this one gonna be based on the E class this time?

:lol:  Forgot about that.

Quote from: Galaxy on December 13, 2016, 06:15:29 AM
(http://photos5.leftlanenews.com/content/january2016/thumbnailsnew/2018-mercedes-benz-e-class-coupe-leak-3_1200.jpg)

^ That panel in the roof is really irritating, at least with high contrast colors.

It's geared towards middle-aged men, hence the bald spot.

Quote from: Raza  on December 13, 2016, 08:17:43 AM
I don't care for the fold in the middle.

:lol:

Quote from: Rockraven on December 13, 2016, 09:02:39 AM
It's geared towards middle-aged men, hence the bald spot.

:lol:

Really handsome car.

There's something odd about the front end of recent MB cars. To me they appear disproportionally massive, almost truckish.

They are trying to draw a parallel with these:

(http://www.classicandperformancecar.com/uploads/cms_article/3401_3500/1985-1991-mercedes-benz-560-sec-c126-3440_3625_969X727.jpg)

I agree that it's not really working. The rest of the car is shaped like a tadpole.

Quote from: Rockraven on December 13, 2016, 10:44:38 AM
There's something odd about the front end of recent MB cars. To me they appear disproportionally massive, almost truckish.

They save money by using the emblems from their big rigs.

Quote from: Rockraven on December 13, 2016, 10:44:38 AM
There's something odd about the front end of recent MB cars. To me they appear disproportionally massive, almost truckish.

Yeah, they have a very flat, snub-nosed look to them.

Still way better than these hunks of front-end ugly they were putting out for a while:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Mercedes-Benz_W210_front_20080809.jpg/300px-Mercedes-Benz_W210_front_20080809.jpg)

I like the W210 :(

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 13, 2016, 01:10:41 PM
I like the W210 :(

It's got great profile and is a looker from certain angles, but that bug eyed front end is just...bleh!  To me, at least.

Everything from the emblem back is classic. But yea, that front end was not great. To be fair, it never got better IMO. Things reached a real low with the pre-facelift W212:

(http://images.honestjohn.co.uk/imagecache/file/fit/730x700/media/3165386/MB_2553.jpg)

Nothing has captured the Connecticut old money majesty of the W124.

Gotta say, I am really digging these new coupes from Mercedes'. I love the current C-Class Coupe and of course the S-Class Coupe. This new E-Class Coupe looks pretty stunning in these official photos (duh!).

The last generation C- and E-Class Coupes never really excited me. They looked ok but basically came across as a regular C/E-Class that got chopped in half after the driver's doors and received a different mid and rear. At least these current coupes differentiate themselves from their sedan counterparts.

If I had to choose between these three coupes, I'd probably go for the C-Class Coupe. It's relatively compact but spacious inside (and looks so hot).  :wub:

But I can't wait to see the new E-Class Coupe in person.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 13, 2016, 01:10:41 PM
I like the W210 :(

Same here. I actually prefer the original W210 to the rounder facelifted version, which looked a little "softer." The boxier elements of the original W210 make it a little more macho-looking.


Facelifted W210
(http://i.auto-bild.de/mdb/large/31/w210-08c.jpeg)


The pre-facelift E50 & E55 AMG looked especially good. I mean look at this!  :wub:

(https://de.autodata24.com/i/mercedes-benz/e-klasse/e-klasse-w210/large/3c00dbb19f7411df25b1f9a04f78e429.jpg)

I still think this is the best looking modern MB:

(http://image.superstreetonline.com/f/103065193+w+h+q80+re0+cr1/mercedes-e55-driver-side-front-view-amg-.jpg)

Quote from: SVT_Power on December 13, 2016, 03:38:06 PM
I still think this is the best looking modern MB:

(http://image.superstreetonline.com/f/103065193+w+h+q80+re0+cr1/mercedes-e55-driver-side-front-view-amg-.jpg)

That's my favorite modern E-Class, but I always loved how the W204 looked.

EDIT: Though, overall, the AMG GT is the best looking, IMO.

Pictures are up on NetCarShow.

I still think this is the best MB.

(http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/dsc00363.jpg)

:lol: :lol:

XG-Klasse!

Quote from: BimmerM3 on December 13, 2016, 04:25:10 PM
That's my favorite modern E-Class, but I always loved how the W204 looked.

W204 was the last-generation C-Class, not any E-Class.  ;)

(http://s1.cdn.autoevolution.com/images/gallery/MERCEDESBENZC-Klasse-W204--1418_11.jpg)

Quote from: CaminoRacer on December 14, 2016, 06:56:13 AM
I still think this is the best MB.

(http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/dsc00363.jpg)

Imposter! There's no star on the bonnet!  :devil:

I mean the car in the oh pee looks good, but I just don't see the draw of these types of cars. The annoyance of being really big combined with the impracticality of only having two doors.

Quote from: cawimmer430 on December 15, 2016, 04:03:48 AM
W204 was the last-generation C-Class, not any E-Class.  ;)

(http://s1.cdn.autoevolution.com/images/gallery/MERCEDESBENZC-Klasse-W204--1418_11.jpg)

If you read his post again he's not saying it is.  He's saying the w211 is his fav e class but he loves the w204 too

Quote from: SJ_GTI on December 15, 2016, 06:08:24 AM
I mean the car in the oh pee looks good, but I just don't see the draw of these types of cars. The annoyance of being really big combined with the impracticality of only having two doors.

And this is why the coupe has largely disappeared from the automotive landscape

There was an article about the Buick.... Reatta? 204" long with a cramped ass back seat. Longer than a Tahoe and LWB Range Rover!!! It's a real mystery as to why they don't make cars like that anymore.

I feel like the average buying age of coupes like this is very high. For better or worse I imagine when our generation enters retirement we will continue to flock to crossovers.

Probably the Riviera.  Reatta was a small 2 seater.

The big "personal luxury cars" were made unnecessarily large intentionally.  Much like the huge luxury cars of the pre-WWII era (Dusenbergs, Auburns, etc), their size was intended to convey status.

Quote from: 68_427 on December 15, 2016, 06:10:45 AM
If you read his post again he's not saying it is.  He's saying the w211 is his fav e class but he loves the w204 too

Ah, I thought he loved the "W204 E-Class". My bad! :lol:

Quote from: 68_427 on December 15, 2016, 06:10:45 AM
If you read his post again he's not saying it is.  He's saying the w211 is his fav e class but he loves the w204 too

Yup. Best looking small sedan they've ever made. Stately and elegant.

I prefer the current W205 C-Class. In my opinion this is the best and most beautiful compact sedan Mercedes has ever made up to this point.  :ohyeah:

All other C-Classes starting from the 190-Series W201, W202, W203 and W204 have been rather conservative in my opinion. The W204 brought a little emotional design to the range, but on the whole it was still very conservatively styled. The W205, while still being understated, looks very dynamic and also very elegant, especially with some sporty add-ons.

(http://www.dpccars.com/gallery/var/resizes/Mercedes-C-Class-Night-Package-for-W205/Mercedes%20C-Class%20Night%20Package%20for%20W205%20-%2001.jpg)

I love the W201. The best Mercedes had to offer in fun size. I still want to put the 3.2 DOHC in a manual sedan.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 16, 2016, 08:26:47 AM
I love the W201. The best Mercedes had to offer in fun size. I still want to put the 3.2 DOHC in a manual sedan.

Wrong. 2.3 Turbo Ford with a 2spd Powerglide. For autocross.

Quote from: cawimmer430 on December 16, 2016, 08:06:00 AM
I prefer the current W205 C-Class. In my opinion this is the best and most beautiful compact sedan Mercedes has ever made up to this point.  :ohyeah:

All other C-Classes starting from the 190-Series W201, W202, W203 and W204 have been rather conservative in my opinion. The W204 brought a little emotional design to the range, but on the whole it was still very conservatively styled. The W205, while still being understated, looks very dynamic and also very elegant, especially with some sporty add-ons.

IMO, Mercedes sedans should be conservatively styled. The W204 manages to be conservative without being bland.

Quote from: BimmerM3 on December 16, 2016, 10:13:12 AM
IMO, Mercedes sedans should be conservatively styled. The W204 manages to be conservative without being bland.

True. IMO the W205 also manages to be conservatively styled, but with a little more something else that makes it visually very interesting.

I'm lusting for a second hand S205 C-Class Wagon, diesel of course.  :wub:

Overall the W205 is pretty good looking, but the huge nose kills it for me.

Quote from: BimmerM3 on December 16, 2016, 10:44:30 AM
Overall the W205 is pretty good looking, but the huge nose kills it for me.

Design is subjective, but I adore the W205. To me this is the first really competitive C-Class - and one of the best-looking Mercedes' in recent years.  ;)

In my experience Mercedes only got serious about the driving dynamics of the C-Class with the facelifted W203. I've driven both the original W203 and the facelifted models and the differences are like night and day. The W204 was also a step in the right direction. The W205 combines great driving dynamics with decent comfort. IMO this makes the car more appealing to both sides - those who want sport and those who want something comfortable. The addition of different trim levels and suspension settings also helps.

Wow. Did not realize that the regular E-Class can only be had with the 4-banger. Kind of like a Camry... but without the reliability.

Quote from: Morris Minor on December 17, 2016, 04:50:54 PM
Wow. Did not realize that the regular E-Class can only be had with the 4-banger. Kind of like a Camry... but without the reliability.

Literally every E-Class taxi out there is a 4-cylinder. If they were unreliable they wouldn't be purchased.

Quote from: cawimmer430 on December 17, 2016, 05:00:09 PM
Literally every E-Class taxi out there is a 4-cylinder. If they were unreliable they wouldn't be purchased.

But M-B doesn't play in that space in the USA. The models sold here are in the luxury sector and laden down with all the exttras you can think of. It's the problems with the gadgetry that messes with M-B's reliability stats. The gruff four cylinder engines don't help.

We had a C300 loaner with that engine. It is by no means as smooth, creamy, effortless and silky as the six in our venerable CLK350.

Quote from: Morris Minor on December 18, 2016, 04:52:29 AM
But M-B doesn't play in that space in the USA. The models sold here are in the luxury sector and laden down with all the exttras you can think of. It's the problems with the gadgetry that messes with M-B's reliability stats. The gruff four cylinder engines don't help.

We had a C300 loaner with that engine. It is by no means as smooth, creamy, effortless and silky as the six in our venerable CLK350.

My family has not had these reliability issues with our Mercedes', and we've owned (2002 E320 Avantgarde W211) and currently own a fully-loaded 2010 E350 CGI W212 that already has over 100,000 km on it. My parents are touring Europe with it racking up many kilometers with it. It's a fully-loaded vehicle. It has features on it which I'd never use or want in any car. 

For every person who has a reliability issues with their Mercedes _-Class, there will be 9 other owners whose cars are just fine. Literally. If these cars were so unreliable then people wouldn't buy them, even if the badge is so appealing. ;)

Regarding the 4-cylinders, I've experienced the newer generation of Mercedes' 4-cylinders and in my opinion (and I try to be very non-biased here) they're pretty good for what they are. Their predecessors were worse because they were really rough, unrefined - agricultural (I'm talking about the 4-cylinders in an original W202 or W203 C-Class). Also, they're quieter and smoother than say the 4-cylinder engine in my 1er, which is a gasoline engine but sounds like an older diesel (apparently this is due to the direct-injection system). For my tastes, a new MB, Audi etc. 4-cylinders (and most modern 4-cylinders in general) are pretty smooth. Naturally, they won't come close to an inline-6 or V6 etc. in smoothness, but I think anyone who buys a 4-cylinder car should and would know this, particularly if they are a bit of a car enthusiast.  ;)

Quote from: cawimmer430 on December 18, 2016, 05:50:31 AM
My family has not had these reliability issues with our Mercedes', and we've owned (2002 E320 Avantgarde W211) and currently own a fully-loaded 2010 E350 CGI W212 that already has over 100,000 km on it. My parents are touring Europe with it racking up many kilometers with it. It's a fully-loaded vehicle. It has features on it which I'd never use or want in any car. 

You further reinforce that European ideas on "high mileage" and "reliability" are very different from American.  100,000 kms on a 6-7 year old vehicle would not be considered remotely high mileage in America.  That works out to about the average miles driven annually.

QuoteRegarding the 4-cylinders, I've experienced the newer generation of Mercedes' 4-cylinders and in my opinion (and I try to be very non-biased here) they're pretty good for what they are. Their predecessors were worse because they were really rough, unrefined - agricultural (I'm talking about the 4-cylinders in an original W202 or W203 C-Class). Also, they're quieter and smoother than say the 4-cylinder engine in my 1er, which is a gasoline engine but sounds like an older diesel (apparently this is due to the direct-injection system). For my tastes, a new MB, Audi etc. 4-cylinders (and most modern 4-cylinders in general) are pretty smooth. Naturally, they won't come close to an inline-6 or V6 etc. in smoothness, but I think anyone who buys a 4-cylinder car should and would know this, particularly if they are a bit of a car enthusiast.  ;)

Even if better than the last generation of I4s, it's still a rougher and less refined motor than their 6-cylinder offerings.  Mercedes is sold as a premium luxury brand in America.  I'd accept that 4-cylinders are acceptable in compact premium offerings.  I personally don't believe that a 4-cylinder is acceptable at any trim level in a premium/luxury midsize car like the E-class or 5-series, but the market disagrees with me.  That said, there should still be a smoother, 6-cylinder or greater option without having to turn to AMG in this class of car.

Quote from: cawimmer430 on December 17, 2016, 05:00:09 PM
Literally every E-Class taxi out there is a 4-cylinder. If they were unreliable they wouldn't be purchased.

Don't talk to us about reliability Mr 8 coil packs on a 4 banger engine

Germans love to say Americans don't know how to take care of our cars because we aren't willing to sink ungodly sums of $$$$ into unreliable turds. The only companies that are still having problems with shit like fuel pumps and injector coils are the Germans. They like to blame customers for their design shortcomings.

Direct gasoline injection makes engines noisier, all that pumping and injection ( :winkguy: ) at insanely high pressures. So it does reinforce the natural lumpiness of non-overlapping power strokes in four cylinder engines.


Manufacturers are putting these in to boost their EPA efficiency numbers, but real-world use figures show the fuel consumption to be no better than the sixes they replace. Think I've seen this both in Consumer Reports tests and C&D.


Volvo XC90 comes to mind: big luxury SUV with a little overworked four slaving away on the other side of the wood & leather dashboard.

IDK Man, I think you guys are off your fuckin rocker. I've driven a lot of cars at the BMW dealer, and I'd take the BMW 2.0T in the 528i over the old as hell 530/535i's I6. The 2.0T is more tractable, has about the same NVH, and mostly most customers don't fuckin notice. It's faster than the old car with better economy.

I think the E-class is 4cyl only until they get that new V6 out.

I have mixed feelings about the 4 bangers in luxury cars thing. On one hand.... $80K for a 4 banger just seems ridiculous. On the other hand, the "cheap" A6 2.0T is as fast as an old C5 S6 with the 4.2 V8 while getting like double the gas mileage and really not being a ton less refined. I'd probably get a sports car + something like an E300 than an E63.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 18, 2016, 11:28:17 AM
On the other hand, the "cheap" A6 2.0T is as fast as an old C5 S6 with the 4.2 V8 while getting like double the gas mileage and really not being a ton less refined.

Reality is less important than the perception of reality in the luxury car market. In fact I'd go as far as to say reality doesn't matter whatsoever.

Quote from: 93JC on December 18, 2016, 12:20:05 PM
Reality is less important than the perception of reality in the luxury car market. In fact I'd go as far as to say reality doesn't matter whatsoever.

What % of luxury owners would you say even know how many cylinders their engines have? That's the important reality here. The 2.0Ts get the job done, which is about all that matters to the avg luxury buyer.

If luxury car buyers gave a damn about merely "getting the job done" they'd all buy Toyota Corollas instead, because a Corolla will do everything a luxury car buyer will ever ask of their Audi, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, etc. with a lot less trouble going about it.

Whether luxury car buyers know how many cylinders their car's engine has or not is immaterial: they know enough to know eight is more than six and six is more than four and four-cylinders are mostly found under the hoods of cars for the hoi polloi ergo a luxury car with a four-cylinder is a 'lesser' car. That's all they need to know.

Literally, the only people who care about this argument is CarSpin.


These 4cyl turbo motors are generally imperceptibly different from the NA 6cyl motors they replaced.


You guys are creating this valley of difference between the driving characteristics of these cars when

- it isn't that fuckin different

- no one cares anyways

- these 2.0T engines perform better than the old-school six cylinders they replaced

- idk why everyone puts these I6 motors on a pedestal when these 2.0T are better with an IMO improvement in drivability.

The only 2.0T that I can see causing trouble would be the GM one (Idk what the latest one is) I remember driving a Regal Turbo and being annoyed with how lopsided the power delivery is. Same with the death-date 2011 Saab 9-5; that was a sore spot with the car.


The VW 2.0T and BMW 2.0T are excellent motors however. Ford's 2.0T is also good. I can't speak for he MB, never been in it.

All a sales weasel in a showroom needs to tell the luxury buyer is that the more cylinders and engine has, the smoother and more luxurious it will be.

A  six-cylinder engine has a new power stroke starting each 120° of crankshaft rotation and lasting 145°, i.e. a power overlap of 25°. An eight-cylinder engine has a power impulse starting every 90° and continues for 145°: an even better 55° overlap and extra creamy smoothness.

The four cylinder in the E-Class (& Versa/Corolla) unfortunately actually has a 35° gap between power impulses for the full 720° cycle (720 - (145 X 4)/4). That gap, that deficiency, plus the racket from the GDI, means disharmony.

The engineers will isolate it very well, with sophisticated engine mounts, shrouds, and cabin noise-cancellation, but while you're lying back in your reclining massage seat, you will always know deep down, that there is pain and anguish at the front of the car, and you will never be entirely at peace.


(Seriously I think a straight six is the best in terms of harmonic balance and smoothness. But there aren't too many of those around any more. Is BMW ditching theirs?)

Literally no one cares.

Quote from: Morris Minor on December 18, 2016, 03:50:53 PM
All a sales weasel in a showroom needs to tell the luxury buyer is that the more cylinders and engine has, the smoother and more luxurious it will be.

A  six-cylinder engine has a new power stroke starting each 120° of crankshaft rotation and lasting 145°, i.e. a power overlap of 25°. An eight-cylinder engine has a power impulse starting every 90° and continues for 145°: an even better 55° overlap and extra creamy smoothness.

The four cylinder in the E-Class (& Versa/Corolla) unfortunately actually has a 35° gap between power impulses for the full 720° cycle (720 - (145 X 4)/4). That gap, that deficiency, plus the racket from the GDI, means disharmony.

The engineers will isolate it very well, with sophisticated engine mounts, shrouds, and cabin noise-cancellation, but while you're lying back in your reclining massage seat, you will always know deep down, that there is pain and anguish at the front of the car, and you will never be entirely at peace.

It's more than just firing frequency and gaps between power pulses.  I4s have an inherent secondary momentum imbalance that makes them "buzzy".  Flat plane V8s have the same issue.  Other engine configurations don't have this.  Cross plane V8s, I6s, and V12s have very good natural balance and do not need extra balance shafts or isolators to cope with NVH.  V6s don't have the buzzy momentum imbalance of I4s, but do have a bit of a primary imbalance that benefits from a counterbalance shaft.

Quote(Seriously I think a straight six is the best in terms of harmonic balance and smoothness. But there aren't too many of those around any more. Is BMW ditching theirs?)

I don't see BMW abandoning theirs just yet.  Mercedes' is supposedly returning to the I6 with their new 6 cylinder, part of a modular inline engine family similar to BMW's.

Quote from: 2o6 on December 18, 2016, 09:54:21 AM
I think the E-class is 4cyl only until they get that new V6 Inline 6 out.

Fixed it.

Quote from: 93JC on December 18, 2016, 02:53:04 PM
If luxury car buyers gave a damn about merely "getting the job done" they'd all buy Toyota Corollas instead, because a Corolla will do everything a luxury car buyer will ever ask of their Audi, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, etc. with a lot less trouble going about it.

Whether luxury car buyers know how many cylinders their car's engine has or not is immaterial: they know enough to know eight is more than six and six is more than four and four-cylinders are mostly found under the hoods of cars for the hoi polloi ergo a luxury car with a four-cylinder is a 'lesser' car. That's all they need to know.

Wanting a luxury car <> wanting the absolute top of the top best of the best. By this logic why get an ES350 when you can get an S600 Maybach?

The "job" here isn't moving the car from point A to B.... it's about having the luxury of excess available performance, which any 14 second car on the street has. FFS, a 328iA is within a couple of tenths through the quarter behind an E46 M3. That's more than enough.

And as for the NVH, luxury cars are so isolated from their engines these days manufacturers have resorted to pumping fake engine noise into the cabin. You combine that with electronic + fluid filled engine mounts and an I4 can sound/feel like a V12. Engine balance is a factor but it's just one of many.

For me a 4 banger Bimmer is still wrong just on principle but the config definitely works on an objective level and in the context of its intended duty. I would still pony up for the 6 but for someone who doesn't care about engine harmonics or quarter mile times a 2.0T is a good choice.

A 4 cylinder BMW is just wrong....*the car that made the M performance brand was a 4 cylinder*  :hmm:

Quote from: Raza  on December 19, 2016, 07:22:03 AM
A 4 cylinder BMW is just wrong....*the car that made the M performance brand was a 4 cylinder*  :hmm:

You're both wrong ...

Quote from: MX793 on December 18, 2016, 06:37:13 AM
You further reinforce that European ideas on "high mileage" and "reliability" are very different from American.  100,000 kms on a 6-7 year old vehicle would not be considered remotely high mileage in America.  That works out to about the average miles driven annually.

100,000 km is little by American standards, but also think about how we attain that mileage here in Germany. We have the Autobahn here and we do drive fast. My dad loves speeding. Driving fast places enormous stress on the suspension and engine, even if it was built with sustained high speeds in mind. My parents are traveling across Europe with the E350 CGI, even Eastern Europe where the roads aren't that great and so forth. The car is holding up well - as any modern car should.

Also, we had an '85 Mercedes 300SE W126 which we kept until 2008. By the time we sold it to a classic car dealer it had a little over 200,000 km on it and throughout its stay with our family the only thing that ever failed was a loose screw on a generator in the engine compartment which made clanging noises. Fixed for free at the next Benz dealership.

The Mercedes R129 was a very complex car at the time of its launch in 1989. My dad has a 1989 (one of the first 500 cars made!) 500SL and that thing has been dead reliable. Currently has over 200,000 km. Is it high maintenance? Not really. Change the oil and wear and tear materials and you're good to go. The only thing which is really "high maintenance" is the roof folding mechanism. That has to be adjusted every 50,000 km or so, but for the most part this car has never missed a beat. By today's standards it might not come across as a complex car, but it is. There's a lot of technology in this car which was novel at the time. It still works.

All I'm saying is, I can't relate to these constant reliability horror stories of owning European cars which "everyone" seems to talk about.  :huh:

Quote from: MX793 on December 18, 2016, 06:37:13 AMEven if better than the last generation of I4s, it's still a rougher and less refined motor than their 6-cylinder offerings.  Mercedes is sold as a premium luxury brand in America.  I'd accept that 4-cylinders are acceptable in compact premium offerings.  I personally don't believe that a 4-cylinder is acceptable at any trim level in a premium/luxury midsize car like the E-class or 5-series, but the market disagrees with me.  That said, there should still be a smoother, 6-cylinder or greater option without having to turn to AMG in this class of car.

I get that a 4-cylinder "will never match" a 6/8/10/12-cylinder for smoothness, but even you have to admit that current 4-cylinder motors are pretty damn sweet.

Do you remember the days of when 4-cylinders were rough and agricultural and basically "unsuitable" for being used in luxury cars? I do. Those days are mostly over. The modern 4-cylinder engine has made great strides in NVH. And if you don't want a 4-cylinder engine in a luxury car then don't buy one. Be glad that some brands offer you a choice.  ;)

Part of what makes luxury, IMO, is giving consumers the CHOICE of what they want to drive. It's all about personalizing their cars. If a a consumer wants a generously equipped E-Class, but places more emphasis on fuel economy and accepts the refinement "drawback" of a 4-cylinder over a 6/8-cylinder, then that's that their choice.

I don't have a problem with a 4-cylinder in a luxury car. In fact I prefer it to a 6- or 8-cylinder because I care more about fuel economy and range. And for me the performance of a modern 4-cylinder engine is more than satisfactory, especially those offered in premium cars. If I could I'd love to have a current C-Class Wagon in 220d trim. For me that would be the ideal car based on my needs and expectations.  ;)

Quote from: 2o6 on December 18, 2016, 09:50:43 AM
IDK Man, I think you guys are off your fuckin rocker. I've driven a lot of cars at the BMW dealer, and I'd take the BMW 2.0T in the 528i over the old as hell 530/535i's I6. The 2.0T is more tractable, has about the same NVH, and mostly most customers don't fuckin notice. It's faster than the old car with better economy.

That's the point - only goes to show the farce of the luxury segment. Put BMW or M-B badging on a V6 Camcord and literally 80%+ luxury car buyers would never be able to tell.

The rash of 2.0T engines are sucky - sure, they get a car on down the road but compared to the 10-year-old V6 in an Accord or Camry, they're less powerful, rougher, sound crappier, won't last as long, and be murder on repair bills.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 18, 2016, 07:01:47 AM
Don't talk to us about reliability Mr 8 coil packs on a 4 banger engine

Germans love to say Americans don't know how to take care of our cars because we aren't willing to sink ungodly sums of $$$$ into unreliable turds. The only companies that are still having problems with shit like fuel pumps and injector coils are the Germans. They like to blame customers for their design shortcomings.

First, BMW didn't produce those ignition coils. They were made by a supplier company and when BMW issued their recall for these faulty ignition coils I received four new ones and even four new injectors free of charge - even though my car was out of warranty at the time.



Second, I still maintain that my BMW 1er is a reliable car. It started out a little unreliable due to the ignition coil issues (and the only ignition coils affected were always the last two way behind the front axle) but it's never missed a beat since. This is my daily driver. I used it almost every day. It starts up, it works, I can speed on the highway, it brings me to a job and back home and the next day it starts up again. Last week I finally made it past 100,000 km and I am looking forward to another 100,000 km with it.

Sure, the ignition coils were a major issue with the car. The only real major issue with it. Was it annoying? Yes, but to BMWs credit the car was fixed within a day. Last year I had a broken taillight which was fixed at the next BMW dealership for less than a Euro. Big deal... Everything else works fine and makes no impression of failing any time soon.

Think of it this way. There's an employee at your workplace who started out a little untrustworthy. They don't get stuff done on time and don't keep their promises. They're unreliable. But after you've had a talk with them they make an effort to do well and they improve upon themselves. They become reliable and earn your employee of the month title for the next few months/years. So cut them some slack the next time they screw up!  :lol:

No, seriously. I don't want to sound like a fanboy since I am not. Am I the biggest 1er fan? Not really. I would have gone for something else but remember that I inherited this car from my sister. I'm not gonna say no to that! And it's way more fun to drive than any current Corolla, which might be more reliable overall, but is dull to look at and dull to drive. Even though the driving experience isn't really top of my priorities list, you have to admit that switching from a RWD 1er to a FWD Corolla is a huge step down.




Third, go search the Internet and you will find other manufacturers who like to blame their customers for the problems their cars are experiencing. Here's one for you...

https://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/lexus.html

Seems like their famed customer treatment has been slipping.  :devil:

Quote from: Raza  on December 19, 2016, 07:22:03 AM
A 4 cylinder BMW is just wrong....*the car that made the M performance brand was a 4 cylinder*  :hmm:

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...  :lol:

(http://files3.porsche.com/filestore/image/multimedia/none/rd-2014-porscheclassic-models-356-356a1300-mo-teaser/preview/daf3cd02-7c63-11e4-bbba-001a64c55f5c/porsche-preview.jpg)

Quote from: cawimmer430 on December 19, 2016, 07:37:10 AM
100,000 km is little by American standards, but also think about how we attain that mileage here in Germany. We have the Autobahn here and we do drive fast. My dad loves speeding. Driving fast places enormous stress on the suspension and engine, even if it was built with sustained high speeds in mind. My parents are traveling across Europe with the E350 CGI, even Eastern Europe where the roads aren't that great and so forth. The car is holding up well - as any modern car should.

Also, we had an '85 Mercedes 300SE W126 which we kept until 2008. By the time we sold it to a classic car dealer it had a little over 200,000 km on it and throughout its stay with our family the only thing that ever failed was a loose screw on a generator in the engine compartment which made clanging noises. Fixed for free at the next Benz dealership.

The Mercedes R129 was a very complex car at the time of its launch in 1989. My dad has a 1989 (one of the first 500 cars made!) 500SL and that thing has been dead reliable. Currently has over 200,000 km. Is it high maintenance? Not really. Change the oil and wear and tear materials and you're good to go. The only thing which is really "high maintenance" is the roof folding mechanism. That has to be adjusted every 50,000 km or so, but for the most part this car has never missed a beat. By today's standards it might not come across as a complex car, but it is. There's a lot of technology in this car which was novel at the time. It still works.

All I'm saying is, I can't relate to these constant reliability horror stories of owning European cars which "everyone" seems to talk about.  :huh:

A car in the US with as few miles on it as yours, would be considered "low miles". 65K miles (100,000 kms) on a 2007 is nothing.

I just bought a Scion tC that needs repair with 146k = 234,000Kms; same year as your 1 series, but still considered fairly worth something despite it's miles.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 19, 2016, 05:38:01 AM
Wanting a luxury car <> wanting the absolute top of the top best of the best. By this logic why get an ES350 when you can get an S600 Maybach?

The "job" here isn't moving the car from point A to B.... it's about having the luxury of excess available performance, which any 14 second car on the street has. FFS, a 328iA is within a couple of tenths through the quarter behind an E46 M3. That's more than enough.

And as for the NVH, luxury cars are so isolated from their engines these days manufacturers have resorted to pumping fake engine noise into the cabin. You combine that with electronic + fluid filled engine mounts and an I4 can sound/feel like a V12. Engine balance is a factor but it's just one of many.

For me a 4 banger Bimmer is still wrong just on principle but the config definitely works on an objective level and in the context of its intended duty. I would still pony up for the 6 but for someone who doesn't care about engine harmonics or quarter mile times a 2.0T is a good choice.

Having driven these cars, most customers won't be able to tell the difference between the 4cyl or 6cyl, except the 6cyl is faster.


I think you guys are vastly overstating the differences in refinement for these cars.

Quote from: 2o6 on December 19, 2016, 08:04:41 AM
A car in the US with as few miles on it as yours, would be considered "low miles". 65K miles (100,000 kms) on a 2007 is nothing.

I just bought a Scion tC that needs repair with 146k = 234,000Kms; same year as your 1 series, but still considered fairly worth something despite it's miles.

Yeah, I realize it's nothing for Americans.

At the same time I could argue that my 100,000 km were attained with many high speed trips on the Autobahn. Believe me, speed is addicting and even though I mostly drive with fuel economy in mind, there will be times when I'm just pushing my car to the limit on a stretch of Autobahn with no speed limits. Contrary to popular belief the roads in Germany are in dire need of repair. Many sections of Autobahn aren't smooth and have imperfections in the road surface which you feel when you speed over them. High speed = stress and wear and tear on a car.  ;)

Anyway, I'm not trying to get into a mileage argument here. Clearly Americans and Europeans think differently about this. 100,000 km here is probably a benchmark from the '50s and '60s when most cars would fall apart at 50,000 km - if they even made it to that mileage.

Wimmer, hate to break it to you, but the vast, vast majority of parts on cars are made by suppliers.  No OEM is making their own ignition coils :lol:

If you think the Autobahn is in bad shape...wow.  It's perfection over there compared to what we have in the states.  Some areas are like a war zone.

I'm also on pace to break 100,000 km in about 3 years in the 4Runner.  I fully expect this thing to go 300,000+ km before I get rid of it.  That's typical for these.

Quote from: cawimmer430 on December 19, 2016, 07:58:30 AM
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...  :lol:

(http://files3.porsche.com/filestore/image/multimedia/none/rd-2014-porscheclassic-models-356-356a1300-mo-teaser/preview/daf3cd02-7c63-11e4-bbba-001a64c55f5c/porsche-preview.jpg)

Faster and slightly way better looking.

Quote from: cawimmer430 on December 19, 2016, 07:58:30 AM
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...  :lol:

(http://files3.porsche.com/filestore/image/multimedia/none/rd-2014-porscheclassic-models-356-356a1300-mo-teaser/preview/daf3cd02-7c63-11e4-bbba-001a64c55f5c/porsche-preview.jpg)

One of my favorite color combinations: blue over red interior.

Quote from: GoCougs on December 19, 2016, 07:54:32 AM
That's the point - only goes to show the farce of the luxury segment. Put BMW or M-B badging on a V6 Camcord and literally 80%+ luxury car buyers would never be able to tell.

The rash of 2.0T engines are sucky - sure, they get a car on down the road but compared to the 10-year-old V6 in an Accord or Camry, they're less powerful, rougher, sound crappier, won't last as long, and be murder on repair bills.

I should also add, imagine what these Japanese V6s would look like today if they hadn't stopped progress. We'd probably be looking at ~350 hp of rock-solid, buttery smooth N/A silkiness ze Germans could only dream of. Bit of a shame really.

Quote from: cawimmer430 on December 19, 2016, 07:58:30 AM
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...  :lol:

(http://files3.porsche.com/filestore/image/multimedia/none/rd-2014-porscheclassic-models-356-356a1300-mo-teaser/preview/daf3cd02-7c63-11e4-bbba-001a64c55f5c/porsche-preview.jpg)

My favourite Speedster...

(https://s24.postimg.org/u641icaf9/1956_porsche_356_4.jpg)

Ivory with red interior. Picture doesn't do it justice.

Quote from: Raza  on December 19, 2016, 07:22:03 AM
A 4 cylinder BMW is just wrong....*the car that made the M performance brand was a 4 cylinder*  :hmm:

1, no

2, that was the first and last 4 cylinder M car, which says something

3, H&H is irrelevant, but all other things equal 6 is always better than 4.

Quote from: GoCougs on December 19, 2016, 07:54:32 AM
That's the point - only goes to show the farce of the luxury segment. Put BMW or M-B badging on a V6 Camcord and literally 80%+ luxury car buyers would never be able to tell.

The rash of 2.0T engines are sucky - sure, they get a car on down the road but compared to the 10-year-old V6 in an Accord or Camry, they're less powerful, rougher, sound crappier, won't last as long, and be murder on repair bills.

Damn near nobody keeps a car for 10 years.... those considerations are irrelevant for the bulk of the market.

10 years in a Camry/Accord is a prison sentence.

Quote from: GoCougs on December 19, 2016, 09:14:54 AM
I should also add, imagine what these Japanese V6s would look like today if they hadn't stopped progress. We'd probably be looking at ~350 hp of rock-solid, buttery smooth N/A silkiness ze Germans could only dream of. Bit of a shame really.

Nissan would like to have a word with you. VQ37 can't hold a candle to any German blown 6 in many metrics (real world performance, fuel economy, NVH).... which is why they finally threw in the towel.

Plus ~80lb-ft/L is just about the limit for naturally aspirated engines on pump gas, even with direct injection. A 6 cylinder is not gonna get much bigger much bigger than ~4.0L, and it would be pretty rough at that size revving out to ~7K. For the intended goal (effortless performance), blown smaller displacement engines are just better.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 19, 2016, 11:14:58 AM
Damn near nobody keeps a car for 10 years.... those considerations are irrelevant for the bulk of the market.

10 years in a Camry/Accord is a prison sentence.

10-year-old design; ze Germans still can't match it, and it's hilarious.

lol 10 years in a Camcord is Shangrila compared to 10 years in an E Class or 5er.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 19, 2016, 11:14:58 AM
Damn near nobody keeps a car for 10 years.... those considerations are irrelevant for the bulk of the market.

10 years in a Camry/Accord is a prison sentence.

Even if you don't keep your Camcord ten years, it's still relevant.  Resale value is hugely impacted by long term reliability.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 19, 2016, 11:20:44 AM
Nissan would like to have a word with you. VQ37 can't hold a candle to any German blown 6 in many metrics (real world performance, fuel economy, NVH).... which is why they finally threw in the towel.

Plus ~80lb-ft/L is just about the limit for naturally aspirated engines on pump gas, even with direct injection. A 6 cylinder is not gonna get much bigger much bigger than ~4.0L, and it would be pretty rough at that size revving out to ~7K. For the intended goal (effortless performance), blown smaller displacement engines are just better.

Uh, the Germans had to go with F/I and a $20k+ upcharge (S4, C43, 340i) to beat the 10-year-old VQ37 - then or now. And really, the VQ37 was a base(ish) motor, so the competition is more the current spate of 2.0T motors (which of course isn't competition).

There is indeed a much higher limit for F/I performance, however, it comes at a cost - lag, sucky sound, decreased life, and big repair bills.

Quote from: MrH on December 19, 2016, 11:33:24 AM
Even if you don't keep your Camcord ten years, it's still relevant.  Resale value is hugely impacted by long term reliability.

Yes, relevant for the Camcord. In the luxury realm, it's different. For one many luxury brands lease the majority of their new cars, so residuals only matter through the end of lease/warranty, and leases are often subsidized by the manufacturer. For most 10 yr residuals don't matter.... this is why a 10 yr old IS350 goes for about the same as a Camry with the same engine despite costing ~50-70% more new. Buying a luxury car is a generally irrational exercise..... practical considerations matter but not to the degree they do in a mainstreamer.

Quote from: GoCougs on December 19, 2016, 11:48:54 AM
Uh, the Germans had to go with F/I and a $20k+ upcharge (S4, C43, 340i) to beat the 10-year-old VQ37 - then or now. And really, the VQ37 was a base(ish) motor, so the competition is more the current spate of 2.0T motors (which of course isn't competition).

There is indeed a much higher limit for F/I performance, however, it comes at a cost - lag, sucky sound, decreased life, and big repair bills.

Germans have always had a price premium over the Japanese.... this was the case back when the VQ35 mercilessly outgunned their 3.0-3.2Ls in ~03-06.

Plus again the VQ37 is no more, and when it was around it was just holding on. Its better longevity was great for out of warranty poseurs like me, but at the end of the day if the VQ37 were so great Nissan would not have replaced it with the very Germanic VR30DETT. You mention the 2.0Ts.... both the 328i and A4 2.0T are as fast as the VQ37 equipped Infinitis while netting 25-30% better gas mileage (with 2 extra driven wheels in the Audi's case). More torque/average HP right where you want it for the street too. I love a big high revving naturally aspirated engine as any red blooded meat eating human male should, but at the end of the day those clattery little 2.0Ts get the job done in ways big V6s cant at the expense of metrics that don't matter to at least half the poseur class market :huh:

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 19, 2016, 12:31:40 PM
Yes, relevant for the Camcord. In the luxury realm, it's different. For one many luxury brands lease the majority of their new cars, so residuals only matter through the end of lease/warranty, and leases are often subsidized by the manufacturer. For most 10 yr residuals don't matter.... this is why a 10 yr old IS350 goes for about the same as a Camry with the same engine despite costing ~50-70% more new. Buying a luxury car is a generally irrational exercise..... practical considerations matter but not to the degree they do in a mainstreamer.

What are you talking about?  IS350s and Camrys are not the same price at all.  2007 model year, Camry on the left, IS350s on the right.

(http://i.imgur.com/K7neb7H.jpg)

The VQ got a bit rough when it went to 3.7L. I had an Infiniti I30 in the early 2000s. Crap car (dead reliable though) but the 3.0L was a jewel, all glorious 227hp of it.

If I wanted a reasonably priced excellent luxury car I'd probably go with a loaded Accord V6. (I don't like the orthodontic brace front styling though.)

Quote from: MrH on December 19, 2016, 12:46:35 PM
What are you talking about?  IS350s and Camrys are not the same price at all.  2007 model year, Camry on the left, IS350s on the right.

(http://i.imgur.com/K7neb7H.jpg)

What site is that? I was going off KBB which was a lot closer. Real transactions are probably a better indicator though.

Quote from: Morris Minor on December 19, 2016, 12:48:42 PM
The VQ got a bit rough when it went to 3.7L. I had an Infiniti I30 in the early 2000s. Crap car (dead reliable though) but the 3.0L was a jewel, all glorious 227hp of it.

Yea, my 95 and 99 Maximas made the Z feel a bit agricultural. Z hauled the mail though.... made revving past 4K damn near excessive on the street rather than just optional.

Coming from decades of conditioning in deafeningly loud Hondas something like a Golf feels like an S-Class to me, so that's probably all I would need.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 19, 2016, 02:00:08 PM
What site is that? I was going off KBB which was a lot closer. Real transactions are probably a better indicator though.

Cargurus.com

The dots are actual listings.  Yeah, transaction prices are a better measure, but that's hard to get.  List prices should be a pretty good indicator.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 19, 2016, 12:31:40 PM
Plus again the VQ37 is no more, and when it was around it was just holding on. Its better longevity was great for out of warranty poseurs like me, but at the end of the day if the VQ37 were so great Nissan would not have replaced it with the very Germanic VR30DETT. You mention the 2.0Ts.... both the 328i and A4 2.0T are as fast as the VQ37 equipped Infinitis while netting 25-30% better gas mileage (with 2 extra driven wheels in the Audi's case). More torque/average HP right where you want it for the street too. I love a big high revving naturally aspirated engine as any red blooded meat eating human male should, but at the end of the day those clattery little 2.0Ts get the job done in ways big V6s cant at the expense of metrics that don't matter to at least half the poseur class market :huh:

Nissan is under the same pressure to cheat the MPG rating game too (and true to form, the Q50 Red Sport 400 is garnering plenty of complaints for well-below advertised MPG).

Jesus, we've been over this before. The G37 was almost a match for the 335i, and would catch it by about 120 mph. The crop of new trannies w/LC matters a lot, but still, from a roll, the G37 walks a new A4 or 328i.

The 10-year-old Camcord V6 is a superior motor in every single way vs. the new crop of "luxury" German 2.0Ts, and it probably (or should) keep ze Germans up at night.

Quote from: GoCougs on December 19, 2016, 02:20:16 PM
Nissan is under the same pressure to cheat the MPG rating game too (and true to form, the Q50 Red Sport 400 is garnering plenty of complaints for well-below advertised MPG).

Jesus, we've been over this before. The G37 was almost a match for the 335i, and would catch it by about 120 mph. The crop of new trannies w/LC matters a lot, but still, from a roll, the G37 walks a new A4 or 328i.

The 10-year-old Camcord V6 is a superior motor in every single way vs. the new crop of "luxury" German 2.0Ts, and it probably (or should) keep ze Germans up at night.

???

Germans aren't cheating. Their turbo cars do about what the EPA says they will (per Fuelly.com). VQ3x got abysmal gas mileage- ~20-22 combined compared with the mid 20s of the significantly more powerful German options (26 MPG in the 2.2 ton 740i per C&D LTT over 13K miles) and high 20s of the equally powerful (by performance metrics- ratings are irrelevant in 2016) 2.0Ts. "Would almost catch it to 120 mph" Good grief... this is "semi-retired" bad :lol: And completely irrelevant to street driving. German 2.0Ts burn less fuel to make more power so already they are better by 2 very important metrics (performance and efficiency).

And yea we have been over this before.... turbos are not the boogeyman you make them out to be (which is why you are shopping for turbocharged cars now ;) )

Jesus, and I though you'd changed.

Quote from: GoCougs on December 19, 2016, 03:02:20 PM
Jesus, and I though you'd changed.

Why would I stop BBCing your tomfoolery? It's my god given right. Talk is cheap... your shopping for turbo cars is all that needs to be said about the matter :praise:

As someone that just bought a turbocharged 2.0T car I have to say in general I agree with Gougs.  :lol:

If I could trade my engine for a thirsty, less powerful V6/I6/VR6 I would do it in a heartbeat.

Quote from: MrH on December 19, 2016, 02:19:09 PM
Cargurus.com

The dots are actual listings.  Yeah, transaction prices are a better measure, but that's hard to get.  List prices should be a pretty good indicator.

Maybe the difference is that the KBB check specifically showed a loaded V6 Camry whereas the listings skew toward 4-cylinder LEs.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 19, 2016, 11:13:31 AM
1, no

2, that was the first and last 4 cylinder M car, which says something

3, H&H is irrelevant, but all other things equal 6 is always better than 4.

1. Yes. There is no M brand without the E30 M3.
2. So?
3. Your hate of 4 cylinders is irrational.

Quote from: Raza  on December 20, 2016, 06:35:22 AM
1. Yes. There is no M brand without the E30 M3.
2. So?
3. Your hate of 4 cylinders is irrational.

Irrational = Immoral

Quote from: SJ_GTI on December 20, 2016, 06:22:46 AM
As someone that just bought a turbocharged 2.0T car I have to say in general I agree with Gougs.  :lol:

If I could trade my engine for a thirsty, less powerful V6/I6/VR6 I would do it in a heartbeat.

Unless your mileage has improved since your last report, my old V6 Mustang made more power and got better mileage and did so on 87 octane.

Quote from: Raza  on December 20, 2016, 06:35:22 AM
1. Yes. There is no M brand without the E30 M3.
2. So?
3. Your hate of 4 cylinders is irrational.

Actually, the first M car was the M1, which was I6 powered.  This was followed by the E28 M5, also I6 powered, and then the E30 M3.  There was also the E12 M535, E24 M635CSi, and E28 M535 thrown in between the M1 and M5, if you want to include those as M cars.

Quote from: ifcar on December 20, 2016, 06:31:39 AM
Maybe the difference is that the KBB check specifically showed a loaded V6 Camry whereas the listings skew toward 4-cylinder LEs.

I filtered on V6 Camrys.

Quote from: Raza  on December 20, 2016, 06:35:22 AM
1. Yes. There is no M brand without the E30 M3.
2. So?
3. Your hate of 4 cylinders is irrational.

1. MX793 explained. ///M was well underway before the E30.
2. So clearly BMW agrees.
3. There's no hate. Would you buy a 4 cylinder car if a 6 cylinder option were available? Don't lie to me Anna Mae :nono:

Quote from: MX793 on December 20, 2016, 06:42:11 AM
Unless your mileage has improved since your last report, my old V6 Mustang made more power and got better mileage and did so on 87 octane.

I seem to be getting ~22mpg pretty consistently now. Keep in mind my commute is 5-6 miles (depending on which route I take), so the car is barely warmed up by the time I get to work.

Quote from: SJ_GTI on December 20, 2016, 07:27:42 AM
I seem to be getting ~22mpg pretty consistently now. Keep in mind my commute is 5-6 miles (depending on which route I take), so the car is barely warmed up by the time I get to work.

Same as my commute.  I got roughly the same mileage just commuting, a bit higher if I did any highway driving.  The car would get 33-35 on the interstate.  Also, more power and didn't require premium, which alone is a decent savings in fuel cost.

Quote from: MX793 on December 20, 2016, 07:33:58 AM
Same as my commute.  I got roughly the same mileage just commuting, a bit higher if I did any highway driving.  The car would get 33-35 on the interstate.  Also, more power and didn't require premium, which alone is a decent savings in fuel cost.

Interesting. When I had my GTI (200 HP) I don't think I got that much better mileage than I am getting with this engine around town. It did get ~30 MPG on the highway, but I haven't really had an opportunity to get much highway driving with this car (I mean I have driven it on the highway, but not enough during a single tank to get a feel for its mileage implications). So maybe Gougs is right about turbo engines in general.

Quote from: MX793 on December 20, 2016, 06:49:49 AM
Actually, the first M car was the M1, which was I6 powered.  This was followed by the E28 M5, also I6 powered, and then the E30 M3.  There was also the E12 M535, E24 M635CSi, and E28 M535 thrown in between the M1 and M5, if you want to include those as M cars.

:nono:

Yeah, of course the M1 was the first M car.  But I didn't say first.  I said the E30 M3 was the most important. 

Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on December 20, 2016, 06:41:14 AM
Irrational = Immoral

Fiat currency!  :erjerbs:

Am I doing this right?

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 20, 2016, 07:21:04 AM
1. MX793 explained. ///M was well underway before the E30.
2. So clearly BMW agrees.
3. There's no hate. Would you buy a 4 cylinder car if a 6 cylinder option were available? Don't lie to me Anna Mae :nono:

1. No.  Read my response to MX.
2. We'll see if that continues to be true.
3. Show me similar performing I4 and I6/V6 models at the same price (and don't trot out the overused and irrelevant used v. new argument) and we'll talk.  To say that "4 cylinders in a BMW is wrong" is not the same as "I prefer 6 cylinder engines to 4 cylinder engines."

Quote from: Raza  on December 20, 2016, 08:02:39 AM
:nono:

Yeah, of course the M1 was the first M car.  But I didn't say first.  I said the E30 M3 was the most important. 

The earlier M635CSi was pretty significant, with numerous touring car titles before the M3 took up the mantle.

Quote from: SJ_GTI on December 20, 2016, 06:22:46 AM
As someone that just bought a turbocharged 2.0T car I have to say in general I agree with Gougs.  :lol:

If I could trade my engine for a thirsty, less powerful V6/I6/VR6 I would do it in a heartbeat.

Imagine a ~300 hp 7,500 rpm N/A 2.5L V6 in a modern Golf R. Yowza!

Thing is, such an engine is much more expensive than a 2.0T. Plus, the 2.0T (esp. packaging) scales much better, ergo VWAG uses a variation of that in all iterations of the MQB (and beyond).

Quote from: SJ_GTI on December 20, 2016, 07:27:42 AM
I seem to be getting ~22mpg pretty consistently now. Keep in mind my commute is 5-6 miles (depending on which route I take), so the car is barely warmed up by the time I get to work.

There's no real comparison IMO - the Golf R is of course AWD.

Quote from: SJ_GTI on December 20, 2016, 07:27:42 AM
I seem to be getting ~22mpg pretty consistently now. Keep in mind my commute is 5-6 miles (depending on which route I take), so the car is barely warmed up by the time I get to work.

I don't know if the 2.0T in a Golf R is particularly configured for efficiency, but the 2.0TT in the Discovery Sport seems to do much better per mpg even hauling around an extra 700 lbs; plus a couple of hefty old people.  The best I've gotten so far, according to the info screen is 8L/100km (or 29.4 mpg); which is a good bit better than the specified mpg.

The advantage of a TT engine, as stated many times, is that it is possible to get excellent efficiency when desired as well as a good bit more power, when needed,  than an equivalent size NA engine; but you really can't get both efficiency and power at the same time.  If you don't care about efficiency, of course it's more desirable to get a NA of double the displacement or get a supercharged engine.  The 3.0L Jaguar engine would be lovely.

Quote from: GoCougs on December 20, 2016, 08:25:10 AM
There's no real comparison IMO - the Golf R is of course AWD.

The Mustang is ~300 lbs heavier.

Quote from: MX793 on December 20, 2016, 08:20:03 AM
The earlier M635CSi was pretty significant, with numerous touring car titles before the M3 took up the mantle.

As significant as the M3?

The reasons why turbo motors fail to deliver on mpg promises:

1.) Compression ratio - turbo engines generally run at lower CRs in order to not have problems when on boost (and CR is a theoretical decider of efficiency). The problem with this tactic is when not on boost the engine is less efficient than its N/A counterpart.

2.) Engine management - turbo motors have to be careful about detonation because of very high cylinder pressures, and that is done with anything from enriching A/F mixture to retarding timing at various times (or, at least more so than N/A motors).

3.) Driving style - if one is used to N/A throttle response, turbo lag will compel one to be a bit rough on the gas pedal, and jack rabbit behavior hurts mpg.

This is one of the more frustrating CarSpin discourses

Quote from: GoCougs on December 20, 2016, 09:10:45 AM
The reasons why turbo motors fail to deliver on mpg promises:

1.) Compression ratio - turbo engines generally run at lower CRs in order to not have problems when on boost (and CR is a theoretical decider of efficiency). The problem with this tactic is when not on boost the engine is less efficient than its N/A counterpart.

2.) Engine management - turbo motors have to be careful about detonation because of very high cylinder pressures, and that is done with anything from enriching A/F mixture to retarding timing at various times (or, at least more so than N/A motors).

3.) Driving style - if one is used to N/A throttle response, turbo lag will compel one to be a bit rough on the gas pedal, and jack rabbit behavior hurts mpg.

Not to be disrespectful, but you seem to be stuck in the '90s with respect to engine technology.  The new TT (twin scroll) (http://www.popsci.com/content/two-one-turbocharger) engines have a compression ratio of around 10:1 and all but eliminate turbo lag.

As for 'driving style' there is, literally, no difference in driving a TT engine than a NA engine.  Boost is available at around 17-1800 rpm and  the engine becomes quite 'torquey' around 2500 rpm.  Engine management, when not pushing it, keeps the revs at around 15-1700 rpm; in a very efficient range.

Quote from: FoMoJo on December 20, 2016, 10:32:32 AM
Not to be disrespectful, but you seem to be stuck in the '90s with respect to engine technology.  The new TT (twin scroll) (http://www.popsci.com/content/two-one-turbocharger) engines have a compression ratio of around 10:1 and all but eliminate turbo lag.

As for 'driving style' there is, literally, no difference in driving a TT engine than a NA engine.  Boost is available at around 17-1800 rpm and  the engine becomes quite 'torquey' around 2500 rpm.  Engine management, when not pushing it, keeps the revs at around 15-1700 rpm; in a very efficient range.

Engine "technology" (knowledge) is the same today as it was in the '90s.

Most any N/A engine these days has a notably higher compression ratio, from the pooprod LT1 (11.5:1) to the Lexus hybrid 3.5L (13:1). So you bet, 10:1 is relatively low, and a cornerstone of why turbos chronically under perform their mpg ratings (and N/A counterparts).

ALL turbo engines have lag. It doesn't come from their necessary lower compression ratio but simply from the operation of a turbo - the expansion and momentum of exhaust gases drives the turbo which then in turn compresses the intake charge. Exhaust and atmo air is very compressible and thus has delay to changes in steady state state (i.e., application of throttle). The upcoming method to reduce/eliminate lag is through the use of an additional small part-time electric supercharger (such as will be employed in Audis in MY2018) to precharge the intake during application of throttle.

So how are they getting 12+ C/R on pump gas? Are they less aggressive with the timing or does direct injection help?

Quote from: CaminoRacer on December 20, 2016, 11:01:29 AM
So how are they getting 12+ C/R on pump gas? Are they less aggressive with the timing or does direct injection help?

Direct injection.  With port injection, I think the best you can get on pump gas is 11:1 or so.

Quote from: CaminoRacer on December 20, 2016, 11:01:29 AM
So how are they getting 12+ C/R on pump gas? Are they less aggressive with the timing or does direct injection help?

Less aggressive timing has sorta the same effect as a lower CR, plus get even a bit off the ideal for any length of time and there will be power and emissions problems. And yes, part of it is indeed direct injection.

Another prominent path is continued advancement in combustion chamber and piston design. When an engine has detonation problems (i.e., the danger of high(er) CRs) it has a lot to do with hot spots in the combustion chamber or on the piston, so automakers spend ever more time on combustion chamber and piston design to mitigate these hot spots.

Another tactic has been smaller diameter pistons (= smaller combustion chambers - the smaller the chamber and piston the easier it is to keep control over the combustion process) and why (or at least one reason why) lots of automakers have moved to perfectly or over square (stroke is equal to or greater than bore) engine configurations.

I was/have been predicting materials was the next big avenue of engine advancement - get CRs even higher and keep heat in the combustion chamber. AL heads went a long way in reducing hot spots since AL conducts heat far better than cast iron. Heads have been stuck using AL for quite some time now. Ceramic? AL/Cu alloy? I'm not much of a materials person but the core of increasing IC engine efficiency is increasing CR and using more heat, and just seems like there is some low hanging fruit here.

Quote from: GoCougs on December 20, 2016, 09:10:45 AM
The reasons why turbo motors fail to deliver on mpg promises:

1.) Compression ratio - turbo engines generally run at lower CRs in order to not have problems when on boost (and CR is a theoretical decider of efficiency). The problem with this tactic is when not on boost the engine is less efficient than its N/A counterpart.

2.) Engine management - turbo motors have to be careful about detonation because of very high cylinder pressures, and that is done with anything from enriching A/F mixture to retarding timing at various times (or, at least more so than N/A motors).

3.) Driving style - if one is used to N/A throttle response, turbo lag will compel one to be a bit rough on the gas pedal, and jack rabbit behavior hurts mpg.

1. VQ37 is only 0.8 point higher than N54/55 and other DI turbo engines

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.

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.

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.

I got good mileage outta my 2.0T with AWD.  I very rarely had a tank of gas where I got less than 25mpg.  Most tanks were around 27.  30+ on the highway. :huh:

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.

Quote from: Tave on December 20, 2016, 12:25:28 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 20, 2016, 11:44:44 AM
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.

Quote3. 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/ (http://blog.caranddriver.com/turbo-vs-non-turbo-putting-throttle-response-to-the-test/)

QuoteAnd 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.

^ 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.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 20, 2016, 11:44:44 AM
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.

Quote from: MX793 on December 20, 2016, 03:12:55 PM

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.

Quote
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.

Quote from: cawimmer430 on December 19, 2016, 07:58:30 AM
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...  :lol:

(http://files3.porsche.com/filestore/image/multimedia/none/rd-2014-porscheclassic-models-356-356a1300-mo-teaser/preview/daf3cd02-7c63-11e4-bbba-001a64c55f5c/porsche-preview.jpg)

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.

Quote from: FoMoJo on December 21, 2016, 07:30:31 AM
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.

Quote from: MX793 on December 21, 2016, 11:14:50 AM
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.

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.

(http://st.automobilemag.com/uploads/sites/11/2012/02/BMW-N20-Dyno-test-chart.jpg)

(http://cdn.bmwblog.com/wp-content/uploads/BMW-335i-335is-dyno-test-N54-vs-N55-torque.jpg)

(http://www.bimmerboost.com/images/imported/2014/09/DYyOkl4-1.png)

Granted these are not transient tests but they are delivering.

Quote from: FoMoJo on December 21, 2016, 01:03:40 PM
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?

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 21, 2016, 01:15:50 PM
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.

(http://st.automobilemag.com/uploads/sites/11/2012/02/BMW-N20-Dyno-test-chart.jpg)

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.

Quote(http://cdn.bmwblog.com/wp-content/uploads/BMW-335i-335is-dyno-test-N54-vs-N55-torque.jpg)

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.

Quote(http://www.bimmerboost.com/images/imported/2014/09/DYyOkl4-1.png)

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.

Quote from: MX793 on December 21, 2016, 02:09:41 PM
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.

Quote from: FoMoJo on December 21, 2016, 03:49:06 PM
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.

Quote from: MX793 on December 21, 2016, 03:59:30 PM
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.

Quote from: FoMoJo on December 21, 2016, 04:11:38 PM
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.

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.

Quote from: FoMoJo on December 21, 2016, 01:03:40 PM
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.

Yeah, I'm all about that NA life.

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.

Quote from: MrH on December 21, 2016, 05:32:14 PM
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).

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 21, 2016, 07:13:59 PM
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.

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.

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.

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

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.

That means you don't have enough power ;)

Quote from: MX793 on December 21, 2016, 07:53:23 PM
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

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.

Quote from: 12,000 RPM on December 22, 2016, 06:51:01 AM
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

Stop and go traffic on a hot day induces as much or more heat soak than a 45 second auto-x run.  That's why the TC guys also don't idle their cars, unless they aren't up to temp, in the staging grid when waiting for their runs, even their first run.

Simply dialing up more boost pressure introduces a number of issues.  For starters, higher stress and strain on most of the key parts of the engine.  And the more you compress air, the more heat you introduce into it.  Heat adds more wear and tear as it causes oil to break down more quickly, and ultimately there's only so much that the car's cooling system can take before your radiator does its best impression of Old Faithful.  Also increase detonation risk, which results in the motor pulling spark timing, and therefore power, anyway.  Even DI engines do this.

And I'm not sure if you really understand how boost is controlled in a turbocharged car.  The vast majority of turbochargers on the market utilize only a wastegate to manage boost pressure.  These systems are designed such that the wastegate is closed over a good portion of the engine RPM range, meaning you have zero boost control over that RPM range.  At higher RPMs, when the wastegate normally does start to open to prevent excessive compressor speeds and over-boost, a control system could conceivably open it less or later to get some more boost pressure.  But the fact remains that these setups cannot just dial up more boost wherever and whenever they want.  Variable vane setups have more control, but those are very rare in gasoline engines because they don't hold up well to the high temperatures and therefore suffer reduced reliability, Dialing up more boost, and heat, to try to overcome air density lost to heat is not going to do them any favors.

TL;DR - TC engine output will wax and wane with outside air temperature changes the same as an NA engine will, but the TC motor is more prone to self-induced heat-related power loss.

Quote from: CaminoRacer on December 22, 2016, 05:49:25 AM
That means you don't have enough power ;)

More than most (and likely you ;)), particularly that carb'd engines, since they lose even more power with such altitude changes.

Ha! Nah I got you beat by almost 70.

Not that I have enough power either. What's that quote again? If you can leave two strips of rubber between each corner, you have just enough power.

Quote from: CaminoRacer on December 22, 2016, 10:39:09 AM
Ha! Nah I got you beat by almost 70.

Not that I have enough power either. What's that quote again? If you can leave two strips of rubber between each corner, you have just enough power.

475-500 hp? I'm gonna say no, if I'm remembering your stats correctly, I was seeing like 300-350 gross, which puts you at up 50-100 hp down (and even if I'm not, such a thing is very rare, and without EFI and roller cam, not really even streetable).

Quote from: GoCougs on December 22, 2016, 10:47:30 AM
475-500 hp? I'm gonna say not a chance, if I'm remembering your stats correctly, I was seeing like 300-350 gross, which puts you at up 50-100 hp down (and even if I'm not, such a thing is very rare, and without EFI and roller cam, not really even streetable).

When did you get a 400+ hp car?

Yeah I'm going off a 328 HP G37

Canali sportcoat is good for about 70-90 HP usually

Quote from: MX793 on December 22, 2016, 10:48:41 AM
When did you get a 400+ hp car?

February 2012. 328 hp net = ~410 hp gross. IIRC Alex is more like at 300-350 hp gross (which is typical), not 480 hp gross.

I've since upgraded to an engine with roller cam, 10.5:1 compression, etc. ~400 hp

So, still not more ;).

That's an estimate of net. The difference gross vs. net on my engine is also probably minimal, considering I'm running headers, a free-flowing air cleaner, electric fans, and the only accessories are an alternator and PS pump (which takes practically no power to spin if you aren't turning)

What are all your specs?

5.8L, 8 cylinders, OHV, black paint, synthetic oil, new single piece rear seal, dipstick on the passenger side, cool red paint in the lifter valley for better oil flow, dual valve springs, 180F thermostat, ARP stainless steel header bolts (only on the driver's side - regular black coated bolts on the passenger side), half quart oil filter (yeah I know, need to get a larger one. Next time)

Anything else you wanna know, just tell me!

To get ~450 gross hp from a 350 SBC you need some fairly serious hardware, let alone a 10.5:1 CR. What are all the specs?

I'm not gonna bother digging out the cam grind sheet so I can measure my dick in an E-class thread. :huh:

What is the basis for such a precise estimate in power?

If you couldn't tell from two posts up when I first diverted the conversation to silliness, I'm uninterested in measuring dicks on the internet. It's a rough estimate that it's putting out ~400 at the crank with everything hooked up. But I'm not going to dig out every single receipt to remember every single spec from an engine built >6 years ago to prove to a random internet dude that my V8 makes more than his V6. Because even that wouldn't really be proof, the only real proof would be a dyno test. But then you would complain about chassis dynos being useless, so I'd have to take the engine out of the car to get a measurement at the crankshaft. No thanks ;)