Bmw 120d vs 120i in Nürburgring

  • Thread starter Thread starter drjoe1977
  • 31 comments
  • 10,996 views
Messages
53
The 120i with the Getrag six-speed manual proves free-revving and crisp. We followed the 120i drive up with one in the 120d, and that, too, was stunning; the 120d is 10 seconds quicker than the 120i around the Nürburgring and 0.8 of a second faster to 62 mph (100 km/h)-7.9 seconds vs. the 120i at 8.7 seconds. We reached the max of 135 mph (217 km/h) in fifth gear driving the 120i and just less than 137 mph (220 km/h) driving the Garrett turbocharged diesel on the autobahn. The car's stability is vintage BMW. Drag coefficient sits at 0.31 and weight distribution at a square 50:50.
 
Very interesting info indeed. 👍 I will be glad to check it myself once GT4 comes out in November.

By the way, I would have never thought that the 120d could be faster than the 120i on the Nürburgring. I guess that the extra torque must be helpfull on those steep climbs. Besides, turbodiesels generally make more power and torque than their official figures indicate...

Thanks for sharing!! :)
 
shame the BMW 1 series is so ugly
 
Lamboracer
this should be moved to the general cars area.

Do you not recall the argument about having the 120i and 120d in GT4?

That was fun. Apparently diesels can never be fast... *guffaw*
 
Famine
Do you not recall the argument about having the 120i and 120d in GT4?

That was fun. Apparently diesels can never be fast... *guffaw*
Wrong. Faster.
 
Pistachio
Lol, but it just was. Thats the whole point of the thread.
Read the "BMW 120d" link that Eagle posted. You'll find my opinion and what I meant there.
 
I have to say I found her album cover and hit single a bit disconcerting.
 
Who cares, at least she looks about 1,000,000x better than the guy in Famine's avatar.

As for the 120i and d, I couldn't care less about either car. It's all about the M3 and M5 as far as I'm concerned!
 
This thread is useless without pictures.
 
DiabolicalMask
Wrong. Faster.

Funny. I must have misread the very first post in this thread, about two identical cars.

DiabolicalMask
The 120i with the Getrag six-speed manual proves free-revving and crisp. We followed the 120i drive up with one in the 120d, and that, too, was stunning; the 120d is 10 seconds quicker than the 120i around the Nürburgring and 0.8 of a second faster to 62 mph (100 km/h)-7.9 seconds vs. the 120i at 8.7 seconds. We reached the max of 135 mph (217 km/h) in fifth gear driving the 120i and just less than 137 mph (220 km/h) driving the Garrett turbocharged diesel on the autobahn. The car's stability is vintage BMW. Drag coefficient sits at 0.31 and weight distribution at a square 50:50.

Silly me.

I'll just add that a BMW 320d won the Nurburgring 24 hours in 1998, two BMW X5 3.0d finished 4th and 8th in January in the 2004 Paris-Dakar rally and there was talk - although I'm unaware of it's fruits - of Taurus Sports entering a Lola chassis at this year's Le Mans with a 5-litre V10 twinturbodiesel. From a tractor.

Diesels can never be fast or faster then, I guess.
 
And before anyone jumps in, the class that 320d was in at the ring was under the exact same rules and restrictions as the petrol cars in it's class.
 
Famine
Funny. I must have misread the very first post in this thread, about two identical cars.
No. Your problem, it seems, was that you didn't even properly read the thread you mentioned earlier. Maybe then you'd see my point and you wouldn't try to show me the obvious by ridiculously underlining the text.


Diesels can never be fast or faster then, I guess.
Yes, if we're comparing a 2.0 turbocharged Diesel engine with a 2.0 NA Otto engine, they can be faster.
But that's not my idea of an equivalent engine (the question here is not even the car).


About the 320d that won the Nurburgring 24 hours in 1998, I couldn't care less and that proves nothing!
But I'm pretty sure that there wasn't a BMW with a 2.0 litre turbocharged Otto engine in that race...
 
Famine
there was talk - although I'm unaware of it's fruits - of Taurus Sports entering a Lola chassis at this year's Le Mans with a 5-litre V10 twinturbodiesel.

Calum Lockie will contest the Le Mans 24-Hour race this year after securing a drive in the Lola B2K10 entered by Taurus Sports. The diesel-turbo powered prototype is the first such car to be entered at Le Mans and represents a unique technical challenge for the world-famous race.

Link: http://www.racecar.com/story.asp?NewsID=6073

Took a fair while to find a site that didn't just give the engine type as V10 as part of an entry list.
 
DiabolicalMask
About the 320d that won the Nurburgring 24 hours in 1998, I couldn't care less and that proves nothing!
But I'm pretty sure that there wasn't a BMW with a 2.0 litre turbocharged Otto engine in that race...

Check for yourself the results of the 1998 24 hour race here : http://adac.24h-rennen.de/content/rennergebnis_1998.htm

As you will see, the were several high performance Otto engined cars that arrived "after" the 320d : A 320i Supertouring, and a lot of BMW M3 E36 with 3.2 liter engines.

As we have already mentioned before on this Board, there are some good examples of comparable Turbodiesels vs Turbo-otto (petrol) engines. The most evident is the Golf IV GTI : The 150hp diesel is MUCH faster than the 150hp petrol. It is even faster than the 180hp petrol version!! And they have 1.9 and 1.8 liters of displacement. There is no better comparison.

No one can deny the advances of diesel engines in the last few years.

Besides, I am sure that diesel engined cars will have their place on GT4´s Enduros, thanks to their lower fuel consumption. Being able to stay on track for some extra laps on each tank of fuel during a long race will be rewarding at the end.
 
I read that the 150hp diesel Golf is in fact almost 20hp more powerful than that value. Why VW doesn't announce the true power output is a mystery to me ,but it seems it's not the only carmaker to do so for new superdiesels.
(PS : I'm not positively sure about this info since it comes from the average French carmagazine :boggled: . Maybe some of you have more info ?)
 
DiabolicalMask
Fa-fa-fap-fap-fap

So, your point is that no diesels can be faster, unless they are. In which case they don't count?

Genius. If everyone just ignored evidence which didn't fit, we'd all be Christians.

Why would people persist in entering diesels in motorsports events (incidentally, nice find, Eagle...) - where a win means money - if you're right? Maybe they know more than you do.

For reference, I'm no fan of Diesel engines - but at least I can see both sides of the discussion.
 
CRX
I read that the 150hp diesel Golf is in fact almost 20hp more powerful than that value.

It is very common for Turbodiesel engines to make considerable more power and torque than their official figures indicate. Many european magazines put the cars on dynos to check their output, and the tubo diesels always perform better than specified. I also cannot understand why don´t manfacturers declare the real power/torque. :confused:
 
Famine
So, your point is that no diesels can be faster, unless they are. In which case they don't count?
Listen Famine. I'm pretty sure you're an intelligent guy and that you understood my point.
The point being that with the same displacement and the same type of aspiration, the Otto will always out-perform the Diesel in terms of power. At least until now they do.

So, I have to tell that all that sarcasm and mockery - while it may look pretty cool to the majority of the rest of the users - just makes you look a bit ridiculous and without any kind of credibility to me.


The joke about the christians was pretty good though.
 
Martinmaxx
The most evident is the Golf IV GTI : The 150hp diesel is MUCH faster than the 150hp petrol. It is even faster than the 180hp petrol version!! And they have 1.9 and 1.8 liters of displacement. There is no better comparison.
First of all, that doesn't happen. I've seen and made some of those comparisons and that's not true.

Secondly, you're comparing a 1.9 Diesel engine which is at its very high state of tuning and reliance with a very low turbo-pressured 1.8 Otto. You can find this same engine with 225 hp for example.



Martinmaxx
No one can deny the advances of diesel engines in the last few years.
I agree.
 
DiabolicalMask
First of all, that doesn't happen. I've seen and made some of those comparisons and that's not true.

Secondly, you're comparing a 1.9 Diesel engine which is at its very high state of tuning and reliance with a very low turbo-pressured 1.8 Otto. You can find this same engine with 225 hp for example.

Diabolica,

You are right about the fact that the PD1.9 150hp Diesel is in a high state of tune, vs the low pressure 1.8 Petrol. But BMW has already released an even more powerfull Diesel engine, from an hp/liter point of view. The 535d has 272hp and 560Nm of torque with only 3 litrers of displacement. That is almost 91hp per liter in a diesel engine. That means that Diesels have not reached their peak yet.

I don´t know how you have tested these vehicles, or under which conditions, but I have driven both the GTI 180 hp petrol and 150hp Diesel, and the latter was much quicker in real world driving thanks to it´s torque. Maybe you have tested them at a race track, and found the petrol quicker. Please comment.
 
Eagle
Link: http://www.racecar.com/story.asp?NewsID=6073

Took a fair while to find a site that didn't just give the engine type as V10 as part of an entry list.
I saw that diesel Lola run at Le Mans this year and it was amazingly quiet compared to all the other cars, but it did not finish the race. Next year ?
 

Attachments

  • prev2.jpg
    prev2.jpg
    20.6 KB · Views: 14
Martinmaxx
Diabolica,

You are right about the fact that the PD1.9 150hp Diesel is in a high state of tune, vs the low pressure 1.8 Petrol. But BMW has already released an even more powerfull Diesel engine, from an hp/liter point of view. The 535d has 272hp and 560Nm of torque with only 3 litrers of displacement. That is almost 91hp per liter in a diesel engine. That means that Diesels have not reached their peak yet.
Yes. I'm sure they haven't.
But that almost makes my point.
I'm exaggerating a bit here just to prove my point, but you can virtually get the power you want from a turbocharged engine.
They do that a long time ago with petrol engines and they're starting to do it with diesel engines now (for road and race performance). But the costs - and in most cases the weight - of the engines is so high, I don't see the point.

And look, 270 hp can easily be extracted from a 2.0 petrol engine and there are a few normally aspirated petrol cars with those 91hp per litre.


Martinmaxx
I don´t know how you have tested these vehicles, or under which conditions, but I have driven both the GTI 180 hp petrol and 150hp Diesel, and the latter was much quicker in real world driving thanks to it´s torque. Maybe you have tested them at a race track, and found the petrol quicker. Please comment.
My "tests" were made in normal roads using various types of GTi's and TDi's. There's little of cientific about them I tell you, but the majority of them came out that way.

And personally, I find a petrol engine much more exploitable (and fun) in real world driving thanks to it's wider rpm range.
The narrow power band of a diesel engine in which it delivers all it's power isn't an advantage.

But maybe in the end this is all down to personal taste.
 
Back