BMW's 0- 62 in 4.7 Seconds, 546 lb/ft Torque, 381 BHP, 37 MPG.
 

Triple turbo diesel. That's just uncalled for.

If they make it, they will have a believer in me! I have always been a fan of diesel engines.

The 335D is pretty bad arse in it's own right. There are a bunch coming off lease right now and it's very tempting. The torque is rediculous.

Mazda and Toyota had sequential turbos on 2.6L gas engines, great power band when they worked well.

For the trip diesel, if it's got a better torque curve than a heavier, larger displacement engine with single turbo, and it's not a big increase for base cost and maintenance costs, it's a winner.

.

BMW had enough reliability horror stories when they first started using one turbo. I thought when they switched to twin-turbos it was a silly decision. Now that they are tri-turbo boosting engines I just think that is absurd. Throw 3 turbo's on a gasoline engine and you will have a rocketship. 4.7 seconds 0-60 isn't anything "awesome". The Infiniti M45 nearly does this (5.2 seconds) with a NA v8...

The idea is fuel conservation at the same time as power... hence the diesels. What mpg is the M45 getting?

Wow, That's a bit hard.The 2011 C63AMG only does 0-60 in 4.3.

Compare times with other MB's :-

http://www.zeroto60times.com/Mercede...mph-Times.html

Achieving 4.7 with small cubes & a great consumption figure & nil lag , this little engine is a winner.:zoom:

Think diesel man :rolf:

The M45 only got about 20mpg (But is old design (2008-2010 model). The new 2012 is the M56 which is a NA v8 that puts out a 0-60 of 4.7 seconds and returns 25mpg. Granted the idea is fuel conservation along with power. But it would make more "sense" to just biturbo a gasoline motor. A simple V6 biturbo could put out the same performance and return near 35mpg highway. While its not 45mpg, you can put regular gas in instead of diesel, which in my area is nearly 60 cents per gallon more expensive for diesel over 87 octane gas. Severely eating into any "real world" savings.

But it is a good idea. I just think that speaking in overal terms. It would have been smarter to get a v6 biturbo to do the same thing. And when a v8 NA (best reliability vs TRI-turbo) can have the same performance with 25mpg hwy. I'll take that. Heck, you can probably make the M56 or a similar car a hybrid and blow those numbers out of the water, especially if you introduce 1/2 cylinder turnoff (to run on 4 cylinders) when cruising highway speed.

Well, the C63 technically was WELL capable of 3.8 second 0-60 marks, its just MB de-tuned it factory to give the e-class ///AMG an "edge". The new 2012 offer you the option to order it fully tuned, and the C63 ///AMG coupe even does 0-60 in 3.6 seconds! That's more than 1 second faster 0-60 than BMW's engines. But granted, the fuel economy is nowhere as good.

You have a good point, but as fuel prices rise, that price differential will reduce in proportion. BTW, what V6 biturbo did you gave in mind?


Rx7 Sequential Twin Turbo Contol System

http://i829.photobucket.com/albums/z...c82f4137_b.jpg


---------------------------------------------------------

Obama Fans, please don't read this !!!

Mr Obama will likely enjoys 4 more years to make fuel nearly twice as expensive, based on over-regulating the gulf oil drilling when only one company had a history of rule violations and was the only one responsible for the disaster, and promoting non-profitable "green energy" companies for his buddies, while china and many of the eastern countries belch out pollution. He also stopped the big pipeline from Canada, because is was not smart enough to interpret the current studies, and just tossed his union buds (who will vote for him anyways) under the bus, while saving his green alien fans ...

.