nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Everyone seems to want a 1 litre car !

shawnee

Have been talking to a few people who are considering changing their cars. Most are not into cars as such, but the buzz word seems to be a 1 litre. Even those who have families are talking about them. Its either that or the cheaper tax new cars, which are too expensive for many. Anyone else notice this. :rolleyes:

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Joe 90

BostonB wrote: »

By that logic, you don't need an airbag either.

With proper seat belts that you use airbags are superfluous.

BostonB

Joe 90 wrote: »

With proper seat belts that you use airbags are superfluous.

Many cars have more than one airbag, and the car might deform, so interior, windows etc may come within striking distance. Also AFAIK an airbag slows you down slower than a seat belt.

Matt Simis

Deleted User wrote: »

However in my opinion we should only compare like with like and not make false generalisations about big cars having better breaks than small cars, in my opinion

Im so not interested in this love fest for scooters thread anymore, but this really isnt a generalisation. Brakes are never over engineered, they are designed fit for purpose. For example VW and BMW cars (all classes) in the US typically have 20-30% smaller brakes than the same car in Europe. The reason is the speed limit in the US is much lower than in some Euro regions. For the US market they put in fit-for-purpose brakes (as in Europe) which means the braking performance is much lower, especially at high speed.

Now, to extend from that, 1litre cars are primarily super minis. Super minis are not designed for motorways. Motorways are the only place you can do motorway speeds. Ergo, brakes (and suspension, tyres etc) on a supermini are fit-for-purpose of Urban commutes and speeds. It doesnt mean that cannot drive or brake on motorways, but it does mean they are at a disadvantage, which logically means there are yet more advantages to have a "normal" sized car for such trips.

BostonB

Bigger cars have bigger wheels, bigger tyres and will have more grip than a small car. They most likely have more advanced aids too. I noticed a marked difference when you step from one to another.

Joe 90

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

That's true, not everyone needs a 3.2 litre V6 or V8.
But considering that a 1.4 liter Golf or Focus is already WAY underpowered, I can't see how that thing will ever move.
Nothing wrong with small engines, but they should be in a small car, a 1.2 Passat is laughable.
The gaspedal should be a switch, on or off, because anything inbetween will never be used, get in, put brick on pedal and hope it reaches 80 km/h eventually.
And if you do that your fuel economy suffers.
Would be better to have a bigger engine that doesn't have to work that hard.
If I wanted a 1 liter I would buy the smallest car I could find.

Like this?

[Deleted User]

Matt Simis wrote: »

Now, to extend from that, 1litre cars are primarily super minis. Super minis are not designed for motorways. Motorways are the only place you can do motorway speeds. Ergo, brakes (and suspension, tyres etc) on a supermini are fit-for-purpose of Urban commutes and speeds. It doesnt mean that cannot drive or brake on motorways, but it does mean they are at a disadvantage, which logically means there are yet more advantages to have a "normal" sized car for such trips.

So these tests show that small cars stop in the same distance as larger cars and in a shorter distance than MPV's from 62mph to stopped. Are you saying that there will be a radical differance when these braking tests are done at motorway speeds?

Yes they are designed for urban driving, no they wont be as comfortable as larger cars on a motorway and yes they are just as capable of motorway braking efficiency as a larger car.

http://www.which.co.uk/cars/safety/car-safety-and-child-seats/how-we-test-brakes/best-and-worst/

Zubeneschamali

Matt Simis wrote: »

Super minis are not designed for motorways.

Of course they are. France, Germany and Italy are criss-crossed with motorways packed with Clios, Polos and Puntos.

Usually travelling faster than I am!

Antikythera

johnos1984 wrote: »

You need to drive a bit more on them so.

Ok pal, I've done enough motorway miles to take me to the moon and back. What about yourself?

I've had some close calls due to careless driving

Then drive a little less carelessly.

Max Power1

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Well, Good New Everyone!
You can now buy a Passat with a 1.2 litre engine!
You will probably have to get a few friends to push it to get into motion before letting out the clutch, avoid hills and motorways but it might be great as a lawnmower.
What will be next?
The 600cc Phaeton, so the Irish can still their insatiable lust for the biggest car with the smallest engine?
http://www.autoholiks.com/2010/04/all-new-vw-passat-debutting-at-paris-motor-show/

Oh sh*t I just posted this in the middle of a playground fight.

In fairness a 1.2 with 105 bhp isnt underpowered.

article wrote:

The base Passat will come with the award winning 1.2 litre TSi unit with 105 bhp

TestTransmission

Max Power1 wrote: »

In fairness a 1.2 with 105 bhp isnt underpowered.

A Passat with 105 bhp is though

Matt Simis

Deleted User wrote: »

So these tests show that small cars stop in the same distance as larger cars and in a shorter distance than MPV's from 62mph to stopped. Are you saying that there will be a radical differance when these braking tests are done at motorway speeds?

Yes they are designed for urban driving, no they wont be as comfortable as larger cars on a motorway and yes they are just as capable of motorway braking efficiency as a larger car.

There is a radical difference in stopping ability at 60 vs at 75mph, so yes, I think the numbers would change.

The Difference in stopping distance between 60mph and 75mph (motorway speed here) is a whopping 33%.

Aside from speed, the next largest factor in braking distance is the coefficent of friction, which is a number generated from
- Brake Pad and Rotor performance (large rotors are not fitted to small, slow cars as they wouldnt generate enough heat to work correctly day to day)
- Tyre grip (remember that high economy supermini tyres are good for MPG but bad for grip)
- Weight (where the supermini scores some points)

Conor_M1990

TestTransmission wrote: »

A Passat with 105 bhp is though

it will still sell though a provety spec underpowered VW is about as Irish as a rainy day

[Deleted User]

Matt Simis wrote: »

There is a radical difference in stopping ability at 60 vs at 75mph, so yes, I think the numbers would change.

Aside from speed, the next largest factor in braking distance is the coefficent of friction, which is a number generated from
- Brake Pad and Rotor performance (large rotors are not fitted to small, slow cars as they wouldnt generate enough heat to work correctly day to day)
- Tyre grip (remember that high economy supermini tyres are good for MPG but bad for grip)
- Weight (where the supermini scores some points)

So you highlight part of my post and answer it totally out of context, bravo

It is obvious to all that i was asking if there would be a radical differance in braking distance at motorway speeds(120km/hr) between the smaller and larger cars not between the same car going differant speeds :rolleyes:

I guess this is your way of conceeding

Anyway, im not going to engage you in a selective quoting game

Tigger

those braking distances are very very generous

304 feet at 60mph?

http://www.randomuseless.info/318ti/performance.html

here is a 1996 bmw stopping in less than 140feet

i think the distances that get bandied about were measured in the 70's and havent been changed since

dgt

Matt Simis wrote: »

There is a radical difference in stopping ability at 60 vs at 75mph, so yes, I think the numbers would change.
http://www.dnash.org/et/football.gif

The Difference in stopping distance between 60mph and 75mph (motorway speed here) is a whopping 33%.

Aside from speed, the next largest factor in braking distance is the coefficent of friction, which is a number generated from
- Brake Pad and Rotor performance (large rotors are not fitted to small, slow cars as they wouldnt generate enough heat to work correctly day to day)
- Tyre grip (remember that high economy supermini tyres are good for MPG but bad for grip)
- Weight (where the supermini scores some points)

Those are american units, I'm sure the real world equivalent is significantly less in figure terms

As for 1l cars, absolutely not, theres bigger engines out there that do the job better. Had a 0.9l (hello down there) car, overtaking was a no no but funny none the less filling it at the pumps. My current 1.2 yoke is a real hoot in comparison (well over double the bhp to begin with) as I've fiddled with it a bit and still isnt too dear to fill up at the end of the week

dr.fuzzenstein

Stopping distances are vastly overestimated

Matt Simis

Deleted User wrote: »

So you highlight part of my post and answer it totally out of context, bravo

It is obvious to all that i was asking if there would be a radical differance in braking distance at motorway speeds(120km/hr) between the smaller and larger cars not between the same car going differant speeds :rolleyes:

I guess this is your way of conceeding Anyway, im not going to engage you in a selective quoting game

Apologies you didnt understand my post.
The answer to your bolded section was in the part of my post about friction coefficient (brake pad, rotor, tyre on superminis). I was also highlighting that braking from 75 vs 60 (your stats) is a whole different ballgame.

We have gone off on a tangent here on technicalities. Ive been in a Fiesta 1.x, Octavia 1.2 (maybe 1.4, it was noisey and crap) and a Micra 1.x on motorway speeds. They all performed like a steaming pile of $hit in a hurricane. This is not of course a fact, merely my opinion. Its also my opinion that anyone that thinks these cars perform well (even adequate) and constitute a pleasant trip free of excessive fatigue inducing NVH on a motorway at actual motorway speeds is flat out disillusional.

dgt wrote: »

Those are american units, I'm sure the real world equivalent is significantly less in figure terms

I have no idea what this means.
American (which is infact part of the real world) miles and feet (units) are the same as everyone elses.

BostonB

Remember that vid when a 4x4 is tailgating on the M50.