[KoenG]

Originally Posted by ScottAndrew

Taller gearing, and I suspect better economy. The car does not need more power in this segment, but it does need greater fuel efficiency.

Personally I'd be quite happy with this tune in my 230i, I don't need more bhp that's for sure.

In the line-up, the 330i makes sense and that's probably indeed the main objective. The taller gearings to increase mpg would result in longer 6-7-8th gear, shorter 1-2-3 will not contribute.

Of course, they could be lazy and just keep the gear spacing and increase the diff-reduction.

Also, isn't this ZF HP8 an improved version of what we had in the F30 328i? I remember 0-100 was already 5,8 seconds back then.

Time will tell...

[brad850csi]

Originally Posted by KoenG

In the line-up, the 330i makes sense and that's probably indeed the main objective. The taller gearings to increase mpg would result in longer 6-7-8th gear, shorter 1-2-3 will not contribute.

Of course, they could be lazy and just keep the gear spacing and increase the diff-reduction.

Also, isn't this ZF HP8 an improved version of what we had in the F30 328i? I remember 0-100 was already 5,8 seconds back then.

Time will tell...

328i F30 had these ratios:

4.714
3.143
2.106
1.667
1.285
1.000
0.839
0.667

Final Drive 3.154

330i F30 ratios:

5.000
3.200
2.143
1.720
1.314
1.000
.822
.640

Final drive 2.813

330i G20 ratios:

5.250
3.360
2.172
1.720
1.316
1.000
.822
.640

Final drive 2.813

Comparing the F30 and G20 with the same final drive shows that the first few gears are shorter to help them get off the line and into boost even quicker.

[ScottAndrew]

Originally Posted by brad850csi

328i F30 had these ratios:

4.714
3.143
2.106
1.667
1.285
1.000
0.839
0.667

Final Drive 3.154

330i F30 ratios:

5.000
3.200
2.143
1.720
1.314
1.000
.822
.640

Final drive 2.813

330i G20 ratios:

5.250
3.360
2.172
1.720
1.316
1.000
.822
.640

Final drive 2.813

Comparing the F30 and G20 with the same final drive shows that the first few gears are shorter to help them get off the line and into boost even quicker.

Perhaps someone can do the mathematics but the even lower ratios in the G20’s lower gears haven’t translated to faster acceleration. There are often reasons why this doesn’t happen (for example if the new, shorter gearing means a 0-100 benchmark time stymied by 2nd now redlining at 98 km/h) but modern autoboxes shift very quickly these days. Maybe the engine is boost-limited in the lower gears? Quote common on the past, especially with high-boost engines.

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by ScottAndrew

Perhaps someone can do the mathematics but the even lower ratios in the G20’s lower gears haven’t translated to faster acceleration. There are often reasons why this doesn’t happen (for example if the new, shorter gearing means a 0-100 benchmark time stymied by 2nd now redlining at 98 km/h) but modern autoboxes shift very quickly these days. Maybe the engine is boost-limited in the lower gears? Quote common on the past, especially with high-boost engines.

I'm wondering if it is also hampered by tyre grip. Shorter gearing doesn't always translate to faster times if the limit is tyres. Xdrive models may show if this is the case, as an xDrive ought to show the benefit of gearing and higher engine output.

[KoenG]

Originally Posted by ScottAndrew

Perhaps someone can do the mathematics but the even lower ratios in the G20’s lower gears haven’t translated to faster acceleration. There are often reasons why this doesn’t happen (for example if the new, shorter gearing means a 0-100 benchmark time stymied by 2nd now redlining at 98 km/h) but modern autoboxes shift very quickly these days. Maybe the engine is boost-limited in the lower gears? Quote common on the past, especially with high-boost engines.

When it's indeed an extra upshift, than it figures, since this would confirm that in the real world, it indeed has become faster.

[KoenG]

Originally Posted by HighlandPete

I'm wondering if it is also hampered by tyre grip. Shorter gearing doesn't always translate to faster times if the limit is tyres. Xdrive models may show if this is the case, as an xDrive ought to show the benefit of gearing and higher engine output.

This is true for the M5 competition/F10 because the engine is just too massive for the rear tires and the improvement is near to zero in a 0-60 mph run. But this is not the case for a 330i I'am afraid. A 330i is not able to flirt with the limits of grip until 60mph.

[xlover]

Originally Posted by ScottAndrew

Perhaps someone can do the mathematics but the even lower ratios in the G20’s lower gears haven’t translated to faster acceleration. There are often reasons why this doesn’t happen (for example if the new, shorter gearing means a 0-100 benchmark time stymied by 2nd now redlining at 98 km/h) but modern autoboxes shift very quickly these days. Maybe the engine is boost-limited in the lower gears? Quote common on the past, especially with high-boost engines.

Are you referencing bmw quoted numbers or real world testing comparing on apples to apples models? I haven't found any g20 instrumented tests yet. It may be there isn't a 0-60 improvement but I prefer not to use marketing materials. At least for NA they tend to underrate real world performance.

[KTN]

The shift to 3rd here was around 80-90km/h indicated, so even lower than 98. However, also for the first two gears the car shifted at noticably lower RPMs than at higher gears.