[E90Fleet]

Some words on the DI Engine

Introducing direct gasoline injection, BMW is taking yet another major step in enhancing the efficiency of its straight-six power unit. Retaining all the features and characteristics so typical of this engine, High Precision Fuel Injection is becoming a new highlight on the six-cylinder. One of the special achievements in engineering is that the new piezo-injectors have been fully integrated without requiring any compromises in the design and configuration of the cylinder head and pistons. The engine thus maintains its original character based on free-revving performance and outstanding running smoothness, despite the optimisation of all-round efficiency.
With maximum output of 200 kW/272 hp and peak torque of 315 Newton-metres or 232 lb-ft, this is also the most powerful version so far of
BMW’s 3.0-litre six-cylinder normal-aspiration engine. And on the road, this means two advantages in one: a further increase in engine dynamics and
a new dimension in all-round economy.


Clean and intelligent: NOx storage catalysts.
BMW’s new straight-six power unit with High Precision Fuel Injection is being launched initially in the European markets. Then, with sulphur-free fuel becoming increasingly available also elsewhere as the prerequisite for the NOx storage catalyst technology featured in the engine, the new power unit will make its entry step-by-step into other markets.
Yet a further advantage is that European customers will also be able to use their car in countries where sulphur-free fuel is not yet available everywhere. While in such cases the engine will not be able to offer its particular fuel
economy in full, since in that case the storage catalyst will require regeneration more often than when running on fuel free of sulphur, there are no objections to running the engine also on fuel containing sulphur, when a European customer travels abroad.

[stressdoc]

Any thoughts about the different hp/torque specs on euro vs. USA versions of the 335?
Euro: 306hp, 295lb-ft
USA: 300hp, 300lb-ft

smoke and mirrors, or some real tuning difference?

And do we have any fuel efficiency data on the N53 yet? They keep claiming it is better, but where are the figures?

Note also that the N54 is 57 lbs heavier than the N52. It might be lighter than a V8, but it is a lot heavier than the magnesium/alu composite engine. The N52 actually has the best power/weight ratio of all three engines.

[E90Fleet]

Originally Posted by stressdoc

Any thoughts about the different hp/torque specs on euro vs. USA versions of the 335?
Euro: 306hp, 295lb-ft
USA: 300hp, 300lb-ft

smoke and mirrors, or some real tuning difference?

And do we have any fuel efficiency data on the N53 yet? They keep claiming it is better, but where are the figures?

They are always differnt on paper, because they use different measuring values and techniques.

In laymans terms "USA Horses are bigger "

[E90Fleet]

Originally Posted by stressdoc

And do we have any fuel efficiency data on the N53 yet? They keep claiming it is better, but where are the figures?

Note also that the N54 is 57 lbs heavier than the N52. It might be lighter than a V8, but it is a lot heavier than the magnesium/alu composite engine. The N52 actually has the best power/weight ratio of all three engines.

No, they have not released those figures for the E92 yet.

Unfortunately the N52/N53 manesium/aluminium block cannot take the forces of the turbo

[E90Fleet]

Originally Posted by stressdoc

And do we have any fuel efficiency data on the N53 yet? They keep claiming it is better, but where are the figures?

.

Press release says it will be 10 Percent better on combines city and highway driving compared to N52.

But it looks like the USA wont get DI for now

[stressdoc]

I have heard that next spring/summer might be a possible release date for the N53 in the USA, but that such plans were especially vague given their dependence upon the fuel availability. That would facilitate a move to a 325 N51, 330 N53, 335 N54 (perhaps upgraded) lineup for 2008.

[visor]

Originally Posted by MIKEYMIKE

So what does this mean? The 2007 E90 330i is going to have more power than the current '06 model?

If this is true, is there going to be a price increase that's signicificantly greater?

Wow, there is an increase of 10 hp and 10 lb-ft in the N52 engine! Wonder how BMW managed to massage more power out of the engine...

Man, it really sucks to be an early adopter!

[stressdoc]

Does not look like we're getting the N53 anytime soon in the USA, so no regrets for you early, lucky E90 owners.

[RPM90]

Originally Posted by Garissimo

Even though the turbo engine's torque tails off after 5000rpm, it's still making more torque than the NA engine does all the way past 6500rpm.

Yes, that is true.
I was just pointing out that the NA engine has a "longer" rev band and revs higher. That is a more desireable trait in racing as some feel it has gearing advantages.

That new TT engine looks like a sweet piece albeit a low revving engine more like a diesel. Odd, but cool.

[E90Fleet]

Originally Posted by visor

Wow, there is an increase of 10 hp and 10 lb-ft in the N52 engine! Wonder how BMW managed to massage more power out of the engine...

Man, it really sucks to be an early adopter!

The new DI is only for europe for the moment, untilll more countries get the lower sulphure fuel

[hector]

Originally Posted by RPM90

That new TT engine looks like a sweet piece albeit a low revving engine more like a diesel. Odd, but cool.

granted the torque comes on early bit there's way more top-end than even the relatively high-revving bmw diesels have( it's still making 100hp/ltr compared to 75 or so for the diesels).

[RPM90]

Originally Posted by hector

granted the torque comes on early bit there's way more top-end than even the relatively high-revving bmw diesels have( it's still making 100hp/ltr compared to 75 or so for the diesels).

Can't dispute that.
It's interesting that the redline is still listed as 7000rpm, but power drops WAY down after 5800.
Gearing will be quite interesting in this thing.

BTW, that "torque curve" listed in the picts looks more like a marketing torque curve. I've never seen a curve that flat, it's truly "table top" flat.
It almost looks like something is holding it back.
Either there is a bit more there or they've pushed the turbo's to the limit. Given the small size fo the turbo's they are using, chipping may not net much without some turbo replacements.
And, if one goes that way that power band will probably move up the rev band. The prospects of a 3.0 liter twin turbo are really cool.
Remember the TT Supra's and Mit's VR4? BIG power could be made with some work.

BTW, what is the compression ratio in this new TT engine?
And, what is max boost pressure rated at?
I think I missed it in the chart.

[Jason]

Originally Posted by RPM90

BTW, what is the compression ratio in this new TT engine?
And, what is max boost pressure rated at?
I think I missed it in the chart.

This chart is from the E92 Master List Thread . It shows compression of 10.2 on the turbo engine.

[hector]

[QUOTE=RPM90]

BTW, what is the compression ratio in this new TT engine?


10.2/1

[stressdoc]

IMO there is little doubt but that the engine management is very conservative, limiting power to avoid reliability issues and perhaps enhance fuel efficiency. The CR is 10.2. Boost is low and steady, 1.6 (about 3.5 in US lingo).

[hector]

Originally Posted by stressdoc

IMO there is little doubt but that the engine management is very conservative, limiting power to avoid reliability issues and perhaps enhance fuel efficiency. The CR is 10.2. Boost is low and steady, 1.6 (about 3.5 in US lingo).

only 3.5psi! i'd say that's good news: lag should be virtually non-detectible and the overall stress on the engine likewise should be minimal.

[RPM90]

Originally Posted by stressdoc

IMO there is little doubt but that the engine management is very conservative, limiting power to avoid reliability issues and perhaps enhance fuel efficiency. The CR is 10.2. Boost is low and steady, 1.6 (about 3.5 in US lingo).

3.5 psi? Are you sure?

These are low pressure turbo's and 3.5 psi would be VERY low pressure. However consider that they are extremely small in the world of turbo's.
Fuel efficiency of this engine is good for the power output, but not in terms of mass sales on a bread and butter car. The MPG is lower than the E90 3.0 engine.

The CR is very conservative also for a small lower pressure turbo, if those numbers are correct. The new Audi DI 2.0T turbo is running over 12psi of boost and compressions is at least 10:1 and more.
Limiting power boost in the BMW 3.0 is probably more to do with the small turbos to spool faster/sooner- less lag, more so than being conservative in tuning. Those stock turbo's don't appear to have much in reserve for future modders. There may be a bit more, but it seems the turbo's will need replacement for serious modders.
For average Joe's, why bother changing the stock power?
It looks pretty amazing as is.

[stressdoc]

I am not sure about the stats on boost. I am straining my memory, I think from Klaus Borkmann's speech.

1.6 bar = 23 psi

But that is not feasible and not what I remember as the boost level on the N54.

Edit: maybe the 1.6 bar stat listed in the spec sheet is a typo, .6 bar would be 8.7 psi, which makes more sense as the absolute max. boost stat.

[RichReg]

Originally Posted by visor

Wow, there is an increase of 10 hp and 10 lb-ft in the N52 engine! Wonder how BMW managed to massage more power out of the engine...

Man, it really sucks to be an early adopter!

Yeah, all of us really should have waited 18 months for a whopping 3 and half percent increase in hp. Really sucks to be driving such an underpowered car for all of that time.

The turbo engine on the other hand, well....
we'll just have to wait and see what that co$t$.

[cobradac]

Originally Posted by stressdoc

Any thoughts about the different hp/torque specs on euro vs. USA versions of the 335?
Euro: 306hp, 295lb-ft
USA: 300hp, 300lb-ft

smoke and mirrors, or some real tuning difference?

And do we have any fuel efficiency data on the N53 yet? They keep claiming it is better, but where are the figures?

Note also that the N54 is 57 lbs heavier than the N52. It might be lighter than a V8, but it is a lot heavier than the magnesium/alu composite engine. The N52 actually has the best power/weight ratio of all three engines.

My handy dandy converters get from 225kw the following horsepower measurements.
Metric (PS) = 305.9
US (SAE) = 301.73

SAE TSB 003 dated 1999 where HP to Kw = multiply by 0.7456999

and my torque conversion obtains from 400Nm the following
295.0248 ft-lb with no European/USA distinction.
I use the official formula from SAE TSB 003, dated 1999, where ft-lb to Nm for engines = 1: 1.355818.

You can find several unit converters that get u close to these numbers but not exactly probably due to rounding.

[cobradac]

Originally Posted by stressdoc

I am not sure about the stats on boost. I am straining my memory, I think from Klaus Borkmann's speech.

1.6 bar = 23 psi

But that is not feasible and not what I remember as the boost level on the N54.

Edit: maybe the 1.6 bar stat listed in the spec sheet is a typo, .6 bar would be 8.7 psi, which makes more sense as the absolute max. boost stat.

I agree with your calcs and was about to point out the same result. I was getting 23.2 psi

I believe we need another source or two on the boost figure.

[Garissimo]

Originally Posted by cobradac

I agree with your calcs and was about to point out the same result. I was getting 23.2 psi

I believe we need another source or two on the boost figure.

23psi is crazy high boost! That can't be right. That's more than the Mitsu Evo's turbo cranks, out and that thing is turned up pretty high from the factory.

Also, has anyone seen the size/location of the intercooler on the 335i?