Much Speed, Many Horse Powers

Will these smaller turbo charged engines not be on average less reliable than a n/a larger engine and more cost to repair/maintain? Say if the turbo was to go etc?
Comparing a 1.0L turbo to a 1.6L n/a engine (both petrol) on standard midsize car like a focus, astra etc
 
wijcc said:
Will these smaller turbo charged engines not be on average less reliable than a n/a larger engine and more cost to repair/maintain? Say if the turbo was to go etc?
Comparing a 1.0L turbo to a 1.6L n/a engine (both petrol) on standard midsize car like a focus, astra etc
Click to expand...

They may not be inherently less reliable because of technology, process and production improvements over the years, however they are certainly more complex with the associated possibility for more things to go wrong with them, that's for sure.
 
One thing that irks me is people sounding concerned over the "highly strung nature" of these little 3 pot engines.

a 100bhp turbo'd 1.0L engine has the same specific output as a 200bhp turbo'd 2.0L, with a 125bhp 1.0 having the same specific output as a 250bhp turbo'd 2.0L - this sort of power output for a 2.0T is nothing new, and seems to have been done quite reliably over the years. So I'd suggest that, as long as the 1.0 engines don't have any inherent design faults and that the internals are adequately strengthened, they should be no less reliable.
 
The yaris turbot and colt vzt were ahead of their time i guess.

probably didn't quite have the economy of more modern cars.

Still miss my mr2 turbo. 240 bhp from a 1995 2.0 but yes it did get low double figure mpg when pushing hard!
 
The 1.2tsi in my courtesy car is a nice little engine. Got about 45mpg out of it.

I like the look of the 118i with the 1.5 3 cylinder, lots of people giving it good reviews.
 
Howard said:
One thing that irks me is people sounding concerned over the "highly strung nature" of these little 3 pot engines.

a 100bhp turbo'd 1.0L engine has the same specific output as a 200bhp turbo'd 2.0L, with a 125bhp 1.0 having the same specific output as a 250bhp turbo'd 2.0L - this sort of power output for a 2.0T is nothing new, and seems to have been done quite reliably over the years. So I'd suggest that, as long as the 1.0 engines don't have any inherent design faults and that the internals are adequately strengthened, they should be no less reliable.
Click to expand...
I would suggest that a lot of these new engines will be modular, with shared designs and components.. I know that is the case with BMW and their line up of 3, 4 and 6 cylinder petrol engines.
 
Howard said:
One thing that irks me is people sounding concerned over the "highly strung nature" of these little 3 pot engines.

a 100bhp turbo'd 1.0L engine has the same specific output as a 200bhp turbo'd 2.0L, with a 125bhp 1.0 having the same specific output as a 250bhp turbo'd 2.0L - this sort of power output for a 2.0T is nothing new, and seems to have been done quite reliably over the years. So I'd suggest that, as long as the 1.0 engines don't have any inherent design faults and that the internals are adequately strengthened, they should be no less reliable.
Click to expand...

The average duty of them will be higher though as they operate closer to that specific output for more of the time.
 
Economy will become more known when people are driving the things, the NEDC cycle is somewhat un-realistic, especially with turbocharged motors.

Also, a lot of people should pay less attention to 'dat mpg figure and more to TCO, unless you do enough miles, the cheapest motoring is a small n/a petrol engine with 2 valves per cylinder and nothing fancy.
 
The small capacity, 3 cylinder petrol engines with the turbo bolted on do return some great figures, they really do. However, it's still a 3 cylinder and although they do well to cover that up you can still feel it's a 3 cylinder. There was a good reason why 3 cylinder engines came and went away once before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom