M1 engine speculation

[jeremyc74]

Originally Posted by lib

You aren't a typical anything. You actually know wtf you're talking about most of the time. The typical person does not.

(Whether or not we always agree with you is a different matter )

My mother always told me I was a unique and special snowflake.

[LeoHammer]

this argument is pointless since some people that "bought" their 1s and tuned them still got rid of them...

Originally Posted by AlBel1214

I bought my 135i and put a JB on it... Guess I am a poser? ha...

I wouldn't say you are a poser for buying one and tuning, but you did get rid of yours and for that I will say yes, you are a poser... Even if you weren't, come back to the forums when you actually get your M1.

[jeremyc74]

Originally Posted by LeoHammer

this argument is pointless since some people that "bought" their 1s and tuned them still got rid of them...

.

What does that have to do with anything? Very few people keep cars forever.

[LeoHammer]

it doesn't have to do with anything you were saying... I just thought that it was funny for him to ask if he was a poser for having one and tuning it..yet he doesn't have it anymore...so my post was a pointless reply to another pointless post from a person that is no longer a 1addict but a poser.

[AlBel1214]

Originally Posted by LeoHammer

it doesn't have to do with anything you were saying... I just thought that it was funny for him to ask if he was a poser for having one and tuning it..yet he doesn't have it anymore...so my post was a pointless reply to another pointless post from a person that is no longer a 1addict but a poser.

One, I was being sarcastic in replying to a previous post..two,You are kidding me right?? The fact I don't have the car anymore does not have anything to do with the fact that yes I bought it and yes I modded...

How does it make me a poser?? Are you saying anyone who no longer has the 135i is elimated from any sort of argument that not all people who mod are in a lease situation?... Or even further have no right to be on this board b/c not having a 135i means your not a "1addict"? Give me a break...

I have been on these boards before the 1 even came out and have gained a great deal of knowledge about F/I cars and BMWs from the 1addicts community... Last time I checked you didn't have to currently have a 1series to be a member here...

[BMW269]

Who knows why M does not tune the N54 Twin-Turbo but the N55 Twin-Power-Single-Turbo to a Twin-Power-Twin-Turbo? Maybe to lift rpm up to 8.000 for a FI? The X5/X6 M do not need 8.000 rpm but the M5 does. Maybe that is why BMW says it is not excactly the same engine as the X5/X6 M. Remember the McLaren MP4-12C has a 3.8l V8 Biturbo and has redline at 8.500 rpm. Why can't BMW do that?

[RäDIOCLäSH]

dear BMW,
S U P E R C H A R G E it .......please !!!

[ARES45]

First thing, I drive around at 6000 feet every day, so the purism of an m motor that is NA means little to me. Second, can someone explain the benefits of supercharging rather than using a turbo?

[moveswiftly]

Originally Posted by ARES45

First thing, I drive around at 6000 feet every day, so the purism of an m motor that is NA means little to me. Second, can someone explain the benefits of supercharging rather than using a turbo?

With superchargers the rate at which the pressure is built at isn't variable or adjustable. It can only be slightly adjusted. However, with turbo chargers one can adjust the PSI(pounds per square inch) of the pressure....

[moveswiftly]

Originally Posted by ARES45

First thing, I drive around at 6000 feet every day, so the purism of an m motor that is NA means little to me. Second, can someone explain the benefits of supercharging rather than using a turbo?

also do you understand that the m1 is going to be a 6 cylinder twin twin scroll turbo

[BrokenVert]

Originally Posted by ARES45

First thing, I drive around at 6000 feet every day, so the purism of an m motor that is NA means little to me. Second, can someone explain the benefits of supercharging rather than using a turbo?

Turbos use the pressure from the exhaust gasses inorder to spool up, this creates a bit of lag, turbo lag. A supercharger is driven off of the crankshaft by a pully, so they reach full boost immediatly.

[NYC6]

Originally Posted by BrokenVert

Turbos use the pressure from the exhaust gasses inorder to spool up, this creates a bit of lag, turbo lag. A supercharger is driven off of the crankshaft by a pully, so they reach full boost immediatly.

That depends on the type of S/C. A Roots type S/C makes big boost right of idle but loses steam up on the tach. Shelby GT500's uses a Roots.

A Centrifugal S/C is a turbine very similar to a turbo(but belt driven as you said) and takes some time to start making power. My Vette has a Vortech S/C and it starts making power at about 3000rpm and takes off like a rocket with boost by 4000 all the way to 6500 where its making 610bhp. Centris dont run out steam up high. They dont compress and superheat the charge as does the Roots.

[Numb3rs]

Supercharging is ineffecient, BMW will not go that route... it's a thing of the past.

[BrokenVert]

Originally Posted by Numb3rs

Supercharging is ineffecient, BMW will not go that route... it's a thing of the past.

They do it with the Mini

[sparoz]

I think this thread is continuing on a path that is getting pointless. We already know it is going to be a twin turbo version of the N55 or an upgrade of the S54 (from earlier threads).

BMW hasn't really worked on a super-charger and all developments is in turbo engine so I am not sure why we are still discussing something which is pointless. (and Mini's engine are Peugeot's).

While it is great that we still love the NA engine for its characteristics, we know that BMW has gone to a different path - so if you don't like it, then get a different car.

I don't think these discussions is relevant anymore to this thread.

If we want to continue to discuss the upcoming engine, then may be we should predict how they are going to fit two twin scroll on a 6 cylinder. Sequential? Or some trick valving? Or is it going to be just a bi-turbo of the S54 with added Valtronic, alloy block?

[grant]

Originally Posted by BrokenVert

They do it with the Mini

Not for a couple years now - all switched to turbos instead...

[NYC6]

Originally Posted by Numb3rs

Supercharging is ineffecient, BMW will not go that route... it's a thing of the past.

MB doesnt agree with you. the designation of their autos saying "Kompressor" is the German word for Super Charger.

[Monterra]

Originally Posted by Numb3rs

Supercharging is ineffecient, BMW will not go that route... it's a thing of the past.

Brand new S4 anyone?

[ND40oz]

Originally Posted by ARES45

First thing, I drive around at 6000 feet every day, so the purism of an m motor that is NA means little to me. Second, can someone explain the benefits of supercharging rather than using a turbo?

Originally Posted by chesterfan1230

With superchargers the rate at which the pressure is built at isn't variable or adjustable. It can only be slightly adjusted. However, with turbo chargers one can adjust the PSI(pounds per square inch) of the pressure....

Which also means a properly tuned turbo can and will maintain the same boost pressure despite the ambient pressure drop as you rise in altitude, whereas a supercharger can not. So instead of seeing both the pressure drop in ambient and boost like a supercharged vehicle will, the turbo car will only have the pressure drop in ambient and not boost. So even though they make the same power at sea level, the turbo will make more power then the supercharger as you get higher in altitude, provided the ECU is properly tuned for this.

[Numb3rs]

Originally Posted by sparoz

I think this thread is continuing on a path that is getting pointless. We already know it is going to be a twin turbo version of the N55 or an upgrade of the S54 (from earlier threads).

BMW hasn't really worked on a super-charger and all developments is in turbo engine so I am not sure why we are still discussing something which is pointless. (and Mini's engine are Peugeot's).

While it is great that we still love the NA engine for its characteristics, we know that BMW has gone to a different path - so if you don't like it, then get a different car.

I don't think these discussions is relevant anymore to this thread.

If we want to continue to discuss the upcoming engine, then may be we should predict how they are going to fit two twin scroll on a 6 cylinder. Sequential? Or some trick valving? Or is it going to be just a bi-turbo of the S54 with added Valtronic, alloy block?

This^^...

[grant]

Originally Posted by NYC6

MB doesnt agree with you. the designation of their autos saying "Kompressor" is the German word for Super Charger.

Don't think any of the Benz's or AMG's use Kompressors anymore (all turbos). As someone else pointed out, only Audi uses superchargers of the main German luxury brands, afaik.

[grant]

Originally Posted by ND40oz

Which also means a properly tuned turbo can and will maintain the same boost pressure despite the ambient pressure drop as you rise in altitude, whereas a supercharger can not. So instead of seeing both the pressure drop in ambient and boost like a supercharged vehicle will, the turbo car will only have the pressure drop in ambient and not boost. So even though they make the same power at sea level, the turbo will make more power then the supercharger as you get higher in altitude, provided the ECU is properly tuned for this.

Exactly! Where I live (Denver), I commonly drive between 5,000ft and 10,000ft daily (and have driven over 14,000ft occasionally), so turbocharging makes MUCH more sense than superchargers.