1 litre turbos. Any good?

flazio

So I see Kia are launching a new 1 litre Turbo engine for the Cee'd and apparently Ford also have a similar engine for the Focus.
A 1 litre petrol engine in a mid size family car. How well would that perform?

Toyotafanboi

I see no reason why it wouldn't work. Build it to a good quality and keep it serviced and it should do well.

Bring on the stressed crew.

Del2005

flazio wrote: »

So I see Kia are launching a new 1 litre Turbo engine for the Cee'd and apparently Ford also have a similar engine for the Focus.
A 1 litre petrol engine in a mid size family car. How well would that perform?

They'll be grand once you don't need to overtake, so perfect for the vast majority of motorists.

Special Circumstances

Japanese have been doing sub 1L turbos (660cc, 750cc) for 20 years at least.



660cc, 64 furious horsies. Almost 100hp per litre, not bad!

Bigger car needs more gears or different gearing but why not.

xabi

Drove a 1.2 Turbo Petrol Qashqai recently, very under powered.

Special Circumstances

Del2005 wrote: »

They'll be grand once you don't need to overtake, so perfect for the vast majority of motorists.

To be fair it looks better on paper than the "75 hp 1.4L of doom" previously beloved by golf and focus drivers. 53horsies per litre versus the 120 offered by the kia unit...

zl1whqvjs75cdy

The Qashqai is just a crap car though.

Special Circumstances

xabi wrote: »

Drove a 1.2 Turbo Petrol Qashqai recently, very under powered.

113bhp. You've been lucky enough never to drive a 75hp golf or focus I take it!

kirving

The 1.2 Nissan is almost as powerful as my 1.8 Volvo(Ford) petrol, and has more torque. 113 vs. 125bhp, 190 vs. 165Nm. OK my car is no rocketship, but very rarely left wanting besides the odd overtake on backroads.

Toyotafanboi

Del2005 wrote: »

They'll be grand once you don't need to overtake, so perfect for the vast majority of motorists.

I'm sure they'l be at least as competent as what they are replacing in terms of power.

selectamatic

Great engines in small light cars charade gti from the late 80's springs to mind, also the 4efte from starlet gt's and glanza's albeit being a 1.3 turbo was and still is a great engine, people are making 200+Bhp without going near the internals in them. The kei cars mentioned above are again great examples. A focus and cee'd etc would be the upper limit of a 1.0turbo ideally 1.2-1.3 would be better. It's all about curb weight really the heavier the car the less suited these engines are to them. As mentioned above they'll be no worse if not better than some of the useless small cc n/a engines placed in cars over the years. Also with regards overtaking it's all about knowing how to drive a car in order to get the best out of it all modern cars can go faster than 60mph therefore they can overtake if they have to obviously in a 1.0 turbo the rpm range and gearing is more important than say a lump of a tdi engine which will overtake in top gear at ease but if the small engined car is in the right gear and rpm range to deliver whatever power it has then overtaking shouldn't be too much of a problem! Putting these engines in a lump of a quashqui which is over weight and has a poor drag coefficient just makes these engines seem bad but put them in a car like a micra and they're perfect.

MuppetCheck

Had a C-Max on rental a few months ago with what I assume was the 125bhp 1 litre.

Amsterdam to deepest Belgium and back with 4 lads and luggage on board and it didn't feel underwhelmed in the slightest.

Wasn't overly cheap on the fill and a bit...I'd like to say noisy but it wasn't...more boomy...like an old VAG 1.6 8 valve only more cultured...everyone onboard walked away impressed. I reckon a bigger turbo and a lighter body would make a cracker.

sky18

bought a new focus last january 1.0 ecoboost 125 bhp very quiet and refined plenty of poke for overtaking it will cruise away at 120/140 km on the motorway, no problems so far very happy with it currently doing 45 mpg

xabi

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

The Qashqai is just a crap car though.

I thought it was a decent enough car apart from the small engine.

xabi

Special Circumstances wrote: »

113bhp. You've been lucky enough never to drive a 75hp golf or focus I take it!

nope, cant imagine its much fun.

JohnBoy26

If I was buying one I think I'd go for the Auris 1.2 Turbo.

ABC101

Ahhh... in fairness... technology has moved on a lot from times past...

A old Volvo B19 engine 2 lt produced 76 H.P. in the Volvo 144



I see Audi have a 1.4lt A4.... 150 HP..... the Ford Ecoboost wiki page is a great read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_EcoBoost_engine

I think the Dacia Logan.... 900cc 75Hp estate or 1.5lt 90 bhp diesel is just amazing value for the money.

Lantus

Renault do a 0.9l turbo in several models. Same engine can be found in dacia models. I'd say its fine for 95% of all drivers. I've never had any instance in my daily commute where I needed explosive overtaking power. Given all the traffic its better brakes you need!

colm_mcm

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

If I was buying one I think I'd go for the Auris 1.2 Turbo.

€24500. I'd rather eat the money.

JohnBoy26

colm_mcm wrote: »

€24500. I'd rather eat the money.

What equivalent car is cheaper than that?

colm_mcm

how are we comparing?
Class segment, bhp, equipment I spose would be fair?

JohnBoy26

colm_mcm wrote: »

how are we comparing?
Class segment, bhp, equipment I spose would be fair?

Yeah from that segment. I think the €24k version is a Luna.

colm_mcm

Golf comfortline 3 door 110 tsi with the €161 technology pack

1.2 turbo in the auris inky comes in Luna and sol AFAIK

JohnBoy26

colm_mcm wrote: »

Golf comfortline 3 door 110 tsi with the €161 technology pack

Not really a fan of the golf tbh even though it is a nice car. I like the auris but it's a shame they didn't put a scion im body kit on them, not a fan of the chrome grill.

colm_mcm

I like the auris, but the Golf is just better thought out.

CiniO

xabi wrote: »

Drove a 1.2 Turbo Petrol Qashqai recently, very under powered.

Your Nissan Qashqai 1.2 DIG-T 115KM has a 0-100km/h in 10.9 seconds.
It's not impressive, but I'd say it's higher than average of all the cars on Irish roads.
I definitely wouldn't call it underpowered.

JohnBoy26

colm_mcm wrote: »

I like the auris, but the Golf is just better thought out.

I wouldn't disagree with you there the golf is a fine car. Personally I'd just prefer the auris. I think in the long run it might prove easier to live with. I like the civic too, that would be another car on my list if I was buying. I don't think they have a turbo engine though, or at least not yet. Apart from the type r that is

colm_mcm

I dunno about the new civic, I hated it when I first drove it mainly due to styling, then the styling grew on me, then I went to look at one properly again with a view to maybe buying, but it's not as good an overall package as the old one was 10 years ago if you know what I mean. In some respects it's worse than the old one like-for-like.
I just wouldn't buy one but I wouldn't say they're a bad car or anything. Just not for me.

cantdecide

sky18 wrote: »

bought a new focus last january 1.0 ecoboost 125 bhp very quiet and refined plenty of poke for overtaking it will cruise away at 120/140 km on the motorway, no problems so far very happy with it currently doing 45 mpg

I drove a bunch of those Ecoboost Fiestas and thought they were brilliant. I haven't driven a Focus but I'd love to.

xabi

CiniO wrote: »

Your Nissan Qashqai 1.2 DIG-T 115KM has a 0-100km/h in 10.9 seconds.
It's not impressive, but I'd say it's higher than average of all the cars on Irish roads.
I definitely wouldn't call it underpowered.

Being more powerful than the average Irish car doesn't mean anything, it was underpowered in my opinion.

Henry Ford III

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

Yeah from that segment. I think the €24k version is a Luna.

Would the owners of these be lunatics?

colm_mcm

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Would the owners of these be lunatics?

Teachers mostly.

FishOnABike

bhp/tonne and torque are more important for driveability than bhp/litre. A highly stressed turbo might be more economical when lightly loaded but pack in a few adults and luggage and its fuel economy drops more quickly than a larger less stressed engine.

jimgoose

Toyotafanboi wrote: »

I see no reason why it wouldn't work. Build it to a good quality and keep it serviced and it should do well.

Bring on the stressed crew.

5,000-mile-service-interval-same-as-a-Fireblade crew on deck SIR!!

JohnBoy26

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Would the owners of these be lunatics?

Mostly ford owners looking for something reliable

Ded_Zebra

People on here who are "real enthusiasts" will tell you that they'll be ****. They'll be slow, uneconomical and unreliable.

Personally I think small turbo engines are a well established and proven technology and are reliable. However, it should be noted that some manufacturer's have the capacity to fúck up the basics, BMW and timing chains spring to mind as well as other manufacturer's. This means that they (or any other engine) can assumed to be good.

Under certain conditions they aren't economical (continuous very high speed cruise for example), probably no worse than their larger displacement N/A equivalent. But for most normal driving they are very good.

People are going to miss the wider power band and smoothness that was offered by large displacement normally aspirated petrol engines with 6 plus cylinders. Those days are never coming back though so might as well embrace the change.

Relating to the KIA engine this thread is about, based on the warranty they offer on their cars, and their history of making reliable, good but bland cars for the everyday Joe I think this engine is likely to offer good drivability and reliability. That is just speculation though as I have no actual experience of it.

Special Circumstances

FishOnABike wrote: »

bhp/tonne and torque are more important for driveability than bhp/litre.

True, they will be much better than some of the crap engines people swore by in this country not even 10 years ago.

dashcamdanny

My car would be in the small turbo category.

Golf 7 1.2t TSI. 110hp

I came from an old Almera so when I drove a 110hp car I thought it was a rocket. The highline trim level was blinding me from the most important aspect of the car.


Now. With all the payments weighing down, I wish I bought the 1.4t 150bhp for another 2K or even a bog standard GTI and had a car that made me grin every day.

The turbo lag in the small 1.2 is annoying in traffic. Foot down and nothing then a surge of power. I don't like the engine at all. But the forms have been signed and I cant afford to change till the PCP thing has run its course .

Small engine turbos blow...

On the other side, I cant stop looking at it. It beautiful to me even after a year.

ABC101

Good point however even those manufacturers who have very good reliability can be very expensive for consumable parts I.e. Brake discs etc. Subaru being one example, although it might be more down to the weakness of the Euro vrs jap Yen.

On another point Subaru petrol engines I have found to be good, but I have heard some disappointing news about crankshaft failures on their diesels.

As for the future...I think it is petrol 3 cylinder turbo with plug in hybrid battery electric motor. When in a city built up area you will have to run on battery power, only when outside the city limits only then can you switch over to ICE.

As you rightly say the days of large N/A engines are numbered, can't see them coming back.

Jesus.

CiniO wrote: »

Your Nissan Qashqai 1.2 DIG-T 115KM has a 0-100km/h in 10.9 seconds.
It's not impressive, but I'd say it's higher than average of all the cars on Irish roads.
I definitely wouldn't call it underpowered.

On figures alone perhaps not but what way is it delivered? You probably have to rev the balls out of it to get anything decent from it

selectamatic

well it's turbo'd so I doubt the power is at the top of the rev range that's a characteristic of small displacement n/a engines.
But what I still don't understand is these viewpoints that people have expecting all engines to behave the same it's just not logical. A small cc turbo engine isn't going to deliver its power like a 2.5 straight 6 but who cares? If that's the engine characteristic someone wants well then guess what, they probably should get a straight 6 it really is that simple. If someone isn't willing to alter their driving style based on the engine that is present in whatever car they may be driving then they really are displaying a great level of mechanical ignorance.

166man

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

I wouldn't disagree with you there the golf is a fine car. Personally I'd just prefer the auris. I think in the long run it might prove easier to live with. I like the civic too, that would be another car on my list if I was buying. I don't think they have a turbo engine though, or at least not yet. Apart from the type r that is

Golf is the superior car here realistically. I fail to see how an Auris would be easier than a Golf to live with in the long run either.

noelf

dashcamdanny wrote: »

My car would be in the small turbo category.

Golf 7 1.2t TSI. 110hp

I came from an old Almera so when I drove a 110hp car I thought it was a rocket. The highline trim level was blinding me from the most important aspect of the car.


Now. With all the payments weighing down, I wish I bought the 1.4t 150bhp for another 2K or even a bog standard GTI and had a car that made me grin every day.

The turbo lag in the small 1.2 is annoying in traffic. Foot down and nothing then a surge of power. I don't like the engine at all. But the forms have been signed and I cant afford to change till the PCP thing has run its course .

Small engine turbos blow...

On the other side, I cant stop looking at it. It beautiful to me even after a year.

Its a pity volkswagen ireland arent bringing in the 1 litre 115 bhp petrol 3 cylinder ..

colm_mcm

166man wrote: »

Golf is the superior car here realistically. I fail to see how an Auris would be easier than a Golf to live with in the long run either.

I think he means from an ownership perspective outside warranty rather than from a practical/comfort perspective.

Jesus.

selectamatic wrote: »

well it's turbo'd so I doubt the power is at the top of the rev range that's a characteristic of small displacement n/a engines.

Would a turbo petrol's power band be smaller than an NA petrol but bigger than a turbo diesel?

Zubeneschamali

Jesus. wrote: »

On figures alone perhaps not but what way is it delivered? You probably have to rev the balls out of it to get anything decent from it

No, turbo motors generally have far more torque low down, and revving them is pointless. There may be some lag before the power appears, but that is generally less of a problem these days.

I replaced an 06 mini cooper with a new one this year, and the car is far more driveable with the turbo motor, a lot less revving required, a lot more relaxed on the motorway (2500 rpm instead of 4000!).

The 1.5 3-cylinder is a bit beefier than the 1.0s in the thread...

Alanstrainor

I've driven the 1.0 ecoboost in a ford b-max and thought it was a great yoke. Plenty of power, nice to drive, economical. What more could you want? And these engines have been out a while now and I haven't heard any horror stories yet.

Zubeneschamali

The 0.9 turbo in little FIATs is supposed to be a hoot: the only complaint I've seen is that the economy is way way off the official figures, but I think that is because no-one can resist driving it like a hooligan.

Jesus.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, turbo motors generally have far more torque low down, and revving them is pointless. There may be some lag before the power appears, but that is generally less of a problem these days. I replaced an 06 mini cooper with a new one this year, and the car is far more driveable with the turbo motor, a lot less revving required, a lot more relaxed on the motorway (2500 rpm instead of 4000!).

Interesting Zub. The reason I ask is because I've actually never driven a turbo petrol before but I do own a turbo diesel. I was wondering if the two are similar drives. Personally I like the turbo experience better than revving a small NA. Most fellas on here tend to be the other way around cos they like going up and down through the rev range.

So would a turbo petrol have as narrow a power band as a turbo diesel?

Henry Ford III

Jesus. wrote: »

...So would a turbo petrol have as narrow a power band as a turbo diesel?....

In a word "no".

selectamatic

Jesus. wrote: »

Would a turbo petrol's power band be smaller than an NA petrol but bigger than a turbo diesel?

Depends on the displacement really. A small cc turbo petrol won't have the biggest of powerbands but it won't be above at 5k+ rpm like many performance orientated small cc n/a engines therefore it's perceived as more usable. Same goes for diesel some of the old vag 1.9 tdi lumps pulled well fro 1.5k right up to their redline so again powerbands in diesels can be over exaggerated as being tiny but now in economy driven 1.6tdi's the power and is indeed much narrower. With regards to the above post about cruising speed and rpm that all comes down to the gearbox and it's ratios six speed has become the norm so now top gear is much more suited to motorway cruising as manufacturers have identified this as a key part of modern motoring 15-20 years ago for example I doubt Toyota would have cared what rpm a starlet would be at doing 120-140kmph where as now it's beginning to be seen as important to all cars not just lumps to motorway cruisers such as the old 1.9tdi pd passats from the early noughties etc. it's not just engines that are changing 7/8 speed gearboxes seemed ludacris 20 years ago now not so much.