Can't stand all these buzzy little engines these days
Discussion
a few rants developing here.
WN, of course technology is important which is why a modern Euro V8 is 'better' than a lazy, dirty old yank V8.
but for a given technological era displacement brings more torque, power and flexibility for tuning.
the buzzy little 1L turbos are now fully discredited as emission reg dodges and a 1.5L is probably more suited (with latest tech even a turbo of course).
OP has a point. tiny engines with turbos focussed on emissions are horrible. out of puff by 3.5k revs and worse real mpg.
WN, of course technology is important which is why a modern Euro V8 is 'better' than a lazy, dirty old yank V8.
but for a given technological era displacement brings more torque, power and flexibility for tuning.
the buzzy little 1L turbos are now fully discredited as emission reg dodges and a 1.5L is probably more suited (with latest tech even a turbo of course).
OP has a point. tiny engines with turbos focussed on emissions are horrible. out of puff by 3.5k revs and worse real mpg.
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.
That MPG is very unusual for 10-20yr old Jags?? There is the anomaly.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.
As for smaller turbo engines, I don't have much experience. Mrs Ares borrowed a 118i (now a 1.5 T) and got 48mpg on a run to a friend in Cheltenham. She used to have a 118i when it was a 2.0 NA and always struggled to get over 40mpg. Not a very scientific test though.
From my experience, the beauty of smaller blown engines is that when sat on the motorway, the turbo is asleep thus the fuel consumption improves. EG, I get see over 40mpg in my 2.9TT 500bhp saloon on a good run, although cylinder de-activation will help. I can't think of many (any?) NA 500bhp engines that would do that?
DonkeyApple said:
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.
Compromising driving purity? Given that all of the cars under discussion weigh well over a tonne, are designed to carry multiple passengers and their shopping, whilst providing a reasonably comfortable ride, and lasting several hundred thousand miles in the careless hands of most owners, that driving experience is already severely compromised. s who have over stretched themselves on the monthlies. Small capacity turbo engine compromising the purity of the driving experience:
Keeping it normally aspirated, for the genuine driving enthusiast's uncompromising approach:
Willy Nilly said:
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.
There's got to be a typo there hasn't there? Off the top of my head I seem to remember that the 205 1.9 GTI made about 130bhp, so a bit under 70bhp/litre, and that wasn't a particularly highly-strung engine in the mid 80s (i.e. over thirty years ago). I don't want to get into a semantic argument but surely it has been quite a long time since 100hp required a 2l engine?Bloke stopped me in Aldi car park and asked "err mate how many miles does that do to the gallon"
Me: I dont know , about 40-45
Him: Blimey is that all, what engine has it got , is it a 2.0?
No a 1.6 I replied
Him: "thats a dinky toy engine, id never own anything with one that small"
And off he trotted in his rough running Vectra estate with an exhaust blowing laughing to himself
Me: I dont know , about 40-45
Him: Blimey is that all, what engine has it got , is it a 2.0?
No a 1.6 I replied
Him: "thats a dinky toy engine, id never own anything with one that small"
And off he trotted in his rough running Vectra estate with an exhaust blowing laughing to himself
Roger Irrelevant said:
Willy Nilly said:
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.
There's got to be a typo there hasn't there? Off the top of my head I seem to remember that the 205 1.9 GTI made about 130bhp, so a bit under 70bhp/litre, and that wasn't a particularly highly-strung engine in the mid 80s (i.e. over thirty years ago). I don't want to get into a semantic argument but surely it has been quite a long time since 100hp required a 2l engine?Roger Irrelevant said:
Willy Nilly said:
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.
There's got to be a typo there hasn't there? Off the top of my head I seem to remember that the 205 1.9 GTI made about 130bhp, so a bit under 70bhp/litre, and that wasn't a particularly highly-strung engine in the mid 80s (i.e. over thirty years ago). I don't want to get into a semantic argument but surely it has been quite a long time since 100hp required a 2l engine?DonkeyApple said:
Roger Irrelevant said:
Willy Nilly said:
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.
There's got to be a typo there hasn't there? Off the top of my head I seem to remember that the 205 1.9 GTI made about 130bhp, so a bit under 70bhp/litre, and that wasn't a particularly highly-strung engine in the mid 80s (i.e. over thirty years ago). I don't want to get into a semantic argument but surely it has been quite a long time since 100hp required a 2l engine?CABC said:
a few rants developing here.
WN, of course technology is important which is why a modern Euro V8 is 'better' than a lazy, dirty old yank V8.
but for a given technological era displacement brings more torque, power and flexibility for tuning.
the buzzy little 1L turbos are now fully discredited as emission reg dodges and a 1.5L is probably more suited (with latest tech even a turbo of course).
OP has a point. tiny engines with turbos focussed on emissions are horrible. out of puff by 3.5k revs and worse real mpg.
Down on the farm there's been arguments about 4 cylinder engines v 6 at certain power ratings. It was 100hp, then 120, now 150hp+. WN, of course technology is important which is why a modern Euro V8 is 'better' than a lazy, dirty old yank V8.
but for a given technological era displacement brings more torque, power and flexibility for tuning.
the buzzy little 1L turbos are now fully discredited as emission reg dodges and a 1.5L is probably more suited (with latest tech even a turbo of course).
OP has a point. tiny engines with turbos focussed on emissions are horrible. out of puff by 3.5k revs and worse real mpg.
A while ago someone posted the dyno test results from 2 similar powered modes of different brands, one 4 and the other 6. The smaller engine was performing better right across the power range (these engines are bought on a power rating) right down to 1,200rpm when the 6 cylinder engine fell on it's face. Roughly speaking, there are generally families of engines that have 3, 4 and 6 cylinder versions, so roughly speaking, the 4 cylinder engine will have 2rds of the displacement of a 6 cylinder, even when you're comparing competitors.
Deere had a model that in the US used their 8.1 litre and the models exported the Europe had their 6.8. The 6.8 had slightly more power at sightly lower revs, slightly more torque at again slightly, lower revs and slightly better specific fuel consumption, but aside from that, the 8.1 was better...
TwistingMyMelon said:
Bloke stopped me in Aldi car park and asked "err mate how many miles does that do to the gallon"
Me: I dont know , about 40-45
Him: Blimey is that all, what engine has it got , is it a 2.0?
No a 1.6 I replied
Him: "thats a dinky toy engine, id never own anything with one that small"
And off he trotted in his rough running Vectra estate with an exhaust blowing laughing to himself
What an odd little story.Me: I dont know , about 40-45
Him: Blimey is that all, what engine has it got , is it a 2.0?
No a 1.6 I replied
Him: "thats a dinky toy engine, id never own anything with one that small"
And off he trotted in his rough running Vectra estate with an exhaust blowing laughing to himself
TopTrump said:
TwistingMyMelon said:
Bloke stopped me in Aldi car park and asked "err mate how many miles does that do to the gallon"
Me: I dont know , about 40-45
Him: Blimey is that all, what engine has it got , is it a 2.0?
No a 1.6 I replied
Him: "thats a dinky toy engine, id never own anything with one that small"
And off he trotted in his rough running Vectra estate with an exhaust blowing laughing to himself
What an odd little story.Me: I dont know , about 40-45
Him: Blimey is that all, what engine has it got , is it a 2.0?
No a 1.6 I replied
Him: "thats a dinky toy engine, id never own anything with one that small"
And off he trotted in his rough running Vectra estate with an exhaust blowing laughing to himself
Ares said:
TopTrump said:
TwistingMyMelon said:
Bloke stopped me in Aldi car park and asked "err mate how many miles does that do to the gallon"
Me: I dont know , about 40-45
Him: Blimey is that all, what engine has it got , is it a 2.0?
No a 1.6 I replied
Him: "thats a dinky toy engine, id never own anything with one that small"
And off he trotted in his rough running Vectra estate with an exhaust blowing laughing to himself
Had me stumped the conversation tbh, the bloke was like the odd uncle type from a sitcomMe: I dont know , about 40-45
Him: Blimey is that all, what engine has it got , is it a 2.0?
No a 1.6 I replied
Him: "thats a dinky toy engine, id never own anything with one that small"
And off he trotted in his rough running Vectra estate with an exhaust blowing laughing to himself
What an odd little story.
volvos60s60 said:
but I for one lament the days when some old 'geezer' in the house opposite was tinkering with his Triumph Stag or XJ6 on a Sunday afternoon so he could get to work on Monday.
I bet the "old Geezer" now gets in something that starts, doesnt overheat and does decent MPG and is thankful he doesn't have to mess about with shonky old toss like a Stag, lovely looking though they were, they were hard work to own, A guy I knew had one, jacked it up, put it on axle stands about to go under it and the axle stands went through the floor as he went to get his tools.I have done all that, its miserable having a car that needs constant attention just to do its job.
jagnet said:
Compromising driving purity? Given that all of the cars under discussion weigh well over a tonne, are designed to carry multiple passengers and their shopping, whilst providing a reasonably comfortable ride, and lasting several hundred thousand miles in the careless hands of most owners, that driving experience is already severely compromised.
Small capacity turbo engine compromising the purity of the driving experience:
Keeping it normally aspirated, for the genuine driving enthusiast's uncompromising approach:
Well done for coming up with that comparison that exemplifies your argument.Small capacity turbo engine compromising the purity of the driving experience:
Keeping it normally aspirated, for the genuine driving enthusiast's uncompromising approach:
However, there's far more examples of the reverse though, isn't there ?
I think there's a healthy dose of sour grapes on both sides being demonstrated here.
I think there's a sensible middle ground in there somewhere, where there's a car/engine combo to cater for all.
And let's be honest, we're all going to be driving characterless electric fun vacuums soon, anyway....
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff