Most pointless engine.

[TheAngryDog]

Mr Tidy said:

Actually it may have been the Ford 2.0 twin-cam 2 litre I had in my 1991 Sapphire GLSi.
It only got introduced in 1989 and discontinued in 1993(?) when the Mondeo came out.

It did nothing the earlier Pinto didn't do and mine was a paragon of unreliability! It frequently wouldn't start or run cleanly however often it had new batteries, HT leads, ECUS, plugs, etc. and the plugs were buried in the inlet(?) manifold - you needed a 12" extension bar to get to them!

Bought a Cavalier SRi with 3 times the mileage on it soon after and that engine just kept going - sadly FWD though!

I thought the one in my 91 Sapphire GLSi wasnt too bad tbh, at least as it was my first car at the age of 18! It was a square engine which made tuning difficult (same bore and stroke) so I ended up getting an RS2000 16v engine fitted to it from the Escort. Went much better after that , Annoyingly I sold it when I bought an XR4x4, when I should've kept it and turbo charged it or or put the 2.9 24 BOA in it. I bought a Cosworth when I was 20 so I guess I won in the end!

[anonymous-user]

Mr2Mike said:

Negative Creep said:

Ford 1.3 Duratec when the 1.25 Zetec was sold alongside it

The 1.3 "Duratec" was just a new name for the old cast iron, pushrod 8v lumps that have been around for donkeys years in various guises. It wasn't a pointless option from the manufacturers point of view since it would have been significantly cheaper to manufacture than the 16v all alloy Zetec-SE/Sigma engine.

I suspect it was also used because an engine with a 16V head wouldn't fit in the engine bay of the Ka. Even when they did finally put a better engine in it in 2002 it was with an 8V SOHC one.

That old 1.3 Endura-E was very dated indeed though, especially in contrast to the contemporary 1.25. Not all that many of them still rattling around now either.

[mat205125]

Anything moderately large capacity and petrol fuelled.

There's always going to be people that want (or covet) the ultimate M5 / AMG / RS6 hyper model, and we can only pray that these remain petrol fuelled for the future, albeit with forced induction and fewer cylinders that we'd like.

The ones that don't make sense to me are the 2.6 to 3.2 kinda size petrol V / straight engines ..... especially if they are normally aspirated.

The performance isn't there to justify the extra fuel over a diesel version IMO, so what's to gain?

[irocfan]

Monty Python said:

Any American V8 that puts out less than 80bhp/litre.

another bit of obvious trolling trolling - ok I'll bite. A mega unstressed V8 that'll do 1/4 million miles with minimal maintenance through Death Valley and then on through Alaska if it needs fixing BillyBob can likely fix with a lump hammer.

Anywho who actually cares about specific out-put per litre? My old IROC-Z was regularly doing 34mpg on a run when the equivalent BMW was struggling to even crack 30mpg. And then there's the servicing costs..... I'll happily have my crude V8 thanks

[TurboHatchback]

irocfan said:

Monty Python said:

Any American V8 that puts out less than 80bhp/litre.

another bit of obvious trolling trolling - ok I'll bite. A mega unstressed V8 that'll do 1/4 million miles with minimal maintenance through Death Valley and then on through Alaska if it needs fixing BillyBob can likely fix with a lump hammer.

Anywho who actually cares about specific out-put per litre? My old IROC-Z was regularly doing 34mpg on a run when the equivalent BMW was struggling to even crack 30mpg. And then there's the servicing costs..... I'll happily have my crude V8 thanks

Rubbish indeed, 80bhp/l is actually rather a high specific output, most run-of-the-mill NA petrol engines make less than that. I believe firmly in the no replacement for displacement philosophy myself, the bigger the better. Big engines are often surprisingly economical and offer so many other advantages that I don't see the worth in tiny turbocharged or high revving units.

[dbdb]

mat205125 said:

Anything moderately large capacity and petrol fuelled.

There's always going to be people that want (or covet) the ultimate M5 / AMG / RS6 hyper model, and we can only pray that these remain petrol fuelled for the future, albeit with forced induction and fewer cylinders that we'd like.

The ones that don't make sense to me are the 2.6 to 3.2 kinda size petrol V / straight engines ..... especially if they are normally aspirated.

The performance isn't there to justify the extra fuel over a diesel version IMO, so what's to gain?

Smoothness, refinement and a better sound. Most diesel engines are fairly grim things, impressive economy aside.

[TurboHatchback]

dbdb said:

mat205125 said:

Anything moderately large capacity and petrol fuelled.

There's always going to be people that want (or covet) the ultimate M5 / AMG / RS6 hyper model, and we can only pray that these remain petrol fuelled for the future, albeit with forced induction and fewer cylinders that we'd like.

The ones that don't make sense to me are the 2.6 to 3.2 kinda size petrol V / straight engines ..... especially if they are normally aspirated.

The performance isn't there to justify the extra fuel over a diesel version IMO, so what's to gain?

Smoothness, refinement and a better sound. Most diesel engines are fairly grim things, impressive economy aside.

I think the largest petrol engine shy of the full mental version is often the most desirable model in the range. For instance the bmw 550i/650i over the M5/M6, Mercedes E/CLS/CLK500 5.5 over the AMG models etc. Take my car for example (Audi A6), take the difference in fuel price into account and the fuel costs over a diesel are roughly 9% higher yet 345bhp plays 230bhp and then think of all the negatives of the diesel. Big petrol engines for me all day long, a tiny bit more fuel is a small price to pay for all the advantages they offer.

[tdm34]

Monty Python said:

Any American V8 that puts out less than 80bhp/litre.

By the same metric, you'd also condemn the e39 M5's S62 as it only produces 81 bhp per litre

[V8forweekends]

tdm34 said:

Monty Python said:

Any American V8 that puts out less than 80bhp/litre.

By the same metric, you'd also condemn the e39 M5's S62 as it only produces 81 bhp per litre

eh? by that metric the Bimmer escapes condemnation, unless you have invented a new form of maths logic in which 81 is less than 80.

You also appear not to have noticed the word "American" in the original.

[Ceramicbroken]

I don't like the little turbo charged engines in big cars.

[AC43]

GC8 said:

arun1uk said:

If I remember correctly, the 2.3d in the Nissan Serena was the slowest car on sale during the 90's? 0-60 in 27 secs or something?

Did you ever drive one? Shocking fuel economy too. I drove a nearly new hired Serena once and it was dire in every respect.

Is it related to engine that they put in the Ford Maveric/Nissan Terrano?

Possibly the worst motoring experience I have ever had.

It wasn't so much "Let's offroad!!" it was more "Let's get this appalling stinking rattling banging lurching smoke belching piece of agricultural sh*t back to the hire car company NOW".

I still see people in them to this day and wonder why the frick they chose to drive something that seems to predate cars as we know them.

[bodhi]

mat205125 said:

Anything moderately large capacity and petrol fuelled.

There's always going to be people that want (or covet) the ultimate M5 / AMG / RS6 hyper model, and we can only pray that these remain petrol fuelled for the future, albeit with forced induction and fewer cylinders that we'd like.

The ones that don't make sense to me are the 2.6 to 3.2 kinda size petrol V / straight engines ..... especially if they are normally aspirated.

The performance isn't there to justify the extra fuel over a diesel version IMO, so what's to gain?

Having gone from a 3.0 diesel to a 3.0 N/A petrol, I gained a car that is infinitely nicer to drive, much more flexible (1500rpm to 7000 in one gear if required), sounds utterly fantastic, and isn't really any worse on fuel (32 mpg from 37). Plus I gained a massive grin on my face every time I fire it up to go to work.

[AC43]

mat205125 said:

The ones that don't make sense to me are the 2.6 to 3.2 kinda size petrol V / straight engines ..... especially if they are normally aspirated.

The performance isn't there to justify the extra fuel over a diesel version IMO, so what's to gain?

Well if you are talking four pots, when you fire them up they don't sound like they've broken an engine mount and you don't the ever present rumbly-groan noise every time you accelerate.

If it's multi's the noise difference isn't quite the same but you can let rip in a petrol mutli and revel in sound as the diesel just runs out of puff. Again.

[gareth_r]

dugsud said:

Honda's 250cc six from the 1960's.......wonderful engineering but it was a bit pointless as twins were just as fast!

Which twins?

After Ernst Degner defected, smaller cylinders and more revs were the only hope that Honda had of keeping up with the 2-strokes. Honda had been racing 250-4s since the late '50s, and the six was competing against four cylinder 2-strokes.

(As a comparison, the Paton 500 twin produced about 5 bhp more than the Honda 250 6.)

Edited by gareth_r on Thursday 28th May 16:04

[Targarama]

dbdb said:

mat205125 said:

Anything moderately large capacity and petrol fuelled.

