Most pointless engine.

Author
Discussion

J4CKO

41,287 posts

199 months

Wednesday 27th May 2015
quotequote all
Truckosaurus said:
I once read that Sierra 2.3Ds were especially popular with Members of Parliament at one time as they were the most economical car that was in the highest expenses mileage rate band (which was done on engine size) so they could coin it in on drives back to their constituencies.
A hollow victory biggrin

It wasnt on its own back then though, most diesel engine cars were pretty horrific, pretty unrecognisable to your average diesel driver of today, the first decent diesel I drove was a Peugeot 405 TD, I told my brother in law how good it was when he was looking for a car, he bought one and he didn't feel the same enthusiasm, he had bought a none turbo one.

You could get a Merc W124 E class with a 70 bhp engine, which to be fair was better than the previous gen W123 with 50 odd, how painful must they be to drive, to be fair, a lot are still probably Taxi's in Greece somewhere.

Dr Interceptor

7,743 posts

195 months

Wednesday 27th May 2015
quotequote all
eldar said:
The one that occurs to me is the 3.0l V8 that was developed for the Triumph Stag. Pointless in that engines of a similar power were already available - inline 6 of 2.5l (Triumph)and 3.0l (Austin), 2.8 to 4.2l (Jaguar)and 2 V8s, 2.5l Daimler and 3.5l Rover.

The Stag engine was a failure, under developed and horribly unreliable for the first couple of years. Timing chain stretch, cooling marginal, and other problems.

It did nothing the Rover V8 couldn't do better, so pointless.
It was more powerful than the Rover V8, 145hp from 3.0l capacity, versus 143hp from 3.5l in the Rover. Plus the Stag V8 produced a noise the Rover engine could only dream of.

Most of the reported problems weren't design flaws, but production issues associated with an unmotivated BL workforce. The engine in my Stag completed 78,000 miles and 40 years service before I took the plunge this spring and put it in for a rebuild. Did it need doing? Not really, I could have got away with some head work, but now it'll come back like new, well actually, better than new.

Mandalore

4,165 posts

112 months

Wednesday 27th May 2015
quotequote all
TurboHatchback said:
The 3.2 FSI V6 in the Audi A6 and A8 always seemed rather pointless to me, almost exactly the same fuel economy as the 4.2 FSI V8 but 90bhp less and obviously considerably slower.
Only 225BHP in the First generation Audi TT?

Sadly, that V8 was also disappointing in its RS (supposed high-power) guise - with very few making the manufacturers claimed power in factory trim.


TurboHatchback

4,151 posts

152 months

Wednesday 27th May 2015
quotequote all
Mandalore said:
TurboHatchback said:
The 3.2 FSI V6 in the Audi A6 and A8 always seemed rather pointless to me, almost exactly the same fuel economy as the 4.2 FSI V8 but 90bhp less and obviously considerably slower.
Only 225BHP in the First generation Audi TT?

Sadly, that V8 was also disappointing in its RS (supposed high-power) guise - with very few making the manufacturers claimed power in factory trim.
The TT had a different V6 albeit of similar capacity (3189cc vs 3123cc) and power (247bhp vs 256bhp). I believe the TT engine is really a VR6 optimised for transverse applications as found in the Golf R32 whereas the A4/A6/A8 V6 is a traditional wide angle V6 for longitudinal installations. The 225bhp TT was a 1.8T as far as I'm aware.

I've heard stories about the RS4 engine but the regular ('only' 345bhp) 4.2 is a magnificent engine. Mine pushes a big heavy lump of A6 around at a remarkable rate of knots, sounds like a modern muscle car and can do mid 30s mpg on decent runs smile.

Fastdruid

8,623 posts

151 months

Wednesday 27th May 2015
quotequote all
crostonian said:
The Fiat TwinAir in the Mito/500 is pretty pointless too as it fails in its main reason for being - to be economical.
Actually that succeeds in the design goal of good mpg and CO2 in the lab. That it fails terribly in the real world is neither here not there. People buy them for the VED and the headline mpg figures rather than the real ones and then complain when it (like every other car) fails to get anywhere near them if you want to get to 30mph in less than a year.

Anyway. The 1.6 engine used in the Puma. Same higher >1549cc VED rate and mpg as the 1.7 but way less power/performance.
Then again nearly the same can be said for the 1.4 but at least that sat in a lower VED group and was far cheaper to insure than the 1.7 (6 groups lower).


AlexHat

1,327 posts

118 months

Wednesday 27th May 2015
quotequote all
Wasn't there a 1.4 Escort in the early 90's which couldn't make it up the hills of the test route planned by Ford to showcase said new engine/car?

iloveboost

1,531 posts

161 months

Wednesday 27th May 2015
quotequote all
TurboHatchback said:
The TT had a different V6 albeit of similar capacity (3189cc vs 3123cc) and power (247bhp vs 256bhp). I believe the TT engine is really a VR6 optimised for transverse applications as found in the Golf R32 whereas the A4/A6/A8 V6 is a traditional wide angle V6 for longitudinal installations. The 225bhp TT was a 1.8T as far as I'm aware.

I've heard stories about the RS4 engine but the regular ('only' 345bhp) 4.2 is a magnificent engine. Mine pushes a big heavy lump of A6 around at a remarkable rate of knots, sounds like a modern muscle car and can do mid 30s mpg on decent runs smile.
I think you're correct, all the Audi motors are their own V6. Not sure why they didn't save money and use the arguably more reliable VR6.

Jakg

3,451 posts

167 months

Wednesday 27th May 2015
quotequote all
Golf Mk4 GTi 2.0

115HP. Outclassed by the 1.8T and 1.8 N/A!

