Car makers that lie about their cars . . . WHY !

maidhc

Frenchdayz wrote: »

Why ? why arent they happy with 5.6L ?

That is pretty common.

E.g. Fords 1.8 TDCi is actually 1753ccs. Normal to round it up for marketing I suppose.

I think the use of the merc 6.3 has a historical context.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_300SEL_6.3

Frenchdayz

Then why not MAKE IT a 6.3L ? They should round it off to the nearest whole number. I really need someone to tell me about the 316i though, someone must know why !

Balfa

Frenchdayz wrote: »

i can roughly guess that a 2.0 has around 120bhp if its a four cylinder with no turbos.

Evidently not. My point is that the BMW 118d, 120d and 123d all have 2 litre, 4 cylinder turbodiesels. By your understanding, they all have "around 120bhp". In fact, they range from 120hp to 201hp. You want BMW to name them all 120d, but can you not see the confusion that would cause??

If they had on the badge how many electric windows there were on the car i.e. 4, then made 3 i would wonder why, wouldnt you ?

No, I wouldn't give a crap, because it's a model name, that's my whole point.

colm_mcm

Here's one for ye:

Fiat 1.2 petrol engine 1242cc

Fiat 1.3 JTD (Multijet) diesel engine 1248cc (same as Opel CDTI)


What's that all about?

robbie99

Balfa wrote: »

Evidently not. My point is that the BMW 118d, 120d and 123d all have 2 litre, 4 cylinder turbodiesels. By your understanding, they all have "around 120bhp". In fact, they range from 120hp to 201hp. You want BMW to name them all 120d, but can you not see the confusion that would cause??

Imagine the confusion if they were named 120d, 120d and 120d

colm_mcm

robbie99 wrote: »

Imagine the confusion if they were named 120d, 120d and 120d

and if they got Irish people to put the badges on....

alias no.9

Other examples of blatant lies include the Suzuki Swift, Mitsubishi Carisma, and Skoda Rapid amongst others. Where's the outrage about these?

maidhc

alias no.9 wrote: »

Skoda Rapid

This guy may not agree:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDu2UoDmrIE

(It is in that Rihanna music video too...

actually that video is fun to pick out cars in....)

unkel

robbie99 wrote: »

Imagine the confusion if they were named 120d, 120d and 120d

That would be good for another couple of thousand threads on here though

Anan1

Frenchdayz wrote: »

No,:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: just the size of the engine i can roughly guess that a 2.0 has around 120bhp if its a four cylinder with no turbos.

That guess would in most cases be roughly wrong.:)

colm_mcm

a 2.0 non turbo diesel should be good for around 70bhp.

Anan1

Given the rarity of NA diesel car engines, along with their low power outputs, i'd assumed the OP was talking about petrol. Either way, 120bhp from a 2.0NA, petrol or diesel, is likely to be well off the mark.

Frenchdayz

Anan1 wrote: »

Given the rarity of NA diesel car engines, along with their low power outputs, i'd assumed the OP was talking about petrol. Either way, 120bhp from a 2.0NA, petrol or diesel, is likely to be well off the mark.

I think you'll find that many of the 2.0L family cars and hatchbacks have roughly 120bhp (110bhp-140bhp or thereabouts), are you saying they are usually alot more or alot less ? You'll also find i am roughly right ! DID I EVER SAY ANYTHING ABOUT A DIESEL . . .EH ! . . . NO

Frenchdayz

Balfa wrote: »

Evidently not. My point is that the BMW 118d, 120d and 123d all have 2 litre, 4 cylinder turbodiesels. By your understanding, they all have "around 120bhp". In fact, they range from 120hp to 201hp. You want BMW to name them all 120d, but can you not see the confusion that would cause??


No, I wouldn't give a crap, because it's a model name, that's my whole point.

Then dont make it right for some cars e.g. 320i having a 2.0L and others not, just make them all 3series and leave the guessing of the engines to hardcore BMW fans (not me).

Frenchdayz

colm_mcm wrote: »

and if they got Irish people to put the badges on....

Or Aldi for that matter

Anan1

Frenchdayz wrote: »

I think you'll find that many of the 2.0L family cars and hatchbacks have roughly 120bhp (110bhp-140bhp or thereabouts), are you saying they are usually alot more or alot less ?

The average 2.0 petrol engine produces quite a bit more than 120bhp these days, go check.

Frenchdayz wrote: »

You'll also find i am roughly right ! DID I EVER SAY ANYTHING ABOUT A DIESEL . . .EH ! . . . NO

You're not right. Diesel was mentioned to give you the benefit of the doubt, as your figure of 120bhp was so obviously too low for petrol.

I think the lesson for you in this thread is that pretending you know more than you do about something risks making you look silly.:)

KTRIC

Model names don't always reflect the actual engine size. Same thing happens in the motorbike world.

My current bike is a VN1600, which isn't a 1.6 litre at all, its a 1552cc. Previous was a W650, which was a 675cc !!. I could go on and on but in the end they're just model names and thats it.

Zube

KTRIC wrote: »

in the end they're just model names and thats it.

Also bear in mind that the manufacturers try to keep their model designations unique. Peugeot stopped Porsche from releasing a model called the 901, since they claim all model numbers with a 0 in the middle, like 402, 305, 607 and so on. Even so, they are running low, and are now using 1007, 4007 for unusual models.

There are only so many 3 digit numbers for BMW to use, and sticking strictly to engine size will quickly use them up, while confusing the hell out of the heirarchy of models within each range.

Frenchdayz

Anan1 wrote: »

The average 2.0 petrol engine produces quite a bit more than 120bhp these days, go check.
Diesel was mentioned to give you the benefit of the doubt, as your figure of 120bhp was so obviously too low for petrol.

I think you'll find its somewhere between 110bhp-140bhp

And why was diesel added when i was talking about the BMW 316i not any kind of BMW with a "d" on the end ?

I have already said that i am not a hardcore BMW fan and so assumed i figured the BMW engine size system out, evidently i didnt but it worked in many cases. So yes on that instance i looked stupid, but only when it comes to BMW's range !

Frenchdayz

Anan1 wrote: »

The average 2.0 petrol engine produces quite a bit more than 120bhp these days, go check.

Ferrari could push out well over 200bhp from a 2.0L NA engine but other companies find a balance between BHP and Torque (which is becoming more important to people for some reason), so you'll find most cars on the roads today that have a 2.0L NA engine produce 110-140BHP, unless those roads are in Monaco

Zube

Frenchdayz wrote: »

you'll find most cars on the roads today that have a 2.0L NA engine produce 110-140BHP,

I think that's low, so I'll look up the Ford Mondeo and VW Passat as two profoundly unsporty family 2 litres: The only 2.0 Passat is a turbo with 200 bhp. The normally aspirated 1.8 throws out 160. Fords 2.0 FFV Mondeo puts out 145 bhp. The 1.6 puts out 110.

So, I'd say your a year or two behind the times with those power figures, before we even go to sportier marques like Alfa, BMW or Honda.

-Chris-

A year or two? When I did vehicle engineering 10 years ago we were given 60-70bhp per liter (normally aspirated) as a rule of thumb. It's definitely moved on by now!

Frenchdayz

Zube wrote: »

I think that's low, so I'll look up the Ford Mondeo and VW Passat as two profoundly unsporty family 2 litres: The only 2.0 Passat is a turbo with 200 bhp. The normally aspirated 1.8 throws out 160. Fords 2.0 FFV Mondeo puts out 145 bhp. The 1.6 puts out 110.

So, I'd say your a year or two behind the times with those power figures, before we even go to sportier marques like Alfa, BMW or Honda.

Most of the cars on our roads arent what you'd call sporty, most cars are also a couple of years old, those are great engines and many do produce almost 100bhp per litre but most of them dont.

F**K we're really getting off the point ! Can someone tell me why the BMW 316i is a 1.9L, why isnt it a 1.9i ?

MCMLXXXIII

Not to pick on your post in particular, BUT...

Zube wrote: »

Also bear in mind that the manufacturers try to keep their model designations unique. Peugeot stopped Porsche from releasing a model called the 901, since they claim all model numbers with a 0 in the middle, like 402, 305, 607 and so on. Even so, they are running low, and are now using 1007, 4007 for unusual models.

There are only so many 3 digit numbers for BMW to use, and sticking strictly to engine size will quickly use them up, while confusing the hell out of the heirarchy of models within each range.

BMW, without putting zeros in the middle, still has about 900 name options using just numbers.

A BMW 3 series with a 2.5L engine should be a 325. Want a petrol version? 325i. Diesel? 325d. All-wheel drive = 325Xi.

There's no reason to have anything else under a different name. If they start making a new 2.5L engine...still just call it a 325. If they start making a 2.6L engine, simply change the name to 326.

...is it really that hard?

colm_mcm

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

A BMW 3 series with a 2.5L engine should be a 325. Want a petrol version? 325i. Diesel? 325d. All-wheel drive = 325Xi.

There's no reason to have anything else under a different name. If they start making a new 2.5L engine...still just call it a 325. If they start making a 2.6L engine, simply change the name to 326.

...is it really that hard?

What happens if they have different hp and emissions figures for the same engine size?
also, I don't think BMW ever made the link between their badging and the cars engine sizes

Balfa

Frenchdayz wrote: »

F**K we're really getting off the point ! Can someone tell me why the BMW 316i is a 1.9L, why isnt it a 1.9i ?

I don't see a 1.9L 316i. I only see 1.6L and 1.8L 316is and 1.9L 318is.

I'd say the reason they used a 1.8L and still called it a 316i was to "leave the guessing of the engines to hardcore BMW fans". Maybe the 316i gained weight and to give the sort of performance people expect from a BMW 316i, they opted for a 1.8L engine. Which isn't a big deal, because everyone knows that a 318i will perform better than a 316i of the same generation regardless of engine size.

So yeah, just like you wanted, they're simplifying things for the masses.

.Longshanks.

Frenchdayz wrote: »

Ferrari could push out well over 200bhp from a 2.0L NA engine but other companies find a balance between BHP and Torque (which is becoming more important to people for some reason), so you'll find most cars on the roads today that have a 2.0L NA engine produce 110-140BHP, unless those roads are in Monaco

Ferrari?? No need to look so exotic for a 2.0L N/A 200bhp car - Honda have been at it for years!

alias no.9

Frenchdayz wrote: »

F**K we're really getting off the point ! Can someone tell me why the BMW 316i is a 1.9L, why isnt it a 1.9i ?

Because its just a f**cking name, get over it. The 316i is the long established entry level model in the 3 series range. Similarly the 320i has long had a 2.2 liter engine but the 320i is the long established entry level 6 cylinder model in the 3 series range. All I can see here is someone who appears to be feeling sorry for themselves, having made a fool of themselves, possibly when trying to make a fool of someone else. Were you trying to make a joke of the puney 1.6 litre engine in your mates car?
Anyway, get over it, move on, there's more important things in life.

NewApproach

alias no.9 wrote: »

Anyway, get over it, move on, there's more important things in life.

+1

ninty9er

zAbbo wrote: »

Where do they lavel it as a 6300cc?

All I'm seeing is a model number, I think in insurance terms, a 6208cc engine would be insured as a 6300cc

Sorry if this has been done already, but I was getting bored with the comments on this thread

6150-6249cc = 6.2l
6250-6349cc=6.3l