[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

Originally Posted by dave1078

Then how much torque and how high in the RPM range? That was my biggest issue with that motor.

So much torque the chassis twist getting off the line.

Admittedly out of the box under 5000 RPM it's nothing like a twin turbo BMW but from an engineering standpoint the power is impressive for the size of the engine, N/A, from the factory. There are not many cars making 100 HP Per Liter from the factory, N/A.

With no internal engine modification they were putting out a good 260HP / 220WHP out of the same 2.0 Liter motor. (Just bolt ons and tune). One guy built the motor and made about 290WHP all motor but I believe it was bored out to a 2.2 or 2.3L. Revved to about 10,000 RPM too

[maxwell600]

Originally Posted by Jeff@TopGearSolutions

So much torque the chassis twist getting off the line.

Admittedly out of the box under 5000 RPM it's nothing like a twin turbo BMW but from an engineering standpoint the power is impressive for the size of the engine, N/A, from the factory. There are not many cars making 100 HP Per Liter from the factory, N/A.

With no internal engine modification they were putting out a good 260HP / 220WHP out of the same 2.0 Liter motor. (Just bolt ons and tune). One guy built the motor and made about 290WHP all motor but I believe it was bored out to a 2.2 or 2.3L. Revved to about 10,000 RPM too

[RandomHero]

I'm not sure why anyone hasn't said it yet but one of the biggest reasons these engines don't make more horsepower is because of the baby factory turbos.



These engines make power incredibly fast and the turbos spool up almost instantaneously. The problem is that they're extremely small. It's a fair trade-off for a daily driver, but the turbos really become efficient around 400rwhp. I realize people are making more power than that, but they're running gobs of boost and spooling them well past their limits.

The N54 actually has extremely high compression at 10.2:1. In comparison, the GT-R is around 9.0:1 stock. With larger turbos and the appropriate supporting mods, these engines have the potential to make power well beyond 600rwhp.

[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

Originally Posted by mmahany

I'm not sure why anyone hasn't said it yet but one of the biggest reasons these engines don't make more horsepower is because of the baby factory turbos.



These engines make power incredibly fast and the turbos spool up almost instantaneously. The problem is that they're extremely small. It's a fair trade-off for a daily driver, but the turbos really become efficient around 400rwhp. I realize people are making more power than that, but they're running gobs of boost and spooling them well past their limits.

The N54 actually has extremely high compression at 10.2:1. In comparison, the GT-R is around 9.0:1 stock. With larger turbos and the appropriate supporting mods, these engines have the potential to make power well beyond 600rwhp.

I guess the original post is up for interpretation.

The way I saw it the OP had a concern that a 3.0 Liter engine was only producing 300HP with the "Help" of 2 turbo's. Which on paper seemed rather weak to him.

I actually agree.

However, the goals of the engine were to have high torque at a low RPM with decent gas mileage.

[RandomHero]

Originally Posted by Jeff@TopGearSolutions

I guess the original post is up for interpretation.

The way I saw it the OP had a concern that a 3.0 Liter engine was only producing 300HP with the "Help" of 2 turbo's. Which on paper seemed rather weak to him.

I actually agree.

However, the goals of the engine were to have high torque at a low RPM with decent gas mileage.

On paper it does sound weak. However, let's not forget that the engine needed to be rated at that level in order to avoid competing with the M3 (again on paper).

[derryck]

Originally Posted by Lunatic Fringe

That and there's only so much a standard 3-series chassis can handle. Tune only 335i's overwhelm the factory suspension big time. If i could do it again, I would have started with mods to improve handing and then added power. Did it the wrong way round, but you live and learn

I have an 09 E92 M-sport with Procede Rev 3, AA cp and bov, AA race FMIC, BMS DCI and my completely stock suspension handles it without any issue whatsoever. I have a BBK and wheels/tires but I have yet to see any reason to change out my stock suspension.

[jeffb335]

Originally Posted by Jeff@TopGearSolutions

I guess the original post is up for interpretation.

The way I saw it the OP had a concern that a 3.0 Liter engine was only producing 300HP with the "Help" of 2 turbo's. Which on paper seemed rather weak to him.

I actually agree.

However, the goals of the engine were to have high torque at a low RPM with decent gas mileage.

Yep, this is what his post was about, as you said its pretty obvious BMW was after low RPM torque with the N54, not high RPM max hp numbers. Just to reiterate, Car manufacturers are rarely after MAX HP!!! they are after a mix of power, economy, reliability, driving dynamics, cost, etc... They work out the mix of these factors that they are looking for and then set their engineers off to try to hit those goals. The N54 does a lot of these things well (and a couple not so well), but its always about compromises....

[maxwell600]

Originally Posted by Jeff@TopGearSolutions

I guess the original post is up for interpretation.

The way I saw it the OP had a concern that a 3.0 Liter engine was only producing 300HP with the "Help" of 2 turbo's. Which on paper seemed rather weak to him.

I actually agree.

However, the goals of the engine were to have high torque at a low RPM with decent gas mileage.

This is correct, sir. Exact reason for the post.

[Revlis]

Originally Posted by maxwell600

Shall I explain?
Look at the V6 from lets say.... the new Mustang. 305hp. So technically speaking, it has more power at the flywheel than the 335i's N54 which is 335i (not mentioning power curves and such.) Now I know the power on the N54 can simply be raised by raising the boost, but lets pretend for the moment that the engine was without turbos, essentially an N52. My point being, why does the engine not produce more power? I understand again the difference in size, one being a 3.0, the other being a 3.7 (mustang), but does that really make that much of a difference?

Um, no put the new Mustang V6 on a dyno, and the results speak for themselves. Stock for Stock N54 runs right over it. Bigger stronger German horses apparently.

Otherwise, the N54 doesn't make more power OEM because it would cannibalize M3 sales. So they left it detuned, now that the bugs have been worked out on the plebeians, it will be the foundation of the new M3 motor...


There's miles of argument here, many in response to a rant by me that the N54 is seriously over built and easily does 400hp, BMW just cannot let it... Only reasonable answer? Cannibalize M3 sales, which have a much larger margin and is a landmark vehicle.

[tdote92]

Originally Posted by jeffb335

BMW 330i 3.0(N52): 258 hp/3.0 liters = 86.0 hp per liter

Ford Mustang 3.7: 305 hp/3.7 liters = 82.5 hp per liter

BMW 335i 3.0(N54): 300 hp/3.0 liters = 100.0 hp per liter.


See what I mean, the N52 puts out MORE power than the ford V6 for its size, and the 335 puts out a lot more thanks to its turbos. .....apples to apples....

should turbos not add more than this?

[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

Originally Posted by maxwell600

This is correct, sir. Exact reason for the post.

If they wanted to do it that way they could have.

Remember the E46 M3 made 333HP out of 3.2L. (111 HP per/liter). It also had no power down low for daily driving in comparison to the N54.

The Euro E36 M3 made 282 HP out of a 3.0L and 316 HP out of their 3.2L.

As I mentioned previously their goal wasn't peak HP, but maximizing torque down low for your every day joe. Another good point was the fact that they did not want to surpass the M3 in output as it would be leaving every M3 owner confused and not understanding the point to paying the premium for M3( aside from the suspension/ drivetrain and other cosmetic bits).

The engine is quite good and very capable. Look at how much WHP the single turbo and twin turbo upgrades are making on stock internals.

[maxwell600]

Originally Posted by Jeff@TopGearSolutions

If they wanted to do it that way they could have.

Remember the E46 M3 made 333HP out of 3.2L. (111 HP per/liter)

The Euro E36 M3 made 282 HP out of a 3.0L and 316 HP out of their 3.2L.

As I mentioned previously their goal wasn't peak HP, but maximizing torque down low for your every day joe. Another good point was the fact that they did not want to surpass the M3 in output as it would be leaving every M3 owner confused and not understanding the point to paying the premium for M3( aside from the suspension/ drivetrain and other cosmetic bits).

The engine is quite good and very capable. Look at how much WHP the single turbo and twin turbo upgrades are making on stock internals.

Which brings me to - drive the bugs out of engine, tune and mod it, replace with aftermarket suspension and wheels, along with exterior mods - poor- rich man's m3 lol.

[deathbunny]

Car manufactures also dont want us to feel the turbos while were driving. Using very small turbos that spool super fast keeps the engine somewhat NA feeling even with the fat down low torque curve. I put a big turbo on my old 1.8T audi and while it made a ton more power then stock it also had huge turbo lag until 3.5k rpm and up. That kind of lag and then surge of power would not fly as an OEM setup.

[jeffb335]

Originally Posted by tdote92

should turbos not add more than this?

again....I think all this hp talk is kind of missing the point.....BMW is using the turbos to make low RPM torque, not max hp.

At 2500rpm the n54 is putting out about 300 ft lbs of torque,

at the same rpm the n52 is putting out about 210 ft lbs,



So all things being equal (I know technically they are not, but for the purpose of this discussion they are close enough), same cylinder count, same displacement, the turbos add 30% to the torque curve in the rpm range where the car is most often driven.....and that is a lot.....

Makes the car feel very powerful on the street but doesnt max out at any numbers that would cause the marketing guys in the M division to take issue.

[Sered]

Originally Posted by tdote92

should turbos not add more than this?

No. Especially when they weren't meant to.

Go overlay those dynos vs a bone stock N54. It makes FAR more power throughout the powerband. There's quite a few articles out there of the VQ37 vs the N54 in the G37 coupe vs the 335i coupe; the power differences are huge. Same peak but the N54 makes a lot more power everywhere else. This is what BMW wanted out of the motor. If you want high specific output bragging rights, go buy an M3.

[Jeff@TopGearSolutions]

Originally Posted by jeffb335

again....I think all this hp talk is kind of missing the point.....BMW is using the turbos to make low RPM torque, not max hp.

At 2500rpm the n54 is putting out about 300 ft lbs of torque,

at the same rpm the n52 is putting out about 210 ft lbs,



So all things being equal (I know technically they are not, but for the purpose of this discussion they are close enough), same cylinder count, same displacement, the turbos add 30% to the torque curve in the rpm range where the car is most often driven.....and that is a lot.....

Makes the car feel very powerful on the street but doesnt max out at any numbers that would cause the marketing guys in the M division to take issue.

Well said...

Originally Posted by Sered

No. Especially when they weren't meant to.

Go overlay those dynos vs a bone stock N54. It makes FAR more power throughout the powerband. There's quite a few articles out there of the VQ37 vs the N54 in the G37 coupe vs the 335i coupe; the power differences are huge. Same peak but the N54 makes a lot more power everywhere else. This is what BMW wanted out of the motor. If you want high specific output bragging rights, go buy an M3.

+1

The monster torque curve and the ability to hold is reasonable well in the top of the powerband is one reason a lot of people are surprised by the 335i. I've had many people brush me off as a typical NON M, 3 series owner, they were rudely awakened by the so called underdog

[roadkillrob]

Don't forget that BMW lied about output - most N54's make almost the quoted power at the wheels - car should be rated at more like 330-340 hp crank and 350 ft/lbs to be accurate.

On a different note, anyone see the new AMG turbo 2.0l from the cla45 that mercedes is building - makes are twin turbo 3.0l seem very poor at making power - 355hp 332 ft/lbs - great power out of only 2 liters! N54 was good power at 100 hp/liter back in 2007, but fast forward 6 years and Mercedes is making a reliable 170 hp/liter now!

[N8N]

If my memory serves correctly the old E46 330i (M54 engine, not directly comparable to a NA N54 but roughly the same layout and displacement) put out about 230 BHP so 230*3.7/3.0 = about 284 bhp, not quite as much power as the Mustang V6 but in the ballpark.

As others have said, mfgrs. really don't like to put out heavily tuned engines in stock form, they want to make sure that they get good ratings from Consumer Reports and not too many warranty claims for engine internals. Even the mighty Toyota Supra in stock form actually had *less* power than a stock N54 335i... and that's as close to a comparable engine as you're going to find, although it's older and BMW has obviously had the benefit of a couple decades of technological improvements.

[RandomHero]

Originally Posted by roadkillrob

Don't forget that BMW lied about output - most N54's make almost the quoted power at the wheels - car should be rated at more like 330-340 hp crank and 350 ft/lbs to be accurate.

On a different note, anyone see the new AMG turbo 2.0l from the cla45 that mercedes is building - makes are twin turbo 3.0l seem very poor at making power - 355hp 332 ft/lbs - great power out of only 2 liters! N54 was good power at 100 hp/liter back in 2007, but fast forward 6 years and Mercedes is making a reliable 170 hp/liter now!

People have been getting 500rwhp out of 2.0 engines for 10+ years now....Lancer 8's


Don't like modified examples?
The EVO FQ-400 is 4 years old now. 200+ hp/liter
http://www.carscoops.com/2009/05/mit...-400-with.html

[techwhiz]

Originally Posted by PA66400

Reliability......are you serious?!?

My 335i has been (hands-down) the most unreliable high performance car that I have ever owned.

I still love the driving experience, but I guess that I wish I had your car. My waterpump, injectors, OFH gasket, oil pan gasket, turbo vacuum lines have all cost thousands in repairs. Many others on the forum like me could only wish for durability/relaibility, but are stuck beta testing thier cars for BMW.

But not related to the fundamental engine.
Electric Water Pump - Need I say more?
Direct Injection - Need I say more?
Etc.
Etc.

Did you blow a head gasket or did the engine grenade?
Mine has been a b*tch also. But let's separate the other stuff from the engine itself.

[biz77]

Originally Posted by Jeff@TopGearSolutions

Acura RSX Type S 200HP/ 2.0 Liter = 100HP per Liter (N/A) Winnar!

Forgetting about the Honda S2000 or Ferrari 458 Italia? Both of those are N/A and 120 + hp/liter.