Small engines in large cars
Discussion
skyrover said:
BritishRacinGrin said:
A small turbocharged engine can make the same power and torque as a large naturally aspirated one, return better fuel economy and deliver peak torque lower in the rev range making them more comfortable to drive. This is not a new trend.
They also don't last as long and have many more parts to failDon't get me wrong, I wouldn't buy one... but the manufacturers are just giving the market what it wants.
The view that turbocharged engines are 'highly stressed' and liable to grenading at 50/60/70k miles is a bit 1970s anyway.
g7jhp said:
Not exactly on topic, but Fiat 500 with 1.2 engine that can't get up a hill. Hardly fit for purpose, unless you live in the Netherlands!
If a brand new 69hp 900kg fiat 500 can't get up a hill, then how does my 15 year old 60hp, 1000kg VW Polo manage it with no issues? Am I missing something here?
The now ex has a new Kuga on motability 1.5 ecoboost @ 180bhp
(she also looked at the 15bhp V70 diesel which made up for lack of hp with oodles of torque being a derv drinker)1
It has some decent go and handling but..
1st gear pull aways are very much transit van sounding affairs -lots off boom and rattle for seemingly little progress.
Once up to speed its decent enough though there are a few windows of turbo lag and lack of grunt if you are not using the autobox in sport and need to overtake suddenly.
The fuel economy is in the low low thirties (32 -33) which is so so considering the alleged green credentials but not bad for a big softroader
(she also looked at the 15bhp V70 diesel which made up for lack of hp with oodles of torque being a derv drinker)1
It has some decent go and handling but..
1st gear pull aways are very much transit van sounding affairs -lots off boom and rattle for seemingly little progress.
Once up to speed its decent enough though there are a few windows of turbo lag and lack of grunt if you are not using the autobox in sport and need to overtake suddenly.
The fuel economy is in the low low thirties (32 -33) which is so so considering the alleged green credentials but not bad for a big softroader
Kj159 said:
g7jhp said:
Not exactly on topic, but Fiat 500 with 1.2 engine that can't get up a hill. Hardly fit for purpose, unless you live in the Netherlands!
If a brand new 69hp 900kg fiat 500 can't get up a hill, then how does my 15 year old 60hp, 1000kg VW Polo manage it with no issues? Am I missing something here?funkyrobot said:
grimmac said:
Is that not the same engine they put in the VW Touran.. 1.2 tsi?
A bigger car weighting about 300kg more?
We have an 06 140bhp 2.0 diesel touran, and I really wouldn't want anything less. Gonna cause a problem soon as the wife wants to change it and the budget won't run to getting the same again but 5 years newer.
My fiancee drove a newish Polo 1.2 the other week. She currently has an 03 1.4 and she said that she noticed the difference (she pootles around normally). The salesman was hell bent on selling her a 1.0 or a 1.2, but she won't change for a smaller engine unless she finds one that feels like her current one.A bigger car weighting about 300kg more?
We have an 06 140bhp 2.0 diesel touran, and I really wouldn't want anything less. Gonna cause a problem soon as the wife wants to change it and the budget won't run to getting the same again but 5 years newer.
I don't know if this is a direct comparison though as I don't know if the Polo 1.0 and 1.2 have a turbo on.
Back on topic I have no problem with smaller engined cars.. I had a Golf 1.4tsi (122hp) match gifted to me for 3 months, covered around 3000 miles in it and was thoroughly impressed with it. I have seen a couple of these models with circa 60k plus on the clock with no real issues showing as yet..
Of late I've been driving a 2014 Seat Ibiza with a 1.4. So a modern small car, presumably not too porky and presumably with a relatively contemporary engine. It's as slow as a rainy Sunday. Engine size doesn't seem to have the same like-for-like implication on power as it used to, but I'd imagine anything larger than a supermini will feel radically underpowered with a 1.2 engine.
forzaminardi said:
Of late I've been driving a 2014 Seat Ibiza with a 1.4. So a modern small car, presumably not too porky and presumably with a relatively contemporary engine. It's as slow as a rainy Sunday. Engine size doesn't seem to have the same like-for-like implication on power as it used to, but I'd imagine anything larger than a supermini will feel radically underpowered with a 1.2 engine.
