BMW 520I - Damn Cheap !!!

[Qr25vet]

the 520i 2L engine not enough power one.. tried before, not shiok to drive.

 

i'm currently driving the e46 318i already hiam no power already, now they put the engine into the 5 series...

yea your 318I's engine is the same one as the E60 520I...no diff @ all..even the displacement is the same @ 2000CC

[Qr25vet]

The e39 still remains the best car i ever owned....solid, refined and bullet-proof...esp the 2002 onwards ones where all the bugs had been rectified...the perfect car

agreed...I love that car...

[Nazaki]

compare to his Gs300, its cheap ma. lol.

[BMW320i]

Pfft... 520i is weak. Get E60 M5 instead. Ta bao stock Ebewlutions at the track.

 

[Gs300999s]

cheap as in a few yrs ago all bought 5 series over 200 grand, sub 150s absolutely unheard of.

 

I think it will hurt the 5 series market a bit as people will say "wah 1 yr old still sell so high, new one only 145k leh".

 

i know of ppl as long as its 5 series, they are are the same to them!

 

When I selling GS300, they take 1st hand price indication as dealer price minus finance/insurance rebate + even overtrade. So dealer say GS only 145k now, depreciate from there, die c**k stand!!!

Edited November 17, 2008 by Gs300999s

[Throttle2]

Yes, agree it is cheap looking form that angle.

 

Last time 318i is already $145k

[Kiant]

Regardless, I think putting in that 15k is still worth the 2 extra cylinders. Afterall, we all know BMWs and their IL6es.

[Qr25vet]

nah...i prefer the E39 M5...its a real wolf in sheeps clothing...E60's abit shouty in looks...the E39's V8 can cough out more BHP...as demonstrated by ascari

[BMW320i]

Isn't that a V8 block bored to 5L making 500 ponies at the crank ? E60 seems to be making 507 at the crank.

 

Imagine the possibilities if you bore the S85.

 

Anyway the E39 is very much a sleeper. When I was young I could not tell the difference between normal 5 series and M5 other than badge and exhaust pipes.

 

However it is still slow compared to Audi RS6. Ultra sleeper !

[inlinesix]

U r rite. In addition, there r a lot of 520 dreesed like M5.

[inlinesix]

This is because gearbox starts from 2nd gear. Try use steptronic. U will know diff.

[Darren82]

Just got back from their showroom, asking 148k . . . i think if negotiate till the cow comes home, can get below 145k !!!

 

I have a brand new BMW 525I asking for 140K.

Year Of Manufacture 2006.

REG date will be on 2008.

IT is a brand new car.

only different is the gear shift only.

All the spec will be same as the 2008 version

 

Thanks

Cheers

Darren

 

anything call me

96993992

[Gs300999s]

heaps of slk200 dress like AMGs too!

[King_of_abalone]

I agree man, my dad drives the E60 520i with the old 2.2 litre IL-6, and he complains that even that is underpowered. I think the 2.5 litre and up engines are best suited for this car.

 

But then again, we can't really blame PML for bringing in a 2.0 520i given how C&C was pricing the E200s. After the 2.2 520 was phased out, the entry level was the 523i and it was priced significantly above the price of the E200s. Some people will just do a base model to base model comparison and conclude that BMW 5 series is not worth it. So oh well, discerning drivers will just have to choose for themselves which they want :)

 

The ideal engine should have around 400cc to 500 cc per cylinder for optimal efficiency + performance. Therefore for a 6 cylinder, it is 2400cc to 3000cc or 2.4L to 3.0L for the ideal efficiency and performance. Of course you could have a 3.5L or 3.8L 6 cylinder and of course it will be more powerful than a 3L but the gains per litre will not be much plus it will be not be as efficient (per cylinder) in producing power.

 

BMW's 2.2L inline 6 was a marketing "gimmick". It is like, "see? i got 6 cylinders in my car!" for people to feel special about. Ditto the Lexus IS200's 2L inline 6. It was neither significantly more powerful nor smoother compared to a Toyota 2L inline 4, plus it isn't as efficient in making power as a 2L inline 4, ie:- fuel consumption is higher.

Edited November 18, 2008 by King_of_abalone

[King_of_abalone]

The ideal 5 series (other than the M5, which is out of reach for most people) would be the current 530i with the ZF gearbox and new 255 bhp engine. I would have mentioned the 535 but it isn't available here.

[BMW320i]

Before I continue, where did you get those figures from ? Please show me your formula.

 

When it comes to engine, displacement is not a pressing issue depending on the build of an engine.

 

To make it simple for you to understand, please look at the car you are purchasing first. Would it make sense to make a 2.2L 6cyc engine that produces 300hp or more if what you are purchasing is a family car ?

 

By any means, if BMW wanted to, they are capable of making such an engine but are people willing to pay the price ? The answer is no because if people are willing to pay the price, they would not be here b*tching about how underpower it is.

 

The M54 engine was never designed for high revs output but moderate revs torque for easy get around in city driving.

 

As you increased your displacement, your gains in horsepower output per Litre declines due to frictional losses in high displacement engines.

 

Many would wonder if that is the case, why not go for 4cyc engines with 2L output ?

 

You can go with a 4cyc engines and suck more fuel compared to a 2.2L 6cyc engine.

 

With most 4cyc engines you need to factor in other variables such as the car weight which the engine will be towing. In most cases, lugging a 1.5-1.6 tons car is going to be an issue. Question now will be, why would a 200hp car have problems powering a car that is 1.5tons as compared to a 6cyc that makes a puny 170hp ?

 

Torque delivery is the issue. To make torque early in natural aspirated engines, you have to go with a mild camshaft set up that has shorter duration and shorter valve lift. At higher rpms as the volume of air in which the engine is trying to suck in is restricted by the amount of flow the camshafts are allowing, horsepower and torque is restricted severely.

 

This is where variable valve timing comes into place. To generalise, you cannot have a camshaft that is aggressive in nature and still expect low end torque. Hence the introduction of variable valve timing which enables full retard timing on idle and full advance at full throttle. The variable camshafts also enable hydaulic driven actuators to to engage lobes that enables longer duration and higher valve lift to allow more flow into the engine. Variable valve timing is only activated usually at high RPMs. Rev heads love it but not every single drivers do. Without reaching higher rpms, the engine is simply unable to make power.

 

It sounds like a lovely technology and people would love to implement this in all cars. In truth, are consumers willing to pay more ? Honda lovers will come in and say, "my DC5R K20 can be done why not ?" Problem is that K20s are not the same your conventional civics or other variants for that matter. While the VTEC system in cars like the DC5R have very strong block to support the punishment of such aggressive camshaft, it is not applicable to normal family sedan unless consumers are willing to pay a higher price, in which would position the car in a price category deemed not favourable.

 

In addition you have to factor in stroke, bore, final drive ratio, especially piston speeds. That is a whole new different topic which will get very lengthy.

 

My advice to people is not to look at the horsepower alone. Horsepower is only a figure to gauge the power the engine makes at the crank. Horsepower made at the wheel is more useful however most if not all manufacturers do not advertise horsepower made at the wheels.

 

To the people who are complaining about how slow the 520 is, heres my take.

 

You should have test driven the car, if you don't like the slow acceleration, don't buy it. Plain and simple.

 

Please don't test drive a car, complain that it is slow, buy the car, than complain further. You know well before hand what you are buying.

 

If you do not like the slow acceleration, the solution is simple, don't be a cheap as* and buy a 520 or a 320 if you think it is too slow for you. Buy a WRX or Evo, they have more power, has 4 doors and big boot and makes "pssst psst" sound when you change gears.

 

Its either you pay more money and buy a car that puts out acceleration figures to your liking or you keep quiet.

 

I do not see how people who are well and truely aware of what they are buying, despites the performance, buy it, than complain further but in conclusion not willing to pay more.

 

My opinion ? I would not buy a 520 or a 320 because I know they are slow. So if I had the money, I would pay more for a 525 or a 325 and be happy with it. If I don't have the money, I would not settle for less and complain about it.

 

[King_of_abalone]

Thanks for your brief illustration of engine construction. That however wasn't what my point was, plus I certainly wasn't the one complaining about the 320/520 inline 4.

 

My point was that, displacement is an issue for the average day to day city car revving moderately. What should the optimal displacement be then?

 

So for "moderate revs torque for easy get around in city driving" what would be the average displacement per cylinder? Looking at most street legal cars produced by mass manufacturers, isn't it 400-500cc per cylinder? That's how I estimated my figure. No charts, technical specs. I just based my conjecture by observing the cars around me, and concluded that manufacturers make engines to these figures because they would be the "ideal" compromise in terms of power and torque production and efficiency for the average street car. If that is wrong, my apologies.

 

Why are all V8's above 4 litres?

 

Why are there no current 6 cylinders below 2.5 litres?

 

For a "moderate revs torque for easy get around in city driving" type of car, isn't the displacement/cylinder ratio a good gauge of efficiency in power and torque production?

 

I am not talking about high compression, small displacement NA engines that produce more than their fair share of horsepower per litre, with low torque.

 

I am talking about your "moderate revs torque for easy get around in city driving", average sort of car that appeals to the masses and are big sellers for manufacturers.

 

So is 400-500cc per cylinder a good gauge for that sort of car? And anything below and above that is completely indulgent?

Edited November 18, 2008 by King_of_abalone

[Frenchchic]

there is a 6 cyclinder engine below 2.5L. Korean made and really not very good.