270 horsepower from a 1.6 litre engine?

270 horsepower from a 1.6 litre engine?

Author
Discussion

baccalad

Original Poster:

220 posts

114 months

Thursday 2nd October 2014
quotequote all
http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/First-drive-270...

Peugeots new RCZ R has a 1.6 petrol engine producing 270 hp, which from a 1.6 is extraordinary, apparently the most powerful 1.6 in the word.

What I don't understand though is why VAG have been twincharging their 1.4 litre petrol petrol engine to produce 180 hp and the RCZ is making a lot more from a 1.6 with only a turbocharger, and now in the new Polo GTI the 1.4 has been replaced with a 1.8 litre engine yet this only produces around 10 more HP than the 1.4, granted with only a turbocharger but still. Then you get the vast majority of the range of hot hatches today like the Focus ST, producing somewhere around the 250 hp mark with their 2.0 litre turbocharged engines.

To me it seems like engines are capable of a lot lot more than manufacturers are putting through them but they won't push the boundaries, why can't/won't other manufacturers follow suit? And I don't even like the Pegeuot RCZ I think it's ghastly.

Jonny_

4,108 posts

206 months

Thursday 2nd October 2014
quotequote all
Wonder what the service intervals are? That's a very stressed little engine. Biggest reason for manufacturers keeping specific outputs down is longevity.

Buff Mchugelarge

3,316 posts

149 months

Thursday 2nd October 2014
quotequote all
Another viewpoint,

Motorbikes have been making 150bhp from 1000cc engines for nearly 15 years now.
It's not as thought they need ultra servicing and care. My old daily was a tuned ZXR750 no end of abuse and it never once went wrong.

I think it's mostly down to cost? High specific outputs cost money to develop. Customers expect day to day usability to go with their 800bhp 1.6.

crosseyedlion

2,170 posts

197 months

Thursday 2nd October 2014
quotequote all
Buff Mchugelarge said:
Another viewpoint,

Motorbikes have been making 150bhp from 1000cc engines for nearly 15 years now.
It's not as thought they need ultra servicing and care. My old daily was a tuned ZXR750 no end of abuse and it never once went wrong.

I think it's mostly down to cost? High specific outputs cost money to develop. Customers expect day to day usability to go with their 800bhp 1.6.
Motorbike engines aren't pulling 1.5 tons and don't have anywhere near as many requirements to fulfil.

lesstatt

4,318 posts

189 months

Thursday 2nd October 2014
quotequote all
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

lesstatt

4,318 posts

189 months

Thursday 2nd October 2014
quotequote all
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

hyperblue

2,800 posts

179 months

Thursday 2nd October 2014
quotequote all
Of course, there are many modified cars with 1.6 litre engines making 270bhp and more, but the longetivity, driveability and reliability tend to suffer! Impressive for a manufacturer to offer that much power from one though.

VeeFource

1,076 posts

176 months

Thursday 2nd October 2014
quotequote all
Buff Mchugelarge said:
Another viewpoint,

Motorbikes have been making 150bhp from 1000cc engines for nearly 15 years now.
It's not as thought they need ultra servicing and care. My old daily was a tuned ZXR750 no end of abuse and it never once went wrong.

I think it's mostly down to cost? High specific outputs cost money to develop. Customers expect day to day usability to go with their 800bhp 1.6.
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.

timberman

1,280 posts

214 months

Thursday 2nd October 2014
quotequote all
I'd say that's getting to be fairly average nowadays

If you look the bhp per litre it's less than 170,

already a few 2 litre cars are close to that ( golf r/ audi s3, focus rs,) + plenty of those have been tuned so higher still, all requiring just routine service intervals.

i'm sure there are other cars with different sized engines with the same ballpark figure

if vw build it the golf evo r400 that should have around 200 hp per litre.

ORD

18,086 posts

126 months

Thursday 2nd October 2014
quotequote all
We wouldn't see this but for the absurd emissions testing regime that essentially forces manufacturers to produce very highly stressed engines that will pull at low revs (the most damaging thing for engines to do) and so produce low C02 outputs on the official cycle.

It's a market failure, in essence - we don't actually want high output tiny turbo engines (not least because their actual fuel economy is just OK), but the manufacturers have to produce them and the motoring press has to play along and quote official figures!

ORD

18,086 posts

126 months

Thursday 2nd October 2014
quotequote all
timberman said:
I'd say that's getting to be fairly average nowadays

If you look the bhp per litre it's less than 170,

already a few 2 litre cars are close to that ( golf r/ audi s3, focus rs,) + plenty of those have been tuned so higher still, all requiring just routine service intervals.

i'm sure there are other cars with different sized engines with the same ballpark figure

if vw build it the golf evo r400 that should have around 200 hp per litre.
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).

IanCress

4,409 posts

165 months

Thursday 2nd October 2014
quotequote all
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.

NISaxoVTR

268 posts

168 months

Thursday 2nd October 2014
quotequote all
The aftermarket were getting around this figure with the old TU 16v engine found in the 106 GTI a decade or so ago so the figure by itself isn't that impressive. The difference being that engine started 120 bhp so tuning it got you great rewards, I'm guessing if you're starting out with a turbo'd 1.6 making 270 bhp you won't have much room to improve it if that's your thing.

MajorProblem

4,700 posts

163 months

Thursday 2nd October 2014
quotequote all
NISaxoVTR said:
The aftermarket were getting around this figure with the old TU 16v engine found in the 106 GTI a decade or so ago so the figure by itself isn't that impressive. The difference being that engine started 120 bhp so tuning it got you great rewards, I'm guessing if you're starting out with a turbo'd 1.6 making 270 bhp you won't have much room to improve it if that's your thing.
Are you sure? What about a K&N panel filter in a drilled airbox and some splitfire spark plugs? Cat back stainless system with big bore 4 back box?

theshrew

6,008 posts

183 months

Thursday 2nd October 2014
quotequote all
I'd imagine it's possible. I've seen a 5 turbo 1.4 with about 200 that was years ago and obviously not particularly reliable.

Technology has moved on a lot now so don't a reason why you couldn't see that out of a 1.6

HTP99

22,443 posts

139 months

Thursday 2nd October 2014
quotequote all
Engine technology moves on, it is amazing what such small capacity engines can now provide in terms of power and torque, even in every day cars; 130hp out of a 1.2 turbo in a Megane?

I have people come in to enquire about new cars and they just can't get their head around the fact that you can't get a 1.6 or a 2.0 ltr anymore, even when you tell them the new engine produces more power, more torque, is cheaper to tax and better on fuel "but I want a 1.6!"

Maybe we should still drive around in 6.5ltr cars that produce only 150 odd hp?!

thatdude

2,654 posts

126 months

Thursday 2nd October 2014
quotequote all
Buff Mchugelarge said:
Another viewpoint,

Motorbikes have been making 150bhp from 1000cc engines for nearly 15 years now.
It's not as thought they need ultra servicing and care. My old daily was a tuned ZXR750 no end of abuse and it never once went wrong.

I think it's mostly down to cost? High specific outputs cost money to develop. Customers expect day to day usability to go with their 800bhp 1.6.
I'd like to add that service intervals on many japanese 1000 cc sports bikes are somewhere around 5000 - 6000 miles. Suzuki tend to recommend 4000-ish miles, yamaha tend to go for 6000 miles. Honda, I'm not sure...the press reports lots of numbers, some as high as 8000 miles between oil changes.

Consider that cars often have service intervals of greater than 10,000 miles, and it's easy to argue that motorcycles do need to be serviced more regularly.

HTP99 said:
Engine technology moves on, it is amazing what such small capacity engines can now provide in terms of power and torque, even in every day cars; 130hp out of a 1.2 turbo in a Megane?

I have people come in to enquire about new cars and they just can't get their head around the fact that you can't get a 1.6 or a 2.0 ltr anymore, even when you tell them the new engine produces more power, more torque, is cheaper to tax and better on fuel "but I want a 1.6!"

Maybe we should still drive around in 6.5ltr cars that produce only 150 odd hp?!
I have had a similar conversation with my father-in-law. I told him that fords new 1 litre engine produced more power than my 1.6 litre honda engine, with more torque everywhere, and that he could find a very good car under 5 years old which is smaller in engine capacity but as powerful as his aging 7 series. He is still looking for a 3 litre engined vehicle; considering most driving is local and in london, he would benefit greatly from the inproved economy of a smaller engine and would never know if it made less power.

There is replacment for displacment these days.


Edited by thatdude on Thursday 2nd October 08:31

ORD

18,086 posts

126 months

Thursday 2nd October 2014
quotequote all
A minority of people dislike the characteristics of small capacity turbo engines. I would rather have a peaky NA 1.4 than a turbo 1.2 any day of the week.

robinessex

11,046 posts

180 months

Thursday 2nd October 2014
quotequote all
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.
Not True. The Turbo F1 era produced 1,500 bhp from 1.5LTRS. Easy to detune down to 270bhp. Once an engine is supercharged by any means, it's size becomes irrelevant. It's just a fuel digesting device. The more you stuff in, the more bhp that comes out. You don't revs either.

IanCress

4,409 posts

165 months

Thursday 2nd October 2014
quotequote all
robinessex said:
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.
Not True. The Turbo F1 era produced 1,500 bhp from 1.5LTRS. Easy to detune down to 270bhp. Once an engine is supercharged by any means, it's size becomes irrelevant. It's just a fuel digesting device. The more you stuff in, the more bhp that comes out. You don't revs either.
My point still stands. How many of those 1.5 turbos were capable of 150k miles, with oil changes 20k miles apart? We didn't see them filtering down to road cars, because they weren't suitable.