Can't stand all these buzzy little engines these days
Discussion
Red 4 said:
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.
Boosted LS1 said:
Was it a basic spec fiat 500 that top gear couldn't get to pull away on an up hill start?
That was a 1.2 N/A car that had the map changed to optimise the emissions for Euro6. Fiat then changed the map on the ECU to enable cars to get up hills. The 0.9L turbo had no issues.
Red 4 said:
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.
F1 moved from big-engined, NA, V8s to turbocharged, small capacity V6s. Plainly they have seen reliability go down the pan?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
Oh..... hang on.
As to your 2nd comment - that's just bizarre, and totally unconnected.
oyster said:
F1 moved from big-engined, NA, V8s to turbocharged, small capacity V6s. Plainly they have seen reliability go down the pan?
Oh..... hang on.
F1 changed for reasons of cost.Oh..... hang on.
The sport was being dominated by the teams with the most money/ best technology.
The idea was to make it more competitive by restricting tech including engine size/ number of engines used, etc..
Also, you wont win in F1 unless you finish.
Reliability is a big factor regardless of engine size.
However, we are talking about mainstream cars such as 3 cylinder 1.0 with a turbo.
Your comparison to F1 is silly, so your post is bizarre. And poorly informed.
My comparison to new build houses is simple.
People buy new junk but feel they have to defend it because they own (or pcp/ lease/ mortgage) it.
Edited by Red 4 on Monday 22 January 01:04
ecsrobin said:
My dads friends’s barbers son is a mechanic. He says the complete opposite.
I hope he doesn't get mixed up and try to cut your hair with a spanner! Back in 2003 I bought a Seat Leon Cupra (with a "tiny" 1.8 litre turbo engine) and loved how it picked up at 2,500 or 3,000 rpm, but it was like it hit a wall at 5,500 rpm - even though the red-line was 6,000 rpm.
I now have 12 cylinders, 5,500cc and 447 bhp in 2 straight 6 N/A petrol BMWs - the best cars I've ever had.
There's no replacement for displacement.
You really need to compare engines of the same era. - A good NA 6 or 8 pot is still a much nicer thing than any new inline-4 turbo and there's no technical reason we can't have more 6 and 8 cylinder engines of 3.0-litres or more; it's just that politics (taxes, fuel prices etc.) dictates that they don't sell here. - 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.
As for reliability; I had to pay-out for 2 turbochargers last year. - Both vehicles had done less than 100k with a full service history. In the case of our Mini JCW, it easily negated any fuel / tax savings over our previous 6-pot BMW.
As for reliability; I had to pay-out for 2 turbochargers last year. - Both vehicles had done less than 100k with a full service history. In the case of our Mini JCW, it easily negated any fuel / tax savings over our previous 6-pot BMW.
Red 4 said:
Firstly - you are assuming manufacturers design cars/ engines properly.
They often don't.
Every car has issues specific to the make/ model.
Every car, including ones with normally aspirated and larger displacement engines suffers from specific issues. What's your point?They often don't.
Every car has issues specific to the make/ model.
Red 4 said:
Secondly - turbos fail.
You are properly clutching at straws now 
Yes turbos sometimes fail, and are usualy caused by lack of servicing, but they can also last a very long time if looked after. Timing belts/chains regularly fail as well, either from the same lack of servicing or poor design/production, are you going to suggest that we should all avoid engines with these components?
You havent given a single bit of compelling evidence that small engines are all time bombs, you are just restating your personal bias again and again. This needs the "old man shouts at sky" pic
Boosted LS1 said:
Was it a basic spec fiat 500 that top gear couldn't get to pull away on an up hill start?
That's not a lack of power - it's simply "Computer says no"TobyLerone said:
f
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 fk. So no, it's not a bag of st.
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. 
Red 4 said:
I do like a nice boost gauge though.
N/A cars should have fake ones.
They used to, back in the 80s and 90s. A little gauge in the bottom of the tacho, showing manifold vacuum. It was marked up as a "fuel economy gauge"...N/A cars should have fake ones.
TobyLerone said:
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.
Red 4 said:
Ares said:
I bet a bag of Wotsits they're fine. 150bhp/litre+ mainstream engines have been around for a while, as technology improves, so does the likelihood of improved longevity.
Real, proper Wotsits ?I can only afford the rip off Aldi ones. That would be a treat. Thank you.
I'm still not convinced.
I suppose time will tell.
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.
Black cabs will go electric. Private Hire/Uber are obsessed with mega mileage & mpg, well beyond where normal motorists need.
Ares said:
Not read the whole blog, but the notion of small engines being crap is now the stuff of ignorance. Big heavy engines are outdated.
Why do we compare modern FI 3 and 4 cyl engines with big heavy engines of old though? People compare their 2.0 turbo with 300hp with their old straight six 3 litre designed in 1990 and say "Ooooh, it is quicker and more economical".
Yeah of course it is, but what about the new modern, lightweight 3 litre 6cyl that is available in other markets?
My old E320 with a 3 litre v6 used to average 21mpg, my current direct injection 3.5 V6 is averaging 30mpg and does 36 on a run, the E200 loaner (1.8 or 2 litre turbo?) I had was doing less round town and about 1-2mpg better on a run.
I had a 330i, the si version with 272hp, that would average 38mpg on my normal 500 mile week, which I though incredible. My old 318i from 2001 wouldn't average that, christ my 320d touring from 2004 wouldn't average that.
It is a real shame that we don't to compare new modern FI small engines with modern new 6 and 8 cyl engines, as I bet in the real world there really isn't that much in it.
Nothing wrong with small FI engines, but if you want refined and still like a nice soundtrack so not interested in electric, there is still a place for larger capacity engines too.
ST Ford said:
ging84 said:
is this thread yearning for the days when you could get a 90hp 1.6 zetec mondeo ?
Speaking of Mondeo’s I just can’t get my head around the latest gen which is a big heavy car even by today's standards can be had with a 1.0 ecoboost! Yes that engine is fine for a little Fiesta zipping about in the city but a Mondeo which is normally driven by people with longer commutes and motorway drivers it’s just ridiculous. Once the Boost has run out about 5k revs you essentially have a gutless 1 litre pulling a massive car. You just can’t beat normally aspirated engines. My Mondeo ST220 with the 3.0 v6 in is the best type of engine for that size car imo It's time to move into this century. You don't need cubic capacity to make a fast car.
Ares said:
ST Ford said:
ging84 said:
is this thread yearning for the days when you could get a 90hp 1.6 zetec mondeo ?
Speaking of Mondeo’s I just can’t get my head around the latest gen which is a big heavy car even by today's standards can be had with a 1.0 ecoboost! Yes that engine is fine for a little Fiesta zipping about in the city but a Mondeo which is normally driven by people with longer commutes and motorway drivers it’s just ridiculous. Once the Boost has run out about 5k revs you essentially have a gutless 1 litre pulling a massive car. You just can’t beat normally aspirated engines. My Mondeo ST220 with the 3.0 v6 in is the best type of engine for that size car imo It's time to move into this century. You don't need cubic capacity to make a fast car.
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).
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.
Mr Tidy said:
ecsrobin said:
Back in 2003 I bought a Seat Leon Cupra (with a "tiny" 1.8 litre turbo engine) and loved how it picked up at 2,500 or 3,000 rpm, but it was like it hit a wall at 5,500 rpm - even though the red-line was 6,000 rpm.
I now have 12 cylinders, 5,500cc and 447 bhp in 2 straight 6 N/A petrol BMWs - the best cars I've ever had.
There's no replacement for displacement.
And yet, a buzzy little engine with half the cubic capacity will leave you for dead, cost less and last longer I now have 12 cylinders, 5,500cc and 447 bhp in 2 straight 6 N/A petrol BMWs - the best cars I've ever had.
There's no replacement for displacement.
gizlaroc said:
Ares said:
Not read the whole blog, but the notion of small engines being crap is now the stuff of ignorance. Big heavy engines are outdated.
Why do we compare modern FI 3 and 4 cyl engines with big heavy engines of old though? All cars have down sized. We can moan about loss of character, but the cars are better.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff