Which is faster 2007 330i or 2007 330d

[///MOS1TED]

330d is a 3.0litre engine - turboed

its not 3.5 or 3.8

 

[SKYF]

LMAO
Wonder wat the displacement on my 135 must be maybe its a 3.5

 

[moranor@axis]

turbo does effectively change displacement...

because and engine is basicly a pump so if you using anther pump to force air through its the same as having a larger displacement...

at the end of the day you can only make a given amount of power for a given amount of air if you really want to compare engines look at what cfm they can suck...

 

[Josh-ZN]

I think the original question was:

"which is faster 2007 330i or 2007 330d?"

talk about side-tracking :biglol:

 

[moranor@axis]

well everyone is going on about apples to apples if you really want that then you have to look at the cfm there are plenty ways to flow more air...

displacement, RPM, turbo, supercharger....

i really dont know which will make more power per cfm, but i would be very interested to find out :rollsmile:

 

[drugekull]

Guys of course a turbo changes the displacment of the engine

Displacement is cc's of air that the enginer can suck in during one compression cycle when you turbo the motor it pushes more air into the combustion chamber and increases the displacement.

Turbo is more efficient at increasing the displacement of the engine than increasing the engine size.

And to the comment from SKYF you are 100% right your 135 is a 3 litre enginer turboed which loosly gives you about the equivilent of 3.5 liter engines worth of air hense the 135.

 

[CamZo]

Ok so the debate is compare a 3L petrol against a 3L Diesel without the turbo.... what about petrol being more combustable then diesel... thats the main reason why the turbo is needed to add more air to create better combustion?

correct me If I am wrong

 

[drugekull]

Ok so the debate is compare a 3L petrol against a 3L Diesel without the turbo.... what about petrol being more combustable then diesel... thats the main reason why the turbo is needed to add more air to create better combustion?

correct me If I am wrong

Well is petrol more combustable than diesel

Given the right environment like High presure and fine spray of diesel will be as combustable as Petrol even more so thats why you don't need spark plugs for a diesel engine it combusts as soon as its under preasure.

If you fill a bucket of petrol and diesel and throw a match then Petrol is more combustable. The diesel will put out the match in this case

Also a Turbo is better in a diesel because of the properties of the fuel the more preasure the more viguriose the explosion. But there are non turbo Deisel which produce a massive amount of torque but are really not fun to drive since they ony rev to 2500 revs since the stroke of the motor has to be huge to get the compression up.

So thats not really an issue here we talking about here to do a proper comparison here we need equilent engines in displacement and power which we don't.

 

[CamZo]

Ok so the debate is compare a 3L petrol against a 3L Diesel without the turbo.... what about petrol being more combustable then diesel... thats the main reason why the turbo is needed to add more air to create better combustion?

correct me If I am wrong

Well is petrol more combustable than diesel

Given the right environment like High presure and fine spray of diesel will be as combustable as Petrol even more so thats why you don't need spark plugs for a diesel engine it combusts as soon as its under preasure.

If you fill a bucket of petrol and diesel and throw a match then Petrol is more combustable. The diesel will put out the match in this case

Also a Turbo is better in a diesel because of the properties of the fuel the more preasure the more viguriose the explosion. But there are non turbo Deisel which produce a massive amount of torque but are really not fun to drive since they ony rev to 2500 revs since the stroke of the motor has to be huge to get the compression up.

So thats not really an issue here we talking about here to do a proper comparison here we need equilent engines in displacement and power which we don't.

Oh ok I see thanks Drugekull... :thumbs:

 

[Sankekur]

@drugekull: :bravo: :ty:

 

[killua]

Guys of course a turbo changes the displacment of the engine

Displacement is cc's of air that the enginer can suck in during one compression cycle when you turbo the motor it pushes more air into the combustion chamber and increases the displacement.

Turbo is more efficient at increasing the displacement of the engine than increasing the engine size.

:sorry: Maybe I am missing something here. :fencelook:
It seems like you are confusing volume with density. Because 1 liter of air still only occupies 1 liter of space, doesn't matter how many oxygen molecules you cram in. Engine displacement is defined as the swept volume of all the cylinders in one combustion cycle (of all cylinders ofcourse). So the 3 liter engine of the 135i has a displacement of 3 liter, turbo charged or not. The density of the air is higher when turbocharged, thus output power is equal to a larger capacity engine.

The Nomenclature consideration for the 135i isn't chosen to indicate displacement, its merely chosen because we all know how silly the names would be if they were longer, such as maybe calling the 135i the 130i-biTurbo.... Believing the contrary gives away your age, displacement is rarely indicated by nomenclature these days because of the above mentioned topic. :rollsmile:

 

[drugekull]

Guys of course a turbo changes the displacment of the engine

Displacement is cc's of air that the enginer can suck in during one compression cycle when you turbo the motor it pushes more air into the combustion chamber and increases the displacement.

Turbo is more efficient at increasing the displacement of the engine than increasing the engine size.

:sorry: Maybe I am missing something here. :fencelook:
It seems like you are confusing volume with density. Because 1 liter of air still only occupies 1 liter of space, doesn't matter how many oxygen molecules you cram in. Engine displacement is defined as the swept volume of all the cylinders in one combustion cycle (of all cylinders ofcourse). So the 3 liter engine of the 135i has a displacement of 3 liter, turbo charged or not. The density of the air is higher when turbocharged, thus output power is equal to a larger capacity engine.

The Nomenclature consideration for the 135i isn't chosen to indicate displacement, its merely chosen because we all know how silly the names would be if they were longer, such as maybe calling the 135i the 130i-biTurbo.... Believing the contrary gives away your age, displacement is rarely indicated by nomenclature these days because of the above mentioned topic. :rollsmile:

You Right and wrong here

In a divers oxygen tank how much air is present say it holds 30 litres and normal sea level presure once you compress it it holds 60 or 80 or even 100 liters of air or even 1000 litres.

Same applies to the engine when the engine is off you are right its a 3 litre engine but when the turbo is at full preasure it is not getting 3 litres of air anymore its more like a 3.8 or 4 litres so the displacement has been changed. Where the normally asperated engine is getting a nice steady flow of 3 litres still. Its like having a veriable engine size that you can change as you need it so you can get these huge torque curves that are unheard of in normally asperated engines. Which makes Turbo engines more fuel efficient than if you had to make a normally asperated engine with the same power.

More air more fuel can be ignited which equils more power.

Mercs are a perfect example of this philosify. You buy a C180 C200 C230 you are getting a 1.6 litre motor with a different preasure supercharger. This give the efficiency since you are capable of using the same petrol of a 1.6 but you can have the power of a 2.3 if you want it.
I am so glad BMW has not done this yet but this twin power stuff looks like its going that way with talk of a 3 cylinder engine.

 

[Sankekur]

Yup BMW will probably go this way with the new 3er, with most of the range using a (possibly) 2l 4pot engine with various NA and FI configurations for the different models.
Something like (My speculation):
318i -> detuned 2l
320i -> 2l
323i/325i -> 2l single turbo
328i -> 2l twin turbo

 

[Henry330i]

On a Traffic light GP, the 330d will take it with all that torque (especially with software!) but on a top end run the petrol will be tops, but that is just illegal and dangerous.

What would interest me more would be a Killarney track time in both!

I think when it comes to the track the 330i should take it because the 330d motor is dam heavy over the front axle. I recall in Top Gear they pitted a 530d against a 530i and the i took it by a couple of seconds.

 

[killua]

Guys of course a turbo changes the displacment of the engine

Displacement is cc's of air that the enginer can suck in during one compression cycle when you turbo the motor it pushes more air into the combustion chamber and increases the displacement.

Turbo is more efficient at increasing the displacement of the engine than increasing the engine size.

:sorry: Maybe I am missing something here. :fencelook:
It seems like you are confusing volume with density. Because 1 liter of air still only occupies 1 liter of space, doesn't matter how many oxygen molecules you cram in. Engine displacement is defined as the swept volume of all the cylinders in one combustion cycle (of all cylinders ofcourse). So the 3 liter engine of the 135i has a displacement of 3 liter, turbo charged or not. The density of the air is higher when turbocharged, thus output power is equal to a larger capacity engine.

The Nomenclature consideration for the 135i isn't chosen to indicate displacement, its merely chosen because we all know how silly the names would be if they were longer, such as maybe calling the 135i the 130i-biTurbo.... Believing the contrary gives away your age, displacement is rarely indicated by nomenclature these days because of the above mentioned topic. :rollsmile:

You Right and wrong here

In a divers oxygen tank how much air is present say it holds 30 litres and normal sea level presure once you compress it it holds 60 or 80 or even 100 liters of air or even 1000 litres.

Same applies to the engine when the engine is off you are right its a 3 litre engine but when the turbo is at full preasure it is not getting 3 litres of air anymore its more like a 3.8 or 4 litres so the displacement has been changed. Where the normally asperated engine is getting a nice steady flow of 3 litres still. Its like having a veriable engine size that you can change as you need it so you can get these huge torque curves that are unheard of in normally asperated engines. Which makes Turbo engines more fuel efficient than if you had to make a normally asperated engine with the same power.

More air more fuel can be ignited which equils more power.

Mercs are a perfect example of this philosify. You buy a C180 C200 C230 you are getting a 1.6 litre motor with a different preasure supercharger. This give the efficiency since you are capable of using the same petrol of a 1.6 but you can have the power of a 2.3 if you want it.
I am so glad BMW has not done this yet but this twin power stuff looks like its going that way with talk of a 3 cylinder engine.

The definition of engine displacement is the swept volume. They dont give a rats a$$ what the volume was of the air before it was compressed into the engine. Oxygen tanks are rated the same way. You buy a 12 liter oxygen tank, not a 1000l. The rating for how much air the tank can actually take is rated as a pressure (300 bar typically). This is almost the same for internal combustion engines, where a turbo has a certain boost pressure. It is incorrect to refer to the displacement of an engine in the way you are doing it. You are also wrongfully using the concept of air flow. You say the NA engine has 3l steady flow. Flow is not volume, its volume over time. Let me see if I can break it down for you:
Lets take an engine thats revving at 3000rpm. The NA engine with displacement of 3l will have an ideal flow of air of approx 3000RPM/60x3l= 150l/s (liter per second). Turbo charging the same engine at 1bar over atmospheric pressure will give you a flow rate of 300l/s. The engine still has a 3l capacity, not 6l, because the swept volume hasn't changed, just the density of the air.

To make it even more confusing, the air flow expressed as volume per time will be different before and after the turbo charger. That is most probably why flow meters in the car work according to a flow unit of mass over time, which gives a more accurate way of calculating potential power output accordingly. This is also why compressors rate airflow as volume over time, but specify the pressure, because flow (as volume/time) does not take pressure into account.

Am I missing something?

EDIT: Just btw, did I do my calculation correctly, does the 3l engine suck in 150 liters of air per second, or did I screw up my units

 

[///MOS1TED]

Guys of course a turbo changes the displacment of the engine

Displacement is cc's of air that the enginer can suck in during one compression cycle when you turbo the motor it pushes more air into the combustion chamber and increases the displacement.

Turbo is more efficient at increasing the displacement of the engine than increasing the engine size.

So what displacement is a 330d?

 

[CamZo]

Guys of course a turbo changes the displacment of the engine

Displacement is cc's of air that the enginer can suck in during one compression cycle when you turbo the motor it pushes more air into the combustion chamber and increases the displacement.

Turbo is more efficient at increasing the displacement of the engine than increasing the engine size.

:sorry: Maybe I am missing something here. :fencelook:
It seems like you are confusing volume with density. Because 1 liter of air still only occupies 1 liter of space, doesn't matter how many oxygen molecules you cram in. Engine displacement is defined as the swept volume of all the cylinders in one combustion cycle (of all cylinders ofcourse). So the 3 liter engine of the 135i has a displacement of 3 liter, turbo charged or not. The density of the air is higher when turbocharged, thus output power is equal to a larger capacity engine.

The Nomenclature consideration for the 135i isn't chosen to indicate displacement, its merely chosen because we all know how silly the names would be if they were longer, such as maybe calling the 135i the 130i-biTurbo.... Believing the contrary gives away your age, displacement is rarely indicated by nomenclature these days because of the above mentioned topic. :rollsmile:

You Right and wrong here

In a divers oxygen tank how much air is present say it holds 30 litres and normal sea level presure once you compress it it holds 60 or 80 or even 100 liters of air or even 1000 litres.

Same applies to the engine when the engine is off you are right its a 3 litre engine but when the turbo is at full preasure it is not getting 3 litres of air anymore its more like a 3.8 or 4 litres so the displacement has been changed. Where the normally asperated engine is getting a nice steady flow of 3 litres still. Its like having a veriable engine size that you can change as you need it so you can get these huge torque curves that are unheard of in normally asperated engines. Which makes Turbo engines more fuel efficient than if you had to make a normally asperated engine with the same power.

More air more fuel can be ignited which equils more power.

Mercs are a perfect example of this philosify. You buy a C180 C200 C230 you are getting a 1.6 litre motor with a different preasure supercharger. This give the efficiency since you are capable of using the same petrol of a 1.6 but you can have the power of a 2.3 if you want it.
I am so glad BMW has not done this yet but this twin power stuff looks like its going that way with talk of a 3 cylinder engine.

The definition of engine displacement is the swept volume. They dont give a rats a$$ what the volume was of the air before it was compressed into the engine. Oxygen tanks are rated the same way. You buy a 12 liter oxygen tank, not a 1000l. The rating for how much air the tank can actually take is rated as a pressure (300 bar typically). This is almost the same for internal combustion engines, where a turbo has a certain boost pressure. It is incorrect to refer to the displacement of an engine in the way you are doing it. You are also wrongfully using the concept of air flow. You say the NA engine has 3l steady flow. Flow is not volume, its volume over time. Let me see if I can break it down for you:
Lets take an engine thats revving at 3000rpm. The NA engine with displacement of 3l will have an ideal flow of air of approx 3000RPM/60x3l= 150l/s (liter per second). Turbo charging the same engine at 1bar over atmospheric pressure will give you a flow rate of 300l/s. The engine still has a 3l capacity, not 6l, because the swept volume hasn't changed, just the density of the air.

To make it even more confusing, the air flow expressed as volume per time will be different before and after the turbo charger. That is most probably why flow meters in the car work according to a flow unit of mass over time, which gives a more accurate way of calculating potential power output accordingly. This is also why compressors rate airflow as volume over time, but specify the pressure, because flow (as volume/time) does not take pressure into account.

Am I missing something?

EDIT: Just btw, did I do my calculation correctly, does the 3l engine suck in 150 liters of air per second, or did I screw up my units

The only thing I see screwed up is this conversation :biglol: I am sooo lost.... its like the feeling you get when you write an exam and you see a question for 30 marks and you know F$*& all about it!!!!

 

[killua]

Guys of course a turbo changes the displacment of the engine

Displacement is cc's of air that the enginer can suck in during one compression cycle when you turbo the motor it pushes more air into the combustion chamber and increases the displacement.

Turbo is more efficient at increasing the displacement of the engine than increasing the engine size.

:sorry: Maybe I am missing something here. :fencelook:
It seems like you are confusing volume with density. Because 1 liter of air still only occupies 1 liter of space, doesn't matter how many oxygen molecules you cram in. Engine displacement is defined as the swept volume of all the cylinders in one combustion cycle (of all cylinders ofcourse). So the 3 liter engine of the 135i has a displacement of 3 liter, turbo charged or not. The density of the air is higher when turbocharged, thus output power is equal to a larger capacity engine.

The Nomenclature consideration for the 135i isn't chosen to indicate displacement, its merely chosen because we all know how silly the names would be if they were longer, such as maybe calling the 135i the 130i-biTurbo.... Believing the contrary gives away your age, displacement is rarely indicated by nomenclature these days because of the above mentioned topic. :rollsmile:

You Right and wrong here

In a divers oxygen tank how much air is present say it holds 30 litres and normal sea level presure once you compress it it holds 60 or 80 or even 100 liters of air or even 1000 litres.

Same applies to the engine when the engine is off you are right its a 3 litre engine but when the turbo is at full preasure it is not getting 3 litres of air anymore its more like a 3.8 or 4 litres so the displacement has been changed. Where the normally asperated engine is getting a nice steady flow of 3 litres still. Its like having a veriable engine size that you can change as you need it so you can get these huge torque curves that are unheard of in normally asperated engines. Which makes Turbo engines more fuel efficient than if you had to make a normally asperated engine with the same power.

More air more fuel can be ignited which equils more power.

Mercs are a perfect example of this philosify. You buy a C180 C200 C230 you are getting a 1.6 litre motor with a different preasure supercharger. This give the efficiency since you are capable of using the same petrol of a 1.6 but you can have the power of a 2.3 if you want it.
I am so glad BMW has not done this yet but this twin power stuff looks like its going that way with talk of a 3 cylinder engine.

The definition of engine displacement is the swept volume. They dont give a rats a$$ what the volume was of the air before it was compressed into the engine. Oxygen tanks are rated the same way. You buy a 12 liter oxygen tank, not a 1000l. The rating for how much air the tank can actually take is rated as a pressure (300 bar typically). This is almost the same for internal combustion engines, where a turbo has a certain boost pressure. It is incorrect to refer to the displacement of an engine in the way you are doing it. You are also wrongfully using the concept of air flow. You say the NA engine has 3l steady flow. Flow is not volume, its volume over time. Let me see if I can break it down for you:
Lets take an engine thats revving at 3000rpm. The NA engine with displacement of 3l will have an ideal flow of air of approx 3000RPM/60x3l= 150l/s (liter per second). Turbo charging the same engine at 1bar over atmospheric pressure will give you a flow rate of 300l/s. The engine still has a 3l capacity, not 6l, because the swept volume hasn't changed, just the density of the air.

To make it even more confusing, the air flow expressed as volume per time will be different before and after the turbo charger. That is most probably why flow meters in the car work according to a flow unit of mass over time, which gives a more accurate way of calculating potential power output accordingly. This is also why compressors rate airflow as volume over time, but specify the pressure, because flow (as volume/time) does not take pressure into account.

Am I missing something?

EDIT: Just btw, did I do my calculation correctly, does the 3l engine suck in 150 liters of air per second, or did I screw up my units

The only thing I see screwed up is this conversation :biglol: I am sooo lost.... its like the feeling you get when you write an exam and you see a question for 30 marks and you know F$*& all about it!!!!

Sorry, I did screw it up, I had to divide the RPM by 2, because it still needs another cycle to get rid of the air. So a 3 liter engine has a flow of 75l/s.

Sorry, I should stop trying to be so technical :sorry:

 

[drugekull]

Jees guys I am also lost now

Thanks Killua for all the effort and making sure I get all the terms right.

But we can agree that a turbo gives more air which gives more power so gives an appearance of a bigger engine.

Right?

So in the case of a 330d against a 330i the engine on the 330d is safe to say seams like a bigger engine right?
Would agree as well that to compare 2 engines of equil displacement but one is turboed and one is not is not a good comparison?

 

[killua]

Jees guys I am also lost now

Thanks Killua for all the effort and making sure I get all the terms right.

But we can agree that a turbo gives more air which gives more power so gives an appearance of a bigger engine.

Right?

So in the case of a 330d against a 330i the engine on the 330d is safe to say seams like a bigger engine right?
Would agree as well that to compare 2 engines of equil displacement but one is turboed and one is not is not a good comparison?

Yes, I agree, this is 100% correct. You can never really compare cars by displacement, IMO. The best measure to compare with is price, or power, or power delivery, or name another 100% better ways... There is nothing that pisses me off more that some numb-nuts bragging that engine "x" has more power than engine "y". There are way too many factors to consider, such as reliability, cost to design and manufacture, power delivery etc.
Take for example the new 1.4 tsi motor in the polo gti. It make 132kw from a 1.4l engine. Great engineering marvel, but do I want one? They are sacrificing simplicity for fuel consumption. In the long run it is the best option if you consider how strict projected emission ratings are. But does this make the engine in the 323i look silly now? Does this make me hate the engine in previous AMG x63? Nope....

Back to the diesel vs petrol debate. As a fuel, diesel has the edge because of its higher energy density. But due to its other properties, its harder to harness (for max power), because engine design needs to be more complex. We also have to remember that most research in recent years have gone into the petrol engine. Diesel engines were never designed for outright power, were they?