Can't stand all these buzzy little engines these days
Discussion
I simply don't like cars with engines that depend on a turbo to make any usable power, i.e. small turbo engines. There's just nothing before the turbo kicks in even if it does so at 1,500 rpm.
A 1.0 off boost attempting to get a 1.3 tonne (that's supermini weight nowadays) car going anywhere is stressful to drive.
It's quite irrelevant that said 1.0 might even produce 130 bhp.
For me, for everyday driving extra power is there to make my driving easier, less stressful - if I need to ensure that the engine is always kept on the boil to make use of the power defeats the point.
Give me an archaic 2.0 that only produces the same 130 bhp but which makes decent progress from barely above idle instead. Who cares if it runs out of puff at not a lot past 5k rpm. This is everyday, utility driving.
Yes the modern 1.0 will be more economical than a Ford Pinto 2.0 - but perhaps there would not be a lot in it if there were a low BHP modern 2.0 fitted in the same vehicle, and the driving experience would be improved tenfold.
A 1.0 off boost attempting to get a 1.3 tonne (that's supermini weight nowadays) car going anywhere is stressful to drive.
It's quite irrelevant that said 1.0 might even produce 130 bhp.
For me, for everyday driving extra power is there to make my driving easier, less stressful - if I need to ensure that the engine is always kept on the boil to make use of the power defeats the point.
Give me an archaic 2.0 that only produces the same 130 bhp but which makes decent progress from barely above idle instead. Who cares if it runs out of puff at not a lot past 5k rpm. This is everyday, utility driving.
Yes the modern 1.0 will be more economical than a Ford Pinto 2.0 - but perhaps there would not be a lot in it if there were a low BHP modern 2.0 fitted in the same vehicle, and the driving experience would be improved tenfold.
TobyLerone said:
Cruising at 70mph, for example - in a 1L/130 hp eco boost might use ~80% of its power to maintain an even speed. A 4L/400hp engine at the same speed in the same model might only be operating at ~25% of its peak power.
With typical modern aerodynamics, you need about 30bhp to maintain 70 on the flat so it's more like 25% vs 8%. Of course the point still stands to an extent, but it's rather elss significant. 996TT02 said:
I simply don't like cars with engines that depend on a turbo to make any usable power, i.e. small turbo engines. There's just nothing before the turbo kicks in even if it does so at 1,500 rpm.
A 1.0 off boost attempting to get a 1.3 tonne (that's supermini weight nowadays) car going anywhere is stressful to drive.
It's quite irrelevant that said 1.0 might even produce 130 bhp.
For me, for everyday driving extra power is there to make my driving easier, less stressful - if I need to ensure that the engine is always kept on the boil to make use of the power defeats the point.
Give me an archaic 2.0 that only produces the same 130 bhp but which makes decent progress from barely above idle instead. Who cares if it runs out of puff at not a lot past 5k rpm. This is everyday, utility driving.
Yes the modern 1.0 will be more economical than a Ford Pinto 2.0 - but perhaps there would not be a lot in it if there were a low BHP modern 2.0 fitted in the same vehicle, and the driving experience would be improved tenfold.
Fiat 500’s are between 0.9-1.1tonA 1.0 off boost attempting to get a 1.3 tonne (that's supermini weight nowadays) car going anywhere is stressful to drive.
It's quite irrelevant that said 1.0 might even produce 130 bhp.
For me, for everyday driving extra power is there to make my driving easier, less stressful - if I need to ensure that the engine is always kept on the boil to make use of the power defeats the point.
Give me an archaic 2.0 that only produces the same 130 bhp but which makes decent progress from barely above idle instead. Who cares if it runs out of puff at not a lot past 5k rpm. This is everyday, utility driving.
Yes the modern 1.0 will be more economical than a Ford Pinto 2.0 - but perhaps there would not be a lot in it if there were a low BHP modern 2.0 fitted in the same vehicle, and the driving experience would be improved tenfold.
Fiestas 1.1-1.2ton
You’re not waiting all week for a car to come on boost, at no point do I think hurt up and pull away.
The problem is on here, you have those who voice an opinion based on their limited to know practical use of a certain car and then you have the owners of said cars (like the ST owner above) and myself who have long term knowledge. Small turbos engines can be fun.
I'll definitely be going smaller in terms of engine size for my next car, without question.
Yep, it's gonna be a post-2006 L322 Rangie fitted with the 4,394cc Jag 4.4 V8, to replace my current car, an earlier L322 with the 4,398cc BMW 4.4 V8.
Never let it be said that I'm not doing my bit for downsizing.
Yep, it's gonna be a post-2006 L322 Rangie fitted with the 4,394cc Jag 4.4 V8, to replace my current car, an earlier L322 with the 4,398cc BMW 4.4 V8.
Never let it be said that I'm not doing my bit for downsizing.
You can catch our Ecoboost Fiesta off boost, but like any car, you drive to power delivery and gearing, its rare I have had that happen, just change down a gear or ensure you are above 1500 rpm, its not hard, when it slike that it feels like the smaller NA versions do all the time.
I cant say I find it stressful, even our C1 isnt stressful, you just have to use what you have.
My CLS was possibly more stressful more of the time, 5.5 litres and 20 feet long or something parking it was stressful, or at least finding a space it would fit in was in tight car parks.
I cant say I find it stressful, even our C1 isnt stressful, you just have to use what you have.
My CLS was possibly more stressful more of the time, 5.5 litres and 20 feet long or something parking it was stressful, or at least finding a space it would fit in was in tight car parks.
kambites said:
TobyLerone said:
Cruising at 70mph, for example - in a 1L/130 hp eco boost might use ~80% of its power to maintain an even speed. A 4L/400hp engine at the same speed in the same model might only be operating at ~25% of its peak power.
With typical modern aerodynamics, you need about 30bhp to maintain 70 on the flat so it's more like 25% vs 8%. Of course the point still stands to an extent, but it's rather elss significant. Enjoy your 1.0 turbo triple, I'll be sticking to my big engines though.
You can carry it over to running gear too - a gearbox designed for a big hug powered car will typically fair better than one designed for a low powered car.
Exceptions are many, but I'm generalising - you can use a small engine at close to its design limit more of the time than a huge powerhouse.
TobyLerone said:
But those engines are in very light motorbikes, with very small CSA.
The engines when in bikes don't work hard for long (on the road at least!), since they are only accelerating hard for short periods of time. The same engine in a ~1500kg car with a large CSA, the engine has to work harder for longer.
I have no proof, or no studies to link to, but I'm certain - bigger engines with higher power work less hard to achieve the same speed.
Cruising at 70mph, for example - in a 1L/130 hp eco boost might use ~80% of its power to maintain an even speed. A 4L/400hp engine at the same speed in the same model might only be operating at ~25% of its peak power.
There's more to this argument, but I'm firmly in the camp that, a big powerful engine works hard for much less of its life than a small, eco engine.
Dear god that's some sThe engines when in bikes don't work hard for long (on the road at least!), since they are only accelerating hard for short periods of time. The same engine in a ~1500kg car with a large CSA, the engine has to work harder for longer.
I have no proof, or no studies to link to, but I'm certain - bigger engines with higher power work less hard to achieve the same speed.
Cruising at 70mph, for example - in a 1L/130 hp eco boost might use ~80% of its power to maintain an even speed. A 4L/400hp engine at the same speed in the same model might only be operating at ~25% of its peak power.
There's more to this argument, but I'm firmly in the camp that, a big powerful engine works hard for much less of its life than a small, eco engine.
te.No, it's not using 104 bhp to maintain 70. FFS my first car could nudge 100 with 75 knackered french ponies.
Yes, you need things like "proof" and "evidence", otherwise you spew that sort of rubbish.
TobyLerone said:
Exceptions are many, but I'm generalising - you can use a small engine at close to its design limit more of the time than a huge powerhouse.
Your point is simple and obvious; a lower powered engine will be operating at a greater fraction of its capacity most if the time. However I don't understand the argument you are trying to make; provided these engines are reliable (and they appear to be, plenty with high mileage on them) what is the problem?The amount of people on here who are obviously leasing small engined turbocharged time bombs and are defending them to the hilt is astonishing.
They'll be defending their new build, not a solid interior wall in sight, "detached" with 2' to next door, middle management in I.T. shoe boxes next.
They'll be defending their new build, not a solid interior wall in sight, "detached" with 2' to next door, middle management in I.T. shoe boxes next.
Edited by Red 4 on Sunday 21st January 23:05
Rawwr said:
996TT02 said:
A 1.0 off boost attempting to get a 1.3 tonne (that's supermini weight nowadays) car going anywhere is stressful to drive.
Do you really believe that?Even a "torquey diesel" 1.5 turbo is hopelessly flat, even dangerously so, when off boost, because the OH has one and I regularly drive that, too, unfortunately, and being used to driving something with half the bhp but possibly 3 times the low down torque as a daily means that unless I am attentive I get caught out pressing the loud pedal but nothing going on when I most need it to.
If that's "relaxing, stressless driving" then perhaps stick-stirring like crazy or the occasional unwanted excitement that comes with not doing so must be therapeutic to some, but not to me.
Red 4 said:
My arbiter of reliability for mainstream cars is whatever private hire drivers use.
They are sticking with n/a larger petrol engines if not diesel.
Taxi drivers aim for low running costs, hence the vast number of Prius taxis with their 1.5L engines (for the previous generation, if which there are loads still being used).They are sticking with n/a larger petrol engines if not diesel.
There was an ex-taxi Dacia Logan MCV on autotrader recently with around 185k miles on it's 0.9L turbo engine. One of the cheapest estate cars available new. 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).
Edited by Mr2Mike on Monday 22 January 07:55
Car-Matt said:
Red 4 said:
A very good mechanic friend of mine (who has worked on practically everything) told me years ago that the trend for modern stuff - small engine, turbo - is just a time bomb.
Nonsense - Based on what? Car wise - you name it - he'll know about it.
And tell you what to avoid - see my previous post.
996TT02 said:
I simply don't like cars with engines that depend on a turbo to make any usable power, i.e. small turbo engines. There's just nothing before the turbo kicks in even if it does so at 1,500 rpm.
A 1.0 off boost attempting to get a 1.3 tonne (that's supermini weight nowadays) car going anywhere is stressful to drive.
It's quite irrelevant that said 1.0 might even produce 130 bhp.
For me, for everyday driving extra power is there to make my driving easier, less stressful - if I need to ensure that the engine is always kept on the boil to make use of the power defeats the point.
Give me an archaic 2.0 that only produces the same 130 bhp but which makes decent progress from barely above idle instead. Who cares if it runs out of puff at not a lot past 5k rpm. This is everyday, utility driving.
Yes the modern 1.0 will be more economical than a Ford Pinto 2.0 - but perhaps there would not be a lot in it if there were a low BHP modern 2.0 fitted in the same vehicle, and the driving experience would be improved tenfold.
I'm afraid the numbers say that you are imagining all of that A 1.0 off boost attempting to get a 1.3 tonne (that's supermini weight nowadays) car going anywhere is stressful to drive.
It's quite irrelevant that said 1.0 might even produce 130 bhp.
For me, for everyday driving extra power is there to make my driving easier, less stressful - if I need to ensure that the engine is always kept on the boil to make use of the power defeats the point.
Give me an archaic 2.0 that only produces the same 130 bhp but which makes decent progress from barely above idle instead. Who cares if it runs out of puff at not a lot past 5k rpm. This is everyday, utility driving.
Yes the modern 1.0 will be more economical than a Ford Pinto 2.0 - but perhaps there would not be a lot in it if there were a low BHP modern 2.0 fitted in the same vehicle, and the driving experience would be improved tenfold.
Fiesta 1.0t 140 ish Bhp
Opel 2.0 140 ish Bhp (1996 engine, the most modern I could find)
The Ford is making the same torque at 1200 rpm as the Opel is at 2000 rpm. Power is up too.
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).
Firstly - you are assuming manufacturers design cars/ engines properly.They often don't.
Every car has issues specific to the make/ model.
Secondly - turbos fail.
paranoid airbag said:
Dear god that's some ste.
No, it's not using 104 bhp to maintain 70. FFS my first car could nudge 100 with 75 knackered french ponies.
Yes, you need things like "proof" and "evidence", otherwise you spew that sort of rubbish.
fte.No, it's not using 104 bhp to maintain 70. FFS my first car could nudge 100 with 75 knackered french ponies.
Yes, you need things like "proof" and "evidence", otherwise you spew that sort of rubbish.
k dude, gimme a fking break! I arbitrarily picked a few numbers out of the air to illustrate my point.The actual numbers matter not - my point was only that more powerful engines operate at a lower percentage of their design max.
You pedantic f
k. So no, it's not a bag of st. Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff