Is there a trend nowadays to make large cars with small engines?
Following examples illustrate this:
Kia Sportage with 1.6 petrol
Kia Carens with 1.6 petrol
Honda HRV with 1.5 petrol
Vauxhall Zafira with 1.6 petrol
Toyota Auris Estate with 1.3 petrol
Don't these engines struggle to pull such large cars?
|
A mate got one of the 1.0 Ecoboost Focus's (3 cyl), the technology is somehow better and although not quite as quick he said it is almost as quick as the old 1.6, but much more economical (if Ford figures can be believed!!!). he did say he needs to work the gears a bit more for rapid acceleration and hills, but he was previously driving a 2.0l something.
Froma Ford page "...The car is capable of 0-62mph acceleration in 11.3sec and a top speed of 120mph. It delivers 56.5mpg and CO2 emissions of 114g/km. A 100PS version of the 1.0-litre engine delivers best-in-class fuel efficiency of 58.9mpg and CO2 emissions of 109g/km"
|
1. Yes. It enables the manufacturers to comply with the EU's requirements on nominal CO2 emissions across their range.
2. Apparently not. Although fuel consumption at anything above urban speeds tends to reflect the size of the car rather than the size of the engine. Not necessarily a bad thing given the way that many cars spend their lives in urban traffic.
|
|
I had a 1 L focus as a hire car. Honestly couldn't tell it was such a small engine, it performed fine. One way the fuel economy was awful in the mid 30s the other focus 1L i got for the way back was much better on the same route and similar traffic levels. I think it got about 48 on the way back, not sure why there was such a big difference between the two.
|
|
Peugeot and Citroen also have small engines in their large estate cars, typically 1.6 diesels which output similar power but better economy than my old 2.0 diesel 406. Gearing, turbo's and clever electronics must help.
|
>> Vauxhall Zafira with 1.6 petrol
Can't speak for other manufacturers, but that engine has been used in a variety of other Vauxhalls too, and even the older 8 valve engine coped very well.
I wouldn't have said the 1.6 engine was small, in fact when I read the subject header I thought you were referring to the 1.0 turbo petrol engines that are becoming more common.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 12 Oct 15 at 12:54
|
|
Oh the joy of going on a touring holiday, five up, boot full, in a 1.0 Ecoboost Mondeo estate.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 12 Oct 15 at 13:01
|
|
I wonder how bad it would actually be? Mind you if you are loaded up often I don't think you'd get the smallest engine in the range.
|
>> Don't these engines struggle to pull such large cars?
>>
I'll let you know soon....we have a Honda CR-V on order with the 1.6 diesel with 120bhp. Due to be delivered to the dealer this coming Friday and handed over to us next week. Not sure if you class that as small though - it certainly is compared to the Saab 9-5 Aero estate it's replacing, which has 2.3 litres and 265bhp.
|
Usually diesels are mostly fine due to their higher torque. It is the petrols which feel under powered.
|
Mostly in the mind. Plenty of us had 49bhp 1100 Golfs etc and managed to make progress.
And the small turbo petrols are nearer to turbo diesels or much larger capacity NA petrols in their driving characteristics.
I know several people who wouldn't consider a car with less than 200bhp. Most (not all) of them know sod all about cars and exhibit low driving skills (exemplified by "you need it for overtaking").
Last edited by: Manatee on Mon 12 Oct 15 at 13:37
|
>> Mostly in the mind. Plenty of us had 49bhp 1100 Golfs etc and managed to
>> make progress.
Slow progress.
|
>> Mostly in the mind. Plenty of us had 49bhp 1100 Golfs etc and managed to
>> make progress.
No thanks, even allowing for the fact that cars were lighter in the old days. We had one of those 1.1 Golfs, it had close to no power at all, overtaking anything other than a milkfloat or a JCB had to be planned about five minutes in advance. Maybe the lack of being able to go too fast was not a bad thing, as the brakes were worse that useless having no servo assistance.
|
There must have been something wrong with yours then. I don't actually remember whether mine had a brake servo, but I had no problem with the the brakes either.
0-60 was about 15 seconds. At the time, anything under 10 was quick.
The main drawback was its appetite for drive shafts.