Again the 1.4 is na, and the engines being put in the larger cars are turbo charged. The difference in low down torque makes them drive like a much larger engine, at least at low to medium revs. At higher revs you realise they don't have much more to give, like a diesel in that respect.Kj159 said:
If a brand new 69hp 900kg fiat 500 can't get up a hill, then how does my 15 year old 60hp, 1000kg VW Polo manage it with no issues? Am I missing something here?
Yes, two things.1. Using a single peak power figure to define drivability doesn't work.
2. Fiat ruined the car to steal CO2s on it's EU6 engine. It's the same engine, calibrated differently.
IanCress said:
forzaminardi said:
Of late I've been driving a 2014 Seat Ibiza with a 1.4. So a modern small car, presumably not too porky and presumably with a relatively contemporary engine. It's as slow as a rainy Sunday. Engine size doesn't seem to have the same like-for-like implication on power as it used to, but I'd imagine anything larger than a supermini will feel radically underpowered with a 1.2 engine.
Again the 1.4 is na, and the engines being put in the larger cars are turbo charged. The difference in low down torque makes them drive like a much larger engine, at least at low to medium revs. At higher revs you realise they don't have much more to give, like a diesel in that respect.Not the last word on motoring accuracy but didn't TG do a test of 3 diesels one with a 1.2 and the other 2 with a 1.6 similar size cars and concluded that the 1.2 was awful on fuel as in the real world you needed to thrash it everywhere. Was a couple of years ago if i remember rightly.
But something I've always thought to be the case with small engined cars and seems to be the case with reviews on the ford ecoboost engines.
But something I've always thought to be the case with small engined cars and seems to be the case with reviews on the ford ecoboost engines.
Skoda put the 1.2 TSI in the Yeti, with a 7 speed DSG box most of the time. Most reviewers acknowledge that it can be a bit underpowered in certain situations (i.e. motorway overtakes at beyond 70 mph), but that on the whole its easily the sweetest package out of the whole line up.
Nice a light front end, helps the handling. The engine feels stronger than you expect, rev's nicely, sounds sweet when you do and is exceptionally refined when cruising. They basically say its the pick of the bunch.
Nice a light front end, helps the handling. The engine feels stronger than you expect, rev's nicely, sounds sweet when you do and is exceptionally refined when cruising. They basically say its the pick of the bunch.
carparkno1 said:
Wife was intrigued by the new 1.2 petrol qashqai. God only know how hard that would have to work with two adults a teenager and a dog.
Wonder what the mpg would be.
exactly.... all very well in a polo or an ibiza... but in a car like the quashqai or a Touran, where you could very easliy expect 2 adults, 3 kids, some bikes and maybe a trailer tent, how safe (and what mpg will you get from) a 1.2 tsi.Wonder what the mpg would be.
In the above scenario.... a 2.0 Touran is very safe, and returns 40mpg.,
I have yet to drive a large hatchback/saloon with a tiny petrol engine but I should imagine it'd be less hateful than the same car with a tiny diesel engine.
I recently hired a brand new Golf with a 1.2 TSI engine. I was hugely impressed with how good it was. The performance really did bely its engine size. I don't know the ins and outs of the VW engine range and so I presumed that it'd be the 105bhp 1.2 TSI. Imagine my surprise when I later discovered that it was the 'lowly' 85bhp variant! It really did punch above its weight.
My main issue is how these engines are going to fare 5-10 years down the line with all that stress and strain of a heavy car on their backs?
I recently hired a brand new Golf with a 1.2 TSI engine. I was hugely impressed with how good it was. The performance really did bely its engine size. I don't know the ins and outs of the VW engine range and so I presumed that it'd be the 105bhp 1.2 TSI. Imagine my surprise when I later discovered that it was the 'lowly' 85bhp variant! It really did punch above its weight.
My main issue is how these engines are going to fare 5-10 years down the line with all that stress and strain of a heavy car on their backs?
funkyrobot said:
My fiancee drove a newish Polo 1.2 the other week. She currently has an 03 1.4 and she said that she noticed the difference (she pootles around normally). The salesman was hell bent on selling her a 1.0 or a 1.2, but she won't change for a smaller engine unless she finds one that feels like her current one.
I don't know if this is a direct comparison though as I don't know if the Polo 1.0 and 1.2 have a turbo on.
Can you still by Polos with the NA 1.4 engine that was in it for donkeys years?I don't know if this is a direct comparison though as I don't know if the Polo 1.0 and 1.2 have a turbo on.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff