Car engines...

pissedasanewt

I know this might be a really obvious question, but what's the difference between a 1.4, 1.6, 2ltr engine?

Apart from the obvious, ie, the car will go faster with a bigger engine.

But if a 1.4 car is driven the same as a car with a 1.6 or 2ltr engine, will it go through the same amount of petrol? (e.g I put the car on the motorway and drive at 100kph, will a 1.4 run out of petrol before a 1.6?)

I'm thinking of getting a midsize saloon, like a Passat or Octavia, but I'm not sure what engine size to go for.. 1.4 / 1.6. I'd imagine i'd need the bigger engine so the car has a little bit of umph!

Any advice much appreciated.

pissedasanewt

pissedasanewt wrote: »

(e.g I put the car on the motorway and drive at 100kph, will a 1.4 run out of petrol before a 1.6?)

Depends a good bit on the gearing. In a car the size of a Passat a 1.4 would really struggle, are there 1.4 Passats? If your budget allows a Passat is literally a class above an Octavia, an Octavia is based on the Golf.

bazz26

Octavia/Passat fuel consumption will not be similiar. Octavia is smaller and lighter than a Passat as it is based on the Golf/Jetta.

Passat comes with a 1.4 TSi engine with 122bhp and has a turbo. Will not win any land speed records but it can shift the Passat body around no problem.

pissedasanewt

Well, i've got a few saloon's in mind.

But 1.4 v's 1.6 v's bigger.

If I stuck each engine into the same car.. and drove the car the same way..

am I burning more fuel with a 1.4 as opposed to a 1.6?

Viper_JB

pissedasanewt wrote: »

Well, i've got a few saloon's in mind.

But 1.4 v's 1.6 v's bigger.

If I stuck each engine into the same car.. and drove the car the same way..

am I burning more fuel with a 1.4 as opposed to a 1.6?

It generally depends on the car itself but a lot of the time in real life situations the 1.4 will be far less efficent then the 1.6 as it has to work a lot harder for the same acceleration, I would say it's heavily depending on the kurb weight of the car itself.

pissedasanewt

pissedasanewt wrote: »

If I stuck each engine into the same car.. and drove the car the same way..

am I burning more fuel with a 1.4 as opposed to a 1.6?

Doesn't really matter does it? You won't be putting a 1.4 from a Golf into a Passat. Manufacturers release data on their vehicles fuel consumption which should be able to tell you which car will be more efficient

pissedasanewt

Well OSI,

Its probably an Octavia, Passat or Avensis, Primera. I've generally discounted the likes of a Corolla as they don't seem to come bigger then a 1.5 engine.

I'd be doing fairly consistent speeds, not idling in traffic.

So RoverJames, if I stick to the manufactures Urban, extra urban and combined fuel consumption, I won't be going far wrong...

vectrahed

pissedasanewt wrote: »

I know this might be a really obvious question, but what's the difference between a 1.4, 1.6, 2ltr engine?

Apart from the obvious, ie, the car will go faster with a bigger engine.

But if a 1.4 car is driven the same as a car with a 1.6 or 2ltr engine, will it go through the same amount of petrol? (e.g I put the car on the motorway and drive at 100kph, will a 1.4 run out of petrol before a 1.6?)

I'm thinking of getting a midsize saloon, like a Passat or Octavia, but I'm not sure what engine size to go for.. 1.4 / 1.6. I'd imagine i'd need the bigger engine so the car has a little bit of umph!

Any advice much appreciated.

2 choices for you!

buy a 1.6 vectra or a 2.0 vectra


then,,,give me a shout and ill show you how to get that umph ya want

biko

pissedasanewt wrote: »

I know this might be a really obvious question, but what's the difference between a 1.4, 1.6, 2ltr engine?

Main difference, as you know, is the size of the cylinder displacement in CC.
This means a bigger engine/CC uses more fuel and is therefore more powerful.
However other factors like car weight and particularly driving style will affect the fuel consumption.

* there will also be differences in fuel/air mix.

pissedasanewt wrote: »

But if a 1.4 car is driven the same as a car with a 1.6 or 2ltr engine, will it go through the same amount of petrol? (e.g I put the car on the motorway and drive at 100kph, will a 1.4 run out of petrol before a 1.6?)

If all other factors (speed, weight, ...) are the same the the 1.6 will run out first since it uses a bit more fuel - in theory. In reality you wouldn't know the difference between those two.

As your question really boils down to another "what cheap runner?" thread I suggest you look at sites like http://fuel-economy.co.uk/stats.shtml they will tell you about the best options.

CiniO

pissedasanewt wrote: »

I know this might be a really obvious question, but what's the difference between a 1.4, 1.6, 2ltr engine?

Apart from the obvious, ie, the car will go faster with a bigger engine.

But if a 1.4 car is driven the same as a car with a 1.6 or 2ltr engine, will it go through the same amount of petrol? (e.g I put the car on the motorway and drive at 100kph, will a 1.4 run out of petrol before a 1.6?)

I'm thinking of getting a midsize saloon, like a Passat or Octavia, but I'm not sure what engine size to go for.. 1.4 / 1.6. I'd imagine i'd need the bigger engine so the car has a little bit of umph!

Any advice much appreciated.

OP.
What are you saying about it cubic capacity.
1.4, 1.6, 2.0 it all decribes how big are the cylinders in the engine. (it's the sum of capacity of all of them).

Usually it's true to say that the bigger capacity, the more power engine has, but it's not always the rule.
It dependes a lot on construction, used materials, technology, type of engine (diesel, petrol), compression rate, etc....
There's so much variety in engines made by different manufacturers, that what you really should be looking at is the specification, like max power, max torque, fuel consumption, max speed, acceleration, etc...

There might be a situation where 1.4 engine will be stronger then 1.6.

Usually the stronger the engine, the more comfortable to drive it is, as you have a reserve of power if you want to accelerate quickly (f.e while overtaking).
Usually as well, the bigger the engine, the more fuel it need, but that's as well not the rule.
If you buy big car with too little engine, it will be struggling to keep the car going, and as a result using too much petrol - especially at higher speed.

F.e. plenty of bigger cars (like mondeo, primera, vectra, etc) with 1.6 engine will use more petrol on motorway than if they had 2.0 engine.
But for city driving most likely 1.6 will be more fuel efficient.

So my advice is - don't really look at cubic capacity - especially that from 2008 that's not linked to motortax rates.
Look at other engine parametres, and compare them - that will tell you exactly what you are getting.

kona

A Engine is essentially a giant air pump. 1400cc 1600cc and 2000cc as mentioned above describes the volume of the engine, (how much air the engine can potenially move on each cycle). Now due to design, a engine, unless it is forced induction (turbo , Supercharger) will not move that volume of air, this difference is called Volumetric efficiency (VE), its quoted as a % and most modern cars are around 90 - 95% efficient.

The best way is to find out the Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) This is a more accurate way of comparing engines power to fuel consumtion, as it takes into account the power, VE , and fuel consumption.

Generally speaking, a larger cc engine at motorway speeds will use less petrol than a lower CC engine, purely due to the fact that it doesnt have to spin as much to move the same amount of air. The more the engine revs, the more fuel it consumes to get there.
Inversely the Larger cc engine will use more petrol lower down the rev range in everyday traffic, and if you floor the car. As I said this is very general. A modern 2L will return similar MPG that a 1.4 may have in the 1970s.

MrDerp

OP, if you find the numbers a bit intimidating when considering a car, like me, then you might look at carfolio.com. It has specs for most any car you can think of.

Then look at two things:
1. The stated consumption
2. The power-to-weight ratio

If the power-to-weight ratio is ****, then you basically ignore the extra-urban figures for anything above 80km/h

Take my 1.4 focus, for example:
http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=121781

1. extra-urban figure: 6.6l/100km
2. power-to-weight: 63.35bhp/ton

I have my underpowered car as a benchmark for considering my next car, as the majority of my driving is on motorways. At 135kph (as per speedo) its drinking between 11.5l and 12l/100km, depending on the wind (!!!!!)

My previous car was a 1.2 Corsa:
http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=99715

1. extra-urban figure: 6.3l/100km
2. power-to-weight: 72.28 bhp/ton

This was a much quicker car, and used less petrol on the motorway (didn't have a computer to verify this, sadly, but I remember using less - I was buying my fuel in litres at the time instead of filling)

I think you want minimum 80bhp/ton to avoid excessive consumption at speed, and you'd want to be hitting 95-100 for fun and frolics.

Probably over-simplistic, I know (and hammer away at me, o wise ones), but it gives me a good indication of whats good what isn't. At least for comparing petrols anyway.

kona

another thing thats usually ignore is the gear ratios and the final drive, you can have all the BHP you want, its useless if your final drive is silly low, youl get to 60 in no time then struggle onto 120 and to sit at 120 youll be revving the nuts off the car.
A well designed gearbox can save alot of fuel consumption.

Ardennes1944

MrDerp wrote: »

OP, if you find the numbers a bit intimidating when considering a car, like me, then you might look at carfolio.com. It has specs for most any car you can think of.

Then look at two things:
1. The stated consumption
2. The power-to-weight ratio

If the power-to-weight ratio is ****, then you basically ignore the extra-urban figures for anything above 80km/h

Take my 1.4 focus, for example:
http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=121781

1. extra-urban figure: 6.6l/100km
2. power-to-weight: 63.35bhp/ton

I have my underpowered car as a benchmark for considering my next car, as the majority of my driving is on motorways. At 135kph (as per speedo) its drinking between 11.5l and 12l/100km, depending on the wind (!!!!!)

My previous car was a 1.2 Corsa:
http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=99715

1. extra-urban figure: 6.3l/100km
2. power-to-weight: 72.28 bhp/ton

This was a much quicker car, and used less petrol on the motorway (didn't have a computer to verify this, sadly, but I remember using less - I was buying my fuel in litres at the time instead of filling)

I think you want minimum 80bhp/ton to avoid excessive consumption at speed, and you'd want to be hitting 95-100 for fun and frolics.

Probably over-simplistic, I know (and hammer away at me, o wise ones), but it gives me a good indication of whats good what isn't. At least for comparing petrols anyway.

my astra is 72.36 bhp/ton:D

Joe 90

pissedasanewt wrote: »

Well OSI,

Its probably an Octavia, Passat or Avensis, Primera. I've generally discounted the likes of a Corolla as they don't seem to come bigger then a 1.5 engine.

I'd be doing fairly consistent speeds, not idling in traffic.

So RoverJames, if I stick to the manufactures Urban, extra urban and combined fuel consumption, I won't be going far wrong...

I have always said that the manufacturers claimed figures are OK to compare one car with another. If the manufacturer of car A claims 45 MPG overall and the manufacturer of car B claims 50 MPG overall then the ratio of the fuel consumptions will 9 to 10, car A will probably do nine tenths of the MPG of car B.

The fuel consumption that you will get in real life will be different. You may do better if you are an extremely smooth driver who anticipates a mile in advance and who keeps the speed moderate. If your right foot is hard on whichever pedal it is on all the time you will do a lot worse.

Joe 90

MrDerp wrote: »

OP, if you find the numbers a bit intimidating when considering a car, like me, then you might look at carfolio.com. It has specs for most any car you can think of.

Then look at two things:
1. The stated consumption
2. The power-to-weight ratio

If the power-to-weight ratio is ****, then you basically ignore the extra-urban figures for anything above 80km/h

Take my 1.4 focus, for example:
http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=121781

1. extra-urban figure: 6.6l/100km
2. power-to-weight: 63.35bhp/ton

I have my underpowered car as a benchmark for considering my next car, as the majority of my driving is on motorways. At 135kph (as per speedo) its drinking between 11.5l and 12l/100km, depending on the wind (!!!!!)

My previous car was a 1.2 Corsa:
http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=99715

1. extra-urban figure: 6.3l/100km
2. power-to-weight: 72.28 bhp/ton

This was a much quicker car, and used less petrol on the motorway (didn't have a computer to verify this, sadly, but I remember using less - I was buying my fuel in litres at the time instead of filling)

I think you want minimum 80bhp/ton to avoid excessive consumption at speed, and you'd want to be hitting 95-100 for fun and frolics.

Probably over-simplistic, I know (and hammer away at me, o wise ones), but it gives me a good indication of whats good what isn't. At least for comparing petrols anyway.

As regards fuel consumption at a given speed the drag of the car is the main thing. Given that no one seems able to reduce the drag coefficient below about .3-.35 in a practical car what matters is the frontal area, in other words smaller=better. You may not like it but facts is facts.

kerten

All technical details are already given. I suggest you to narrow down cars you are looking at and ask about particular models. Because all 1.6 engines in passat, vectra,avensis and primera has different consumption due to design, number of valves and final gear ratio.

for example
I owned 99-02 primera with 1.6 and 2.0 lt engines. economy difference was negligible unless you do city driving. 1.6 was slow under 3000 rpm(and below 90 km/h) and doesn't like to have more than 3 people on board. So I would go for bigger engine if you gonna carry more than yourself or in need of power in backroads. But same car was quite ok over 100 km/h because of all power is hidden over 3000 rpm and long 5th gear ratio. Of course 2.0 lt is more joy than 1.6 in motorways but extra fuel consumption in traffic hurts sometimes.

It is all about you driving needs and habits. I wouldn't buy this size of car with small engine unless I only do N road/motorway driving in speed limits

mickdw

IMO, if you drive anyway agressively, get the bigger engine. If you go for the small engine, you will be driving the sh1t out of it most of the time so fuel comsumption will be poor and engine life probably less too. You will be always wishing for more power too.

biko

Yeah bigger engine is better but tax etc will cost more
Rates https://www.motortax.ie/OMT/menu.do?page=motortaxrates