Can't stand all these buzzy little engines these days
Discussion
Clivey said:
Look on the US version of Auto Trader; you won't find (for example) a single BMW 520d for sale but check-out how many 540i / 545i / 550i there are compared to here...it's really quite depressing.
Agree, and it would be brilliant as far as I'm concerned if fuel in the UK was the same price as the US. The difference in quality/feel between a large capacity V8 petrol and a crappy 4 pot diesel is massive. It was a massive rude awakening for me when I swapped my X5 4.8iS for a 520d!
I'm not even sure about loss of character, the turbocharged triple in my old Fiesta was infinitely more interesting and entertaining than well, most of the other engines I've had.
I don't get why this thread is so polarised. I can appreciate the stonking great 12-cylinder loveliness in an F50 just as much as I can appreciate the modern baby triples. To become fixated on a certain capacity, a specific number of cylinders or even how the engine inhales just seems psychotic.
I don't get why this thread is so polarised. I can appreciate the stonking great 12-cylinder loveliness in an F50 just as much as I can appreciate the modern baby triples. To become fixated on a certain capacity, a specific number of cylinders or even how the engine inhales just seems psychotic.
Ares said:
Not quite sure how old you are, but when I was a kid, cars needed servicing and fresh oil even 6-10,000 miles and went wrong so often, people did their own mechanics. Nowadays, cars go for 20,000 miles between oil changes, 35,000 miles between full services and if a car goes wrong in its first 5yrs its a surprise such is how unusual it is.
I'm old enough to have enjoyed the mechanical marvel that was the Ford Pinto engine (on twin 40s).20,000 miles is too long between oil changes regardless of what manufacturers say.
I just couldn't live with myself if I did that - especially if it was a turbocharged car.
I don't understand why people are comparing these new 1.0 3 pot turbo engines to cars from the 70s/80s/90s.
The comparison should be made to normally aspirated modern engines.
TheAngryDog said:
volvos60s60 said:
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but no matter how you slice it, there ain't no substitute for cubes.....
Yep, certainly old fashioned. As a fellow V8 owner (onto my 3rd, though first supercharged one) your no substitute for cubes is very out dated
Small capacity boosted engines are, as far as I can see, simply better for those who treat their cars solely as a means of getting from A to B. The problem is that there's so few people who treat cars any other way that any other sort of engine is becoming non-viable to develop for the European market.
I actually thought the downsizing of engine in the current BMW 330i was a good thing. The old 3 litre N/A engine was thirsty and pretty flat low down...and muted with the noise it made.
The newer 4 pot Turbo engine in the 330i is quicker and more economical, and it doesn't need plenty of revs to get a move on. It lacks a little smoothness but that's the only downside for me when compared to the old N/A engine.
I've not experienced a 3 pot Turbo but most say that they have lots of character, I'm not sure I'd want that engine in a Mondeo, but I'm guessing it works very well in a fiesta though.
The newer 4 pot Turbo engine in the 330i is quicker and more economical, and it doesn't need plenty of revs to get a move on. It lacks a little smoothness but that's the only downside for me when compared to the old N/A engine.
I've not experienced a 3 pot Turbo but most say that they have lots of character, I'm not sure I'd want that engine in a Mondeo, but I'm guessing it works very well in a fiesta though.
kambites said:
Mazda's are the obvious choice.
2.0 normally aspirated unstressed 4 pot in the current Mazda 3 with an astonishing 120 BHP on tap should you have the nerve to release all that power.Extremely reliable.
I would choose that engine every day of the week (and twice on Sunday) compared to a 1.0 turbocharged lawnmower engine in a Mondeo.
Edited by Red 4 on Monday 22 January 10:47
There's a place for both in my heart.
I've got a big old lump of a V8 in my BM, sounds great, is quick, smooth and unstressed.
I've driven plenty of these EcoBoost style small engines though and it all depends on the mapping, they're either mapped to feel like a VAG diesel, or they're mapped in such a way that makes them playful (see Fiesta ST etc...)
I've got a big old lump of a V8 in my BM, sounds great, is quick, smooth and unstressed.
I've driven plenty of these EcoBoost style small engines though and it all depends on the mapping, they're either mapped to feel like a VAG diesel, or they're mapped in such a way that makes them playful (see Fiesta ST etc...)
grumpy52 said:
Since when are modern classed as light ?
Most hatchbacks are 1250kg and above .
Family cars are 1500kg +
Most supercars are horrendously heavy .
A small modern hatch with a modern turbo 3 pot might be interesting if it only weighs about 800kg .
I posted earlier. Fiat/Abarths are 950kg-1060kg and fiestas sub 1250kgMost hatchbacks are 1250kg and above .
Family cars are 1500kg +
Most supercars are horrendously heavy .
A small modern hatch with a modern turbo 3 pot might be interesting if it only weighs about 800kg .
Red 4 said:
Mr2Mike said:
There is no reason these smallers engines cant last provided they have been properly engineered and no evidence to suggest they are failing prematurely (ecoboost plastic cooling pipes aside).
Secondly - turbos fail.J4CKO said:
So do many other components, turbos can and do outlast the car they are in, my TT is on the original turbo at 127k after 17 years, in fact most turbo cars never have a turbo replaced, usually bad luck or a lack of maintenance that will kill them.
You're lucky.The general concensus has always been that turbos/ turbocharged cars are not as reliable as normally aspirated cars.
I'm sure the technology has moved on but a turbo is what it is.
Unless they've come up with some new, mainstream., low cost material to build turbos and managed to defy the laws of physics I'm still not convinced.
I've had turbocharged cars and never had a problem but they were low mileage vehicles.
I know plenty of people who've had headaches with turbos.
My point - simply - is the less stress the better (for reliability/longevity).
A turbo doesn't do that.
Edited by Red 4 on Monday 22 January 11:43
Red 4 said:
You're lucky.
The general concensus has always been that turbos/ turbocharged cars are not as reliable as normally aspirated cars.
I'm sure the technology has moved on but a turbo is what it is.
Unless they've come up with some new, mainstream., low cost material to build turbos and managed to defy the laws of physics I'm still not convinced.
I've had turbocharged cars and never had a problem but they were low mileage vehicles.
I know plenty of people who've had headaches with turbos.
My point - simply - is the less stress the better.
A turbo doesn't do that.
If only turbos had been used on commercial vehicles, doing very high mileages, for decades. Then, perhaps, this myth would have been put to bed by now...The general concensus has always been that turbos/ turbocharged cars are not as reliable as normally aspirated cars.
I'm sure the technology has moved on but a turbo is what it is.
Unless they've come up with some new, mainstream., low cost material to build turbos and managed to defy the laws of physics I'm still not convinced.
I've had turbocharged cars and never had a problem but they were low mileage vehicles.
I know plenty of people who've had headaches with turbos.
My point - simply - is the less stress the better.
A turbo doesn't do that.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff