Should budget makes consider better engines?

HangTime

HangTime

HangTime

Man of Honour
Joined
25 Oct 2002
Posts
31,893
Location
Hampshire
From time to time I find myself window shopping for cars (which every few years results in a purchase) and I typically look for what I perceive to be 'value'. Obviously this will mean considering some marques that are, shall we say, 'less than premium'.

What I have found, is that there are some budget cars out there with quite a compelling proposition from the perspective of size, features (toys list putting similarly sized cars from other brands costing 50% more to shame), warranty etc, but with a poor range of engines. By which I mean the best engines available are a bit underpowered for the size of car (>10s 0-60).

Are they missing a trick here by not catering to people that like the idea of owning their cars, if only they could have something with 'OK' performance (8-10s to 60)? I get that part of the reason they are cheap is because they don't have good engines, but adding say a 160bhp unit on top of their 120bhp offerings and charging an extra couple of grand would be quite appealing, as it would still significantly undercut the more established competition.

I appreciate it's not as simple as just applying an aggressive map to the existing engine range (due to warranty risks) and that actually producing or sourcing better engines will cost money, but I fear they are losing out on potential custom by not catering for the segment of their budget market that wants the option to accelerate up a hill when loaded.
 
Don't most of them already do this? For example you can get civics, focuses, fiestas etc that are positioned somewhere between the ordinary model and the hot hatch.
 
A lot of people just want a cheap car that will get them from A to B, don't care about performance. usually care about MPG. I don't think it will change much.

If you are in that kind of position as a buyer worth looking at some of the 2nd/3rd choice options behind the market leader - especially some of the Japanese makes can have some quite nicely specced one off models they've done at some point or other which won't set the world on fire but are quite a good buy like some of the more obscure Tekna spec Nissans.
 
Certainly like the idea of a 300 bhp bit of white goods with no shouty kit but is there a bit enough market for them to do it? Probably not
 
The issue is the majority of buyers are more interested in road tax and MPG and will quite happily potter about in a Crossover Juke or Qashqai with a 1.2 turbo engine with around 120Hp. They’re completely disinterested in 0-60 times as long as it’s not glacial. Then you see them ragging the absolute nuts off it on a motorway slip road.

there are plenty of warm hatches about, Focus and Astra are both available with 1.5 or 1.6L turbo charged engines with outputs of 150 or 180 HP which while not into hot hatch territory, will do 0-62 in around 7.5-8 seconds which is decent enough for most people.
 
233 said:
Certainly like the idea of a 300 bhp bit of white goods with no shouty kit but is there a bit enough market for them to do it? Probably not
Click to expand...

Ford did, sorta, with the mk3 Mondeo.

You could have a Ghia or Titanium spec model with the 3.0 V6 220bhp (ST220) or 2.2 155bhp (ST TDCi). Apart from a little embellishment interior wise they looked almost base model.
 
Low power engines, less demand on driveline, brakes, tyres. All can be downsized for weight and cost optimisation and then you end up seeing these cars as compelling offers. Production is simplified aswell.

Start throwing higher power stuff in and the recipe unwinds and the budget car is no longer as 'budget'.
 
paradigm said:
Isn’t this exactly what the likes of the Kia Stinger and Hyundai “N” stuff is for?
Click to expand...

Indeed.

Nobody wants a 200BHP Dacia Duster or Nissan Qashquai for example, which is why they don't exist.

Small dirt-cheap hatchbacks and city cars are fine with 120bhp.

The rest of the market is pretty much catered for already.

@HangTime do you have any examples?
 
Howard said:
Nobody wants a 200BHP Dacia Duster or Nissan Qashquai for example, which is why they don't exist.
Click to expand...

On a kind of related note - as much as I dislike the Qashquai and X-Trail, etc. and kind of feel like they are vehicles for people that have given up on life - at the same time I think Nissan kind of missed a trick not creating an X-Trail version with the Outlaw/Pathfinder DNA - swap some of the rounded/gawky look for more rugged lines and stick a nice V6 in there (albeit then you pretty much end up with an Audi RSQ8).

EDIT: I guess the "2022" Pathfinder is an attempt at that but it looks kind of wrong.
 
My immediate thought was 'ah yes, like the Kia C'eed' ...but you can already get that with 160bhp+ engines.

OP must be looking at some seriously budget metal :p
 
I have a soft spot for the Dacia Duster TBH - there is an elegance to the simplicity and they actually perform pretty well when the going gets tough.
 
I actually wish the opposite. Why don't companies make low power versions of some higher end cars. For example ,why do the big 4x4's need 400-500+ bhp engines. Why not offer a small engine you can pootle around in etc
 
Donnie Fisher said:
I actually wish the opposite. Why don't companies make low power versions of some higher end cars. For example ,why do the big 4x4's need 400-500+ bhp engines. Why not offer a small engine you can pootle around in etc
Click to expand...

There has been a trend towards that since ~2016 or so - lots of rinsed out 2.xL 4 pots in 4x4s instead of big V6 or V8 lumps and 1.5-1.6L stuff in SUVs that were previously 2.0+L or V6s. Personally like somewhere in the middle with a 3L V6 - it makes "pootling" around effortless compared to 4 pots while not being totally terrible fuel/emissions wise.
 
Jonnycoupe said:
Low power engines, less demand on driveline, brakes, tyres. All can be downsized for weight and cost optimisation and then you end up seeing these cars as compelling offers. Production is simplified aswell.

Start throwing higher power stuff in and the recipe unwinds and the budget car is no longer as 'budget'.
Click to expand...

One of the main reasons for the low power, smalled engine, is as you say for weight savings due to emission standards. The issue being is that cars are more substancial (crumple zone, safety cells etc) these days and because manufacturers are chasing emissions they sometime inadvertantly put in an engine that you really have to gun to get going, throwing the emissions thing out of the window.

Wasn't there Fiat not long back that was so under-powered it couldn't make it up certain gradients?

Anecdotely, I drive buses. There have been a few occasions where I've been sat at some lights with 2 lanes and a new, small modern car is in lane 2 and I've managed to pull away a lot quicker in a 13ton double decker.
 
Jonnycoupe said:
Low power engines, less demand on driveline, brakes, tyres. All can be downsized for weight and cost optimisation and then you end up seeing these cars as compelling offers. Production is simplified aswell.

Start throwing higher power stuff in and the recipe unwinds and the budget car is no longer as 'budget'.
Click to expand...

I think this surely hits the nail on the head most, there'll be so so many knock on effects of upping the power which all cost weight and efficiency in the bread and butter versions of the car which will be the vast majority of those sold. The engine is probably the least of the costs, that driveshaft which is fine with 120bhp might need to be 2mm thicker for 180bhp, those 270mm front brakes now need to be 300mm etc and once you start having non common parts between sub models that just adds up to not being viable i'd have thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom