270 horsepower from a 1.6 litre engine?
Discussion
IanCress said:
To be fair, 10 or 20 years ago a car like the RCZ-R wouldn't be possible. If you wanted 270bhp from an engine back then, you'd have to stick a 4 Litre V8 under the bonnet, which wouldn't be possible in a car the size of the Peugeot. Same goes for all the modern 250-300bhp hot hatches.
Certainly fifteen years ago there were two litre turbocharged engines making that much power.liner33 said:
How many of them cover at least 10,000 miles per year?
I'm not sure. Mines been boosted for 2 years now and is my daily so does about 10k a year although it's only 220bhp. I imagine a lot do track days which is far harder than daily duties but also less of a problem when things go wrong.I've just (a fortnight ago) swapped my E46 320i for a Mini JCW (R56).
E46 320i: 2.2-litre straight six: 170ps @ 6,100 rpm, 155lb/ft @ 3,500 rpm
R56 JCW: 1.6-litre turbo inline-4: 210ps @ 6,000 rpm, 192lb/ft @ 1,900 rpm (207 lb/ft with overboost)
However, that doesn't tell the full story. The Mini is a laugh and is one of the best small capacity, turbo cars I've driven but I will be back into a high-revving NA straight six petrol at some point (hopefully a Tuscan S) because of the engine's character. In the Mini, despite the incredible torque at 1,900 rpm, if you drop below it (at junctions, for example), there's a significant delay between planting the throttle and anything meaningful happening. The BMW, on the other hand, even with significantly less grunt, responded instantly and built power and torque smoothly in a giant lunge to the rev limiter.
The other thing with the BMW is that the engine was basically bomb proof. The Mini...well, Google "death rattle". I'm glad it's under warranty.
E46 320i: 2.2-litre straight six: 170ps @ 6,100 rpm, 155lb/ft @ 3,500 rpm
R56 JCW: 1.6-litre turbo inline-4: 210ps @ 6,000 rpm, 192lb/ft @ 1,900 rpm (207 lb/ft with overboost)
However, that doesn't tell the full story. The Mini is a laugh and is one of the best small capacity, turbo cars I've driven but I will be back into a high-revving NA straight six petrol at some point (hopefully a Tuscan S) because of the engine's character. In the Mini, despite the incredible torque at 1,900 rpm, if you drop below it (at junctions, for example), there's a significant delay between planting the throttle and anything meaningful happening. The BMW, on the other hand, even with significantly less grunt, responded instantly and built power and torque smoothly in a giant lunge to the rev limiter.
The other thing with the BMW is that the engine was basically bomb proof. The Mini...well, Google "death rattle". I'm glad it's under warranty.
zeppelin101 said:
A 125hp car. The point of comparison was "why can't I just have a V8 that gets the same MPG" but no V8 will get anywhere near 50mpg. More to the point, they had a diesel before which was always going to cause trouble given that my mum predominantly drives round town so if you were going to throw a diesel into the mix for short journeys - it doesn't wash.
I know it's fun to beat up on these new engines because they haven't got 6+ cylinders and make many hundreds of horsepower and sound rubbish but the fact is they really aren't as bad as PH would have you believe.
I'm clearly wasting my breath though.
My point is a bigger engine that made 125hp probably would achieve or better the mpg ie my V6 makes almost 3 times the power but is not even twice as thirsty able to get 24mpg around town and 30mpg on a run I know it's fun to beat up on these new engines because they haven't got 6+ cylinders and make many hundreds of horsepower and sound rubbish but the fact is they really aren't as bad as PH would have you believe.
I'm clearly wasting my breath though.
ikarl said:
In 1994 (20 years ago) you could buy a Subaru Impreza WRX STi which produced a reliable 300bhp from a 2ltr - you certainly didn't need a 4l V8
Sinatra21 said:
Plenty of turbocharged mk1 mx5s that run 240-260 bhp without problems. Some are nearly 25 years old now too.
otolith said:
Certainly fifteen years ago there were two litre turbocharged engines making that much power.
Every time we have a thread on how high the specific output of modern hum drum engines is we have this s
t about how "Formula one cars of the 80s did it, I'm not even slightly impressed" and "An Evo whatever did better in 1997". What are you smoking? Do you honestly feel the driveability, economy, reliability and maintenance requirement compromises of these earlier examples would be even remotely acceptable to anyone but a petrolhead?I guess the point is not so much that the specific output itself is massively impressive but more that it can be achieved while keeping all of those other factors totally acceptable for white goods cars. It's one thing to get 170bhp per litre in a highly strung car where the owner will accept that he has to service it every 4000 - 6000 miles, that it's probably not going to be doing more than 10K miles a year and that it's not going to have metronome like reliability and it is quite another to put it in a Ford Focus that'll get serviced now and again, treated with no mechanical sympathy whatsoever and expected to be totally reliable to 100,000 miles or more.
Oh yes, and then sell the entire car for £20k.
liner33 said:
My point is a bigger engine that made 125hp probably would achieve or better the mpg ie my V6 makes almost 3 times the power but is not even twice as thirsty able to get 24mpg around town and 30mpg on a run
Not everybody in the real world needs nor wants an engine with 3x the power. It doesn't just come down to performance. 125hp is sufficient for your average day to day drive. I've got 68hp in my day to day car and I can't say I've been in a position where I would "need" 300hp day to day. My other car has 300hp because I like it, not because it's necessary.The PH way seems to assume the world is made of petrolheads who all care about performance when the fact is, most people don't give a s
t and just want to get from A to B cheaply and without breaking down.zeppelin101 said:
The PH way seems to assume the world is made of petrolheads who all care about performance when the fact is, most people don't give a st and just want to get from A to B cheaply and without breaking down.
If all you want is to get around cheaply then there already are much cheaper and more economical alternatives to a complex small engine like the ecoboost*. Thats why people are saying they are not convinced this is the way forward, you can make more power (or the same power if you prefer) with less stress and use less fuel by going to a larger displacement. t and just want to get from A to B cheaply and without breaking down.- and more reliable apparently
CarAbuser said:
The Golf R engine is a perfect example of this. 300bhp from a 2L engine but still only manages 26mpg in real world driving.
Weird you should mention this.I have a Volvo S60 T5 (2.3L, 5 cyl turbo) producing just over 300bhp; myself and a Golf R went on a 140 mile run together. In convoy so pretty much the exact same journey.
He averaged 34mpg on the trip meter and I averaged 33. I don't profess to be an expert but to me it seems there is a fundamental limit to how economical you can make a "performance" engine in day to day life. Bearing in mind mine is essentially a 25 year old engine design, albeit with a few tweeks along the way; all it seems is that the manufacturers have managed to fiddle the official tests better.
baccalad said:
I've just found this video of a 0 - top speed run of the RCZ R, I don't know if it's partially down to short gearing but the thing looks like it needs wings to take off.
It'd be interesting to see a power and torque against rpm graph from a dyno readout.
http://youtu.be/v8U4i_GGH3Y
That's one bland sounding engine.It'd be interesting to see a power and torque against rpm graph from a dyno readout.
http://youtu.be/v8U4i_GGH3Y
dme123 said:
Every time we have a thread on how high the specific output of modern hum drum engines is we have this st about how "Formula one cars of the 80s did it, I'm not even slightly impressed" and "An Evo whatever did better in 1997". What are you smoking? Do you honestly feel the driveability, economy, reliability and maintenance requirement compromises of these earlier examples would be even remotely acceptable to anyone but a petrolhead?
No - but if the comment I replied to had qualified the statement with driveability, economy, reliability and maintenance requirement compromises, I wouldn't have pointed out that it was inaccurate.t about how "Formula one cars of the 80s did it, I'm not even slightly impressed" and "An Evo whatever did better in 1997". What are you smoking? Do you honestly feel the driveability, economy, reliability and maintenance requirement compromises of these earlier examples would be even remotely acceptable to anyone but a petrolhead?
lesstatt said:
Bike engines also have very poor torque but lots of power at the top of the Rev range, my old fireblade was a slug under 3000rpm, got lively around 8000 and pulled like a train at 10000, not ideal in a car for normal use
No they don't...not at all.A Honda Blackbird for example produced 124nm of torques from a 1.1 litre engine @ 7250rpm.
That's better than most equivalent 1.1L cars and certainly a lot more BHP.
The real issue of course is fuel economy. Put a Blackbird engine in a car (which many people do), and although it'll be quite quick, the fuel economy will be a lot worse than a Kia Picanto 1.1.
Strapping a turbo on an engine effectively increases it's displacement. So a 1.6 engine with a big turbo will be performing like a 3 litre engine (with economy to match if you use the accelerator like an on/off switch).
DrDoofenshmirtz said:
Strapping a turbo on an engine effectively increases it's displacement. So a 1.6 engine with a big turbo will be performing like a 3 litre engine (with economy to match if you use the accelerator like an on/off switch).
Haha I like that, I wish I could afford to use the accelerator like an on/off switch xDMr2Mike said:
VeeFource said:
Motorbike engines don't need to produce as much torque low down though which means they can rev which reduces the loads on the crank etc.
As mentioned, it's a longevity thing. I don't think "ghastly" is the right word (I'd like to see you design better!), certainly not until we've seen how the RCZ's engine lasts anyway.
That's because bike engines aren't turbocharged. It's much more difficult to get high specific output from a normally aspirated engine than one with a turbocharger, so your argument doesn't really hold water. High revs don't reduce the load on the crank at all, they increase the stress on everything.As mentioned, it's a longevity thing. I don't think "ghastly" is the right word (I'd like to see you design better!), certainly not until we've seen how the RCZ's engine lasts anyway.
I'm saying they don't 'need' to produce as much torque low down as they don't have nearly as much weight to shift. This means you can have a much shorter stroke (thus reducing internal loads) which allows the engine to rev much higher for a given capacity.
When I said high revs I mean like for like, ie the internal loads on 1000cc motorbike engine at 7k rpm are going to be a lot less than a 1000cc car engine which is designed for a much higher torque output (longer stroke etc). That's why you can't compare motorbike engines to car engines!
I remember when the Golf GTI was first about, "110 bhp from 1.6 litres with that fancy fuel injection, too complicated and will fall apart", 1.6 engines were only suppose to make 70 or so bhp in normal cars, anything fast like a Chevette HS was generally a bit of a pain in the arse that did 20 mpg and didnt like being in traffic.
Dont get hung up on capacity, it is all about the power and torque curves, however its done, the Ecoboost 1.0 I drove in a Focus was a much nicer drive than the 1.6 Golf that it replaced.
There is no inherent reason why a small capacity, turbocharged, fully developed engine from a major manufacturer should be unreliable, they do quite a lot of development and specify the components accordingly, it could conceivably be the end of Ford if the 1.0 starts dying like flies.
As for preferring a 4 litre V8, well, durr, that isnt the choice, the choice is a diesel or a small, but not that small capacity, non turbo, non performance variant 4 cyl petrol, in that case I will take the tiny turbo, not as peaky, better power, more economical if you drive it as such.
The 1.0 litre Mondeo is just around the corner, who would have though it, a car bigger than a Granada Scorpio, fitted with a 1.0 engine where back in the day, the 2.0 was the base engine, the Mondeo wont be fast with that engine but I suspect it will be adequate for most situations.
You will soon be pining for the lovely old 3 cyl turbos when you get your electric car
Dont get hung up on capacity, it is all about the power and torque curves, however its done, the Ecoboost 1.0 I drove in a Focus was a much nicer drive than the 1.6 Golf that it replaced.
There is no inherent reason why a small capacity, turbocharged, fully developed engine from a major manufacturer should be unreliable, they do quite a lot of development and specify the components accordingly, it could conceivably be the end of Ford if the 1.0 starts dying like flies.
As for preferring a 4 litre V8, well, durr, that isnt the choice, the choice is a diesel or a small, but not that small capacity, non turbo, non performance variant 4 cyl petrol, in that case I will take the tiny turbo, not as peaky, better power, more economical if you drive it as such.
The 1.0 litre Mondeo is just around the corner, who would have though it, a car bigger than a Granada Scorpio, fitted with a 1.0 engine where back in the day, the 2.0 was the base engine, the Mondeo wont be fast with that engine but I suspect it will be adequate for most situations.
You will soon be pining for the lovely old 3 cyl turbos when you get your electric car
I think people forget that although you have multiple variables, Fuel Efficiency is how.. Well.. Efficiently a motor converts the Energy in the fuel to the propulsion. It doesn't have a huge amount to do with size, It's more to do with how efficiently it goes about it. Bigger engines will normally use more fuel (marginally) to makes the same power, because they have bigger bits to move, surely?
You hear people say "oh, its a 3.0 car, It will monster fuel, always, regardless. Not like my 1.0" Well, no. Trundle a 3.0 petrol, manual 5 series down the motorway at 70, and do the same in 1.0 turbo focus, and see what difference you get in MPG.
It wont be that much I imagine, maybe 10mpg difference, and most of that is due to the increased drag/frontal area/ rolling res/ Weight if increasing/ slowing down at all. Both motors are generating the power required, at partial throttle, to waft the cars along.
Or maybe this is all cobblers, and I have it wrong. Regardless, I'm not sure downsizing engines actually saves on real world fuel usage at a cruise, But it does mean you can reliable shove 300bhp in a hatch, Which has got to be at least a little PH. It also saves weight, loads of it, which DOES have a bit impact on the MPG around down, or when speeds fluctuate.
I'd still rather have a straight 6 though /PH
You hear people say "oh, its a 3.0 car, It will monster fuel, always, regardless. Not like my 1.0" Well, no. Trundle a 3.0 petrol, manual 5 series down the motorway at 70, and do the same in 1.0 turbo focus, and see what difference you get in MPG.
It wont be that much I imagine, maybe 10mpg difference, and most of that is due to the increased drag/frontal area/ rolling res/ Weight if increasing/ slowing down at all. Both motors are generating the power required, at partial throttle, to waft the cars along.
Or maybe this is all cobblers, and I have it wrong. Regardless, I'm not sure downsizing engines actually saves on real world fuel usage at a cruise, But it does mean you can reliable shove 300bhp in a hatch, Which has got to be at least a little PH. It also saves weight, loads of it, which DOES have a bit impact on the MPG around down, or when speeds fluctuate.
I'd still rather have a straight 6 though /PH
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff