why the move to small engines ?

[xRIEx]

Inkyfingers said:

xRIEx said:

I don't know about fixing, but comparing costs of crate engines the 1.0 Ecoboost is significantly more expensive than the 1.6 Sigma.

The OPs question was a general comparison between turbocharged 4 cylinder engines, and normally aspirated 6 cylinder ones. Comparing two individual engines from one manufacturer isn't really a fair comparison.

I'd say it's fairer, as it removes several variables! The Ecoboost is nearly 3 times the price of the Sigma, which doesn't support the assertion that smaller TC engines are going to be cheaper than an equivalent NA engine.

[J4CKO]

With all this talk of reliability and longevity, my thinking is that most cars don't get scrapped due to the engine failing, plenty of engines, looked after would do 200,000 or 300,000 miles.

Even if the Ecoboost fails earlier, is it still some way over what the average mileage that car does over its lifespan ? if it fails at 150,000 after 12 years of use, the car is probably junk anyway, suspension, brakes, interior, body panels etc.

remember when engine didn't last 100,000 miles as a rule, cylinder head decokes, rebores etc etc, doesn't generally happen to modern engines, they tend to outlive whatever they are in.

Will be interesting to see how electric motors in EV's last, so many fewer moving parts, less friction/heat generated, less vibration generated, potential is there for mega mileages, the batteries will always be the issue I guess in terms of lifespan.

[BL Fanboy]

ORD said:

Or, even better, a flat six purring along very quietly until you press the loud pedal and it growls and roars up to the redline.

For the sake of 5-10mpg, you'd be crazy to want a turbo 4 over a 6, but that is the way the market is going.

You say that, about a romanticised flat six purring and roaring, but unless you know what torque the little engine is producing from low down, you cant really say which one is most responsive/muscular - if you couldn't tell by sound or vibration, you might actually be fooled by the smaller engine.

If you had a stationary sound proofed box with an engine in it and just a shaft coming out of it, how would you know what size engine was turning the shaft?

[J4CKO]

BL Fanboy said:

ORD said:

Or, even better, a flat six purring along very quietly until you press the loud pedal and it growls and roars up to the redline.

For the sake of 5-10mpg, you'd be crazy to want a turbo 4 over a 6, but that is the way the market is going.

You say that, about a romanticised flat six purring and roaring, but unless you know what torque the little engine is producing from low down, you cant really say which one is most responsive/muscular - if you couldn't tell by sound or vibration, you might actually be fooled by the smaller engine.

If you had a stationary sound proofed box with an engine in it and just a shaft coming out of it, how would you know what size engine was turning the shaft?

Yeah, my 350Z makes quite a nice noise but would get spanked by some of the new 2.0 turbos, like the Golf R, it makes the same bhp (296) it makes 274 lb/ft which is fairly decent being a 3.5 litre, but its at 4800 RPM, the Golf makes a smidge more than that (280) from 1800 rpm.

So, to my mind, why wouldn't you go turbo, ok when going for it, a given weight of metal takes a certain amount of energy to accelerate it, the rest of the time a V6 is generally just less efficient.

[ORD]

BL Fanboy said:

ORD said:

Or, even better, a flat six purring along very quietly until you press the loud pedal and it growls and roars up to the redline.

For the sake of 5-10mpg, you'd be crazy to want a turbo 4 over a 6, but that is the way the market is going.

You say that, about a romanticised flat six purring and roaring, but unless you know what torque the little engine is producing from low down, you cant really say which one is most responsive/muscular - if you couldn't tell by sound or vibration, you might actually be fooled by the smaller engine.

If you had a stationary sound proofed box with an engine in it and just a shaft coming out of it, how would you know what size engine was turning the shaft?

Most cars are neither stationary nor soundproofed (yet), so I don't really follow! A lot of people are prepared to pay more for fuel in order to have an engine that sounds good and responds to throttle inputs pretty much instantly and in a linear way(which turbo engines still don't).

I have driven plenty of cars that are said to have "no real turbo lag" and it really does go to show how used people have got to pressing the pedal and then waiting for the whooooooosh, because the lag is very noticeable and very irritating to someone used to NA cars.

As for how much torque the engine is producing, who really cares? Any decent car is far too fast to need all of its torque on public roads, so the character of the delivery is far more important than the amount.

Compared to a 150bhp car, I think the extra 150bhp in my car are worth at most about 1 extra overtake per hour on the journeys that I tend to make. But I get to benefit from a lovely engine note, pretty much instant response to throttle inputs, etc, for every minute of the drive. I value that kind of thing way above the speed.

[delboy735]

ORD said:

BL Fanboy said:

ORD said:

Or, even better, a flat six purring along very quietly until you press the loud pedal and it growls and roars up to the redline.

For the sake of 5-10mpg, you'd be crazy to want a turbo 4 over a 6, but that is the way the market is going.

You say that, about a romanticised flat six purring and roaring, but unless you know what torque the little engine is producing from low down, you cant really say which one is most responsive/muscular - if you couldn't tell by sound or vibration, you might actually be fooled by the smaller engine.

If you had a stationary sound proofed box with an engine in it and just a shaft coming out of it, how would you know what size engine was turning the shaft?

Most cars are neither stationary nor soundproofed (yet), so I don't really follow! A lot of people are prepared to pay more for fuel in order to have an engine that sounds good and responds to throttle inputs pretty much instantly and in a linear way(which turbo engines still don't).

I have driven plenty of cars that are said to have "no real turbo lag" and it really does go to show how used people have got to pressing the pedal and then waiting for the whooooooosh, because the lag is very noticeable and very irritating to someone used to NA cars.

As for how much torque the engine is producing, who really cares? Any decent car is far too fast to need all of its torque on public roads, so the character of the delivery is far more important than the amount.

Compared to a 150bhp car, I think the extra 150bhp in my car are worth at most about 1 extra overtake per hour on the journeys that I tend to make. But I get to benefit from a lovely engine note, pretty much instant response to throttle inputs, etc, for every minute of the drive. I value that kind of thing way above the speed.

I'm with Ord. A car that sounds decent would always win me over against a 4pot turbo ( boxer subaru being the only other car that sounds decent with a 4pot engine ) Having said all of that, I have a hankering for a Lexus LS400 purely from the pov that at 70mph it's virtually silent inside.......bit of a contradiction really. V8 loveliness soundproofed out !!!

[DJRC]

Actually it'd very few ppl think like that. A relative handful of enthusiastic types is all which is very little compared to the more mass market punters.

[shoehorn]

ORD said:

Most cars are neither stationary nor soundproofed (yet), so I don't really follow! A lot of people are prepared to pay more for fuel in order to have an engine that sounds good and responds to throttle inputs pretty much instantly and in a linear way(which turbo engines still don't).

I have driven plenty of cars that are said to have "no real turbo lag" and it really does go to show how used people have got to pressing the pedal and then waiting for the whooooooosh, because the lag is very noticeable and very irritating to someone used to NA cars.

Yes,
I spent a few years riding bikes and had a few fast-ish N/A cars,plus a good car dealer pal has over the last 20 years been a sucker for fast cars,started with just about every TVR model from the Chimera up to the Sagaris.
Those all had an instant zap feel to them.
You push,you get.
Later he moved on to Astons,the odd Merc AMG and then Gallardo`s(E-gear models,which to me was diabolical in operation at anything less than 30 mph)
They all had that instant urge,you want as much as you can have,now.

The Nissan GTR`s he had after(early mapped and later standard model)even with all that power there is a short but noticable delay between stamp and go that even my dad from the passenger seat noted,it made up for it but to me that would ruin my experience of owning it,
it would always irk me,part of the delay could have been the gearbox software,kickdown, etc. but even so the lag,for want of a better word was there.


I tried a new Mondeo 2 litre turbo recently,it had a cleaner,snappier response than any turbo car I have tried before but that was probably more down to its lower boost,10:1 C/R configuration than anything else.
Off boost it felt odd like some old straight six long stroke lump,not lethargic but also no feel of torque at all.
Give me more 6 or more cylinders all day long,you cant beat that fluid delivery and smoother response at lower rpm.
Yes the four pot will be cheaper and may leave you off the line initially.
I don`t want to spend all day changing gear thanks just to stay in the sweet spot,I`d rather just have a bigger sweet spot in the first place and be happy to pass them up the road 20mph faster using 2000 less rpm.
Even with the most basic of physics knowledge the terms natural and forced should tell you something about longevity,regardless of material advances.

[xRIEx]

shoehorn said:

Even with the most basic of physics knowledge the terms natural and forced should tell you something about longevity,regardless of material advances.

It doesn't tell you anything about longevity because it says nothing about component durability.

[ORD]

xRIEx said:

shoehorn said:

Even with the most basic of physics knowledge the terms natural and forced should tell you something about longevity,regardless of material advances.

It doesn't tell you anything about longevity because it says nothing about component durability.

The most important aspect, in my view, is quite how much is now demanded of engines. Producing huge power whilst also keeping emissions down is not an easy business, and the stresses have to go somewhere. Durability and longevity do not rate very highly compared to the need to hit the power and emissions targets. The buyer doesn't see in the numbers how long the engine might last, so he just doesn't care.

Refusing to go above 3 year warranties on new cars tells you how much the manufacturers really are prepared to stand behind the internals.

Until recently, only sports car and top end engines were required to be hugely capable and have high specific outputs. Now the boggo cars have incredibly refined and complex engines using new and relatively untested tech.

[xRIEx]

ORD said:

Refusing to go above 3 year warranties on new cars tells you how much the manufacturers really are prepared to stand behind the internals. engines using

What about the manufacturers offering 5 or 7 year warranties?

[Jenx]

I was flabergasted to find out the new Vauxhall Vivaro van only comes with a 1600cc engine.

[ORD]

xRIEx said:

ORD said:

Refusing to go above 3 year warranties on new cars tells you how much the manufacturers really are prepared to stand behind the internals. engines using

What about the manufacturers offering 5 or 7 year warranties?

Rare and often less complex engines under the hood

[shoehorn]

xRIEx said:

It doesn't tell you anything about longevity because it says nothing about component durability.

No,but take 2 identical objects,regardless of form,function or materials.
The one under more load or force will break quicker than one under less force or load.

Yes,it may take a million years but it will break first and is the reason manufacturers fit forged/stronger/better components in F/I engines.
not to mention the added heat and demands it places on the oil.
I don`t see any evidence to suggest that with their better internal components that F/I engines last longer,quite the opposite.

[xRIEx]

shoehorn said:

xRIEx said:

It doesn't tell you anything about longevity because it says nothing about component durability.

No,but take 2 identical objects,regardless of form,function or materials.
The one under more load or force will break quicker than one under less force or load.

Yes,it may take a million years but it will break first and is the reason manufacturers fit forged/stronger/better components in F/I engines.
not to mention the added heat and demands it places on the oil.
I don`t see any evidence to suggest that with their better internal components that F/I engines last longer,quite the opposite.

I assume you mean "for any given" instead of "regardless".

As for engines not lasting longer, as one poster said earlier, manufacturers will likely have a durability requirement for each component, develop and test it to ensure it meets those requirements and then sign it off. I'm guessing that's why you don't see the evidence. You say you have evidence to the contrary, can you give me some links? I'm quite interested to have a read up on it.

[zeppelin101]

ORD said:

Durability and longevity do not rate very highly compared to the need to hit the power and emissions targets.

Based on what information? You can't sell a car that doesn't hit the emissions legislation, but no one will buy a car that is known for not being durable so what do you think happens?

Answer: both as important as each other.

[xRIEx]

currybum said:

xRIEx said:

ORD said:

Refusing to go above 3 year warranties on new cars tells you how much the manufacturers really are prepared to stand behind the internals. engines using

What about the manufacturers offering 5 or 7 year warranties?

The length of a warrantie has very little to do with the actual reliability of a car, its a pure marketing equation. People pay for longer warranties either through increased sales or increased transaction price. The down side is the extra cost per vehicle for the longer cover.

Engineers sign off to the same targets regardless of the length of warrantie.

It wasn't really a statement of reliability, more how willing a manufacturer is to put their money where there mouth is.

[ORD]

currybum said:

You are about as wrong as anyone has ever been on the internet.

It could not be more obvious that the long term reliability of these engines is not as important as emissions and pub bore power figures:-

(1) The first owner could not care less how well the engine might last, as he will be leasing the car and getting rid once it is out of warranty.
(2) The manufacturer couldn't care less about 2nd or 3rd hand values.
(3) The long term reliability wont even be known until 5 or more years down the line, by which time the manufacturer is flogging a new car and everyone has forgotten about the old one.

In 5-10 years, the tech will have moved on again, so what will Ford care what its last generation of engines are doing? Nobody will be buying new 3 cylinder turbo petrols so wont care what their reliability turned out to be.

Did the problems with the Porsche engines in the early to mid 2000s harm sales? Not a bit of it. Did producing powerful engines that were fairly frugal boost sales? Certainly.

Does anyone seriously think that an engineer asked to get an engine to produce 300 or 400bhp whilst remaining reliable and economical to fix would start with a 2 litre 4 cylinder template? Not a bloody chance. He'd want at least 3 litres and 6 cylinders and wouldn't add any complexity that wasn't entirely necessary.

How much will getting a new turbo for an Ecoboost engine cost? Does anyone even know? Does anyone think the turbo will always last as long as the rest of the engine? Do we know whether or not every cheap Ecoboost car is likely to become uneconomical to fix as soon as it loses its first turbo? If people still actually purchased cars, these would be very important questions.

[shoehorn]

xRIEx said:

I assume you mean "for any given" instead of "regardless".

As for engines not lasting longer, as one poster said earlier, manufacturers will likely have a durability requirement for each component, develop and test it to ensure it meets those requirements and then sign it off. I'm guessing that's why you don't see the evidence. You say you have evidence to the contrary, can you give me some links? I'm quite interested to have a read up on it.

No, I meant regardless,this does not have to just apply to engineering it could apply to anything.
The manufacturers supplied all the evidence I need,the F/I engine has stronger components to produce similar power outputs to the larger n/a unit to stop it failing prematurely,which given the use of supposed superior components they have not succeeded,
whether that is due to materials or design is neither here nor there,the whole package counts and as a package F/I engines are more cdomplex and hence will give more troubles.

Put it this way,get 2 identical engines designed and built exactly the same way,abuse one and see which breaks first.

[xRIEx]

shoehorn said:

Put it this way,get 2 identical engines designed and built exactly the same way,abuse one and see which breaks first.

Which is not "regardless of" construction, it is "for any given" construction. "Regardless of" would suggest similar expectations of e.g. conrods made of steel and conrods made of cheese.