Pointless engine combos.

[Pillock]

They did the latest Astra with a 1.3cdti engine giving 75bhp.

Those Astras are MASSIVE.

[fordperv]

Any v-tec engined cars.

Ftfy because of the lack of torque

[Pete-M]

Å koda Superb 1.2 FSi has to be a contender for RX8 Engine Longevity Award.

[Lacquer Peel]

They did the latest Astra with a 1.3cdti engine giving 75bhp.

Those Astras are MASSIVE.

 

93bhp, but still...

 

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-figures/vauxhall/astra/hatchback-2009/46559/

 

To be fair the performance figures aren't far off those of an average 90s turbo diesel.

[forddeliveryboy]

Yup, turbos make sense. We were taught that by Saab in 1978. 

 

 

The Mondeo, even at 70mph in sixth gear, could pull out to pass a lorry on a dual carriageway without needing a cog-drop.

 

The 180hp 2.0T that replaced the 2.4 unit makes SO MUCH MORE SENSE! I can drive it like a diesel around town - everywhere in 3rd - as you can trundle it up to speed from around 10mph without it grumbling at all, and then above 35mph it kicks off properly.

 

 

200hp in the 2010s is to a car what 100hp was in the 1970s - we say we've come a long way with car development (certainly the cheap brands are way better than they ever even tried to be) but if we need twice the power to scratch the same itch, it's not very advanced is it? Ok so I can average 45mpg in a fast modern diesel but every advancement has been compensated for with extra mass and extra stuff to go wrong - which it does. 

 

We need to apply modern production engineering techniques to lighter cars, then we'd be on that up-curve once again and into virtuous-circle land. I'm convinced too much mass is one big reason I'm left feeling flat in a modern car.

[J-T]

Every engine combination offered in the Freelander. 1.8 K Series - nice revvy engine with not much torque...in a 4x4 getting on for 2 tonnes which apparently according to a very little known rumour had a propesity for HGF. Or L series diesel - not a bad engine, but 95bhp in the same car, really?? I had one for a bit, I fucking hated the thing. Trying to maintain momentum on a twisty A road involved constant cog swapping as it couldn't really pull 5th gear but was noisy as hell in any other.

 

Oh, didn't they also offer the KV6 in the Freelander? So that'll be most of the shortcomings of the 1.8, but 18mpg.

 

See also Discovery 2.0MPi

 

P38 Range 2.5 Di - that engine wasn't amazingly powerful in an E34 5 series I had so I dread to think what it's like in that. Also prone to pump failure. And probably not much more economical than the V8 given it only did about 35mpg in the Beemer

[R9UKE]

Renault's 2.0 IDE. Three letters that strike fear into the hearts of us Renault apologists. It was basically supposed to deliver amazing performance with fuel economy that would defy that. The fuel economy did deliver, it was brilliant, because the fuckers never moved. They CHEW through fuel rails, injectors and fuel pressure regulators. All specific to the engine and impossible to get. As a result, they're nearly extinct. It was pointless because it was offered in the Mégane, Scénic and Laguna II which already had excellent* 2.0 16v engines, that were already good on juice and pretty beefy in the power department.

 

Phun phact - if you're driving a Laguna II 2.0 IDE, like actually in motion, proceeding, at speed, under the vehicle's own will, the earth splits down the core and fills the universe with gold glitter that can be used in exchange for immortality.

[NorfolkNWeigh]

I've never understood the point of the 2.4 140. It's just a de-tuned 170.

 

Why would you make an engine worse?

My E280 Dizzler Merc is the same 3.0 V6 that resides in the contemporary E320 , mine has 30 BHP less. On the spec printout I got, one of the options is - 'Reduced power engine'

 

It's all about marketing, apparently.

[Ghosty]

B5 Audi A4s.

 

Can't even begin to explain how confusing it is.

 

No 2.0 for some reason, five variations of V6 (six with the S4!), red herring 2.4 V6 with no quattro or sport options...

 

Could have made it a lot simpler by holding off on the A4 release until '97, where the Coupé was discontinued and the A6 became a car in its own right instead of a rebadged 100. Would do away with some of the confusion.

 

And Haynes are bastards too, only doing HBOLs for 4 cylinder cars...

[PhilA]

I've owned and driven some horribly engined vehicles. The 1.8 NA diesel mid-90's Escort van was one. Gear ratios chosen by someone in Accounting, steering specified by the guys who specialised in brakes, brakes by the people who built Morgan chassis' and the engine picked by the Marquis de Sade.

Combine that all together and you had a van that made quite a nice zingy rattle noise when you floored it, and you had plenty of time to appreciate the noise because it spent so damn long in each gear, particularly first, second and third.

 

Some would argue the flip-side of the coin (I think they already kinda have) in putting a 2.0 engine in a car designed for a 1.1 (My GTA), but I disagree. The only thing I do not like is how buzzy it is at highway speeds. 65 is 3250 RPM and the body isn't heavy enough to absorb the vibration. Conversely it's the engine the car should have had from the start. Decent fuel economy for the size of the thing and how many power-accessories are nailed to it. It runs out of breath over 4750 RPM but is a torque monster. It'll burble around happily at anything over about 1100 RPM and will pull smoothly in top from 28-30 mph all the way to well beyond the speed limit.

 

I guess that's been my pet peeve with smaller engines in big cars- Europe seems to have their cars geared for drive-to-the-redline high blood pressure driving, with pathetically torqueless engines in vehicles too heavy for them. Gurgling along at low RPM is just as good for economy but much better for engine longevity.

 

I read that so much from people who drive coaches and buses and big trucks. What next? The quad-turbo 1.0 Ford Cargo? 270BHP at 7200 RPM, 63 lb-ft of torque at exactly 5127 rpm, engine held in with Dzus fasteners for easy changes...?

 

 

--Phil

[LC Torana]

I ripped all that newfangled artifitially feeling electronic shit out of my Rover and ruefully returned to points.

As a result, the car is alive, has personality, and responds to my driving, exactly what a car should do

and all post 1986 appliances don't.

 

Snap.

 

I fitted an electronic ignition to my P6B many years ago, and WHEN it failed, I reinstalled the points, condenser and original breaker plate.

 

Yes I do have to check the dwell now and again, but I am all the happier for it.  The car is more responsive to tuning adjustments as well.

[Lacquer Peel]

 

 

I guess that's been my pet peeve with smaller engines in big cars- Europe seems to have their cars geared for drive-to-the-redline high blood pressure driving, with pathetically torqueless engines in vehicles too heavy for them. Gurgling along at low RPM is just as good for economy but much better for engine longevity.

That's partly why I like a good diesel. Petrol engines with acceptable fuel consumption feel and sound weedy to me, and diesels are usually coupled with long gearing. Even my van pulls 70MPH at 2500RPM.

[Pillock]

I like diesels better too, they waft along better than a similarly sized petrol because they have all the torque down low. 

Some larger engined 8vs were OK - the original Golf GTI and Astra GTE and stuff, but now the public demand sixteen valves because 16 is better than 8, you've got loads of gutless weedy cars that need thrashing.

 

Don't get me wrong, it's sometimes good fun to hammer a revvy 16v across country roads - but it gets tiring to be commuting in one.

[rantingYoof]

Ok so I can average 45mpg in a fast modern diesel but every advancement has been compensated for with extra mass and extra stuff to go wrong - which it does. 

 

We need to apply modern production engineering techniques to lighter cars, then we'd be on that up-curve once again and into virtuous-circle land. I'm convinced too much mass is one big reason I'm left feeling flat in a modern car.

 

I parked the S60 in Tescos on Thursday last week, and upon my return noted that a brand new five-door Clio had parked next to me.

 

The fucking thing was as wide as my S60 and nearly as long.

 

A Renault Clio....! It will almost certainly have a 0.9 turbo petrol in it, or something....

[hairymel]

 

 

V12 5.0 BMW stuff. 10bhp more than a 4.0 V8 and you're tipping fuel down its throat at the rate of 14-15 mpg.

 

 

just 2 main points of contention here -

 

!. the v12 e32 i had was just glorious (although the sword of Damocles potential repair bills were not)

 

2. my e23 735 averaged 19mpg and the e32 750i averaged 16mpg but the difference was worth it

[Pete-M]

The 540i 4.4 I used to run only averaged 12-14 mpg around town. V12 does about the same, but the V12 will pretty much never manage more than 20-22 mpg on a run. V8 will do 30 driven half decently.

[PiperCub]

1.3 Cortina Mk4 - one of the slowest cars I'd driven to date (1993-ish) and probably subsequently.

 

MB Sprinter 3.5T in 90bhp trim - try that fully loaded. 

 

Agree with Pillock on 8 Valvers (GTi & GTE - had both) over trendy/impress-your-friends 16V's 

[forddeliveryboy]

I like diesels better too, they waft along better than a similarly sized petrol because they have all the torque down low. 

Some larger engined 8vs were OK - the original Golf GTI and Astra GTE and stuff, but now the public demand sixteen valves because 16 is better than 8, you've got loads of gutless weedy cars that need thrashing.

 

Don't get me wrong, it's sometimes good fun to hammer a revvy 16v across country roads - but it gets tiring to be commuting in one.

 

I agree, but isn't it possible to electronically (as well as the old-fash way) give lots of low-down pull to a modern petrol? 

 

This is where EVs will score - diesels will steadily vanish, petrol engines are headed for 900cc with multiple turbos and other blowers bolted on.

 

 

The original 16v 1800cc VW engine was long criticised for lacking go under 4500rpm, even though it pulled as hard as the 8v - but the brain knew what was coming so it felt slower. German engines have usually always been all at sea in Britain, the original 8v 1800 was well-liked because of its torque low in the rev range. The K-series is one of the sweetest 4v/cyl engines with lots of pull low down as well high up, the Chinese got a bargain.

[PhilA]

That's partly why I like a good diesel. Petrol engines with acceptable fuel consumption feel and sound weedy to me, and diesels are usually coupled with long gearing. Even my van pulls 70MPH at 2500RPM.

 

Agreed, but coming back home for the holidays, leaving behind a pickup truck with a 5.3 in it that'll rumble along the highway all day at 85 doing little over 2000 rpm to get into a 1999 Audi A4 1.8T quattro sport, piling in and then rolling down the M4 at 65 doing well over 3500 rpm just did my head in.

 

That was the comment given by my parents when they come to visit. At the time we had a Chevy Impala, a little bigger than the Audi but with the 3.5 V6 in (The GM "High Value" engine, 3/4 of a Rover V8, bored and stroked), and at the end of a day's travel to Tennessee they got out and commented at that didn't feel tired at all having traveled nearly 1000 miles. In that car you didn't feel the engine at all unless you planted the throttle. That has a lot to do with the styles- a big diesel you do get some vibration but it's lower freqency and you don't get out of the car on the other end feeling like you've been driving a chainsaw.

[RoadworkUK]

I think I'd honestly have to stick the KV6 engined 800 in this list, much as I adore it.

 

175hp of creamy, torque-free sonorousness, and quick if you make it work hard, but it still seems as if the KV6 was a strange development choice. Why go to all that hassle when they already had an unrefined but well proven 200hp turbo M16 in the range?

 

No doubt it was for the prestige, the fact that a luxury car has to be available with a V6. But 2.5 litres was the wrong size to develop. Honda got it right increasing the Legend's V6 to 3.2 litres.

 

A 3.0 litre KV6 would be A Good (well, better) Thing.

[derskine]

Talbot Sunbeam with a slightly bigger Imp engine?

[Junkman]

Anything with a diesel engine.

There. I said it.

[Lukas]

My wifes 2010 Honda CRV 2.0i is horrible to drive too. 

 

You see, it´s a comfortable, spacious and heavy family car. With Real-Time-4WD (system is shite, name is cool!) and a 5-speed-automatic. 

 

Sounds relaxing to drive. But sadly, it is not. 

 

The gearbox tries to shift into a high gear at every possible occasion. To safe fuel, I guess. But the small 2 litre VTEC-engine with 155hp does 

not have any torque at all.

 

So you drive along with low revs. Now you want to go a bit faster. You step on the accelerator and nothing happens. The car goes the same 

speed, the engine is just a bit louder. So you step on the accelerator more. The engine gets more loud, but nothing happens. So you floor it,

the gearbox get´s a shock, shifts down 2 gears, the revs jump up to 5000rpm, the engine screams and now finally it starts to go a bit faster. 

Not a lot, because it´s too sluggish for the car, but at least there is some acceleration. 

 

On the autobahn, it is hopeless too. Cruise control on 130km/h or 140 and suddenly you get to know all the short uphill-parts you did not know

they existed before. The car only has 2500rpm at 140 km/h. But on every not-noticeable uphill-section, it need to shift down one or even two

gears to maintain the speed. We live in Austria, so you could imagine, the car is almost always shifting between 5, 4 and 3 when in cruise-control.

 

And it uses 10 litres fuel on 100km. 

 

Not a nice combo. But on the other hand, the i-CDTI-diesel has problems and expensive repairs when it gets old. The petrol-one wont. 

 

Thats the reason why I talked her into buying a used petrol-one, not the diesel. 

[Felly Magic]

Seat Ibiza/VW Polo 1.4 8v, 60 bhp in a small car that isn't that light, and most Ibizas had factory aircon, so feckin hell, slow isn't the word. Even the pushrod Skoda 1.4 had 8 more bhp in the Fabia!

[SiC]

Not a nice combo. But on the other hand, the i-CDTI-diesel has problems and expensive repairs when it gets old. The petrol-one wont.

Interesting. What sort of problems have you seen mentioned?

 

I've got a 9 year old i-CTDI in my Civic with 126k odd on the clock. Pull excellently and runs very well still. I also see many high miler examples of the engine in both the Civic and Accord.

 

I know they have clutch issues - mine has been done, got the latest revision & uprated Honda clutch. However that only cost £450 all in for a Genuine Honda clutch and labour at local garage at 97k. Cam chain on these too, so saved on the belt. Didn't do the DMF though, as tried several Honda dealers for quotes and everyone said they sell a lot to garages but they very rarely change themselves. If the slipping clutch is changed soon enough, then the DMF doesn't overheat and warp. My Mechanic had a really good look and measure of the DMF on mine and found nothing wrong with it at all.

 

I've always thought this engine to be one of the last Diesels without all the crappy emission bollocks on (DPF/SCR filters, etc) and a understressed lump that will last for years.

[Lukas]

My mechanic told me about the typical modern-diesel-probnlems. High-pressure-pump dead, injectors leaking, resulting in holes in the pistons, turbocharger dead,

all these things every other modern diesel suffers too. 

 

So nothing specific on the i-CTDI, just "normal" stuff. 

 

And my wife bought it used as a fife year old car, so the risk the former keeper did not treat it well was there. So the petrol-one was just the safer and less risky bet. 

[cros]

I've mentioned my old man's poor taste in cars on another post, but not that he once bought a new T reg. Granada, normally fine cars. He chose the 2.1 diesel without power steering which took the shine off a bit.

My Sunbeam 90 has a 2.2 4 cylinder engine which though derived from a 1933 Humber design is able to keep up with modern traffic. The Sunbeam 80 was virtually the same car fitted with an 1100 cc side-valve engine; it doesn't bear thinking about.

[Junkman]

And it uses 10 litres fuel on 100km. 

 

 

That's what all modern two litres gulp away. Or more. I don't know how, where to, and why, but they do.

Back when there still was real progress, my father praised his two-litre R20 needing only 8.5 to 9 litres/100km, less than the R16TX he had replaced with it.

[SiC]

My mechanic told me about the typical modern-diesel-probnlems. High-pressure-pump dead, injectors leaking, resulting in holes in the pistons, turbocharger dead,

all these things every other modern diesel suffers too. 

 

So nothing specific on the i-CTDI, just "normal" stuff. 

 

And my wife bought it used as a fife year old car, so the risk the former keeper did not treat it well was there. So the petrol-one was just the safer and less risky bet.

Ah. I'm reassured from the fact that working second hand injectors can be had for ~£35 - £50 and fuel pumps for ~£80 - £150. Also, afaik, they're pretty much identical across the usage of the engine - so most parts from 2.2 CTDi based CRV/Civic/Accord are all good.

 

Based on the lack of moaning's on the popular Civic and Accord forums for 2.2 problems, I think they're pretty darn solid lumps - which is why I went with one after a fair amount of research. I reckon this is partly because a ) Honda have 12.5k oil change intervals - none of this 25k extended life bollocks, b ) a 2.2 diesel putting out 140bhp isn't that spectacular (can easily be remapped to ~190bhp with virtually no ill effect), but I think that Honda typical over speccing. I like to think that as its Hondas first own design Diesel, they over engineered stuff just in case, as they will have less experience in where they can cut costs in the design.

[LC Torana]

Anything with a diesel engine.

There. I said it.

 

Agreed.

 

Diesels are for railway locomotives.  And lorries.