Hmm, but an engine is much more than some specs and terms on a PDF sheet. In the real world, I have no doubt, whatsoever, that this new engine from BMW is superior to the VAG engine in every single possible way. Like it has always been basicly.
I so cannot wait to see tests! Too bad Audi and MB don't have any competition for the X1, the first car with this new engine.
Whilst there's no denying that BMW are master engine builders, BMW are very late to the 4 cylinder turbo petrol party. Frankly, failures recorded in VAG's service call knowledge base that have long since been archived, BMW has yet to see with this new engine. I have absolutely no doubt that the VAG 2.0T will be the more reliable unit purely by virtue of the numbers of them out there, the millions of kms clocked up by them and the vast base of incremental improvement over time. Turbocharged engines: more finicky and more prone to failure than NA engines.
Forgive me my old master - I'll pay more attention in future.
May the Force
d Induction be with you...
BTW, Martin, I have question man:
In post number 14, you say that the Audi 2.0T has max torque (350 Nm) at 4200 rpm.
The BMW 2.0 has 350 at 1250 rpm.....that's like a major difference....You happen to have torque curves or something? And what does it mean in real life? BMW's torque curve is pretty flat again probably, with all torque available at almost idle speed...
Hmph, I simply copied and pasted the tech data out of carfolio's information. I didn't notice the max torque @ rpm error. Like many turbocharged engines the 2.0TFSI actually has a torque curve plateau from low rpm across to somewhere in the region of 4000-5000 rpm. This is very typical and indicative of the carefully controlled boost pressure by the engine management system acting on the turbocharger wastegate. Here is the proper 2.0 TFSI graph:
As you can see it too spools up very early - only 250 rpm later than the twin-scroll BMW unit. So in terms of the real-world engine response, I'm prepared to wager that what amounts to an on-paper pissing contest will be much harder to separate in real world driving.
Hey Martin, since we're on the topic of turbo's...and since you're a repeat owner of turbo-powered Subaru's, can you give a brief outline of the difference between Subaru's approach to turbo's and that of BMW and their turbo engines (I'm guessing you've only really driven an N54 powered turbo-BMW?) ?
I ask because Subaru is more focused on sporty characteristics than your average Toyota, Honda, VW, etc... so they'd be a better match to compare with BMW's approach to sporty turbo engines.
Wow, now that's a really difficult series of questions to ask in one go, so I'm going to do it in a summary point form:
1. At the highest fundamental level of the concept, both the Subaru and the BMW engine use exhaust gas to drive a turbine and a compressor encased in a housing affixed to the exhaust manifold. The pressurised inlet air is then cooled for volumetric efficiency by being passed through an intercooler whereafter it is directed to the inlet manifold.
Because the air is compressed and is cooler, it's more dense and therefore has more oxygen per cylinder volume. More oxygen means you can burn more fuel more efficiently creating a more forceful explosion within the combustion chamber. So yes, don't let anyone tell you otherwise - a turbocharged engine of X capacity uses much more fuel (and gets more performance) than a normally aspirated engine of the same capacity at most throttle loads. Think NA MINI 1.6 vs 1.6 Turbo in the Cooper S.
So, whether it's Renaultsport, VAG, BMW or Subaru the fundamental approach is the same.
2. When you start analysing the detail it gets much more complicated. The primary difference is in the engine layouts. Subaru chooses to use a flat four engine in conjunction with its proprietary AWD system. BMW's engine is an inline 4. This immediately has all sort of implications in terms of differences in packaging. BMW can locate their turbo closer to all exhuast outlets compared to Subaru who in turn place their intercooler closer to the inlet side. And so on...
Even at a detail level, though, we're seeing more and more similar trains of thought among the car makers; Subaru's Boxer engines have always had a wide bore and a short stroke (oversquare) but now, for the new generation FB series engines, they've moved to a narrow-bore, long-stroke (undersquare) layout much the same as anyone else who's in the 2.0 litre turbo game. Why? Well, a narrower bore makes for a shorter engine which is hence easier to package and a longer stroke gives better torque - especially at low rpm. It won't be long before we see a common recipe at this end of the market: 2.0 litre, intercooled turbocharger, direct injection, undersquare, alloy-block engines.
3. Subaru uses both regular single scroll turbos and twin-scroll turbos depending on the model and country. The Japanese-only WRX STI Spec C uses a twin-scroll 2.0 litre engine that makes 235 kW and 422 Nm. This, in my opinion, is the greatest four cylinder engine in the world. I wonder if BMW's M-Division are going to put their magic to work on this new 4 pot turbo?
I'd bet you a case of your... oh wait you don't drink alcohol.
4. Here's the next thing; the engines in my WRX and Forrie XT are mechanically identical. And yet, they feel quite different in terms of their power delivery on the road. These engines have different software mappings to create different power delivery characteristics depending on the intended application of the car. So, my WRX has more turbo lag down low but doesn't run out of puff as much as the Forester does at higher revs.
It's amazing - the profound effect of computerisation on the character and behaviour of a modern turbocharged engine. I believe that in the near future it'll be the software engineers' prowess and sophistication of the engine mapping logic that will as much determine the output capabilities of any turbo engine as would the actual mechanical engineering.
I am very sorry that good old NA I6 are dying. 
