Modern Car Engines

[Adrian Wintle]

I'm going to hang on to my Honda 2.2 litre diesel as long as I can. Oodles of torque, goes like ###### off a shovel, £20 a year road tax and over 60mpg on a run. Small engine big turbo cars are ok and I would say better for very short local trips where they warm up quicker and so are better for fuel economy. The big problem is that when you use the loud pedal those turbos really start to drink the fuel. For anything but very light driving they have to be worked hard and suffer poor mpg. The big diesel just pulls strongly and smoothly from low revs and never drinks heavily; very relaxing to drive but will give you a decent thump on the back if you ask it to.

 

As the yanks used to say " there ain't no substitute for cubic inches"

 

Yes, but 2.2 litres (134 cubic inches) doesn't really count. They were thinking more in the 350-470 (5.7-7.7 litres) range.

 

Adrian

Edited August 29, 2017 by Adrian Wintle

[njee20]

And they still often manage to get breathtakingly little power out of such enormous engines. It's quite an achievement!

[MarkC]

And they still often manage to get breathtakingly little power out of such enormous engines. It's quite an achievement!

It's called progress. Oh, hang on...

[APOLLO]

My Rover V8 3.5 Litre is "only" 161 BHP.

 

http://www.gbclassiccars.co.uk/rover_p5_p5b.html

 

Quick off the mark, and quite happy in today's traffic, cruises at 70 no problem. Who needs BHP ?

 

Brit15

[JeremyC]

Are these modern small turbo charged engines any good for towing? My wife's current car is a 2.0 litre Diesel Zafira [170PS]. The car is due to be replaced next year and if we go for another Zafira then the options are either the same engine or a 1.4 litre petrol engine which develops 140PS. [We are restricted to these engines as the car has to be an automatic and this is the only engine sizes Vauxhall do on automatics.]. The Caravan Club seem to think the 1.4 will tow our caravan, but 'I hae me doots'

Of the other possible cars only Ford seem to do a large petrol engine, a 2.0 litre, on the Mondeo. The only reason I have for considering a petrol engine is the current controversy over diesels and not being sure what action the government is likely to take fuel tax wise. 

Edited August 30, 2017 by JeremyC

[njee20]

My Rover V8 3.5 Litre is "only" 161 BHP.

 

http://www.gbclassiccars.co.uk/rover_p5_p5b.html

 

Quick off the mark, and quite happy in today's traffic, cruises at 70 no problem. Who needs BHP ?

Well I presume the fuel consumption is spectacularly poor, and I'm not sure 11.5 seconds 0-60 is 'quick off the mark' is it...?

 

Interestingly my Golf GTI has an advertised combined MPG of 34.9, over the last 3,500 miles (since it was last serviced) it's been 38.1 mpg. Occasional runs at a steady pace can be as high as 42mpg, with the very occasional spirited drive seeing something in the mid 20s.

[admiles]

2012 Golf GTI here, it's maybe had one tank of Super Unleaded in its life, can't remember, certainly didn't make a difference. Probably every other tank is supermarket fuel as the nearest petrol station to home is a Tesco, it makes zero appreciable difference to performance or consumption. Friends with an S3 and an older GTI have said similarly, but I don't know how discerning they are.

 

2013 Audi A1 TDI here and it does 6-7 mpg less on Sainsburys (my nearest garage) diesel compared to Shell or BP diesel. The other half's 2017 Mini Cooper SD diesel is even worse. A good 8-9 mpg down.  Same with Tesco diesel. My 2008 Golf R32 positively hates supermarket fuels. Noticeably rougher running (from a silky smooth V6 as I'm sure you'll know). I also have two Aprilia V-Twins,  the smaller 750cc actually cuts out when using Sainsburys fuel (though ok on Tesco) despite being ok to use 95RON fuel.

 

So I'd have to disagree I'm afraid. There are differences in fuels.

[admiles]

Be rational for a moment. Do you genuinely think that if supermarket fuel damaged cars in any measurable capacity there would be no empirical evidence, just anecdotes?

 

I sold a Golf TDI with 165k miles, it's still around now, although I cannot attest to whether it's had 3 engine rebuilds since. It, like all my cars before and since, used supermarket fuel frequently. I know of plenty of cars to have lasted far longer and have found no correlation between fuel brand and engine life.

 

You don't remember the Tesco fuel "issue" a few years (2007 - I just checked) ago then? Contaminated with silicone I seem to remember. My mother's Toyota Yaris ended up with the entire injection system being replaced. My neighbors Fiesta had the entire engine replaced.   So not just anecdotes, it does happen.

[jjb1970]

Those big old American V8 engines may have looked absurdly underpowered relative to their size but they were wonderfully sonorous and had a presence which makes them hugely likeable.

[Horsetan]

Are these modern small turbo charged engines any good for towing? ....

 

Depends what you want to tow. I wouldn't dare to tow a fully-laden horse trailer with those, though.

[jjb1970]

The power and torque should be fine if you get the right engine, not sure how durable they'd be once you start doing a lot of towing mind and I suspect fuel economy would be poor. Towing is one of the applications where diesel engines still hold their own.

[Dunsignalling]

Depends what you want to tow. I wouldn't dare to tow a fully-laden horse trailer with those, though.

Irrespective of engine type, regular towing of a double horsebox will knock the crap out of the structure of a "domestic" car.

 

A job for Landies, big pick-ups and proper 4x4s only.

 

John

[njee20]

2013 Audi A1 TDI here and it does 6-7 mpg less on Sainsburys (my nearest garage) diesel compared to Shell or BP diesel. The other half's 2017 Mini Cooper SD diesel is even worse. A good 8-9 mpg down.  Same with Tesco diesel. My 2008 Golf R32 positively hates supermarket fuels. Noticeably rougher running (from a silky smooth V6 as I'm sure you'll know). I also have two Aprilia V-Twins,  the smaller 750cc actually cuts out when using Sainsburys fuel (though ok on Tesco) despite being ok to use 95RON fuel.

I'm still hugely struggling with that. That's a massive difference. Why would anyone use supermarket fuel if that were widespread? If it's not widespread, and clearly it's not, that leaves you as the common factor, which is odd.

I'll perhaps accept the R32 may be more susceptible to lower quality fuel (note: not supermarket fuel), but my dad's one has never complained, nor did the VR6 that preceeded it. Still, that's your experience, I give you a suspicious 'fair enough' and will carry on using supermarket fuels with impunity!

 

You don't remember the Tesco fuel "issue" a few years (2007 - I just checked) ago then? Contaminated with silicone I seem to remember. My mother's Toyota Yaris ended up with the entire injection system being replaced. My neighbors Fiesta had the entire engine replaced.   So not just anecdotes, it does happen.

But that's an isolated incident from one refinery. Here's a BP station doing the same, and Shell and Esso.

You can't use a single event 10 years ago to make a sweeping judgement. Well you can, but it's daft.

 

You'd think I worked for a supermarket the way I'm defending them (I don't!), I just can't quite fathom some experiences. You wonder if certain individual filling stations have 'issues' - much like those in the articles above.

.

[tomparryharry]

As a rule, I find the Peugeot/Citroen 2 litre engine is very good. If you're prepared to drive at about 60mph, It'll drop consumption enormously. I've done Portsmouth-Newport at about £10 on a regular basis. However, If I floor it. It will keep up with bigger stuff all day long. It won't as economical, but you takes your choice.

 

Newer Citroens aren't a patch on it, IMHO.

 

Ian.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Trouble is, being an ex-mechanic, it becomes a matter of principle to keep it going!

For example, once I had worked what was wrong with the gearshift, a roll pin had

broken in the 'turret' (selector fork assembly), I tried to buy a new roll pin from Ford.

 

Fat chance! "No sir, but you can buy a turret assembly for £380" I went to my local

shop, bought a selection for a couple of quid and had it fixed in 2 hours, including

re-drilling the hole to suit the replacement pin.

 

The van does all that I need it to do, I hate the throw-away attitude that modern

living has forced upon us and if I can fix something relatively quickly and cheaply,

I will.

The second time it went, I had to get a lift home to get my tools, came back and

fixed it in 1:5  hours beside the road.

 

The vehicle is worked hard, but not abused, it travels into London from Stevenage

5/6 days a week, and I'm not going to replace it until I have to.

Roll pins are something that I knew nothing about until the wife's ignition key fell apart (just after the 7-year warranty). £150+ to replace the key! Consulted with my local key/shoe repair shop. He did not have the right size roll pin in his drawer but at kindly signposted me to a source on the internet. £2.00 including postage and the key repaired in 5 minutes.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Seemed to have strayed from the OP's question a bit.  So yes the new engines are far smaller as a rule than we maybe were used to but far better on performance in general terms.  Obviously there will be some odd mismatches between models with gear ratios and engines as discussed but a road test soon sorts that out.

 

All the talk of fuel consumption and whether it is good or poor or whether it meets the Manufacturers claims is a different subject altogether. 

 

First of all every car I have driven of late (and motorbikes) has had a digital readout of fuel consumption that when compared to the more accurate way of zeroing the trip meter and filling brim to brim has been out by some margin to show the vehicle is doing better than it is. 

 

Secondly it is well known in the motoring press that Manufacturers figures are meaningless and as such What Car have a complete section about it.

 

https://www.whatcar.com/truempg/mpg-calculator

 

How anyone can possibly say what mpg a given car will do is beyond me when none of us drive exactly the same way nor on the same routes with the same conditions.  An average is just that and the fact that one person can achieve 46mpg and another 52mpg means nothing at all in the real world.

 

Finally there will be differences between fuels of different brands and different RON ratings but saying that Supermarket fuel has damaged a car on a long journey with one tank full is beyond ridiculous.  I would just love to see some actual facts to substantiate such a wild statement. 

 

A digital readout is just that...a readout. Whatever the way of showing the info on your dash, it will only be as good as the measuring device in the tank (sender). I don't think manufacturers have made any progress there at all.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Going back to the OP, what I find strange (and regrettable as a potential Kuga customer) is that one can only have AWD with the automatic. Why not the higher output and a manual gearbox? Cars have not yet reached the point, unlike lorries and buses, where autos are more economic than manuals. (Why not???)

But generally, I would not worry too much about a 1.5L engine being man enough these days. When SWMBO got her Qashqai 10 years ago, the 2.0L diesel was certainly the right option. But now the Renault/Nissan 1.5 diesel is so much better than back then. The only questionmark is durability but some must be attaining quite high mileages by now.

[Titan]

I'm still hugely struggling with that. That's a massive difference. Why would anyone use supermarket fuel if that were widespread? If it's not widespread, and clearly it's not, that leaves you as the common factor, which is odd.

.

 

It is widespread. I was on another motoring forum where there was a guy who was in to getting good economy from his diesel. He claimed that he was getting around 10% better mpg by avoiding supermarket fuel. Many were skeptical. Those of us that actually put his theory to the test, including me, got the same results - about 10% improvement. I was doing long distance commuting at the time, so was able to test as accurately as possible, by virtue of doing identical journeys week in, week out. Three consecutive tankfuls of Sainsburys v 3 consecutive tankfuls of Shell, and I consistently got around 10% improvement tested back to back with all other variables reduced to insignificance. As the Shell was much less than 10% more, the Shell gave me lower costs overall.

 

The reason why so many people are unaware of this is that very few actually go to the bother of accurately measuring just how much fuel they have used, particularly when they are skeptical in the first place, (as was I) and a 10% difference is not particularly noticeable unless you actually go looking for it. Therefore most people carry on in blissful ignorance thinking they are saving money using the cheaper fuel.

[MarkC]

Funnily enough, it was Sainsburys fuel that I made my quality complaint about...

 

As fellow seafaring engineers will agree, we have been testing our marine fuels for many years now, primarily to make sure that what's been supplied is what our charterers/owners have paid for- some unscrupulous suppliers would add, inter alia, used lub oils. Also other impurities such as high levels of cat fines, vanadium etc. One of the things tested is the calorific value of the fuel, and the results can vary wildly, even on otherwise clean fuel, so it's not confined to DERV supplies

[APOLLO]

Well I presume the fuel consumption is spectacularly poor, and I'm not sure 11.5 seconds 0-60 is 'quick off the mark' is it...?

 

Interestingly my Golf GTI has an advertised combined MPG of 34.9, over the last 3,500 miles (since it was last serviced) it's been 38.1 mpg. Occasional runs at a steady pace can be as high as 42mpg, with the very occasional spirited drive seeing something in the mid 20s.

 

Quick enough for me - wont beat your Geeee Teeee Eye - but I'll be at the side of you again at the next set of lights, quite relaxed in my "Flying Armchair" !!!!!

 

MPG - around 18-20, 21 max on a run. Doesn't bother me I only do around 500 miles / year - sometimes less.

 

Most comfortable car I have ever had, that's just one reason why I have kept her since 1982. Anyone else had a car that long ?

 

Brit15

[37409]

Something that people either tend to forget, or maybe not even know, regarding 'high performance' or high octane' fuels is that their benefits (or otherwise) depend on what the car in question is designed to take.

 

Most 'ordinary' cars are designed and mapped to run on normal 95 octane fuel, that is to say that the injection and especially ignition systems are set up for lower octane fuels only with retarded spark and less precise metering. Adding a higher octane fuel will have no benefit at all on performance/power as the engine isn't designed to be run at the higher tolerances needed to take advantage of this.

 

Older performance cars are designed to run on the higher octane fuels as more power can be extracted from the fuel and running them on a lower octane rated fuel can be detrimental to their health as 'pinking' or pre-ignition or 'knock' (getting the 'bang' in the wrong place) will most likely occur and that can lead to burnt valves, holed pistons, bent rods and a number of other fun problems. Running on 95 is not a good idea.

 

Luckily more modern performance cars (those with electronic injection and ignition) have systems in place to detect knock and will then retard the ignition/reduce turbo boost to compensate and so can run on 95 octane fuel, but with reduced performance. Using 97/98/100 octane fuel will give full performance, but they can safely be run on 95.

 

It all depends on what the handbook says; my 1988 Mercedes 500SEC (KE-Jet injection and EZK ignition with knock sensors) says 95 minimum, 97 optimum so it's mapped to run on 97 and the system can cope with 95 but no lower (unless an octane booster is used presumably [can you even get 93 anymore?]) I've found it loses 1-2mpg on 95 and is a bit less 'lively' compared to when run on 97 so financially there's little benefit to using cheaper standard fuel. As there's no outlet for 97+ in my town it is, however, cheaper to fill on 95 than use a gallon going somewhere else to get it. Pottering about town doesn't need the extra performance benefit so it gets 95 normally and a fill of 97+ when heading off on a trip.

[njee20]

Quick enough for me - wont beat your Geeee Teeee Eye - but I'll be at the side of you again at the next set of lights, quite relaxed in my "Flying Armchair" !!!!!

Oh yes, very much so, but so will every other car due to our congested roads, still doesn't make me want a 900cc Fiat 500

[admiles]

I'm still hugely struggling with that. That's a massive difference. Why would anyone use supermarket fuel if that were widespread? If it's not widespread, and clearly it's not, that leaves you as the common factor, which is odd.

I'll perhaps accept the R32 may be more susceptible to lower quality fuel (note: not supermarket fuel), but my dad's one has never complained, nor did the VR6 that preceeded it. Still, that's your experience, I give you a suspicious 'fair enough' and will carry on using supermarket fuels with impunity!

 

 

 

You might think it's me that's the common factor but i can assure you it's not.  I've had the self same discussion with friends several times over the years at places like my model railway club, bike groups, etc and pretty much everyone I've ever talked to say they get lower mpg out of super market fuels. My family are the same.

 

And it's not just the current cars we own either. Pretty much every car I've owned (and there have been quite a few) has achieved worse mpg on super market fuels. Some cars have been more sensitive to it than others but the trait remains. 

 

For me the couple of pence saving per litre, and that's all it is around here, isn't worth the fewer miles I'd get out of the tank.

Edited August 30, 2017 by admiles

[lapford34102]

Some interesting posts recently. I'm oddly reassured by reading that even the branded guys foul up occasionally, shows everyone human I suppose.

 

 

still doesn't make me want a 900cc Fiat 500

 

How about this.   https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/abarth/595

 

njee20, if your happy with your present fuel fine but why not check it out for yourself. Set up a spreadsheet to work out the mpg every time you fill, half a dozen or so from s'market, then a few, 3 seems to be a reasonable amount, from branded. See what comes out. Just a thought.

 

Stu

[njee20]

I may well do. I never commute by car though, which makes for somewhat erratic use. I'd need vast swathes of data for it to mean anything. But I like numbers.

 

I do routinely reset my trip computer each fill up, so I've got a vague idea of how long until I need to refuel (as the second half of my tank appears roughly half the size of the first, and "50 miles to empty" really means about 30!), and there's absolutely nothing like 10% variation there, ever.