There's always going to be people that want (or covet) the ultimate M5 / AMG / RS6 hyper model, and we can only pray that these remain petrol fuelled for the future, albeit with forced induction and fewer cylinders that we'd like.

The ones that don't make sense to me are the 2.6 to 3.2 kinda size petrol V / straight engines ..... especially if they are normally aspirated.

The performance isn't there to justify the extra fuel over a diesel version IMO, so what's to gain?

Smoothness, refinement and a better sound. Most diesel engines are fairly grim things, impressive economy aside.

Yup, big capacity petrols are much nicer.

Also, economy isn't that bad. My CLS 3.5 V6 PETROL does this on a run. I exceed 38mpg often. It drops around town though, but I didn't buy it for that purpose, we have a Fiesta for that.

[dugsud]

gareth_r said:

dugsud said:

Honda's 250cc six from the 1960's.......wonderful engineering but it was a bit pointless as twins were just as fast!

Which twins?

After Ernst Degner defected, smaller cylinders and more revs were the only hope that Honda had of keeping up with the 2-strokes. Honda had been racing 250-4s since the late '50s, and the six was competing against four cylinder 2-strokes.

(As a comparison, the Paton 500 twin produced about 5 bhp more than the Honda 250 6.)

Edited by gareth_r on Thursday 28th May 16:04

Yep, you're right.....I always thought the Suzuki RZ250 was a twin but it was a square four. A predecessor to the wonderful RG500 I guess...

[GC8]

AC43 said:

GC8 said:

arun1uk said:

If I remember correctly, the 2.3d in the Nissan Serena was the slowest car on sale during the 90's? 0-60 in 27 secs or something?

Did you ever drive one? Shocking fuel economy too. I drove a nearly new hired Serena once and it was dire in every respect.

Is it related to engine that they put in the Ford Maveric/Nissan Terrano?

Possibly the worst motoring experience I have ever had.

It wasn't so much "Let's offroad!!" it was more "Let's get this appalling stinking rattling banging lurching smoke belching piece of agricultural sh*t back to the hire car company NOW".

I still see people in them to this day and wonder why the frick they chose to drive something that seems to predate cars as we know them.

I don't think so: surely thatd have been a Nissan 2.7l diesel engine as found in Cabstar light trucks and LTi taxis?

[Alpaca]

2.2 6 cyl in the BMW Z4, never driven one but heard it's four cylinder performance with six cylinder running costs.

Mk1 Skoda Fabia 1.4 MPI 68bhp was less economical and had a higher VED than the 1.4 100bhp 16v. I believe it was a pushrod engine, although as with the Ford 1.3 vs 1.25 there was a 'point' in that it was cheaper to build.

Did VW offer the 1.8T 150 alongside the 2.3 V5 (also 150bhp) in the Mk4 Golf at the same time?

[ensignia]

Mazda's rotary wankel engine has to have a shout. Quite innovative (in a way), and credit to Mazda for persisting with it, but it is utterly horrendous in nearly every way except packaging and its high revving nature.

These can be had in similar engines but without any of the associated pitfalls.

[MJ85]

Alpaca said:

2.2 6 cyl in the BMW Z4, never driven one but heard it's four cylinder performance with six cylinder running costs.

Mk1 Skoda Fabia 1.4 MPI 68bhp was less economical and had a higher VED than the 1.4 100bhp 16v. I believe it was a pushrod engine, although as with the Ford 1.3 vs 1.25 there was a 'point' in that it was cheaper to build.

Did VW offer the 1.8T 150 alongside the 2.3 V5 (also 150bhp) in the Mk4 Golf at the same time?

Apparently, yes.

