I’d like to personally apologize to the readers of TTAC; while everybody else was rushing out of BMW’s showcase Manhattan dealership to file their instant-dispatch posts regarding BMW’s twin introductions today, yours truly was standing in front of the infamous “Squid and Whale” diorama at the Museum Of Natural History and feeling very conflicted about my urban youth and rural adulthood. So here we are, ten hours after the press event, and I’m finally getting around to posting this.
Anyway… Got $499 a month? Are you interested in a 170-horsepower electric 1-Series which zips to 60 in about nine seconds? Nope? How about a super-high-tech BMW turbo four-cylinder that doesn’t quite match what the Koreans are doing?
The white car in the photo above is the BMW ActiveE. It’s the successor to the MINI “E” and it’s going to be made available to seven hundred potential lessors. $499 a month, 24 months, two grand and change out of pocket. It has reasonable power and, as with all electric cars, full torque is available from zero rpm. BMW is very proud of the fact that they offer full electric, hybrid electric, diesel, and “efficient dynamics” gasoline cars, all right here in the American market.
Included under the “Efficient Dynamics” banner is the new 2.0 four-cylinder turbo, finding a home in the inexplicably-named Z4 2.8i. It cranks out 240hp and 260 pound-feet of torque. For comparison, the Sonata Turbo produces 274 horsepower at 6000 rpm and 269 lb-ft of torque, also from two liters. The 2003 Dodge Neon SRT-4 put out similar numbers from a turbo 2.4… at the wheels. On the positive side, fuel economy is said to be 20% above that of an equivalent six-cylinder.
The Z4 avec turbo is nice enough, but the electric One is actually a bit more than interesting. We’ll be trying to get our hands on one ASAP.
Now I recall why my first visit of any car related website is always “The TRUTH About Cars”. Thanks Jack, and congrats on the cameo in the At&t commercial throwing the cell phone off the Ski-lift.
I thought that was Zach Galifianakis’s brother…
We fail to mention the GM 2.0 DI turbo 4 that when tuned for premium unleaded gives you 290 HP and 340 pound feet of torque when tied to a manual, 290 HP and 325 pound feet of torque with an automatic.
Also would get 30 MPG on the highway in the likes of the Saturn SKY.
If you want a diet of regular unleaded you can “settle” for 260/260. Oh the horrors.
Don’t be too hard on Jack, GM also apparently forgot that the 2.0T was capable of those output numbers.
Very true – epic fail on the powerplant in the Buick Regal Turbo. Ya I know, the GS will get up to 255. The turbo number should have been 240ish and the GS 300 HP with AWD.
Whuh?.. Huh? zzz… That’s very interst…. no, I’m awake. zzzzzzz
The 2003 Dodge Neon SRT-4 put out similar numbers from a turbo 2.4… at the wheels
And without direct injection…
The Sonata may have it beat on numbers, but when that 2.0 is in a Genesis Coupe (you know, the one people might actually cross-shop with the Z4), the Hyundai comes up a couple dozen short on both metrics.
Either way I bet it’s a scream with a chip tune.
That’s not the same motor. The 2.0 in the Genesis Coupe is not direct injected, the 2.0 in the Sonata/Optima is.
BMW just didn’t want the turbo four to crowd their inline-sixes.
Hyundai gets some good mileage out of their 2.0T Sonata numbers. I don’t mean on the road, of course. Car and Driver tested one and it wasn’t particularly fast or efficient. Considering all the hype that still keeps getting regurgitated, it is worth keeping in mind that everyone is fluffing an engine that is only available in an automatic family sedan with no sporting pretentions or realities. It has a big advertised horsepower figure though!
I’ve got no use for any forced induction gas burner, but the success of the BMW engine will be determined by the driving experience offered by the car it comes in. 240 hp will be plenty if they shave 10% off the curb weights of their portly compacts, ship them with manual transmissions, and don’t refine the character out of the power delivery and engine note.
C/D TEST RESULTS:
Zero to 60 mph: 6.2 sec [a Maxima and a TL SH-AWD are 6.0 sec]
Zero to 100 mph: 15.1 sec
Street start, 5–60 mph: 6.7 sec
FUEL ECONOMY:
EPA city/highway driving: 22/33 mpg [an average of 27.5]
C/D observed: 24 mpg
Hm. That’s sounds fast an efficient to me…
As far as the EV is concerned, while I still wish its performance numbers and cost were a little better, it shows EVs are creeping closer to viability and mass-market appeal. The lease price is down from $850/month for the Mini-E launch.
I think range will still have to crack at least 200 mi at some point though, in addition to falling price points, before EVs hit some kind of critical mass.
The more appropriate comparison is with Audi’s 2.0T’s 211hp / 258 lbs-ft.
And peak numbers are just that, the number at the peak of the curve. The real feeling and real performance of an engine comes from the area under the curve. This new BMW 2.0 Turbo 4 has a greater area under the curve than BMW’s own previous 3.0L 255hp inline-six. Put another way, at most points along the tachometer, the new turbo four is making up to 20hp more than the earlier six.
And for the record, I’m one of those lamenting the coming of FI engines — I still get goosebumps and giggles when I wind up a sweet, smooth inline six.
Almost as much fun as a solid lifter Chevy small block
I’m really sick of seeing peak hp/tq numbers.
I care about the area under the curve, not an arbitrary number at an RPM limit I’ll never see just commuting to work. But then, anyone who took Calculus would know that.
Mr. Baruth, I agree with you on the “Squid & Whale” display. It is haunting. But if you want to be thoroughly creeped out, head back to AMNH and go into the Asian People’s Exhibit. Check out the “healing shaman,” and then, a few feet away, you’ve GOT to see the foul-weather gear made out of tanned salmon skins by Siberians. And if that’s not enough, check out the family tree of the Mongol hordes.
Those power figures don’t bother me at all. So long as the car feels fast (and the comment above mentioning torque curve differences between this and the 3.0 implies that it will), handles well and looks good doing it what is the problem?
Right now manufacturers seem to be enjoying a pissing contest over the outputs of their turbo 4’s. This is not encouraging from my point of view, as turbo 4’s have never been known for their reliability in regular cars, and these new applications are largely sold as daily drivers. I don’t think spreading turbos right across a lineup is going to be good for upcoming reliability results (there’s always a gap in survey results between turbo and NA versions of cars). I love forced induction, but I don’t think shooting for the moon is the right way to introduce the technology to your customers. I think GM did it right with the Cruze turbo (output wise, haven’t spent time with it yet).
I wholeheartedly agree with what Kman said, including preference towards NA engines.
However, I look forward to the day when Jack will show some love to the Bavarian brothers.
I’ll wait for the 3.0i Z4 with the 1,998cc four twin-turbo turbo.
It will be faster because there’s more displacement and the turbo has two turbos inside one turbo and it’s a 3.0 inside instead of a lame 2.8 and like my dad’s EcoBoost it has more power when going up the hill from Colorado City on the Interstate.
What the hell is with BMWs wonky naming conventions?!? I can sort of understand when you offer 2 different 3.0 liter engines in the same car, cant call them both a 330, so something has to be done (not that I like the 328 idea but whatever). But when the name of the car doesnt have any relation to the engine size, why come up with an arbitray engine size designation? Its getting ridiculous.
Great. The 3.0 liter inline 6 sans turbo was one of the last reliable and proven BMW engines. Now it’s gone from the US market. Get ready for more HPFP problems, just like in the turbo BMW sixes.
Oh, and the Hyundai that everyone is benchmarking is a boring sedan that gets beaten by a Camry V6 in a straight line.