PDA

View Full Version : Inline dieing??



defchef
07-09-2003, 02:33 AM
I don´t think, the inline motors are dieing. and also they are full of power!! just look at the BMW M3 which has an 6 cylinder inline motor and it produces 343 horsepowers. or even the new M3 CSL

BPx
07-13-2003, 07:24 AM
The size is what's bad about them. They are too long to fit into an everyday (FWD) car. They will never complete die out, BMW will probably continue to use them, and so will Nissan.

fpv_gtho
07-13-2003, 09:11 PM
nissans already gotten rid of their RB series of straight sixes with their VQ series of V6's. i hope ford oz dont get rid of their 4.0L I6, that thing makes massive amounts of torque compared to the holden and mitsu v6's

BPx
07-14-2003, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by fpv_gtho
nissans already gotten rid of their RB series of straight sixes with their VQ series of V6's. i hope ford oz dont get rid of their 4.0L I6, that thing makes massive amounts of torque compared to the holden and mitsu v6's

The new Skylines will use the VQ engines? Hm... That just seems weird. I don't follow them much, but I figured Nissan would've stuck with the I-6.

fpv_gtho
07-14-2003, 08:31 PM
the RB26DETT dates back to the R32 though

crisis
07-16-2003, 11:38 PM
Straight sixes dont fit sideways in front wheel drive shit boxes very well. So the fewer rwd we see the fewer inline sixes I would imagine. As far a torque gos, straight 6's dont own the show.

BA Falcon NA 4lt OHC
182kw @ 5000
380nm @ 3250

Chev Monte Carlo NA 3.7lt OHV
179kw @ 5200
380nm @ 3600

Merc 3.7lt V6 SOHC
182kw @ 5700
350nm @ 3-4500

not much in it.

fpv_gtho
07-17-2003, 12:24 AM
umm crisis, the chev monte carlo's standard engine is a 3.4L ohv v6 that makes 134kw and 278nm and theres a choice of a 3.8L ohv 149kw/305nm v6 that holden use and a supercharged version that hsv used in the xu6 that made 180kw/380nm

crisis
07-17-2003, 05:37 PM
FPV
Check Chevrolet Monte Carlo SS in the Chev section of Ultimatecarpage. I dont like it, its front wheel drive. I was trying to test you proposition that in line motors produced greater torque than v6s.

fpv_gtho
07-17-2003, 08:01 PM
wateva

770
11-10-2006, 10:38 AM
Does anyone know of any issue other than length?

henk4
11-10-2006, 11:17 AM
Does anyone know of any issue other than length?

well the Leyland Princess 2200 had an inline-6 transverse engine, and they needed a very special way to connect the gearbox.
Apart from that the I-6 is a naturally balanced engine, and BMW is using that capacity to the full extent. It is actually strange that Mercedes gave up on it.

mehrshadvr4
11-10-2006, 11:47 AM
Thay are good becouse they have 7 main bearings,that's all.

fpv_gtho
11-10-2006, 05:49 PM
Thay are good becouse they have 7 main bearings,that's all.

No thats not all. Theyre also very smooth due to their firing order able to balance out almost all of the vibrations.

Kooper
11-10-2006, 06:52 PM
Something else I once heard is that an inline-6 can be regarded as half a V12. Both engine types are renowned for their smoothness and seamless power delivery.

Plus it sounds great if BMW's engines are anything to go by.

nota
11-10-2006, 06:55 PM
well the Leyland Princess 2200 had an inline-6 transverse engine, and they needed a very special way to connect the gearbox.
Apart from that the I-6 is a naturally balanced engine, and BMW is using that capacity to the full extent. It is actually strange that Mercedes gave up on it.
You probably know this already - as with most things automotive ;) - but for trivia the Leyland Princess 2200 was preceded by Austin's Tasman & Kimberley X6, which was to my knowledge the world's first production car to employ a tranverse-mounted I-6 engine

http://www.elevenhundred.com/kimberley

Another current issue concerning non-transverse I-6 applications is the resultant height of the motor which can mandate an unfashionably high bonnet line, to provide for a 'pedestrian-safe' crush-area between bonnet and engine

PerfAdv
11-10-2006, 06:55 PM
Thay are good becouse they have 7 main bearings,that's all.
Seven, sure? I think most inline sixes have 5 main bearings.

The Mercedes M110 was a great I6, replaced by Vees.

nota
11-10-2006, 07:05 PM
Seven, sure? I think most inline sixes have 5 main bearings.

The Mercedes M110 was a great I6, replaced by Vees.
All Holden I-6s from 1963-85 had 7 mains, as did AU-versions of Falcon from the mid 1960s. Chrysler's famous and long running Slant-Six was also 7 bearing, iirc

Mercedes M110 is a tough and likeable engine (I had one) but was replaced by the less durable M103 then M104 inline 6s - their V6s came later

henk4
11-11-2006, 02:45 AM
You probably know this already - as with most things automotive ;) - but for trivia the Leyland Princess 2200 was preceded by Austin's Tasman & Kimberley X6, which was to my knowledge the world's first production car to employ a tranverse-mounted I-6 engine

http://www.elevenhundred.com/kimberley

Another current issue concerning non-transverse I-6 applications is the resultant height of the motor which can mandate an unfashionably high bonnet line, to provide for a 'pedestrian-safe' crush-area between bonnet and engine

this begs for full size pictures in the oddball corner....:D

drakkie
11-11-2006, 05:34 AM
Pretty recently Volvo developed a very sophisticated I-6. It is worth finding info on it. I read a big article in the Dutch AMT-magazine recently.

Something a bit different:
I-4's are certainly not dying out. About all family cars produced have one of them. It is the most commonly used engine around :)

That Leyland was also mentioned. Maybe ill scan the magazine soon,for the dutch members :p

NSXType-R
11-11-2006, 05:52 AM
Something a bit different:
I-4's are certainly not dying out. About all family cars produced have one of them. It is the most commonly used engine around :)

Okay then, on your subject change, who makes the best I-4's then?

I say Honda's up there.

clutch-monkey
11-11-2006, 05:55 AM
without doubt. N/A, at least.

IWantAnAudiRS6
11-11-2006, 06:17 AM
They are amazingly tractable, and the non-VTEC ones are very good indeed.

VtecMini
11-11-2006, 06:23 AM
Okay, playing devil's advocate (sort of). Why inline four pots?* Why not V4s like motorbikes get? With the increased emphasis on distance between the front of a car and the start of the engine (due to pedestrian crash laws) a V4 would make good sense. It could also be used to throw the weight of the engine further back, improving weight distribution, or slung forward, increasing cabing space.

Any thoughts?

*With reference to smaller cars that usually get I4s as standard, not the kind of cars that get I6s.

CAS
11-11-2006, 06:37 AM
Just the looks of it!

I really like driving my l6, smooth delivery of the power, as well in lower as higher rpm's, great sound and when you open the hood, at least there's an engine in it. (well most of the time :p)

henk4
11-11-2006, 06:37 AM
Okay, playing devil's advocate (sort of). Why inline four pots?* Why not V4s like motorbikes get? With the increased emphasis on distance between the front of a car and the start of the engine (due to pedestrian crash laws) a V4 would make good sense. It could also be used to throw the weight of the engine further back, improving weight distribution, or slung forward, increasing cabing space.

Any thoughts?

*With reference to smaller cars that usually get I4s as standard, not the kind of cars that get I6s.

V4's: Been there, done that....(Lancia, Ford>Saab,Matra)

770
11-11-2006, 08:04 AM
Can anybody explain why the 4 Litre I-6 Jeep engine has less than 50 hp per litre and the gas mileage of a tank?

770
11-11-2006, 08:11 AM
and less torque than a fat guy pedaling uphill ?

NSXType-R
11-11-2006, 04:25 PM
Can anybody explain why the 4 Litre I-6 Jeep engine has less than 50 hp per litre and the gas mileage of a tank?

I think it's because it's a really old engine and they didn't invest in any technology whatsoever (ie 4 valves per cylinder, stuff like that). Seriously, you could do more with 4 liters. i don't know why, but the engineers are really lazy. Lots of other American cars have high displacement motors too and yet they don't produce much (such as Rock's Box). :D

clutch-monkey
11-11-2006, 10:59 PM
and less torque than a fat guy pedaling uphill ?
you're kidding right? my friend had a wrangler with that engine, and we'd be doing hillstarts in third

fpv_gtho
11-11-2006, 10:59 PM
you're kidding right? my friend had a wrangler with that engine, and we'd be doing hillstarts in third

Compare it to the I6 4L in the Falcon though. Night and day

drakkie
11-12-2006, 02:05 AM
Okay, playing devil's advocate (sort of). Why inline four pots?* Why not V4s like motorbikes get? With the increased emphasis on distance between the front of a car and the start of the engine (due to pedestrian crash laws) a V4 would make good sense. It could also be used to throw the weight of the engine further back, improving weight distribution, or slung forward, increasing cabing space.

Any thoughts?

*With reference to smaller cars that usually get I4s as standard, not the kind of cars that get I6s.

Two reasons why they choose an I-4:

- They are cheaper and easier to produce and design.
- they cause less vibrations. Due to the small size and stuff,the v-4 causes a lot more vibrations.

quattro_20v
11-12-2006, 02:40 AM
Volvo Still uses lots of inline 5 engines and Audi will also bring it back in the Audi TT.

jediali
11-15-2006, 06:35 AM
I think its more complicated. engine choice depends on lots of factors, some examples:
1) Subura use boxer engines cos thats wht their research and equipment and image suits, same for porsche.
2) an inline 4 is the cheapest, compact way of powering a basic hatch that is safe (room for crumple zone), the transverse instalation allows space saving and component/platform sharing. Put simply the balance of cost/performance/reliablity/complexity is met well in todays times best with an inline 4.
3) Volvos inline 5 (co-engineered with porsche) is now in fords hands and because its transversely mounted it goes in many fords (st,s-max) well. But unless the equipment is threre already the inline 5 seems a specialist choice, it has no real technical merit other than being a good compromise between a i4 and a i6 in terms of smoothness and packaging. I dont think audi will return to i5. Remember the TT is a glorified golf 5 so will use VW compatible engines
4) bmw's engineering principles lead it too have compromised cars with 50:50 balance and inline 6 engines (inherently balanced unlike i4,i5,v6,v8), both ideals in car design.

as for v4: see volkswahens take on narrow angle engines, large capacity - low space engines. Vw have a 2.3 V5 (a vr6 with a cylinder missing). I think the major problem VW solved here was the camshafts. more banks means more camshafts. The inline 4 is cheaper than a boxer or vee 4 becasue it needs half the camshafts!

BMW_Trance
11-20-2006, 02:03 PM
im glad they went to a v8 for the new m3

it wouldnt be able to handle much more power than 330 on a NA I6...

hightower99
11-20-2006, 03:06 PM
im glad they went to a v8 for the new m3

it wouldnt be able to handle much more power than 330 on a NA I6...

That is total bollocks a 4L NA I6 us more than capable of 450hp...

henk4
11-20-2006, 03:12 PM
That is total bollocks a 4L NA I6 us more than capable of 450hp...

yes,but can the BMW block be stretched to four litre? And not by increasing the stroke, which will affect the rev capability.

fpv_gtho
11-20-2006, 03:27 PM
That is total bollocks a 4L NA I6 us more than capable of 450hp...

More than capable? Thats making 12.5% more hp/l than the M5's V10. Not exactly easy numbers to achieve.

jediali
11-20-2006, 03:42 PM
More than capable? Thats making 12.5% more hp/l than the M5's V10. Not exactly easy numbers to achieve.

the TVR ajp straight 6 in the tuscan is n/a and 4.0l and has 440hp, this is one of my favourite engines, racing technology for the road. I would say a 5.0 V10 making 507hp could go further, s2000 also has 120 hp/litre.

fpv_gtho
11-20-2006, 03:46 PM
the TVR ajp straight 6 in the tuscan is n/a and 4.0l and has 440hp, this is one of my favourite engines, racing technology for the road. I would say a 5.0 V10 making 507hp could go further, s2000 also has 120 hp/litre.

Of course then youre getting into personal opinion over whether you think something is easy or not. Simply research however shows theres a very small amount of engines able to push out over 100hp/l naturally aspirated.

jediali
11-20-2006, 03:55 PM
Of course then youre getting into personal opinion over whether you think something is easy or not. Simply research however shows theres a very small amount of engines able to push out over 100hp/l naturally aspirated.

what research do you mean, technical or...

In order to achieve 100hp a litre in a car ensure it has suitable intake, exhaust geometry and valve timing plus lower inertia pistons/short stroke. As an engineer i believe getting 100hp/litre is just a matter of motivation. Even the type-r,old mitsi fto V6, clio 197, are relatively affordable and have near 100hp/litre-oh and the 92' civic vti, then you have porsche, audi, lambo, tvr, toyota, ferrari, maserati, all producing 100+hp/l engines.:D

fpv_gtho
11-20-2006, 04:34 PM
Research as in just generally looking at cars on the market.

Even restricted to sports cars there isnt a great deal that are getting 100hp/l or over that. They are increasing, but more manufacturers are going the easy route with forced induction these days.

hightower99
11-21-2006, 03:13 AM
Plus if it is too hard to get that out NA they could use there new twin turbo system...

jediali
11-21-2006, 03:33 AM
Research as in just generally looking at cars on the market.

Even restricted to sports cars there isnt a great deal that are getting 100hp/l or over that. They are increasing, but more manufacturers are going the easy route with forced induction these days.

I really don't know the Australian market, i know a significant amount of the sports cars brits/Europeans see offer high performance n/a engines. However my research (which i have actively studied carried out over the past 4 years or so) is based on technical principals and one of the reasons i am motivated to find out how n/a performance works is because i think it should and can be done more often in cars.

My principal interest is in gas flow and geometry tuning. By designing clever intakes, exhausts and valve systems you can achieve things such as inertia gas filling, induction expansion wave filling, valve overlap, reverse supercharging (use exhaust vacuum to induce air), this therefore increases the many efficiencies (these are air,cycle, indicated, real gas, time, heat, blowdown, leakage, pumping etc. etc.. deficiencies) in the engine function therefore getting more bang for your litre without forced induction. :rolleyes:

jediali
11-21-2006, 03:35 AM
Research as in just generally looking at cars on the market.

Even restricted to sports cars there isnt a great deal that are getting 100hp/l or over that. They are increasing, but more manufacturers are going the easy route with forced induction these days.

actually i think more than 50% of major sports cars rely on highly tuned n/a engines.

Ferrer
11-21-2006, 04:41 AM
I think its more complicated. engine choice depends on lots of factors, some examples:
3) Volvos inline 5 (co-engineered with porsche) is now in fords hands and because its transversely mounted it goes in many fords (st,s-max) well. But unless the equipment is threre already the inline 5 seems a specialist choice, it has no real technical merit other than being a good compromise between a i4 and a i6 in terms of smoothness and packaging. I dont think audi will return to i5. Remember the TT is a glorified golf 5 so will use VW compatible engines
The USA Golfs are powered by 2.5-litre 5 cylinder engines. Therefore it's entirely possible to develop a performance engine out of it and put it in the TT. Another manufacturer with 5 cylinder engines in their range is Lancia, both petrol and diesel (the whole Fiat group use the latter).

jediali
11-21-2006, 06:29 AM
The USA Golfs are powered by 2.5-litre 5 cylinder engines. Therefore it's entirely possible to develop a performance engine out of it and put it in the TT. Another manufacturer with 5 cylinder engines in their range is Lancia, both petrol and diesel (the whole Fiat group use the latter).

i think the i5 is not intended for europe (ie TT), but good reasoning anyway, see:
http://www.autozine.org/html/Volkswagen/Jetta.html

note the engine discussion.

quattro_20v
11-22-2006, 02:02 AM
There will probably come a TT-RS with an inline 5 turbo. I read it in some carmag, dont remember which one tho.

Ferrer
11-22-2006, 08:40 AM
There will probably come a TT-RS with an inline 5 turbo. I read it in some carmag, dont remember which one tho.
The last thing I've read is that apparently the 2.5-litre 5 cylinder has been dropped for the RS and that it'll now have the 3.6-litre V6 found under Passat's R36 bonnet.

culver
11-22-2006, 08:42 PM
the TVR ajp straight 6 in the tuscan is n/a and 4.0l and has 440hp, this is one of my favourite engines, racing technology for the road. I would say a 5.0 V10 making 507hp could go further, s2000 also has 120 hp/litre.

