Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
How big do you think your car engine needs to be?
- Thread starter neiltc13
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
By some accounts, Fiat have been fudging their figures, because it doesn't get anywhere near 68mg in real world conditions according to Autocar, in fact barely half that.
1.2 to 1.4 3 cylinder TDI would be sufficient in a sub 1000kg car. Such an engine is good for upwards of 120bhp and approaching 260N-m of torque.
Petrol probably VW's 1.4 TSI (Twincharger) would probably be my current petrol ideal, the supercharger means a proper bottom end, with no lag, and the turbo sorts the mid and upper ends.
It makes the Polo GTI as swift as its bigger engined bigger brother... now imagine it in a sub-1000kg car. But that's because you car is sub 800kg. Your engine in the 500 wouldn't likely produce any better figures (either performance or economy) than the TwinAir, which of course suggests it's not engine size that is necessarily the problem.
In fact it highlights one of the main issues facings todays cars (and something which both Blackadder & KnightWRX allude to) which is small engines in heavy cars don't equate to real world economy.
The TwinAir is a remarkable little engine, but... simply put, it's charateristics, i.e. peak power at the best part of 6000rpm, and comparatively little torque mean that that its never going to be particularly frugal in a heavy-ish car (admittedly 1030kg isn't particularly heavy in itself, but lets be entirely honest, it is for a car the size of 500, particularly when Audi's A2 in standard-trim weighed only 895 kg) because it's going to need to be driven fairly hard to keep up with the flow of traffic and there in lies the problem with these engines in their current installations.
The Polo GTI is a 1.4 TSI and is Twincharged (Both supercharged & Turbo'd) and pumps out 180bhp.
Well in Colorado, a naturally aspirated car will feel like an absolute pig due to the elevation. At sea level, the 2.4 liter 4 banger produces 182 HP and rated to tow 1000 lb and a 0-60 time of around 8.7 seconds. At your elevation, I would estimate it would produce around 150 HP or even less. That's not that much HP to move a 3800 lb. crossover around. Living in Colorado practically requires a V6, V8, or a forced induction engine.
Pfff. Kids these days. You had to ruin it all by shoving that much power on the front wheels.
It's the rear wheels that you want to push that kind of power to.
Imagine how much muscle I would have on my arms if I had to fight the torque steer from having 1000 HP go to the front wheels.
This is especially interesting to me as I moved from a country where petrol is at an awful price (£1.36/litre when I left) to a country where I laugh whenever I hear people complain about the price of 'gas'.
It made me understand why big engines are so prevalent here too.
However, I rented a Toyota Matrix a couple of weekends back and found that whilst it didn't feel particularly powerful, a speed limit of 55mph on highways is REALLY SLOW. Some extra torque would've been nice, which is why I'm renting (hopefully) a Dodge Charger next week, but it surprises me that Diesels aren't very popular here. A big diesel would have a lot of torque, which would be good for the way driving seems to be here.
All in all though, when it will come to us buying cars, I would really look hard at an EV or something with a small engine for day to day driving and something more spacious with an engine for driving distances or using on the weekends (basically a toy for me...)
It made me understand why big engines are so prevalent here too.
However, I rented a Toyota Matrix a couple of weekends back and found that whilst it didn't feel particularly powerful, a speed limit of 55mph on highways is REALLY SLOW. Some extra torque would've been nice, which is why I'm renting (hopefully) a Dodge Charger next week, but it surprises me that Diesels aren't very popular here. A big diesel would have a lot of torque, which would be good for the way driving seems to be here.
All in all though, when it will come to us buying cars, I would really look hard at an EV or something with a small engine for day to day driving and something more spacious with an engine for driving distances or using on the weekends (basically a toy for me...)
Colin Chapman*? Is that you?
* This was one of the primary design considerations of Colin Chapman, the founder of Lotus cars, and has been a design religion all the way up to when the company was turned over to a bunch of Italians who got fired from Ferrari.
Imagine how much muscle I would have on my arms if I had to fight the torque steer from having 1000 HP go to the front wheels.
None at all, that's what the power steering is for.
Ok fine disable the power steering and then fight the torque steer from 1000 HP.
Just to be clear, you know I was being sarcastic with my original post about sending 1000 HP to the front wheels. I am with you on RWD being preferred.
How so ? The RSX and most other Hondas produced in the 90s use equal length axles, using a mid-shaft on the engine side of the differential in order to eliminate torque steer.
Maybe he just didn't have good enough tires to get the power to the pavement ?
Though I very much doubt he had 500 whp on an RSX without any nitrous. That would be an insane turbo setup optimized probably only for high-rpm power output.
Three cylinders, ~.99 litre displacement.
Smart Car Cabriolet.... goes like stink - can cruise at 120kph for hours, so no problems on the highway. Really fun on windy roads. Rear engine/RWD. And it carries enough luggage for the two of us to go on week+ road trips.
Haven't crossed the Rockies yet, but I doubt it'll have any problems.
Plus, as a "micro" car it will park anywhere. In Victoria and Sidney BC they have discounted parking spots in town. The malls are starting to add "micro" sized parking spots, right outside the front doors. And in places communities where parking enforcement is, um, informal - I've been known to back into the gap between two cars that are parallel parked - if they've left just a little bit of extra room.
My wife has a Smart Car too.
Downside: If a couple come to visit, we have to both go down to the ferry to bring them back to the house.
Smart Car Cabriolet.... goes like stink - can cruise at 120kph for hours, so no problems on the highway. Really fun on windy roads. Rear engine/RWD. And it carries enough luggage for the two of us to go on week+ road trips.
Haven't crossed the Rockies yet, but I doubt it'll have any problems.
Plus, as a "micro" car it will park anywhere. In Victoria and Sidney BC they have discounted parking spots in town. The malls are starting to add "micro" sized parking spots, right outside the front doors. And in places communities where parking enforcement is, um, informal - I've been known to back into the gap between two cars that are parallel parked - if they've left just a little bit of extra room.
My wife has a Smart Car too.
Downside: If a couple come to visit, we have to both go down to the ferry to bring them back to the house.
I got a new Ford Escape 4WD last winter and I went with the V6. The 4 cylinder version might get a little bit better fuel economy, but once you start to load it up and drive in hilly terrain the V6 will do just as well. I also might be the minority anymore, but I like something that has some balls when I stomp on it. I think it also matters what sort of vehicle you buy when it comes to engine size. A small 4 cylinder is fine in a compact car, but in a small SUV or CUV especially if you have AWD or 4WD you need something more. Either a V6 or a turbo 4. My Dad just got a new F-150 with the new 5.0L V8 and let me tell you that thing is SWEET! Considering the size of the truck and the power it has the economy isn't too bad, but tons and tons of power and it sounds so good!
So they'd be completely f'd if you had 3 people visiting. Maybe the third person could stand on them like roller-skates...
At 2 plus small dog we gotta rent something...
Luckily we are friends with the local car rental people, so we may not get break on the rates but they always find us something to haul friends around in. I figure we are still way ahead financially, though, as we spend so little on gas the rest of the time. I don't calculate the numbers, but we can go a couple of weeks at a time before we need to fill up, and then it's rare we put more than $30 in.
The difference between the V6 and the 4 banger on the Equinox/Terrain is quite sizable. The 4 banger gets 22 MPG city and 32 MPG HWY while the V6 gets 17 MPG city and 24 MPG HWY.
Plus, the 3.0 liter SIDI V6 sucks big time. I drove the Equinox with both engines and the V6 isn't worth the extra gas it sucks down. The power is made high in the power band and is a torqueless wonder. I think it wants to be a Honda engine.
GM needs to put in the LFX 3.6 liter SIDI V6 that makes 308 HP in the FWD configuration.
The difference between the V6 and the 4 banger on the Equinox/Terrain is quite sizable. The 4 banger gets 22 MPG city and 32 MPG HWY while the V6 gets 17 MPG city and 24 MPG HWY.
Plus, the 3.0 liter SIDI V6 sucks big time. I drove the Equinox with both engines and the V6 isn't worth the extra gas it sucks down. The power is made high in the power band and is a torqueless wonder. I think it wants to be a Honda engine.
GM needs to put in the LFX 3.6 liter SIDI V6 that makes 308 HP in the FWD configuration.
Well it is possible on the Equinox/Terrain that the V6 isn't worth the extra gas, but in the Escape there seemed to be a huge difference between the two on my test drive. Plus I wanted a hitch for towing a small utility trailer and only the V6 offered a tow package.
He just had crazy wheel hop when he really got on it. I can only go off the dyno sheets he showed me. The K series motor is pretty stout though. I've seen quite a few turbo builds around 400-500 on my car club.
Mine has a 5.4 liter engine. It used to be available with a 4.6 liter, but I never drove that model.
it depends. I sure has hell would not be comfortable or happy with a Fiat but I also am 6' 4" so it would be on the way to small size for me and the engine would be way to small for my taste.
My current car is a Spec V sentra with a 2.5L 175 hp. I am used to have the extra power and it has gotten me out of more than 1 tight jam by shear power and lots of low end torque. The car I know would handle mountain great as an ex has a car with the same engine and I was with her when it had to drive up and down some mountains and it worked great no problem at all.
Either way I like cars that have more room in the drivers seat. Screw the back seat but then again there never is any room behind my seat no matter what I drive.
I sat in the 500 back at NAIAS. I'm 5'8 and adjust the drivers seat to where I could drive comfortably, only a 10 year around could fi in the back seats. My friend was around 6'1 to 6'4 and when he sat in the back behind me, his knees were wrapping around my seat. Then we switched places and I had no legroom or headroom in the back.
I'm about 5'9" and I thought it was a pretty roomy car for how small it is. The back seats are for short trips only, or for children. But how often do you drive with people in the back anyway? Maybe 10% of the time or less, unless you carpool?
As an aside, I rented a Mini once and put my girlfriend (5'2") and mother (5'5") in the back seat. My father (6') rode shotgun. We put 500 miles on the car with the four of us in it and nobody complained about being cramped. The car was still surprisingly quick with four onboard as well.