how is a 1.4 / 1.3 so powerful ?

BostonB

easyontheeye wrote:

because im looking at getting a new one and these caught my eye...anyway whats wrong asking a question :mad:

p.s. if your just gonna post useless reply , dont post at all!

I never said there was anything wrong with asking a question. But likewise theres nothing wrong with me asking either. It was a straight question dunno why the attitude.

I ask because you comparing two wildly different cars. One is 30k the other 23k insurance. One is a performance car (ish) with high insurance, and running costs (most likely) the other a economy diesel. It makes no sense to compare them. Unless you explain why you are comparing them, give the question some logical context.

cantdecide wrote:

I've driven an '04 opel combo and it's silly slow.

What's the point of having 90bhp if it's at 6,500rpm.


5 door Sport Micra is my favourite

Sport if often a trim level. Hardly a new thing. Anyone thats interested in real performance will do some homework and see though it.

I drive a 06 Astra 1.3 CDTi now and then, (just a hatchback) and I thought it was nippy enough. Need to rev it a bit to get the turbo going, otherwise you can get caught by low torque at low revs. Need to go through the gears fast as the powerband is quite narrow. No point going to the redline with a diesel. Economy is good and it handles well, with little body roll. Better then the Focus 1.6 TDCi I had for a while. Though the TDCi feels faster. Self cancelling indicators on the Astra are a pain though.

BostonB

Wossack wrote:

if you think the engine cc is the only thing considered in an insurance quote, you'd be sorely mistaken

Used to be. Many moons ago I switched from a 1.9 Diesel Vento 74bhp to a 1.6 CRX with 130 bhp and my insurance went down a few hundred punts. Mind you over the following couple of years the CRX's insurance went sky high. :mad: These days it what ever costs you more.

milltown

BostonB wrote:

I never said there was anything wrong with asking a question. But likewise theres nothing wrong with me asking either. It was a straight question dunno why the attitude.

I ask because you comparing two wildly different cars.

It seems you're the only one who has a problem with the OP. Yes the two cars mentioned are chalk and cheese but he clearly stated the reason he was asking was that he knew nothing about cars.

"Sport" is more of a marketing term, especially where Opel are concerned and most likely the only difference between a sport model and the vanilla will be a set of alloys and a spoiler or two. I'm old enough to remember when they were selling Corsas where the "sport" spec meant you got hubcaps for your 12" steel wheels.

BostonB

milltown wrote:

It seems you're the only one who has a problem with the OP. Yes the two cars mentioned are chalk and cheese but he clearly stated the reason he was asking was that he knew nothing about cars....

I don't have a problem. I'm just clarifying my question, and why I asked it. OP took the question a way I didn't intend it. If someone asked should they buy a Cooper S or a 1.6 Diesel Volvo estate, you can't answer the question unless you know why those two cars are on their shortlist.

easyontheeye

no worries, I was just wondering how you can get so much power out of a small engine and whether small engines with lots of BHP are actually more pokey than a large engine with a lower BHP. I always assumed the larger the enginer the more BHP you get, obviously I couldn't be more wrong.

BostonB

Might be worthwhile you test driving the Golf and Astra just to experience how they feel to drive.

F1 cars in the turbo era had 1.0~1.4L engines that put out 1000~1400BHP :eek:

E92

Wasn't it Nissan that came up with this supercharing and turbocharging in one engine idea about 20 years ago for the Micra of all cars?

bazz26

E92 wrote:

Wasn't it Nissan that came up with this supercharing and turbocharging in one engine idea about 20 years ago for the Micra of all cars?

Yep, I think it was the MkI Micra, mad yoke but the chassis wasn't able to cope.

Incidently the Rover 1.4 litre K Series n/a engine had 102bhp in the 200/400 back in 1989/1990. Still pretty powerful by today's standards when you consider Ford and VAG are still selling the Focus, Golf, etc today with only 80bhp.

It's a pitty the Rover engineers didn't pay as much attention to the design of the coolant system though, it might have prevented the head gasket from consistantly blowing.

dak

BostonB wrote:

Might be worthwhile you test driving the Golf and Astra just to experience how they feel to drive.

F1 cars in the turbo era had 1.0~1.4L engines that put out 1000~1400BHP :eek:

What F1 engines did that ? I know Honda F1 v6 1494cc twin turbos in the 80's produced more like 870 to 1050 bhp at 13000-14000 rpm.

BostonB

dak wrote:

What F1 engines did that ? I know Honda F1 v6 1494cc twin turbos in the 80's produced more like 870 to 1050 bhp at 13000-14000 rpm.

The BMW's in the mid 80's I think. 1.5 and 1400bhp in practise at least. I don't know the specifics.

I thought that Micra was only a turbo not a supercharger. Supercharging and turbos must have used togther long before that.

dak

BostonB wrote:

The BMW's in the mid 80's I think. 1.5 and 1400bhp in practise at least. I don't know the specifics.

I thought that Micra was only a turbo not a supercharger. Supercharging and turbos must have used togther long before that.

BMW FI engine stats.. 850 only I'm afraid. Still super engines !!



Type: M12/13
Year: 1982-1987, 1987-1988 (Megatron)
Number of cylinders: 4
Configuration: Straight, turbo, 72° left (1986)
Capacity: 1500
RPM: 10500
Power: 557-640 bhp, 770 bhp (1984), 850 (1985)

S.I.R

i never thought 1.4/1.3 where fast... well the diahatsu charde turbo is... but meh its a very very light car... astra's and golfs... eh not so fast even with 100+ hp on sport models.. there so heavy and fwd

Triangle

woop wrote:

actually what do insurance companies quote for the mazda, seeing as its a 1.3, I know its a rotary and all........... but......

They usually treat it as a 1.8L sports car.

Tax is at 1.8L as well.

BostonB

dak wrote:

BMW FI engine stats.. 850 only I'm afraid. Still super engines !!



Type: M12/13
Year: 1982-1987, 1987-1988 (Megatron)
Number of cylinders: 4
Configuration: Straight, turbo, 72° left (1986)
Capacity: 1500
RPM: 10500
Power: 557-640 bhp, 770 bhp (1984), 850 (1985)

Rivet count all you like. Its widely reported that turbo engines of that era, reached higher BHP than spec running with higher boost than than spec. Of course they generally went bang shortly after... More fun to believe it even its its not true.

Robbo

BostonB wrote:

Rivet count all you like. Its widely reported that turbo engines of that era, reached higher BHP than spec running with higher boost than than spec. Of course they generally went bang shortly after...

I believe at one stage Honda didn't know how much the engines were putting out in Qualifying trim as the dyno couldn't measure the output.

dak

BostonB wrote:

Rivet count all you like. Its widely reported that turbo engines of that era, reached higher BHP than spec running with higher boost than than spec. Of course they generally went bang shortly after... More fun to believe it even its its not true.

I believe you! Just imagine if they had achieved the rpm we get today back then ! There would have been a lot of banging !