Is the engine the most important part of the car for you?

[Le Controleur Horizontal]

V8RX7 said:

No.

I've had good fun in cars with quite unremarkable engines - 1.8 4 cylinder Golf GTi for example

However I wouldn't buy a diesel nor anything below 1.6 because I know I wouldn't enjoy it.

A good V8 in a poor chassis - USA pick up for example, is fun, short term.

A car that's fun to thrash doesn't have to have a great engine - eg MX5 Mk1 but it would be better if it had a V6, V8 or Vtec

You would not enjoy an AX Gt, a Lacia Fulvia etc etc ?....you do yourself a disservice.

[TurboHatchback]

No. A bad engine can ruin an otherwise good car but a car can still be great with a fairly mediocre engine.

I would say the gearbox is more important than the engine and the handling at least as important as either, a bad gearbox mated to a great engine is still bad but a good gearbox with an average engine is very enjoyable. Our 1.6 petrol Clio Mk3 has a fairly unremarkable motor but a nice short precise shift and light clutch so is a joy to drive. Likewise my MR2 roadster had a rather mundane engine but a lovely clutch and gearbox and handled superbly, it was probably my favourite drivers car to date.

Putting rattly little 4 cylinder diesels in big expensive luxury cars is nonsensical to me, it's like putting a turd on a cake. No matter how good the cake is it still has turd on it.

[Mr Tidy]

Well I think it must be for me.

I had an E46 325ti Sport Compact for over 3 years, but decided to get a more practical car last year so replaced it with an E91 325i Touring.

But I just never gelled with it, so a couple of months ago I replaced it with an E90 330i - what a difference.

While engine choice isn't the only consideration for me, when you want a manual gearbox and RWD there aren't too many options!

I had a test drive in a GT86 in 2014 and thought it drove really well, but 2 months later I ended up buying a BMW Z4 Coupe. Then 6 months later I got my Compact as a daily and the pair of them cost about 40% of the price I got quoted for a new GT86 - it really wasn't that good.

[Crippo]

The most important aspect of the car for me is feedback. I don’t care what powers it or how grippy it is. I want communication back from the wheels through the chassis and in to the steering wheel. This is usually provided by something light and basic.

[rayyan171]

In some cases, yes. Our A6 should have the 2.0TDI, which is basically the norm for these cars, paired with FWD, but we went very left field and bought the model with the supercharged V6 and the better quattro system. It certainly makes for a much nicer experience, no doubt smoother than the smaller 2.0T engine. Saying this, it was something that we wanted, not something that we needed. An A4 with a 1.4 would suffice completely, so long as it had the features that we mainly needed, that being an Automatic, heated seats and DAB, with anything else an additional benefit which only brings more pleasure.

I find it amusing that some of our mechanics have commented on just how fast it is, and they are ones who have had some fast metal themselves. Quite amusing that the car wash bloke found it alarming as well!

It wasn't that important for the X5 however, that was mainly needed for carrying many people at once, as well as having to be spacious, practical and have a good sense of luxury. We only chose the twin turbo diesel because it was apparently more reliable, was guaranteed the lower tax and it did make the car fast for a SUV at least. MPG differences were really marginal, they all get 24-25mpg average.

[anonymous-user]

Decent chassis, then engine.

[aeropilot]

rayyan171 said:

It wasn't that important for the X5 however, that was mainly needed for carrying many people at once, as well as having to be spacious, practical and have a good sense of luxury. We only chose the twin turbo diesel because it was apparently more reliable, was guaranteed the lower tax and it did make the car fast for a SUV at least. MPG differences were really marginal, they all get 24-25mpg average.

Is that a 40d X5?
If so, you must cane the arse off of it to only average 24-25mpg or only do lots of short journeys?
I average 30mpg in my 40d X5 and that's living in the outer London suburbs!

[Venisonpie]

Definitely. From my 20's when I had an E30 325i Sport followed by an E30 M3, the latter better in every way except the motor, but I have fonder memories of the 325. Best company car was a 530D which was dominated by the engine - much more car than the 4 cylinder stuff I'd had until then. The Tuscan engine was epic, the rest not quite up to the job but what an experience, the 981 Porsche was a largely inert steer but the engine was awesome at full chat.

Right now I'd take a Supra over a 718 on the engine alone even if it's not as sharp.

[andy43]

Yes.
What it needs to do (eg estate car, convertible etc), engine, design.
Last rubbish one was a Caddy diesel that would take 10 miles to warm up and sounded like a cement mixer while it was doing so - would have been so much better on petrol, even one of those gutless little 1.2 motors would have felt better despite being slower.

[V8RX7]

Le Controleur Horizontal said:

You would not enjoy an AX Gt, a Lacia Fulvia etc etc ?....you do yourself a disservice.

Having owned many 250+bhp cars I've recently downgraded to a Suzuki Swift - which is fun around the lanes but I do want a bit more power - but then my speeds increase, I suspect a AXGT could have a better power to weight but I haven't seen one for 20 years let alone driven one !

A Fulvia was to be my first car - but I couldn't insure it - I've never seen another - so again, it's hardly an issue.

[SidewaysSi]

I like a great sounding engine but it needs to have sufficient power to push the chassis on road.

Over the engine, for me steering feel (by some distance), damping and chassis, pedal positioning etc.

So many threads include how people are bored of driving. Having a powerful engine strapped to a car with a poorly engineering chassis etc is surely the recipe for that?

[anonymous-user]

SidewaysSi said:

So many threads include how people are bored of driving. Having a powerful engine strapped to a car with a poorly engineering chassis etc is surely the recipe for that?

What do you mean? Having a engine that's too powerful for the chassis its in may be many things, but boring is probably not one of them.

[aeropilot]

SidewaysSi said:

So many threads include how people are bored of driving. Having a powerful engine strapped to a car with a poorly engineering chassis etc is surely the recipe for that?

Depends.........can be a real hoot.

Some 35 years ago, I bought a cheapo stopgap car while undertaking some serious surgery on my RS2000....

It was Marina TC coupe, and it was a pile of poo..........way worse than anything cited by Clarkson and Co on TG in recent years. The B Series (MGB) engine was a torguey and robust enough lump of cast iron, but BL did nothing else to it at all. So, the Morris Minor gearbox that the Marina was equipped with was not up to the task (I only had the car 6 month and went through 2 gearboxes in that period!) and the suspension was the stuff of comedy along with the 145 section remoulds
BUT.......it was huge fun, oversteer and understeer could be had in equal amounts at any time all at a safe 15mph speed, so it was a great skills improvement tool, like driving everyday on an old fashioned skid pan

[Car-Matt]

I think it depends for me

I had a slightly modified fiesta I used as a track toy eventually a few years ago now, mk5 about 120 bhp, very good after some chassis mods, engine largely irrelevant as the steering, brakes, and gearchange were superb and it was a riot to drive on road and track.

If I went and bought a C63 AMG for example i'd buy it because it's all about the engine, i'd buy an M3 if i wanted the sharpest tool in the box overall.

Great thread.

I've also got a caterham track car currently with my dad, engine is almost irrelevant in this.

[The Li-ion King]

Shiv_P said:

For me yes. If a car has crap handling its still usable. If a car has unreliable engine then it's st

I had a Mercedes R350, the engine was dull, unless you ragged it in manual mode, I had been in 6 pot BMW diesels before that. The Merc had no end of faults with suspension and ABS, a 'downgrade' to a Nissan X Trail has worked out, half the insurance and running costs, and although not "premium", the Renault derived engine has enough poke and is quite entertaining on country lanes.

Am considering an X5 or Q7 next, but reliability is more important to me

[AC43]

I actually very nearly ordered a Golf VR6 purely on the basis of the engine. I was managing to ignore the quality problems at time, the nose-heaviness, the fact that the standard damping was a bit st and it would bottom out easily. And the utter disdain of my German colleagues whose general line was "if you can't afford a 6 pot 3 Series you really shouldn't bother".

Luckily my car allowance crept up which got me into a 200SX instead with a far better chassis (even if the engine was hardly inspiring to listen to).

FWIW my mat had both a Corrado 16V and VR6 and far preferred the handling of the 1.8. But he got shot of it and got into the 6 for the performance.

