Dyno-Tested: 2012 BMW 328i

Powertrains are a BMW strength
24/36 EPA, with 240 HP at the wheels + 257 in torque

VERY impressive!
BD

"The display is a gimmick, but at least it's a somewhat accurate one."

Actually, I could see it useful in about 7 years if it's still accurate at that time. The owner could track any performance drop off and use it to trigger something useful like an injector cleaning, air filter inspection, intake inspection, etc.

Someone needs to tell these German powertrain engineers that the power ratings are supposed to be at the crank and not the wheels. :) VW's 2.0T engine is clearly underrated, the old BMW N54 was underrated, now the N20 is clearly underrated.

Not complaining mind you, but c'mon guys, its getting silly now.

Not going to give us the 3.0 i6 curve to compare this to?

Just test drove 328i modern line today. Yes, the engine did feel much stronger and sportier than the old inline-6. But it's less silky smooth, sounds less sexy, and the start-stop is not that smooth.

Put the engine and transmission aside, which I think it's an improvement over the old, believe it or not, I was so disappointed ON EVERYTHINGS about the car. Although the interior was nice looking in the press pictures, once I sat inside, it's definitely felt cheap compared to E9X. The dash was made of harder and cheaper material, the weight of the stalks and other things definitely felt cheaper also. The steering feel is way off, about the same as any other cars with EPS. I would definetely say the Mazda3 Skyactiv I drove the other day have 1000000000000000 times better steering feel!!!!!!

Also the way it rides is just so uninspiring! It doesn't have the BMW's bottom-down-feel-like-a-tank or whatsoever feel you call it. It feels under damped even with the suspension turned to sport (not comfort or eco). again, the Mazda3 Skyactiv I drove the other day felt SO MUCH FLAT, WELL CONTROL OVER THE BUMP, AND INSPIRING TO DRIVE. I CAN'T EVEN BELIEVE ONE DAY I WOULD SAY THIS, BUT I AM SAYING IT NOW:THE MAZDA3 SKYACTIV DRIVES BETTER THAN A 3 SERIES. I also feel the new C250 rides better and feel more sophisticated in suspension tuning as well. Don't even need to compare the interior to the C250's.

All the lines on top of the trims and packages are just so overwhelmingly unnecessary. I WOULD ORDER WHAT I WANT, I DON'T NEED YOU TO PUT IT AS LINES INSTEAD OF PACKAGES OR ACCESSORIES.

anyway, my wrath is over. I am going to hang on to my E46 M3 forever. It just felt the BMW's spend all the money on how to over engineering the CHEAPNESS AND HOW TO MAKE IT CHEAP then the real ULTIMATE DRIVING MACHINE.

"It's so low in the rev range, though, that you really have to drive like a clown to elicit it."

So heavy throttle short shifting style driving, where you would likely run into a 2300 RPM gap in the boost means you're driving like a clown...

BMW knows their engines. Would the engine make more power on 93 octane?

I hope the ATS engineers realize their 270hp I-4T is probably the same output as a x28i. Caddy will be outgunned by the N54 which is equally under rated by 20% or so.

I like the very conservative ratings by BMW/Audi recently, but from a marketing standpoint a true SAE output could help. This engine putting up numbers probably similar to the hyundai 2.0T. Hyundai gets praise for the output and efficiency, but this BMW is pretty close on both if you take out the BMW underestimate. Also - it's not like they aren't consistent enough for a higher output rating, looking at the different car, different engine, different day variation is minimal.

I'll have to look to see if they dyno'ed a 335is v. 335i same day - I wonder if BMW actually gets gains or just claims what they didn't to begin with.

@jkav- Did you take the pictures or did Kurt? Just curious.

Technically they aren't lying when they underrate an engine, unless they are claiming absolute max. So they can say it makes 50hp and that would still be the truth, even at peak (i.e. part throttle, no load).

Anyways, my guess is that they may be taking worse conditions into account especially for a turbocharged engine, like a heat soaked in hot weather

why do they keep doing this? It was evident based on the first test that this car has more than 240hp.

