BMW 1-Series gets 201hp twin-turbo diesel - 54.3mpg

i never would have imagined that "54mpg" and "fun-to-drive" could be used to describe the same car. very impressive.

I'm pretty sure only the Germans could have pulled it off.... just staggerly jaw-droppingly brilliant engine!

I'd much rather drive one of these than some boring, overrated, underachieving, redundant hybrid. You've seen how EPA figures have been revised for '07, right?

http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=4024663

I'll trade my 2007 civic EX for this! Very impressive mielage! And power too! And it is a mini station wagon for the dog and family!

My thoughts exactly...verbatim.

I agree, I dig the hatchback in this pic. we deserve this.

Enviromentally what? How many tonnes of O2 does it suck per minute?

please explain your completely stupid logic behind your argument.

Are the cars in the article for European releases, or are they coming over to the US?

a 100hp/litre diesel.
Never thought I'd see that.

Nothing is impossible with BMW...
oh and its 100.5hp/litre.. get your facts straight ;)

Amazing engine this is.. 0-60 in about 6.5-6.6 seconds I estimate. (BMW always understate their performance figures)

AND

54 mpg.


Who needs silly Japanese gasoline hybrids??


ps I wonder where Huu76 is, I miss his comments.

Yeah and that power and torque is at a much lower RPM that a gas burner of the same size and considerably bigger could ever manage. If it makes it here to the U.S. It will be in my driveway. We need more diesels here. I am all for them.

The tests are different here though of course (ie I think our "combined" figure is done by actually doing a combined test rather than making a weighted average of highway and town).

Someone pinch me! Am I dreaming? Sighn me up!

Another great diesel not to be brought into the US...

Rupert wrote: "please explain your completely stupid logic behind your argument."
I don 't be surprised of your comments. Of course,it is stupid to care about things that you dont have to pay, yet... even if these are part of human future.

Turbo (diesel, gasoline or whatever...) is friendly only for your pocket, NOT for environment.
I feel stupid in this forum, because of loosing my time, but that would be fixed.

Silent Power, are you refering to electric cars? I would love an electric car if they would come with those quick charging batteries, unfortunatly they consider lithium Ion to be cutting edge, maybe ten years ago! The world needs an exentric billionare to fund the production of cutting edge electric cars!

Please explain how turbos are worse for the environment, despite the fact they are more efficient than regular cars.

"sucking in more oxygen" does not damage the environment more.

This needs a four door!

I 'm refering to engines that use the <<least resources>>.
Which means normally aspirated engines like prius atkinson engine.
Turbo burns less fuel, because of burning more oxygen.
So, it is not efficient when it comes to enviroment.

Imagine now double or triple turbos to be standard on all cars... Certainly, a tenebrous reality...

"Turbo burns less fuel, because of burning more oxygen."

wtf? Turbos burn less fuel because THEY BURN LESS FUEL.
You can't burn oxygen, it's an aid to combustion, it's a fuel.
And Oxygen is not a resource as 21% of our whole atmosphere is Oxygen, we're not going to run out.

Turbo chargers will not kill the world, you really don't know what you're talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo

Please read that page. Turbo chargers "force" more air in, resulting in better combustion, by increasing air pressure and thus volumetric efficiency. They do not destroy oxygen anymore than an equivalently powerful NA engine would.

This link does not retract what I said.
You can 't march in a net, because you can' t have combustion without burning oxygen.
Turbos burn much more oxygen. Thats why they are more "sensitive" than nornal aspirated engines, where oxygen is more rare... Common sense that many automakers "hide"...

Turbo is enviromentally hostile and inefficient if you take due note of all parameters. Thats why Green companies avoid turbos on their fleets, decades now.

Last but not least, it is lie if you claim that Oxygen is not a resource.

Turbos only burn more oxygen than same sized non turbo models, but pretty much the same as equivalently powerful engines.
They are not environmentally hostile, and a turbo car is far more efficient than an equivalently powerful na one.

Oxygen really isn't a 'resource'.
We're not going to run out anytime soon.
Which green companies?
I think nearly every single car maker in the world has a turbo model.