new BMW Turbo I4

I get a kick out of all of these car companies patting themselves on the back for doing something Chrysler did 25+yrs ago and calling it innovative.

edit - changed pic

akamcfly wrote: I get a kick out of all of these car companies patting themselves on the back for doing something Chrysler did 25+yrs ago and calling it innovative.

I'm sure i'll probably get jumped and called a Toyota fanboi again, but Toyota was making a 2.0 Turbo 4 cylinder in production form that made 255hp. 15 years ago. Stock.

I know some of the other japanese companies were doing it as well.

Are they as fancy as what's being rolled out now? Not quite. Is the gas mileage much different? No.

I don't see any motor discussed here as being "stressed." I'm likely making more power with my 20 year old brick E36 M3house motor. I would hope that today's modern technology could make at least that without being "stressed."

the big difference i see with those old (and frankly impressive) engines is that they didnt have to comply with much more stringent emissions standards, increased vehicle weight pretty much across the board, and the new ones make similar power/efficiency numbers despite these hurdles, all while doing it over a MUCH broader rpm range.

In reply to WilberM3:

Besides emissions, it's the whole change of fuel economy. Boosted engines are nothing new, but it's often quoted how they all got really poor fuel economy. The new part is a combination of materials and fuel systems to allow them to run a lot better under just over normal circumstances.

the old engines are very impressive. Nothing against them.

MrJoshua wrote: Seriously though Alfa, getting people to accept a turbo 4 in a sports sedan isn't as big a stretch as a twin turbo 6 in a giant truck.

So you are saying that BMW owners don't use their engines as intended? Perish the thought.

WilberM3 wrote: the big difference i see with those old (and frankly impressive) engines is that they didnt have to comply with much more stringent emissions standards, increased vehicle weight pretty much across the board, and the new ones make similar power/efficiency numbers despite these hurdles, all while doing it over a MUCH broader rpm range.

True, but the reasons behind the 4cyl turbo motors of then and now are the same. It's not a new idea, but it is a good one.

Everybody seems to be a little worried about the stress on the motor. I am not sure why. It seems pretty easy to get any modern engine to last 150-200K. Most cars are spitting up so many small expensive ancillaries at that point that an extended engine life seems relatively unimportant.

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:

akamcfly wrote: I get a kick out of all of these car companies patting themselves on the back for doing something Chrysler did 25+yrs ago and calling it innovative.

I'm sure i'll probably get jumped and called a Toyota fanboi again, but Toyota was making a 2.0 Turbo 4 cylinder in production form that made 255hp. 15 years ago. Stock. I know some of the other japanese companies were doing it as well. Are they as fancy as what's being rolled out now? Not quite. Is the gas mileage much different? No. I don't see any motor discussed here as being "stressed." I'm likely making more power with my 20 year old brick E36 M3house motor. I would hope that today's modern technology could make at least that without being "stressed."

I feel the same way. The motor in my car has been around since the 90's, makes 260hp/270tq, gets over 30mpg on the highway and puts out very low emissions. It does not have DI or an aluminum block but otherwise these new motors are not that impressive to me.

And all the new cars way 1/3 more than they should.