Most pointless engine.

Author
Discussion

StottyEvo

6,860 posts

162 months

Saturday 30th May 2015
quotequote all
The 1.2 8v used in the Corsa B. It had 45hp and does about 30mpg hehe the 1.0 12v was for sale at the same time and despite being smaller had 10hp more and was much better on fuel.

eldar

Original Poster:

21,614 posts

195 months

Saturday 30th May 2015
quotequote all
Raygun said:
eldar said:
Looked after carefully, the later ones were better - I guess yours isn't an early one...
Sorry but I have to take issue here!
For my sins I am on my fourth stag, it makes no difference if it's early or later model, if it hasn't been looked after you run the risk of trouble (I found this out with the first one I bought which was a 76) but general maintenance and they are reliable. BL was buying in British Steel up to 1974 and then in their wisdom decided to import steel I do believe from Italy so the early cars did tend to fair better.
What is a pain now is the poor quality parts available!mad
I meant the later ones regarding the engines, not generally.

Cfnteabag

1,195 posts

195 months

Saturday 30th May 2015
quotequote all
GC8 said:
Did you ever drive one? Shocking fuel economy too. I drove a nearly new hired Serena once and it was dire in every respect.
Had one as a back up back up van at my first job, was a hateful thing especially when fully loaded. It was a rwd though and I made it my mission to get it sideways.

There is a hill in hastings with a roundabout at the bottom, being 18 and invincible, I entered the roundabout with a poor scandinavian flick at roughly 35 miles an hour, slipped the clutch to death and got about 5 metres of drifting godliness!

The pensioners I cut up onto the roundabout didnt really seem impressed!

Fastdruid

8,623 posts

151 months

Saturday 30th May 2015
quotequote all
Mr2Mike said:
Fastdruid said:
Go on then, ~230hp and lighter than an RX-8 engine. Note that the 95kg is *with* a flywheel. It's also worth pointing out that's with cast iron housings. If you (and you can if you desire) replace them with aluminium it drops the weight down to ~68Kg. Now find me another engine weighing <68Kg that makes >200hp! Even bike engines will struggle to get that kind of power to weight (eg things like the ZX10-R make ~175HP with ~72Kg).
The Kawaskai engine includes a gearbox. How much does the RX8 engine and gearbox weigh?
129Kg (or 102Kg with the aluminium block) bearing in mind of course that the ZX-10R gearbox would last seconds with the weight of a full blown car (something like 1800Kg fully loaded against the ~400kg it would be designed for).

Mr2Mike said:
How about the Caterham R500 Evo making 250bhp from a K series, which is around 100kg for the complete engine (not undressed).
You mean the most unreliable engine known to man? The one that is known for issues in standard form (HGF, cracked liners, spun bearings) let alone in the "rods through the block" Caterham spec. The one that probably significantly contributed to Rovers downfall and makes the RX-8 look super-reliable?

You mean the one in the R500 with a 3000 mile service interval and recommended to be rebuilt every 3000 track miles?

6k service intervals and a rebuild on an RX-8 every 50k starts to seem very reasonable and reliable in comparison...

irocfan

40,152 posts

189 months

Saturday 30th May 2015
quotequote all
Fastdruid said:
Mr2Mike said:
Fastdruid said:
Go on then, ~230hp and lighter than an RX-8 engine. Note that the 95kg is *with* a flywheel. It's also worth pointing out that's with cast iron housings. If you (and you can if you desire) replace them with aluminium it drops the weight down to ~68Kg. Now find me another engine weighing <68Kg that makes >200hp! Even bike engines will struggle to get that kind of power to weight (eg things like the ZX10-R make ~175HP with ~72Kg).
The Kawaskai engine includes a gearbox. How much does the RX8 engine and gearbox weigh?
129Kg (or 102Kg with the aluminium block) bearing in mind of course that the ZX-10R gearbox would last seconds with the weight of a full blown car (something like 1800Kg fully loaded against the ~400kg it would be designed for).

Mr2Mike said:
How about the Caterham R500 Evo making 250bhp from a K series, which is around 100kg for the complete engine (not undressed).
You mean the most unreliable engine known to man? The one that is known for issues in standard form (HGF, cracked liners, spun bearings) let alone in the "rods through the block" Caterham spec. The one that probably significantly contributed to Rovers downfall and makes the RX-8 look super-reliable?

You mean the one in the R500 with a 3000 mile service interval and recommended to be rebuilt every 3000 track miles?

6k service intervals and a rebuild on an RX-8 every 50k starts to seem very reasonable and reliable in comparison...
here's an interesting bit about swapping out a rotary for an LS.... (you are correct though - the V8 does weigh more than a rotary but this weight advantage is more than made up for by the extra power of the 8)

http://www.grannysspeedshop.com/

anonymous-user

53 months

Saturday 30th May 2015
quotequote all
eldar said:
I meant the later ones regarding the engines, not generally.
No different really in regards to being better, from 73 there was small changes to the heads and inlet manifold but hardly better, casting sand left in waterways was an issue that still occurs even today on engines that have not been apart.
What is a crying shame is that clean waterways and the use of anti-freeze all year round, regular oil changes to help the timing chains(do bare in mind these were Renold chains and tensioners which were far superior to the ones available today including the German ones) and this bad image could of been avoided, snatched from the jaws of victory.

Rickyy

6,618 posts

218 months

Saturday 30th May 2015
quotequote all
Mr2Mike said:
dme123 said:
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.
yes The Sigma engine wouldn't fit into the Ka, but I doubt they'd want to bother anyway, given that it's main selling point was extreme cheapness.

The 1.3 was available in the Mk IV Fiesta as well, and even in the Mk V for a short time, both sold alongside variants with the 1.25 Sigma engine, so I suspect cost was an overriding factor.
The 1.3 actually suited the KA quite well. What little torque it has, it delivers it at the bottom of the rev range, which makes it ideal for nipping around in. The rattly nature of the engine also matched the build quality of the car. hehe

DavidJG

3,505 posts

131 months

Saturday 30th May 2015
quotequote all
StottyEvo said:
The 1.2 8v used in the Corsa B. It had 45hp and does about 30mpg hehe the 1.0 12v was for sale at the same time and despite being smaller had 10hp more and was much better on fuel.
I once had the misfortune to hire a 1.0 12v Corsa to drive from Lyon to Grenoble. On the hills on the way, even trucks were overtaking it. The 1.2 must have been truly dreadful!