[rayyan171]

aeropilot said:

rayyan171 said:

It wasn't that important for the X5 however, that was mainly needed for carrying many people at once, as well as having to be spacious, practical and have a good sense of luxury. We only chose the twin turbo diesel because it was apparently more reliable, was guaranteed the lower tax and it did make the car fast for a SUV at least. MPG differences were really marginal, they all get 24-25mpg average.

Is that a 40d X5?
If so, you must cane the arse off of it to only average 24-25mpg or only do lots of short journeys?
I average 30mpg in my 40d X5 and that's living in the outer London suburbs!

Used for just about every trip, short runs, local motorway, motorway runs up and down the country, covers around 12k per year, in that ballpark at least.
More short journeys currently so showing a 23.1mpg average. 25mpg is bang on average for the pre-LCI X5 E70. Has the older ZF 6 speed instead of the 8 speed so likes to hold onto gears longer, probably helpful for overtaking but means that 3rd and 4th are commonly used around town. M57 engine is slightly older as well with a lower Euro class standard so that probably contributes to the lower consumption, it being older makes it not as efficient as the newer N57 in the 40d.

What is odd is country lanes, the car seems to like them and gives higher average MPG, once saw 26mpg and that was giving it some stick, probably to do with the car not having to accelerate moreso from standing starts, less effort needed on the move etc.

The pre-LCI was the 35d, badged as the 3.0sd until 2009. Apparently the 30d has a very slight difference in MPG, only about 1-2mpg better.

[Mr Tidy]

rayyan171 said:

aeropilot said:

rayyan171 said:

It wasn't that important for the X5 however, that was mainly needed for carrying many people at once, as well as having to be spacious, practical and have a good sense of luxury. We only chose the twin turbo diesel because it was apparently more reliable, was guaranteed the lower tax and it did make the car fast for a SUV at least. MPG differences were really marginal, they all get 24-25mpg average.

Is that a 40d X5?
If so, you must cane the arse off of it to only average 24-25mpg or only do lots of short journeys?
I average 30mpg in my 40d X5 and that's living in the outer London suburbs!

Used for just about every trip, short runs, local motorway, motorway runs up and down the country, covers around 12k per year, in that ballpark at least.
More short journeys currently so showing a 23.1mpg average. 25mpg is bang on average for the pre-LCI X5 E70. Has the older ZF 6 speed instead of the 8 speed so likes to hold onto gears longer, probably helpful for overtaking but means that 3rd and 4th are commonly used around town. M57 engine is slightly older as well with a lower Euro class standard so that probably contributes to the lower consumption, it being older makes it not as efficient as the newer N57 in the 40d.

What is odd is country lanes, the car seems to like them and gives higher average MPG, once saw 26mpg and that was giving it some stick, probably to do with the car not having to accelerate moreso from standing starts, less effort needed on the move etc.

The pre-LCI was the 35d, badged as the 3.0sd until 2009. Apparently the 30d has a very slight difference in MPG, only about 1-2mpg better.

So they aren't exactly economical then! My 3 litre Z4 Coupe is showing 33.2 mpg average on the OBC, and my E90 330i is showing 29.1 mpg!

It's not like an X5 has any exceptional on-road driving dynamics compared to my cars! So the dismal economy seems pretty appalling. What do you get for all that money? (Other than top-heavy handling)?

[rayyan171]

Mr Tidy said:

rayyan171 said:

aeropilot said:

rayyan171 said:

It wasn't that important for the X5 however, that was mainly needed for carrying many people at once, as well as having to be spacious, practical and have a good sense of luxury. We only chose the twin turbo diesel because it was apparently more reliable, was guaranteed the lower tax and it did make the car fast for a SUV at least. MPG differences were really marginal, they all get 24-25mpg average.

Is that a 40d X5?
If so, you must cane the arse off of it to only average 24-25mpg or only do lots of short journeys?
I average 30mpg in my 40d X5 and that's living in the outer London suburbs!

Used for just about every trip, short runs, local motorway, motorway runs up and down the country, covers around 12k per year, in that ballpark at least.
More short journeys currently so showing a 23.1mpg average. 25mpg is bang on average for the pre-LCI X5 E70. Has the older ZF 6 speed instead of the 8 speed so likes to hold onto gears longer, probably helpful for overtaking but means that 3rd and 4th are commonly used around town. M57 engine is slightly older as well with a lower Euro class standard so that probably contributes to the lower consumption, it being older makes it not as efficient as the newer N57 in the 40d.

What is odd is country lanes, the car seems to like them and gives higher average MPG, once saw 26mpg and that was giving it some stick, probably to do with the car not having to accelerate moreso from standing starts, less effort needed on the move etc.

The pre-LCI was the 35d, badged as the 3.0sd until 2009. Apparently the 30d has a very slight difference in MPG, only about 1-2mpg better.

So they aren't exactly economical then! My 3 litre Z4 Coupe is showing 33.2 mpg average on the OBC, and my E90 330i is showing 29.1 mpg!

It's not like an X5 has any exceptional on-road driving dynamics compared to my cars! So the dismal economy seems pretty appalling. What do you get for all that money? (Other than top-heavy handling)?

I don't think you have driven an X5. Honestly, these are the best value for money, but it depends entirely on the buyer. For all that money, you get:
-6.5s to 60 and a top speed of 150mph in a diesel SUV weighing 2 tonnes
-Rather exceptional on road driving dynamics, comparable to many of BMW's large saloons (again, you need to drive one to know)
-7 seats
-Heated leather front and rear
-Many options
-A decent diesel range of 550 miles from a 100L tank

There are very few cars today that can have all these values combined in one. Many reviews out there have praised the X5 for its handling characteristics, Mat Watson went on record complimenting how it handles like something that is much smaller than it is. Personally, it gives very good feedback through the steering wheel, you know exactly what all wheels are doing, and the turn in is solid, no understeer in my eyes. Our A6 should handle miles better on paper, with the 60/40 Torsen AWD system and a supercharged V6, as well as servotronic, but it simply is too light to be able to have real confidence in it when cornering. They really did crack the steering of the X5 well, there is very little roll.

Here's a good video of a X5 tearing up a country lane. I doubt a Range Rover could tackle this. My only complaint of the X5 is that it will never ever have Range Rover comfort from it's suspension setup, handling really is sacrificed for some comfort.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJiwZMUdl24&t=...

They are certainly no Z4, but it wasn't trying to be one in the first place. It tries to be a very well handling car for its class, and it certainly is.

[Mr Tidy]

rayyan171 said:

I don't think you have driven an X5. Honestly, these are the best value for money, but it depends entirely on the buyer. For all that money, you get:
-6.5s to 60 and a top speed of 150mph in a diesel SUV weighing 2 tonnes
-Rather exceptional on road driving dynamics, comparable to many of BMW's large saloons (again, you need to drive one to know)
-7 seats
-Heated leather front and rear
-Many options
-A decent diesel range of 550 miles from a 100L tank

There are very few cars today that can have all these values combined in one. Many reviews out there have praised the X5 for its handling characteristics, Mat Watson went on record complimenting how it handles like something that is much smaller than it is. Personally, it gives very good feedback through the steering wheel, you know exactly what all wheels are doing, and the turn in is solid, no understeer in my eyes. Our A6 should handle miles better on paper, with the 60/40 Torsen AWD system and a supercharged V6, as well as servotronic, but it simply is too light to be able to have real confidence in it when cornering. They really did crack the steering of the X5 well, there is very little roll.

Here's a good video of a X5 tearing up a country lane. I doubt a Range Rover could tackle this. My only complaint of the X5 is that it will never ever have Range Rover comfort from it's suspension setup, handling really is sacrificed for some comfort.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJiwZMUdl24&t=...

They are certainly no Z4, but it wasn't trying to be one in the first place. It tries to be a very well handling car for its class, and it certainly is.

No, you are right I haven't driven one - probably because my cars mostly only have one occupant!

But my 330i reportedly does 0-62 in 6.3 seconds and has a 155 mph limiter, whereas your 2 tonne tank doesn't need that because it can't achieve it.

This is PH - Speed matters.

And no X5 will ever handle as good as an E90.

Edited by Mr Tidy on Wednesday 22 May 03:06

Edited by Mr Tidy on Wednesday 22 May 03:13