Small engine, BIG car....

[xRIEx]

TREMAiNE said:

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.

A rotary engine has 3 combustion chambers, and the swept capacity of all three is its displacement. As I mentioned above, there are 3 combustion events for every 360 degrees (equating to one power 'stroke' for, in this case, its 1.3l capacity, similar to a two stroke piston engine in principle) rather than an Otto cycle engine that has one power stroke every 720 degrees. Hence, it makes more sense to compare it to a 4 stroke piston engine of 2.6l, rather than 1.3l.

[TREMAiNE]

xRIEx said:

TREMAiNE said:

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.

A rotary engine has 3 combustion chambers, and the swept capacity of all three is its displacement. As I mentioned above, there are 3 combustion events for every 360 degrees (equating to one power 'stroke' for, in this case, its 1.3l capacity, similar to a two stroke piston engine in principle) rather than an Otto cycle engine that has one power stroke every 720 degrees. Hence, it makes more sense to compare it to a 4 stroke piston engine of 2.6l, rather than 1.3l.

Thank you for clearing up where the 2.6 comes from - however, whilst the engine is comparable to a 4 Stroke 2.6, its actual capacity is still 1.3; I'd still say that it is a worthy entry to this thread "Small engine, BIG car..."; regardless of how the engine works it is still a tiny engine in quite a chunky car.

[dtmpower]

In LHD BMW sold an e34 518g with factory gas conversion. It made even less power on gas, 100hp ?

[mfmman]

Dave_ said:

I had the misfortune of having an escort van a few years ago. It said 55 on the side and i was praying it was something to do with the load space.

A 1.8 N/A diesel with less than 60bhp and 400kg of tools and equipment in the back.

Theres a big hill on the M8 around Livingston and if i didnt get a decent build up id be down into 3rd gear.

1.8? Luxury!

The first ones had a 1.6 at 54bhp, third gear on all hills regardless of run up

The day our 1.3 reasonably nippy petrols were replaced was a very sad one

[XJ Flyer]

E65Ross said:

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.

In general specific outputs can reach a point where they become a liability in terms of long term durability and maintenance costs regardless of overall engine capacity.

It's then just a question as to the durability criterea that the designers are working to.As opposed to the useful working life and maintenance costs over that lifetime that buyers in the used market are looking for.

It's obvious that the priorities,in the case of the modern smaller capacity relatively higher specific outputs idea,seem to be more orientated to the demands of the new buyer markets and the perceived,arguable,benefits,of that idea in regards to economy and emissions v the larger capacity relatively lower specific outputs idea.IE trying to meet impossible emissions targets and arguable economy benefits targeted at the new car market paid for by buyers long term in the used markets.Which is why,as I've said,I can see residual value issues in the medium to longer term concerning the choice between taking on a liability in the form of over stressed engines,as opposed to staying with the ( correct ) idea that there's no substitute for cubic inches.Although that's not to say that there wouldn't be benefits in limited amounts of forced induction to just increase efficiency,as opposed to trying to get too much power from too little capacity.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 24th February 20:55

Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 24th February 20:57

[E65Ross]

XJ Flyer said:

E65Ross said:

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.

In general specific outputs can reach a point where they become a liability in terms of long term durability and maintenance costs regardless of overall engine capacity.

It's then just a question as to the durability criterea that the designers are working to.As opposed to the useful working life and maintenance costs over that lifetime that buyers in the used market are looking for.

It's obvious that the priorities,in the case of the modern smaller capacity relatively higher specific outputs idea,seem to be more orientated to the demands of the new buyer markets and the perceived,arguable,benefits,of that idea in regards to economy and emissions v the larger capacity relatively lower specific outputs idea.IE trying to meet impossible emissions targets and arguable economy benefits targeted at the new car market paid for by buyers long term in the used markets.Which is why,as I've said,I can see residual value issues in the medium to longer term concerning the choice between taking on a liability in the form of over stressed engines,as opposed to staying with the ( correct ) idea that there's no substitute for cubic inches.Although that's not to say that there wouldn't be benefits in limited amounts of forced induction to just increase efficiency,as opposed to trying to get too much power from too little capacity.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 24th February 20:55

Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 24th February 20:57

Whilst I agree with your logic I know plenty of low specific output engines which don't last anywhere near as long as higher specific output engines. How are you to know modern turbo engines don't use stronger internals etc?

Could you give me a few examples of newer engines failing where the cause of its failure was due to being turbo charged (ie where if it weren't turbo charged it'd be ok).

I think you're theorising based on a general train of thought. Yes, if everything was like for like the internals are under more stress but in reality how many engines are what write cars off these days where they wouldn't have been written off if they were naturally aspirated? Very very few, I suspect.

[MGJohn]

Shorter or longer term reliability issues can be upset by one BIG factor. A factor which none appear to have considered here. Although, to be fair I have not read every reply on the thread in detail. That factor is this. There are more unreliable car users than unreliable cars or those entrusted to look after them.

An over or under stressed engine, be it normally aspirated or forced induction can 'fail' prematurely after relatively few thousand miles if abused, neglected or not serviced correctly. Entrusting the car servicing to professionals is no guarantee of a job well done or done at all. Irrespective of the stamps in the book or updates on the database.

An identical car which left the production line at the same time as the premature 'failure' car goes on to complete close to 200,000 reliable miles subject to hard regular use and not abuse given the benefit of correct competent servicing.

One thing I am certain about. All other things being equal, it is rare for a good little 'n to beat a good big 'n.

[DSLiverpool]

Capri had a 1.3 not a new age 100 bhp 1.3 but an old (Kent) 1.3 of iirc 60 Bhp

1981 SWB transit had a 1.6 - that was fun fully loaded over the Pennines.

Edited by DSLiverpool on Monday 24th February 22:21

[Gavin0478]

Citroen xantia.... 1.9 non turbo diesel about 70 bhp coupled to an automatic gearbox.

Heavy car with all the suspension sapping power could barely hit 70 on the motorway.

[aw51 121565]

XUD9 (non-Turbo) in a Xantia - or BX or 309 or 306 - would have 65bhp and give performance somewhere between a 1.3/1.4 and 1.6 petrol in said cars; top speed would be a definite indicated illegal, if not nigh on 100mph ...