View Single Post
      08-01-2009, 10:59 PM   #22
Major General

Drives: 340i M-sport AT
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago

iTrader: (1)

Originally Posted by JimD View Post
I was buying a vert so my purchase price was already up ~$5k. Another ~$5K for the turbo was more than I wanted to spend.

My other logic was the same reason I did not buy a used Corvette. It is faster but where can you use that speed? The 128i is fast enough for any situation. I have to admit, I liked driving the 135i coupe at the performance center, on the track. But you can't drive like that on the street - at least not for very long or very far.

I also keep cars a long time and worry about turbo motor longevity. That is the same reason I was not interested in VW Eos vert or a Volvo vert. I did not want a turbo motor. In the case of the VW or Volvo, it is a turbo just to get to the 128 level of performance. At least the 135 is a genuinely FAST vehicle.

A lot of people have a negative view of turbo engines. However, turbocharging is not new technology, and modern installations are solid with great longevity. BMW didn't just slap on 2 turbo's and then passed it off for owners to worry. The engine itself uses the "old" 3.0 inline6, but it's been beefed up to handle the extra mechanical loads of turbo charging.
The other very important reason is because turbo/surper charging DOES give the power of larger and heavier engines while keeping the weight down and giving better MPG than an equivalent powerful larger engine.
It's very smart technology, and actually brings out the greater potential of the existing engine instead of having to go to larger displacement.

There's an old adage that goes, "there's no replacement for displacement".
Well, there really is. It's called "turbo/super charging".
BMW, and Audi more so, are applying modern turbo tech and knowledge gained over the years to make turbo's a viable replacement to displacement. With the ability to control how an engine breathes over the rev range coupled with turbo's these cars can deliver powerful low rev torque while still being able to provide high rpm torque. In the past a turbo meant you gave up some low rpm torque and smooth power delivery to gain a higher peak torque. That's not the case these days.
This turbo engine is amazingly responsive off the line, passing power, and top end.

Will it last as long as a non turbo version? I say, yes. If you simply throw a turbo kit onto a NA engine, yes you're going to take a big chance on getting that engines life. That is not what's going here. These engines are beefed up to handle the extra boost. Audi has proven that turbo charging done right will give that engine as long of a life as a NA engine.
I had a 1990 Plymouth Laser/Mits Eclipse. That was an older tech turbo, but I sold it with nearly 140k on it, and it was still running strong and not burning oil when I sold it. I did have to replace the turbo. But, the reason it failed was due to a manufacturing defect where there was a long metal shard blocking the oil feed to the turbo. So, it seized at around 60k miles.
That Mits engine is legendary regarding it's longevity and strength.
I have no reason to believe the 3.0 TT engine will last even longer given it's modern tech and design.