Can't stand all these buzzy little engines these days
Discussion
CABC said:
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.
Of course we focus on marketing and emissions, these are targets we get set and meeting them, well, its what keeps us our jobs... I find it hard to believe that the throttle response is considerably noticeable but like I previously have said I've no experience with high performance NA engines as the HP cars I've driven all have had a turbo or SC of some sort.. svr g63 s3 rs3 135i a45 c63.. so I can't really comment too much on throttle response.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.
edd344 said:
Of course we focus on marketing and emissions, these are targets we get set and meeting them, well, its what keeps us our jobs... I find it hard to believe that the throttle response is considerably noticeable but like I previously have said I've no experience with high performance NA engines as the HP cars I've driven all have had a turbo or SC of some sort.. svr g63 s3 rs3 135i a45 c63.. so I can't really comment too much on throttle response.
Like you, I find it hard to believe too. I think modern technology has addressed throttle response on petrol turbos to the point where, short of a back to back comparison with an equivalent NA engine, under very specific conditions, you would never actually notice a difference. Modern turbocharged engines are very different things to those of even 10 years ago. Throttling engines by intake valve lift rather than a throttle plate, variable geometry turbos fed by separate, discrete groups of cylinders, higher compression ratios and all manner of other things that would have seemed like sci-fi not that long ago. edd344 said:
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....
Yeah, they are chasing figures. Power figures, emissions figures, mpg figures etc. etc.
However, for the first time in the history of ICE many feel we are no longer moving forward when it comes to building engines that stir the soul.
Sure they maybe faster, cleaner and far more effortless to drive, but does that make them better for me as an owner? Not for me,I am finding most stuff pretty dull once the novelty of it being new has worn off.
Limpet said:
edd344 said:
Of course we focus on marketing and emissions, these are targets we get set and meeting them, well, its what keeps us our jobs... I find it hard to believe that the throttle response is considerably noticeable but like I previously have said I've no experience with high performance NA engines as the HP cars I've driven all have had a turbo or SC of some sort.. svr g63 s3 rs3 135i a45 c63.. so I can't really comment too much on throttle response.
Like you, I find it hard to believe too. I think modern technology has addressed throttle response on petrol turbos to the point where, short of a back to back comparison with an equivalent NA engine, under very specific conditions, you would never actually notice a difference. Modern turbocharged engines are very different things to those of even 10 years ago. Throttling engines by intake valve lift rather than a throttle plate, variable geometry turbos fed by separate, discrete groups of cylinders, higher compression ratios and all manner of other things that would have seemed like sci-fi not that long ago. CABC said:
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.
Turbocharged engines don't have to be 'less sporting'.
DonkeyApple said:
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. 
One of modern life's mysteries
I was really close to pulling the trigger
on an FN2 Type R before I bought my car but didn't think I'd stomach the running costs and couldn't see the point in pottering around in a 200hp hot hatch, so bought a car that was really economical when pottering about instead of bearable. Edited by Willy Nilly on Wednesday 31st October 17:32
DonkeyApple said:
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.
You don't need to spend anywhere near that with the remap capabilities these days. You're also forgetting a lot of people buy these cars on pcp where they are maxing out their budgets because they prefer to drive a nicer car over other luxuries, so in reality a lot of people do care about the extra costs that come with cars like these.Willy Nilly said:
That said, I think the 1.0 litre engine in the Mondeo is 125hp, which is probably at the lower end of what is acceptable in a car that size, but would probably be fine as a town bound taxi. Shame they don't offer the engines they put in that car in the US here as the performance option.
What engines do you think the Americans get in the Fusion (Mondeo) exactly? If anything we have more choice. Over here, we can get a 1.0T, 1.5T, 2.0T or a 1.5 or 2.0 TDCi in a Mondeo, the "performance" option as you say over there is the 1.5 or 2.0 Ecoboost, same as what we get. Base engine is a 2.5 NA I4 I think with about 175bhp, does around 30mpg. Hardly impressive! To be fair, I think they did a Fusion Sport briefly with a 300bhp+ 2.7 V6 Turbo but hardly anyone bought it or the Fusion for that matter, which is why Ford are discontinuing all of their "cars' in North America, apart from the Mustang.It's not uncommon for some models to have only one engine option over there. Case in point, the Fiesta and Focus (which are still the "old" models, as the new ones will not be available over there) get a 1.6 NA with around 120bhp and a 2.0 NA with 160bhp respectively paired with the awful Powersh*** transmission. Pretty average power and fuel economy. "Economy" cars in America just get the cheapest acceptable engine that they can put in them. Specific power and fuel economy is not a priority.
The ubiquity of NA V8s in American market vehicles is also a bit of a myth. If you want a full-size pickup truck or muscle car then sure but the only Fords that you can get a V8 in are the Mustang and F150 and Escalade aside, I don't think that you can get a V8 in a Lincoln or Cadillac anymore. It'll either be an NA V6 or V6 TT. You'll also struggle to find a recent 3er/5er/C-Class/A4/A5 that doesn't have a 4 cylinder turbo engine. There aren't any additional engine options that we don't get here and if anything, the more "special" engines are even harder to find than they are here.
The American market is very late to the party with "downsized" petrol engines and even a few diesels are creeping on to the market from the likes of Chevrolet/GMC. I would say they're about 10 years behind Europe in terms of ICE technology and the fact that they consider 15-20mpg in a V8 pickup truck to be pretty good is laughable! Ford offer only one V8 engine in the F150 and the V6 Ecoboost engines are far more impressive in terms of performance and efficiency (and the 3.5 V6 Ecoboost monsters the 5.0 NA V8 for torque and towing capability) but it's a "hard sell" in the very traditional North American pickup market.
Sure I bemoan the loss of the "special" NA big-capacity BMW M engines, NA Flat 6 Porsche engines and NA 6.2 AMG V8 (mainly for the noise) but in many ways, the M3 has returned to its roots with a straight six and the RS4 with a V6 TT etc. but why are we not celebrating that you can get a 1.0 Fiesta with 140bhp?
When I bought my first car 20 years ago, the choice was between a 1.3 Fiesta (60bhp), a 1.4 Astra (60bhp) or a 1.8 Cavalier (90bhp). The most potent 1.0 Ecoboost Fiesta has around 50% more power than the range-topping 1980s XR2 got out of an NA 1.6 and is probably around 50% more economical than the old NA 1.3 despite being a heavier car too. Progress in petrol engine technology was a little slow between about the mid-90s and mid-2000s but what has been achieved in the last 10-15 years with petrol engine performance and efficiency is pretty amazing. I ran turbodiesel company cars back in the day (around 10 years ago) and liked them compared to the "limp" and thirsty petrol offerings available at the time but the last diesel I drove (a 1.5 diesel Focus hire car) was pretty rough, had a very narrow powerband and only averaged about 5mpg better than the far more pleasant to drive small capacity turbo petrols that I have driven, so I don't see the point of a 4-pot diesel any more.
Out of interest, is Mazda the only manufacturer going against the trend and sticking with NA petrol engines? This surprises me, as they've dabbled with turbocharging in the past (one would have expected Honda to stick with NA and VTEC for longer than Mazda). They're good to drive but don't seem to offer much in the way of performance and 120bhp seems a bit pathetic for a 2 litre petrol but some people are saying that's a good thing? The 2 litre MX5 puts out a lot more than that and if it was an American 4.0 V6 with 240bhp or a 5.0 V8 with 300bhp (same specific power), people would quite rightly be saying that was pretty poor power for that size of engine.
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?
You're assuming that fuel consumption important. If you have to save money on fuel by all means get a diesel or a 4 pot petrol. If you don't then surely you'd get the smoothest, most sonorous engine possible.
In the past I had a fuel card and the answer was always "V8". I don't have a fuel card now but do under 4k a year. So the answer is still "V8".
My neigbour over the road is in a similar position. His answer is "two V8's with superchargers".
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff