Small engine, BIG car....

[clonmult]

daemon said:

MGJohn said:

A900ss said:

ejenner said:

Was the 1.3 serria available as an estate?

No, hatch only.

Just like the 1.3 Montego was saloon only.

Long time ago now but, never understood the 1.3 Montego. Never knowingly saw one on UK roads either.

My folks owned one!

Given the montego was effectively a maestro with a boot, and the most popular maestro engine size was a 1.3, then in theory the 1.3 montego made sense.

Ultimately though it was an entry level model - basically the same as "City X" spec in a Maestro.

They ran it for years - never really gave any trouble.

The 1.3 was the most popular engine in the maestro? I remember a mate having one (many) years back, it definitely felt considerably slower than the 1.3 Escort I had at the time.

[J4CKO]

Taxi Spec Merc W123 E classes from the seventies and eighties could be had with 64 bhp.

[GC8]

Theyd only do 65mph, but theyd do it all day...

[BE57 TOY]

316i 318i or 520 BMWs?

[XJ Flyer]

E65Ross said:

XJ Flyer said:

E65Ross said:

MrsThatcher said:

va1o said:

daemon said:

Does engine size really matter these days? Surely its about BHP?

Does the new 1.0 Ecoboost not put out 120BHP or something in its highest output guise?

Yep agree with this but a lot of people can't see past the capacity.

There's no replacement for displacement ;-)

Except there is. Better engineering and turbo or supercharging.

For example.......some old yank engines have around 7 litres yet make a pathetic 200bhp or so. Are you telling me that will be better than, say, the 4.4L TT V8 in the current BMW M5?

That seems to conveniently forget that there's no rule stopping forced induction being used on a larger capacity engine.Then it all becomes a contest of durability,in which the basic rule,that to get more power out of less capacity,means more boost pressure and stress,than in the case of a larger engine with less boost pressure,applies.Therefore I'd take a supercharged LS7 in a VXR8 rather than the smaller engined M5.Which would prove the rule that a bigger engine will make more power with less stress and more durability than a smaller one.

Kind of missing the point, no?

For example, BMW wanted a more economical engine with at least as much power as the 5.0 V10. So they made a smaller engine and turbo charged it. It makes more power and is more economical, therefore the turbocharger is a replacement for displacement. Have you heard about the pressure a turbo charger runs and its relation to "actual" engine size?

As I said there is a point where any arguable economy advantages of using forced induction to increase specific outputs are outweighed by the increase in stress levels.The more the specific output envelope is pushed the higher those stress levels.Therefore as I said a smaller capacity forced induction engine is no 'replacement' for a larger capacity forced induction engine which won't need as much boost pressure,hence less stress,to make the equivalent,or even more,power.

[aw51 121565]

clonmult said:

The 1.3 was the most popular engine in the maestro? I remember a mate having one (many) years back, it definitely felt considerably slower than the 1.3 Escort I had at the time.

Personally (not in among the posts you're replying to , and as a pragmatic BL/BLMC/Austin Rover Group fan ), I'm not sure the 1.3 was the most popular Maestro engine... But it was pretty accomplished and punched well above its weight in both Maestro & Montego .

Escort 1.3 had 69bhp in the mid-'80s (Maestro 1.3 had 64bhp except the HLE which had 68bhp as did the Montego 1.3) - but an Escort arguably weighted less than a Maestro (and certainly a Montego) so it would go better...

Maestro/Montego 1.3 had around 75lb/ft of torque (1.6 had 97lb/ft), I can't recall the Escort 1.3 & 1.6 figures... But even in the Montego 1.3 there beat an engine that dragged the car along at a rate not far off the 1.6 and one could still keep the car in fourth and fifth gears all day (like in a 1.6 and especially a 2.0) and not get left behind the general flow of traffic .

A good friend had a penchant for Montego 1.3s (don't ask me! ) and they aquitted themselves perfectly well over many thousands of miles ...

[E65Ross]

XJ Flyer said:

As I said there is a point where any arguable economy advantages of using forced induction to increase specific outputs are outweighed by the increase in stress levels.The more the specific output envelope is pushed the higher those stress levels.Therefore as I said a smaller capacity forced induction engine is no 'replacement' for a larger capacity forced induction engine which won't need as much boost pressure,hence less stress,to make the equivalent,or even more,power.

I was primarily talking about the perspective from the drivers seat.

For example having spent a decent amount of time in the V8 BMW M6 and also an Aston Martin DB9 with a bigger V12, I couldn't tell the M6 was more stressed. Far from it. Just felt effortlessly quicker. As long as the engine doesn't go bang then who cares? To be fair as well, you don't hear of many engine failures. Turbo charger failures perhaps, but engine failures seem quite rare considering how many are around.

[LuS1fer]

There were swathes of large underpowered cars back in the 60s and 70s and I believe they did a 1.3 litre Sierra too.

Back in the 70s, a 2.0 was considered quite a big engine with the norm being 1.3 - 1.6 for the everage family car.
My father had a Mk II Cortina GT with a 1500cc engine.

Obviously, cars were lighter back then and got lighter as the rust dropped off.

[BL Fanboy]

aw51 121565 said:

Personally (not in among the posts you're replying to , and as a pragmatic BL/BLMC/Austin Rover Group fan ), I'm not sure the 1.3 was the most popular Maestro engine... But it was pretty accomplished and punched well above its weight in both Maestro & Montego .

Escort 1.3 had 69bhp in the mid-'80s (Maestro 1.3 had 64bhp except the HLE which had 68bhp as did the Montego 1.3) - but an Escort arguably weighted less than a Maestro (and certainly a Montego) so it would go better...

Maestro/Montego 1.3 had around 75lb/ft of torque (1.6 had 97lb/ft), I can't recall the Escort 1.3 & 1.6 figures... But even in the Montego 1.3 there beat an engine that dragged the car along at a rate not far off the 1.6 and one could still keep the car in fourth and fifth gears all day (like in a 1.6 and especially a 2.0) and not get left behind the general flow of traffic .

A good friend had a penchant for Montego 1.3s (don't ask me! ) and they aquitted themselves perfectly well over many thousands of miles ...

Yes, I reckon the Maestro would be a tad heavier than the equivalent escort mk3 - it was a bit bigger.

As a side note, my 1.3 A series Allegro was quicker than my Dads brand new 1989 G 1.3 Escort, but the Allegro was probably lighter than the Escort.

Golly, that HCS 1.3 engine in the Escort was noisy even when new!

[XJ Flyer]

E65Ross said:

XJ Flyer said:

As I said there is a point where any arguable economy advantages of using forced induction to increase specific outputs are outweighed by the increase in stress levels.The more the specific output envelope is pushed the higher those stress levels.Therefore as I said a smaller capacity forced induction engine is no 'replacement' for a larger capacity forced induction engine which won't need as much boost pressure,hence less stress,to make the equivalent,or even more,power.

I was primarily talking about the perspective from the drivers seat.

For example having spent a decent amount of time in the V8 BMW M6 and also an Aston Martin DB9 with a bigger V12, I couldn't tell the M6 was more stressed. Far from it. Just felt effortlessly quicker. As long as the engine doesn't go bang then who cares? To be fair as well, you don't hear of many engine failures. Turbo charger failures perhaps, but engine failures seem quite rare considering how many are around.

In the case of the BMW engine it's obviously too new to be at the stage where the potential issues of being over stressed would be likely to appear.I'm referring to a lot further into the future when they are in the used market with plenty of miles on them and especially if a lot of the available performance has been used.In that regard I'd bet that the new turbo charged V8 will cost it's future owners more in maintenance costs than the older less stressed V8 in the E39 for example let alone that supercharged Chevy LS V8's in the VXR8.Or for that matter the similar comparison with the new smaller capacity Mercedes V8's v the older larger capacity ones.That question,of the choice between smaller capacity more stressed v larger capacity less stressed,will probably be answered in their respective residual values.My money would be on the older larger capacity engined options.

[mike-r]

BE57 TOY said:

316i 318i or 520 BMWs?

I had a 520 E39 for a bit and it was bloody dire.

[E65Ross]

XJ Flyer said:

In the case of the BMW engine it's obviously too new to be at the stage where the potential issues of being over stressed would be likely to appear.I'm referring to a lot further into the future when they are in the used market with plenty of miles on them and especially if a lot of the available performance has been used.In that regard I'd bet that the new turbo charged V8 will cost it's future owners more in maintenance costs than the older less stressed V8 in the E39 for example let alone that supercharged Chevy LS V8's in the VXR8.Or for that matter the similar comparison with the new smaller capacity Mercedes V8's v the older larger capacity ones.That question,of the choice between smaller capacity more stressed v larger capacity less stressed,will probably be answered in their respective residual values.My money would be on the older larger capacity engined options.

Oh I see. Well the car manufacturers are mainly making cars for those buying new and the smaller units are functionally superior. You're making assumptions based purely on theory. There are plenty of larger engines which go bang without too much use and I can't see it being a great deal different. I'm not just talking high performance cars but general cars as well.

[LuS1fer]

The Austin Princess/Ambassador was a Granada sized car with a 1.7 litre engine.

[vtecyo]

Saw a BMW 114 the other day. Why would you bother.

Drove a previous shape 118D M Sport and even that was horrendously slow.

[TREMAiNE]

RX8?

1429 KG with a 1.3?

[ajprice]

TREMAiNE said:

RX8?

1429 KG with a 1.3?

Technically a 2.6 because of the rotary cycle

[Munter]

TREMAiNE said:

RX8?

1429 KG with a 1.3?

Not sure that's comparable.

I always think of them as comparable to a 3.9 v6.

[TREMAiNE]

ajprice said:

TREMAiNE said:

RX8?

1429 KG with a 1.3?

Technically a 2.6 because of the rotary cycle

In terms of capacity they're actually 1.308 not 2.6. It has 2 rotars each with 654cc housing.

Not entirely sure where the 2.6 classification originates; some sources say it originates from FIA law which multiplies the capacity by the number of rotars but others say it's to stop the 8 from escaping higher emissions tax.

[XJ Flyer]

E65Ross said:

XJ Flyer said:

In the case of the BMW engine it's obviously too new to be at the stage where the potential issues of being over stressed would be likely to appear.I'm referring to a lot further into the future when they are in the used market with plenty of miles on them and especially if a lot of the available performance has been used.In that regard I'd bet that the new turbo charged V8 will cost it's future owners more in maintenance costs than the older less stressed V8 in the E39 for example let alone that supercharged Chevy LS V8's in the VXR8.Or for that matter the similar comparison with the new smaller capacity Mercedes V8's v the older larger capacity ones.That question,of the choice between smaller capacity more stressed v larger capacity less stressed,will probably be answered in their respective residual values.My money would be on the older larger capacity engined options.

Oh I see. Well the car manufacturers are mainly making cars for those buying new and the smaller units are functionally superior. You're making assumptions based purely on theory. There are plenty of larger engines which go bang without too much use and I can't see it being a great deal different. I'm not just talking high performance cars but general cars as well.

As far as I know the Chevy LS series and the big Merc V8's certainly aren't known for going bang although the simple pushrod Chevy is probably the best from the point of view long term maintenance costs.While you're right about manufacturers only caring about selling new cars the fact is it's the new and nearly new buyers who take the largest hit in regards to depreciation when the eventual choice,for a typical used market performance car buyer,is between that VXR8 and/or big V8 engined Merc as opposed to the later smaller capacity BMW and/or Merc V8's a few years down the line.

[E65Ross]

XJ Flyer said:

As far as I know the Chevy LS series and the big Merc V8's certainly aren't known for going bang although the simple pushrod Chevy is probably the best from the point of view long term maintenance costs.While you're right about manufacturers only caring about selling new cars the fact is it's the new and nearly new buyers who take the largest hit in regards to depreciation when the eventual choice,for a typical used market performance car buyer,is between that VXR8 and/or big V8 engined Merc as opposed to the later smaller capacity BMW and/or Merc V8's a few years down the line.

You're talking about a tiny, tiny part of the market in the UK. For most people it's the change from 1.4-2litre engines to smaller turbo units. And plenty of those small engines still go bang.