A couple of family members have the 125hp Ford 1.0 in a focus and the 1.0 Seat engine in a Leon estate (basically the same as the Octavia). Both are really happy with them. Both engines are a hell of a lot smoother and quieter than my similarly powerful 1.8tdci.

The longevity thing would be a concern for me (purely because most of them haven’t been around for long enough to know that they do last for 10years/100k miles) but I’d happily have a relatively new one.

The Japanese have been doing tiny turbo motors for years, have a look at the Kei cars.

The weight of modern cars is a problem. I’ve got a Jag S-type which has electric seats, mirrors & steering column! Why? What is the point? I bought the car as I needed something comfortable for the missus pure and simple, but that comes from good ride quality not quarter of a ton of extra motors and gadgets. If people didn’t feel the need to have so much convenience at hand they could have faster cars using less fuel, win win.

Also, as a specific output the polo will be leagues more powerful than the micra.

You’re comparing a turbo engine with a N/A engine.
Considering that we had 100hp/l mainstream N/A engines in the eighties, I’d suggest that the specific output of the Polo is quite poor.

Cars are much, much faster than they used to be.

No they’re not!
Top Gear even ran a feature to demonstrate the exact opposite!

This is very true – I picked up an Octavia estate with a 1.4 engine earlier in the year and really wasn’t sure if the 1.4 would be enough power to make it pleasant to drive when I started looking around for a vehicle.

It is 0.5 seconds slower 0-60 than the Alfa 145 Cloverleaf that I had, with a 2 litre fuel drinking engine.

Apples and oranges again.
You can’t compare turbo with N/A.

A couple of family members have the 125hp Ford 1.0 in a focus and the 1.0 Seat engine in a Leon estate (basically the same as the Octavia). Both are really happy with them. Both engines are a hell of a lot smoother and quieter than my similarly powerful 1.8tdci.

Have I wandered into a grocer’s convention? 😆

Mainstream Cars ]are faster than they used to be, e.g cars most people travel in. You only have to look at average motorway speeds compared to when I started driving in the early 80’s. In town speeds are a different matter.
When I bought my 1977 Mk1 1.6 Golf, with its whole 75hp it was a rocket ship compared to the other vehicles my mates had, usually minis or Austin allegros or Morris Marinas as it could do 0-60 in about 12 sec rather than 15 plus.
The equivalent Golf 1.0 now has 110 hp and will do 0-60 in less than 10 secs, but will deliver a real world 45-50 mpg rather than the 28-30 mine did.

I had a Civic Vti with a normally aspirated 1.6 with 100bhp/litre- lovely engine but you had to rev it above 6000 to get any real go-sounded awsome but was wearing on a long trip with its 4000rpm at 75mph. The 1.2 Polo only has 91hp/litre but is in everyday driving much more relaxed.

Apples and oranges again.
You can’t compare turbo with N/A.

What? Of course you can. I need a new car, I can either buy one with a bigger N/A engine or a smaller turbo one. I’ll literally compare the two, ideally by driving them both.

It’s not like comparing the cost of a car with the cost of a rail season ticket.

Which of these three would you rather drive:

Edit:

Have I wandered into a grocer’s convention?

What? 😕

bails – Member

What? Of course you can. I need a new car, I can either buy one with a bigger N/A engine or a smaller turbo one. I’ll literally compare the two, ideally by driving them both.

You’ve waded in with the wrong argument there bails. 😳

jimw – Member

when I started driving in the early 80’s

I’m probably comparing to a slightly more modern era.
Obviously if you go back far enough in history then transport was slower.

What?

Comparing petrol to diesel.
Apples and oranges.

You’ve waded in with the wrong argument there bails

Maybe I’ve misunderstood.

The days of “a car that size needs a 1.6l engine” are obviously gone, so you can’t compare engines based purely on the capacity.

But you can compare hp and torque figures between turbo petrol, turbo diesel and N/A engines.

Comparing petrol to diesel.
Apples and oranges.

See above!

There are separate arguments occurring, newer vs older and smaller capacity turbo vs larger capacity N/A.

Petrol engines have always been smoother than diesels, I don’t need to look out the window to know when my taxi has arrived.

Simpsons pop up on my Facebook occasionally, probably because I’ve been searching around for deals at times.

Mileage really is the killer for any decent lease deals.

To an extent, true.

My Skoda lease deals have always been 3ppm though so not a massive issue unless mega miles.

No they’re not!
Top Gear even ran a feature to demonstrate the exact opposite!

😆

rone – Member
Simpsons pop up on my Facebook occasionally, probably because I’ve been searching around for deals at times.
Mileage really is the killer for any decent lease deals.

To an extent, true.

My Skoda lease deals have always been 3ppm though so not a massive issue unless mega miles.

I’ve never really looked at it that much to consider just paying for the extra mileage. At 20,000 miles over that’s only £600 across two years, which doesn’t sound too bad.

10ppm seems more usual though?