When performance 1 comes out which do you choose?

[Neo187H]

Originally Posted by mtla4

16 for a civic Si the driver has to suck major donkey balls. I used to run mid 14s all day with my old rsx-s(2002-2003) same engine. The vw 2.0T runs about the same high 13's with an upgraded software.

Sorry, 14.8 seconds according to Motor Trend. Still quite a slouch compared to the current 135i

[Redline]

from my observations...this is turning into a 0-60time thread...which will lead back to having more hp/tq of the engine...instead of where it is really at...a light handling car with good performance all around.

I seriously would not mind having a 4cylinder over a 6cylinder.
2.0 has proven itself already in Evos and Hondas. This is the 1st time for me to heard of a Twinturbo 2.0 4cylinder in a production car. And being BMW...its going to be like Honda..except better and RWD.

[Neo187H]

Originally Posted by Redline

from my observations...this is turning into a 0-60time thread...which will lead back to having more hp/tq of the engine...instead of where it is really at...a light handling car with good performance all around.

I seriously would not mind having a 4cylinder over a 6cylinder.
2.0 has proven itself already in Evos and Hondas. This is the 1st time for me to heard of a Twinturbo 2.0 4cylinder in a production car. And being BMW...its going to be like Honda..except better and RWD.

I didn't mean to compare only quarter mile times but it is a good indicator that in order for BMW to make a car with lower power remain the aggressive car that it is now it would have to drop the weight very drastically. a 2800lbs 1 series is a good chunk of weight saved but its still hardly lightweight and I personally wouldn't hold my breath on them cutting 600lbs of weight from the 1 series without completely redesigning it from the ground up with that goal in mind. Now what are the chances of that?

[BForbes]

Originally Posted by aesthetect

im workin on it! honestly id love a 123d/tii



yeah, therein lies the rub. SCOTT26 talks about it as an entry level, enthusiast-oriented car, which suggests that its not going to be in the 45k range. but with aluminum panels, CF roof, etc etc, that price is going to rise quickly. but i think a lot of people are in your boat, honestly i would say i am too, that paying 45k for a car with only 4 cylinders is pretty well out of the question.

but if anything is in the 45k range it would have to be the M135...


ah hell who knows

Exactly. I'm sure the latter option is coming. We all know that BMW wont introduce that 4cylinder here. Europe well get that little beast. They are a premium automaker and that dosent align with the current U.S. market thinking. Its sad but truthful nonetheless.

The gutted out high-revving 1 coupe just wouldnt sell here. Take the Lotus Exige. It has what, 230hp? and weighs 1900lb. BMW would have too much weight to shed from the 1. We'll see though. I might have to call out Scott26 again!! The boys on GCZ keep him quite busy though.

[Numb3rs]

I don't think many here are thinking this threw. The BMW n54 is a inline-6, but it is only 3.0 liters ...!

Most 4 bangers are 2.3 liters or more! The inline-6's are extremely smooth engines and produce alot of torque (N54, case-in-point). You not going to gain anything by downsizing the liters or going to a 4 cylinder engine.

What you do gain in keeping with the inline-6, is significant!

If BMW was going to make a Tii, they would start by making the N54 indestructible! Then bump up the compression ratio so the engine doesn't loose it's awsome throttle responses and V8 like feel. (ie no turbo lag).

Better breathing and cooler intact and you have a 400hp/450ft-lb powerplant that would go into a car that would have lightweight components. A BMW 1 series Tii weighing 3,000lbs with that powerplant would shred anything but a supercar!


Alot of street tuners (Vishnu/AA) have customers running on 100+ octane and drag racing their "hopped up" 335's on the dragstrips. But we are talking about a bonafide track car, with a drag car's acceleration..?

That ^^ would be more than enough to set heavy sanction on the Tii in SCCA events. It would basically be a LS6 in a 3.0 liter package!

[Guibo]

4-cylinder 4-seater for with around 200 hp and 2800lbs. That describes quite well the original E30 M3. Adjusting for inflation, that's like a $60K car that wasn't all that fast in a straight line. Yet it sold beyond expectation and established a performance icon.

For area under the curve, here's what Audi has done with its 2.0L turbo (rated at 261 hp, 258 lb-ft from 2500-5000 rpm) in the S3. I believe this is only a single turbo.

[Neo187H]

Originally Posted by Guibo

4-cylinder 4-seater for with around 200 hp and 2800lbs. That describes quite well the original E30 M3. Adjusting for inflation, that's like a $60K car that wasn't all that fast in a straight line. Yet it sold beyond expectation and established a performance icon.

Damn, perfect argument in favor of the lower power lower weight car, 190 HP and 2700 lbs. Forgot about that car =X

[hector]

Originally Posted by excel

... Now with gas prices going up and the emission standards raising in the world, car manufactures have no choice but, to go small and try to put as much performance into a smaller package.

yup, don't all laugh but i've got my eyes on the mazdaspeed 2 if it comes or ford fiesta equivalent(rs?). fwd but small, nimble and relatively frugal.

[whya1?]

Originally Posted by Guibo

4-cylinder 4-seater for with around 200 hp and 2800lbs. That describes quite well the original E30 M3. Adjusting for inflation, that's like a $60K car that wasn't all that fast in a straight line. Yet it sold beyond expectation and established a performance icon.

Exactly. A modern car with performance/handling/feel like an original E30 M3. It FELT like it was going fast because it was a very engaging drive and you could really throw the car around because of the light weight. A 0-60 in the mid-high 5s is plenty fast unless you need a drag car (and then BMW is the wrong place to look.) Around a race track or autocross a lightweight car with moderate horsepower can do just as well as a heavy car with high horsepower. They can dance around a turn instead of plowing through.

It just seems as if there are now TWO types of BMW fans. People who want BMW to return a bit to its roots with a light weight car with great handling but not necessarily an over abundance of power. And the newer BMW fans who were attracted to the cars because they now have become luxury stoplight racers with a good badge.

If you are concerned about a 1/4 mile time than shopping at BMW is like burning your cash by the truck load. Any American V8 (Mustang, camaro, GTO, Corvette) will kill you in a straight line either stock or with simple bolt ons. 135 vs mustang? No contest. For equal money (36k) the base mustang is going to be in the low 12's. A one wheel drive 135 just doesn't have a chance.

[whya1?]

Originally Posted by hector

yup, don't all laugh but i've got my eyes on the mazdaspeed 2 if it comes or ford fiesta equivalent(rs?). fwd but small, nimble and relatively frugal.

+1. That car was just awarded "Best world car" or something by the international press. Mazda knows light and nimble. Too bad the RX-8 doesn't have a bit more torque or it would be what the 1 series Tii should be.

I personally am still waiting for a new Mazdaspeed Miata. 200hp and 2500lbs = fun.

[looking]

^^^

I don't think anyones going to laugh just because you decide to go small, look at the miata, it's a very respectable track car - and the 135 is relatively small also. I think as long as the car's fun to drive and checks all your boxes that's enough justification. The Canada/US mentality about cars (big V8's that can only go straight, or big cars in general) is changing.

I personal wouldn't go FWD because I do like the driving dynamics of FWD (I have owned FWD cars), I think RWD still has the most natural feel. But it's all personal preference, as long as you like it who cares!

[Endgame]

Originally Posted by whya1?

+1. That car was just awarded "Best world car" or something by the international press. Mazda knows light and nimble. Too bad the RX-8 doesn't have a bit more torque or it would be what the 1 series Tii should be.

I personally am still waiting for a new Mazdaspeed Miata. 200hp and 2500lbs = fun.

So now they say the next rotary will be 3000 pounds and 250 HP.. If it shed 200 more pounds (which they could do if they went 2 seat/2 door very easily), then you have what you want!!!! Although I expect it to have more like 275 HP....

[mtla4]

Originally Posted by whya1?

Exactly. A modern car with performance/handling/feel like an original E30 M3. It FELT like it was going fast because it was a very engaging drive and you could really throw the car around because of the light weight. A 0-60 in the mid-high 5s is plenty fast unless you need a drag car (and then BMW is the wrong place to look.) Around a race track or autocross a lightweight car with moderate horsepower can do just as well as a heavy car with high horsepower. They can dance around a turn instead of plowing through.

It just seems as if there are now TWO types of BMW fans. People who want BMW to return a bit to its roots with a light weight car with great handling but not necessarily an over abundance of power. And the newer BMW fans who were attracted to the cars because they now have become luxury stoplight racers with a good badge.

If you are concerned about a 1/4 mile time than shopping at BMW is like burning your cash by the truck load. Any American V8 (Mustang, camaro, GTO, Corvette) will kill you in a straight line either stock or with simple bolt ons. 135 vs mustang? No contest. For equal money (36k) the base mustang is going to be in the low 12's. A one wheel drive 135 just doesn't have a chance.

X1000000
I got that reply by all the Bmw dealership I visit:"Well its a BMW". Well I dont give a crap if its Kia,Hyundai,Bmw.Thinking about it the STI wouldnt have been a bad choice. I mean the Cayman S is only 295 hp and still destroy 99% of the cars on the track(1/4,solo,lapping)

[Nixon]

The 123d with 2 sequential turbos cuts 145 pounds of weight off from the 135i, and gets about 200hp/300tq. The problem is that because of the 5,000 rpm redline, they have to put a final drive ratio in the back that is 9% higher, so it's slower then the torque numbers would imply.

Now the rumored 11,000 rpm redline two-turbo gas engine wouldn't have that problem. With 11,000 rpm's to work with, you can ditch the 3.08 ratio rear end of the 135i, and put in a 4.0:1 or higher rear end. Even with that ratio, you would still be able to run higher speeds in each gear with the 4cyl than the 135i with a 7,000 rpm redline. You have about 60% more rpm's to work with on an 11k redline engine than a 7k redline engine.

http://www.bmwblog.com/2008/04/09/ru...-turbo-engine/

If that 4cyl engine gets rated at just 260hp/260tq (easily possible), it would still have about a 20% advantage in getting power to the ground over the 135i just due to gearing alone. That's before weight savings are taken into account.


The 4cyl engine alone would probably save at least the same 145 lbs that the 123d saves over the 135i. It wouldn't be that hard to find another 150-200 lbs with stuff BMW already builds, like a CF roof, manual Vader seats, lighter battery, CF hood, lighter rotors and wheels, etc. Now we're talking about a 10%+ weight advantage on top of a 20% gearing advantage.

Can you say zippy?!


Push the hp/tq up to 300/300 and you really have a monster. I think it would beat the pants off a 355hp/355tq 135i that only had 150-200lb weight savings over the current 135i.

[mtla4]

Originally Posted by Nixon

The 123d with 2 sequential turbos cuts 145 pounds of weight off from the 135i, and gets about 200hp/300tq. The problem is that because of the 5,000 rpm redline, they have to put a final drive ratio in the back that is 9% higher, so it's slower then the torque numbers would imply.

Now the rumored 11,000 rpm redline two-turbo gas engine wouldn't have that problem. With 11,000 rpm's to work with, you can ditch the 3.08 ratio rear end of the 135i, and put in a 4.0:1 or higher rear end. Even with that ratio, you would still be able to run higher speeds in each gear with the 4cyl than the 135i with a 7,000 rpm redline. You have about 60% more rpm's to work with on an 11k redline engine than a 7k redline engine.

http://www.bmwblog.com/2008/04/09/ru...-turbo-engine/

If that 4cyl engine gets rated at just 260hp/260tq (easily possible), it would still have about a 20% advantage in getting power to the ground over the 135i just due to gearing alone. That's before weight savings are taken into account.


The 4cyl engine alone would probably save at least the same 145 lbs that the 123d saves over the 135i. It wouldn't be that hard to find another 150-200 lbs with stuff BMW already builds, like a CF roof, manual Vader seats, lighter battery, CF hood, lighter rotors and wheels, etc. Now we're talking about a 10%+ weight advantage on top of a 20% gearing advantage.

Can you say zippy?!


Push the hp/tq up to 300/300 and you really have a monster. I think it would beat the pants off a 355hp/355tq 135i that only had 150-200lb weight savings over the current 135i.

11 000 is ridiculous....honda brought down the s2k from 9000 to 8000(ap1 to ap2). Id take something like the turbo ecotec or Vw 2.0T engine

[Redline]

^ good stuff.

But who knows...bmw might do it the other way around. BASE model be 4cylinder TT ...to replace the current 135i. Tii 135i be the 3.0 TT with 355hp 11krpm.....

Then what?:biggrin:

[Redline]

Mazda is crap on reliability. I love mazda and how they have rotary engines...smalldisplacement +big power. But it is crap now.
I keep hearing problems about mazda rx8 having problems starting up.

[Endgame]

sorry sir. you would be wrong as they fixed that. No prblms at all with mine....

[aesthetect]

Originally Posted by Neo187H

I didn't mean to compare only quarter mile times but it is a good indicator that in order for BMW to make a car with lower power remain the aggressive car that it is now it would have to drop the weight very drastically. a 2800lbs 1 series is a good chunk of weight saved but its still hardly lightweight and I personally wouldn't hold my breath on them cutting 600lbs of weight from the 1 series without completely redesigning it from the ground up with that goal in mind. Now what are the chances of that?

pretty good. as in, nobody's expecting a 4cyl 1 series tii until the next generation --> F20

[aesthetect]

Originally Posted by Guibo

4-cylinder 4-seater for with around 200 hp and 2800lbs. That describes quite well the original E30 M3. Adjusting for inflation, that's like a $60K car that wasn't all that fast in a straight line. Yet it sold beyond expectation and established a performance icon.

For area under the curve, here's what Audi has done with its 2.0L turbo (rated at 261 hp, 258 lb-ft from 2500-5000 rpm) in the S3. I believe this is only a single turbo.

Originally Posted by Nixon

The 123d with 2 sequential turbos cuts 145 pounds of weight off from the 135i, and gets about 200hp/300tq. The problem is that because of the 5,000 rpm redline, they have to put a final drive ratio in the back that is 9% higher, so it's slower then the torque numbers would imply.

Now the rumored 11,000 rpm redline two-turbo gas engine wouldn't have that problem. With 11,000 rpm's to work with, you can ditch the 3.08 ratio rear end of the 135i, and put in a 4.0:1 or higher rear end. Even with that ratio, you would still be able to run higher speeds in each gear with the 4cyl than the 135i with a 7,000 rpm redline. You have about 60% more rpm's to work with on an 11k redline engine than a 7k redline engine.

http://www.bmwblog.com/2008/04/09/ru...-turbo-engine/

If that 4cyl engine gets rated at just 260hp/260tq (easily possible), it would still have about a 20% advantage in getting power to the ground over the 135i just due to gearing alone. That's before weight savings are taken into account.


The 4cyl engine alone would probably save at least the same 145 lbs that the 123d saves over the 135i. It wouldn't be that hard to find another 150-200 lbs with stuff BMW already builds, like a CF roof, manual Vader seats, lighter battery, CF hood, lighter rotors and wheels, etc. Now we're talking about a 10%+ weight advantage on top of a 20% gearing advantage.

Can you say zippy?!


Push the hp/tq up to 300/300 and you really have a monster. I think it would beat the pants off a 355hp/355tq 135i that only had 150-200lb weight savings over the current 135i.

EXACTLY.

[looking]

^^^

This is all great stuff but, aren't we fantasizing a bit here? I mean 300/300 + light weight...we're buildiing a car that's going to be better than the M3 - and we all know BMW will not build a Tii better than a M3...... what I'm worried about is that we're going to get stuck with something like the cayman - Tons of potential - if tuned properly could be better than a 911 - yet under engineered on purpose.

[WhiteOne]

It sounds like a lot of people would be happy with a 2002 wearing side draft webers and a 5-speed (+or-200hp) It would be fun...