2007 BMW 335I Coupe

Home  \  European Imports  \  2007 BMW 335I Coupe

The 3 series coupe is finally coming out soon and in a big way...


302 hp twin turbo I6.

Not sequential turbos, but rather two small same size turbos each feeding 3 cylinders. Interesting, BMW says there is ZERO lag. Makes sense.

posted by  thunderbird1100

This is like a Supra TT (although not sequential, still TT 3.0L I6 with about the same output) of the '00s, only more refined.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Hmm, that's a pretty sexy Bimmer. I usually think they're all ass ugly, but that's not too bad. I'm glad the Inline 6 is still in use somewhere, as the new Supra is going V style :screwy:

posted by  TanyasMkIISupra

Interesting, but I like the idea that Bimmers are always non-turboed. Oh well. Makes it simpler....

posted by  Mathew

About damn time lol :smoke:

I don't think it's the best looking Bimmer, but definitely a very good looking one, I definately wouldn't mind riding in one :2cents:

posted by  chris_knows

Hmm, I think the previous coupe's a better looker. Can't wait to see the M version!

posted by  jedimario

me too... i dont know why, but these ones just have a flimsier look to them...:ohcrap:

and this coupe looks a little dispraportionate... maybe a little too long or something.

posted by  pik_d

This is an interesting application of the twin turbos for an I6. Not sequential but rather two same size small turbos each blowing into 3 cylinders. They say it means no lag.

I guess this setup is best for quick spool and no lag, but because of the size of the turbos it doesnt add a lot of power (47 more hp over the N/A 3.0L). I love that torque! 295ft-lbs available at 1500rpms!

posted by  thunderbird1100

looks like a very nice car i personally thhink they should've stayed n/a:2cents:

posted by  mx3_monster

I like thought that of it being a Twin Turbo, and I'm glad they're staying with the current engine too!

posted by  Cliffy

Zero lag? Hmm. I'll wait until BMW tells me that.

For them to claim they're car creates zero lag when zero lag from a turbo with no super-tricky setup is next to impossible....seems a bit foolish to announce such things.

Let's do some math

This isn't a super tricky setup.
BMW hasn't mentioned zero lag
There will be some lag

posted by  What?

If you read all about it, it is a super tricky setup,
and if they already know about the 295 lb ft of torque at 1500rpm
then i guess that means zero lag,

and also bmw clearly says there is zero lag

posted by  nighthawk

Highlight it and quote it for me. WHERE does it say zero lag?

Show me.

posted by  What?


and peak torque at 1500 to 5800rpm =zero lag

posted by  nighthawk

No where in the quote did it say "zero lag".

Low end torque does not equal zero lag. What the f...

posted by  What?

I dont wanna argue about this,

even though low end torque does mean zero lag,

if peak torque was at any point above 3 or 4 thousand rpm,
that would mean theres some lag, but 1500...is just off idle

posted by  nighthawk

Most modern turbo's have next to no lag, although most of the time it's still there, it's usually masked by the power....even diesels do these days, too!

posted by  Cliffy

255hp vs. 302hp and a lot more torque and ZERO noticeable turbo lag...I'll take the latter!

posted by  thunderbird1100

BMW said it creates no noitceable lag by saying "turbo lag is all but avoided"...

So basically BMW said it's nearly non-existent. Plus, with all 295lb-ft available at 1500, you shouldn't EVER have any lag in driving.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Keep in mind there is a difference between lag and spooltime.

how long it takes for the turbo to spool to full boost when accelerating through rpms. (which is what most people reffer to as lag)

Example: Jim is accelerating in his WRX and it doesn't make boost until 3500 rpms. 0-3500 rpms is his spool time

The amount of time it takes for a turbo to create boost when changing from a half/partial throttle to WOT

Example, Jim is cruising at partial throttle at 30 mph, he floors it. The amount of time it takes for the boost to start being made, wind its way through the intake plumbing and hit the manifold, is lag.

posted by  Zalight

Thats exactly what I would have done if I knew how to do multiple quotes:laughing:

and damn your quotes arent gonna show up are they? lol
oh well people already read that anyway

posted by  nighthawk

No where in that quote do I see the word "zero".

Yes, that's how I read it. I'm just being anal people, sorry.

The lag may not be noticeable to most, but the lag is still there. Someone will notice it. Zero lag is incorrect and was never stated in the given quote. I'm just being anal, but I'm right. There will be turbo-lag. Even if the boost comes on as early as 1500 rpm, you'd be able to feel it if you pay attention. I would.

BMW claims this car will have very little lag...not zero. This is an important differentation.

posted by  What?

I don't like how BMW is naming their car's these days. A few years ago, a 318i had a 1.8L engine, a 325i had a 2.5L engine, a 330i had a 3L engine etc.

Now a 330i and a 325i both have a 3.0L engine, and a 335i has a 3.0L Twin Turbo? Why not call it a 330tti? That would make much more sense.

posted by  Mathew

yea... it bothers me too... but i guess they have to do it so they dont have one years 330i being just as good as the next years 325i...

posted by  pik_d

I don't see why thats a problem. This year's Mustang GT is faster than last year's Mustang GT, they didn't change the name. It is natural for cars to improve over the years. The naming system made sense. Now it doesn't.

posted by  Mathew

wouldn't it be odd of this years base mustang was better then last years GT?

posted by  pik_d

No, it could happen.

And if it did, do you think they should name the base Mustang the Mustang GT, and the Mustang GT, the GT-R or something like that? No.

Besides, the BMW naming system was based on engine size, not a "relative performance to the last version" figure.

posted by  Mathew

you wouldn't find it at all odd if the base mustang of 2007 had over 300hp? or in some other way outpreformed the GT so blatently?

and i'm pointing out that it's changed from engine size, to relative preformance distantly based on engine size. which is what you were aluding to, but never actually said... why are we arguing?

posted by  pik_d

I dunno. It's dumb, anyway, let us agree.

posted by  Mathew

The 323i was a 2.5litre and some 318's used to be 1.9litre....and the older 316's used to be 1.8litres too lol

posted by  Cliffy

Any half-wit knows there's always SOME lag with a turbocharged vehicle. We're all at least semi-smart people here. We know when someone says "zero lag" it means no noticeable lag.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Well, I'm a fully-smart person. Zero lag doesn't mean no noticeable lag in my world. Zero lag means zero lag. When it says "turbo lag is all but avoided", to me that means "turbo lag has been reduced to a level where it is practically non-existent, but it is still there."

We must also keep in mind that this is a manufacturer commenting about their own vehicle. Some of us will feel the lag.

posted by  What?

semantics anyone?

posted by  Zalight

Your Message