|
.:ian:.
921 posts
72 months
|
TFA said: ..with one cylinder and almost half the capacity less.. Took a while to realise it wasnt a single cylinder engine 1L engine.. 
|
|
|
StuMI16
23 posts
44 months
|
Id really like to start "re-creating" old hot hatch backs
Think about it 1.4 tfsi in a Golf Mk1 Gti
EcoBoost in a MK2 XR2
Keep the Reliability and the electrics - Full Body restoration with some up to date brakes and suspension components and you have reliable cars with character
an well done superchips - did they have an engine/software before it was released or are they just quick off the mark ?
|
|
|
anything fast
870 posts
33 months
|
you show a photo of a series 1 RS Turbo but quote stats for a series 2? a totaly different animal. The Original RS Turbo could hit 60 in 7.7 secs, not well over 8, road tests at the time saw it nudge 130mph, how does that compare to a 10 sec to 60 car that can barely crack 125mph? What a silly article, progress? yes well, the RS Turbo came out in 1984/5, so what do you expect? 
|
|
|
rev-erend
17,903 posts
153 months
|
All that power and torque from a one cylinder engine.. imagine how good it would be with 3 cylinders 
|
|
|
tonker
43,798 posts
117 months
|
The Twinchargers are starting to get lots of failures in the Golfs apparently ...... I can see these going the same way if so many new ones are on fleet servicing (20K and do as little as possible to keep lease costs down). I think I'd be more cautious than usual about taking one of these with a "serviced with no regard for cost, full print out available" for 3 years. Or without proof of what oil was put into it at and between services (no doubt they use a bit)....
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Shurv
204 posts
29 months
|
Watch them all go bang.Turbo's and superchargers in "cooking" cars is a bad idea.They won't get looked after and will cost their owners dear. They've only been produced to get Co2 figures down, drive them as you'd normally drive and they don't give brilliant mpg, drive them with any gusto ( well, it's got a turbo) and the economy is terrible. Look at the Fiat Twin Air engines. Drive them like miss daisy and they are fairly economical, drive them normally and they are no better than much larger engines.Waste of time.
|
|
|
anything fast
870 posts
33 months
|
Shurv said: Watch them all go bang.Turbo's and superchargers in "cooking" cars is a bad idea.They won't get looked after and will cost their owners dear. They've only been produced to get Co2 figures down, drive them as you'd normally drive and they don't give brilliant mpg, drive them with any gusto ( well, it's got a turbo) and the economy is terrible. Look at the Fiat Twin Air engines. Drive them like miss daisy and they are fairly economical, drive them normally and they are no better than much larger engines.Waste of time. +1
|
|
|
underphil
161 posts
79 months
|
Shurv said: Watch them all go bang.Turbo's and superchargers in "cooking" cars is a bad idea.They won't get looked after and will cost their owners dear. They've only been produced to get Co2 figures down, drive them as you'd normally drive and they don't give brilliant mpg, drive them with any gusto ( well, it's got a turbo) and the economy is terrible. Look at the Fiat Twin Air engines. Drive them like miss daisy and they are fairly economical, drive them normally and they are no better than much larger engines.Waste of time. Sounds a lot better than your usual boggo 1.4 though..
|
|
|
the-photographer
830 posts
45 months
|
tonker said: The Twinchargers are starting to get lots of failures in the Golfs apparently ...... I can see these going the same way if so many new ones are on fleet servicing (20K and do as little as possible to keep lease costs down). I think I'd be more cautious than usual about taking one of these with a "serviced with no regard for cost, full print out available" for 3 years. Or without proof of what oil was put into it at and between services (no doubt they use a bit).... The older Euro4 ones are fine (in my opinion and I did run one). Do you research carefully if you are buying privately outside the 3 year warranty period with the Euro5 versions.
|
|
|
richardaucock
81 posts
32 months
|
You're right about it sounding good. The Ecoboost doesn't give out much, but the noise it does release is very sweet and characterful, particularly above 3000rpm.
|
|
|
buggalugs
6,879 posts
106 months
|
fathomfive said: den said: Technically impressive yes, but as the article wants to make the comparison to the ledge that is the Escort RS Turbo, we should also be looking at the resultant performance figures.
25 year old Escort -- 0-62 8.3 secs
new super boosted Eco Ford -- 0-62 10 secs (est)
I'll be impressed when we start seeing all the new Eco tech producing performance figures that we want our cars to produce.
The Escort engine did have 200kg less to haul around though. And would get minus ten million in NCAP, and gets maybe half the MPG if you're lucky and have a tailwind...
|
|
|
eldar
6,991 posts
65 months
|
buggalugs said: And would get minus ten million in NCAP, and gets maybe half the MPG if you're lucky and have a tailwind... I'd be interested to see what the fuel consumption difference actually was, driven at exactly the same speeds. I suspect the difference wouldn't be as big as you may think.
|
|
|
collateral
6,841 posts
87 months
|
Fleets have been running turbo cars for donkey's - DERV.
With the length of warranty you get these days I doubt a major company would bring out an engine expecting it to go bang.
|
|
|
Fire99
8,083 posts
98 months
|
Well my old 'Turbo Technics' RS Turbo used to whizz around the speedo at quite a rate and 5-up would run 'run off the clock'. Ok Lag wasn't wonderful (but fun) and the CVH wasn't the last word in refinement but It was a very sprightly and agile beast.
Worth considering that at 140bhp, that will be at the 'tuned' level of the engine. 133bhp was the starting point for the RS and 180bhp was easily achieved.
|
|
|
jbi
5,283 posts
73 months
|
no thank you :P
still gutless
|
|
|
CHIEF
1,933 posts
151 months
|
Is this really that ground breaking? The Daihatsu Charade Gtti was a 3 cylinder 1 litre turbocharged car producing a shade under 100bhp. This was 25 years ago, it won't have the economy but it was in its day a very very nippy little car. http://www.torquestats.com/index.php?car_id=96
|
|
|
paulwebberuk
10 posts
62 months
|
Talking about going back to the 80's . If you're old enough to remember the country (and the World I suppose) went into meltdown over so called gas guzzlers in the early 70's. Everyone was scratching round for Minis and mopeds etc.It was panicsville with a capital P. I still have our families 4 books of petrol rationing coupons - one for each size engine. Even more galling , Jaguar had fields full of unsold V12 E Types that they couldn't move on . Oh what a larf .Poor old Jaguar .Stuck with all those awful V12 beasts !(2 1/2 grand would have bought one) Actually the joke was on us. We should have sold the house,the dog , cat and yes ,even the wife ** and bought as many as we could! Oh well .
|
|
|
traffman
1,470 posts
78 months
|
Call me an old fart...but to raise the pulse i'd still have the rs turbo.
|
|
|
SystemParanoia
8,522 posts
67 months
|
nothing like the sound of a cammed N/A running ITB's or Webers 
|
|
|
buggalugs
6,879 posts
106 months
|
eldar said: buggalugs said: And would get minus ten million in NCAP, and gets maybe half the MPG if you're lucky and have a tailwind... I'd be interested to see what the fuel consumption difference actually was, driven at exactly the same speeds. I suspect the difference wouldn't be as big as you may think. I can't see a low compression 1980's open loop mop & bucket fuel injection engine like that doing all that well at the economy thing! Better than carbs but still...
|
|
