BMW 328i
03-11-2012, 11:40 AM
#21
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 2,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are just after Hp/L, the TT-RS has a 360Hp 2.5L 5-cyl. That's 144Hp/L
You can push extremely high Hps with turbo engines, but then reliability starts becoming a big issue. You have to keep up with the cooling, lubrication, etc.Way back in the late seventies to mid-eighties, F1 saw turbo engines first introduced by Renault. These were 1.5L V6s that could put out 700-900Hp in race configuration and up to 1300-1500Hp in qualifying trim!!! That's tickling the 1000Hp/L benchmark
Of course, there was a reason these engines couldn't last even for the the short duration of a race and had to be scaled back significantly from qualifying trim. So you see how it can turn out with production cars if you push things too far.
03-11-2012, 04:07 PM
#22
AudiWorld Super User
Thread Starter
I did a quick search that revealed the 2.4L engine to be the naturally aspirated one. The Hyundai turbo is indeed just a 2.0L.
If you are just after Hp/L, the TT-RS has a 360Hp 2.5L 5-cyl. That's 144Hp/L You can push extremely high Hps with turbo engines, but then reliability starts becoming a big issue. You have to keep up with the cooling, lubrication, etc.
Way back in the late seventies to mid-eighties, F1 saw turbo engines first introduced by Renault. These were 1.5L V6s that could put out 700-900Hp in race configuration and up to 1300-1500Hp in qualifying trim!!! That's tickling the 1000Hp/L benchmark Of course, there was a reason these engines couldn't last even for the the short duration of a race and had to be scaled back significantly from qualifying trim. So you see how it can turn out with production cars if you push things too far.
If you are just after Hp/L, the TT-RS has a 360Hp 2.5L 5-cyl. That's 144Hp/L
You can push extremely high Hps with turbo engines, but then reliability starts becoming a big issue. You have to keep up with the cooling, lubrication, etc.Way back in the late seventies to mid-eighties, F1 saw turbo engines first introduced by Renault. These were 1.5L V6s that could put out 700-900Hp in race configuration and up to 1300-1500Hp in qualifying trim!!! That's tickling the 1000Hp/L benchmark
Of course, there was a reason these engines couldn't last even for the the short duration of a race and had to be scaled back significantly from qualifying trim. So you see how it can turn out with production cars if you push things too far.In F1 racing, HP is push to the limit. Thats why I try to compare production cars only. That is also the same reason I dont like to chip cars, the trade off is reliability.
03-11-2012, 05:23 PM
#23
AudiWorld Senior Member
Not that I doubt Hyundai's numbers, but sometimes Japanese car maker exaggerate their HP. Take the Hyundai Sonata turbo for example, it has 35 more HP than the BMW 328i, the weight is about the same. Yet according to Motortrend, the 3 series gets to 60 MPH in 5.9 sec and the Hyundai in 6.5 sec.
In F1 racing, HP is push to the limit. Thats why I try to compare production cars only. That is also the same reason I dont like to chip cars, the trade off is reliability.
In F1 racing, HP is push to the limit. Thats why I try to compare production cars only. That is also the same reason I dont like to chip cars, the trade off is reliability.
03-11-2012, 06:35 PM
#24
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 2,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As to whether Japanese manufacturers exaggerate Hp, perhaps it is more the case of German manufacturers slightly underrating their engines.
But I suspect the difference in 0-60mph times can be to some extent explained by the fact that the Sonata is a FWD car. I can't imagine it being able to put 100% of the power down to the asphalt while in 1st gear.
Last edited by av_audi; 03-12-2012 at 02:09 PM.
03-11-2012, 11:16 PM
#25
Audiworld Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uh - check out the mandatory run flat tires before you think about a BMW. Makes the Beemer an absolute no-no for me. I almost bought a 535 just for a change rather than a new 2012 A6 (my 5th consecutive A6), but as soon as I saw that run flats are standard with no option to "opt out" for regular tires, I told the dealer thanks but no thanks.
Run flats are ridiculously expensive, are often difficult to find in stock, wear out in anywhere from 14k to 20k miles, and ride crummy (although less crummy than earlier versions).
Gee - I think I'll run right out and spend $65k for a car that will need $1700 of new shoes every year.
When the saleguy asked me why I was not buying and I told him that the run flats were a deal breaker, he nodded and made it clear that he had heard it before.
Run flats are ridiculously expensive, are often difficult to find in stock, wear out in anywhere from 14k to 20k miles, and ride crummy (although less crummy than earlier versions).
Gee - I think I'll run right out and spend $65k for a car that will need $1700 of new shoes every year.
When the saleguy asked me why I was not buying and I told him that the run flats were a deal breaker, he nodded and made it clear that he had heard it before.
That was an ABSOLUTE deal breaker with every BMW as well.
I'm sure BMW is losing business with many people in-the-know about the crummy run flats. Management = idiots.
03-12-2012, 04:49 AM
#26
AudiWorld Super User
Thread Starter
I remember my first set of run flat tires I had in 08, they were horrible. noisy, rough ride and poor traction. The new generation of runflats are much better than the last. A friend of mine has it in his SUV. The ride is not any worst than non-RFT, traction in the rain and snow is no bad either. The price is also getting cheaper. Its a bit noisy, not sure if it is due the RFT, but if given a choice, I would choose non-RFT.
03-12-2012, 01:33 PM
#27
Audiworld Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember my first set of run flat tires I had in 08, they were horrible. noisy, rough ride and poor traction. The new generation of runflats are much better than the last. A friend of mine has it in his SUV. The ride is not any worst than non-RFT, traction in the rain and snow is no bad either. The price is also getting cheaper. Its a bit noisy, not sure if it is due the RFT, but if given a choice, I would choose non-RFT.
In addition to noise/roughness, the fact that they're damaged versus a normal tire, the inherent cost, the availability (even in major town tire shops) of being able to quickly source a replacement, and the fact that a pierced RFT doesn't have much life versus a spare makes this a no brainer deal killer for me.
And if you have RFTs with some wear on a BMW AWD and you get a flat, you have to replace all four. Extremely time consuming and expensive...all b/c of...tires! I've had friends replace 3 sets of tires in 8 months from piercings that would not have taken down a non RFT. Ridiculous. If someone Googles this issue, you'll run into TONS of stories and gripes.
03-12-2012, 02:09 PM
#28
AudiWorld Member
I have runflats on my current vehicle,an X5 diesel and now need some tires. If I wasn't keeping this vehicle, I'd put non-RFT's. Since i am trading in this vehicle later on this year for an Audi(not sure which one yet), I am going to put the RFT's on since the dealer where I live is owned by the BMW dealer and I want a better trade in value. Otherwise, non-RFT's all the way. When I ordered the X5, I did order the spare. Just my 2 cents!
03-19-2012, 03:50 AM
#29
AudiWorld Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not that I doubt Hyundai's numbers, but sometimes Japanese car maker exaggerate their HP. Take the Hyundai Sonata turbo for example, it has 35 more HP than the BMW 328i, the weight is about the same. Yet according to Motortrend, the 3 series gets to 60 MPH in 5.9 sec and the Hyundai in 6.5 sec.
In F1 racing, HP is push to the limit. Thats why I try to compare production cars only. That is also the same reason I dont like to chip cars, the trade off is reliability.
In F1 racing, HP is push to the limit. Thats why I try to compare production cars only. That is also the same reason I dont like to chip cars, the trade off is reliability.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Gotpancit
A4 (B8 Platform) Discussion
4
09-05-2007 11:21 AM
Paris UK
A4 Cabriolet (B6 Platform) Discussion
5
04-24-2003 08:02 AM
Bob Petruska
A4 (B6 Platform) Discussion
12
10-04-2002 08:53 AM