Devil2575

13,400 posts

187 months

Wednesday 27th May 2015
quotequote all
AlexHat said:
Wasn't there a 1.4 Escort in the early 90's which couldn't make it up the hills of the test route planned by Ford to showcase said new engine/car?
It might have struggled but I doubt it wouldn't have made it up.

My dad had a MkV Escort 1.4 hire car once and he commented that you had to change down into 4th on the motorway of you came to a hill.

A mate of mine had a Fiesta with something like 850cc. I remember on one particularly steep hill 3 of us had to get out and walk because it wouldn't have made it up with 4 of us in.

Devil2575

13,400 posts

187 months

Wednesday 27th May 2015
quotequote all
Jakg said:
Golf Mk4 GTi 2.0

115HP. Outclassed by the 1.8T and 1.8 N/A!
That engine in any application was pretty awful. No very economical and slow. An epic combination.

tr7v8

7,186 posts

227 months

Wednesday 27th May 2015
quotequote all
J4CKO said:
Welshbeef said:
Ford Sierra 2.3 D


Good god worst thing I've ever driven
Yeah, remember one coming in at the dealers I worked at, I just saw 2.3 on the back and grabbed the keys when I needed to go and drop a lad off at the auctions to pick a car up, I had driven a 2.3 Granada before and whilst no ball of fire it was quite nice and I thought it may be quite perky in the smaller Sierra, I started it up and the whole car shook, I drove out of the yard and onto the road, I accelerated and not much happened, I accelerated a bit more and still, very little happened, foot full to the boards and discernible motion was achieved and I realised that it probably was not a V6 Petrol.

What a hateful heap it was, I am sure they had put a sump truck engine in there, apparently, according to Wikipedia, Peugeot were responsible and it had a heady 66 BHP, must have been for people who worked in construction that had access to limitless supplies of diesel whose bosses hated them, scarily they did 1.3 as well, that had 59 bhp, no wonder they didnt sell so well, and it was a Pinto, never realised there was a 1.3 Pinto, always assumed a Kent engine found its way in but there was a 1.3 Pinto, massive heavy engine for 1.3 litres.

Another candidate was the 2300 Rover SD1, thirsty and slow, 2600 marginally better.
My ex arrived with a 2.1D Granada. If you think the Sierra was bad the Granada was evil. I understand from someone at Fords that a lot were changed to the 2.3D under warranty. We lived in Newbury at the time, pulling out onto the big roundabout was just bloody scary!!!

J4CKO

41,287 posts

199 months

Wednesday 27th May 2015
quotequote all
AlexHat said:
Wasn't there a 1.4 Escort in the early 90's which couldn't make it up the hills of the test route planned by Ford to showcase said new engine/car?
I suspect that might have been the MK5 if it was attached to the CVT gearbox, my mates dad had a 1.4L of the MK4 variety (a manual) with that engine in and it was impressively brisk.

WarnieV6GT

1,135 posts

198 months

Wednesday 27th May 2015
quotequote all
Devil2575 said:
It might have struggled but I doubt it wouldn't have made it up.

My dad had a MkV Escort 1.4 hire car once and he commented that you had to change down into 4th on the motorway of you came to a hill.

A mate of mine had a Fiesta with something like 850cc. I remember on one particularly steep hill 3 of us had to get out and walk because it wouldn't have made it up with 4 of us in.
Not as bad as the 1.3 it replaced. I had a mk3 c reg as a 1st car and I genuinely struggled to get the thing to go up to the 50mph limit on some roads. I developed a bad habit of braking really late to try and make it seem faster to my mates I was carrying at the time. Awful car that rotted away but the bits that didn't were polished up like you'd never believe.

rotarymazda

538 posts

164 months

Wednesday 27th May 2015
quotequote all
Morningside said:
The wankel engine. Very, very clever but I really cannot see the point of it. confused
A naturally aspirated 240bhp from my RX8-engined MX5 and as smooth as a V8. Not bad from a little lump that sits so low in the engine bay you can hardly see it.

....but mostly, I would agree, they have become completely pointless.



Motorrad

6,811 posts

186 months

Wednesday 27th May 2015
quotequote all
WarnieV6GT said:
Not as bad as the 1.3 it replaced. I had a mk3 c reg as a 1st car and I genuinely struggled to get the thing to go up to the 50mph limit on some roads. I developed a bad habit of braking really late to try and make it seem faster to my mates I was carrying at the time. Awful car that rotted away but the bits that didn't were polished up like you'd never believe.
I had the same engine in an Orion. G reg vintage, then engine wasn't as bad as you're making out. It could hold an 80mph cruise some of the time and could make it upto 45mph on Handcross Hill given a tailwind and some heavy throttle on the downward slop before the incline started.

tobinen

9,184 posts

144 months

Wednesday 27th May 2015
quotequote all
VAG V10 diesel as fitted to the Touareg (and possibly others).

arun1uk

1,045 posts

197 months

Wednesday 27th May 2015
quotequote all
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?

Axionknight

8,505 posts

134 months

Wednesday 27th May 2015
quotequote all
Gilhooligan 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!

Its existence is justified purely because of the noise it emits.
Agreed cloud9

HarryFlatters

4,203 posts

211 months

Wednesday 27th May 2015
quotequote all
I could never see the point in the x25 variant of the 3 litre BMW sixes. They were the same capacity, but made less power and were barely any more economical.

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 27th May 2015
quotequote all
HarryFlatters said:
I could never see the point in the x25 variant of the 3 litre BMW sixes. They were the same capacity, but made less power and were barely any more economical.
By filling in the gap between the x20 and x30 I suppose they allowed BMW to charge more for the x30. Same reason Intel speed bin processors that could run at, say, 3GHz down to 2.6GHz. A product for every budget.

Hell considering they launch entire horrible model lines to fill tiny niches I'm surprised they don't have an x21, x22, x23, x24 in between hehe