Underpowered?

Max Power1

WRT the other couple of threads regarding underpowered cars. Is the likes of a 1.4 Octavia/Bora , or a 1.6 Avensis or 1.6 Passat considered to be underpowered? (petrol)

Atomic Pineapple

Max Power1 wrote: »

WRT the other couple of threads regarding underpowered cars. Is the likes of a 1.4 Octavia/Bora , or a 1.6 Avensis or 1.6 Passat considered to be underpowered? (petrol)

Big lumps of cars with small lumps of engines = underpowered

so yes they'd all be considered underpowered in my opinion

TestTransmission

Max Power1 wrote: »

WRT the other couple of threads regarding underpowered cars. Is the likes of a 1.4 Octavia/Bora , or a 1.6 Avensis or 1.6 Passat considered to be underpowered? (petrol)

yup

Max Power1

Even the 1.6 versions? I kinda presumed the 1.4s would be.

knipex

Max Power1 wrote: »

Even the 1.6 versions? I kinda presumed the 1.4s would be.

A 1.6 Bora perhaps would be OK and 1.6 passat would be way underpowered.

I drove a 1.6 diesel focus yesterday and found it underpowered.

bladespin

Most, if not all Irish cars are underpowered

Seriously, getting all hot and bothered about a 1.9 is almost embarrasing.

Max Power1

bladespin wrote: »

Most, if not all Irish cars are underpowered

Seriously, getting all hot and bothered about a 1.9 is almost embarrasing.

Fair enough.
Funny you mention 1.9 - thats the point where my insurance quote would double!

Tea 1000

knipex wrote: »

A 1.6 Bora perhaps would be OK and 1.6 passat would be way underpowered.

I drove a 1.6 diesel focus yesterday and found it underpowered.

There's probably only about 100kgs between them, so basically a Bora with no passenger is OK and with a passenger is way under powered?
For a 1500kg car I reckon 120bhp upwards is OK, less is under powered.

Atomic Pineapple

Max Power1 wrote: »

Fair enough.
Funny you mention 1.9 - thats the point where my insurance quote would double!

double the price of a 1.4 on a 1.9tdi? Thats robbery! :eek:

Joe 90

bladespin wrote: »

Most, if not all Irish cars are underpowered

Seriously, getting all hot and bothered about a 1.9 is almost embarrasing.

It's always been the way. As much sheet metal as possible wraooed round as little engine as possible for as little money as possible.

FearDark

The 1.4 Ford Focus is just horrendous.

colm_mcm

can we put some sort of 0-60 benchmark on what makes a slow car slow?

For me it's 10 seconds.

Atomic Pineapple

colm_mcm wrote: »

can we put some sort of 0-60 benchmark on what makes a slow car slow?

For me it's 10 seconds.

I hope you mean 60mph

goodlad

I drive a 1.4 focus saloon and its bloody terrible! Doing 100kph and going to overtake is a joke. I need a massive gap in the right lane if i wanna even think about pulling out caus its so bloody slow.

John_Mc

FearDark wrote: »

The 1.4 Ford Focus is just horrendous.

Yep, have one myself and regret not getting the 1.6

TomMc

Power to weight ratio rather than bhp per litre. Underpowered cars really show themselves up when overtaking. One situation where a lot of metal and an asmathtic engine could contribute to a fatal or serious crash. Even if the nut behind the wheel is ultimately responsible.

TestTransmission

colm_mcm wrote: »

can we put some sort of 0-60 benchmark on what makes a slow car slow?

For me it's 10 seconds.

slow,not underpowered though?

colm_mcm

Just as an aside. the current Avensis 1.6 is 128bhp and does 100kmph in 10.4 seconds.

to me slow and underpowered are the same thing.

TomMc

30-50mph or 40-60mph is more important in the real world, than 0-60. When overtaking torque rather than bhp is what matters most.

tossy

I used to own a 1.4 Bora it was underpowered,i drove a 1.6 passat before that was scary!

Max Power1

draffodx wrote: »

double the price of a 1.4 on a 1.9tdi? Thats robbery! :eek:

nah - doubles from 1.8 to 1.9!

daveharnett

TestTransmission wrote: »

slow,not underpowered though?

Same thing. It all subjective really - it depends on how fast you like to travel/accelerate. If the engine needs to work overly hard to achieve this pace, it will drink fuel, and eventually break.

Anan1

TomMc wrote: »

When overtaking torque rather than bhp is what matters most.

Perhaps, in a car with no gearbox.;)

TomMc

Anan1 wrote: »

Perhaps, in a car with no gearbox.;)

True:D or a lazy driver, but even a manual gearbox needs something to work with.

I never drove any older VAG cars, but if the weight of the doors (perception) were anything to go on, no wonder smaller or weak engines struggled to move them.

No replacement for displacement.

colm_mcm

TomMc wrote: »

No replacement for displacement.

Forced induction

daveharnett

TomMc wrote: »

I never drove any older VAG cars, but if the weight of the doors (perception) were anything to go on, no wonder smaller or weak engines struggled to move them.

I started out in a 75bhp 1.6 Mk3 golf, and overtaking took a lot of planning. The 60bhp 1.4 didn't bear thinking about.

Hmm, underpowered, lots do with how the car copes normal driving conditions like hills and such as opposed to overtaking ability. Here's my personal list from over the years with some surprises:

Underpowered:
Merc E220 auto '93# this has lots of overtaking potential though, auto kills it under normal driving conditions
Sierra 1.6 '85 # Decent top speed though
Clio 1.2 8V '95 # disappointing all around
Focus 1.6 '99 # decent overtaker but too high gearing on 5th combined with a/c kills it

Not underpowered:
Sierra Cosworth '89
1.2 Brava '00 # Always feels lively, shockingly much better than e.g. E220
9-5 Aero # :-)
Passat 2.0 '91 # This car had great torque to weight ratio
405 1.6 carb # another surprise entry here, very decent driver
Sprinter CDi mapped 3tons # rather slow overtaker though
MK2 Escort 2.0 4spd # very effortless performance under all conditions

vectra

colm_mcm wrote: »

can we put some sort of 0-60 benchmark on what makes a slow car slow?

For me it's 10 seconds.

But would 0 th 60 be the important factor?

My one is around 12 seconds I think
BUT
If i am behind someone at 100kph and need to overtake them then I have absolutely no worries
And that is in a 1.4 car ( so what if it is a tdi )

bmw535d

i think when you said 1.6litre cars are under powerd you didnt take in the honda civic type r into the equation...185bhp from a 1.6 from the factory is amazing imo

Mr Benevolent

Slightly off topic...

I don't know why they still measure engine power in HP and acceleration in 0-100... it should be torque and Nx (longitudinal G).Trust me, it's far more obvious like that. I always laugh when people make up figures like 'hp per tonne' and the like.

bmw535d

probly because its what people are used to...if you said to the average joe its has 500nm of torque and 1.5g maximum acceleration they wouldn't know what your talking about..which is why we are still using hp instead of kw's saying we are now a metric country

biko

Underpower is in the eyes of the driver really.
But yeah weight/power ratio is a good indication I think.
I got more crack out of my small 1.3 Corolla than my 2L SAAB.

shamrock105

So if one is confined to buying small cars with smallish engines, am i right in saying that a small diesel engine is better than a small petrol engine as the diesel will have plenty of torque leftover for overtaking (on motorways for example)? I have a 75bhp Polo petrol and while its grand around the city motorway overtaking requires planning and overtaking up a motorway incline is a no-no.

pajo1981

Confab wrote: »

Slightly off topic...

I don't know why they still measure engine power in HP and acceleration in 0-100... it should be torque and Nx (longitudinal G).Trust me, it's far more obvious like that. I always laugh when people make up figures like 'hp per tonne' and the like.

Really? I laugh when people say things like, I can't understand why they measure engine power in HP and not torque.

Thats' like saying, I don't know why they still measure time in seconds - it should be measured in length.

Also what's wrong with HP/tonne. Acceleration is proportional to power/mass.

ed: the 1.6 B6 passat is heart breakingly slow btw...

ottostreet

anything over 10 seconds 0-60 is slow and potentially dangerous (imo)

7.5-10 seconds is respectable enough...it'll do like!

anything under 7.5 is decent to savage!

im driving a 1.8 bmw that weighs about 1300kg, and i find it underpowered just a tad. could do with a bit more grunt

daveharnett

Confab wrote: »

Slightly off topic...

I don't know why they still measure engine power in HP and acceleration in 0-100... it should be torque and Nx (longitudinal G).Trust me, it's far more obvious like that. I always laugh when people make up figures like 'hp per tonne' and the like.

Well for one thing, torque is not a measure of power, speed, or acceleration. For example, bmw535d's car produces lots more torque than an f430 scuderea, but nobody is suggesting that it's faster. Better suited to hauling a horsebox maybe, but not faster.

As for acceleration, g would be a more 'correct' measure, just not as useful. G describes acceleration in a particular instant, at a particular speed, in a particular gear at a particular engine speed. 0-60 times describe acceleration across a range of speeds, a couple of gears, and the whole power band.

I do agree that there are more useful metrics. In the real world, most of us don't do 0-60 sprints on a regular basis. We will do a 60-80 mph sprint for overtaking quite a bit though; why not measure that?