Small engines in large cars
Discussion
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.
I wonder if this is due to the software; it appears that cars are being programmed to perform well in an artificial laboratory test at the expense of being driveable in the real world, the Fiat 500 appars to be an extreme example.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.
My wife's Toyota Auris (1.3 N/A petrol) replaced a Nissan Almera of similar size and power, but even in comparison to that it is a real slug; it just doesn't respond to the throttle and if you change down one gear on a hill the pickup is so slow that you often have to change down again. It has been checked at the dealers, but everything is spot on, so I assume that this is a design fault
A few years back not long after i started at this firm i had the new shape astra 1.6 petrol as a company car. It was brand new and one of the other guys who had been there years was clearly unhappy that i had 'waltzed in and grabbed a brand new car' After driving the astra for a few days and being completely underwhelmed by the performance i decided to play Mr Jealous.
He had a 1.4 Turbo Meriva (Current shape, not that awful corsa on steroids shape) that was the oldest on the fleet so i 'suggested' to him that i really could do with a bigger car as i had kids etc and i was seeing if the management could do anything about swapping my car with something more suitable.
less than 10 minutes later i get an email from the boss saying that Mr Jealous had said that i was after a larger car and he had 'kindly' offered to swap with me.
2 facts that Mr Jealous was clearly too blinded to see.
1) The 1.4 Meriva was considerably faster. more fun and more practical than that astra.
2) having now been gifted the oldest car on the fleet i was, again, first in line for when the cars got replaced.
less than a week later i heard him complaining to one of the other sales guys how gutless his astra was.
He had a 1.4 Turbo Meriva (Current shape, not that awful corsa on steroids shape) that was the oldest on the fleet so i 'suggested' to him that i really could do with a bigger car as i had kids etc and i was seeing if the management could do anything about swapping my car with something more suitable.
less than 10 minutes later i get an email from the boss saying that Mr Jealous had said that i was after a larger car and he had 'kindly' offered to swap with me.
2 facts that Mr Jealous was clearly too blinded to see.
1) The 1.4 Meriva was considerably faster. more fun and more practical than that astra.
2) having now been gifted the oldest car on the fleet i was, again, first in line for when the cars got replaced.
less than a week later i heard him complaining to one of the other sales guys how gutless his astra was.
Dog Star said:
If you're just an "A to B" motorist who spends most of their time in a big city then I guess these kind of cars make good sense; you're stuck in traffic a lot, the performance is adequate and you still have a bigger, comfy car. I can entirely see their point.
Exactly.90% of my driving is in traffic of varying degrees of crazy. It makes no difference if I'm in my 3.0 BMW or my OHs 1.4 Tsi Golf (which is surpringly rapid and enjoyable to drive actually).
Comfort and size is far more important than size if you don't want a small car in the city.
DJP said:
Three years ago a did an 800 mile round trip in Southern Spain in an almost new Polo 1.2. It averaged 33mpg over the whole trip.
The following year, I did the same trip in my own car – a Volvo V70 2.5 auto (petrol). It averaged 34mpg on the same journey.
On paper, the Polo should slaughter the bigger car on fuel economy but in the real world, not so much.
Did a trip from Perth to Aberystwth a few years ago, my diesel Volvo packed in within the first 30 miles (air conditioning pump put it in limp home mode) so we had to get that recovered to Edinburgh where I took my T5-R Volvo to Perth to meet the guys again. Rather than taking a different big comfy Volvo (fuel cost concerns) we took the courtesy Fiesta my mate had (no idea which small engine but was a nearly new car), three of us squeezed in (big (fat!) lads), I could hardly walk as I'd sat hour after hour in the back seat and the wee fiesta averaged 33mpg (calculated). The petrol Volvo would have been pretty damn close to that and been a lot comfier. Was kicking myself. Plus it would have been able to overtake on the wee Welsh roads!The following year, I did the same trip in my own car – a Volvo V70 2.5 auto (petrol). It averaged 34mpg on the same journey.
On paper, the Polo should slaughter the bigger car on fuel economy but in the real world, not so much.
All for small city cars having small engines but if it's going to be loaded up or sitting for a long time at motorway speeds I'll stick to a large engine thank you very much. Wouldn't fancy towing with a 1.0 turbo Mondeo fully loaded, wonder what it is actually going to be rated to tow.
IIRC when the Sierra was launched, the 2.0, which would have been the big engine, was about 100hp, which is what a 1.0 litre Fiesta is now and most of its competitors are also about 100hp. Now engineers have the skills and materials to extract more power from less engine. Bring it on I say.
I am also not sure why people are getting their knickers in a twist about turbocharged petrol engines. Who's have thunk you could have a 200hp 2 litre diesel engine? Remember the 2.3 litre Peugeot engine of the 1980's? 65hp iirc. No substitoot for cubes? My arse.
I am also not sure why people are getting their knickers in a twist about turbocharged petrol engines. Who's have thunk you could have a 200hp 2 litre diesel engine? Remember the 2.3 litre Peugeot engine of the 1980's? 65hp iirc. No substitoot for cubes? My arse.
Willy Nilly said:
IIRC when the Sierra was launched, the 2.0, which would have been the big engine, was about 100hp, which is what a 1.0 litre Fiesta is now and most of its competitors are also about 100hp. Now engineers have the skills and materials to extract more power from less engine. Bring it on I say.
I am also not sure why people are getting their knickers in a twist about turbocharged petrol engines. Who's have thunk you could have a 200hp 2 litre diesel engine? Remember the 2.3 litre Peugeot engine of the 1980's? 65hp iirc. No substitoot for cubes? My arse.
Except there is no "replacement for displacement" I am also not sure why people are getting their knickers in a twist about turbocharged petrol engines. Who's have thunk you could have a 200hp 2 litre diesel engine? Remember the 2.3 litre Peugeot engine of the 1980's? 65hp iirc. No substitoot for cubes? My arse.
Forcing more air in with a turbocharger is not altering the laws of physics.
Willy Nilly said:
IIRC when the Sierra was launched, the 2.0, which would have been the big engine, was about 100hp,
This reminds me of when my dad had a Sierra 1.8 LX and he nearly killed us all in it overtaking because he was used to quicker cars...needless to say it was swiftly sold and swapped for an XR4x4 and from that day my Dad vowed to never buy a gutless car again! BuzzBravado said:
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.
Never a truer word spoken. When asked about his car, an Octavia-owning friend of mine always mentions the MPG first!Edited by BuzzBravado on Friday 6th March 08:54
Edited by BuzzBravado on Friday 6th March 08:54
It can be a good thing, no doubt about it. The current 1.6 Ecoboost lumps in the fiesta ST are brilliant. The 1.0 Ecoboost works well in the fiesta but not soo well in the Mondeo.
It can however be bad, very bad. The worst car I have ever driven was the 1.4 Petrol Insignia I had as a hire car last week. Absolutely abysmal. Power delivery was non existant (struggling to overtake lorries doing 50 on the A66), poor MPG on the motorway sitting at 70/75.
It can however be bad, very bad. The worst car I have ever driven was the 1.4 Petrol Insignia I had as a hire car last week. Absolutely abysmal. Power delivery was non existant (struggling to overtake lorries doing 50 on the A66), poor MPG on the motorway sitting at 70/75.
skyrover said:
Willy Nilly said:
IIRC when the Sierra was launched, the 2.0, which would have been the big engine, was about 100hp, which is what a 1.0 litre Fiesta is now and most of its competitors are also about 100hp. Now engineers have the skills and materials to extract more power from less engine. Bring it on I say.
I am also not sure why people are getting their knickers in a twist about turbocharged petrol engines. Who's have thunk you could have a 200hp 2 litre diesel engine? Remember the 2.3 litre Peugeot engine of the 1980's? 65hp iirc. No substitoot for cubes? My arse.
Except there is no "replacement for displacement" I am also not sure why people are getting their knickers in a twist about turbocharged petrol engines. Who's have thunk you could have a 200hp 2 litre diesel engine? Remember the 2.3 litre Peugeot engine of the 1980's? 65hp iirc. No substitoot for cubes? My arse.
Forcing more air in with a turbocharger is not altering the laws of physics.
I've just had the "pleasure" of having a Vauxhall Mokka petrol (don't know what size) hire car for the week. It would probably be great for tootling about locally and taking the kids to school, but on the open road it was truly horrible to drive.
Apart from the lack of any sort of steering feedback or handling prowess, it's been the most gutless thing I've driven in years. Because of it's lack of any apparent torque, it's stupidly low geared for a modern car with only about 20 mph per thousand revs in top (5th) gear. To make progress on the motorway or overtake on A roads, you have to rev the b
ks off it, and it turns in rubbish economy as a result. Also, in top gear, there is no response at all at anything less than 50 mph, presumably as it is off boost.
In fairness, it is quite nippy up to about 40 mph but for anything else it's just rubbish.
Apart from the lack of any sort of steering feedback or handling prowess, it's been the most gutless thing I've driven in years. Because of it's lack of any apparent torque, it's stupidly low geared for a modern car with only about 20 mph per thousand revs in top (5th) gear. To make progress on the motorway or overtake on A roads, you have to rev the b
ks off it, and it turns in rubbish economy as a result. Also, in top gear, there is no response at all at anything less than 50 mph, presumably as it is off boost. In fairness, it is quite nippy up to about 40 mph but for anything else it's just rubbish.
cerb4.5lee said:
Bernie_78 said:
I'm all for downsizing anyway but wonder where it will end.
Had a friend who had a 125hp 1.0 triple engine that was a thirsty thing. I strapped in a boost guage and took his wife out on the road - as can be expected she was driving it on the turbo mostly and when I explained about the guage and to use that she did for a week - lo and behold suddenly the consumption figures improved massively.
went from 35 up to the high fifties..... but she said the car drove like a slug.
these downsizing efforts are to meet the co2 and emissions - trouble is that they are taking the readings from a test that is slewed - they then design an engine that meets those requirements when on the combined cycle test and as you know no one drives it that way.
The need to sort out the test - have a test that refelcts real life driving and not some concocted test. Any turbo car driven in a real world style will never meet the consumption figures quoted.
As for engine life Im not to concerned as I believe that these newer engines will quite easily do 150k miles with no issues. The engineering that has gone into them and of course the manufacturing quality is so much better now - design tolerances are easily adhered to and people get it right more often now. Think as engines develop we will be looking at 1 litre engines in a lot more applications - constant speed engines driving a generator that produces the power that charges batteries and keeps the vehicle in motion. An engine running at say 2000 rpm constant can be kept within its optimal run conditions. Quite interesting to see what power is required to maintain speed of a vehicle in steady state - its not too much and well within what one of those smaller engines can produce.
were at the cusp of change here and will see engines be relegated from direct drive duties in vehicles to running as battery chargers.
Your using your car for running about short journeys ? pure electric. a longer journey that 1.0 engine would kick in and supply the power.
went from 35 up to the high fifties..... but she said the car drove like a slug.
these downsizing efforts are to meet the co2 and emissions - trouble is that they are taking the readings from a test that is slewed - they then design an engine that meets those requirements when on the combined cycle test and as you know no one drives it that way.
The need to sort out the test - have a test that refelcts real life driving and not some concocted test. Any turbo car driven in a real world style will never meet the consumption figures quoted.
As for engine life Im not to concerned as I believe that these newer engines will quite easily do 150k miles with no issues. The engineering that has gone into them and of course the manufacturing quality is so much better now - design tolerances are easily adhered to and people get it right more often now. Think as engines develop we will be looking at 1 litre engines in a lot more applications - constant speed engines driving a generator that produces the power that charges batteries and keeps the vehicle in motion. An engine running at say 2000 rpm constant can be kept within its optimal run conditions. Quite interesting to see what power is required to maintain speed of a vehicle in steady state - its not too much and well within what one of those smaller engines can produce.
were at the cusp of change here and will see engines be relegated from direct drive duties in vehicles to running as battery chargers.
Your using your car for running about short journeys ? pure electric. a longer journey that 1.0 engine would kick in and supply the power.
Willy Nilly said:
skyrover said:
Willy Nilly said:
IIRC when the Sierra was launched, the 2.0, which would have been the big engine, was about 100hp, which is what a 1.0 litre Fiesta is now and most of its competitors are also about 100hp. Now engineers have the skills and materials to extract more power from less engine. Bring it on I say.
I am also not sure why people are getting their knickers in a twist about turbocharged petrol engines. Who's have thunk you could have a 200hp 2 litre diesel engine? Remember the 2.3 litre Peugeot engine of the 1980's? 65hp iirc. No substitoot for cubes? My arse.
Except there is no "replacement for displacement" I am also not sure why people are getting their knickers in a twist about turbocharged petrol engines. Who's have thunk you could have a 200hp 2 litre diesel engine? Remember the 2.3 litre Peugeot engine of the 1980's? 65hp iirc. No substitoot for cubes? My arse.
Forcing more air in with a turbocharger is not altering the laws of physics.
You probably wont find a large displacement engine with worse throttle response than a turbo
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff