Low Capacity High BHP

Sp00n · 4 Sep 2007 at 17:17

Prefer the norris evo if i'm honest, that thing is an absolute monster.

melchy · 4 Sep 2007 at 17:22

If we are mentioning N/A 2.0L, rather than just under (although technically they are all just under). Just a few off the top of my head.

172/182 Clio 170/180 BHP
Civic Type R 197BHP
Vauxhall 20XE (GTE 16V etc) 156BHP which was great for such an old engine, and very tunable.

The 1.6 Turbo in the Corsa VXR is pretty powerful, circa 190 BHP.

There's also a spate of 2.0 Turbo's in the likes of the Astra VXR and Mazda 3 MPS that are 240 - 250 BHP.

Thomas. PLease. · 4 Sep 2007 at 17:23

What about the honda b16b, and b18b

1997-2000 Civic Type R[EK9]
Power: 185 hp (137 kW) @ 8200 rpm & 118 ft·lbf (160 N·m) @ 7500 rpm

surely one of the best low displacement high horsepower engines.

*EDIT b16b is a 1.6

Westyfield2 · 4 Sep 2007 at 17:24

Our Westfield: 230bhp (maybe 240) from a NA 2lt (though we've been thinking of supercharging it) - in a car that weighs IIRC 540kg.

and the engine builder reckons he can get 270/280 out of it (still NA).

BennyC · 4 Sep 2007 at 17:36

Leon Cupra R 225BHP @ stock tuned (1.8T) (think thats correct?)

melchy · 4 Sep 2007 at 17:45

Benny06 said:
Leon Cupra R 225BHP @ stock tuned (1.8T) (think thats correct?)

The new one is 240BHP.

Dureth · 4 Sep 2007 at 18:15

Any small engine with that sort of power is going to drink petrol just as fast if not more so than a larger engine making similar/more power.

BigglesPiP · 4 Sep 2007 at 18:24

How about an Alfaromeo Giulia Sprint GTA 1985cc @ 240bhp, naturally aspirated, in 1970!

Pants · 4 Sep 2007 at 18:27

Dureth said:
Any small engine with that sort of power is going to drink petrol just as fast if not more so than a larger engine making similar/more power.

Err not true imo!

Take my 2.8 VR6 and my 1.8T octavia both with about 200bhp. The octavia literally gets twice the MPG and is actually faster too due to extra torqu/power.

Not the best example I admit... but I still think my little turbo engine would beat a larger engine producing similar power on MPG. I'm betting I could beat a 325 BMW for example which has similar power.

bigchez · 4 Sep 2007 at 18:48

thedazman67 said:
Starlet Turbo engine is a 1.3 i believe with 130bhp as standard can be modded to give approximately 180bhp i think

More than that mate - 260 bhp is relatively simple from these, some well over 300.

Christian Major's 1.6 cvh turbo makes 351 bhp. (or it did with the last level of tune, god knows what it will do next.)

Scottland · 4 Sep 2007 at 19:14

http://www.pumabuild.co.uk/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=1_49_54&products_id=972

thedazman67 · 4 Sep 2007 at 20:00

bigchez said:
More than that mate - 260 bhp is relatively simple from these, some well over 300.

How simple we talking, different turbo/uprated IC simple

Simon · 4 Sep 2007 at 20:18

Dureth said:
Any small engine with that sort of power is going to drink petrol just as fast if not more so than a larger engine making similar/more power.

Complete opposite is true. You will see a lot of downsized engines in the future. Small capacity for economy and turbo/supercharger/hybrid for performance.

cyborg · 4 Sep 2007 at 20:21

Toyota celica 3S-GE 2.0isn't bad with 170BHP from a N/A

But the the yamaha beams engine, also a 2.0 litre is even better with 200bhp N/A fitted to later JDM celicas

Honda and their V-TEC engines are good in my opinion too, 1.6 VTi, N/A of course, with nearly 160bhp, very impressive.

Pants · 4 Sep 2007 at 20:23

Simon said:
Complete opposite is true. You will see a lot of downsized engines in the future. Small capacity for economy and turbo/supercharger/hybrid for performance.

Couldn't agree more. This is the future of combustion engines I think. The technology is there now so that you can have a little lag free 1.4 with the power of a 2.0+.

Once variable vain turbos are mainstream for petrol cars I imagine the lag will be even less and the power/economy to increase even further from these little turbos.

Scottland · 4 Sep 2007 at 20:33

Simon said:
Complete opposite is true. You will see a lot of downsized engines in the future. Small capacity for economy and turbo/supercharger/hybrid for performance.

Yup from what I've read most of the main manufacturers have this in mind for main-stream cars.

I expect in a year or so you'll see 1.6Turbo Mondeo's/Vectra's etc replacing the 2.0 models.

The Running Man · 4 Sep 2007 at 20:36

really? i thought smokey turbo's at like 60-90k miles meant that this was unlikely,

bring back the SR16VE

cyborg · 4 Sep 2007 at 20:45

Nickg said:
really? i thought smokey turbo's at like 60-90k miles meant that this was unlikely,

bring back the SR16VE

That SR16VE is very good, i've never heard of that one before had to google it. 170BHP from a N/A 1.6 for those who won't google.

Pants · 4 Sep 2007 at 20:48

Average joe in his/her family car wants good drivability, i.e. power from as low as possible though, not at 9000rpm!!

Bring on the forced induction...

bigchez · 4 Sep 2007 at 20:58

Scottland said:
Yup from what I've read most of the main manufacturers have this in mind for main-stream cars.

I expect in a year or so you'll see 1.6Turbo Mondeo's/Vectra's etc replacing the 2.0 models.

Very intersting article here:

http://autospeed.com.au/cms/A_108916/article.html