Most pointless engine.
Discussion
Quite a few buyers want the refinement of the six cylinder engine, without particularly valuing the higher performance of the larger/more powerful engine.
This seems to have changed over time though - so you could now be right. Buyers seem to place fuel economy as their paramount consideration now - trumping the refinement and feel of the car.
This seems to have changed over time though - so you could now be right. Buyers seem to place fuel economy as their paramount consideration now - trumping the refinement and feel of the car.
J4CKO said:
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 
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.
Edited by V8forweekends on Wednesday 27th May 17:56
Dr Interceptor said:
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.
True, if the Stag engine had worked properly it would have been great. The problems with it were things that should have been engineered out, like the excessively long simplex cam chains built to too low a standard and misplaced temperature sensor. Too much rush to get it to market.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.
Looked after carefully, the later ones were better - I guess yours isn't an early one...
Fastdruid said:
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.V8forweekends said:
Having driven the Sierra and a W124 300 D back in the day, the Sierra felt the more spritely - that Merc was the most glacially slow feeling thing I've ever driven (with the possible exception of a canal narrowboat powered by a Coventry Climax diesel).
Try a wdb123 200 diesel you could send it on its way in the morning then jump in the drivers seat when it caught you up at the traffic lights up ta road Edited by V8forweekends on Wednesday 27th May 17:56
Is the 1.3 Duratec the engine that went in the mk1 Ka? Not a nice engine but I presume cheaper to build than the 1.25 Zetec, thus keeping down the entry-level price in the Ka/Fiesta considerably, so there's the point?
Also, can't agree with the all small diesels comment. The 1.4 TDI in my Polo was both punchier, lower emissions (35 pounds RFL, compared to over 100 pounds for the 1.2 petrol) and considerably more economical than the other mainstream engine options, the 1.2 or 1.4 petrol engines. An easy 50mpg when giving it hell and 60mpg when driving more economically. Pointless? It sounded quite thrummy when accelerating and fairly refined at a cruise but pretty agricultural at low speed/idle though.
I guess emissions regulations and emissions-based regulations have led to a lot of "pointless" engines. I would quite like to try the Twinair in the Fiat 500 and think it would be more fun than the 1.2 and zero road tax of course but the 1.2 in my wife's old 500 was a decent enough base engine for performance, refinement and and an easy 50mpg, which I think the Twinair would struggle to achieve regularly?
When I sold VWs between 2004-2007, we offered some pretty "pointless" engines. The 1.2 3-pot in the Polo was a decent budget option, if a little noisy but it did have some character (not sure why they did a 55bhp and a 65bhp version though). The 1.4 petrol in comparison offered little extra performance, was pretty gutless, higher RFL and quite thirsty for a 1.4. I guess it was a bit quieter though.
Similarly, with the mk5 Golf, the original 1.6 FSI and 2.0 FSI engines were pretty gutless and unrefined and required Super unleaded fuel, otherwise they would "pink" under load! I think there was even a 1.4 FSI available but I never came across one in 4 years! Needless to say, most of the Golfs that I sold were TDIs. The new TSI engines are much better. I was quite impressed with the 1.2 TSI in the Golf that I hired recently. Not much in the way of character but decent performance and economy (45mpg).
Yes, the 2.0 8v in the mk4 Golf GTi was pointless and dire. It initially had the 1.8 20v (Audi engine?) without the turbo, which was much better. Not sure why they changed.
I actually quite liked the V5. In my admittedly limited experience, it went quite well and sounded quite nice in the process. Yes, the 1.8T had similar power, lower emissions and was more tuneable but completely lacking in character.
I would also again nominate the 1.4 Hi-Torque engine (as in the worst engines thread) in the mk3 Astra and Corsa. I was led to believe that Vauxhall's petrol engines were pretty good and as mine was an LS and didn't have any badges to inform me otherwise, I thought that I had bought the 82bhp MPI 1.4. It felt lively enough around town when I test drove it but as I found out in 2 years of ownership it was completely gutless on the open road.
It's funny, here in Canada, where we don't have emissions based RFL, most model ranges only have one engine option (maybe two if a performance model is offered)!