ATS engine is SAE certified so it probably makes about the same hp as this engine REALLY makes. If the turbo is under 3400lbs as advertised it should have no problems keeping up with the underrated 328i.

Subaru would call this 300 hp.

I agree with Church123 100%

It seems like they focused way too much on the low end power. To lose power like that after 5252rpm with two turbo's, both must be super small and quick spooling. I wonder if there even was a point of allowing 7000rpm. So where's the high rev tuned monsters BMW's used to make?

oh jkav, your jesting is always appreciated.

i think the car looks great, and the power and mpg ratings are awesome.
makes me realize how vw's 2.0t is aging and needs to address mpg in its next iteration.

but it does sound better than the n20: audi/vw have that nailed

and is that skrillex i hear in the background?

Very impressive, especially when you consider that the Hyundai 2.0T is rated at 274 hp and 269 lb. ft. of torque (!?) and produces lower peak power, and then only at the very end of its rev range. This is pretty hefty underrating especially considering that it is RWD. BMW really did hit this one out of the park in terms of power and efficiency.

@lzks: You can see how the car has trouble breathing after 5K with the rapid torque dropoff... and you're right, I really don't see the point in revving this car to redline unless you need the extra space to play with without downshifting on a track. You can shortshift this engine at 5.5K rpm actually...

So this is about 276 to 282 HP at the crank (depending on which formula you use) while getting 24/36 EPA. That' very, very impressive. I agree with all the auto-writers...the 328i is better than the 335 and it may be the best BMW in the entire lineup. Any objections???

Here is another 328i tested on a dyno:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4U_CdQt6Mus&feature=player_embedded

Max Power = 226.51
Max Torque = 230.42

*Multiply by 1.18 to convert figures to flywheel values:

Max Power = 267
Max Torque = 272

So BMW has underrated the 2.0T engine by about 40HP+.

since this bmw has a turbo... i'd like to be reassured that the HPFP issue is resolved....

Is this an automatic or a six speed? Does the car put down the same power with both transmissions or does one have an advantage over the other?

I really would like to test a random production unit like we did with the 335i when it came out. We know that press pool vehicles are identified as such on the assembly line build sheet.

@church123,

I bet the next M3's HP rating will be at the crank? I bet BMW won't forget that one!

Shrug. Doesn't matter if the car feels big and drives big. Which is my experience so far. I'll try another but thus far...not impressed.

That's almost a direct overlay for a GTI stage I tune - my car pulls 230 hp/265 ft/lb on a Dynojet.

Compared to this N20 on this Dynojet, my GTI is showing maybe 7 lb/ft and 7 hp more at any given point below 4500 rpm and maybe 5 fewer lb/ft and 5 fewer hp at any given point above 6k. The BMW pulls an isolated 240 hp peak, but for the most part it's making around 235 from 5k to 6.5k, while the VW is pulling a steady 230 hp from 4.8k to about 6.2k.

Hp and torque curves are similarly broad with both cars - VW curve is falling maybe 300-500 rpm lower at both ends of the range. My car is stock hardware - a $250 intake would put me at rough parity with the N20 hp-wise and give me a larger torque advantage than I already have.

I have no dip at 2.3k, although this is no deal-killer for the BMW - they have done a stellar job with this engine. The minor-league complaining from jkav about the party ending at 7k is just that - in real-world driving, this engine will run away and hide from the 3L N/A six, in any model BMW puts it in.

My car does 33 mpg at a steady 75 mph, on an EPA highway est. of 31. I would have to see this BMW actually pull 36 highway mpg in the real world before I believe it - I'd bet that at 75, it would do the same 33 I am seeing, which is no mean thing at ALL.

GREAT job BMW.

In light of IL installing most-common mods on its LT Wrangler, it's too bad they never spent $600 to chip their LT GTI - this is the most-common mod on that car. I guess that would have conflicted with the "warm-hatch" narrative they had established by then...

@bestjinjo and j_smith

The other test posted here is of an automatic car. The dyno is still a dynojet, but it is a 224 which is a smaller model. Readings should be close though. It would appear as though the automatic would suck up about 10-15 hp more in losses, which is not unusual with a torque converter setup.

I don`t know, it seems to me that IL`s dyno just reads higher, a lot.

That happened with the Mustang, and the numbers for this N20 are just too much as well.

I rather believe this dyno, http://www.f30post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=646824 , which yeah did showed the N20 was underrated, but come on, not by this much.

That dyno showed the N20 at around 265hp and 270 torques, sounds more like it.

@cr_driver

Ha LOL!!! That dyno has been pretty generous!!!

Personally, I'd rather dyno on a notoriously stingy dyno. The results are so much more rewarding if you put up pretty good numbers.

I still haven't found any instrumented 1/4 mile numbers on this car. I am guessing it will run low 14s around 100 mph. E36 M3 speed in a base 328i is pretty impressive. Wonder how much this turbo will have in it once the tuners start releasing boltons and flashes. The automatic may be the hot ticket if you are looking for a quick affordable and fuel efficient dd without spending the extra money on the 335i. I do have one gripe IMO the sport automatic with paddle shifters should be standard not a $500 dollar option. It would be a must have for me and it eats into the saving money with the automatic because you get better MPGs theory.

Its can still go higher...

The fan is not doing the engine justice... I wonder what the airspeed and temperature that fan simulates.

dang nice car

Looks like the first turbo spools up way down low, from idle to 2100 rpm. Then the second turbo kicks in around 2500 rpm (that's why you see the dip) and pulls relatively strong all the way to redline.

The power might "peak" at 240 rwhp, but if you look at the average of the curve from 5000 to 6500 rpm, it's making more around the area of 230 rwhp.

With a 15% drivetrain loss, 230 rwhp is 270 hp at the crank.

Not bad, BMW. You've made a Cobalt SS.

I think BMW does make some great engines. However, even though probably not as smooth as the Bimmer mill, the Hyundai 2.0T engine makes just as much power AND does it on 87 unleaded. I find that a huge advantage over the long run.

Great numbers! I am really looking forward to the 2-Door M-Package later this year. Hopefully, the M-Package will consist of the Porsche view of weightless similar to the creation of the Cayman-R. Lightweight racing seats, less interior molding and sound proofing ... a sport suspension to jar your fillings loose, as any good sport suspension should.

I confess, if I was in the market for a 3 series, I would not have looked at the Cobalt or Mazda 3. If I choose to upgrade from my current 550i to a 7 series, should I test drive the Chevy Impala and the Mazda 6?

... I digress.

jacton - 87 octane. Man that's a savings of like $150 a year! Good grief, what to do with the sudden windfall?

@jacton: Not so sure about that... http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline/2010/10/dyno-tested-2011-hyundai-sonata-20t.html

If the 328 truly gets the proclaimed EPA mileage numbers with that much power at the wheel, it is a technological tour de force.

The 4 cyl may not be inline 6 smooth, but I imagine it is a whole lot more fun than the diesel option. With this sort of fuel economy, it might be guiltless fun too.

@blueguydotcom-
No matter how small its still money in my pocket rather than someone elses.

Thanks for the test! Got a really great sound to that new I4 engine. In addition, no more dubstep in your videos PLEASE.

Wow, this car's power really IS underrated! It seems like it makes even more horsepower than the E90 330i (the top trim at the time) made its first year out, 2006 model year.

Also: I agree, the guy in the video IS handsome :)

"church123 says:

09:25 PM, 02/15/12

Someone needs to tell these German powertrain engineers that the power ratings are supposed to be at the crank and not the wheels. "

Honestly for the last several years I've thought all euro cars published their WHP #s.

Anyone remember the Top Gear episode where they dyno a GT500 and then chide it for "only" making 450WHP ? Even that lends to the impression that euro's quote WHP not CHP.

Do we know for a fact that they are listing the CHP in their manuals and press releases? It would make a lot of sense; The 335i makes 300HP but runs low 13s?
The 330Ci ran low 14s with only 240HP?

I've just always thought it was a given that the euro manufacturers meant "at the wheel" (and I think I was even told this as a young car nut) but now I'm confused.
Then again I also heard BMWs are tough to dyno tune because of the electric nannies that tell the car that the rear wheels shouldn't move when the front ones aren't...

"I still haven't found any instrumented 1/4 mile numbers on this car."

MT tested the car. Quarter was 14.2@98mph approx. They said they observed 30mpg on a hwy stint doing 75 and got only 19mpg during a 150m driving loop in which they drove the car like it should be driven. Good luck getting 24/36 out of this car unless you baby it and drive it like a Prius.

Take note Hyundai/Kia... THIS is how you built a 2.0T

Same weight, less horsepower (atleast claimed). The BMW is heavier and does 0-60 in 1.5 seconds FASTER then a 2.0T Optima/Sonata.

BMW is the real deal so it doesn't need to inflate it's HP ratings to bait customers that only care about what's on paper and not how a car ACTUALLY DRIVES.

"church123 says:

09:25 PM, 02/15/12

Someone needs to tell these German powertrain engineers that the power ratings are supposed to be at the crank and not the wheels. "

^someone needs to tell you the only HP that matters is what makes it to the ground.

If I built a 1000hp engine and mate it to the worst drivetrain possible and it only produces 200whp, but then I go an advertsie "1000hp!! 1000hp!!!"..... get the point??

If you like paper #s buy a Hyundai. If you like real world performance well... you know where to go ;)

As one of those who've panned I'LL for the BMW LT parade, and seeing as its an innevitability that an F30 is coming shortly, I do hope they hold out for the convertible. At least that will have some freshness for us loyal readers.

And I am hopeful that an Evoque and/or Lexus G makes it onto the LT fleet. Bring some variety people!

The aftermarket is coming with ECU upgrades/downpipes etc that may make the entry level Bimmer 3 the most interesting one in the batch for tuners. (If you don't mind nixing your warranty)

People stating one should shift at 5500 rpm don't understand that horsepower actually does the work (hey, its is even in the name - i.e. "power"). Given the normal drop ~800-1k rpms (on a 6 speed) and one should shift near 6.5k.

"87 octane. Man that's a savings of like $150 a year! Good grief, what to do with the sudden windfall?"

Agreed- absolutely ridiculous...

@compressor: The point is that between 5250-max RPM, the horsepower peak plateaus. I don't know the gear ratios well enough to see if it'll stay within the max powerband if you short shift at say, 6K RPM, but I would also say that in most instances it probably doesn't matter, and certainly you won't see any benefit waiting until 7K to shift.

@socale46: That was Church's point...

So basically when BMW measures it horsepower and torque figures for their cars they are indeed measured at the wheels! Attention car manufacturers, LEARN FROM BMW! This is why their cars are always the fastest from 0-60 and 1/4 mile times- they actually have 30-60 hp MORE then they claim! Great idea to keep insurance claims lower also!

"Looks like the first turbo spools up way down low, from idle to 2100 rpm. Then the second turbo kicks in around 2500 rpm (that's why you see the dip) and pulls relatively strong all the way to redline."

LT1boy, this is a single turbo unit, not a twin. It has twin scrolls for faster and more efficient boost characteristics.

@duck87 ahhh i didn't sense the sarcasm first read. I get what Church is saying now :)

These is other powertrain stuff going on that limits the accelerative performance of the Hyundai/Kia turbo 4 installed in the Sonata/Optima - it's rated at 274/269, and actually pulled 234/239, with an automatic.

The BMW in the link that bestjinjo posted was rated at 240/260, and pulled 226.xx/230.xx...also an automatic.

Really not THAT different - the BMW obviously had more hp relative to its rated power, but torque production at the wheels as opposed to posted figures was identical with both cars - 30 lb/ft lower at the wheels than at the crank.

Of course, one obvious difference in accelerative ability between the two cars is one is FWD and one is RWD and will always have an advantage out of the hole. There may be something with regards to how the converter locks up, how the tranny shifts, shift points relative to power curve, etc. that penalize the Hyundai.

There is also the fact that Hyundai uses torque management like a Mazdaspeed3 in the lower gears, that is as far as I know not employed by BMW. That is probably a big factor, because Hyundai/Kia probably set the torque mgmt. to work well with their OEM tires, none of which are great high performance tires that have a whole hell of a lot of grip. The MS3 probably pulls much less torque in the lower gears because that car comes with good summer tires on it.

A stage I GTI, which does not use torque management, will run 0-60 in around 5.8 and the quarter in just about 14 flat at 100 mph (maybe a hair quicker with DSG...)...about what this 328i with the manual will do. VW does a pretty damn good job of getting power down, even with FWD.

compressor, I bet you are correct as to shift points with these cars - more like 6.5k rpm, even if power has plateaued before then - shifting earlier drops the car too far below the power peak in the next gear for best acceleration. As duck87 says, probably no point in taking either the VW or the 328i to 7k.

@Fordson1

Very good points. And I'm not expecting a Kia which costs about $10k less to perform the same as a 3-series, many more expensive cars have tried and all so far failed :)

But nonetheless I find it disingenuous to market such sport factor and constantly claim 274hp when the real world experience is far from it.

I respect manufacturers that are more humble about it like VW and BMW.

Hyundai and Kia obviously have a lot to learn about drivetrain efficiency when competitors are constantly faster yet have less advertised HP.

Case in point Camry vs Sonata.

regular camry doesn't even have GDI (which will make it more reliable in the long run), has 22 LESS hp, yet gets same MPG and faster 0-60.

Camry V6, less hp and WAY faster then 2.0T

Yet you don't see Toyota trumpeting around it's performance credentials in every ad, even though it obviously has more. You don't see BMW and VW constantly flashing HP #s.

Humbleness in this case shows confidence which I commend BMW/Toyota/VW for doing.

Talk is cheap and Kia/Hyundai talk a lot.

Nice article, I like stuff like this. Kudos to BMW for putting the power out and using some turbos to up the fuel economy.

I also like the photos--good balancing of ambient and flash.

I would like to see more dyno runs by you guys. For instance I highly doubt the Hyundai 2.0T makes anywhere near its claimed 274hp. Here is why I say that.

VW CC 2.0T - 200 CLAIMED HP - 3,352 lbs - 0-60 in 6.4 seconds - 28mpg achieved
Sonata 2.0T - 274 CLAIMED HP - 3,443 lbs - 0-60 in 6.2 seconds - 26mpg achieved
Passat 3.6 - 280 CLAIMED HP - 3,537 lbs - 0-60 in 5.7 seconds - 27mpg achieved
** ALL from C&D

Seems quite fishy to me. I have driven several of the newer Hyundais (non-turbos), and just like their EPA cliams, their power claims are stretched as well. I would like MORE proof of this.

As for this Bimmer, good work. THIS is what I expect. 'Under-promise, over-deliver'

Screw Hyundai here guys. Where Hyundai is at best equal to the sum of their parts. The Sonata is actually worse than the sun of its parts and worse then it shows on paper. Cars like this and others are better than the sum of their parts. Nothing shown on a spec sheet will tell you this. Experience does.

People who compare a Hyundai and a BMW have never driven a BMW...

@fordson1: Bringing up the different automatics opens up another can of worms. I'm under the assumption that the autobox BMW was locked to a certain gear... in the IL Sonata test, it was locked to 4th gear to prevent the torque mitigation system from kicking in. The torque converter only takes effect on the very low end of the rev range (most modern cars lock up the torque converter in as little time as possible), so the Sonata results should be accurate at least 3K RPM up. Technically, because of the Sonata's front transaxle vs. the BMW's RWD setup, there should be less losses involved as well.

duck87, your points are well-taken and correct, as far as I can tell. Once you lock up the converter, are there any other parasitic losses that would impact dyno performance? church123 seems to think so. Any other internal pumping losses in the auto tranny?

For your comments on the Sonata torque mitigation, I was pointing out the existance of that system on the Sonata as a partial explanation of why the Sonata posts the pretty fair dyno numbers it does, but the somewhat lackluster acceleration times. The way the Hyundai's auto trans shifts, torque converter characteristics, gaps between gear ratios, etc. and the torque mitigation system will NOT for the most part show up on the dyno, but they sure will at the strip.

Maybe a Sonata/Optima with a reflash to kill the torque mitigation and a good set of summer tires might dip under 6 seconds at the strip. And yeah, I do agree that they have not gotten this stuff down to a black art like BMW and VW have. They are newcomers.

@fordson et al

Any automatic transmission is going to have additional losses over a manual simply because you need a fluid pump to maintain sufficient pressure to actuate shifts, etc. This pump, AFAIK, cannot be easily decoupled so, much like a hydraulic power steering pump, you're always going to have some losses. The typical old-school hydraulic PS pump, for example, can cost you anywhere between 5 and 10 hp depending upon size and the operating range of the engine (higher revs mean more losses). Keep in mind this generally applies to any modern "automated manual" (hate that term) that uses oil pressure to effect shifts and engage clutches - of course, these have the additional intertial losses imposed by the extra mass of the doubled up parts if they are dual clutch types.

Additionally, as duck87 mentioned, FWD cars should have inherently lower losses than _independent_ rear suspension RWD cars (live rear axles tend to be pretty efficient at power transfer). Each primary gear that power must be transmitted through can cost between 1 and 2% transmission loss (higher end for helical gears, lower end for straight cut gears). Additionally, each CV joint, if operated in an optimal geometry, will cost about 0.5-1% transmission loss as well (if operated at extreme angles this loss can build to much higher levels). RWD cars also suffer from having to transmit power through a relatively heavy propshaft, which will have 2 univeral or 2 CV joints as well (although they tend to be operated with very little angle to them). And some sources indicate that turning power through a 90 deg direction from a longitudinal engine/transmission through a rear diff has higher losses than a transaxle included diff. Thus, for a FWD car we would expect losses in the 4-8% range from power transmission losses while an IRS RWD car would suffer more like 5-9% + higher inertial losses from the mass of the propshaft. A live axle RWD car would expect to be more in the 4-7% range + propshaft inertia.

Interestingly, we find that our Dynapack hub dyno, which eliminates wheel/tire inertial and frictional losses, tends to read about 6-8% higher than the typical dynojet. Add that to the 6-8% frictional/driveline inertia losses and you get 12-16% loss for a typical manual tranny RWD car on a dynojet which is right at the average of 14-15% quoted, which also happens to be precisely what was measured by the folks at the Southwest Research Institute when they did an actual measured breakdown of all the losses on a car (put the transmission on a tranny dyno, etc.) and dyno'd the engine on an engine dyno, then took the whole thing to a dynojet (they actually did an automatic though, and measured 16% loss).

One of the reason modern cars tend to appear as though they have smaller losses is that the SAE rating criteria have changed such that the quoted/measured/corrected power that is advertised is generally lower than it once was. This accounts for some of the "underrating" claims that arise, but it generally amounts to 2-4% on most cars, so when something like this BMW comes along and appears to be making 10%+ more than it should, one can assume that BMW is being ultra conservative with its numbers.

Just like the first supplied cars to the media with the 335 it's easy to add boost to the media cars. If anybody remembers the first 335s repeatedly got huge numbers and killer 0-60 times. Then all of a sudden...the rest of us got crappy numbers and when I leased a 335 there was one critical update that made the car noticeably slower.

I'll believe any real numbers on the car when it's one from the lot, and after BMW kills performance they tried to live up to and...couldn't.

I don't know about the later updates to the 335 beermagazine, but there were plenty of early 335 production cars that were dynoing way higher than the 300 hp rating suggested, and they were plenty fast to boot.

Just saw this car at the Chicago Auto Show. The interior is so cheap it is embarrassing. You don't get something for nothing - they skimped on the interior but at least put some of that money into the drivetrain.

A GTI has a nicer interior...at the 328's price point, that's damn sad.

@beermagazine,

The early cars (including the 2007 335i I bought) were pulling 4.8-4.9s 0-60 times, media cars included. BMW did soften throttle response and delay the wastegates on later builds but performance was still in the 5.0s range. The later cars really weren't that much slower even though they did feel less responsive.