[southlight]

Specs for redline and boost pressure have been added to the first post.


Best regards,
south

[just4kickz]

when will this engine debut?

[Jason]

Originally Posted by just4kickz

when will this engine debut?

See this schedule of the 4-cylinder switchover - http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=478254

Seems September of this year will be the earliest we'll see this motor used.

[Kayani_1]

I am liking this new engine

More power & torque with a smaller, less heavier engine and a lot better fuel economy. It is a win-win situation in todays demanding NA. market that is power hungry yet want fuel efficiency to be high. So now they got it. Eat your cake and have it too.

Only down side is that the engine is not a high rever other then that it looks great on all fronts. I think overall this will allow a car with overall superior driving dynamics compared to an equal model equipped with N52 NA. engine. The less mass in engine bay and over the front wheels is always a plus. Also, any one that has driven the N54 engine knows its not a high rever but its still hell of fun engine in my book.

[JIM E92]

Personally the tradeoffs are not worth it for me. Sure, it's efficient, powerful, compact. So was my 1.8t back in 2001. I had an APR chipped 1.8t and it was an interesting little undersquare torque machine. The torque gave it character, but it was no fun to rev-up. The power was available almost off idle, in fact the chipped 1.8t had more torque than N52, it was available almost through the entire rev range. It was just nowhere nearly as satisfying as smoothly accelerating to redline in the N52. The N52 is a gem of an engine esp. in 330i form with the dual stage induction. No four cylinder can deliver power as smoothly and as acoustically satisfying as an inline-6. I would be willing to bet that the 3 Series does not make it to Car and Drivers 10 Best list for the 20th time in a row, and they will list one of the reason due to the turbo 4.

[JIM E92]

Originally Posted by Kayani_1

I am liking this new engine

More power & torque with a smaller, less heavier engine and a lot better fuel economy. It is a win-win situation in todays demanding NA. market that is power hungry yet want fuel efficiency to be high. So now they got it. Eat your cake and have it too.

Only down side is that the engine is not a high rever other then that it looks great on all fronts. I think overall this will allow a car with overall superior driving dynamics compared to an equal model equipped with N52 NA. engine. The less mass in engine bay and over the front wheels is always a plus. Also, any one that has driven the N54 engine knows its not a high rever but its still hell of fun engine in my book.

Not sure if its really going to be that much less mass in the engine compartment. The N52 is one of the lightest production engines of it's size due to the magnesium block and aluminum sleeves. For comparison the modern VW 2.0T FSI weighs 337lbs dry and the N52 weighs 354lbs dry. The N52 is not even 20lbs more than the 2.0t. That's not even counting the weight of the intercooler, supports for the intercooler, hoses, etc.

[just4kickz]

Originally Posted by Jason

See this schedule of the 4-cylinder switchover - http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=478254

Seems September of this year will be the earliest we'll see this motor used.

any info on pricing structure?

[maswastage]

Originally Posted by JB135MDCT

I average 24-25 Mpg in the 135, your spline may be a bit off.

In EU , BMW offers a 60mpg car.

Sure you may average 24mpg in your 135, but how much of that is highway driving? I used to average 35 when my commute was 75% highway, but that's hardly a fair representation of "combined" mpg.

The math may be a bit off because the number I used for comparison, the 27 mpg combined figure for the US 335d, is demonstrably low. In 50-50 mixed driving it's actually closer to 30-31 mpg. Even using 31 in the proportion, the estimated efficiency for the 4 cylinder is 25.7. Not exactly ground breaking.

[JoosyJoos]

Originally Posted by maswastage

Sure you may average 24mpg in your 135, but how much of that is highway driving? I used to average 35 when my commute was 75% highway, but that's hardly a fair representation of "combined" mpg.

The math may be a bit off because the number I used for comparison, the 27 mpg combined figure for the US 335d, is demonstrably low. In 50-50 mixed driving it's actually closer to 30-31 mpg. Even using 31 in the proportion, the estimated efficiency for the 4 cylinder is 25.7. Not exactly ground breaking.

