Can't stand all these buzzy little engines these days
Discussion
Quickben said:
I think there's a sensible middle ground in there somewhere, where there's a car/engine combo to cater for all.
As there always has been. Family cars with wheezy asthmatic engines for a to b transport have always existed so I'm not sure what point the OP is trying to make. Turbo charging means that their displacement has reduced but they still provide more power with greater fuel efficiency and better reliability than those in days gone by.FI engines now mean that we can enjoy cars with power outputs far beyond what they have any right to have. In the space of just 30 years you can now have an everyday 4 cylinder hatchback with the same power and flexibility from the engine as my 5.3l V12 XJS whilst returning similar fuel economy to my Mk1 Golf 1.6 - how is that not anything other than a fantastic engineering development?
Ares said:
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?Also, I'm not the one talking about how all modern engines are no good, they are too small and I want a big V8 or I'll run off and tell my mum. I'll take the modern engine every time.
Lester H said:
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.
DonkeyApple said:
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.
In the past, big V8's would have been fitted to cars because that was what was required to get the power the manufacturer needed or wanted. Now 300hp appears to be available in a 2.0 litre Golf, which is a staggering figure really. The economy will be a by-product of making the engines better, why wouldn't you want more power AND use less fuel? 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.
TooMany2cvs said:
volvos60s60 said:
I just wanted to articulate some irritation I have that most cars these days seem to have these buzzy little sub 1600cc engines, often turbocharged to cover their size deficiencies
Yeh, it was so much better back in the 70s and 80s when yer standard-issue repmobile Cortina or Sierra was 1600 (or even 1300), yer standard Escort 1300 (or even 1100), yer average Fiesta 1100 (or even 950)...Oh, hold on...
Lester H said:
Yes - and the smaller engined variants could be tedious- but the cars were remarkably light in comparison with current bloated offerings.
And the modern engines are more powerful and cleaner, and the cars considerably safer. Equivalent sized cars are not that much heavier, just most cars are now physically much larger for a given class.Willy Nilly said:
In the past, big V8's would have been fitted to cars because that was what was required to get the power the manufacturer needed or wanted. Now 300hp appears to be available in a 2.0 litre Golf, which is a staggering figure really. The economy will be a by-product of making the engines better, why wouldn't you want more power AND use less fuel?
This is nominally wrong. In the past, cars that had V8's had them because the manufacturer wanted to make a car that had a V8, in turn, because customers wanted a car that had a V8. Or a V6, or a V12, or a flat 6 etc.
Not because they wanted a particular power figure and had to add cylinders to achieve it. Basically, customers still had a bit of passion regarding the engine in their performance cars.
Now, it seems, nobody cares, just as long the the Power Unit produces enough power to suit their requirements.
Quickben said:
This is nominally wrong.
In the past, cars that had V8's had them because the manufacturer wanted to make a car that had a V8, in turn, because customers wanted a car that had a V8. Or a V6, or a V12, or a flat 6 etc.
Not because they wanted a particular power figure and had to add cylinders to achieve it. Basically, customers still had a bit of passion regarding the engine in their performance cars.
Now, it seems, nobody cares, just as long the the Power Unit produces enough power to suit their requirements.
No, there are practical limits to piston size and bore to stroke ratios in automotive engines which means that the only way to increase power through increased engine displacement is to add more cylinders. That's why you don't generally see 4 cylinder engines larger than ~2.5 litres, 6 cylinders below 2 litres and above ~3.5 litres, 8 cylinders below 3 litres and above ~6 litres. In the past, cars that had V8's had them because the manufacturer wanted to make a car that had a V8, in turn, because customers wanted a car that had a V8. Or a V6, or a V12, or a flat 6 etc.
Not because they wanted a particular power figure and had to add cylinders to achieve it. Basically, customers still had a bit of passion regarding the engine in their performance cars.
Now, it seems, nobody cares, just as long the the Power Unit produces enough power to suit their requirements.
The more I think about it, the more it bothers me, actually.
Why do we buy performance cars ?
Is it so we can get from A to B quicker ? No, obviously, because speed limits dictate journeys times, not a car's performance.
Bragging rights ? Personally, no. Those types of people are generally cretins.
Excitement ? Yes. Otherwise, what's the point ?
So what makes a car exciting ? How it looks, how it handles, the feel through the controls, how it accelerates, a special engine and how that engine sounds.
Manufacturers try to cater for those criteria in various ways. And largely, succeeding, over and over again. Apart from in the sound department. There's only a handful not jumping on the modern turbo/downsizing bandwagon.
Modern turbo engines sound dull compared to an equivalent NA engine or even older generation turbo engines. There's no induction noise to speak of. It's all exhaust noise. And even that is muted in comparison.
So you're actually getting less for your money. You used to get enhanced handling, good looks, greater performance AND some oral drama and sophistication. Now you're short changed as far as the exotic engine is concerned.
For an example, the Golf R. You used to get a beautiful sounding narrow angle V6 that loved to rev. Now you're accepting a less characterful normal engine. Yes it's a faster car for it. But it's only an incremental improvement, in reality.
And this is because of the emissions con and the fact that we as customers are settling for less, basically.
And that's a shame.
Why do we buy performance cars ?
Is it so we can get from A to B quicker ? No, obviously, because speed limits dictate journeys times, not a car's performance.
Bragging rights ? Personally, no. Those types of people are generally cretins.
Excitement ? Yes. Otherwise, what's the point ?
So what makes a car exciting ? How it looks, how it handles, the feel through the controls, how it accelerates, a special engine and how that engine sounds.
Manufacturers try to cater for those criteria in various ways. And largely, succeeding, over and over again. Apart from in the sound department. There's only a handful not jumping on the modern turbo/downsizing bandwagon.
Modern turbo engines sound dull compared to an equivalent NA engine or even older generation turbo engines. There's no induction noise to speak of. It's all exhaust noise. And even that is muted in comparison.
So you're actually getting less for your money. You used to get enhanced handling, good looks, greater performance AND some oral drama and sophistication. Now you're short changed as far as the exotic engine is concerned.
For an example, the Golf R. You used to get a beautiful sounding narrow angle V6 that loved to rev. Now you're accepting a less characterful normal engine. Yes it's a faster car for it. But it's only an incremental improvement, in reality.
And this is because of the emissions con and the fact that we as customers are settling for less, basically.
And that's a shame.
Edited by Quickben on Wednesday 31st October 06:50
jagnet said:
No, there are practical limits to piston size and bore to stroke ratios in automotive engines which means that the only way to increase power through increased engine displacement is to add more cylinders. That's why you don't generally see 4 cylinder engines larger than ~2.5 litres, 6 cylinders below 2 litres and above ~3.5 litres, 8 cylinders below 3 litres and above ~6 litres.
You're missing my point. Willy Nilly said:
In the past, big V8's would have been fitted to cars because that was what was required to get the power the manufacturer needed or wanted. Now 300hp appears to be available in a 2.0 litre Golf, which is a staggering figure really. The economy will be a by-product of making the engines better, why wouldn't you want more power AND use less fuel?
Absolutely. I’m merely lamenting the modern phenomenon of someone buying a 500 bhp, £70/£80+ car and then wasting their life even concerning themselves for one iota in regards to the matter of economy. You’ve bought such a product purely for fun, not due to any kind of economic prudence. Just pour into it whatever it asks and never give a damn about the cost because if you’ve bought a 500bhp £70/£80k+ toy then the cost to run it is an utter irrelevance. Rawwr said:
Buzzy little engines have their place.
They definitely do. The issue is when the car is just better suited to a larger cc engine as opposed to a smaller one with a turbo added in an attempt to synthesise what has been taken away by the accountants as it never really works. I think I mentioned it in this thread or maybe another that when the engineers are left to add turbos or build a super small engine you can get some wonderful and even insane products. But today it’s mostly accountants and tax consultants who are making the decisions and the engineers are having to patch in bodges to try and get back what has been taken away through cost and tax efficiencies. Many buzzy little engines and many V6 units exist today not because they are the best engineering solution or because they offer more fun or a better experience but because of tax.
DonkeyApple said:
They definitely do. The issue is when the car is just better suited to a larger cc engine as opposed to a smaller one with a turbo added in an attempt to synthesise what has been taken away by the accountants as it never really works.
I think I mentioned it in this thread or maybe another that when the engineers are left to add turbos or build a super small engine you can get some wonderful and even insane products. But today it’s mostly accountants and tax consultants who are making the decisions and the engineers are having to patch in bodges to try and get back what has been taken away through cost and tax efficiencies. Many buzzy little engines and many V6 units exist today not because they are the best engineering solution or because they offer more fun or a better experience but because of tax.
I'm going to disagree. I'm not going to argue because I can tell you're quite... passionate... about this subject. I'm just going to disagree and move on to another thread I think I mentioned it in this thread or maybe another that when the engineers are left to add turbos or build a super small engine you can get some wonderful and even insane products. But today it’s mostly accountants and tax consultants who are making the decisions and the engineers are having to patch in bodges to try and get back what has been taken away through cost and tax efficiencies. Many buzzy little engines and many V6 units exist today not because they are the best engineering solution or because they offer more fun or a better experience but because of tax.
edd344 said:
Oh no, its such a shame that you can pull 400bhp from a 2.5L engine. Who would want a turbo that increases performance while decreasing fuel consumption and emissions, when you can have a 5L fuel guzzler...
Many. There is something wonderful about about how instant the throttle is with a decent modern V8, and let's not forget the soundtrack it can come with too.
Show me a forced induction 6 cyl that wants to rev like you get with a NA BMW N52, plus again the aural pleasure as you get passed 4000rpm through to the redline.
I love some of the new turbo petrols, but they are so, so different drive wise to the NA engines we have had before, for me they make every day driving effortless, which is great, but the problem is for me is the lack of reward when going for a back road blast, it just isn't the same. You don't need to match the revs anywhere near as much as the power is pretty much there no matter what.
Cost saving is also nonsense when buying a new car, the difference between a modern 6 cylinder and a highly tuned 4cyl turbo is negligible. As overall ownership costs you will be saving about 2% if you do 12k miles year.
The problem is people twofold, people not buying the right tool for the job and we soon get used to what we have and forget how great the other is.
I went away from my 6cyl E350 petrol estate 4 months ago now, I got back into a 530d Touring as I was let down on the 535i I was meant to be buying.
For the first few weeks I will be honest I hated it, the power delivery, the constant diesel thrum, the lack of revs and the crap sound.
I then bought another ML270cdi as a second car/van. Now when I jump in the 530d it feels like a super smooth, ultra refined waft machine that I do genuinely love.
I have forgotten just how much nicer a petrol is to live with and within a few weeks I would be happy getting into a newer diesel.
We get used to these things pretty quickly and we like them, it doesn't mean the alternatives are not nicer though.
gizlaroc said:
There is something wonderful about about how instant the throttle is with a decent modern V8, and let's not forget the soundtrack it can come with too.
Show me a forced induction 6 cyl that wants to rev like you get with a NA BMW N52, plus again the aural pleasure as you get passed 4000rpm through to the redline.
I loved the N62 V8 in my X5 4.8iS and it was silky smooth and it made a lovely noise(massively thirsty in that application though). Less so in a 5 or 6 series. Show me a forced induction 6 cyl that wants to rev like you get with a NA BMW N52, plus again the aural pleasure as you get passed 4000rpm through to the redline.
I also liked the smoothness of the N52 in my E90 330i, but I did find it incredibly muted from both inside the cabin and from the exhaust sadly.
I'm pleased I got to experience both engines but for me neither were great on fuel, but when both cars launched it wouldn't have been an issue, because petrol was a fair bit cheaper back then.
I remember when I had my 2.9 Xr4x4 25 years ago, and I never considered how much fuel went in it because it was so cheap back then. We get ripped off with fuel now, so it has become more of a consideration I reckon.
gizlaroc said:
edd344 said:
Oh no, its such a shame that you can pull 400bhp from a 2.5L engine. Who would want a turbo that increases performance while decreasing fuel consumption and emissions, when you can have a 5L fuel guzzler...
Many. There is something wonderful about about how instant the throttle is with a decent modern V8, and let's not forget the soundtrack it can come with too.
Show me a forced induction 6 cyl that wants to rev like you get with a NA BMW N52, plus again the aural pleasure as you get passed 4000rpm through to the redline.
I love some of the new turbo petrols, but they are so, so different drive wise to the NA engines we have had before, for me they make every day driving effortless, which is great, but the problem is for me is the lack of reward when going for a back road blast, it just isn't the same. You don't need to match the revs anywhere near as much as the power is pretty much there no matter what.
Cost saving is also nonsense when buying a new car, the difference between a modern 6 cylinder and a highly tuned 4cyl turbo is negligible. As overall ownership costs you will be saving about 2% if you do 12k miles year.
The problem is people twofold, people not buying the right tool for the job and we soon get used to what we have and forget how great the other is.
I went away from my 6cyl E350 petrol estate 4 months ago now, I got back into a 530d Touring as I was let down on the 535i I was meant to be buying.
For the first few weeks I will be honest I hated it, the power delivery, the constant diesel thrum, the lack of revs and the crap sound.
I then bought another ML270cdi as a second car/van. Now when I jump in the 530d it feels like a super smooth, ultra refined waft machine that I do genuinely love.
I have forgotten just how much nicer a petrol is to live with and within a few weeks I would be happy getting into a newer diesel.
We get used to these things pretty quickly and we like them, it doesn't mean the alternatives are not nicer though.
ecsrobin said:
I have a 1.4 turbo (180bhp) and over 2 years my average is 37/38mpg. On a long run from Hampshire to Devon I got over 50mpg however that’s soon boring so I like to drop the mpg down. That’s running Vpower.
That's good going then.The most I've had from one is about 40mpg, most average around high 30s at best.
The last Mokka (1.4T) I had struggled to get 35mpg
Much rather have a bigger diesel engine for the trip. At least the 2L Mondeos get over 50mpg on the same run
edd344 said:
but my point is that the OP seems to be moaning about people choosing to use more reliable engine methods with MUCH better outputs, than keeping it "old school" when there is really no need to.. Theres a reason merc use a 4L rather than a 6.2L engine in the c63 and it goes back to my comments, better BSFC, better emissions and still higher power output....
moderns give higher numbers but the way they deliver them is not very sporting. engineers focus on marketing and emissions.tool for the job: torquey turbo for daily, high revving NA with faster throttle response throughout for a sports car.
there is a reason why Merc went to a 4L in the c63, but fun wasn't one of them. that said, putting a turbo on 4 litres is much more fun than a 1L as there's more displacement to provide smoothness and rev range.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff