how is a 1.4 / 1.3 so powerful ?

easyontheeye

hi,

dont know alot about cars, but looking at the Golf GT its 1.4 right? how is it like 170bhp? also whats the astra sport 1.3l like? it produces about 90bhp ?

IrishRover

Because it has a supercharger and turbocharger.

Re the 1.3 Astra, it is laughable what cars get badged as being "sport" models. At this stage I'm thinking a lot of manufacturers seem to add the "sport" moniker to some of their crappy models in a sort of ironic way.

easyontheeye

so 90bhp is nothing special for a 1,3 ? i think its diesal, im not sure

BostonB

If don't know much about cars why do you care?

easyontheeye

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!

IrishRover

If it's a 1.3 diesel astra, then it'll be the cdti turbodiesel model. Torque is the more meaningful figure to look at when checking the power of a diesel engined car. I'm sure it's a capable car, but you couldn't call it sporty.

If you are thinking of buying either car, you should test drive them both. They'll be nothing like each other to drive I reckon. Without ever having driven the 1.4GT golf, I can be pretty confident it'll drive nothing like a Golf GTi 2.0 litre turbo that maybe was running less boost to give it 30ish horsepower less than standard. What I mean is - bhp figures are one thing, but the driving is another thing. Two similarly sized cars could have the same horsepower figures and be completely different in their power delivery and characteristics.

Senna

90bhp from a 1.3 is probably about normal.
My 1.2 micra was 75bhp
My 1.5 Civic was 105bhp


But could be worse, my GF's beetle is 2ltr and i think 115bhp.

90bhp from an astra size car is grand for most peoples needs, probably nippy at low speeds. But dont expect to be racing cars at the lights;)

Esel

BostonB wrote:

If don't know much about cars why do you care?

What a twattish post!

peasant

emmm ...hello?

90 bhp out of a 1.3 DIESEL is pretty damn good !

Not so long ago your standard 1.9 /2.0 diesel could just about get that, if at all.

Churchy

peasant wrote:

emmm ...hello?

90 bhp out of a 1.3 DIESEL is pretty damn good !

Not so long ago your standard 1.9 /2.0 diesel could just about get that, if at all.

My 1st car a 2.0d Nissan Bluebird had around 75 bhp.

/Showing my age now.

easyontheeye

peasant wrote:

emmm ...hello?

90 bhp out of a 1.3 DIESEL is pretty damn good !

Not so long ago your standard 1.9 /2.0 diesel could just about get that, if at all.

im assuming for its weight it would be nippy enough

unkel

And the Mercedes-Benz 200D (W123 - produced until '85) managed just 60BHP from a 2 liter engine!

0-100km/h in about half a minute

NullZer0

1.3 Glanza 193BHP

mloc123

iRock wrote:

1.3 Glanza 193BHP

Not out of the factory tho'

unkel

iRock wrote:

1.3 Glanza 193BHP

1.3 Mazda RX-8 231BHP

Not a diesel either. Doesn't even have a turbo

whippet

iRock wrote:

1.3 Glanza 193BHP

but they look terrible and sound even worse.

When I was talking with a VW dealer they told me they had alot of orders for the 1.4GT (170) which were subsequently cancelled due to the potential buyers not being able to get reasonable insurance.

I considered it as a much cheaper alternative to the GTi, after about 20 seconds it was clearly obvious why it wasn't even an option !!

cantdecide

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

.Longshanks.

I've a 1.3 CDTi astra so can give some opinion.

IrishRover wrote:

Re the 1.3 Astra, it is laughable what cars get badged as being "sport" models. At this stage I'm thinking a lot of manufacturers seem to add the "sport" moniker to some of their crappy models in a sort of ironic way.

You'r right in the 1.3 astra isn't a sporty car performance wise, the sport refers to the body shape. The proper name is the sport hatch AFAIK.

Senna wrote:

90bhp from a 1.3 is probably about normal.
My 1.2 micra was 75bhp
My 1.5 Civic was 105bhp

But could be worse, my GF's beetle is 2ltr and i think 115bhp.

Those cars are petrol thou... 90bhp out of a 1.3 diesel a few years ago would have been laughed at!

Senna wrote:

90bhp from an astra size car is grand for most peoples needs, probably nippy at low speeds. But dont expect to be racing cars at the lights;)

Its very nippy at low speeds - its actually the exact same speed as the 1.6 petrol astra from 40-80 kmph because of the torque. But no it won't leaving anybigger cars sitting from the lights.

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.

I don't think the currrent 1.3 CDTi was available in '04?
But surely you know you're wasting your time rev'in a 1.3 diesel to 65000rpm? Its all over by approx 3500rpm. Change up early to get the torque;)

colm_mcm

If you nothing about cars, have you considered an Audi A3?

E92

unkel wrote:

1.3 Mazda RX-8 231BHP

Not a diesel either. Doesn't even have a turbo

Its a Wankel though, which kinda makes a difference!

As for a 1.3 diesel producing 90 bhp, a 1.4 Petrol Astra also has 90 bhp, so the diesel has a higher power per litre rating than the petrol!


90 bhp from a 1.3 diesel isn't all that good anymore, BMW can get 204 bhp from a 2 litre diesel(123d) after all! And Mercedes will soon manage 204 bhp from a 2.1(well its called a 2.2 but 2148 cc is closer to a 2.1 unless Suttgart Maths is somehow different from the Maths the rest of the world practices!) litre diesel too!

dak

I think manufacturers managed to increase bhp in small engined cars due to multi-point fuel injection and advance in ecu and valve technology . I know the 1.6litre 16v series 2 nissan primera produced more bhp then its earlier 2litre version . We take 16v minimum for granted nearly these days !

JHMEG

unkel wrote:

1.3 Mazda RX-8 231BHP

Not a diesel either. Doesn't even have a turbo

And has the fuel consumption of a 2.6 litre 4-stroke! Primary benefit of a wankel is size (and therefore weight), but when it comes to getting power out of fuel it's no better.

E92 wrote:

BMW can get 204 bhp from a 2 litre diesel(123d) after all! And Mercedes will soon manage 204 bhp from a 2.1

Bear in mind you can't buy either of these yet. As unkel would say "promises, promises".

AFAIK, the Fiat 1.3 in the Astra is more powerful than a typical diesel of as it has a pertrol-esque redline (spin faster = burn more fuel = get more power).

Guy:Incognito

Longshanks100 wrote:

Those cars are petrol thou... 90bhp out of a 1.3 diesel a few years ago would have been laughed at!

How so? Going by others mentioned above it would have been a very good output for a 1.3 diesel.

E92

JHMEG wrote:

Bear in mind you can't buy either of these yet. As unkel would say "promises, promises".

The BMW is already on sale(not in Ireland, admittedly, but nevertheless on sale).

In fact the 123d has been on sale for a few months in Germany now. It will shortly be available for us too.

And the Merc engine will soon be entering production for those Bluetec Hybrids on sale early next year.

woop

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

Guy:Incognito

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......

The engine cc wouldnt be a big factor in the quote. As with the 1.4 Golf gt they will quote based on the BHP I'd imagine.

Wossack

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

Cionád

Churchy wrote:

My 1st car a 2.0d Nissan Bluebird had around 75 bhp.

/Showing my age now.

My current car (Nissan Almera 2.0d) has a hefty 73 BHP :cool:

Now thats a reason to pay 539 euro a year in road tax!!!!

colm_mcm

Stekelly wrote:

The engine cc wouldnt be a big factor in the quote. As with the 1.4 Golf gt they will quote based on the BHP I'd imagine.

Funny enough, they still base a lot on cc. Last year a customer of mine traded in a 97-ish Corolla 2.0D (non turbo around 68bhp worth around €2.5k) for a new Corolla 1.4 D-4D (90bhp €24k)

He got refunded €100 by his insurance company. How insane is that!

Similar thing happened last week, customer traded in a €25k 2.7 4X4 for a €78k 3.0 4X4 and got a small amount of money back. changed from a German to Japanese make.
This is even more strange! (the insurance, not getting out of a merc)

Cionád

colm_mcm wrote:

Funny enough, they still base a lot on cc. Last year a customer of mine traded in a 97-ish Corolla 2.0D (non turbo around 68bhp worth around €2.5k) for a new Corolla 1.4 D-4D (90bhp €24k)

He got refunded €100 by his insurance company. How insane is that!

This might be due to the latter being safer when in a crash? - Less likely to result in high cost personal injuries?

cancan

colm_mcm wrote:

If you nothing about cars, have you considered an Audi A3?

If there was a prize for post of the year, that has got to be a contender:)

The charade gtti was bloody nuts - .9 ltr and 0-60 in 7 secs, while sounding like a porsche - probably the most overlooked hero car ever...


If i remember correctly, the delta s4 employed the same approach - supercharger and turbo - 1.7ltr and good for 600bhp

So while vw did produce an impressive little engine, they have a bit of work to do to match a 20 year old italian design

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 !