Biggest Car - Smallest Engine

[Lankytim]

I had a 2 litre auto 740 saloon and it was absolutely dismal to drive. Foot down, VROOOOOOOOOOOOOM, VROOOOM, VROOOOOOM (thats the gears changing) look at the speedo after an eternity of acceleration- 25MPH.

 

My 2 litre manual 240 estate is OK but deffo lacks the grunt of a 2.3 engine. I have a good 2.3 block in the garage, just waiting for a spare weekend or two to fit.

[CIH]

 

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!

 

I found that with my old 1.6 Bluebird. Chuck it in 5th and just cruise with the radio turned-up. Easy.

[catsinthewelder]

I've agreed to go with a friend to look at a 1.1 Renault Kangoo. It could be a long drive home

 

I'll pack the tow pole and tools.

[eddyramrod]

740 2.3 auto and its suprisingly quick ... big bumper 244 with the early 2.1 That car was bloody awsome

 

Yep, been there, done that, I loved my big Volvos. Couldn't believe the power out of what were really small engines for the size of body.

[danthecapriman]

740 2.3 auto and its suprisingly quick ... big bumper 244 with the early 2.1 That car was bloody awsome

 

Yep, been there, done that, I loved my big Volvos. Couldn't believe the power out of what were really small engines for the size of body.

 

They are pretty big and heavy for the size of the engines but seem to go well enough. Thing is ive never ever had the desire to own the V6 versions with that nasty prv engine, ive never trusted them. Not only that I buy a volvo because its a volvo, so big, strong and reliable, when you start involving the french in that it just doesnt seem right somehow! Saying that I did have a last of the line 340 on a J plate with the 1.7 renault engine and loved it, it wasnt the most comfortable thing ever but was a good car and that used to go well too for what it was. But even so, if I ever get the chance to have another 300 it would have to be the 360 with the 2.0 volvo engine instead.

By the way im not a french car hater, I just prefer volvos to be volvos not a mix up of other stuff aswell.

[whiskeyonesix]

Funnily enough the 360 I had drove like a much larger car. Not what you'd call quick but pulled like a train. Honestly wish I'd never sold it, but using it as a daily driver and doing 16,000kms a year PLUS pretty much zero parts availability meant it had to make way for something more suited.

Anyway, that car is probably worthy of a "Smallest Car, Biggest Engine" thread.

 

I drove a mates 740 2.3 Carb'd one once. I think it put out less BHP than the 2-litre injection version, but as you said the extra 300cc made a lotta difference and it felt quicker...

[Volksy]

On the subject of that 1.7 Renault engine, I had a 480 Turbo with it in, but bet it's fun in N/A form in the Renault 5 GTX/Monaco

[danthecapriman]

I wonder what the actual specs are for the two engines, and how much more power there is in the 2.3, and what the 0 - 60 time is for each to compare. Or if the 2.3 just 'feels' quicker.

 

The 340 had a 1.4 version too, thats got to be a candidate for this thread! must be gutless, especially one with the rubber band gears! I dont think ive ever driven a 1.4 one.

[Joseph]

I have a 2001 Volkswagen Polo 1.0E. With this car weighing just under a ton; with 4 passengers on board; and the 999cc engine producing a colossal 50BHP - this can require A LOT of forward planning when going for an overtake! Yes, it is a Supermini, but compared to a Saxo or the like, the Polo is a bigger, heavier car with a small engine! From new, it had 50BHP which made for 0-60MPH in 18.4 seconds, and a top whack of 94MPH. With just myself in the car, it is reasonably nippy, but now that my wee Polo has a new gearbox with longer ratios for better motorway work, and 120,000 miles worth of wear and tear, God only knows how long it actually takes to get to 60MPH! But once at 60MPH, no problems at all, sits at 70MPH+ all day (altough I never speed, officer!) The older Polo 6N had a 45BHP, 1043cc engine: 0-60MPH in 21 seconds+, 90MPH top speed - scary??

[Joseph]

I wonder what the actual specs are for the two engines, and how much more power there is in the 2.3, and what the 0 - 60 time is for each to compare. Or if the 2.3 just 'feels' quicker.

 

The 340 had a 1.4 version too, thats got to be a candidate for this thread! must be gutless, especially one with the rubber band gears! I dont think ive ever driven a 1.4 one.

 

The Volvo 200/700 engines are as follows: 2.0 was 1986cc with 111BHP, 2.3 was 2316cc with 136BHP. (Both specs given for fuel-injected engines).

 

My dad had a 1.4 340 GL in about 1996 - his first Volvo. 0-60MPH in about 16 seconds, 94 MPH. The CVT auto was, I believe, a bit slower...

[Volksy]

Seat fitted the 903cc Fiat pushrod engine to the Ibiza, so essentially a Strada, with the engine from a Panda.

[R9UKE]

Peugeot 206 SW (The estate one) with a 1.1 petrol engine. Image that thing loaded up powering up the motorway!!

[Luxobarges_Are_Us]

Seat fitted the 903cc Fiat pushrod engine to the Ibiza, so essentially a Strada, with the engine from a Panda.

 

The Ibiza was a very light car, and the 903cc was an excellent engine. As long as they didn't fit it with a daft gearbox, I can't imagine it having any issues making decent progress (unless driven by a daft old bint who always changes up at 1500rpm).

[pandamonium]

Full size family car with small engine?

 

 

Spec

 

Introduced to UK Apr, 1984

Doors: 4

Gears: 4-Speed Manual (synchromesh)

Compression Ratio: 8.5:1

Engine: 1198cc

Bhp @ 5600rpm 73 (S.A.E)

Torque: (lb/ft 3400rpm) 64

Valves: 8 - Overhead Cam-Shaft (chaindrive)

Acceleration 0-60mph 18 seconds

Kerbside Weight 995kg

[dollywobbler]

Full size family car with small engine?

 

 

Spec

 

Introduced to UK Apr, 1984

Doors: 4

Gears: 4-Speed Manual (synchromesh)

Compression Ratio: 8.5:1

Engine: 1198cc

Bhp @ 5600rpm 73 (S.A.E)

Torque: (lb/ft 3400rpm) 64

Valves: 8 - Overhead Cam-Shaft (chaindrive)

Acceleration 0-60mph 18 seconds

Kerbside Weight 995kg

 

Sorry. Wartburg is just as big and only 993cc. The barking triple sounds superb too.

[Felly Magic]

The Riva was also available with the miserable 1.2 litre engine, which would do a strained 85 flat out.

[Betaphile]

 

Holden Commodore 'Starfire' - a supposedly fuel-efficient version of 'Australia's Own', created in the wake of the 1979 oil crisis. Used a 1.9-litre four-pot, which basically amounted to the standard Holden I6 minus two cylinders - a total of 78 horsepower pushing 1160kg. To top it all the engine had the efficiency you'd expect of a crudely cut-about version of a motor that was originally developed in the 1950s, totally negating any economy benefits it might have had.

 

Lancia offered a 1.6 carby Thema at launch - produced a few dozen before quietly killing it. It was pretty much the Beta's twin-cam motor with 105 horsepower, claimed max of 185km/h - not bad for the time really. One imagines though that the Coma 1.6 CHT wasn't too much fun - same block but single-cam head and 83 horsies.

[messerschmitt owner]

Powerdrive - 322cc engine to power this!

 

powerdrive 2 by messerschmitt owner, on Flickr

 

powerdrive 1 by messerschmitt owner, on Flickr

[Captain Mainwaring]

The 340 had a 1.4 version too, thats got to be a candidate for this thread! must be gutless, especially one with the rubber band gears! I dont think ive ever driven a 1.4 one.

 

I've had two 1.4 340s with the manual and vario boxes, and I've found that that engine copes with the weight of the car pretty well. Definately not what you'd call fast, but surprisingly nippy from standstill. They're pretty well bombproof engines if looked after as well, there was this mentalist on V3M who had a 300k+ miler. AFAIK it still hasn't been scrapped, it's in storage. This all despite the fact he pretty well abused the old thing, he once drove it down a pothole-ridden dirt road at 50mph apparently.

 

Bloody good cars IMO.

[Negative Creep]

 

Holden Commodore 'Starfire' - a supposedly fuel-efficient version of 'Australia's Own', created in the wake of the 1979 oil crisis. Used a 1.9-litre four-pot, which basically amounted to the standard Holden I6 minus two cylinders - a total of 78 horsepower pushing 1160kg. To top it all the engine had the efficiency you'd expect of a crudely cut-about version of a motor that was originally developed in the 1950s, totally negating any economy benefits it might have had.

 

 

Not to mention a level of reliability that quickly caused it to be known as the "misfire"

[daverapid]

Estelle 105....1046cc.

 

[wuvvum]

 

845cc, 34 bhp, 3 gears. POWAH!!!

[Father Ted]

^^^

Ah, but life was more sedate in those days.

 

Does anyone remember a Vauxhall Viva HC with 997cc Ford engine transplanted into it - or did I dream that? I bet that was miserable.

[Joseph]

The 340 had a 1.4 version too, thats got to be a candidate for this thread! must be gutless, especially one with the rubber band gears! I dont think ive ever driven a 1.4 one.

 

I've had two 1.4 340s with the manual and vario boxes, and I've found that that engine copes with the weight of the car pretty well. Definately not what you'd call fast, but surprisingly nippy from standstill. They're pretty well bombproof engines if looked after as well, there was this mentalist on V3M who had a 300k+ miler. AFAIK it still hasn't been scrapped, it's in storage. This all despite the fact he pretty well abused the old thing, he once drove it down a pothole-ridden dirt road at 50mph apparently.

 

Bloody good cars IMO.

 

Love the 300 series. By the way, with the 1.4 carburettor-powered 340 having 72BHP, this figure isn't far off a modern, twin-cam 1.4 Golf at 75BHP. Where's the progress in power?

[danthecapriman]

The 340 had a 1.4 version too, thats got to be a candidate for this thread! must be gutless, especially one with the rubber band gears! I dont think ive ever driven a 1.4 one.

 

I've had two 1.4 340s with the manual and vario boxes, and I've found that that engine copes with the weight of the car pretty well. Definately not what you'd call fast, but surprisingly nippy from standstill. They're pretty well bombproof engines if looked after as well, there was this mentalist on V3M who had a 300k+ miler. AFAIK it still hasn't been scrapped, it's in storage. This all despite the fact he pretty well abused the old thing, he once drove it down a pothole-ridden dirt road at 50mph apparently.

 

Bloody good cars IMO.

 

Love the 300 series. By the way, with the 1.4 carburettor-powered 340 having 72BHP, this figure isn't far off a modern, twin-cam 1.4 Golf at 75BHP. Where's the progress in power?

 

Me too, I really like the look of them. I had a 1991 J reg 1.7 GL that was giffer owned before me from new. It had 57K on it when I bought it and only had 70K on it when I sold it a few years later. It was like new inside and out, everything worked as it should and the only time it let me down was due to a corroded terminal on the dizzy cap! The old boy that had it first even used to polish up all the metal fittings under the bonnet! Superb car in every way and I regret selling it. I would still have another but would probably go for the 360 with the 2.0 red block engine. No idea what happened to my old one (J430 HBK) but I sold it to a young couple from chandlers ford area.

[ashmicro]

My mate's wee brother thought there was something wrong with his 1.4 Golf when he got smoked by a 1.4 Rover 200.

[richardthestag]

Some myths in this thread methinks

 

1.3 tina mk3 were not that slow. my Grandad had one and it never had problems keeping up with traffic in its day, even with Gran and us three herberts not strapped into the back seat. and it was beige and iirc had a brown vinyl roof, thrashy old engine though and 4 speed box probably helped.

 

Dad had a company 1.8 Granada mk3 which he was very sceptical of prior to arrival. however we were all surprised and it bowled along at a reasonable pace even 5 up (6 including the dog) and loaded with holiday gear. Pretty economical also but rough as a badgers arse if thrashed.

 

in 1980 a 2 year old 1600 Mk4 Tina Estate might have had under powered written all over it but it coped well over the years that it was the family hack.

 

1.3 Mk2 Cavaliers were pretty useful - was it the same engine as the slightly smaller 1.3 Astra which was regarded as reasonably swift back in the early 1980's. My old 1.6 mk2 cav was a rev hungry bastard that surprised many of my friends. Company car manager wasn't quite so pleased when I posted 72mph (indicated) in 2nd gear (5sp box) on the noticeboard. It set a trend but nobody broke an engine and I kept that baby until it had 180k on the clock so no lasting damage then

 

Now you want big cars small engines I give you the 1340cc Consul Classic. So underpowered that it would comfortably eat the bottom end bearings within 20k. I weighed almost as much as the moon which probably didn't help but did rust like fuck which probably did help.

 

1.3 Marinas may well have handled better than bigger engined Marinas but they were still shit. I got mums nose first into ditch without any real provocation on a slightly damp road. Mum did get the magic 100mph out of it on the A1 once though. and it was an automatic. I got into the habit of "lunch" control, left foot braking and stamping on the throttle before letting the brakes go, I once got one of the tyres to squeek though it might have been one of the fronts compaining that the road wasn't arrow straight

 

Right about the Victor FD 2000 estate, dad had one of those and that was so facking thirsty that you had to drive it slow, not quite as bad as the FC 1600 estate that it replaced though. Lovely looking car that went wrong a lot and was sold when petrol hit 50p / Gallon. God only knows what the FD1600 version was like, must have been truly miserable.

 

An 800cc moggie minor and not even the side valve but the first of the a-series ones. seats 5 and couldn't pull a stick out of a pigs arse. Not even sure if that one could get to 60mph. I hauled the 800cc out and stuck a 1098 back in which shat the gearbox, so I replaced the gearbox with one that matched the 1098 engine and shat the diff. so I filled it with sawdust and sold it.

[Angrydicky]

O/T, but I didn't know Renault ever made a RHD Estafette? Were they ever sold new in the UK?

[dollywobbler]

The 803cc Moggy is indeed a painful way to travel. A quick blast through the gears and you find your ears bleeding by 40mph in top. The Traveller is apparently even worse due to a lower ratio back axle.

[Betaphile]

Inspired by Torsten's latest acquisition, I was doing some reading up about obscure commie shite last night... I guess this is as good as any the Ruskies have to offer in this debate:

 

 

The RAF 977, basically a van/10-seat minibus. Engine is a 2.4 four, which doesn't sound so bad in the context of this thread. It did, however, develop only 75 horsepower and was pushing over 1700kg through a three-speed 'box - and that's when it was empty. Fun Times when 10-up, no doubt.