Can't stand all these buzzy little engines these days
Discussion
Is it me or are these small turbo engines terrible on fuel for long runs.
I’ve had a few of these as hire cars. I often have to drive Midlands to Devon.
They all seem to do about 35mpg at around 80mph. (The ones I remember are Ford Kuga 1.5, Nissan Quashqui 1.2, Ford Focus 1.0)
For comparison, my old 2.5 V6 X-Type would do around 40mpg and even the V8 Jags will do low 30’s.
The only real difference is that I fill hire cars with Tesco Value ditchwater, and use Super Unleaded in my own cars.
I probably drive faster in my own car too.
I’ve had a few of these as hire cars. I often have to drive Midlands to Devon.
They all seem to do about 35mpg at around 80mph. (The ones I remember are Ford Kuga 1.5, Nissan Quashqui 1.2, Ford Focus 1.0)
For comparison, my old 2.5 V6 X-Type would do around 40mpg and even the V8 Jags will do low 30’s.
The only real difference is that I fill hire cars with Tesco Value ditchwater, and use Super Unleaded in my own cars.
I probably drive faster in my own car too.
cerb4.5lee said:
I'm on a similar page to Ares, I've had the 4 litre V8 NA M3 and I much preferred the M4 when I drove one. Also had the 3 litre NA in a E90 330i, and I'd prefer the 4 cylinder 2 litre Turbo in the current 330i.
Agree that its all personal preference for sure, I didn't like the fact that you had to thrash the NA 330i and NA M3 to get them to feel lively. I prefer the lower down punch of a Turbo engine much more.
Try driving around everywhere at 8400rpm in the M3...its not that easy or good for keeping your licence!
In the NA 330i max power is still high at 6600rpm, both cars feel pretty limp low down because of it.
Agree that the 2 litre Turbo is reluctant over 5500rpm though, you do get a nice shove early doors which I prefer though. Some prefer everything at the top end like the NA 330i/M3, whereas some prefer more punch lower down from the engines with a turbo(or two).
Agree that its all personal preference for sure, I didn't like the fact that you had to thrash the NA 330i and NA M3 to get them to feel lively. I prefer the lower down punch of a Turbo engine much more.
Try driving around everywhere at 8400rpm in the M3...its not that easy or good for keeping your licence!
In the NA 330i max power is still high at 6600rpm, both cars feel pretty limp low down because of it. Agree that the 2 litre Turbo is reluctant over 5500rpm though, you do get a nice shove early doors which I prefer though. Some prefer everything at the top end like the NA 330i/M3, whereas some prefer more punch lower down from the engines with a turbo(or two).
So why not just get a diesel auto - oops too late, you have!
I'd much rather chase the red line with a manual N/A straight 6 petrol, but if you can't be bothered...…..!?
This thread has pretty convincingly divided opinion, and shows definite gaps in the type of petrol heads we have become.
To summarize with reference to performance oriented car & engines:
- Camp #1 - People who embrace change and progress in drivetrain technology, even if it is to the detriment of character. Faster is faster.
- Camp #2 - People who bemoan anything new, regardless if it is comprehensively better in every measurable way.
- Camp #3 - People who concede that a smaller, torquier engine is better for smaller cars not intended for the performance market, but would rather see more exotic engines instead of ubiquitous 4pot turbo's in our performance cars to give it some character and even more emotive attraction. After all, why else do we buy these types of cars if not for emotive/subjective reasons ?
I'm in Camp #3, obviously.
To summarize with reference to performance oriented car & engines:
- Camp #1 - People who embrace change and progress in drivetrain technology, even if it is to the detriment of character. Faster is faster.
- Camp #2 - People who bemoan anything new, regardless if it is comprehensively better in every measurable way.
- Camp #3 - People who concede that a smaller, torquier engine is better for smaller cars not intended for the performance market, but would rather see more exotic engines instead of ubiquitous 4pot turbo's in our performance cars to give it some character and even more emotive attraction. After all, why else do we buy these types of cars if not for emotive/subjective reasons ?
I'm in Camp #3, obviously.
Edited by Quickben on Tuesday 30th October 06:07
Quickben said:
- Camp #3 - People who concede that a smaller, torquier engine is better for smaller cars not intended for the performance market, but would rather see more exotic engines instead of ubiquitous 4pot turbo's in our performance cars to give it some character and even more emotive attraction. After all, why else do we buy these types of cars if not for emotive/subjective reasons ?
To me it just seems a bit of a shame 4 pots instead of 6's in the likes of a 330. Shame they couldn't just keep 6 cyls, downsize it and stick a couple of turbos. That way you get some of the efficiency gains, (arguably) make it more driveable AND retain a decent sound track.
Mr Tidy said:
cerb4.5lee said:
I'm on a similar page to Ares, I've had the 4 litre V8 NA M3 and I much preferred the M4 when I drove one. Also had the 3 litre NA in a E90 330i, and I'd prefer the 4 cylinder 2 litre Turbo in the current 330i.
Agree that its all personal preference for sure, I didn't like the fact that you had to thrash the NA 330i and NA M3 to get them to feel lively. I prefer the lower down punch of a Turbo engine much more.
Try driving around everywhere at 8400rpm in the M3...its not that easy or good for keeping your licence! In the NA 330i max power is still high at 6600rpm, both cars feel pretty limp low down because of it.
Agree that the 2 litre Turbo is reluctant over 5500rpm though, you do get a nice shove early doors which I prefer though. Some prefer everything at the top end like the NA 330i/M3, whereas some prefer more punch lower down from the engines with a turbo(or two).
Agree that its all personal preference for sure, I didn't like the fact that you had to thrash the NA 330i and NA M3 to get them to feel lively. I prefer the lower down punch of a Turbo engine much more.
Try driving around everywhere at 8400rpm in the M3...its not that easy or good for keeping your licence!
In the NA 330i max power is still high at 6600rpm, both cars feel pretty limp low down because of it. Agree that the 2 litre Turbo is reluctant over 5500rpm though, you do get a nice shove early doors which I prefer though. Some prefer everything at the top end like the NA 330i/M3, whereas some prefer more punch lower down from the engines with a turbo(or two).
So why not just get a diesel auto - oops too late, you have!
I'd much rather chase the red line with a manual N/A straight 6 petrol, but if you can't be bothered...…..!?
I used my E92 M3/330i as my daily though and they've pushed me back into a Turbo because I didn't like their power delivery in that situation.
Its each to their own that's all, I do personally prefer an engine with some torque though, and with hindsight I do question why I went for the E92 M3/330i, as both are lacking in that regard big time imo.
Bmw's are heavy cars so they don't suit a NA engine for me(although I did like the NA petrol 4.8 V8 in my X5), and the torque of a Turbo diesel or Turbo petrol help to hide their weight better overall.
In reality, manufacturers are bent over a barrel over this because of the NEDC test cycle. If the governing bodies changed it to a Real World test that is even vaguely based on actual driving habits/traffic etc, they'd realise that tiny turbo charged engines are no more economical or cleaner than larger modern engines when driven normally.
I read an article about the NEDC cycle a while ago and it said that the driving technique required to reflect the cycle is pretty much impossible to achieve on the roads in the real world. You'd have to drive around at idle 90% of the time and the amount throttle allowed for the "going up a hill" bit simply isn't enough get up a steep bank.
I actually think they want to put proper engines in performance cars. They just can't at the minute.
I read an article about the NEDC cycle a while ago and it said that the driving technique required to reflect the cycle is pretty much impossible to achieve on the roads in the real world. You'd have to drive around at idle 90% of the time and the amount throttle allowed for the "going up a hill" bit simply isn't enough get up a steep bank.
I actually think they want to put proper engines in performance cars. They just can't at the minute.
gamefreaks said:
Is it me or are these small turbo engines terrible on fuel for long runs.
I’ve had a few of these as hire cars. I often have to drive Midlands to Devon.
They all seem to do about 35mpg at around 80mph. (The ones I remember are Ford Kuga 1.5, Nissan Quashqui 1.2, Ford Focus 1.0)
For comparison, my old 2.5 V6 X-Type would do around 40mpg and even the V8 Jags will do low 30’s.
The only real difference is that I fill hire cars with Tesco Value ditchwater, and use Super Unleaded in my own cars.
I probably drive faster in my own car too.
Nope I find that too.I’ve had a few of these as hire cars. I often have to drive Midlands to Devon.
They all seem to do about 35mpg at around 80mph. (The ones I remember are Ford Kuga 1.5, Nissan Quashqui 1.2, Ford Focus 1.0)
For comparison, my old 2.5 V6 X-Type would do around 40mpg and even the V8 Jags will do low 30’s.
The only real difference is that I fill hire cars with Tesco Value ditchwater, and use Super Unleaded in my own cars.
I probably drive faster in my own car too.
I've had a few as hire cars (1.2 Citroens, 1.4 Vauxhalls etc) (Hampshire to N Devon) and they've all struggled to get a decent MPG. They are good fun round the windy lanes in Devon though
Lester H said:
Willy Nilly said:
I know, damn these boring little engines with more power than the interesting big engines. Damn you
They may be technically clever, but how long will they last? Not got a “biggie” in the entire family at the moment but “There’s no replacement for displacement”.
t. Good design is the replacement for displacement. what would the correct sized engine be for a particular level of power? Why not get a 5 litre V8 and turn it down to 100hp and fit it to a Fiesta?
There are some utter crap large engines. I've used 2 IH V800 engines that were 300hp from 13 litres and they were utterly useless, all revs (2600rpm from a heavy duty engine is unacceptable), they didn't like being lugged when that type of engine should be build to slog its guts out and coupled to that, they weren't even reliable or durable. They are obviously very old engines now and it' not really fair to compare, but a modern 8-9 litre 300hp engine would pull the V800's pants down and smack their arses.
My little car has a 100hp, 1.3 litre engine that's utterly reliable and really good on fuel. Not so long ago that amount of power would have needed 2 litres of displacement.
I’ve gone from a 4.2t v10 in a Q7 to a 1.0t in an Octavia and love it.
It’s no less powerful from start and only noticably different from 60-85territory really
Mpg is way superior with my Q7 averaging 22mpg over 60k miles ... so far the Octavia is doing 53mpg over the initial 3k miles
It’s no less powerful from start and only noticably different from 60-85territory really
Mpg is way superior with my Q7 averaging 22mpg over 60k miles ... so far the Octavia is doing 53mpg over the initial 3k miles
I have a 2017 1.4 Scirocco, think thats just a turbo engine?
120bhp, gets 50mpg all day long and is just about fast enough for daily use.
I think a massive issue in these little turbo engines is the mapping, i feel a remap could sort this 1.4 out and make it so it pulls all the way past 4000rpm and makes a little more power, it pretty much dies after 4 currently!
Drove a lexus ls400 a few weeks back and i gotta say, a 4.0 V8 makes progress feel effortless
120bhp, gets 50mpg all day long and is just about fast enough for daily use.
I think a massive issue in these little turbo engines is the mapping, i feel a remap could sort this 1.4 out and make it so it pulls all the way past 4000rpm and makes a little more power, it pretty much dies after 4 currently!
Drove a lexus ls400 a few weeks back and i gotta say, a 4.0 V8 makes progress feel effortless
alorotom said:
I’ve gone from a 4.2t v10 in a Q7 to a 1.0t in an Octavia and love it.
It’s no less powerful from start and only noticably different from 60-85territory really
Mpg is way superior with my Q7 averaging 22mpg over 60k miles ... so far the Octavia is doing 53mpg over the initial 3k miles
That comparison isn't even remotely valid.It’s no less powerful from start and only noticably different from 60-85territory really
Mpg is way superior with my Q7 averaging 22mpg over 60k miles ... so far the Octavia is doing 53mpg over the initial 3k miles
Red 4 said:
The op earlier today;
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wJn7LHE83cc
I'm sitting here bored and then watch that: fantastic and put a smile on my face. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wJn7LHE83cc
Dannbodge said:
gamefreaks said:
Is it me or are these small turbo engines terrible on fuel for long runs.
I’ve had a few of these as hire cars. I often have to drive Midlands to Devon.
They all seem to do about 35mpg at around 80mph. (The ones I remember are Ford Kuga 1.5, Nissan Quashqui 1.2, Ford Focus 1.0)
For comparison, my old 2.5 V6 X-Type would do around 40mpg and even the V8 Jags will do low 30’s.
The only real difference is that I fill hire cars with Tesco Value ditchwater, and use Super Unleaded in my own cars.
I probably drive faster in my own car too.
Nope I find that too.I’ve had a few of these as hire cars. I often have to drive Midlands to Devon.
They all seem to do about 35mpg at around 80mph. (The ones I remember are Ford Kuga 1.5, Nissan Quashqui 1.2, Ford Focus 1.0)
For comparison, my old 2.5 V6 X-Type would do around 40mpg and even the V8 Jags will do low 30’s.
The only real difference is that I fill hire cars with Tesco Value ditchwater, and use Super Unleaded in my own cars.
I probably drive faster in my own car too.
I've had a few as hire cars (1.2 Citroens, 1.4 Vauxhalls etc) (Hampshire to N Devon) and they've all struggled to get a decent MPG. They are good fun round the windy lanes in Devon though
gamefreaks said:
They all seem to do about 35mpg at around 80mph. (The ones I remember are Ford Kuga 1.5, Nissan Quashqui 1.2, Ford Focus 1.0)
For comparison, my old 2.5 V6 X-Type would do around 40mpg and even the V8 Jags will do low 30’s.
Tbh I struggle to see a 4WD V6 X-Type managing 40mpg at 80 mph without slipstreaming coaches. Dad's 3.0 X-Type wouldn't manage anywhere near that and there's not a great deal of difference in fuel economy between the two engines.For comparison, my old 2.5 V6 X-Type would do around 40mpg and even the V8 Jags will do low 30’s.
In mixed driving the X-Type realistically does mid 20s. It's a good engine, but realistically that's pretty poor by today's standards, not helped by having the AWD.
Willy Nilly said:
Lester H said:
Willy Nilly said:
I know, damn these boring little engines with more power than the interesting big engines. Damn you
They may be technically clever, but how long will they last? Not got a “biggie” in the entire family at the moment but “There’s no replacement for displacement”.t. Good design is the replacement for displacement. what would the correct sized engine be for a particular level of power? Why not get a 5 litre V8 and turn it down to 100hp and fit it to a Fiesta?
There are some utter crap large engines. I've used 2 IH V800 engines that were 300hp from 13 litres and they were utterly useless, all revs (2600rpm from a heavy duty engine is unacceptable), they didn't like being lugged when that type of engine should be build to slog its guts out and coupled to that, they weren't even reliable or durable. They are obviously very old engines now and it' not really fair to compare, but a modern 8-9 litre 300hp engine would pull the V800's pants down and smack their arses.
My little car has a 100hp, 1.3 litre engine that's utterly reliable and really good on fuel. Not so long ago that amount of power would have needed 2 litres of displacement.
Measurements are vital when you live every quarter mile a £ at a time. 
The compromising of driving purity because you’re worried about your wallet really is best left to pensioners ands who have over stretched themselves on the monthlies.
Today, turbos are added so that cc can be removed. They have nothing to do with thrills and spills but are the tool of the accountant and tax specialist.
Threads such as this where supposed car enthusiasts bang on about economy when talking about cars which are specifically about driving dynamics and highly subjective and important human feelings are just a bit miserable.
The compromising of driving purity because you’re worried about your wallet really is best left to pensioners and
s who have over stretched themselves on the monthlies. Today, turbos are added so that cc can be removed. They have nothing to do with thrills and spills but are the tool of the accountant and tax specialist.
Threads such as this where supposed car enthusiasts bang on about economy when talking about cars which are specifically about driving dynamics and highly subjective and important human feelings are just a bit miserable.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff