Biggest Car - Smallest Engine

[Guest]

I've driven a 1.4 petrol C4. That's a 1360cc TU hauling a 1300kg car around. DO NOT WANT. My car takes 12 seconds to 60, and it is NOT FAST. This bloody thing was well into the 16s and that was wringing its neck.

 

There was also the comedy BMW '516' that existed around Lancaster when I started Uni. God knows what went on there.

[The Moog]

A 1.6 litre Volvo V40 is pretty bad.

 

Accerleration is awful but once at 80 it is quite happy. But 109 bhp(when new) pushing 1250 kg is woefully slow sometimes..

[Magnificent Rustbucket]

The W123 Mercedes 200D - a big car for 55bhp!

 

 

0-60 in 32 seconds with a maximum speed of 78.

[scooters]

2.0lt Volvo 240s are underpowered and drink gas to make any respectable progress

 

1.8lt late Vectras terribly sluggish - Insignia not as bad

 

1.5 D Volvo V50 despite having a particle filter (and all the woes cos of it) is a remarkably swift car when you get -on top - of the gearing

 

1.4 BX's - KruJ's right on this one - remember the pre Xantia Andre specials were about economy and handling and the very low weight and suspension of the likes of the BX means that speed is efficiantly maintained - ie you don't have to fit a fuck off big engine. The Pug 405 wth the same engine was a slug.

 

1.3 Mk2 Gowfs were pretty bad

[Guest]

Ah yes, that reminds me. I drove a 1.6 Vectra B once. 'Flaccid' just about covers it. I'm not a speed freak by any means, but I'd consider anything 'modern' much slower than my C4 unsafe for any kind of overtaking maneouvre.

 

Anything older than 10 years I view in a different light. Standards were different then. It's the law of diminishing returns - by outgoing standards the newest car would be lambasted for piling on the pounds. Often by driving an older car with a similar output back to back with a modern you realise how comically overweight the contemporary models have become. With a similar power output my 306 TD was two and a half seconds quicker to 60 than my C4, despite having 30 lb ft less torque. Would you rather avoid the head on or have the airbags and bodyshell to shrug it off? Horses for courses.

 

I think the W124 diesel may be a contender for honours in this thread. Good suggestion.

[Luxobarges_Are_Us]

*123.

[Vin]

In Italy, when they were launched, you could get a Fiat Tipo with an 1100 engine.

[cort16]

I can't think of anything that beats the Merc. If you had a shot in one un-awares you'd surely think it was broken.

[R9UKE]

The 1.6 Petrol Laguna II is pretty miserable. The 1.8 makes a huge difference

[Volksy]

1.6 New shape Astra 'rentacar' spec.

 

Woefully almost dangerously slow.

[barefoot]

I once had an Audi 100 Avant L

 

 

1588 throbbing cc's, 4 speed box & no power steering - the best parcel shelf in the boot ever.

[MK5 Escort]

1.8lt late Vectras terribly sluggish

 

I didn't think it was all that bad actually. Quite economical given a light right foot, refined (barring that odd cold 'chain rattle' they all seem to develop after a bit) and unless you were fully loaded with people or luggage (or both) pulled itself along okay.

 

The 1.6 in the Vectra B - now, I'll grant you that one... 'Glacial' is probably the best way to describe the performance of that. Only ever experienced the one and I don't intend on experiencing another.

[fiatdaft]

1.6 New shape Astra 'rentacar' spec.

 

Woefully almost dangerously slow.

 

you should try the 1.4 then !

 

Available in 1.4 100ps and 1.4 87 ps .

[Guest Len H]

1.4 BX's - KruJ's right on this one - remember the pre Xantia Andre specials were about economy and handling and the very low weight and suspension of the likes of the BX means that speed is efficiantly maintained - ie you don't have to fit a fuck off big engine. The Pug 405 wth the same engine was a slug

 

Why's the 405 so sluggardly, is it geared differently? Looking at the stats, the 1993 Peugeot 405 1.4 GL is 970kg and the 1989-on BX 1.4 is 921kg, so there isn't a huge difference in weight.

 

405s handle superbly so it's not like you can't carry speed through corners. I barely have to slow down at all now I've pumped up the back tyres on mine, they were causing a bit of lurch oversteer at 19psi...

 

If modern shit with inadequate engines are allowed now, we hired a new FIesta 1.25 in Germany last month, base spec with 59bhp in a car that weighs some 150kg more than the 75bhp 405 1.4. It was pretty terrifying on the autobahns.

[jonathan_dyane]

Not really a car, but the Merc 507D vans http://www.flickr.com/photos/38389354@N07/4727935534/ (4.5 tonne gross IIRC) was fitted with the engine from the 240D. I can only assume that it was like driving a glacier; many moons ago the father had a 307D with the same motah, which was considerably slower than the 435cc 2cv4 I was driving at the time...

[hairnet]

didnt chaikas have v8 with like 80ph from 5 litres...???

[Father Ted]

1769cc of raw non turbocharged normally aspirated Diesel power with the square port Talbot donkey putting out 59BHP when new.

Acceleration was measured by the calendar on the dashboard.

[gtd2000]

A 1.6 litre Volvo V40 is pretty bad.

 

Acceleration is awful but once at 80 it is quite happy. But 109 bhp(when new) pushing 1250 kg is woefully slow sometimes..

 

It's not that bad really, the Carisma (same platform 1105–1180 kg) shares a bit with the Proton Persona (980 kg -1011 kg) which comes with a 1.3L engine which still moves it along well enough.

 

V40/S40's are pretty light build quality cars - I wouldn't expect them to be drastic in 1.6L form...?

[trigger]

Capri 1.3 with Kent pushrod engine.

 

I've just been looking through a Ford 1977 brochure that i bought today (£4.50 ) and was looking at the performance figures for the Capri, it was frightening!

 

1300 Economy - 50 bhp (3.0 V6 was 138bhp) 0-60 in 21.6 secs (V6 8.2secs) and a top speed was only 85 mph! (V6 121 mph), even the Mk 4 Cortina 1300 was quicker with 0-60 in 19.4 although it maxed out at 82 mph!.

 

And if your interested the Mk1 Granada 2.0 Economy was 75 bhp with 0-60 of 16 secs and a top speed of 91 mph.

[whiskeyonesix]

I owned a 1.6 S40 for a few months, nippy enough round town but by crikey it was tough going on the motorways. Same can be said for the 214i 8v R8 Rover I had. That "sang well" too

 

The two 2-litre Volvo 740's I had didn't exactly set the road on fire either, specially as one was an Auto. Bloody good cruisers though!

[dollywobbler]

1769cc of raw non turbocharged normally aspirated Diesel power with the square port Talbot donkey putting out 59BHP when new.

Acceleration was measured by the calendar on the dashboard.

 

I doubt a 1.7 dizeasal BX is that bad to be honest. Don't forget that the first Mk2 Cav diesel had 55bhp! That was a miserable 1.6.

[R9UKE]

 

I doubt a 1.7 dizeasal BX is that bad to be honest.

 

My 1.9 D BX was slow enough, I certainly wouldn't want to go any smaller.

[dollywobbler]

 

I doubt a 1.7 dizeasal BX is that bad to be honest.

 

My 1.9 D BX was slow enough, I certainly wouldn't want to go any smaller.

 

It's what you're used to. I find a 1.9 NA diesel BX (albeit the later 71bhp version) has all the power you ever need really. Anything else is just show-boating. They do feel slow at first, but you soon learn that the trick to making one go quickly is to try not to slow down, and keep the revs between 2000 and 3000rpm. No point going any higher - just gets noisy and unpleasant and you don't find much extra power there!

[mnde]

Capri 1.3 with Kent pushrod engine.

 

I've just been looking through a Ford 1977 brochure that i bought today (£4.50 ) and was looking at the performance figures for the Capri, it was frightening!

 

1300 Economy - 50 bhp (3.0 V6 was 138bhp) 0-60 in 21.6 secs (V6 8.2secs) and a top speed was only 85 mph! (V6 121 mph), even the Mk 4 Cortina 1300 was quicker with 0-60 in 19.4 although it maxed out at 82 mph!.

 

And if your interested the Mk1 Granada 2.0 Economy was 75 bhp with 0-60 of 16 secs and a top speed of 91 mph.

 

I've got a 1979 Autocar article about the new Citroen GSA, which compared all the vital statistics with its closest rivals, including the Capri 1.3 and Talbot Horizon if anyone's interested in seeing it. The Capri figures are ghastly, especially the economy. Less economic and miles slower (to 60 and top speed wise) than the GSA. Anyone on here owning a Capri 1.3 in beige would be a shite god though.

 

Mark.

[eddyramrod]

I knew someone who had a Capri 1.3 in beige, does that count? It was a long time ago though... 1982.

 

As for Merc vans: if I was equipping a fleet, they would be so far behind EVERY other van on the list that they would actually fall off the page and never be noticed under the desk. They are lethally slow and in every way inadequate. Trust me, it's been my misfortune to have to drive them for a living. (What exactly was it that made you think I didn't like them? )

[Luxobarges_Are_Us]

A 1.6 litre Volvo V40 is pretty bad.

 

Acceleration is awful but once at 80 it is quite happy. But 109 bhp(when new) pushing 1250 kg is woefully slow sometimes..

 

It's not that bad really, the Carisma (same platform 1105–1180 kg) shares a bit with the Proton Persona (980 kg -1011 kg) which comes with a 1.3L engine which still moves it along well enough.

 

V40/S40's are pretty light build quality cars - I wouldn't expect them to be drastic in 1.6L form...?

 

The Carisma had also been offered in 1.3 flavour, not sure where and for how long.

[Father Ted]

 

I doubt a 1.7 dizeasal BX is that bad to be honest.

 

My 1.9 D BX was slow enough, I certainly wouldn't want to go any smaller.

 

It's what you're used to. just noisy and unpleasant

 

Top speed was 75, but took a fortnight to get there and WAS noisy and unpleasant - it was far happier at 60mph but used to return an astounding MPG because of the way you drove it (due to the noisy and unpleasantness). The current owner replaced a TZD turbo with the TGD and I did warn him he wouldnt drive it faster than 60 - he laughed at me - he emailed me a couple of weeks later and said "you were right" but as it was costing less than the TZD to run he wasnt bothered. I gather he ripped the carpets up and put some more soundproofing under there.

TBH was foolish to get rid of that one.

[retro80sboy]

The 1994 Escort I had this time last year with its 1.3 engine has to be the most underpowered piece of shite ive ever owned.

[Barry Cade]

I'm sure I saw a 1.2 Manta A in Germany? Beats the 1.3 Crapi in Autoshite Top Trumphs.

[danthecapriman]

I owned a 1.6 S40 for a few months, nippy enough round town but by crikey it was tough going on the motorways. Same can be said for the 214i 8v R8 Rover I had. That "sang well" too

 

The two 2-litre Volvo 740's I had didn't exactly set the road on fire either, specially as one was an Auto. Bloody good cruisers though!

 

Ive always found the 2 litre 740's, 940's and 240's to be a bit underpowered. I have a 740 2.3 auto and its suprisingly quick and pulls well in comparison. Amazing the differance 300cc of extra grunt makes. I also had a big bumper 244 with the early 2.1 red block engine and still on its original stromberg (worn and shit!) carb, and even that was miles better than the later 2 litre injection versions and the size differance is minimal! That car was bloody awsome, used to look pretty nackered but put your foot down and it flew!