For those interested in old cars.

[Dunsignalling]

1 hour ago, alastairq said:

There always seems to be a ''secret'' downside to all these modern high horsepower small [weeny?] engines?

 

Mind, my 21 1/2 YO Suzuki GV [it's got 4wd if I want to use it]...has the venerable Suzuki J20 2 litre petrol engine.

Rumoured to have been able to produce 130-odd bhpeees...at lordy only knows what rpms...

I have to take the rev counter over the 4000 rpm mark to feel any real benefit of all that BHPeee....and that makes me wince.

 

Which I suppose brings me to my point....just how often in our day-to-day driving lives do we actually make full & proper use of all that BHPeee on tap?

 

Do we have to get to a motorway, just to take advantage of all that bhpeeee?

What if I don't happen to be near a motorway?

 

Mostly my injin runs to about 2000 to 2400 rpms, no more. That equates to a bit of acceleration {IE, I'm increasing speed]...and a normal road speed of around 50 mph or so.

 

Probably using about 40 or 50 of those potential bhpeees...or fewer?

 

Soooo, why do we need such high potential BHPeees for normal, day-to-day driving? Is it all an effort to pander to our egos?

The rev counter rarely goes over 3500, so I doubt I use more than 100 of the 170 bhp on tap in my Yeti on a regular basis, and the 4wd only cuts in when the traction control considers it necessary unless I select "Off-Road" mode when appropriate.

 

In that respect doesn't greatly exceed my long-established preference of having about a third more power available than I normally want. It's averaged 43-44mpg the whole time I've had it, which is probably much the same as the 105 or 140 bhp versions anyway, and will return 50 on a run without difficulty.

 

The only times I really gun it is when overtaking trucks, it'll easily go from 30 to (motorway) illegal in the length of a 44-tonner, and the slip-road drag race onto a motorway, where it makes slotting into busy 60-70mph traffic a stress-free piece of cake.

 

John

 

 

Edited October 18, 2023 by Dunsignalling

[MJI]

14 hours ago, Jol Wilkinson said:

I recall reading a book on tuning engines in the early sixties which said the 50 bhp per litre was a good result for a " tuned" engine and 100 bhp for a racing engine.

 

 

My diesel 4x4 is about 70 a litre, best seen for same lump is about 117 racing version.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Kickstart said:

Down side of the 1L 3 cylinder Ford engine is engine life. Cam belt is inside the engine so covered in oil, and while it rarely snaps that is more because as the belt ages and starts to lose bits of rubber they block the oil pump strainer, and hence no oil pressure kills the engine first. Seems they can be OK as long as the belt is changed regularly (far more often than they service schedule - and a bit of a pain to do as the belt is internal) and the correct oil religiously used.

 

Sometimes the teeth strip off the belt because that's fun too.

I watch a few car dealers on YouTube and if they can't avoid taking an EcoBoost to retail they have to pull the sump off and clear out the oil strainer as well as changing the belt. Those engines like to punish any lapses in maintenance by making you buy a new one.

[monkeysarefun]

 

The automatic version of the motor in  my Holden ute  has something called active fuel management or whatever, which shuts down half the cylinders when you are coasting along so it becomes a 4 cylinder 3 litre. It  claims you save 1 litre of fuel if you coast along for 100km or something. To be frank I can't see why  Holden thought that anyone who chose a 6 litre V8 as an option would   consider  ways of saving fuel as a selling point but there you go.

 

For a while around 2011 or so biofuel was going to be Australia's way to say F.U to the arabs, with so much bio in the form of agricultural waste such as sugarcane etc  to turn into fuel we were going to be self sufficient.

Accordingly Holden jumped in and re-tuned their V6 and V8 motors (including mine) to run 85% Ethanol. No one else followed  however and the rollout of E85 pumps faltered, not helped by the fact that being the mandated fuel for the V8 Supercar series,  those of a simpler nature saw an E85 pump, saw how much cheaper it was and thought "if the V8 Supercars use it, its going in MY car" with predictable results.

 

. So firstly the pumps went under lock and key, then as demand dried up due to no other manufacturer going down the ethanol route, they  just disappeared.

 

I've never tried it in the  ute, the closest servo that stocks it according to the fuel check website is 35km from here. Maybe one day I'll give it a go, on Holden online forums "some say" that it adds up to 20% power, although with a powerchip and a catback exhaust adding a fair bonus to the original 410HP I've never really wanted for a bit more oomph.

Edited October 18, 2023 by monkeysarefun

[Kickstart]

4 hours ago, alastairq said:

There always seems to be a ''secret'' downside to all these modern high horsepower small [weeny?] engines?

 

Mind, my 21 1/2 YO Suzuki GV [it's got 4wd if I want to use it]...has the venerable Suzuki J20 2 litre petrol engine.

Rumoured to have been able to produce 130-odd bhpeees...at lordy only knows what rpms...

I have to take the rev counter over the 4000 rpm mark to feel any real benefit of all that BHPeee....and that makes me wince.

 

 

Honestly, I use all the revs quite often, when appropriate. Certainly if overtaking I want to do it quickly, so down a few gears and use the revs.

On the other hand I have a car with a 6 speed gearbox, and a specific buying point for it was the fun changing gear. Plus many years of riding 2 strokes, I am used to revving engines to access the power, and for the bikes I have had 6000rpm is pretty low revs.

 

2 hours ago, 30801 said:

 

Sometimes the teeth strip off the belt because that's fun too.

I watch a few car dealers on YouTube and if they can't avoid taking an EcoBoost to retail they have to pull the sump off and clear out the oil strainer as well as changing the belt. Those engines like to punish any lapses in maintenance by making you buy a new one.

 

Yep, that seems to happen slightly later in the belt losing bits of rubber debris, and is a major contributor to them blocking the strainer.

Personally, putting a rubber belt in oil when it is easily avoidable is a bad idea. Unnecessary debris, and changing the belt becomes far more difficult.

Sometimes known as Ecoboom engines.

 

2 hours ago, monkeysarefun said:

 

The automatic version of the motor in  my Holden ute  has something called active fuel management or whatever, which shuts down half the cylinders when you are coasting along so it becomes a 4 cylinder 3 litre. It  claims you save 1 litre of fuel if you coast along for 100km or something. To be frank I can't see why  Holden thought that anyone who chose a 6 litre V8 as an option would   consider  ways of saving fuel as a selling point but there you go.

 

 

Pretty easy to do on a V8 really, and something that makers have tried since the 1980s (Alfa had an engine that shut down 2 cylinders to save fuel at times in the early 1980s). With an electronic throttle setup you could possibly set the throttles on the unused cylinders to be wide open to reduce pumping losses, but that would require a throttle able to act on those cylinders being shut off independent of those still in use. Even with a basic electronic throttle system you will have a wider open throttle for the same accelerator pedal position to compensate for less cylinders contributing, giving at least some reduction in pumping losses.

Down side might be extra wear from no fuel, and a manifold cat cooling down. Although you can probably minimise that by regularly switching which cylinders are deactivated.

 

All the best

 

Katy

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Kickstart said:

Personally, putting a rubber belt in oil when it is easily avoidable is a bad idea. Unnecessary debris, and changing the belt becomes far more difficult.

 

Apparently it's in the name of lightness and efficiency + emissions and no-doubt manufacturing costs.

Personally I think chains are nice.

[Dunsignalling]

9 minutes ago, 30801 said:

 

Apparently it's in the name of lightness and efficiency + emissions and no-doubt manufacturing costs.

Personally I think chains are nice.

One would probably make a lot more sense in that particular instance, too.....

[Oldddudders]

18 minutes ago, 30801 said:

 

Apparently it's in the name of lightness and efficiency + emissions and no-doubt manufacturing costs.

Personally I think chains are nice.

I believe OVS Bulleid would have agreed with you. 

[Dunsignalling]

19 hours ago, Kickstart said:

 

Honestly, I use all the revs quite often, when appropriate. Certainly if overtaking I want to do it quickly, so down a few gears and use the revs.

On the other hand I have a car with a 6 speed gearbox, and a specific buying point for it was the fun changing gear. Plus many years of riding 2 strokes, I am used to revving engines to access the power, and for the bikes I have had 6000rpm is pretty low revs.

 

v

v

v

 

All the best

 

Katy

The Yeti also has a 6-speed, but the 2-litre TDi is so torquey from 2,000 revs that once 3,500-4,000 is reached it's well into the power band of the next one up.

 

4,000 in third is verging on speeding fine/ban territory anyway....😇

 

John

Edited October 19, 2023 by Dunsignalling

[Kickstart]

11 minutes ago, 30801 said:

 

Apparently it's in the name of lightness and efficiency + emissions and no-doubt manufacturing costs.

Personally I think chains are nice.

 

There are good and bad for both chains and belts. Belts are quieter, and don't stretch so cam timing is more precise and doesn't change with wear. Chains are longer lasting and less likely to fail catastrophically without warning.

 

But I don't see how a belt in oil in the engine is any better than one in air for efficiency or emissions. There seems to be a claim of a 30% reduction in friction compared to a dry belt, but came belt friction is almost certainly a tiny amount of total friction. OK, tensioner bearing might prefer an oil supply but thats about it.

 

All the best

 

Katy

[Kickstart]

7 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

The Yeti also has a 6-speed, but the 2-litre TDi is so torquey from 2,000 revs that once 3,500-4,000 is reached it's well into the power band of the next one up.

 

4,000 in third is verging on speeding fine territory anyway....😇

 

John

 

And one reason I don't like turbo diesels! Playing with the gears is part of the fun.

I bought a bike at the end of last year because I had always fancied that model with a red line at 19000rpm.

 

All the best

 

Katy

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

The Yeti also has a 6-speed, but the 2-litre TDi is so torquey from 2,000 revs that once 3,500-4,000 is reached it's well into the power band of the next one up.

 

4,000 in third is verging on speeding fine territory anyway....😇

 

I have similar numbers from a 1.4 petrol turbo. Apart from MPG but you didn't include that one :)

[peanuts]

6 hours ago, Kickstart said:

 

Hence why the official figures often make automatics appear better on fuel. It is just gaming the system, as automatics control their gear change points, where a manual is controlled by the test.

 

 

And the 180hp 2 strokes were detuned - they had made more power but the power delivery had become uncontrollable.

 

 

Down side of the 1L 3 cylinder Ford engine is engine life. Cam belt is inside the engine so covered in oil, and while it rarely snaps that is more because as the belt ages and starts to lose bits of rubber they block the oil pump strainer, and hence no oil pressure kills the engine first. Seems they can be OK as long as the belt is changed regularly (far more often than they service schedule - and a bit of a pain to do as the belt is internal) and the correct oil religiously used.

 

All the best

 

Katy

This is why they are known thoughout the trade as the Ecoboom ! 

[russ p]

2 hours ago, 30801 said:

 

Apparently it's in the name of lightness and efficiency + emissions and no-doubt manufacturing costs.

Personally I think chains are nice.

My missus has an MG3 bought not because its an MG as it isn't.  It was bought as its a simple car and easy to service and it has a chain

Bloody cheap Chinese crap steel chain. It stretched to the point where timing was affected and a pig to start 

Not an easy job to do either,  I bought a modified kit and a local garage fitted it but ended up over £700

I did briefly consider one as a daily but got a ZT CDTi instead far better car

[RANGERS]

9 hours ago, Dunsignalling said:

The claimed "flat-out" cruising speed of the Beetle was rooted in it being air-cooled, and therefore (supposedly) immune from overheating, though that only really holds so long as lubricant doesn't break down!

 

With later, more powerful versions or tuned up earlier ones, it was prudent to have an oil cooler on the shopping list.

 

All VW air-cooled engines had oil coolers, they relied on them for a large part of the engine cooling. The finned barrels were only capable of dispersing some of the combustion heat, the remainder was dispersed through the oil via the oil cooler which was cooled by the same fan as the barrels, though via a separate airstream.

 

The lubricant is critical, though the slow revving reduced bearing, piston and cylinder wear, and to a degree heat generation, maintaining the oil integrity was critical to keep the temperature within tolerances. I learned that on the M6 on a July day in 1983 with my 1302S. The resulting strip down revealed one barrel that had welded itself to the head and a piston that had a chamfered edge to one side of the crown, the missing bit also being firmly attached to the head/ barrel.

[Dunsignalling]

2 hours ago, 30801 said:

 

I have similar numbers from a 1.4 petrol turbo. Apart from MPG but you didn't include that one :)

Consistent average of 43-44 mpg across all sorts of driving. I have seen as high as 62 on 10-20 mile runs where speed hasn't exceeded 50mph! 

 

Speed-wise (calculated, not demonstrated, I hasten to add) it should do a ton with two gears to spare!

 

Edited October 18, 2023 by Dunsignalling

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Dunsignalling said:

Consistent average of 43-44 mpg across all sorts of driving. I have seen as high as 62 on 10-20 mile runs where speed hasn't exceeded 50mph! 

 

Oh, not that different then. 42mpg on a good tank. All on A-roads so that flatters it a bit.

[Dunsignalling]

15 minutes ago, 30801 said:

 

Oh, not that different then. 42mpg on a good tank. All on A-roads so that flatters it a bit.

My average is over the five years I've had the car, with a fair proportion of country roads, A and B variety, and not much motorway cruising. Did Devon to Cumbria a couple of years back, though, 2-up and a stack of luggage. Averaged 60+ mph and 48 mpg on that trip, which I didn't think bad for a ton and a half of 4x4...

 

Edited October 18, 2023 by Dunsignalling

[Lord Flashheart]

4 hours ago, peanuts said:

This is why they are known thoughout the trade as the Ecoboom ! 

Yep that's how we know them,got to be one of the worst (car) engines made,more so considering it replaced the Zetec which are next to no bother. Interesting to note that the later Ecobooms are chain driven but the oil pump is still belt driven.

 

Rob

[alastairq]

Anyway....just to annoy all the other road users round hereabouts, my 21  1/2 year old Suzuki GV passed yet another MoT yesterday.

On Tuesday I even gave it a wash..hosepipe and dirty rag jobbie...This usually only happens once a year....but this year I'm a month early, as I got the MoT booked well in advance.

 

Only advisories which I knew all about already [and was simply waiting for the postman to arrive].. 

So I can get away with yet another year of Dad's taxiing for my son & heir...

 

Annual mileage is creeping up too...reflecting the longer essential journeys I'm making.

 

Still, once this next year is over, hopefully son & heir will go onto other things....and my mileage will return to what it was 7 years ago when I stopped working...

 

I might then be able to dump the thing, and get back into something over 40 years old, with zero VED and without the annual 40 pensionquids con that is the MoT to endure.

Trouble is, eyeballing the so-called 'classic' car market finds me staring askance at some of the prices being asked for what I consider to be ''kwapp?'

After all, the suzuki only cost me 500 sovs, 6 years ago now..so any replacement has to be a cheapoh banger...that'll have to beat 6 years ownership, at least.

 

I'm wondering whether to get a set of cheapoh  winter tyres [and some 2nd hand wheels to go with them]...Indeed, I do wonder whether that would be worth it? Given the global warming thing?

But then, over winter, son & heir does tend to get a bit frantic when things don't go according to plan.....Which is something his Mum & I try to avoid, to give him the best chance of succeeding .

I'll have to  have a look at Camskills, see what they've got?

[MJI]

My best consumptions are

 

200mpg on moped ran out of fuel, had 2p did 2 miles on it.

80mpg/mph on a 250 on A38 on return from NYMR to Gloucestershire.

27mpg on autogas in a large V6 auto saloon.

Worst same one did 10 to 11 mpg through Cornwall towing into a head wind on LPG

[petethemole]

Nice item on the BBC website today:  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-67135999

[Reorte]

2 hours ago, petethemole said:

Nice item on the BBC website today:  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-67135999

However it rather suggests doing research for modelling can turn out quite expensive!

[MJI]

2 hours ago, petethemole said:

Nice item on the BBC website today:  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-67135999

 

Just came on to post that

[SHMD]

I am happy to report that I have no idea what my engine size/power is (much to my neighbours disbelief) but I do know that its' "consumption" is £60/Month!

 

 

Kev.