Small engines in large cars
Discussion
Swanny87 said:
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.
I believe the only VAG cars that still have the NA 1.4 is the Seat Ibiza Toca models - the ones advertised on TV. This is a slightly revised/updated version of my station hack 2003 Ibiza 1.4 NA.
Edited for spelling.
IanCress said:
Do you have the same worries about the old 1.6 engine? It has similar power, but less torque.
Point is the new engine has a turbo and you need to rev hard to bring it up. Older bigger n/a engine may not have been as good in paper but you didn't need to work it so hard. I read that the 1.0 125bhp ecoboost in the focus gets some poor mpg returns due to owners having to rev it like mad.
iggletiggle said:
Swanny87 said:
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.
I believe the only VAG cars that still have the NA 1.4 is the Seat Ibiza Toca models - the ones advertised on TV. This is a slightly revised/updated version of my station hack 2003 Ibiza 1.4 NA.
Edited for spelling.
dme123 said:
One that does spring to mind is the 1.6D (115bhp?) Volvo sold/sell in a V70 or S80. That's a BIG car and in the case of the estate is liable to have a extra 500+ KG in it when you put 4 people and their crap in. The only 140bhp NASP 2.4i car was a slug so god alone knows what that must be like. That engine is barely adequate in a Focus.
I was going to mention this as I had that engine in an S40, and even remapped it was torturously slow. funkyrobot said:
Swanny87 said:
Can you still by Polos with the NA 1.4 engine that was in it for donkeys years?
We were told that you can't now. May or may not be true. 
Swanny87 said:
Yeah just had a look on the VW site. Shame, used to like that engine with the little whirry noise it made, suited the polo really well. I wonder how many sales VW have lost because they don't do that engine anymore
It's a good little engine. Works fine in my fiancee's polo. It's also willing to shift when you give it a prod. I doubt that has had any impact on sales. Judging by our recent experience at a VW dealer, we were one of the few people who queried the change from a 1.4 to something lower. Apparently, it doesn't really bother the masses.
carparkno1 said:
Point is the new engine has a turbo and you need to rev hard to bring it up.
No you don't. The turbo is producing torque from around 1200rpm, and the peak torque rpm is much lower on these modern engines. It's how they make the fuel saving, by being able to produce more torque at lower revs which enables them to run longer gear ratios.currybum said:
Just maybe the engines were designed to cope with the loads associated with being turbo charged. A well designed engine with a BMEP of 22 can see less material stress than a poorly designed N/A engine with a BMEP of 10.
Remember diesels see much higher cylinder pressures than any gasoline engine...and yet they don't have a reputation for blowing up.
Your point may well be correct, but diesel engines are bigger, heavier and more expensive, because of the higher cylinder pressures.Remember diesels see much higher cylinder pressures than any gasoline engine...and yet they don't have a reputation for blowing up.
Been a passenger in a Golf with the 1.2 TSI. In practice it's at least got the power of a 1.6 and the torque of a 1.8 so it's fine for that size of car.
As the guy above said if the engine has been built to last there shouldn't be a problem, though like nearly all modern cars it has more expensive engine related parts than older, simpler cars.
As the guy above said if the engine has been built to last there shouldn't be a problem, though like nearly all modern cars it has more expensive engine related parts than older, simpler cars.
Edited by iloveboost on Friday 6th March 10:35
grimmac said:
so what on earth is it going to be like in a Grand C-Max 7 seater??
See 2013 I drove the 125 1.0 ecoboost focus for work and I swapped it for the 1.6 113bhp diesel both zetec spec with appearance packs. Now I like both the petrol which was the quicker but it also struggled to better 45mpg and I found once it was spooled up it would torque surge even after you lifted of the throttle which I found annoying. I swapped it for a diesel which I could get up to 64mpg out of but it was a little less powerful.However I drove a 14 plate fiesta zetec s 125 1.0 ecoboast latter part of last year I could get around 52 mpg out of that and it was superb without the surging the focus had so maybe it was just a badly setup 2013 car I don't know but I prefered the fiesta to the focus 1.6 tdci.
When I test drove the new audi a3 I found I preferred the 1.4 122 tfsi over the diesels however my company policy only allowed me to have the diesel.
I would say on the a3 and superb the 1.4 tfsi is the best all rounder
Edited by jbsportstech on Friday 6th March 10:44
BuzzBravado said:
It will be a pretty highly stressed turbo unit.
The Octavia is already the pinnacle of motoring for spend thrift monotonous types. So low tax and higher MPG in an Octavia will really get them hard.
Agree and the owners will just relish the low running costs big time, I am personally not a fan of small engines in big cars and my old 520d touring was testament to my beliefs, I appreciate you don't need power but it is nice to have a little bit of it. The Octavia is already the pinnacle of motoring for spend thrift monotonous types. So low tax and higher MPG in an Octavia will really get them hard.
Edited by BuzzBravado on Friday 6th March 08:54
Edited by BuzzBravado on Friday 6th March 08:54
I would rather have a larger engine working less hard than a small one working its arse off.
cerb4.5lee said:
Agree and the owners will just relish the low running costs big time, I am personally not a fan of small engines in big cars and my old 520d touring was testament to my beliefs, I appreciate you don't need power but it is nice to have a little bit of it.
I would rather have a larger engine working less hard than a small one working its arse off.
Its not the size of the engine its the torque and power output thats important. A few years ago a 1.9 tdi 110 VAG powered golf/passat was considered fine. Now you drop 1.2 or 1.0 with the same sort of power figures and people get all worried.I would rather have a larger engine working less hard than a small one working its arse off.
jbsportstech said:
Its not the size of the engine its the torque and power output thats important. A few years ago a 1.9 tdi 110 VAG powered golf/passat was considered fine. Now you drop 1.2 or 1.0 with the same sort of power figures and people get all worried.
In fairness all I every read about these little engines with turbo`s bolted to them is very positive and I agree I think you naturally think a 1.2 or 1.0 litre engine is going to be gutless yet they seem to work well or they wouldn't make them. 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?IanCress said:
No you don't. The turbo is producing torque from around 1200rpm, and the peak torque rpm is much lower on these modern engines. It's how they make the fuel saving, by being able to produce more torque at lower revs which enables them to run longer gear ratios.
In theory yes, in execution I've found it doesn't work like that when the engine is in a big car. In a Fiesta it works, in a focus Estate it doesn't and I've driven both. You let the turbo spool up and get you off the mark in a Fiesta and you are away and flying. In the larger car like a family laden Estate the turbo gets you off the mark but then when that dies out the engine has to be revved hard to pick up the work and maintain or increase speed. The fuel saving at the start is negated heavily by the fuel being used at the top end to get up to 70mph.Its not a hard and fast rule but I'm wary of the little turbo engines like the 1.2 115bhp in the qashqai. On paper it makes sense but I have my doubts. Probably test driving soon so will report back :-)
DavidJG said:
I can't help but wonder what the life expectancy of these engines will be. Logically, a 1.2 pulling a car that size is going to be working very hard all the time. Same with the 1.0 ecoboost Mondeo. New engine every 50,000 miles??
Yep, there's been quite a few reports of Ecoboost failures within 40,000 miles.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff