# Boring Choice of cars/engines!?



## avit88 (Mar 19, 2012)

Anyone else feel nowadays theres such a boring range of cars and engines for sale?

If i was to choose a new car today its hardly worth spending the money!

I would only consider, vag maybe a vauxhall or bmw but they all come with dull engines!

I have a 1.6 now does (so they say) 0-60 in 10secs and 120mph

Most of the same sized engines around now are slower so Id have to get a 2.0 diesel which is only a fraction quicker! Such as joke!

Nobody seems to make many 1.8's any more and the 2.0 petrols are all classed as sports so then your insurance goes sky high. 

Just a joke...


----------



## tones61 (Aug 21, 2011)

:driver: :thumb:


----------



## Gruffs (Dec 10, 2007)

That's a hell of a 1.6 you have. 

What would you like as an 'interesting' engine?


----------



## avit88 (Mar 19, 2012)

:lol: was thinking more of a daily driver but thanks! :thumb:


----------



## avit88 (Mar 19, 2012)

Gruffs said:


> That's a hell of a 1.6 you have.
> 
> What would you like as an 'interesting' engine?


never tested the claimed stats but thats what vw claim! had 115mph out of it.

something a bit quicker that isnt badged as sport, therefore making them unaffordable for the average man aka me!

my dad has an old s60 2.0T pretty quick and doesnt cost the earth, just a bit too big! 5 cylinder engine too!

fed up of all the manufacturers downsizing the engines!


----------



## rtjc (Apr 19, 2009)

Mercedes make some decent petrol engines, which many of their buyers still go for as they don't want the diesels. Obviously, they have taken much of the sales but their petrol units are very good. Mine's an old 2002 with only 141 bhp mind you, but it's still very refined. Some of the Kompressor units are still available but they have turbo charged versions now and they are pretty good. BMW also still do some lovely petrol engines.

I do know what you're saying, but as much as there are dull & boring engine choices, there are also some really good ones and more choice than there ever was before. Emissions regulation has changed the game now.


----------



## rf860 (Jul 24, 2011)

1.4 tsi is fast and very cheap insurance. 

A lot of manufacturers these days are turning to using low engine sizes with a turbo. IMO, this is a much better idea than a lackluste n/a petrol as at least you get some oomph and some potential to remap, if that floats your boat. 

You can also get some cars that are quick without the 'sport' tag. E.g. 330i SE


----------



## Avanti (Jan 17, 2006)

avit88 said:


> never tested the claimed stats but thats what vw claim! had 115mph out of it.
> 
> something a bit quicker that isnt badged as sport, therefore making them unaffordable for the average man aka me!
> 
> ...


Why blame the mfrs? The goverments that you vote in are the ones to blame for that, and the tree hugging fashion, then the mfrs get emissions down and VED suffers and now the scare stories of charging to use motorways


----------



## avit88 (Mar 19, 2012)

yeah i remember the old kompressors dad had an old clk 230 was a beast! 

bmw r more in my price range


----------



## avit88 (Mar 19, 2012)

Avanti yeah your right!


----------



## avit88 (Mar 19, 2012)

rf860 said:


> 1.4 tsi is fast and very cheap insurance.
> 
> A lot of manufacturers these days are turning to using low engine sizes with a turbo. IMO, this is a much better idea than a lackluste n/a petrol as at least you get some oomph and some potential to remap, if that floats your boat.
> 
> You can also get some cars that are quick without the 'sport' tag. E.g. 330i SE


ive heard a few bad things about these engines, dont think they have quite perfected them yet have they?


----------



## rf860 (Jul 24, 2011)

avit88 said:


> ive heard a few bad things about these engines, dont think they have quite perfected them yet have they?


Yeah lol, was trying to think of an alternative and failed lol.

Vauxhall do a 1.6T that produces 180hp.

Fiat also do a 1.4T that i've not heard any horror stories about.

VAG's new 1.2tsi, although now very quick, gets excellent reviews.


----------



## Ultra (Feb 25, 2006)

The engine size is not the problem, modern cars are heavy and sound proofed this is what dulls them down.


----------



## rf860 (Jul 24, 2011)

dennis said:


> The engine size is not the problem, modern cars are heavy and sound proofed this is what dulls them down.


Would you rather they be noisy and unsafe though?

I know what i'd prefer


----------



## Ross (Apr 25, 2007)

Subaru ez30 is an interesting engine I know I have one:lol:


----------



## BoostJunky86 (Oct 25, 2012)

Mk2 FRS? 
2.5 Volvo T5 engine(of sorts)
300 bhp in standard trim. Few mods and 400bhp/440ftlbs of torque can be achieved,
Sound great, and go well to. And you can have it green lol


----------



## Philb1965 (Jun 29, 2010)

370z mate, 3.7 v6, I get 27mpg, same as a focus st or older mini cooper s.

Pick up a 10 plate for around 19k...a lot of bang for buck. You'll struggle to find anything better and pretty exclusive.


----------



## SteveTDCi (Feb 8, 2006)

Fiat/Alfa 1.4 tb multi air, the.9 twin air ... Ford 1.0 ecoboost ....


----------



## aimyv6 (Jul 17, 2011)

Vxr8,z4m?


----------



## aimyv6 (Jul 17, 2011)

I don't find insurance that bad on a 2.0 ltr (I have a vx220 turbo)


----------



## avit88 (Mar 19, 2012)

what are these faster cars like to run then? in terms of servicing and parts?


----------



## BoostJunky86 (Oct 25, 2012)

Mk2 frs. 
Not particularly expensive at all to maintain. 

It's the modding and tuning that costs the money lol! 

Oh and tyres and fuel :thumbs:


----------



## Franzpan (Mar 2, 2009)

rf860 said:


> 1.4 tsi is fast and very cheap insurance.
> 
> A lot of manufacturers these days are turning to using low engine sizes with a turbo. IMO, this is a much better idea than a lackluste n/a petrol as at least you get some oomph and some potential to remap, if that floats your boat.
> 
> You can also get some cars that are quick without the 'sport' tag. E.g. 330i SE


Seriously? :tumbleweed: Even the supercharged unit in th Scirocco is gutless above 50mph.


----------



## DJ X-Ray (Sep 2, 2012)

S3 8L
1M
Type R
Mini Works


----------



## rf860 (Jul 24, 2011)

Franzpan said:


> Seriously? :tumbleweed: Even the supercharged unit in th Scirocco is gutless above 50mph.


Mapped...different story


----------



## BoostJunky86 (Oct 25, 2012)

rf860 said:


> Mapped...different story


Is that not true for all cars though. With work they can all be quick.

That being said I'd love to drive that little supercharged engine my mate had a g30. Little thing was like a rocket. Once you'd conquered the traction issues lol


----------



## rf860 (Jul 24, 2011)

BoostJunky86 said:


> Is that not true for all cars though. With work they can all be quick.
> 
> That being said I'd love to drive that little supercharged engine my mate had a g30. Little thing was like a rocket. Once you'd conquered the traction issues lol


To be fair, i was referring to the 1.4 tsi and he was the 2.0t. Obviously they are different. Not drove either of them but in know somebody with the 1.4tsi and it's a quick little car.


----------



## Franzpan (Mar 2, 2009)

rf860 said:


> Mapped...different story


Only ever driven standard ones myself. What can a remap take the supercharged unit to? Close to 200?


----------



## rf860 (Jul 24, 2011)

Franzpan said:


> Only ever driven standard ones myself. What can a remap take the supercharged unit to? Close to 200?


the 1.4tsi in the ibiza is 180hp standard, mapped can take up to around 210hp


----------



## BoostJunky86 (Oct 25, 2012)

Coupe that be increased with a larger cooler etc on those or is it massive work involved?


----------



## rf860 (Jul 24, 2011)

BoostJunky86 said:


> Coupe that be increased with a larger cooler etc on those or is it massive work involved?


not too sure tbh, due to the fact that its a relatively new model, nobody want to mess with them too much. There's massive problems with them drinking oil, so i think most owners are just trying to prevent that lol.


----------



## aimyv6 (Jul 17, 2011)

What about a seat Leon cupra r?


----------



## Franzpan (Mar 2, 2009)

rf860 said:


> the 1.4tsi in the ibiza is 180hp standard, mapped can take up to around 210hp


Nice, the 1.4 in the rocco its 122hp or 160 with the supercharger. No torque worth talking about though.


----------



## rf860 (Jul 24, 2011)

Franzpan said:


> Nice, the 1.4 in the rocco its 122hp or 160 with the supercharger. No torque worth talking about though.


yeah i thought that. the neighbour has just bought their 17yo son the 122hp version for his birthday


----------



## Perfezione (Nov 23, 2006)

If your wanting an "interesting" engine. i'd be looking at somthing like a BMW 330/325. Can be had in SE trim avoiding the Sport like you mentioned. They really are a peach of an engine and bomb proof with it. The 330's have half decent economy considering the size and output too. 

I loved mine.


----------



## aimyv6 (Jul 17, 2011)

aimyv6 said:


> What about a seat Leon cupra r?


Or fiat 500 or the abarth version 1.4 turbo 160hp 170lbft torque


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

Urr how is there much difference between a mass produced naturally aspirated 1.8 and 1.4?

As someone mentioned, vxr8, z4m, monaro all come with more gutsy engines, the e60 m5 isn't that old either.

I don't think there have been many interesting vag engines, excluding the rs6, rs4, s8.

However, the brands you're talking about are all mainstream, so I don't see why they would not be bound by new emissions laws, hence smaller, duller engines generally.


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

alex163 said:


> If your wanting an "interesting" engine. i'd be looking at somthing like a BMW 330/325. Can be had in SE trim avoiding the Sport like you mentioned. They really are a peach of an engine and bomb proof with it. The 330's have half decent economy considering the size and output too.
> 
> I loved mine.


Good gawd, if that's an 'interesting' engine, i'll just watch some paint drying instead.


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

Also, if 2.0 petrols really make that much difference to your insurance, it sounds like you should be sticking to smaller na engines anyways.


----------



## avit88 (Mar 19, 2012)

aimyv6 said:


> Or fiat 500 or the abarth version 1.4 turbo 160hp 170lbft torque


wouldnt ever go fiat and the cupra is crazy on insurance when i can get the same performance and better from my dads old s60!


----------



## rf860 (Jul 24, 2011)

RisingPower said:


> Also, if 2.0 petrols really make that much difference to your insurance, it sounds like you should be sticking to smaller na engines anyways.


You sound like an old fart.


----------



## BoostJunky86 (Oct 25, 2012)

If you we're looking to change from a 1.6 to something a touch bigger, what about a 1.7/1.8/1.9 tdi. Get a decent map for the car should see good horsepower compared to know but being turbocharged and diesel you should see a good torque figure with reasonable boost but to insurance it's just a mid sized diesel. But in real life you should have a car with great mid range that feels good on the road. Unless you like to hold the car to the rev limiter so a tdi may not suit you,

I may be wrong it's just my opinion ;-) some more experienced on her may put me straight lol


----------



## JA1987 (Jul 3, 2012)

I like Fords new 1.0 ecoboost engine. Its a 1.0l, 3 cylinder, turbo, with 125bhp and 148Ibft on overboost and 56.5mpg combined. 

Its a very well engineered engine with a lifetime timing belt, 2 cooling systems, unbalanced flywheel and manifold cast into the head. Oh and the block fits on an a4 piece of paper. 

Ford tuned it to 202bhp, fitted it in a formula ford, made it road legal and lapped the nurburgring in 7mins 22seconds!!!

Will be awesome in a fiesta or ka


----------



## avit88 (Mar 19, 2012)

RisingPower said:


> Good gawd, if that's an 'interesting' engine, i'll just watch some paint drying instead.


its certainly more powerful, refined and probably more reliable than a stressed out little turbo charged 1.4!

and again the insurance isnt as much of a killer with something like a 320/325i.

my point is they offer no decently powered engines in smaller hatchbacks without labelling them sport!


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

rf860 said:


> You sound like an old fart.


You sound like an idiot.

If a 2.0 makes that much difference to their insurance, how are they going to afford something with an 'interesting' engine?


----------



## avit88 (Mar 19, 2012)

BoostJunky86 said:


> If you we're looking to change from a 1.6 to something a touch bigger, what about a 1.7/1.8/1.9 tdi. Get a decent map for the car should see good horsepower compared to know but being turbocharged and diesel you should see a good torque figure with reasonable boost but to insurance it's just a mid sized diesel. But in real life you should have a car with great mid range that feels good on the road. Unless you like to hold the car to the rev limiter so a tdi may not suit you,
> 
> I may be wrong it's just my opinion ;-) some more experienced on her may put me straight lol


i did consider this but without the remap, the gains are just so small over my current car... doesnt warrant the money if catch my drift.


----------



## BoostJunky86 (Oct 25, 2012)

avit88 said:


> its certainly more powerful, refined and probably more reliable than a stressed out little turbo charged 1.4!
> 
> and again the insurance isnt as much of a killer with something like a 320/325i.
> 
> my point is they offer no decently powered engines in smaller hatchbacks without labelling them sport!


Surely that's the point though fella??


----------



## avit88 (Mar 19, 2012)

JA1987 said:


> I like Fords new 1.0 ecoboost engine. Its a 1.0l, 3 cylinder, turbo, with 125bhp and 148Ibft on overboost and 56.5mpg combined.
> 
> Its a very well engineered engine with a lifetime timing belt, 2 cooling systems, unbalanced flywheel and manifold cast into the head. Oh and the block fits on an a4 piece of paper.
> 
> ...


might have to look at that though!


----------



## aimyv6 (Jul 17, 2011)

It depends wether you want a car that handles well too,also don't forget it power to weight  not sure on insurance though


----------



## rf860 (Jul 24, 2011)

RisingPower said:


> You sound like an idiot.
> 
> If a 2.0 makes that much difference to their insurance, how are they going to afford something with an 'interesting' engine?


Jeeez, some folk are so easily wound up on the net. Was joking.

Plent of interesting engines out there 2.0 and below. Some already listed in this discussion.

ps. I'm not an idiot


----------



## aimyv6 (Jul 17, 2011)

avit88 said:


> wouldnt ever go fiat and the cupra is crazy on insurance when i can get the same performance and better from my dads old s60!


It depends wether you want a car that handles well too,also don't forget it power to weight  not sure on insurance though


----------



## BoostJunky86 (Oct 25, 2012)

avit88 said:


> i did consider this but without the remap, the gains are just so small over my current car... doesnt warrant the money if catch my drift.


Still gonna have much better mid range to a small NA engine ;-)

A map would only be 300ish?


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

avit88 said:


> its certainly more powerful, refined and probably more reliable than a stressed out little turbo charged 1.4!
> 
> and again the insurance isnt as much of a killer with something like a 320/325i.
> 
> my point is they offer no decently powered engines in smaller hatchbacks without labelling them sport!


They certainly aren't interesting though.

That's because hatchbacks are generally light, fwd and are not really motorway mile munchers. If they have a larger engine, of course they're labelled as sport, why else would you have a larger engine in a car which is generally used as a shopping car/practical family car for short runs?

Bigger question, why does it matter in a hatchback if it has a smaller engine with the same power if it mainly stays in an urban area (which most hatchbacks will)


----------



## avit88 (Mar 19, 2012)

BoostJunky86 said:


> Surely that's the point though fella??


yeah i suppose

Just annoying for someone who wants the power but doesnt want the sport stigma.

its like a 320i or a golf gti 2.0l petrol

bet they are the same in performance but the golf will cost more to insure because its a gti..

just offer me a 2.0l petrol golf and make a 2.5 gti or something!


----------



## BoostJunky86 (Oct 25, 2012)

JA1987 said:


> I like Fords new 1.0 ecoboost engine. Its a 1.0l, 3 cylinder, turbo, with 125bhp and 148Ibft on overboost and 56.5mpg combined.
> 
> Its a very well engineered engine with a lifetime timing belt, 2 cooling systems, unbalanced flywheel and manifold cast into the head. Oh and the block fits on an a4 piece of paper.
> 
> ...


And the focus 2.0 Eco boost has just had 330 HP dragged out of it(kicking and screaming I would imagine) decent blower on it though. 
Driving feel was compared to a big turbo escort Cossie so if like to test drive one of these if they come out :thumbs:


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

rf860 said:


> Jeeez, some folk are so easily wound up on the net. Was joking.
> 
> Plent of interesting engines out there 2.0 and below. Some already listed in this discussion.
> 
> ps. I'm not an idiot


Not wound up at all, but maybe you should make it clearer :thumb:

There are plenty of interesting engines at 2.0 and below but tbh they're not generally in newer hatchbacks.


----------



## rf860 (Jul 24, 2011)

RisingPower said:


> Bigger question, why does it matter in a hatchback if it has a smaller engine with the same power if it mainly stays in an urban area (which most hatchbacks will)


Folks like the security of power under the foot if needed.


----------



## BoostJunky86 (Oct 25, 2012)

avit88 said:


> yeah i suppose
> 
> Just annoying for someone who wants the power but doesnt want the sport stigma.
> 
> ...


But that doesn't work for the insurance company lol!!

But you've prob got a good chance of finding a pokey 2.0.

Most of the what were 2.0 4 pot hot hatches are mostly 2.2/2.5's now. Impress, focus etc?

If its 2.0 ltr your after. I know in the mk1 focus shape. You could buy the 2.0 ESP with marginall less HP than an st170. But insurance is much cheaper ;-)


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

avit88 said:


> yeah i suppose
> 
> Just annoying for someone who wants the power but doesnt want the sport stigma.
> 
> ...


Then buy a big 5 series or 3 series, not a hatch.

I'm not sure they are the same in performance either, what about weight and which version gti?


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

rf860 said:


> Folks like the security of power under the foot if needed.


Then don't buy a normal family hatchback For mainly motorway mile crunching 

It'll be far better suited for inner city driving.


----------



## avit88 (Mar 19, 2012)

BoostJunky86 said:


> Still gonna have much better mid range to a small NA engine ;-)
> 
> A map would only be 300ish?


yeah i would def consider this as an option

i just want a bit more power RisingPower,

reason i got my 1.6 golf was because well i couldnt afford any bigger for insurance at the time, but i also use this car to do long journeys so needed to be a motorway cruiser too.

now id want the same refinement just a bit more power such as a 2l
but the 2l they offer are pretty similar in performance to my 1.6 therefore if i stayed with a hatch id have to get a sport version to see a bigger difference in performance.

Just sucks.


----------



## rf860 (Jul 24, 2011)

RisingPower said:


> Then don't buy a normal family hatchback For mainly motorway mile crunching
> 
> It'll be far better suited for inner city driving.


Hatchbacks are cheap to run, practical and always in high demand come selling time. Suppose that's why they are so popular.


----------



## rf860 (Jul 24, 2011)

avit88 said:


> yeah i would def consider this as an option
> 
> i just want a bit more power RisingPower,
> 
> ...


Have you considered a 1.9tdi mk5 golf? I think you'd be impressed with the performance in comparisson to your 1.6 n/a golf. They map to very good figures as well.


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

avit88 said:


> yeah i would def consider this as an option
> 
> i just want a bit more power RisingPower,
> 
> ...


Then buy a 3 series and don't whinge about insurance 

I'd rather have something a bit more mundane for a daily these days, something with any more noticeable power has so far proven completely unreliable.


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

rf860 said:


> Hatchbacks are cheap to run, practical and always in high demand come selling time. Suppose that's why they are so popular.


Exactly, but what they're not intended for is comfort and torque on longer journeys.


----------



## avit88 (Mar 19, 2012)

rf860 said:


> Have you considered a 1.9tdi mk5 golf? I think you'd be impressed with the performance in comparisson to your 1.6 n/a golf. They map to very good figures as well.


looked at the stats on parkers website and its not much different but i thin in reality the pull of the diesel engine would be greater, if u get me?


----------



## BoostJunky86 (Oct 25, 2012)

avit88 said:


> yeah i would def consider this as an option
> 
> i just want a bit more power RisingPower,
> 
> ...


Problem is people talk about HP as if it was nothing nowadays!

RisingPower may agree with belowmay not too lol)

30-40 bhp from a mass produced small NA engine( that don't forget has to cover 100k miles plus reliably from a manufacturer )is quite a jump. 
And without some form of forced induction it's quite hard to achieve.

So you say it's similar performance but all relative to the actually size of the engine. When you take a 2.0 apart it really is astonishing the power they can produce because they're not at all big lol


----------



## aimyv6 (Jul 17, 2011)

What are Audi a3/a4 like? Could this be an option?


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

BoostJunky86 said:


> Problem is people talk about HP as if it was nothing nowadays!
> 
> RisingPower may agree with belowmay not too lol)
> 
> ...


It is quite a jump and seems stupid to me.

2.0 are tiny anyways


----------



## BoostJunky86 (Oct 25, 2012)

RisingPower said:


> It is quite a jump and seems stupid to me.
> 
> 2.0 are tiny anyways


Small engine but you can always strap at gt3076 to one. Certainly gives it a kick up the a**e lol!


----------



## BoostJunky86 (Oct 25, 2012)

aimyv6 said:


> What are Audi a3/a4 like? Could this be an option?


A3. 1.8T. 
Typical VAG engine. I know of one that made 576bhp and near 600ft lbs torque. (Don't think it lasted long and the lag was unreal but god it went lol)


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

BoostJunky86 said:


> Small engine but you can always strap at gt3076 to one. Certainly gives it a kick up the a**e lol!


Well there is that, I still don't like 4 pots though


----------



## rf860 (Jul 24, 2011)

avit88 said:


> looked at the stats on parkers website and its not much different but i thin in reality the pull of the diesel engine would be greater, if u get me?


You'd defo feel a difference. I had a 1.4 100hp Ibiza that was actually quite nippy for what it was. I think the figures for that are slightly better than your 1.6 golf and the 1.9tdi Leon we had at work with 105hp felt much faster mid range.


----------



## BoostJunky86 (Oct 25, 2012)

RisingPower said:


> Well there is that, I still don't like 4 pots though


I didbt have much choice. That's what the escort should have. Although there is one with a twin turbo small block V8 in it. 1000bhp road legs drag car. Yes please lol


----------



## BoostJunky86 (Oct 25, 2012)

The diesel will feel worse 'top end' no point holding them to the limiter. As soon as the boost drops change gear ;-)


----------



## aimyv6 (Jul 17, 2011)

BoostJunky86 said:


> A3. 1.8T.
> Typical VAG engine. I know of one that made 576bhp and near 600ft lbs torque. (Don't think it lasted long and the lag was unreal but god it went lol)


Someone on the vx220 forum is transplanting a vag engine into his vx220


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

aimyv6 said:


> Someone on the vx220 forum is transplanting a vag engine into his vx220


Why?! Wonder whether they could fit a Rb26 in there.....Or failing that a k20a.


----------



## BoostJunky86 (Oct 25, 2012)

aimyv6 said:


> Someone on the vx220 forum is transplanting a vag engine into his vx220


Reyland on BHam put one in a yellow mg ZR( think it was ZR, 25 shape)
350 bhp. Killed the turbo before the engine. Good news for the engine I guess but it was a cheap IHI turbo


----------



## avit88 (Mar 19, 2012)

rf860 said:


> You'd defo feel a difference. I had a 1.4 100hp Ibiza that was actually quite nippy for what it was. I think the figures for that are slightly better than your 1.6 golf and the 1.9tdi Leon we had at work with 105hp felt much faster mid range.


yeah thats where mine looses puff i get to 60/70 in 3rd (reving high obv) but then 4 th gear is useless just maintains the speed before i hit fifth and it starts to climb again.


----------



## aimyv6 (Jul 17, 2011)

RisingPower said:


> Why?! Wonder whether they could fit a Rb26 in there.....


He has a naturally aspirated vx220, guess the vag engines are good for lots of power


----------



## avit88 (Mar 19, 2012)

aimyv6 said:


> What are Audi a3/a4 like? Could this be an option?


a3 is my golf in a different shell but i think the a4 uses the same 1.9tdi vag unit, cheer though :thumb:


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

aimyv6 said:


> He has a naturally aspirated vx220, guess the vag engines are good for lots of power


I'm surprised, but still, interesting :thumb:


----------



## andy665 (Nov 1, 2005)

Interesting small engines

Fiat Group Twinair and Multiair

Ford 1.0 Ecoboost

VAG Twincharge units

EU regulations are focusing manufacturers minds on downsized engines and personally I don't think its a bad thing, smaller capacity engines can be smaller and lighter leading to increased space efficiency and better dynamics.

Look at what manufacturers are starting to achieve, Mazda with their Skyactive technologies is a great example. More efficient engines (both weight, size and power / emissions balance), high tensile / hydroformed steel construction, use of aluminium is all pushing down weight meaning that even smaller engines can be fitted.

New MQB platformed A3 / Golf are lighter than their predecessors, Peugeot 208 is lighter than 207 - its happening everywhere and not before time

We all need to get away from thinking that engine capacity has a direct relationship to performance in the same measure that it used to


----------



## DJ X-Ray (Sep 2, 2012)

avit88 said:


> a3 is my golf in a different shell but i think the a4 uses the same 1.9tdi vag unit, cheer though :thumb:


Different drive though avitt,an A3 SE is a bomproof little car comfortable and smooth even on long journeys i've never had a problem with any audis i've owned including S3.8l's..


----------



## Alex_225 (Feb 7, 2008)

andy665 said:


> Interesting small engines


That was my thinking, my mum has a 2010 Twingo TCE so it's got a 100bhp 1.2 turbo charged engine.

Brilliant little thing as it only weighs about a tonne so it's nice and nippy. I think it's a brilliant engine that balances cheap running costs and good performance. Even though I'm used to the Twingo 133 or Clio 172 I have the 1.2TCE engine is a great 'non sporty' engine. :thumb:


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

RisingPower said:


> Good gawd, if that's an 'interesting' engine, i'll just watch some paint drying instead.





RisingPower said:


> Well there is that, I still don't like 4 pots though


The 6 cylinder engine in the 330i is a very sweet engine.

It is very well respected and BMW are famous for their straight 6 engines.

Can't say I've ever read any negative before about what is regarded as a fine engine.

If you don't like 4 pots or one of the better 6 cylinder engines, what do you find interesting?


----------



## BoostJunky86 (Oct 25, 2012)

Clio 182's are great little cars for the money! 
Punch well above there weight on trackdays ;-)


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

BoostJunky86 said:


> Clio 182's are great little cars for the money!
> Punch well above there weight on trackdays ;-)


All the hot Clios do well on the track.

Here is an example of it.


----------



## BoostJunky86 (Oct 25, 2012)

I was thinking the older shape 182. 

Went to the 'Ring in September in my mates mk2 Focus RS, he took he Clio. My god did the focus feel slow and heavy compared to the Clio. I'm considering one for a track toy of I can save enough for a reasonable one(2.0-3.5k) and I don't like French cars(pet hate for no sensible reason really either)
But I was really impressed!!


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

Kerr said:


> The 6 cylinder engine in the 330i is a very sweet engine.
> 
> It is very well respected and BMW are famous for their straight 6 engines.
> 
> ...


It may be an ok engine but it's pretty far from being deemed as interesting.

It's also not one of the better 6 pots, rb26 or s54 are those. Those can be called interesting.

But personally, I like v8s/v10s/v12s, say the chevy ls7, new mustang 5.0 v8, Zondas v12, audi s8 v10 etc etc.


----------



## Teddy (Dec 15, 2007)

When did VW stop doing a 2.0N/A engine in the Golf. I know they don't anymore but I'm sure it's not long ago.
As for the 2.0TDi only being a little faster than a 1.6 N/A...the diesel has 140bhp, 236lb ft compared to 115bhp and 114lb ft. 
The diesel isn't particularly fun to rev high but the mid range makes it plenty fast enough and a lot faster than the 1.6 despite what the times against the clock would suggest.


----------



## BoostJunky86 (Oct 25, 2012)

Mk5 became turbo charged I think?


----------



## aimyv6 (Jul 17, 2011)

Think I'd rather have a civic type r than a clio 182 personally. I used to have a clio V6 which was a lovely car a little underpowered for what it is but really nice to drive


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

RisingPower said:


> It may be an ok engine but it's pretty far from being deemed as interesting.
> 
> It's also not one of the better 6 pots, rb26 or s54 are those. Those can be called interesting.
> 
> But personally, I like v8s/v10s/v12s, say the chevy ls7, new mustang 5.0 v8, Zondas v12, audi s8 v10 etc etc.


An ok engine?

I'm trying to guess if you are being serious or no idea what you're on about.

I doubt you will find any driver knowledgeable about engines that will not deem the N53 one of the very finest 6 cylinder engines ever.

Some people regard the N53 sweeter than the N54 and that engine has won more awards including the best international engine of the year on two occassions.

Although I'm a BMW driver and I do defend them a bit, I think I'm still able to give an honest opinion.

You just seem to be anti BMW full stop.


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

Here is a link to the international engine of the year awards.

Quite surprising to see BMW win so many awards with their "ok" engines.

http://www.ukipme.com/engineoftheyear/archive.php


----------



## andy665 (Nov 1, 2005)

One question - is their a ********** definition of "interesting engine"


----------



## aimyv6 (Jul 17, 2011)

andy665 said:


> One question - is their a ********** definition of "interesting engine"


Think it depends what people class as an interesting engine ie Honda engines a virtually bullet proof does that class as an interesting engine or is a V8 more interesting?


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

andy665 said:


> One question - is their a ********** definition of "interesting engine"


One that works.

Any engine that brings new technology or just works that bit better.

Smaller engines don't often float my boat but it is interesting to see how manufacturers are pushing little engines to combine both economy and power.

Big engines always seem more interesting. Not only are some ultra smooth, the noise and driveability of them is far more appealing than smaller engines.


----------



## andy665 (Nov 1, 2005)

Exactly, one persons definition of interesting is not the same as the next persons

Just look at the options that get people excited:

Economy
High rev limits
Torque
BHP
Low emissions
Turbochargers
Superchargers
Hybrids
Range extenders
Plug-ins
Rotary
Number of cylinders
Cylinder configuration
Smoothness
Flexibility
Durability

Thank goodness that there are engines out there to suit everyone


----------



## Kerr (Mar 27, 2012)

andy665 said:


> Exactly, one persons definition of interesting is not the same as the next persons
> 
> Just look at the options that get people excited:
> 
> ...


I don't think anyone would suggest otherwise.

Everybody does have different criteria to what is an interesting engine, but you can't say an engine is rubbish just because you have a biased opinion, or it doesn't fit your criteria.

Just because it doesn't float your boat, it doesn't mean it is a bad engine.

The point you are questioning about my previous posts was nothing to do with what is interesting, it was merely questioning the quality of the engine.

BMW straight 6 engines are hugely respected engines and there isn't any argument that most of them are great engines.

Even if a straight 6 3l engine doesn't fit your criteria, most people would have enough knowledge and be fair enough to admit it is a very good engine for what it is.


----------



## andy665 (Nov 1, 2005)

Couldn't agree more - have a 2.8 litre straight 6 BMW on the drive - at no point did I question anything you have written


----------



## VW Golf-Fan (Aug 3, 2010)

rf860 said:


> 1.4 tsi is fast and very cheap insurance.


Have to agree with this as a 1.4 *TSI* owner/driver myself. I find it very fast for the size of engine & it's hard to believe that it is only a 1.4 under there but it really does feel like a 1.6/1.8 easily.

Very impressive engine indeed.


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

Kerr said:


> An ok engine?
> 
> I'm trying to guess if you are being serious or no idea what you're on about.
> 
> ...


Urr, you do know what engine the s54 is right?

230 horses isn't it from the 330? Not massive amounts of torque either. Sounds just like any other straight 6.

The s54 and v10 in the e60 are great engines, not sure where you're getting this bmw hate from?


----------



## rf860 (Jul 24, 2011)

VW Golf-Fan said:


> Have to agree with this as a 1.4 *TSI* owner/driver myself. I find it very fast for the size of engine & it's hard to believe that it is only a 1.4 under there but it really does feel like a 1.6/1.8 easily.
> 
> Very impressive engine indeed.


I was more referring to the 180hp version of the 1.4 engine, however the lower versions do seem to get decent write ups to.


----------



## VW Golf-Fan (Aug 3, 2010)

rf860 said:


> I was more referring to the 180hp version of the 1.4 engine, however the lower versions do seem to get decent write ups to.


Right.

Yeah mine is the 122bhp version & I'm more than happy with the power under it.

Seemingly the new MK7 Golf 1.4 TSI is going to produce I think around 180bhp? :doublesho


----------



## RisingPower (Sep 21, 2007)

Kerr said:


> I don't think anyone would suggest otherwise.
> 
> Everybody does have different criteria to what is an interesting engine, but you can't say an engine is rubbish just because you have a biased opinion, or it doesn't fit your criteria.
> 
> ...


Where are you getting this from?

At no point did anyone say they were bad engines, just uninspiring and not that interesting.


----------



## T.D.K (Mar 16, 2011)

If it wasn't for the ridiculous price of fuel, stupid eco warriors etc, we would all be driving around loud yank tanks doing 15MPG with growling V8 engines.


----------



## lanciamug (May 18, 2008)

Teddy said:


> When did VW stop doing a 2.0N/A engine in the Golf. I know they don't anymore but I'm sure it's not long ago..


My Mk 5 was one of the last 2l na cars, 2nd half of 2005. It was replaced with the 1.4TSI (160).

Oh and someone said the 1.4 TSI was gutless, well the 2l was about 150 ft lb well up the rev range and the TSI is more than that from 1400 - 5500 so feels very torquey by comparison.


----------



## insanejim69 (Nov 13, 2011)

Small capacity Turbo is the future. Even F1 in 2014 with use 1.6 litre Turbo engines, and they are already expecting massive power gains compared to the cars this season (aka back to the 80's, with 1.6 Turbo V6 engine running 1000BHP in the race and 1500BHP in Quali) ......... but staying on topic ......

I recently chopped in my Insignia 2.0T SRi VX Line for a Ibiza 1.4TSi FR, and I can tell you there is no performance drop at all, light weight, 150BHP, 170lb/ft of torque and the option to remap very easilly and get huge gains without killing MPG is a massive bonus. 0-62MPH = 7.4 secs and electronically limited to 130MPH. Yet I get 34MPG around town, 46MPG on a run, cheap road tax (£135 a year) and my insurance has instantly halved (£250 a year now) :lol:  ..... where as my insignia was getting 17MPG around town (driving very sensibly) and 38MPG on a run.

Don't get me wrong its certainly not the be all and end all, but it realy is good honest cheap fun 

Just my 2 cents 

James


----------



## Jonesy_135 (Jan 5, 2013)

I have a 58 plate astra SRi 1.9 Diesel Sporthatch (150BHP) and i love it!:argie:

0-62 in 8.3
top speed of 129MPH... on paper... 
i have it under err good authority that it'll do 140MPH

im 21 with no no claims :wall: and insurance isnt all that much 
cocidering that for the first few years of my driving life i was pay 1200 for a 1.2 corsa!

i think that a lot of people now-a-days want fuel economy over speed thats why engines are a big pathetic.


----------



## Bod42 (Jun 4, 2009)

Its the price as well.

I remember before I brought my Subaru I was looking at hot hatches and the main 3 at the time were Astra VXR 19k, Focus ST 17.5K and the Golf GTi 20k. Now look at the prices and I struggle to see what extras your getting for your multiple thousands more


----------