It was light. About 750kg kerbweight. I see that a 1.2TSI Golf now is about 1130kg, almost exactly 50% heavier, although it's quite a bit bigger too.
|
My mother had a 1.3 Montego that I learned to drive on. Steering as heavy as anything I've ever driven; and it wouldn't make 70mph with four of us in it on even the merest of inclines.
x
|
The trouble with most people is that they can't drive for toffee nuts. They vary their speed too much and rely on acceleration to get them past mimsers.
In low-powered cars, the way to do it is to keep your speed up as much as possible, looking far ahead, and go past things at undiminished speed.
Those of a nervous disposition shouldn't drive in traffic at all. If they do, they should drive powerful cars with great caution.
Tsk. Onanists.
|
|
These days I tend to waft around gently. It's cheaper and more restful. The car's no ball of fire but it can go briskly when called on to do so.
|
Yes, MM, but I don't suppose that 1.3 Montego engine had anything like the power of today's 1.0 Mondeo engine. In fact I'm sure it didn't, because my dad had one in a red Maestro. I even drove it a couple of times, and while my test was a recent memory and I wasn't in much of a position to assess its performance, even I could tell there wasn't much to assess.
AC, I fear, is giving us another blast of the 1960s. You can drive a slow car fast when there's little traffic and plentiful opportunies to overtake. Try that in southeast England today and you'll end up nowhere or dead. A couple of times recently I've driven the A283-A285 route from the A3 to the Goodwood end of Chichester. Last time back I followed the same VW van into Petworth and halfway to Chiddingfold before a clear view coincided with a clear road to pass it. Even then, I was glad to have the option of 200hp to get by, and probably used most of it, however briefly; doubt I'd even have tried in that Maestro.
|
I live in this area WDB as you know perhaps. It's true that sometimes there's too much traffic and one is continually baulked. But if you get the timing right you can still make progress.
Nothing more annoying than being baulked at the bottom of a steep hill in a gutless car. Many drivers pull out inconsiderately and then waddle off at what they consider a safe speed, sending me into a gibbering rage. They do it all the time.
You're right in a way though. Mimsing is the norm here, and sometimes you just have to sigh and go with the jerky, tiresome non-flow.
Naturally I would be happier in a snorting Mercedes monster or a nice turboed Subaru (or a Caterham or any of the dozens of rapid machines available), if only I had the bread.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Mon 12 Oct 15 at 16:08
|
>> My mother had a 1.3 Montego that I learned to drive on.
The garage once lent me a courtesy car which was a Morris Ital estate. I thought it was quite gutless for a 1.6, but when I saw the badge on the back which said 1.3 I changed my mind and was actually quite impressed such a small engine could haul something around that was so big and heavy. Mind you the rust probably made it lighter ;)
|
>> There must have been something wrong with yours then. I don't actually remember whether mine
>> had a brake servo, but I had no problem with the the brakes either.
Err you clearly didn't have an early Mk1 then, because the brakes were shocking. Its a good job they went round corners. I had a real poo in the pants moment with a Mk1 GTI.
>> 0-60 was about 15 seconds. At the time, anything under 10 was quick.
At the time. We are talking about now, when such performance is a positive hindrance to the driver and all around.
Its fine saying xx horsepower was good enough then, the point is its not now.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 12 Oct 15 at 16:10
|
I am sure some of the new 1, 1.2, 1.4 three & 4 cylinder engines produce a decent BHP output
from a small engine.
What still has to be proved "in the real world" rather than test rigs is the longevity of the engine in any particular car.
For example the VAG 1.4 TSi engine in the Audi A3 to me is a different task than powering a Skoda Superb with the same 1.4 engine.
Likewise diesels used to be big lumps, lightly stressed & rugged long life engines turning out 100BHP from 2.0-2.5 litres - we now have 1.6 diesels putting out 160+BHP. In 5 years time we will know the truth.
Between pollution & stressing engines the solution may lie in producing light engines, lightly stressed and the cars being built of much lighter construction - the similar strategy of the early Lotus Elans - 750 Kg car and under 100 BHP and it went like the wind.
|
You are all so miserable. Small engines are built by computers to tolerances and with materials undrempt of 20 year ago. And the oils and filtration systems are light years ahead.
Whether they will tolerate abuse such as lack of oil changes is already proven: If they are a Ford 1.6 diesel as in a Focus they will not.. See HJ forum.
Last edited by: madf on Mon 12 Oct 15 at 17:36
|
>> built by computers to tolerances....
True, but an engineer still has to interpret data and make decisions in the design phase, usually with a cost-cutting accountant breathing down their neck. I would rather leave the real testing to the first few hundred thousand owners...
|
>> Err you clearly didn't have an early Mk1 then, because the brakes were shocking. Its
>> a good job they went round corners.
Mine was a 1982 I think - AVH 131Y
>> At the time. We are talking about now, when such performance is a positive hindrance
>> to the driver and all around.
>>
>> Its fine saying xx horsepower was good enough then, the point is its not now.
I'd like to try it though. Performance is little different to plenty of cars on the road now, such as Rattle's 1.1 Panda.
The Golf, even the numb 1100, was actually quite nimble by the standards of the day. I had a 950L Fiesta as well, even that was OK with a claimed 17.8 seconds 0-60. This wasn't too many years after I learned to drive on a Morris 1000 with a 0-60 time of 24 seconds.
Anyway, the owners of VAG diesels when they have been modified might be able to tell us how much of a problem 15 seconds is:)
|
The new breed of low capacity engines are quite good IMO. I've driven quite a few ecoboost focus's and found them fine giving decent economy
Same for the 1.2 tsi VAG models i've driven. Only recent one that didn't impress was the Vauxhall 1.4. It was OK, and felt a little more lively than the NA 1.6, but felt lacking compared to the VAG and Ford units
Give it a few years and people wont know / care about cubic capacity, and cars will be sold by their output.
|
Interesting. Were swapping our Motobility DS3 1.6 VTI petrol for a larger Estate.
The 1.6 VTI has 120 BHP and i rate the engine highly.
Visited our local Peugeot dealer last week and test drove the 308 SW with the 3 Cylinder 1.2 Turbo petrol 130 BHP, with 6 speed manual box.
Considering the size of the car very impressed. I doubt if the majority would even guess it had 3 cylinders. Took it out locally and had a brief spell on the Motor Way.
Pulled up to an indicated 80 mph with no fuss, you could hardly hear the engine cruising at 80. In town very civilised certainly keeps up. Claimed up to 60 MPG which probably means 45/50 on a run.
We were sold and placed an order.
|
My experience of relatively small capacity Turbo petrols is that they are good for drivability but not so good at meeting their claimed economy.
I've had both the 122PS and 160PS VAG 1.4 TSi in Golf VIs and both were very pleasant to drive and economical in use but I'd argue no more economical than their previous larger capacity equivalents when their performance was exploited ?
Similarly, SWMBO had a 1.0 Ecoboost 100PS (I think) in a Focus and got comparable economy to the 1.6NA engine in real life usage. It lacked off-boost torque in her opinion too.
Off boost, I expect these small capacity engines get economy and pollution figures in-line with their small capacities. On boost I have the feeling that their economy is more like that of their equivalent 'higher swept volume' predecessors albeit with some weight savings?
So, perhaps it's primarily a way of reducing emissions in test circumstances rather than changing fuel economy in the real world ?
In Australia where fuel is cheaper and eco-regs are more lax, small turbocharged engines are less popular than larger NA engines e.g. the lowliest Focus, Mazda 3 or Impreza is a 2.0L NA, all Corollas have a 1.8L NA.
|
...I'd argue no more economical than their previous larger capacity equivalents when their performance was exploited.
This shouldn't really be a surprise. Acceleration requires energy and the only available source is the fuel in the tank. The heavier the car, the more energy a given amount of acceleration will require, and a turbo makes a small engine capable of burning as much fuel as a larger one without a turbo; it just doesn't have to when it isn't working hard. Thrashing is bad for fuel economy and nothing short of magic will change that.
|
>> My experience of relatively small capacity Turbo petrols is that they are good for drivability
>> but not so good at meeting their claimed economy.
>>
Without revisiting the whole VW media sheisstorm I don't think the official economy test profile requires the turbo to kick in at all, so that's no surprise.
|
Those with decent medium term recall will remember I ran a current shape Citroen C5 Tourer for 3yrs from new until a few years ago.
That was obviously a large car and *only* had the 110hp 1.6Hdi. In truth as part of the overall experience the engine never seemed gutless. It was amazingly refined in that body and pulled perfectly fine for all normal situations. Fuel consumption was mostly 53-56mpg with brisk but sensible driving.
No-one who travelled in it could believe the engine was that small.
We took it to Scotland several times loaded with 2wks kit for the family plus a deflated inflatable boat and outboard motor... speed within normal traffic flow was never an issue... neither was the pull up to the rest and be thankful in either direction.
|
>> That was obviously a large car and *only* had the 110hp 1.6Hdi. In truth as
>> part of the overall experience the engine never seemed gutless. It was amazingly refined in
>> that body and pulled perfectly fine for all normal situations. Fuel consumption was mostly 53-56mpg
>> with brisk but sensible driving.
We test drove a 110bhp 1.6 diesel Golf SV, not impressed with the narrow power band and generally unimpressive flexibility needing lots of stick stirring. But I'm sure that many people would find it perfectly adequate.
|
"But I'm sure that many people would find it perfectly adequate."
Yes, perfectly adequate. In fact more than adequate.
|
>> "But I'm sure that many people would find it perfectly adequate."
>>
>> Yes, perfectly adequate. In fact more than adequate.
>>
Quite likely if you live on the flat, but not so good where frequent, significant inclines are the norm, i.e. in our situation. Perhaps the 7-speed DSG that we would have bought would have helped :-)
|
>> We test drove a 110bhp 1.6 diesel Golf SV, not impressed with the narrow power
>> band and generally unimpressive flexibility needing lots of stick stirring. But I'm sure that many
>> people would find it perfectly adequate.
>>
I found the same on new diesel hire cars, you need to keep changing to keep it on the boil. I'm not sure why that is, maybe that's what customers what, or maybe something to do with emissions. Perhaps alot of new diesels should come with auto g/boxes perhaps that masks the narrow power bands they have. It might be me, perhaps spoilt driving 6 cyl petrol engined cars where there is plenty of flexibilty.
|
>>> you need to keep changing to keep it on the boil.
But what pertcentage of driving are you "on the boil"?
In town traffic the 1.6Hdi C5 could be placed up front all the time if you wanted... on motorways your licence is the deciding factor regardless of engine size and on open rural roads speed limit + 30 was easily achieved in short distances.
About the only time I'd see a need for frequent gearchanging is in making constant overtakes with small windows of opportunity on main roads... and if the traffic's like that then I back off and relax.
|
>> >>> you need to keep changing to keep it on the boil.
>>
>> But what pertcentage of driving are you "on the boil"?
enough for it to be quite noticeable to me and tbh it would put me off buying a diesel of similar characteristics. Although I don't do the mileage to pay for a diesel and if I did I'd probably lpg a petrol.
|
It's possible that the hire cars are new and not fully run-in: even so, the reasons why one would choose a diesel are gradually disappearing.
Our first diesel was SWMBO's Peugeot 205 in 1988. Apart from the better economy compared with the petrol version, we got it for its low-down torque, much better starting and the likelihood of greater reliability. All of which it delivered.
Nowadays the best place to look for those attributes is in the new generation of petrol engines like the VW Group TSIs. My 2.0 litre petrol Octavia will do over 40 mpg in a long run, and no worse than mid-30s on shorter journeys.
(Edit - just seen Bromptonaut's post - the PSA HDI is clearly an honourable exception.)
Last edited by: Avant on Tue 13 Oct 15 at 11:26
|
>> Our first diesel was SWMBO's Peugeot 205 in 1988. Apart from the better economy compared
>> with the petrol version, we got it for its low-down torque, much better starting and
>> the likelihood of greater reliability. All of which it delivered.
Exactly why we went for diesel on our second BX. We'd had a 1.6RS petrol and found it a brilliant car rather let down by a gutless and thirsty engine. It generally started OK but any hint of cold/damp and it would stall somewhere in first mile and a half.
The 1.9D retained all the good points but did 40 to the gallon from cold and never stalled even if severely provoked. While it's 0-60 time was notionally slower than 1.6 the real world need is in gear acceleration which was much better.
|
>>. We'd had a 1.6RS petrol and found it a brilliant car rather let down by a gutless and thirsty engine. It generally started OK but any hint of cold/damp and it would stall somewhere in first mile and a half.
Shudder... memories of the awful auto-choke on those things....! We had an 88 BX 16RS - I never drove it mind, not old enough, but it was always a bit of gamble as to whether it would start, and where it would stall!
|
>> That was obviously a large car and *only* had the 110hp 1.6Hdi. In truth as
>> part of the overall experience the engine never seemed gutless. It was amazingly refined in
>> that body and pulled perfectly fine for all normal situations. Fuel consumption was mostly 53-56mpg
We've got a similar combination with a 115PS 1.6HDi in the newer Berlingo. Pulls more than well enough for anything we want, including towing a tonne+ of caravan. Plenty of toque from around 1800rpm to 3000 and one uses the gears to keep the engine in that range. Not an effort and with wider gearing than a petrol the revs rise quite slowly. Which was also how it worked with previous BX, 205, Xantia and the other Berlingo.
The only oddity with the 1.6 HDi is the ease with which it drop below the torque band. If I let revs in the 1.9IDI drop too far its' pretty obvious as every detonation can be felt. The 1.6 remains silky smooth until you press the accelerator and nothing much happens.
Caught me out a few times in the Massif during summer hols.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 13 Oct 15 at 11:14
|
I've driven about 2000 miles in a Peugeot 508 Estate with the 115HDi and it pleasantly surprised me, indeed it wasn't gutless, it was refined and it was economical.
However, it didn't have much in reserve and whilst it averaged in the mid 50s mpg I reckon I'd have got similar out of a more powerful (and less stressed) 2.0HDi. My rationale being that the 1.6HDi was working hard most of the time. I understand that this means it is more thermodynamically efficient and therefore there are some potential fuel savings to be had, I'm not sure they're all that significant.
I can contrast with my E91 330d from 6 years ago now, that would easily give high 40s mpg in similar motoring and could better 50mpg in a much more effortless manner. I'd observe that the real world economy figures I got in this were much closer to the claimed manufacturer ones too.
So, my contention is that small capacity turbos are fine, they have the power and torque and can deliver a better range of fuel usage i.e. they can operate 'off boost' using the fuel of a smaller capacity NA engine thus giving better test results. However, in the real world when the large car needs the 'boosted' power levels the economy is barely any better?
Add to this the fact they're more stressed, more of the time, I suspect their longevity will be compromised. Even without any testing shenanigans I wonder if they merely meet a taxation/regulation testing regime and therefore customer demand without much real-world benefit? Hence the higher levels of pollutants seen in EU cities than the legislators thought would be the case once the EU4,5,6 regulations were adopted ?
|
I can contrast with my E91 330d from 6 years ago now, that would easily give high 40s mpg in similar motoring and could better 50mpg in a much more effortless manner.
Really? My 2012 E92 325d (same engine) has never managed more than 41 - or less than 39.
I'd observe that the real world economy figures I got in this were much closer to the claimed manufacturer ones too.
Mine is 'supposed' to average 49, but we know that's an artefact of the process: Euro IIIs used to achieve their Combined (plus 5% in my case); IVs(-7%), Vs (-16%) and now VIs have got progressively further short of the target. Mine have all actually been much the same, making allowance for the weight of the car and the type of transmission; it's just that the makers' games have led us to expect more.
And I don't buy the 'stressed' argument on small engines. We're constantly saying here that engines benefit from being worked hard and suffer if they're not. I can accept that the turbo itself is potentially fragile, but that's true of bigger engines too - and even they seem to appreciate being worked rather than babied. So I'd argue that a 1.0T ought to last longer than a 1.8NA that never passes 3,000rpm.
One last thing: how long have you been in Aus now? 'Cause you're ending every sentence with a question? And we really don't need to do that here?
};---)
|
The in-laws have just bought a 1.0 Ecoboost Fiesta with the Powershift dual clutch transmission, and it's a cracker. 100PS feels almost conservative. The torque of the thing beggars belief quite honestly. It feels punchy and responsive from idle, yet seems really happy to rev too.
It even makes an interesting noise, and despite lots of short runs around town, is averaging 45 mpg It's very impressive.
I wouldn't automatically write this engine off as a proposition in a bigger car. It's a plucky little thing.
|
>>...have just bought a 1.0 Ecoboost Fiesta ...>>
My best mate's sister-in-law bought a used 125bhp version of the Fiesta (14 reg) and I've been very impressed with the unit's ability even with four up.
|
>>
>> Really? My 2012 E92 325d (same engine) has never managed more than 41 - or
>> less than 39.
>>
Yes really, 42-44mpg from most tanks I bothered to calculate, 50mpg only on long 'holiday' runs at 70ish on cruise control I'd admit. However the 325d in 2009 wasn't the same engine, it was an older design. I know they updated the 325d subsequently but would ask whether yours was/is the same Euro compliance level or a later one. Most of my journeys had considerable motorway usage in them and it was (as a company car) a manual, which I liked then but would have auto now.
>> I'd observe that the real world economy figures I got in this were much closer
>> to the claimed manufacturer ones too.
>>
My experience with an Audi which supposedly gave 49mpg was that it struggled to give 40mpg, it was a 170PD 2.0. I don't think I drove it differently either. Other cars I've had have always been closer to the manufacturers' claims.
>> Mine is 'supposed' to average 49, but we know that's an artefact of the process:
>> Euro IIIs used to achieve their Combined (plus 5% in my case); IVs(-7%), Vs (-16%)
>> and now VIs have got progressively further short of the target. Mine have all actually
>> been much the same, making allowance for the weight of the car and the type
>> of transmission; it's just that the makers' games have led us to expect more.
>>
>> And I don't buy the 'stressed' argument on small engines. We're constantly saying here that
>> engines benefit from being worked hard and suffer if they're not. I can accept that
>> the turbo itself is potentially fragile, but that's true of bigger engines too - and
>> even they seem to appreciate being worked rather than babied. So I'd argue that a
>> 1.0T ought to last longer than a 1.8NA that never passes 3,000rpm.
>>
Well I do, some small turbo engines need to be on-boost to give enough performance to move larger cars, at this point I don't doubt that they are more thermodynamically efficient but they are also revving harder etc. F1 engines give lots of power but only last a single race. Of course larger NA engines need to be revved too, but not merely to move off without stalling.
>> One last thing: how long have you been in Aus now? 'Cause you're ending every
>> sentence with a question? And we really don't need to do that here?
>> };---)
>>
3 years, must be time to move on if that's happening. Must admit I do like not needing to care what mpg my car does though, so I couldn't tell you whether it's near to the manufacturer's claimed economy.
|
No reason a quite highly tuned small capacity engine won't last the life of a car.
If you look at the dog engines out there, size is not the biggest factor...
Vauxhall's 2.2 n/a petrol was a lubrication flaw, early direct injection petrol's were doomed, VW's 1.4 super and turbo'd engine was a stinker.
I guess time will tell if the latest "high efficiency" engines will last (ie Mazda's 14:1 comp ratio petrols, various 150bhp/litre Turbos)
|
>> VW's 1.4 super and turbo'd engine was a stinker.>>
My 170PS example is still going strong after more than eight years, although mileage is comparatively low at 33,500k... (rolls eyes)!! But I use it to maximum at every opportunity.
|
>> Vauxhall's 2.2 n/a petrol was a lubrication flaw, early direct injection petrol's were doomed,
And yet there are still many Vauxhall's with that engine still on the road. My 2.2 direct Vectra probably would still have been as well had it not been for a jay walking bambi that wrote it off. Engine had done 105,000 miles and used less than ½ litre of oil between 12,000 mile services.
I also saw my old X reg 2.2 Vectra-B the other day. Still going strong.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 15 Oct 15 at 02:01
|
I would consider a 20% failure rate at 100,000 miles a bad record nowadays - any sample size of 3 or 4 cars is quite useless for statistical purposes
Also many engine failures appear to be in neglected or grossly underused cars - all of my cars have regularly been reclined once warmed through and I have seen no issues develop since a 1.1 Fiesta needed a head gasket at 130k miles over 20 yrs ago (and I suspect it was goosed before I got the car)
Last edited by: Lygonos on Thu 15 Oct 15 at 02:10
|
Missed the edit - redlined not reclined - on holiday and using one of the bairns' Kindles which have tiresome predictive text
|
Apart from obvious design faults like poor lubrication or cooling, it's complexity rather than size that is likely to prevent today's engines from reaching mega-mileages. In terms of simple longevity, there was probably a golden age in the 1990s, when modern manufacturing methods had made reliability a given, but before the need for efficiency and clean emissions began to ramp up the complexity.
This still relative, though: compared to a 1970s engine that was on its last legs after 60,000 miles, today's engines will run well past 100,000 without expensive trouble. Which - perversely perhaps - means that when the trouble does arrive, the car is old and worth little, so the owner will opt to replace rather than repair. And that replacement is more affordable because new cars are so cheap these days.
So when experts in real and virtual saloon bars say, "Oh, that engine's too complicated / too stressed; one failure and it'll write off the car," they're inadvertently recognizing the reliability and durability of modern cars. Perhaps the golden age isn't over yet.
|
The PSA / Ford 1.6 16V HDi engine that is used in nearly everything from about 2006 - 2011 is pretty poor - some odd design quirks lead to crud in the engine which annihilates the turbo. It can be got round, but it is a pain! Having said that the engine is a very compact, light unit, and fundamentally strong - ours has survived low oil pressure twice and the base engine is still running fine (now I've removed the strainer in the oil pick up, and put it on 5k oil change intervals!).
In 2011 it was replaced with an 8V unit (DV6C) which is much better, have heard very few reports of turbo failure on these units.
|
>>>The PSA / Ford 1.6 16V HDi engine that is used in nearly everything from about 2006 - 2011 is pretty poor
I would have worded it slightly differently... I think it had a remarkable balance of power, economy and refinement... a very good engine... but was sometimes killed (turbo wise) by the current extended oil change interval fashion.
|
>> Missed the edit - redlined not reclined - on holiday and using one of the
>> bairns' Kindles which have tiresome predictive text
>>
>>
Translation for south of civilisation dwellers, Bairns = kids, children. :-)
|
Thanks, ON. We thought he meant 'barns', presumably because even the most primitive shelter counts as a holiday treat. He should be careful not to set the hay on fire with that Kindle.
};---)
|
|
Or sheds in Southampton...
|
|
No BMWs though.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 15 Oct 15 at 10:22
|
I’ve recently sold a Suzuki Ignis Sport 1490cc 16 valve petrol (owned it for 5 years- great little car) and now drive a SEAT Altea XL 1595cc 8 valve petrol. The Seat makes 102BHP the Suzuki 107BHP.
Which do I prefer? The SEAT. Why? It’s quieter, smoother, pulls much better, is more comfortable and very roomy. Only downside is it uses more fuel which is to be expected it’s a much bigger car and about 450Kg heavier but as I now only cover about 3,500 miles a year it’s of no consequence to me.
|
|
Then again, the Altea fitted with the 1.2 TSI 105 engine is also smooth and quiet, but more powerful, significantly torquier and more economical (over 40 mpg typical) than the old 1.6......
|
>> Then again, the Altea fitted with the 1.2 TSI 105 engine is also smooth and quiet, but more powerful, significantly torquier and more economical (over 40 mpg typical) than the old 1.6......>>
I have the 170PS TSi 1.4 (twin charged) engine and a mixture of driving styles still brings a return of around 42 to 44mpg; great Q car as fellow drivers are often taken aback at the pace shown by my Jetta Sports when the circumstances permit it.
|
>>Which do I prefer? The SEAT. Why? It's quieter, smoother, pulls much better...>>
Without checking the specs, the fact that it's an eight valve engine more than likely means maximum torque is reached lower down the rev scale.
I had a secondhand VW Bora (1.6 eight valve 100PS) for seven and a half years and this was the case compared with the slightly later 16 valve version.
Ironically it had a genuine 16 valve badge on the rear and I only found out it had (presumably) been stuck on by its original Glasgow owner when the time came to replace the cam belt.....
|
I looked at an Ignis Sport around 2005 when the last of them were being sold for £7500 - it was too small for me to drive comfortably.
In 2012 I tested the new Swift Sport which was perfect, with excellent steering wheel adjustment and plenty of legroom - bought that - 136hp 1.6VVT proved to have plenty of torque, and above 4000rpm a decent turn of pace (only weighs 1040kg or so).
Big downside was only 3 doors - traded it in for a Kizashi a few months before the 5-door Swift Sport was announced.
The only downside with the Kizashi for me is the headroom is compromised by the sunroof and requires the back of the driver's seat to be reclined ever-so-slightly more than I like (I like the steering wheel relatively close to me despite my long reach).
Could be tempted by a 5-door Swift Sport, or a Forester XT, or..... :-)
|
Small engines big cars - smokie
