No replacement for displacement?
Discussion
What are people's thoughts on the above? Is having a larger N/A lump still the best way to enjoy performance? It's hard to ignore these modern smaller capacity forced-induction engines for their usability and efficiency but is it really giving us what we want? Me personally, i think there's something in them both to be enjoyed. Be interesting to hear everyone else's viewpoints.
Just because it rhymes, it doesn't make it any more true.
I'm currently running two cars with similar bhp and similar performance figures. One is a 128bhp 2.0 petrol, the other a 123bhp 1.0 petrol turbo. They are very different to drive.
The 2.0 has a much more positive throttle response, compared to the very soft response of the 1.0.
The 2.0 will pull from idle speed when the 1.0 feels completely flat.
The 1.0 will do 52mpg on a long run, the 2.0 more like 35mpg.
The 1.0 is much longer geared than the 2.0. It's doing 500rpm less at motorway speeds, but the torque from the turbo gives it similar performance to the 2.0.
Ultimately, the 2.0 is more satisfying to work hard, but the 1.0 gives more torque at lower revs so it's easier to pick up speed without working it hard.
Which is best? It depends on your priorities. The 2.0 is more fun when working it hard, but in all other respects the 1.0 is the better engine - more efficient, more power below 3000rpm, quieter, and apparently fits on a sheet of A4, not that I can imagine an occasion where that would come in useful.
I'm currently running two cars with similar bhp and similar performance figures. One is a 128bhp 2.0 petrol, the other a 123bhp 1.0 petrol turbo. They are very different to drive.
The 2.0 has a much more positive throttle response, compared to the very soft response of the 1.0.
The 2.0 will pull from idle speed when the 1.0 feels completely flat.
The 1.0 will do 52mpg on a long run, the 2.0 more like 35mpg.
The 1.0 is much longer geared than the 2.0. It's doing 500rpm less at motorway speeds, but the torque from the turbo gives it similar performance to the 2.0.
Ultimately, the 2.0 is more satisfying to work hard, but the 1.0 gives more torque at lower revs so it's easier to pick up speed without working it hard.
Which is best? It depends on your priorities. The 2.0 is more fun when working it hard, but in all other respects the 1.0 is the better engine - more efficient, more power below 3000rpm, quieter, and apparently fits on a sheet of A4, not that I can imagine an occasion where that would come in useful.
I understand it's all subjective and what you want in a car. I'm talking more about performance cars and from an enthusiasts point of view in general. I'm not dismissing a non-petrol head's opinion. More of someone that know's the differences between the 2 and what causes them to pick one over the other.
I couldn't agree more with what people have said so far. There is no replacement for displacement.
My current car, an M135i, suffers turbo lag. Not like the classic old lag, which took aeons to come on boost, but the kind of lag that makes the engine and thus the car as a whole feel slow to respond when compared to better NA engined cars.
My current car, an M135i, suffers turbo lag. Not like the classic old lag, which took aeons to come on boost, but the kind of lag that makes the engine and thus the car as a whole feel slow to respond when compared to better NA engined cars.
k needs a turbo?!" 
Isn't it strange how so many people seem to assume that the only alternative for large displacements is turbocharging, and then go on to moan about turbocharged engine traits?
Open your minds.
Or maybe why Mercedes use smallish petrol engines with superchargers.
Or why Honda (amongst others) make normally aspirated engines producing almost as much power as turbocharged rivals, but with razor sharp throttle response.
Open your minds.
MattHall91 said:
There's no substitute for cubes!
That must be why sports bikes stick with 1 litre engines making ~200bhp rather than larger capacity, lower revving engines.Or maybe why Mercedes use smallish petrol engines with superchargers.
Or why Honda (amongst others) make normally aspirated engines producing almost as much power as turbocharged rivals, but with razor sharp throttle response.
Edited by Mr2Mike on Tuesday 28th April 12:46
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff