Forum menu
@molgrips, whinny and over-revving. Why don't motorbikes last 100,000 miles ? See the Golf owner review above. Customer choice. I won't be buying a small petrol turbo. Fuel injected 2 litre for me in mid sized car. Mrs B's Micra is 1600 non-turbo and our Yaris was 1.3. I won't buy a bigger heavier car (Golf/A3 size) with a turbo version of those engines.
SCR actually gets rid of harmful NOx by turning it into water and nitrogen. A DPF catches the soot and then actually burns it up into CO2 in secondary combustion. It's not just moving it around.
Ah, but the catch is you need to be doing the right kind of driving for the DPF to do its job properly. Fine if as well as town driving you do longer motorway runs but probably best avoided if you don't as you risk a clogged DPF and expensive bills.
I'd seriously consider a petrol hybrid as my next car, battery technology is slowly evolving to last longer and maintenance/running costs are pretty good.
whinny and over-revving. Why don't motorbikes last 100,000 miles
Utterly different type of engine!
This isn't a brexit thread, you are simply wrong, as the actual data shows!
You may imagine it to be whiney and over-revving, but that's your fault for driving it that way. If max torque is at 1,500rpm why would it be high revving for goodness sake?
Ah, but the catch is you need to be doing the right kind of driving for the DPF to do its job properly.
Well, not really. It always catches soot, it's the regeneration that can fail.
There are two ways to burn off the soot - passive and active. Passive regeneration is what happens when you are driving down the motorway. The engine shifts the injection timing to increase exhaust gas temperatures and you're golden. Active regen is when it injects extra fuel post combustion to react with a catalyst in the DPF to burn it off. It does both of these as a matter of course. If they don't get completed then the car tells you, and if you continue to ignore it you ruin the DPF.
At no point to they fail to catch particulates or release them into the atmosphere.
jambalaya@molgrips, whinny and over-revving. Why don't motorbikes last 100,000 miles ? See the Golf owner review above. Customer choice. I won't be buying a small petrol turbo. Fuel injected 2 litre for me in mid sized car. Mrs B's Micra is 1600 non-turbo and our Yaris was 1.3. I won't buy a bigger heavier car (Golf/A3 size) with a turbo version of those engines.
First off, good luck getting one. Most companies will be phasing out bigger displacement na engines in small/mid sized cars.
Secondly
whinny and over-revving.
In 6th at 70mph most of these cars are doing 1700-2000rpm max. Also off boost which is how they can deliver the bigger mpg figures.
itstartedwithakona - Memberyep, little petrol turbos are actually quite torqey.
Ford's 1.0 ecoboost delivers up to 200 Nm from 1400 rpm
That more torque than the 2.0 n/a in a Honda S2000!#
edit - mixing up my units, the 2.0 honda actually has 220 Nm, but still...
Without checking I would guess peak torque in the v-tec is probably well up there in the rev range. In addition to having plenty of torque you're also saving 50-100kg over the diesel.
hah.. (I think?) my thinking is in line with jamabalaya's "old skool" approach.
currently in a petrol 2.0 vtech for my 20 mile (each way) motorway commute.. tax is £15 [i]a month[/i]. considering a 2.0 bluemotion golf down the line. yes its diesel, but its high MPG will and will save me a grand over 5 years in car tax alone. (its £30 a year).
would obviously consider a decent alternative if it presents itself. basically need a 5 door hatch (potential for a littleun in near future, mrs is about to get a recentish 1.4 - 1.6 5 door polo), and my current bike carrier should fit most hatches.
(previous car to my type-s civic was a mk3 golf gti 16v, awesome car with reliability issues that made me bin it in the end. my first car was a NA 1.4 Polo Open Air - great fun...)
Just to comment on the larger NA v's small turbo debate...
I had the 2.0 normally aspirated mk5 golf (the old FSI), which produced 150 bhp. The 1.4 TSI feels very similar and despite producing less peak power, is only 0.4s slower to 60 mph, is quieter at motorway speeds and is about 25% more fuel efficient.
I don't find the 1.4 whinny. It has a quite a pleasing note during acceleration and it does not need to be revved hard, as all the power is available at low revs.
IMO, the 1.4 TSI is a superior engine to that 2.0 FSI in every respect.
They offer the A3 with the 150 bhp 1.4 TSI. I think that would be as close to perfect as I could get for my application (except, perhaps a PHEV).
Would definitely test drive, especially if the petrol is a Euro6 non-turbo model.
Had a couple of rental cars recently that had no poke to them whatosever, especially uphill. One was an Astra (1.4 I think), another was an Insignia, with the only engine in the entire range that does not have a turbo. Had to rag that one in 2nd to drive up a hill just to sustain speed, and it was still telling me to upshift.
Had a VW polo that needed a downshift on every motorway/A road incline, but a VW golf that did not (both petrol, both smaller engine than my Leon 1.8 turbo).
[quote=andytherocketeer ]Would definitely test drive, especially if the petrol is a Euro6 non-turbo model.
Had a couple of rental cars recently that had no poke to them whatosever, especially uphill. One was an Astra (1.4 I think), another was an Insignia, with the only engine in the entire range that does not have a turbo. Had to rag that one in 2nd to drive up a hill just to sustain speed, and it was still telling me to upshift.
Had a VW polo that needed a downshift on every motorway/A road incline, but a VW golf that did not (both petrol, both smaller engine than my Leon 1.8 turbo).
Second this. Just got a Fiesta 1.25, it's notably gutless at low revs compared to the older model with the same (but pre-EURO6) engine.
can someone explain the difference between a PCP and a PCH please?
The last P in PCP means Purchase - you have an option to buy the car at the end of term. H in PCH is hire - you never own the car.
And with PCP you can sell it. Ok, it'll show as having finance secured on it, but a personal loan to pay off the finance, and then sell the car, does give you a get-out if you really need it.
To get out of a lease, you will be making all the payments remaining.
To get out of a lease, you will be making all the payments remaining.
Not necessarily true. You would need to look in to the T&C's of each specific deal. There are examples of early termination fees in the order of 50% of the outstanding payments. As stated previously, you cannot necessarily walk away from a PCP without incurring some penalty.
As with any finance, you need to ensure that you understand the implications of all the 'what ifs'.
NA vs Turbo'd cars is the way of the world
See 911s, where the 'turbo' model is just a faster version now, as the historically NA'd 911s are now turbos too
See also M5s and M3s, which are now turbo'd. See also all fast cars, hyper and super cars
Turbos give more power/torque for more/less mpg/CO2 - it's the way the rules are taking it
Motorbikes are different, and no CO2 palava applies to them (yet)
I'd also rather than a big NA rather than a smaller turbo, but the smaller turbo engine actually drive surprisingly well, largely due to peak torque being pretty good and low down the rev range
Okay I have not read all the replies above but I would choose ...
Japanese petrol automatic gear with at least 150bhp (125bhp is good enough for me).
chewkw - Member
Okay I have not read all the replies above but I would choose ...Japanese petrol automatic gear with at least 150bhp (125bhp is good enough for me).
That would make a reasonable commuter motorbike.
I chose British petrol automatic with 380bhp.
benp1 - MemberNA vs Turbo'd cars is the way of the world
........ [b]See also all fast cars, hyper and super cars[/b]
Just to be a massive pedant - LaFerrari, Porsche 918, Lexus LFA, Ferrari F12, Lamborghini Aventador & Huracan, Audi R8, Viper ACR....Porsche 911 GT3RS....loads of normally aspirated fast cars /pedant.
Me and the Mrs recently bought a second hand Ford Focus petrol 1.0 Ecoboost 125ps (1 year old, 14k on the clock). The high gearing and very high bite point on the clutch took a while to get used to but the performance is incredible for such a small engine. The acceleration and pull is on par with the Ford Fiesta 1.8 turbodiesel I used to own from 2004-2008. Its performance surpasses that of my last car (1.6 petrol Focus estate).
Doing motorway trips to see friends / relatives we get an average of 45mpg. Using Shell fuel I've had that up to 52mpg before. For short trips around town that comes down quite considerably to 37-40mpg.
Neither of us do the mileage to justify owning a diesel engine, and we have friends and relatives that have been left with high maintenance bills on diesel cars due to filter / injector problems from not being run enough.
Buying new on PCP I'd pick the one I liked best, unless it was clear cut (i.e. 20K plus motorway miles).
Most of the servicing disadvantages (failures really) of diesels kick in at the sort of age I buy - DPF, DMF etc. - under 5 odd years you'd be unlucky to encounter it.
Just bought (post head on crash from a charming gent on the wrong side of the road) a new car for Mrs B, and went 1.4 petrol for simplicity (only spending 3K) of ownership and serivcing. Reasonably frugal too, if I'm not driving it.
Now that's not to say they are as clean as petrols, but the new tech is much better.
That's largely true of HGVs and buses, but real-world testing strongly suggests that modern diesel cars have made only very small improvements over their predecessors.
bensales - Member
That would make a reasonable commuter motorbike.I chose British petrol automatic with 380bhp.
My 2005 1.6 litre petrol automatic gear Toyota Corolla has 120bhp with max speed of 109mph (I think that's the max speed) which for me is enough as I don't really drive fast.
380bhp? Jaguar?
That's largely true of HGVs and buses, but real-world testing strongly suggests that modern diesel cars have made only very small improvements over their predecessors.
You know the newest VAG engines have SCR and need AdBlue like HGVs don't you?
You know the newest VAG engines have SCR and need AdBlue like HGVs don't you?
Yes. Did you know that there are 2016 VAG cars emitting up to 6 times the Euro 6 emissions limit for NOx?
When you say removes it and when you say data You really mean makes it undetectable.
Vehicle industry staying 1 step above those doing the measuring.
Mean while the smaller particles linger in the air longer and are more harmful than the clod of black smog that comes out the back of my landy and gets taken to the floor almost instantly due to its weight.
Why don't motorbikes last 100,000 miles ?
Same reasons cars don't last 30-40 years either, I'd expect.
chewkw - MemberMy 2005 1.6 litre petrol automatic gear Toyota Corolla has 120bhp with max speed of 109mph (I think that's the max speed) which for me is enough as I don't really drive fast.
380bhp? Jaguar?
Yes, new XF-S. 40th birthday present to myself.
I don't tend to drive fast either, I just like big saloon cars with powerful engines. Lazy cruising.
Did you know that there are 2016 VAG cars emitting up to 6 times the Euro 6 emissions limit for NOx?
Are they the ones with scr?
Cougar - Moderator
Why don't motorbikes last 100,000 miles ?
Same reasons cars don't last 30-40 years either, I'd expect.
Modern Japanese bikes will happily last 100k, just most people don't ride them that much.
Modern petrols seem to be much less economical than they should be given developments over the years.
Over 40 years ago I was getting 50 to 55 from a 1.3 Renault 5 which pulled well low down and would also register over 100 on the speedo if one was bothered to try.
I recently spoke with a Fiat Panda owner who said that due to all the emissions "stuff" on it it needed to be booted everywhere and returned only 35 mpg. More petrol used equals more pollution (at that sort of difference) surely.
There are advantages to diesel that I have never seen discussed. Better consumption means less oil reserves used up and (to my layman way of thinking) there must be a fair bit of pollution generated by the additional processing to produce petrol rather than diesel. Perhaps an oil expert can enlighten us.
Better consumption means less oil reserves used up
Well I'm not an oil expert, but I can have a stab. When crude oil comes out of the ground, it's a mixture of loads and loads of different hydrocarbons, with different configurations of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. So for example methane (1 carbon 4 hydrogen or CH4) is a gas, athane C2H6, propane (which you'll have heard of) C3H8, butane and so on, including octane, which you'll also have heard of and is a liquid. But there are loads more besides, all the way down to thick tar which is almost solid.
Oil refineries separate out all these chemicals. So a barrel of crude contains X amount of the chemicals that make petrol and Y amount of diesel. But you refine it all in one go, so you automatically get a set amount of each fuel - and also heating oil, LPG and so on. Crude from different places contains different amounts of each. So it doesn't take any more to produce petrol than diesel.
Well - that's the theory. Diesel used to be cheap because we weren't using a lot and it was going spare after we extracted the petrol. But now manufacturers have produced lots of diesel cars demand exceeds supply a bit. So they have to take the heavier oils and split them up to make diesel. This takes quite a lot of energy so sometimes there's more energy being consumed than your MPG would indicate....
Thisisnotaspoon can explain more if he comes on.
Over 40 years ago I was getting 50 to 55 from a 1.3 Renault 5 which pulled well low down and would also register over 100 on the speedo if one was bothered to try.
Modern cars of a given size are far heavier. I get 50mpg on A road driving in my 1.4 petrol Octavia. Which for a car of that size and weight seems pretty good. Will also do around 127mph.
My main problem is the difference between fuel consumption when driving a vehicle hard between diesel and petrol, I manage 30 mpg out of my 2.9 lt 2.3 ton diesel when driving briskly and manage the same out of my wife's 1.6 petrol Megane driven in the same manner!
The other difference is how modern emissions are strangling smaller petrol cars, again my wife's car is far less responsive than my earlier 1.7lt carb fed Renault 5. 115 bhp 900 kgs, v 115 bhp 1.3 ton, 16 valve. The carburettor fed engine is so much more flexible and more lively.
I was always of the opinion that there is no replacement for displacement, but having downsized my other half's car from a 330 (3l, 6 cylinder) to a new MINI Cooper with a 1.5l, 3 cylinder turbo I've been really impressed with it. It's obviously not as fast because its a lot less powerful, but it's nippy, holds it's own on the motorway but is also very refined. It's quieter cruising than my diesel vRS. The current Cooper engine is much better than the old 1.6 N/A one to drive and in terms of economy etc.
When it came to replacing my company car last year, I wanted to go petrol however the lease deals still heavily favoured diesel cars which meant that my budget went much further in terms of spec etc despite the actual retail costs being higher.
jimjam - Member
benp1 - Member
NA vs Turbo'd cars is the way of the world
........ See also all fast cars, hyper and super carsJust to be a massive pedant - LaFerrari, Porsche 918, Lexus LFA, Ferrari F12, Lamborghini Aventador & Huracan, Audi R8, Viper ACR....Porsche 911 GT3RS....loads of normally aspirated fast cars /pedant.
I wasn't that fair so you were right to call me on it
I think I'd summarise that turbos used to be used for extra power, now they're used for better efficiency (as well as extra power)
But NA supercars are a dying breed. Our kids will be driving hyper-e-cars
Motorbikes are safe from the emissions shenanigans at least - 1 litre engine, no turbo, 180 bhp
Yes, new XF-S. 40th birthday present to myself.
+1 for the new Mini Cooper 1.5. My OH has one - it's a superb engine, smooth, fast-ish and very economical (45 mpg + on a 20 mile commute. Computer pretends that it's 55!) Makes a lovely noise when you cane it, too.