Much Speed, Many Horse Powers

Bear · 10 Nov 2015 at 19:28

Clarkey said:
A good article, will make a lot of people consider petrols instead of mindlessly going for a filthy diesel.
The new 1.0l turbos really do have decent performance, the Focus I had a go in felt more like the torque of a 2l NA, it doesn't feel chronically underpowered like the 1.0l displacement would suggest.

I rather stick with my diesel thanks, instead of having a puny turbo petrol.

Lashout_UK · 10 Nov 2015 at 19:38

Love the 1.2-litre triple in my Cactus. Great motor. Averages 40-45mpg, generally, which isn't bad considering it's usually driven with little consideration for economy. Seems pretty damned durable so far, too.

kmax86 · 10 Nov 2015 at 19:44

Random question but why did it took so long for petrol turbos on smaller engines to catch on compared to diesels ? Surely this could have been done years ago

Clarkey · 10 Nov 2015 at 19:59

It has been done before, tonnes of Japanese stuff with small turbo petrol in late 80s and 90s.

neoboy · 10 Nov 2015 at 20:14

Hardly news for people who know anything about cars but can only be a good thing if average Joe stops buying those little diesel things as shopping trolley runabouts that rarely even see a motorway.

rodenal · 10 Nov 2015 at 20:29

Bear said:
I rather stick with my diesel thanks, instead of having a puny turbo petrol.

Why? The equivalent 1.6 diseasel is absolutely horrible - anything more powerful wouldn't generally be matched up to a 1.0t petrol, again the likes of a 1.6t is far more enjoyable than a 2 litre diesel

Bear · 10 Nov 2015 at 20:51

rodenal said:
Why? The equivalent 1.6 diseasel is absolutely horrible - anything more powerful wouldn't generally be matched up to a 1.0t petrol, again the likes of a 1.6t is far more enjoyable than a 2 litre diesel

Because I'm not interested in any cars that have a tiny turbo petrol engine. I like large barges with reasonable sized engines be it diesel or petrol. Most people that harp on about how horrible diesels are only really have experience of rattlely 4 pots and not a decent sized v6 or straight 6 mated to a decent auto box.

[TW]Fox · 10 Nov 2015 at 20:57

Bear said:
Because I'm not interested in any cars that have a tiny turbo petrol engine. I like large barges with reasonable sized engines be it diesel or petrol. Most people that harp on about how horrible diesels are only really have experience of rattlely 4 pots and not a decent sized v6 or straight 6 mated to a decent auto box.

I think diesels are horrible.

Do I not have experience of a decent sized straight 6 mated to a decent auto box?

Could you recommend a better straight six diesel and a better auto box combination for me to try?

Dogbreath · 10 Nov 2015 at 21:20

Bear said:
Because I'm not interested in any cars that have a tiny turbo petrol engine. I like large barges with reasonable sized engines be it diesel or petrol. Most people that harp on about how horrible diesels are only really have experience of rattlely 4 pots and not a decent sized v6 or straight 6 mated to a decent auto box.

Most people that harp on about how powerful diesels are don't know how to use a petrol engine.

Vertigo · 10 Nov 2015 at 21:30

Basically my situation - after years of 2 litre diesels I switched to a 1.4 turbo petrol. Same power & CO2 emissions as the diesel although less torque obviously but still perfectly spritely and sounds a lot better!

Vast majority of my driving is short urban journeys where there's very little difference in economy compared to the diesel. Won't compete with diesels on long motorway hauls obviously but still tops 50mpg on long runs at 70-80mph.

rodenal · 10 Nov 2015 at 21:42

Bear said:
Because I'm not interested in any cars that have a tiny turbo petrol engine. I like large barges with reasonable sized engines be it diesel or petrol. Most people that harp on about how horrible diesels are only really have experience of rattlely 4 pots and not a decent sized v6 or straight 6 mated to a decent auto box.

Actually i do appreciate a decent 6 cylinder diseasel, BMW Audi and Merc all have one that I think is pretty decent but why are you comparing this to a small petrol? It's about comparable as a nasty little 1.4/1.6 4 pot diesel is to a v8 petrol. The comparable petrol is also a 6 or at the very least a reasonably sized 4.

A 1.0t doesn't even come into the equation

Dis86 · 10 Nov 2015 at 22:58

[TW]Fox;28798636 said:
I think diesels are horrible.

Do I not have experience of a decent sized straight 6 mated to a decent auto box?

Could you recommend a better straight six diesel and a better auto box combination for me to try?

BOOM! Headshot!

Jono8 · 11 Nov 2015 at 01:27

The odd thing about that article is why they are making a big thing of 2 litre turbo's making 200bhp. They are a bit behind the times. Most 1.6T mass produced engines for hot hatches etc are kicking out over 200bhp now.

200bhp from a 2LT is nothing these days.

Minstadave · 11 Nov 2015 at 01:37

Bear said:
Because I'm not interested in any cars that have a tiny turbo petrol engine. I like large barges with reasonable sized engines be it diesel or petrol. Most people that harp on about how horrible diesels are only really have experience of rattlely 4 pots and not a decent sized v6 or straight 6 mated to a decent auto box.

If only Nissan would make all their Micra's with nice 6 pot lumps, they're clearly missing a trick there. Why bother with these tiny petrol engines!

adam cool dude · 11 Nov 2015 at 02:05

Nissan in the 80's were getting 115PS out of a twin charged 930CC :cool:

That is almost 30 years ago! A friends Toyota Glanza used to manage 50mpg on a run and that was a mid 90's 1.3 turbo.

I wouldn't want a 1.0 turbo pulling 1500kg without some kind of warranty. You can have all the fanciest electronics in the world but it doesn't change the fact the engine itself is in a very high state of tune!

I like the way the author said we are entering the golden age of turbos. The golden age of turbos was around 20-30 years ago!!!

rodenal · 11 Nov 2015 at 03:26

Whilst I agree to an extent you could also say that a 2 litre normally aspirated engine running at 200bhpvs your usual 150ish bhp is in a very high state of tune or even more so the s2000's 240 yet those are very reliable engines. Even going back a bit to your gt4/mr2 240bhp from the 2 litre 3sge which wasn't exactly unreliable in its day. None of these are outlandish next to a 1.0/1.2t at 100-125ish bhp

Just a matter of getting the right mix of proven components and new ways to apply them I guess.

Bear · 11 Nov 2015 at 07:05

[TW]Fox;28798636 said:
I think diesels are horrible.

Do I not have experience of a decent sized straight 6 mated to a decent auto box?

Could you recommend a better straight six diesel and a better auto box combination for me to try?

I said most people not all, and I think you know that. If you dislike them so much then don't you think you are rather stupid to buy one or are you such a slave to a brand that you would rather buy something you dislike just because its in a BMW?

Bear · 11 Nov 2015 at 07:09

Dogbreath said:
Most people that harp on about how powerful diesels are don't know how to use a petrol engine.

Good job I used to have a tuned 200Sx that used to see trackdays so I know what a reasonably fast turbo petrol engine is like then isn't it

Bear · 11 Nov 2015 at 07:15

rodenal said:
Actually i do appreciate a decent 6 cylinder diseasel, BMW Audi and Merc all have one that I think is pretty decent but why are you comparing this to a small petrol? It's about comparable as a nasty little 1.4/1.6 4 pot diesel is to a v8 petrol. The comparable petrol is also a 6 or at the very least a reasonably sized 4.

I didn't make any comparison, I made a comment about Clarkey's statement about the peoples choice of a filthy diesel instead of a petrol. All I said was I would stick to my diesel instead of a tiny turbo petrol, it was a statement of preference not a comparison

Jamauk · 11 Nov 2015 at 07:46

I recently was a passenger in a 1.4tfsi with active cylinder technology, where once the driver stops accelerating it goes down to 2 cylinders (in theory making it a 700cc engine. I thought it was very impressive and the transition between 4 & 2 cylinders was seamless, it was surprising just how often it went into this mode, and on a motorway was achieving 58mpg. That engine I think was producing 160bhp.