Board logo

New physically small powerplants
Texan - 23/9/12 at 03:39 AM

I'm sure you'll get them before we in the U.S. get them. If it runs true to form we won't get them at all.

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=26365&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=html&utm_campaign=2012-9- 18




Another physically small motor is the new Dodge/Fiat 4 cylinder which also comes turbo charged for a good power output and a good power band.

Personally I prefer smaller & lighter and that's been tough to do.

snapper - 23/9/12 at 06:10 AM

The new range of for engines promises some very powerful small turbo engines
But I'm a sucker for torque a d would probably look for the 2.0L 250bhp one
When a 1.4-1.6 would do.
Our next collective problem will be the transmission, the type 9 will be far over its limit, the MT75 I don't like the ratios and the T5 is a big beast that requires chassis mods

nick205 - 23/9/12 at 06:37 AM

the one above is BMW iirc so will come with rwd box

other than that it seems obvious to go mid engined. DSG type boxes would ease the mechanics of gear change layouts, although give electronic grief no doubt.

what I want to see is tin tops themselves downsized and weighted to match these new motors. governents should drive this with similar regulation; max. kerb weight 1000kg challenge to manufacturers. bye bye 4x4s unless you need and register one for a specific purpose.

mark chandler - 23/9/12 at 08:01 AM

quote:
Originally posted by nick205 bye bye 4x4s unless you need and register one for a specific purpose.


If we start dictating what people are allowed to drive then it will be a much poorer world.

jeffw - 23/9/12 at 08:34 AM

Agree....you don't need toy cars for a starter....!

designer - 23/9/12 at 12:13 PM

I would ban any new car having more than a 2 litre engine.

MRLuke - 23/9/12 at 01:27 PM

quote:
Originally posted by designer
I would ban any new car having more than a 2 litre engine.


And there should be a man with a red flag walking in front of it at all times.

designer - 23/9/12 at 02:16 PM

quote:

And there should be a man with a red flag walking in front of it at all times.


Thanks for the patronising me!

If you can't do enough, with today's technology, with a 2ltr engine, there is something wrong.

MRLuke - 23/9/12 at 03:30 PM

I cant see bmw dropping their 330d anytime soon. Nor can I see Audi losing their v10 diesel. Then we have Ferrari, Lamborghini et al with a 2.0T ?

Companies should be able to make what they want. If they do a good job they will sell lots, if they dont it wont sell.

We should not be legislating a maximum engine size based on one persons opinion, no matter how experienced or educated they are.

Apologies for the tone of my reply but you were trolling, i.e. making a statement to get a response.

Texan - 23/9/12 at 03:54 PM

As I said, I personally like smaller & lighter for almost everything, but I have a Ford F150 FX2 with the Supercrew cab that I drive the most. It gets good gas mileage (21-22 mpg) and should we decide to load up with plants or building supplies, take a long trip or just load it up with people we've got the room.

It also does an admirable job of hauling a race car.



So I can understand the desire for bigger vehicles. But I do wish the manufacturers would work on lighter instead of just about every model being bigger and heavier than the last.

designer - 23/9/12 at 04:58 PM

quote:

you were trolling, i.e. making a statement to get a response.


Now, why would I do that? Forums are for stating opinions. Obviously, you know more about me, than me!!

Even though they are magnificent machines, this world of ours can't afford gas guzzlers. Things have to change and small and light must be the way to go.

motorcycle_mayhem - 23/9/12 at 05:20 PM

********
So I can understand the desire for bigger vehicles. But I do wish the manufacturers would work on lighter instead of just about every model being bigger and heavier than the last.

*********

Crash tests, more 'stuff' so you can chat on the phone in peace and warmth oblivious to all. The rich, retired, baby boomers don't want a small car when a Range Rover will do. More status, more car, big now seems to be only way to go.

Anyway, yep, I saw those engines detailed on PH. They do look a fantastic midi unit. Light, very compact and all in one package. Still not as good as the Pinto probably, but nothing could ever be.

Macbeast - 23/9/12 at 08:04 PM

Is your 2CV fun to drive ?

MikeR - 23/9/12 at 08:45 PM

The new range rover is about 400kg lighter ......

coyoteboy - 24/9/12 at 12:57 PM

The bulk of the extra weight in modern cars comes from the safety add-ons and safety structures required to pass modern safety regs. Checkout all your current very light and very small cars and you'll see they generally don't perform well on the ncap tests.

Most manufacturers are indeed following the small and highly strung powerplant route these days, but to suggest all have to be is a bit daft. And to suggest people have to register to use a 4x4 is even more daft.

If I use my 4x4 for 10 trips of 100 miles a year and you use your euro box for 20K miles I assure you you're causing more of an issue than I am. Why should I have to have a specific purpose for it?

If you want to put a dissincentive on gas guzzlers the simple answer is to put a tax on fuel so the more you use the more you pay....hang on...

[Edited on 24/9/12 by coyoteboy]

Texan - 24/9/12 at 01:47 PM

Maybe we should make them all drive Locosts for a year and let Darwin sort it all out.

Then those of us left could get the cars we deserve w/o the govt. nanny.

nick205 - 24/9/12 at 01:56 PM

quote:
Originally posted by coyoteboy
The bulk of the extra weight in modern cars comes from the safety add-ons and safety structures required to pass modern safety regs. Checkout all your current very light and very small cars and you'll see they generally don't perform well on the ncap tests.

Most manufacturers are indeed following the small and highly strung powerplant route these days, but to suggest all have to be is a bit daft. And to suggest people have to register to use a 4x4 is even more daft.

If I use my 4x4 for 10 trips of 100 miles a year and you use your euro box for 20K miles I assure you you're causing more of an issue than I am. Why should I have to have a specific purpose for it?

If you want to put a dissincentive on gas guzzlers the simple answer is to put a tax on fuel so the more you use the more you pay....hang on...

[Edited on 24/9/12 by coyoteboy]




If you run a 4x4 for 10 x 100 mile trips a year why not rent one (for the task at hand) when you need it.

Innovation (materials and processes) should be the driver to improve small car safety. If the majority of vehicles were smaller, lighter and dare I say it slower then the safety considerations start to balance as well.

Chippy - 24/9/12 at 01:56 PM

The most sensible, (to my mind), way of reducing the use of gas guzzlers, is to add road tax to the price of fuel, rather than as at the moment of paying one up front tax. That way the more fuel you use the more tax you pay, and for those people with smaller, lighter more fuel efficiant cars the less you would pay, plus those that have big cars, but use them just a little would benifit. But this will never happen due to the fact that a load of people will be put out of work at the DVLA, Oh! now is that a bad thing! Hmmmm! IMHO Ray

JoelP - 24/9/12 at 04:11 PM

Id agree we need to put more tax on fuel, its the only way we are going to get weaned off our addiction. Expensive hydrocarbons makes alternative sources more practical. Either way, one major drain on our economy is the amount of money we waste importing energy - we should aim to be self sufficient via nuclear. 4 underground sites each capable of producing half our total energy requirements (note the redundancy), with everything running off electric. All nuclear waste that cannot be reprocessed gets stuck in a rocket and dumped in the sun where it belongs.

It does greatly alarm me that we as a nation havent really done anything to prepare for moving off hydrocarbon fuels, that tells me we probably wont til its all gone, with leaves us with many painful years of energy poverty.

RichB - 24/9/12 at 10:42 PM

quote:
Originally posted by MikeR
The new range rover is about 400kg lighter ......


British engineering at work again. The new RR (think of it what you will) uses recycled aluminium for its bodywork and as MikeR says helps to shave 400kg off the previous model despite being physically bigger. So the moral is recycle as many beer cans as you can!

Rich

mcerd1 - 25/9/12 at 09:31 AM

quote:
Originally posted by RichB
The new RR (think of it what you will) uses recycled aluminium for its bodywork...

plenty of things use recycled aluminium, its easier and cheaper to melt down old alloys than to start from scratch

the same is true for steels inc. stainless, most of it has a very high proportion of recycled metal too (adjusting the mix as you go with some fresh stuff to get the grade you want) - even if they don't tell you its recycled !

stating that its uses 'recycled aluminium' in the press release is just a way of making it seem more environmentally friendly

coyoteboy - 25/9/12 at 11:46 AM

quote:

If you run a 4x4 for 10 x 100 mile trips a year why not rent one (for the task at hand) when you need it.


Why rent one when you can own one and use it as and when you want, not have to book ahead and ensure you get one with towbar functionality (and pay more for it)? The rent-one argument works well until you decide you want to do a trip with your fishing boat to the coast last minute because the weather has turned up good. Or when someone needs their car towing back on a trailer and your other car is a fiat 500.

There's no need to require registration of reasons for ownership - that's madness and it won't put anyone off - it's easy to make up a reason and there's no way to police it.

Road tax on fuel will make feck all difference as it's a fraction of the cost of the fuel itself when spread over an average years miles.

We shouldn't be penalising drivers (more than high fuel costs already do put people off thirsty cars) before getting public transport options actually usable. I have lived outside two major cities and commuted in for most of my life, at neither location has the use of public transport been cheaper than driving and parking, and it was always at least 50% longer in commute time, leaving me with a walk at either end too.

I'm all for green living and developing greener cars for normal use but I'm not for restricting people's freedoms or trying to force people to waste more of their life just getting to work.

As pointed out, there's several 4x4's on teh market these days that significantly out-economise family sized normal cars and then there's the whole problem of if you penalise my thirsty old car I have to buy a new one which wasn't previously necessary and accept the manufacturing costs that go with it.

It's just not that simple.

quote:
stating that its uses 'recycled aluminium' in the press release is just a way of making it seem more environmentally friendly


That's obvious, but it's no less true. Very few cars out there use alu for panels, though some use plastic which makes more sense again in some ways (cost, weight, but not always mechanically). Of course they're going to spin the "recycled" flag about a bit.

[Edited on 25/9/12 by coyoteboy]

renrut - 1/10/12 at 07:18 PM

I've just bought a 4x4. It does double the MPG that my last car did which was not a 4x4.

My sample of 1 says that 4x4s are greener for the environment than saloons - does that mean we should ban saloon cars?

IMO the dvla car 'tax' should be abolished and the cost put on fuel. Then it gets rid of all this silly CO2 testing and taxing and becomes a case of if you use more you pay more. I would like to see manufacturers tested with their cars at say 70mph steady for fuel usage too as its harder to fudge that. But 'green' fuels e.g. biodiesel or bioethanol should be nearly tax free.

The argument that biofuels take away food crops is rubbish - people already starve in developing countries and there are already food mountains in the developed world that go to waste. And if thats still a problem perhaps there are too many cars or too many people...

coyoteboy - 1/10/12 at 07:49 PM

AFAIK the point is that if ALL cars were to be fueled by biodiesel we'd not be able to make enough food, across the world. Also, because it's really profitable the developing countries tend to slash and burn rainforest to make it in large quanties.

renrut - 2/10/12 at 07:29 AM

quote:
Originally posted by coyoteboy
AFAIK the point is that if ALL cars were to be fueled by biodiesel we'd not be able to make enough food, across the world. Also, because it's really profitable the developing countries tend to slash and burn rainforest to make it in large quanties.


Hence my earlier comment of there being too many cars or people. And its not like developing countries aren't slashing and burning rainforest anyway - how are they stopped from doing that now to grow crops or turn over to building land? Surely they're both more profitable than large swathes of rainforest.

If you think of the earth as an energy system the only real energy input is from the sun - everything else is effectively raiding the earths energy piggy bank. Solar PV cells are ridiculously inefficient and generally the smaller and more efficient you make them the shorter their life span. If you look at energy density hydrocarbon forms are top of the tree even compared to liquid hydrogen and lithium air batteries. Plants have spent billions of years perfecting the absorbtion of solar energy and turning it into hydrocarbons - do we really think we can do better in a few years? Even the supposedly 'new' idea of locking hydrogen into solid structures for safer storage for fuel cell vehicles is as old as plants - what is biodiesel/bioethanol if not hydrogen locked away in an easily transportable liquid state?

So unless people suddenly warm to nuclear energy (or invent a workable form of fusion, ITER I'm looking at you!) I can't see any solution that doesn't involve a substantial reduction in the energy usage per person or a substantial reduction in the number of people.