It's unlikely the original S2000 motor was producing an honest 120hp/L. Honda re-rated the 2.2L version of the S2000 a year or two ago because the old method they had been using to measure power was too optimistic for the SAE. The engine was reduced in rated power to something like 236hp (still not too shabby). It is quite likely the original 2L motor was also no more than 236hp. Again, not bad given it's small displacement. One more thing to note, The Duratec based 3L V6 in the Jag produces about 240hp and weighs around 360lb. The S2000 motor produces 236hp and weighs about 340lb. I don't know about you but I would rather have the extra two pots and the much better low end torque.
hp/l is not a good measure of a motor and without knowing a lot about what a motor is meant to do (design intent) is an even worse measure.

culver
11-22-2006, 08:54 PM
I really don't know the Australian market, i know a significant amount of the sports cars brits/Europeans see offer high performance n/a engines. However my research (which i have actively studied carried out over the past 4 years or so) is based on technical principals and one of the reasons i am motivated to find out how n/a performance works is because i think it should and can be done more often in cars.

My principal interest is in gas flow and geometry tuning. By designing clever intakes, exhausts and valve systems you can achieve things such as inertia gas filling, induction expansion wave filling, valve overlap, reverse supercharging (use exhaust vacuum to induce air), this therefore increases the many efficiencies (these are air,cycle, indicated, real gas, time, heat, blowdown, leakage, pumping etc. etc.. deficiencies) in the engine function therefore getting more bang for your litre without forced induction. :rolleyes:

Before you fall in love with hp/L please read this thread:
http://www.s2ki.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=176829&st=175&#entry3197536
This post is a bit dated and the content could be cleared up some but the general idea is correct.
I assume Scotland is one of those places were displacement is taxed so it does make sense to care about hp/l in a street car. Personally I think a mild turbo/sc setup is more satisfying than a Honda type screamer. I think a larger displacement NA motor is better yet (BMW I6, Ford 2.5L SVT Duratec/Mondeo ST200 in Europe). Note that in the US Honda decided to equip the higher power Accords with 240hp 3L V6 motors, not 240hp 2.xL I4s. Certainly they have demonstrated that they could do it but they didn't want to. Also, once you drive a Corvette with all that silly powerful torque, it's hard to give it up even if high RMP is nice.

PS: I currently have two cars. One has a 2L turbo, the other is a 1.8L. The Corvette wasn’t mine :(

nota
11-22-2006, 10:47 PM
Before you fall in love with hp/L please read this thread:
http://www.s2ki.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=176829&st=175&#entry3197536


We can blame Hp/L on the French. Way back in the day the French government decided to tax cars based on power. According to my 1916 engineer's handbook ...
(((sigh))) not another one of those 'USA blames everything on the French' type of post. I wouldn't dare risk being anti-American but gee how many centuries ago was it that you guys gained your much-vaunted independance?

fpv_gtho
11-22-2006, 11:50 PM
It's unlikely the original S2000 motor was producing an honest 120hp/L. Honda re-rated the 2.2L version of the S2000 a year or two ago because the old method they had been using to measure power was too optimistic for the SAE. The engine was reduced in rated power to something like 236hp (still not too shabby). It is quite likely the original 2L motor was also no more than 236hp. Again, not bad given it's small displacement. One more thing to note, The Duratec based 3L V6 in the Jag produces about 240hp and weighs around 360lb. The S2000 motor produces 236hp and weighs about 340lb. I don't know about you but I would rather have the extra two pots and the much better low end torque.
hp/l is not a good measure of a motor and without knowing a lot about what a motor is meant to do (design intent) is an even worse measure.

I think that was also because the 2.2L didnt rev as high as the 2L.

culver
11-23-2006, 05:54 AM
(((sigh))) not another one of those 'USA blames everything on the French' type of post. I wouldn't dare risk being anti-American but gee how many centuries ago was it that you guys gained your much-vaunted independance?

No, actually it was the French who first tried to tax engine power and they did it based on displacement. It's a statement of fact not anything else. Furthermore, it set the trend to tax engines based on displacement and explains in part why the European market would favor say a 150hp 1.6L over a 150hp 2L. This despite the fact that the 2L is likely to have better low end power and will likely suffer no mileage penalty in comparison to the smaller displacement engine.
If you have any issue with the facts of the post that is fine but please don't assume "anti-French" attitude where non exists.

culver
11-23-2006, 06:02 AM
I think that was also because the 2.2L didnt rev as high as the 2L.

Both engines were rated at 240hp using the old Honda system. Only the 2.2L was retested using the new system. It seems likely that both engines would drop a similar amount given that they weren’t much different in power delivery (as compared to a 3L V6 for example). The 2.0L might have lost a bit more or a bit less when retested but chances are very unlikely it would have retained its 240hp rating. I don’t believe a single Honda motor even maintained its old power rating when they were retested. Again, I suspect the old engine was about the same power as the 2.2L and was almost certainly not delivering the advertised 240hp (based on the new SAE test).

henk4
11-23-2006, 06:55 AM
No, actually it was the French who first tried to tax engine power and they did it based on displacement. It's a statement of fact not anything else. Furthermore, it set the trend to tax engines based on displacement and explains in part why the European market would favor say a 150hp 1.6L over a 150hp 2L. This despite the fact that the 2L is likely to have better low end power and will likely suffer no mileage penalty in comparison to the smaller displacement engine.
If you have any issue with the facts of the post that is fine but please don't assume "anti-French" attitude where non exists.

It is still being used in a number of european countries, however the use of the weight of the car for road tax purposes is also being applied, and additional taxes are being raised in case the less taxed fuels like diesel or LPG are being used.

jediali
11-23-2006, 07:20 AM
It's unlikely the original S2000 motor was producing an honest 120hp/L. Honda re-rated the 2.2L version of the S2000 a year or two ago because the old method they had been using to measure power was too optimistic for the SAE. The engine was reduced in rated power to something like 236hp (still not too shabby). It is quite likely the original 2L motor was also no more than 236hp. Again, not bad given it's small displacement. One more thing to note, The Duratec based 3L V6 in the Jag produces about 240hp and weighs around 360lb. The S2000 motor produces 236hp and weighs about 340lb. I don't know about you but I would rather have the extra two pots and the much better low end torque.
hp/l is not a good measure of a motor and without knowing a lot about what a motor is meant to do (design intent) is an even worse measure.

good point - see my "V10 idea" thread in technical forums:)

(p.s. if i owned an s2000 (the 2.0,not the 2.2 designed for Americans who didn't like changing gears all the time), i wouldn't be towing caravans, and although its a peaky and less torquey engine its the enjoyment that counts - As for the Jag(ford) 3.0 V6 it has the numbers but more subjectively it sounds/feels harsh when revved and lacks low end grunt (unlike say a BMW 3.0 i6)..my argument is based on fun here.

culver
11-23-2006, 09:22 AM
good point - see my "V10 idea" thread in technical forums:)

(p.s. if i owned an s2000 (the 2.0,not the 2.2 designed for Americans who didn't like changing gears all the time), i wouldn't be towing caravans, and although its a peaky and less torquey engine its the enjoyment that counts - As for the Jag(ford) 3.0 V6 it has the numbers but more subjectively it sounds/feels harsh when revved and lacks low end grunt (unlike say a BMW 3.0 i6)..my argument is based on fun here.

Interestingly the reason Honda went to 2.2L in the US was because of market research. They found S2000 buyers were almost always happy with the 2L motor. But when they asked people who didn't buy they found the engine was high on the list. Because we have lots of bigger bore motors in the US people generally have a certain expectation for power. I used to own a Contour SVT (Mondeo ST200). I had a friend with a 2L S2000. Even though the Contour wasn't as quick as the Honda he noted the extra low end power as compared to the Honda. Mind you we are talking about a 2.5L vs 2L engine, not a huge difference. I actually do agree with your comments about the Jag engine. The BMW mill is generally nicer but the older ones were all heavier than the Jag motor. The newest family of BMW I6s are quite light but they achieve that via expensive construction techniques. Personally I like the 2.5L SVT Duratec better than the 3L I6 in my friend's 2002 530. The BMW motor is a better motor but the SVT motor has more character... and sounds SOOOOO good.
I personally like the wider torquier power band in my motors. I developed that like back when I had a 1.6L Toyota with poor synchros. The poor synchros got me in the habit of shifting early and letting the torque do the work. It's a habit I've maintained when not driving aggressively even though I've never owned a car with more than 2.5L.
As for what we each enjoy, yes, shifting is fun but at the same time I like having some power down low. It's a preference but it suits my day to day driving style. I'm certainly not against running motors to the red line (a wonderful experience in my Ford... so-so in my Miata) but when I'm just tooling along in traffic low end grunt is nice.
Really, if you ever get a chance to drive a Corvette or V8 Camaro (neither common in Europe) it really is worth it. The low end punch of the current Corvette really is astounding. The first time I drove the car it was below freezing. In second gear you couldn't give it full gas because it would spin the tires. It would even spin the tires when you gently rolled into the gas. That sort of power really is something.

henk4
11-23-2006, 09:41 AM
As for what we each enjoy, yes, shifting is fun but at the same time I like having some power down low. It's a preference but it suits my day to day driving style. I'm certainly not against running motors to the red line (a wonderful experience in my Ford... so-so in my Miata) but when I'm just tooling along in traffic low end grunt is nice.


some people may expect this comment from me, but this is really why I choose a diesel, low end punch is there, and it is actually all you need to get going very quickly...

culver
11-23-2006, 10:09 AM
I haven't driven many diesels (I can't say I've ever driven a diesel car) but I've always heard that. A very appropriate power curve for most driving.

henk4
11-23-2006, 10:11 AM
I haven't driven many diesels (I can't say I've ever driven a diesel car) but I've always heard that. A very appropriate power curve for most driving.

It never fails to amaze me that modern diesel cars are so geared to what is generally be considered the American style of lazy and relaxed driving, and still there is this in-built prejudice against them...

culver
11-23-2006, 10:48 AM
Not quite a built but they are slowly becoming more popular. Some people claim it's because we had bad experience with diesel cars in the late 70s and early 80s. I don't buy that. Too many people now wouldn't know the difference. Lots of people like diesel pickups. Personally I think its more mundane factors. First, our emissions laws haven't been very diesel friendly. That keeps a lot of the car companies from wanting to bring them over. Why put all that marketing effort into a diesel if California might get a bug up it's tail pipe and pass new emissions laws that diesels can't meet? It also didn't help that we had higher sulfur content in our gas for quite some time (now changing).
The other reasons are more economic. Diesel engine options cost a lot yet generally don't provide anything more than better mileage. While gas was cheep (and still isn't too expensive) people were happier saving the up front cost. While the new diesels are much better my impression (little first hand experience) is that they aren't really better than many of the gas offerings but for fuel economy. They are very torquy but don't rev much. I think for many people they might go too far in the other direction as compared to the ultra high reving s2000. Also, we can get that extra low end torque via more displacement which costs little in comparison to a smaller displacement motor. Why bother with a torquy 2.0L I4 when I can get a 3L V6 for less. I think when VW was offering the diesel Jetta it costs as much as the 1.8T or VR6 motor (one or the other).
Anyway, while the newest ones are smooth and quick they really aren't any smoother or quicker than most of the gas options. The engines cost more and diesel fuel costs more. It doesn't make for a very compelling case in the US. I suspect with out some major change in market forces (fuel costs, lower up front costs) diesels will never become as common as they are in Europe. Their are some arguments for them but they aren't that compelling in the US market.

Ferrer
11-23-2006, 12:03 PM
some people may expect this comment from me, but this is really why I choose a diesel, low end punch is there, and it is actually all you need to get going very quickly...
No I wasn't expecting that... :p Altough supercharged petrol engines can also pull cleanly from very low speeds. An automatic gearbox also helps masking the lack of low-end punch.

About taxation based on the engine's displacement, isn't that the way it's done on almost all (or all) of Europe?

jediali
11-23-2006, 01:00 PM
No I wasn't expecting that... :p Altough supercharged petrol engines can also pull cleanly from very low speeds. An automatic gearbox also helps masking the lack of low-end punch.

About taxation based on the engine's displacement, isn't that the way it's done on almost all (or all) of Europe?

currently based on carbon dioxide in UK

henk4
11-23-2006, 01:09 PM
currently based on carbon dioxide in UK


weight in Holland, with some special regulations for LPG and Diesel cars.