BMW talks of putting 1.5 3 pots in the next 3 series ( around 170 BHP for the petrol) and Ford talks about a small hi specific output 1 litre-1.2 3 pot for the next Focus. Would this worry you? Can't help thinking these engines will be very highly stressed and still can't get m head around a 1.4 in a car the size of a Supurb even if it is turbocharged: Be interested to drive one of those but god knows where there is a demo in the South East:confused:

Edited 23 October, 200916 yr by Matt Bodycombe

The Japanese have been doing it for 20 odd years...

No doesn't bother me if it works well.

But I like them to be working on making cars lighter too.

With all the enviromental pressures on manufacturers these days, its inevitable that we'll all be driving around in highly strung 1.0L engines.

10 years ago, you needed 2.5L to get 200+ BHP, now its really easy to get that from a 1.8. Give it another 10 years, everyone will be able to squeeze 200bhp from a 1.0.

To be honest, i think manufacturers should all be told to stick with their current engines, and be made to put all their engine research money into alternative fuels. That way, the car can quickly become less of an enviromental menace, and we can get to enjoy them once again.

Better if they stuck 2 or 3 in - then they'd shift

I can see the reasons why manufactors are pushing for low-capacity high output engines. Fuel economy and pollution are now big issues. The question with these small but powerful engines is really the long-term reliability of these high-tech components such as injectors and turbos. A car must surely cost a lot of energy to produce so what's the point if the motor only has a lifetime of say 150k miles maximum? My mate showed me a 10 year old Vectra with 400k miles on the clock. It might have mediocre fuel economy but certainly has earned it's keep.

It's not an issue, plenty of VFR800 Honda's put out 100BHP and a good lump of torque, rev to 8-9K and have covered 100k plus without problems.

I know we are talking about cars btw but I know of a guy who has a Honda VTR1000SP1, which is pretty highly strung, commutes every day, changes the oil every 5k or when he can't see it in the window anymore (not kidding) rags the nads off it and is not far off hitting 160K miles, that's a 1000CC V-Twin in a fairly high state of tune.

Small car engines don't scare me at all, in fact I would welcome them especially with some manufacturers (as others have said) concentrating on making vehicles lighter.

Nope, not bothered about it (says the man with the 2.8 V6 ).

As long as there's minimal lag with the turbo, then they'd be alright.

Not particularly bothered either; interested in fact to see what they come out with in the next few years. The 1.4T badge on a Superb is amusing indeed

I do wonder how they'll sound though? A bit like a food blender?

Steve

Just been browsing the net and Rotax make a 1.2 litre supercharged triple that puts out well over 200bhp. Used in Ski Doo snow mobiles and Sea Doo watercraft. Seen both in action and looks like an absolutely cracking engine. Would love to drive a 1.4 Supurb. I wonder if Allams have one? They are normally pretty good at letting forum members test cars but a bit of a way from me.

Not particularly bothered either; interested in fact to see what they come out with in the next few years. The 1.4T badge on a Superb is amusing indeed

Steve

Then again ,will we be worried in a few yearstime about 0 -60 times given the rapid speed of limit drops .

Another interesting point - ,unless I've missed something , what's to stop me buying one of the nil road tax cars like the Seat 1.4 ,and remaping etc it to give it some poke -as long as it still is within MOT levels .

the little 1.4 petrol in the abarth punto gives 180 bhp, and I don't beleive there has been any problems with them yet, the press seem to like the power delivery to.... (its turbocharged of course)

PDI'd a Volvo V70 drive today, this has the ubiquitous Peugeot/Ford/Mazda/BMW et al 1.6 diesel engine in it, i thought it would be a bit of a slug, big car/small engine, but it went ok, gear ratios were nicely spaced

obviously Volvo have only put it in the car to have an ultra low emissions big car

Doesn't bother me at all - decent economy and decent performance is fine no matter how it's produced.

As long as all the internals are sufficently uprated to handle the extra power, heat and all the other ancillaries to match then there should be no problem, and to think they used to say there is no replacement for displacement................

Im all for small force inducted engines, I strongly beleive they are the future:thumbup:

whatever happened to "there's no replacement for displacement"??

It's like saying "size doesn't matter.."

whatever happened to "there's no replacement for displacement"??

It's like saying "size doesn't matter.."

Generally speaking, I agree. My VR6 is so effortless from tickover compared to my Octavia vRS, even though both have a similar amount of power and torque.

For "main stream" cars, it's about having to rev less (so bring in turbo's so bring the torque band from 4-cylinder engines down a bit), meaning use less fuel in general.

Problem with tiny engines relying on turbo chargers is that turbochargers seem to be run near their limits on modern cars. I can't remember an old TD blowing a turbo inside of 250k miles, but modern ones seem to do it quite often.

This become a problem when a small highly stressed engine is relying on the turbo more of the time. The life time gets shorter and they go bang more often. At £500-£1000 for a repair that's a nasty bill and means older cars become non-viable very quickly.