Model Year Engine Code Displ. Power Torque
1.4 1997–2004 I4 16V AHW/AXP/BCA/AKQ/APE/AUA 1390 cc 55 kW (75 PS; 74 hp) @ 5500 rpm 128 N·m (94 lb·ft) @ 3300 rpm
1.6 1997–2000 I4 8V AEH/AKL/APF 1595 cc 74 kW (101 PS; 99 hp) @ 5600 rpm 145 N·m (107 lb·ft) @ 3800 rpm
1.6 2000–2006 I4 8V AVU/BFQ 1595 cc 75 kW (102 PS; 101 hp) @ 5600 rpm 148 N·m (109 lb·ft) @ 3800 rpm
1.6 2000–2006 I4 16V AUS/AZD/ATN/BCB 1598 cc 77 kW (105 PS; 103 hp) @ 5700 rpm 148 N·m (109 lb·ft) @ 4500 rpm
1.6 FSI 2001–2006 I4 16V BAD 1598 cc 86 kW (117 PS; 115 hp) @ 5800 rpm 155 N·m (114 lb·ft) @ 4400 rpm
1.8 1997–2003 I4 20V AGN 1781 cc 92 kW (125 PS; 123 hp) @ 5900 rpm 170 N·m (130 lb·ft) @ 3500 rpm
1.8 T 1998-2001 I4 20V AGU/ARZ/ARX/AUM 1781 cc 110 kW (150 PS; 148 hp) @ 5500 rpm 210 N·m (150 lb·ft) @ 2200–4200 rpm
1.8 T 2001-2006 I4 20V AUQ/AWP/AWW/AGU 1781 cc 132 kW (179 PS; 177 hp) @ 5500 rpm 235 N·m (173 lb·ft) @ 1950–4700 rpm
2.0 1999–2001 I4 8V APK/AQY 1984 cc 85 kW (116 PS; 114 hp) @ 5200 rpm 170 N·m (130 lb·ft) @ 2400 rpm
2.0 2001–2006 I4 8V AZJ/AZH 1984 cc 85 kW (116 PS; 114 hp) @ 5400 rpm 172 N·m (127 lb·ft) @ 3200 rpm
2.3 VR5 1997–2000 VR5 10V AGZ 2324 cc 110 kW (150 PS; 148 hp) @ 6000 rpm 205 N·m (151 lb·ft) @ 3200 rpm
2.3 VR5 2000–2003 VR5 20V AQN 2324 cc 125 kW (170 PS; 168 hp) @ 6200 rpm 220 N·m (160 lb·ft) @ 3300 rpm
2.8 VR6 1999–2002 VR6 12V AAA/AFP 2792 cc 128 kW (174 PS; 172 hp) @ 5800 rpm 235 N·m (173 lb·ft) @ 4200 rpm
2.8 VR6 1999-2002.5 VR6 24V AQP/AUE 2792 cc 150 kW (204 PS; 201 hp) @ 6000 rpm 270 N·m (200 lb·ft) @ 3200 rpm
2.8 VR6 2002.5–2005 VR6 24V BDE 2792 cc 150 kW (204 PS; 201 hp) @ 6000 rpm 270 N·m (200 lb·ft) @ 3200 rpm
3.2 R32 2001–2004 VR6 24V BJS/BML 3189 cc 177 kW (241 PS; 237 hp) @ 6250 rpm 320 N·m (240 lb·ft) @ 2800 rpm
1.9 SDI 1997–2006 I4 8V AGP/AQM 1896 cc 50 kW (68 PS; 67 hp) @ 4200 rpm 133 N·m (98 lb·ft) @ 2200–2600 rpm
1.9 TDI 1997–2003 I4 8V AGR/ALH 1896 cc 66 kW (90 PS; 89 hp) @ 4000 rpm 210 N·m (150 lb·ft) @ 1900 rpm
1.9 TDI 2000–2006 I4 8V ATD/AXR (Pumpe-Düse) 1896 cc 74 kW (101 PS; 99 hp) @ 4000 rpm 240 N·m (180 lb·ft) @ 1800–2400 rpm
1.9 TDI 1997–2002 I4 8V AHF/ASV 1896 cc 81 kW (110 PS; 109 hp) @ 4150 rpm 235 N·m (173 lb·ft) @ 1900 rpm
1.9 TDI 1998–2000 I4 8V AJM (Pumpe-Düse) 1896 cc 85 kW (116 PS; 114 hp) @ 4000 rpm 285 N·m (210 lb·ft) @ 1900 rpm
1.9 TDI 1999–2001 I4 8V AUY (Pumpe-Düse) 1896 cc 85 kW (116 PS; 114 hp) @ 4000 rpm 310 N·m (230 lb·ft) @ 1900 rpm
1.9 TDI 2001–2006 I4 8V ASZ (Pumpe-Düse) 1896 cc 96 kW (131 PS; 129 hp) @ 4000 rpm 310 N·m (230 lb·ft) @ 1900 rpm
1.9 TDI 2000–2003 I4 8V ARL (Pumpe-Düse) 1896 cc 110 kW (150 PS; 148 hp) @ 4000 rpm 320 N·m (240 lb·ft) @ 1900 rpm