donut
|
| posted on 13/2/06 at 10:37 PM |
|
|
Most economical?
Ok heres one for you..
Seeing as most of you georgeous people on here love power and HUGE bhp figures.....
What would you say is the most economical CEC engine for a 7? Also apart from the obvious x flow what other light engine would work.
Please bare in mind that BHP isn't really an issue...as long as it's over 75bhp.
Hellfire...you need not reply here, it's a CEC question only!! 
[Edited on 13/2/06 by donut]
Andy
When I die, I want to go peacefully like my Grandfather did, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andywest1/
|
|
|
|
|
bob
|
| posted on 13/2/06 at 10:40 PM |
|
|
Who told you a x-flow was economical ?
|
|
|
donut
|
| posted on 13/2/06 at 10:41 PM |
|
|
Andy
When I die, I want to go peacefully like my Grandfather did, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andywest1/
|
|
|
graememk
|
| posted on 13/2/06 at 10:42 PM |
|
|
i have a nissan silvia turbo engine in mine, i'd of though that the bhp to cost was very good
|
|
|
Hellfire
|
| posted on 13/2/06 at 10:45 PM |
|
|
Andy, that's a shame, cos I know the answer to this one.  And I'm not gonna tell you. In fact I'm taking my ball home if you
won't let me play.................
PS. Does this count as a reply??
BTW - What does CEC stand for
[Edited on 13-2-06 by Hellfire]
|
|
|
bob
|
| posted on 13/2/06 at 10:52 PM |
|
|
LOL 
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 13/2/06 at 10:52 PM |
|
|
Rover K8 (71 bhp)
Rover K16 (71 to 180 bhp)
|
|
|
dl_peabody
|
| posted on 13/2/06 at 11:03 PM |
|
|
My vote is for the ....
1988 Chevy sprint/metro (1 liter, 3 cylnder) bolts to a suzuki samurai trans. The sprint was rumored at almost 50 mpg
(sorry reading up it only has 55 hp)
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/4219.shtml
Most effecient..per car class
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/best/bestworstNF.shtml
|
|
|
Chippy
|
| posted on 13/2/06 at 11:08 PM |
|
|
Think you will find that economy has little to do with engine size, or brake horse power. Much more to do with the size and weight of your right foot.
Plus how much you like to hear the poor engine suffer. 
|
|
|
flak monkey
|
| posted on 13/2/06 at 11:10 PM |
|
|
Jeez some of those MPG figures make me wince... the focus diesel is a 50mpg car, why did they choose the petrol as the most efficient? Iteresting.
Also love the fact that the Vanquish is classed as a MiniCompact
Sera
http://www.motosera.com
|
|
|
dave1888
|
| posted on 13/2/06 at 11:18 PM |
|
|
I would recon either a zetec 1.2 or daihatsu 1.3 efi. my wee hijet van gets on average 50mpg
|
|
|
zilspeed
|
| posted on 13/2/06 at 11:24 PM |
|
|
VAG 1.4tdi - but you would need your nutsack parted for putting that into a se7en.
|
|
|
stevec
|
| posted on 13/2/06 at 11:36 PM |
|
|
RR Merlin?
|
|
|
clbarclay
|
| posted on 14/2/06 at 12:06 AM |
|
|
Most Economical?
We run a Mk 3 Golf GL TDi. 50-70 mpg from a 90bhp 1.9 turbo/intercooled diesel.
V. economical and goes like sh*t off a shovel ( 0-60 under 10 secs. and sits all day on the m'way at ** mph). Pulls 30 mph per 1000 rpm in 5th
and revs to 4600 red line. And thats all in a car weighing a ton, leccy windows, mirrors, sun roof and all. What would you get if you put a 150 bhp VW
pd engine in a locost?
|
|
|
donut
|
| posted on 14/2/06 at 12:06 AM |
|
|
quote:
RR Merlin?
Erm... i think you miss read the question
Andy
When I die, I want to go peacefully like my Grandfather did, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andywest1/
|
|
|
Simon
|
| posted on 14/2/06 at 12:09 AM |
|
|
Much as I hate to say it cos it's german (which means it'll be horrendously expensive and very unreliable ) a friend of a friend has a
new golf gttttddci or whatever and apparently was returning 50mpg at 130. I could have got my facts slightly wrong as I was told a couple of weeks
ago.
It's also got a paddle gearbox so you'll need some rollocks too!
ATB
Simon
|
|
|
MkIndy7
|
| posted on 14/2/06 at 12:33 AM |
|
|
Sticking with petrol and not dirty diesel!
My dads 2L Hyundai Lantra is pretty economical on a run, I don't believe those poor city figures on the site posted.
I'm pretty sure its based on the old Mitsubish engine(maybe a scource of a RWD box) and has been bullet proof upto the 66K we've put on it
in 8yrs from new, onli needed a new HT lead for some strange reason!
135 Bhp I think and 0-60 in 9 sec, not bad for a car of its size and it'd be even more economical in a 7!
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 14/2/06 at 08:59 AM |
|
|
My 214 8v is very economical, no ball of fire but can keep up if you keep on the revs. So K's are pretty good.
But I'd imagine most modern small (<1.4) MPi engines will be economical and will certainly blow away the average hothatch when put in a 600kg
car. Turbo diesels will be even better, but clattering away at 3000rpm isn't very sporty is it
Most economical (and fastest accelerating) will probably be electric if you can live with the install cost/p*ss poor range/looks of pity
|
|
|
garyo
|
| posted on 14/2/06 at 09:03 AM |
|
|
For the best MPG I'd be looking at the bodywork rather than the engine - fit a fury/sylus body!
Gary
|
|
|
DaveFJ
|
| posted on 14/2/06 at 09:06 AM |
|
|
I would have thought a good cheap engine would be the Fiat FIRE engine as found in a panda's and a lot of Punto's. Say what you like about
Fiat - they make bloody good engines......
Dave
"In Support of Help the Heroes" - Always
|
|
|
donut
|
| posted on 14/2/06 at 09:17 AM |
|
|
quote:
For the best MPG I'd be looking at the bodywork rather than the engine - fit a fury/sylus body!
Were talking 7's here which would mean lighter than a full bodied chassis surley?
As for the Fiat engine..great but would it work in a 7?
[Edited on 14/2/06 by donut]
Andy
When I die, I want to go peacefully like my Grandfather did, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andywest1/
|
|
|
donut
|
| posted on 14/2/06 at 09:33 AM |
|
|
Ok just had a thought...
Ford KA. That's suposed to have a crossflow in it yes? Is it still of the same basic design or has it developed beyond usefulness in a 7?
Andy
When I die, I want to go peacefully like my Grandfather did, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andywest1/
|
|
|
DaveFJ
|
| posted on 14/2/06 at 09:36 AM |
|
|
Don't think I would want anything that small that was new enough to need a CAT.......
I have heard (but await to be proven wrong) that the FIat engines all use a standard bolt pattern therefore a Fiat/Lancia RWD box should fit......
that may be crap though!
[Edited on 14/2/06 by DaveFJ]
Dave
"In Support of Help the Heroes" - Always
|
|
|
ditchlewis
|
| posted on 14/2/06 at 09:36 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chippy
Think you will find that economy has little to do with engine size, or brake horse power. Much more to do with the size and weight of your right foot.
Plus how much you like to hear the poor engine suffer.
I agree totally with the above
I have a golf gttdi pd150 (cr*p name) and it does 58mpg if you are being good and 8mpg if you are bad
i guess that is why i only average 47mpg.
another comment abuot aerodynamics is where you would get best gains on a 7.
ditch
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 14/2/06 at 10:45 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by donut
Ok just had a thought...
Ford KA. That's suposed to have a crossflow in it yes? Is it still of the same basic design or has it developed beyond usefulness in a 7?
I've heard the engine mounts on the KA xflow have changed to make RWD applications difficult. Zetec-SE is much nicer anyway.
|
|
|
