270 horsepower from a 1.6 litre engine?
Discussion
crosseyedlion said:
No drop in reliability on UK fuel, in UK environmental conditions, with very lenient emissions regulations, NVH & power delivery requirments etc.... Although it clearly holds together, and I would tune one the same if it was mine, a large manufacturer simply couldn't get away with it.
Plenty of examples running this stage 1 tune (280 bhp) for over 100000 miles. and some I know over 200k miles. I'm pretty sure some still pass emissions tests but I couldn't swear by that.CarAbuser said:
I've driven the Ford ecoboost engine in the form of a Fiesta and the 0.9L 3 cylinder Renault Clio.
Both engines are s
t in my opinion. The ecoboost engine has shocking fuel consumption and feels slow compared to the much more frugal Renault engine but both are st engines to drive.
I will personally buy the largest engine I can get my hands on until electric cars take over. Would much rather have a 8 cylinder engine producing 300bhp than a 3 cylinder one. In real world driving they are likely going to get similar fuel mileage.
The Golf R engine is a perfect example of this. 300bhp from a 2L engine but still only manages 26mpg in real world driving.
You have all the downsides of a small turbo engine and the running costs of a large engine. Plus the added reliability woes of a small engine with high power output.
Just seems lose-lose to me.
You can get better economy out of the Golf than that, surely!Both engines are s
t in my opinion. The ecoboost engine has shocking fuel consumption and feels slow compared to the much more frugal Renault engine but both are st engines to drive.I will personally buy the largest engine I can get my hands on until electric cars take over. Would much rather have a 8 cylinder engine producing 300bhp than a 3 cylinder one. In real world driving they are likely going to get similar fuel mileage.
The Golf R engine is a perfect example of this. 300bhp from a 2L engine but still only manages 26mpg in real world driving.
You have all the downsides of a small turbo engine and the running costs of a large engine. Plus the added reliability woes of a small engine with high power output.
Just seems lose-lose to me.
For me the impressive thing is the service intervals; for an Impreza or Evo producing 300bhp you'd need to get it serviced every other weekend.
Clearly knows nothing about imprezas or evos...
Eta
Fwiw my own car has a 2 ltr turbo
310 bhp, 330 odd ftlb . It gets 30mpg round town, high 40s on a run and to be safe because its modded gets new oil every 6months. Power arrives at around 2.5k and remains present til over 6.5k - the power curve is basically flat between 3.5 and 6k (limited to preserve engine and gearbox) giving me an extremely flexible motor
And
Its nearly ten years old and has been running the same power for the last 6. So we have decent economy, power, reasonable reliability and flexibility - all on a smallish capacity turbo lump.
Its a renault btw.
Eta
Fwiw my own car has a 2 ltr turbo
310 bhp, 330 odd ftlb . It gets 30mpg round town, high 40s on a run and to be safe because its modded gets new oil every 6months. Power arrives at around 2.5k and remains present til over 6.5k - the power curve is basically flat between 3.5 and 6k (limited to preserve engine and gearbox) giving me an extremely flexible motor
And
Its nearly ten years old and has been running the same power for the last 6. So we have decent economy, power, reasonable reliability and flexibility - all on a smallish capacity turbo lump.
Its a renault btw.
Edited by Poopipe on Sunday 5th October 21:04
Running 2.3 bar of boost in my 2.0l turbo petrol!Poopipe said:
Clearly knows nothing about imprezas or evos...
Eta
Fwiw my own car has a 2 ltr turbo
310 bhp, 330 odd ftlb . It gets 30mpg round town, high 40s on a run and to be safe because its modded gets new oil every 6months. Power arrives at around 2.5k and remains present til over 6.5k - the power curve is basically flat between 3.5 and 6k (limited to preserve engine and gearbox) giving me an extremely flexible motor
And
Its nearly ten years old and has been running the same power for the last 6. So we have decent economy, power, reasonable reliability and flexibility - all on a smallish capacity turbo lump.
Its a renault btw.
Dont believe that economy for a moment. Eta
Fwiw my own car has a 2 ltr turbo
310 bhp, 330 odd ftlb . It gets 30mpg round town, high 40s on a run and to be safe because its modded gets new oil every 6months. Power arrives at around 2.5k and remains present til over 6.5k - the power curve is basically flat between 3.5 and 6k (limited to preserve engine and gearbox) giving me an extremely flexible motor
And
Its nearly ten years old and has been running the same power for the last 6. So we have decent economy, power, reasonable reliability and flexibility - all on a smallish capacity turbo lump.
Its a renault btw.
Edited by Poopipe on Sunday 5th October 21:04
It doesnt produce all that torque at low revs does it? I described the power delivery above.
For both town and relaxed mway driving you can remain outside the shouty bit quite comfortably and thus use bugger all fuel - a bit like having a diesel except theres another 4500 rpm to play with.
For both town and relaxed mway driving you can remain outside the shouty bit quite comfortably and thus use bugger all fuel - a bit like having a diesel except theres another 4500 rpm to play with.
Poopipe said:
It doesnt produce all that torque at low revs does it? I described the power delivery above.
For both town and relaxed mway driving you can remain outside the shouty bit quite comfortably and thus use bugger all fuel - a bit like having a diesel except theres another 4500 rpm to play with.
OK, I'll play along. What does it weigh? How is it geared - max speeds in 1,2 and 3?For both town and relaxed mway driving you can remain outside the shouty bit quite comfortably and thus use bugger all fuel - a bit like having a diesel except theres another 4500 rpm to play with.
Getting huge power out of an engine has been possible for many decades but the reason we are now seeing these figures in engines for generic road use is obviously because of reliability advances.
In engineering terms the manufacture of blocks, heads and parts has improved to allow the cheaper production of much better balanced parts and with more perfect tolerances. So this makes for less stressed engines themselves. Turbo units themselves are far superior than just 20 years ago because of the rapid development of them in diesels so they are more efficient and durable.
And we can add the massive advances in variable timing technologies that also help smooth out power deliveries. And better fuel delivery systems that keep engines more optimised.
But arguably the greatest improvement has been in the electronics. Far more complex and intelligent electronics now allow for such wound up engines to run not only more safely but manage the character of hugely forced engines to deliver a user experience that is acceptable for the road.
Better turbos and timing systems have made turbo'd engines much less peaky and much more useable but it's the sheer amount of data that is now instantly collected, processed and leads to instant adjustments of many aspects from fuel and air delivery to fan controls, knock sensing, timing changes etc etc. it is the modern computers that allow the engineering advances to truly deliver enormous power per cc with incredible reliability. We've been able to engineer near perfect components for many years (albeit not commercially until recent years) but these parts would still lunch themselves quite quickly without the computers that measure everything and adjust so many facets to keep the unit in perfect tune across all ranges of usage at all times.
In engineering terms the manufacture of blocks, heads and parts has improved to allow the cheaper production of much better balanced parts and with more perfect tolerances. So this makes for less stressed engines themselves. Turbo units themselves are far superior than just 20 years ago because of the rapid development of them in diesels so they are more efficient and durable.
And we can add the massive advances in variable timing technologies that also help smooth out power deliveries. And better fuel delivery systems that keep engines more optimised.
But arguably the greatest improvement has been in the electronics. Far more complex and intelligent electronics now allow for such wound up engines to run not only more safely but manage the character of hugely forced engines to deliver a user experience that is acceptable for the road.
Better turbos and timing systems have made turbo'd engines much less peaky and much more useable but it's the sheer amount of data that is now instantly collected, processed and leads to instant adjustments of many aspects from fuel and air delivery to fan controls, knock sensing, timing changes etc etc. it is the modern computers that allow the engineering advances to truly deliver enormous power per cc with incredible reliability. We've been able to engineer near perfect components for many years (albeit not commercially until recent years) but these parts would still lunch themselves quite quickly without the computers that measure everything and adjust so many facets to keep the unit in perfect tune across all ranges of usage at all times.
ORD said:
My guess, and only that, is that VW would love to mass produce the R400 but that the test versions are proving hugely unreliable (in a way that isn't acceptable even in the days of leases and endless warranty work).
I doubt it. The man working on the project is the same individual who did the AMG 4-pot.scherzkeks said:
ORD said:
My guess, and only that, is that VW would love to mass produce the R400 but that the test versions are proving hugely unreliable (in a way that isn't acceptable even in the days of leases and endless warranty work).
I doubt it. The man working on the project is the same individual who did the AMG 4-pot.ORD said:
liner33 said:
Dont believe that economy for a moment.
+1. That's because it's a fragrant lie. Unless the petrol is supplemented by magic beans, no car producing that torque will burn so little fuel. Edited by sparkyhx on Monday 6th October 11:41
sparkyhx said:
Not saying his figures are accurate, but you just drive off boost then its a 2ltr car. I never measured my 200sx cos its was pootled between hoons or track days so never got a real measure, but it was probably over 35. But high 40's that ain't
Sure, but to get 30mpg around town, it would have to be staying at low revs, which would mean driving very slowly indeed (even if it is geared for it). But you wont get both that and high 40s "on a run" unless something very clever indeed has been done with the gearing and you are avoiding the throttle like the plague.Edited by sparkyhx on Monday 6th October 11:41
High 40s out of town is what you get in a very efficient petrol car driven slowly, not a 300bhp boost special that is surely there to be spanked! I did a very dull slow motorway trip in a C180 eco-whatsit recently, and even that (which is economical to the point of being almost unbearably bad to drive)only got high 40s.
sparkyhx said:
ORD said:
liner33 said:
Dont believe that economy for a moment.
+1. That's because it's a fragrant lie. Unless the petrol is supplemented by magic beans, no car producing that torque will burn so little fuel. Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff