View Single Post
Old 03-08-2005, 09:37 AM
  #19  
MrFatbooty
Wannabe yuppie
 
MrFatbooty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 25,918
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

I don't get why you always keep coming back to the old BMW eta stuff. You've posted it in a bunch of threads and now this one.

The "low tech" vs. "high tech" 3.0 liter engines are very much analogous to Honda's K-series engines of the same displacement but different power levels.

Take for example the base RSX 2.0 liter versus the RSX Type-S, or the Accord 2.4 liter versus the TSX; in each case the higher-powered car has a higher compression ratio, a more sophisticated valvetrain, and a spiffier intake manifold.

So really, that's all BMW is doing here as well. I highly doubt the "low tech" 3.0 liter is going to be some kind of specific efficiency-oriented engine like one which was produced almost 20 years ago. It's just a lower powered version of a techno-spiffy engine with less techno trickery.

And please, since we've already been down this road before, please refrain from discussing the particulars of the engine program in this thread. There is another thread specifically oriented to the topic. If you really must do so you may find that one with the search function, but like I said, the topics been done to death.

Last edited by MrFatbooty; 03-08-2005 at 09:39 AM.