Can't stand all these buzzy little engines these days
Discussion
I know, let's add a large, heavy, noise-making lump of iron to the front of the vehicle. We don't want passenger space, handling, light, cheap subframes/fuel tanks/brakes, or quietness?
Said no engineer ever.
I can see the frustration but you really do consider it reasonable to want everyone else to have objectively worse cars, on most metrics, for your amusement?
I find it especially weird, in this country, where genuinely raw, low-volume, focused cars are relatively easy to build and get on the roads. If you really wanted something that was unapologetically an engine plus a chassis, you could get it plus a decent daily driver for less than the cost of a golf R, let alone an M3.
So why aren't you?
Said no engineer ever.
I can see the frustration but you really do consider it reasonable to want everyone else to have objectively worse cars, on most metrics, for your amusement?
I find it especially weird, in this country, where genuinely raw, low-volume, focused cars are relatively easy to build and get on the roads. If you really wanted something that was unapologetically an engine plus a chassis, you could get it plus a decent daily driver for less than the cost of a golf R, let alone an M3.
So why aren't you?
Edited by paranoid airbag on Sunday 21st January 13:51
Not read the whole blog, but the notion of small engines being crap is now the stuff of ignorance. Big heavy engines are outdated.
I get asked loads of times what size engine my car has. When I say it has a 2.9l engine most seem underwhelmed "Thought it would be faster". For most, even being told it has over 500bhp doesn't make a difference.
I get asked loads of times what size engine my car has. When I say it has a 2.9l engine most seem underwhelmed "Thought it would be faster". For most, even being told it has over 500bhp doesn't make a difference.
Red 4 said:
ging84 said:
is this thread yearning for the days when you could get a 90hp 1.6 zetec mondeo ?
Not really.Deleting a piston and adding a turbo doesn't sit well with me though.
I just can't see these cars coping well with increasing miles.
I remember back in 1991 I was worried about replacing my 1.8 (112bhp) Scirocco GTX with a 1.3 (100bhp) Swift GTI as I thought the latter would be too stressed to handle miles. I needn't have worried I put 120k hard miles on it and it never missed a beat. The engine was an absolute peach and loved revs 
Bike engines seem to be generally reliable despite operating at really high revs and getting circa 200bhp out of 1,000cc.
Bike engines seem to be generally reliable despite operating at really high revs and getting circa 200bhp out of 1,000cc.
Edited by cuprabob on Sunday 21st January 15:21
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.
Red 4 said:
ging84 said:
is this thread yearning for the days when you could get a 90hp 1.6 zetec mondeo ?
Not really.Deleting a piston and adding a turbo doesn't sit well with me though.
I just can't see these cars coping well with increasing miles.
It has been designed from the ground up to cope with it, am manufacturing tolerances are much better than back in the day, remember 1256 Chevettes with clattering cranks as it only had three main bearings, remember Fiestas with Kent Engines making 60 bhp on a good day clattering their tits off or gutless Endura E engines, go and drive a non turbo Fiesta like the one we got as a loaner when ours was in, it felt utterly pathetic, like it was broken.
Loads of Ecoboosts on 100k plus now, ours is remapped and seems fine, uses no oil, its not especially economical but it goes well and isnt too bad, I had to pick my wife up last night and gave it some stick on empty roads, plenty fast enough for a bit of fun, and it can mix it on the motorway with anything, it still pulls at motorway speeds so you dont get frustrated.
I think the OP has a point that at the top end of the scale 5-6 litre engines are being replaced with 4 litre turbos, which has pros and cons. That said he is forgetting that for the average motorist before the emergence of first TDI engines and now mainstream turbocharged petrols their day to day car had a gutless wheezing 1.6 - 2.0 four pot that did well to turn out more than 120bhp and return 30mpg doing it.
These fondly remembered 2.0 Mondeos were s
t, you'd have to have small burrowing creatures living in your brain to prefer a mainstream engine from 20 years ago to the torque monster turbos producing 50 - 100% more power that we have now. I even prefer the sound of a 3 pot to the drone of an ordinary 4.
These new breed of petrol engines are also helping to stamp out the noise and stink of diesels, and for that we should be very grateful.
These fondly remembered 2.0 Mondeos were s
t, you'd have to have small burrowing creatures living in your brain to prefer a mainstream engine from 20 years ago to the torque monster turbos producing 50 - 100% more power that we have now. I even prefer the sound of a 3 pot to the drone of an ordinary 4.These new breed of petrol engines are also helping to stamp out the noise and stink of diesels, and for that we should be very grateful.
Edited by dme123 on Sunday 21st January 15:30
Don't know what was in the corsa we hired last year but it was unnessecarily gutless .
Mind, you miss the worst aspect, when you do hear something interesting approaching you turn around and more often than not it's been emasculated by condemning it to lug the several ton of offroad ability that's seemingly vital for the half mile school run in wealthy suburbs today.
Mind, you miss the worst aspect, when you do hear something interesting approaching you turn around and more often than not it's been emasculated by condemning it to lug the several ton of offroad ability that's seemingly vital for the half mile school run in wealthy suburbs today.
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? Red 4 said:
If you're happy driving 'round in your leased 1.0 Audi A1 and giving it back after 3 years,so be it.
Method of payment is irrelevant, Lease/PCP simply spreads depreciation and other costs monthly over the length of the agreement, it doesn't make you a better or worse person and certainly has NIL influence on reliability of the engine. If you buy a new car and sell it after three years whilst doing a PCP on exactly the same model and driving them both the same miles they will cost almost exactly the same over that period, are you a better person because you pay for it up front?Red 4 said:
But I buy my cars with cash and keep them.
I want reliabiity, performance and longevity and the options are becoming more limited.
Are they?I want reliabiity, performance and longevity and the options are becoming more limited.
What models of car have downsized their engines and become less reliable? Can you quote the source to substantiate that?
Red 4 said:
You misunderstand.
Big engine plus turbo = good.
Small, weedy, 3 cylinder that needs a turbo to actually move = bad.
Turbo adds heat, plumbing, stress = bad for longevity.
I'm sticking N/A, DI, variable thingies, quad wotsits, unstressed.
F.I. can F.O.
Why do you think big engines are under any less stress than a small one? They will be designed to develop x amount of power and be fitted with components that can deal with that. Bentley did a 6.5 litre engine that only developed 147hp back in the day. Do you think that would be any more durable, more economical or better to drive than a 1.0 litre Ecoboost at the same power rating? I doubt it. Big engine plus turbo = good.
Small, weedy, 3 cylinder that needs a turbo to actually move = bad.
Turbo adds heat, plumbing, stress = bad for longevity.
I'm sticking N/A, DI, variable thingies, quad wotsits, unstressed.
F.I. can F.O.
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 cuprabob said:
Bike engines seem to be generally reliable despite operating at really high revs and getting circa 200bhp out of 1,000cc.
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.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff