What happened to big engines?

We should refuse owning beasts powered by something smaller then the average juice bottle.

4y ago
14.7K

Although the 21st century has brought us many improvements we can't say that car engines are one of them. How can everyone be complaining about unreliable cars when every bleak-tool is powered by a 1.something, over-turbo-ed, toy of an engine?

You honestly believe a 1.2 TSI is going to do anything in a Skoda Octavia? Or if it's going to give you the impression it is moving the car, it only happens until 60 or 70 MPH, point after which the gas pedal becomes purely decorative. Overtaking in such tiny-heart-ed beasts is also pointless, especially if you have 3 people with you and luggage in the trunk.

I know car taxes and insurance companies don't exactly help when it comes to owning a 5.0 liter V8, but when you take into consideration all the down-sides of small engines, who cares? That 1.something is never going to average the MPG it's manufacturer claims it will. The string of problems from all the engine over-stressing, just to get decent numbers on a piece of paper, will also ruin your experience. Might as well enjoy some V8 symphonies at those prices.

Imagine the grin on your face. Let's see a juice bottle pull this of.

Imagine the grin on your face. Let's see a juice bottle pull this of.

Imagine starting to hear a rattle in your 1.2 petrol engine that makes it sound like a diesel. When it has 25k miles on it. And after fixing it, a short amount of time and miles being the only variables that'll make it do the same again. It's not a car it's a money-pit.

We should refuse owning beasts powered by something smaller then the average juice bottle. But that's just me. If you prefer having the same MPG and running costs as a 5.0 liter V8 on your Pepsi bottle, go wright ahead. No one is going to stop you. Just remember: life is short. Buy the V8!

Join In

Comments (14)

  • It's all about power vs weight vs function.

    Most cars are lighter now, so the power needed to go fast or carry more is less. Petrol engines are way more efficient now and especially with a turbo; most people are happy going 0-60 in 6.5sec. Hell, my Kia Optima does that.

    The issue tends to be one of efficiency: Modern engines are able to transfer all that noise and vibration of old cars into power to make you go forward. Most people forget that vibration and noise is wasted energy, so manufacturers will do anything to reduce them.

    Put a V8 in most cars now and it is like putting a 2.5-liter engine in a mini. They tried that once back in the 70's; it went great in a straight line but sucked at corners as it is just too much power. As Clarkson said: Get above 500 - 550 bph and you will go slower as it's too much.

      4 years ago
  • "Just remember: life is short. Buy the V8"..... not as short as your credit rating... #cost

      3 years ago
  • Well they're not needed. They are wildly inferior. Poorly engineered. Underpowered for the displacement. Useless power bands. Too heavy... I mean, there's no argument for them beyond personal preference.

      4 years ago
  • @Benjamin Oetken. It's not compulsory to run a turbocharged engine and Mazda may have a different philosophy to others, but it's indisputable that a turbo engine is more efficient than an N/A one. In a performance car the turbo acts as a substitute to capacity, hence why 2.0 turbo engine can make as much or more horsepower than say a 3.0 N/A engine. The fuel saving element comes in when driving in a urban environment in that driven sensibly a 2.0 turbo will be more fuel efficient as it won't be on boost I.e. It become a 2.0 N/A in effect. The 3.0 N/A engine will always be thirstier in that context because it takes more fuel just to idle. On the open road fuel consumption and performance (if not delivery) are pretty similar. It's horses for courses. I've driven great turbo engines and bad ones, same with N/A, how something is done is often key over what's been done.

      4 years ago
  • @James Thomas. With cost cutting I meant reducing costs for A the owner and B the Manufacturer because they have to pay fines if they don´t meet their emission criteria, not cost cutting as in the car is cheaper to make. In regular cars Turbochargers may be used for purposes of CO2 reduction and fuel consumption reduction (on paper), lower taxes and passing emissions rubbish. But surely the Performance oriented cars shouldn´t be bothered about stuff like that because a turbocharged engine including my Megane RS´s engine simply aren´t as responsive as a good high revving NA-engine. Personally I want to work for my Performance in an NA car if I want Performance I have to stir the stick keeping the engine well up there. In some turbocharged cars I´ve driven the torque curve simply falls off after 4500-5000rpm and max torque already arrives at something like 2000rpm so shifting is somehow not as rewarding. Btw. Turbo charging does not reduce emissions or fuel consumption even in regular cars Mazda has recognised this and predominantely builds NA engines which still meet emissions regulations and are more fuel efficient in the real world than most turbocharged engines.

      4 years ago
14