What do people consider a 'big' petrol engine?
What do people consider a 'big' petrol engine?
Author
Discussion

crosseyedlion

Original Poster:

2,381 posts

228 months

Saturday 12th January 2013
quotequote all
I've always noticed for non-car folk anything bigger than a 1.6 petrol to be considered a 'big' engine, with the inevitable questions of fuel and comments like 'oo it must be fast'.

Recently I've noticed similar comments from car people for anything (even a decent sized family car) over a 2.0 (petrol)...seems a bit odd. A 1.6 4cyl and a 2.0 4cyl will have imperceptible differences if any in economy (driven at the same speeds) and neither will set the world on fire....as much fun as an old school 2.0 hot hatch is.

Some people seem to go into shock when they find out my car is a 5.4.

Correcting for the fact that turbo's often considered as capacity x 1.4 (2.0T for example is similar to a 2.8)

My question is this... What do you consider a 'big' engine? The kind of size that makes you automatically feel 'well that must make light work of it'/'that's a bit decadent' (depending on attitude) NOT saying anything less is a bad car, or slow, at all.

Obviously it depends on the type of car, so here's my opinion.

Small (light) hatch; 206, 145, old golfs etc. - 2.0

Family Sized Modern Hatch; focus, modern golf, a3 etc...- 2.5

Exec Saloon; 3 series, a4, passat, signum etc. - 3.0

Large Saloon; A6, Merc E, BMW 5 etc. - 3.5

Large Luxury; A8, S Class, 7 series etc. - 4.0

2 seater sports car - 3.0

Big GT - 5.0


V88Dicky

7,373 posts

213 months

Saturday 12th January 2013
quotequote all
Less than 383 ci (6.3l) = small block. Anything bigger is a 'large engine'.

hehe

SV8Predator

2,102 posts

195 months

Saturday 12th January 2013
quotequote all
crosseyedlion said:
Some people seem to go into shock when they find out my car is a 5.4.
At 7.2, mines bigger than yours!

laugh

shovelheadrob

1,564 posts

201 months

Saturday 12th January 2013
quotequote all
Anything with a V8. Straight 6s over 3.0.

shovelheadrob

1,564 posts

201 months

Saturday 12th January 2013
quotequote all
Anything with a V8. Straight 6s over 3.0.

VinceFox

20,566 posts

202 months

Saturday 12th January 2013
quotequote all
3.0 and above.

Countdown

49,519 posts

226 months

Saturday 12th January 2013
quotequote all
It's changed over time.

In my dads day when the average cubic capacity was 1100cc, 2 litres was considered big. Nowadays I'd suggest for most people 3l is big.

Obviously PHers will have bigger equipment than most hehe

va1o

16,116 posts

237 months

Saturday 12th January 2013
quotequote all
It depends really. Currently 1.6 would count as a 'big' engine for a lot of average sized cars due to the trend for downsizing and adding on turbos. A modern 1.6T would typically be somewhere in the region of 175PS, whereas 10-15 years ago you'd expect that figure from maybe a 2.2 or 2.5 and your 1.6 would only be giving 100PS. By the same stretch a 1.0 may have been considered 'small' back then, but its now acceptable with engines like the Ford Ecoboost meaning it gives out 100 - 125PS when you'd only have got half that power without the turbo.

For me anyway I'd say 'big petrol' means 6-cylinders or more smile

V8RX7

28,982 posts

293 months

Saturday 12th January 2013
quotequote all
Sub 2 ltr = Small
2 - 3.5 = OK
3.5 - 4.9 = Good
5ltr+ = Big

crosseyedlion

Original Poster:

2,381 posts

228 months

Saturday 12th January 2013
quotequote all
va1o said:
It depends really. Currently 1.6 would count as a 'big' engine for a lot of average sized cars due to the trend for downsizing and adding on turbos. A modern 1.6T would typically be somewhere in the region of 175PS, whereas 10-15 years ago you'd expect that figure from maybe a 2.2 or 2.5 and your 1.6 would only be giving 100PS. By the same stretch a 1.0 may have been considered 'small' back then, but its now acceptable with engines like the Ford Ecoboost meaning it gives out 100 - 125PS when you'd only have got half that power without the turbo.

For me anyway I'd say 'big petrol' means 6-cylinders or more smile
Which is why turbo engines are generally considered 1.4x capacity (in simplistic terms, for motorsport), a 1.6T would equate to around 2.25 if you where to go up against naturally aspirated cars (in many championships)

MrB1obby

771 posts

180 months

Saturday 12th January 2013
quotequote all
V8RX7 said:
Sub 2 ltr = Small
2 - 3.5 = OK
3.5 - 5.9 = Good
6ltr+ = Big

deltashad

6,731 posts

227 months

Saturday 12th January 2013
quotequote all
3.0 for me too... The rest are small fry.

crosseyedlion

Original Poster:

2,381 posts

228 months

Saturday 12th January 2013
quotequote all
deltashad said:
3.0 for me too... The rest are small fry.
Yes, but a 3.0 in a small saloon is a very different proposition to a 3.0 in a 2 ton + luxobarge...

va1o

16,116 posts

237 months

Saturday 12th January 2013
quotequote all
crosseyedlion said:
Which is why turbo engines are generally considered 1.4x capacity (in simplistic terms, for motorsport), a 1.6T would equate to around 2.25 if you where to go up against naturally aspirated cars (in many championships)
True.

Its interesting to look at BMWs badging with respect to this, as they've attempted to keep the same names but changed the capacity e.g. the 528i up until recently was a 6-cylinder 3.0 N/A but its now a 4-cylinder 2.0T with thereabouts the same power.

You also have to take into account different mappings though, as the same 2.0T engine is also offered in 520i form but significantly detuned.

curlie467

7,650 posts

231 months

Saturday 12th January 2013
quotequote all
swerni said:
V88Dicky said:
Less than 383 ci (6.3l) = small block. Anything bigger is a 'large engine'.

hehe
How does that work?

I've got a 427ci with a small block wink
As you probably know, displacement has nothing to do with small or big blocks hence you can have a lower cc big block and higher cc small block.

I would consider anything over 3.0 to be pretty big but the americans may laugh at that!

Wacky Racer

41,363 posts

277 months

Saturday 12th January 2013
quotequote all
VinceFox said:
3.0 and above.
This.

In the sixties 2 litres was considered big.

davepoth

29,395 posts

229 months

Saturday 12th January 2013
quotequote all
On PH it's a bit of a moot point because people understand about large capacity engines.

In the real world my Rover 75, which has all of 110hp and is so bulky I have to turn off the aircon to pull away on steep hills, has a big engine.

The Badger

355 posts

206 months

Saturday 12th January 2013
quotequote all
2.8 upwards.

curlie467

7,650 posts

231 months

Saturday 12th January 2013
quotequote all
Thought it was beer

My old man had a 3 litre 24v senator when we were in our late teens, thought that was a beast.

LuS1fer

43,535 posts

275 months

Saturday 12th January 2013
quotequote all
As a teenager in the 70s, 2.0 was about average and anything 2.5 litres or over was big except in bigger cars such as the XJ6 where the 2.8 was made to look small by the 5.3 V12.

I would never have predicted I would one day run 5.7 litre engines as daily drivers nor that I would consider my 4.6 Mustang relatively small.

It's all relative I suppose.