Mileage is always going to be subject to several variables... climate, tire pressures, road conditions (resistance), winds, quality of gas, etc. In the end though it'll just create a normal curve statistically and that's exactly what the EPA does to determine fair mileage I assume. FWIW I've seen 34.3MPG on a 75MPH trip to Charlotte from Atlanta a few times... just bump up the tires to about 38PSI and hope that it's about 55 degrees out.

[David1]

Originally Posted by just4kickz

any info on pricing structure?

It won't be cheaper.

[UdubBadger]

damn... 35mpg

EDIT: oh just read above... damn that woulda been sweet.

[M3 Adjuster]

Originally Posted by JIM E92

Personally the tradeoffs are not worth it for me. Sure, it's efficient, powerful, compact. So was my 1.8t back in 2001. I had an APR chipped 1.8t and it was an interesting little undersquare torque machine. The torque gave it character, but it was no fun to rev-up. The power was available almost off idle, in fact the chipped 1.8t had more torque than N52, it was available almost through the entire rev range. It was just nowhere nearly as satisfying as smoothly accelerating to redline in the N52. The N52 is a gem of an engine esp. in 330i form with the dual stage induction. No four cylinder can deliver power as smoothly and as acoustically satisfying as an inline-6. I would be willing to bet that the 3 Series does not make it to Car and Drivers 10 Best list for the 20th time in a row, and they will list one of the reason due to the turbo 4.

Read the 2011 ten best comments on the Honda accord. The 4 cylinder is their favorite, and that motor is nowhere near the performance of this motor.

[numba1guju]

add another turbo and vroom

[JoosyJoos]

Originally Posted by numba1guju

add another turbo and vroom

Add methanol and a tune and VROOM... just like the N54/N55

[UdubBadger]

oh yeah, this thing can easily hit 300+ hp/tq

[positiveions]

for a single turbo, those numbers are not too shabby

[Bartman619]

Is that the oil cooler in front of the oil filter cap ? Hopefully there is a larger oil cooler somewhere in that engine.

[Diver]

1.2 bar is twice the boost that an N55 has. Not much left over to tune there. In a light car this motor will be dynamite.

[JoosyJoos]

Originally Posted by Diver

1.2 bar is twice the boost that an N55 has. Not much left over to tune there. In a light car this motor will be dynamite.

That's a good point actually. That being said if you remove the catalytic converters, open up the exhaust,and improve upon the intercooler you'll likely see a better improvement over the N55/N54 because the boost levels are higher. My car gained about 45hp at the crank just by switching those things out on the N54 without any tune. Guess we'll find out in due time.

Side note: Am I the only one that thinks a X1 lowered with some decent rims and a roof rack would look sick (if tinted out etc.)?

[Aeroav8r]

Originally Posted by JIM E92

Not sure if its really going to be that much less mass in the engine compartment. The N52 is one of the lightest production engines of it's size due to the magnesium block and aluminum sleeves. For comparison the modern VW 2.0T FSI weighs 337lbs dry and the N52 weighs 354lbs dry. The N52 is not even 20lbs more than the 2.0t. That's not even counting the weight of the intercooler, supports for the intercooler, hoses, etc.

N52 doesn't have an intercooler since it is NOT turbocharged...

The N54 is turbocharged, and has an aluminum block...

[Diver]

JoosyJoos, now you have me looking at cat backs.

[sneaks]

Originally Posted by TS335i

N52 doesn't have an intercooler since it is NOT turbocharged...

The N54 is turbocharged, and has an aluminum block...

I think he means the weight of the intercooler, hoses etc on the 4 Cylinder turbo brings the mass equal to that of the n52 which is naturally aspirated.

On a drive-ability standpoint and efficiency standpoint, I think the new 4 turbo is better than the n52, considering their masses will probably be pretty much similar, but the n52 is an inline 6, which is sooo smooth, and so happy at high rpm.
I love my n54 though.
At the very least, every 4cyl needs a balance shaft to offset vibration, which is one of the reasons the inline6 and the flat6 are so sweet.