Agreed. Considering the 800 version of the 2.5 kv6 was the replacement which was as reliable as a politicians promise.
I maintain the emissions story was pure rubbish, with modern cats even in the late 90s, ecu controls, vnt turbos and injection systems being far more advanced than even the 220 coupe nearly 6/7 years before I feel the engine should have appeared in the 75 and zt range.
I always felt a turbo charged petrol engine was sorely lacking in the cars range, yes the 1.8t is ok power wise, but when you compare a t series in the likes of a 620ti, the 75 range suddenly feels VERY slow.
A 620ti is typically 1365kg and a 190 zt is typically 1450kg (basic car), so a 620ti has nearly 85 kgs instantly.
Admitting its down about 20 foot pounds of torque (talking the 200 bhp version here btw, not the 220 version), however its peak torque at 2000rpm and flat power until 5k, a kv6 isnt hitting peak torque until 4000rpm.
No it was definitely a foolish move not to have such an engine in the range.
IMO the petrol engine range should have been as follows on our cars
1.6 NA 130 (tax buster version, eg 1549cc from the mgf with a few tweeks and 135 cams, and dare I say it unique gearing to balance towards engine power output)
1.8T 175 bhp
kv6 3.0 (not 2.5) - 200ish bhp and a lot more torque from large capacity (gentlemans cruiser)
2.0t series - 190bhp and a 240bhp version (two power ranges)
kv8 - 300bhp
Diesel should have always been G series but again BMW made sure they would have the license when they pulled away.
And worst of all, the auto gearboxes lacked triptronic option, the same boxes featured in the Freelander for example, which was developed by rover, so honestly it would have transformed peoples perception of a luxury product.
|