Also, can't agree with the all small diesels comment. The 1.4 TDI in my Polo was both punchier, lower emissions (35 pounds RFL, compared to over 100 pounds for the 1.2 petrol) and considerably more economical than the other mainstream engine options, the 1.2 or 1.4 petrol engines. An easy 50mpg when giving it hell and 60mpg when driving more economically. Pointless? It sounded quite thrummy when accelerating and fairly refined at a cruise but pretty agricultural at low speed/idle though.
I guess emissions regulations and emissions-based regulations have led to a lot of "pointless" engines. I would quite like to try the Twinair in the Fiat 500 and think it would be more fun than the 1.2 and zero road tax of course but the 1.2 in my wife's old 500 was a decent enough base engine for performance, refinement and and an easy 50mpg, which I think the Twinair would struggle to achieve regularly?
When I sold VWs between 2004-2007, we offered some pretty "pointless" engines. The 1.2 3-pot in the Polo was a decent budget option, if a little noisy but it did have some character (not sure why they did a 55bhp and a 65bhp version though). The 1.4 petrol in comparison offered little extra performance, was pretty gutless, higher RFL and quite thirsty for a 1.4. I guess it was a bit quieter though.
Similarly, with the mk5 Golf, the original 1.6 FSI and 2.0 FSI engines were pretty gutless and unrefined and required Super unleaded fuel, otherwise they would "pink" under load! I think there was even a 1.4 FSI available but I never came across one in 4 years! Needless to say, most of the Golfs that I sold were TDIs. The new TSI engines are much better. I was quite impressed with the 1.2 TSI in the Golf that I hired recently. Not much in the way of character but decent performance and economy (45mpg).
Yes, the 2.0 8v in the mk4 Golf GTi was pointless and dire. It initially had the 1.8 20v (Audi engine?) without the turbo, which was much better. Not sure why they changed.
I actually quite liked the V5. In my admittedly limited experience, it went quite well and sounded quite nice in the process. Yes, the 1.8T had similar power, lower emissions and was more tuneable but completely lacking in character.
I would also again nominate the 1.4 Hi-Torque engine (as in the worst engines thread) in the mk3 Astra and Corsa. I was led to believe that Vauxhall's petrol engines were pretty good and as mine was an LS and didn't have any badges to inform me otherwise, I thought that I had bought the 82bhp MPI 1.4. It felt lively enough around town when I test drove it but as I found out in 2 years of ownership it was completely gutless on the open road.
It's funny, here in Canada, where we don't have emissions based RFL, most model ranges only have one engine option (maybe two if a performance model is offered)!
white_goodman said:
I would also again nominate the 1.4 Hi-Torque engine (as in the worst engines thread) in the mk3 Astra and Corsa. I was led to believe that Vauxhall's petrol engines were pretty good and as mine was an LS and didn't have any badges to inform me otherwise, I thought that I had bought the 82bhp MPI 1.4. It felt lively enough around town when I test drove it but as I found out in 2 years of ownership it was completely gutless on the open road.
try the useless low-power 1.4 lump in the 2010 Astra - glacially slow it makes pulling away from toll-booths, up slip roads etc a very interesting experience.... and not in a good way. It's only saving grace is that I will grant it it's not totally dreadful around town (which I'd also grant is its natural environment)4737 Carlin said:
dme123 said:
Same reason Intel speed bin processors that could run at, say, 3GHz down to 2.6GHz. A product for every budget.
Remember the 486SX processors? A DX chip - but sold for cheaper and had the (still included) coprocessor disabled.Fastdruid said:
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.
The issue with the TwinAir is that having two cylinders it really is unrefined at low engine speeds. Below 2,000 RPM it feels like you're really labouring it. But you're spot on with the Nil VED. For a while they were even Congestion Charge exempt until a couple of years ago. Also the TwinAir is so much better than the hopeless 1.2 in the lower end models.V8forweekends said:
J4CKO said:
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 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.
Edited by V8forweekends on Wednesday 27th May 17:56
I replaced it with a Mondeo TDCi which was hateful and troublesome.
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.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff