Turbonutter
|
Supercharged and TurbochargedSeat have launched the old double-blown 1.4 in the Ibiza Cupra with 178bhp. As quick as the Cooper S on a dry track.
Funnily enough I followed an '09' Ibiza this morning ( not a Cupra ) but the the half-circle rear lights give it a slightly sinister 'devil face' when you're following 
I quite liked the looks of the 3-door.
Economy looks like it could be usefully good though according to the figures
|
Blarno
|
I wonder how much one of those engines goes for?
Saying that, I'm enquiring about a VTR engine for Franc today..
|
Turbonutter
|
| Blarno wrote: | I wonder how much one of those engines goes for?
|
I do wonder whether they'll fall out of favour at high mileage when the turbo AND charger need recon'ing
|
Dr. Hfuhruhurr
|
| Blarno wrote: | | Saying that, I'm enquiring about a VTR engine for Franc today.. |
I intially misread that as TVR!
|
"him"
|
That was wishful thinking...
|
Turbonutter
|
| Blarno wrote: | | I'm enquiring about a VTR engine for Franc today.. |
|
Boxer6
|
| "him" wrote: | | That was wishful thinking... |
Nice idea though!!
|
GonnaBreakABuggy
|
There's a 306 with a TVR engine in...
|
simonp
|
| Turbonutter wrote: | | Economy looks like it could be usefully good though according to the figures |
When I test drove the Golf 1.4GT a while back the sales guy told me he ran one for a while and was getting 40-45mpg out of it.
|
Blarno
|
| GonnaBreakABuggy wrote: | | There's a 306 with a TVR engine in... |
Better than the opposite....
Although saying that, would you trust a Griffith knowing that it has the brakes from an XR3i?
|
Mark
|
I find that new Ibiza Cupra incredibly tacky and cheap looking - inside & out. £540 to paint it in that shitty Orange (to show up the black plastic stuck everywhere even more), too?
Surely only a muppet would take one over a Mini Cooper S (or even the Corsa VXR)?
|
gonnabuildabuggy
|
| Turbonutter wrote: | | Blarno wrote: | I wonder how much one of those engines goes for?
|
I do wonder whether they'll fall out of favour at high mileage when the turbo AND charger need recon'ing |
That's what I'm thinking re these "new fangled" engines - can't beat pure cubic inches for reliability, but no-one seems to know that any more....
|
Turbonutter
|
| gonnabuildabuggy wrote: | | Turbonutter wrote: | | Blarno wrote: | I wonder how much one of those engines goes for?
|
I do wonder whether they'll fall out of favour at high mileage when the turbo AND charger need recon'ing |
That's what I'm thinking re these "new fangled" engines - can't beat pure cubic inches for reliability, but no-one seems to know that any more.... |
I think they 'know' but to a certain extent it's emissions regs that are pushing them this way. A small capacity FI engine is 'easier' than a big 'NA' one to meet targets. Hence why a lot are going down that route
|
Dr. Hfuhruhurr
|
Sadly true, even though an efficient large N/A engine probably gives better (or at least as good) real world economy.
|
gonnabuildabuggy
|
| Turbonutter wrote: | | gonnabuildabuggy wrote: | | Turbonutter wrote: | | Blarno wrote: | I wonder how much one of those engines goes for?
|
I do wonder whether they'll fall out of favour at high mileage when the turbo AND charger need recon'ing |
That's what I'm thinking re these "new fangled" engines - can't beat pure cubic inches for reliability, but no-one seems to know that any more.... |
I think they 'know' but to a certain extent it's emissions regs that are pushing them this way. A small capacity FI engine is 'easier' than a big 'NA' one to meet targets. Hence why a lot are going down that route |
I was thinking more about owners.
My logic is that these small engines are great for weekly running costs but pose higher risk if going to high miles, whereas big petrols cost at the pumps but are cheap to buy and generally more reliable and cheaper to fix.
Right now people can't seem to give away big engined cars, yet tales of BMW 6's with 200-250K on the clock are far from rare and the one's I've seen dyno tested in magazines are still pulling virtually factory power levels.
|
Turbonutter
|
| Dr. Hfuhruhurr wrote: | | Sadly true, even though an efficient large N/A engine probably gives better (or at least as good) real world economy. |
I think that's why BMW's M division are opting for 'blown' engines
|
Pkh72
|
We were looking at replacing the wifes Vrs with a new model Vrs when that eventually appears next year but i must say i have my doubts as to the longevity of these twin charged engines, they appear to be too complex for their own good, especially when they get out if warranty and things start wearing out on them.
I also noticed a little snippet in yesterdays autocar about the price of the new Fabia Vrs starting at £16k, i fear that Skoda are no longer the value brand, i wouldn't be paying £16k for one i'd need at least £2k discount off that.
Any ideas if they are doing a diesel version too?
|
Matt
|
Sadly, I believe M are opting for blown engines because Audi are trumping them on power and the BMW board decree it, despite the engine in the X6 M not going down to well in that brief Autocar test.
Interesting that they believe diesels will become too expensive for small cars under Euro 5 and 6, meaning there'll be a lot more small petrol turbos. If you're going to have diesel power-bands, you may as well use diesel...
A turbo revving out to 8k, now that I'd have no problem with.
|
Turbonutter
|
| Pkh72 wrote: |
I also noticed a little snippet in yesterdays autocar about the price of the new Fabia Vrs starting at £16k, i fear that Skoda are no longer the value brand, i wouldn't be paying £16k for one i'd need at least £2k discount off that.
|
Did you see the used 5K hot hatch test PKH - Fabia came out well.
Should have had a 'Neverbeen' decal to fit in though! 
|
Pkh72
|
| Turbonutter wrote: | | Pkh72 wrote: |
I also noticed a little snippet in yesterdays autocar about the price of the new Fabia Vrs starting at £16k, i fear that Skoda are no longer the value brand, i wouldn't be paying £16k for one i'd need at least £2k discount off that.
|
Did you see the used 5K hot hatch test PKH - Fabia came out well.
Should have had a 'Neverbeen' decal to fit in though! |
I've not read the article yet, just looked at the pictures and captions, nice to see it doing well.
I tried to recommend to the wife that chipping hers would be a good idea but she's couldn't be less interested! 
|
Dr. Hfuhruhurr
|
| Matt wrote: | | Sadly, I believe M are opting for blown engines because Audi are trumping them on power and the BMW board decree it, despite the engine in the X6 M not going down to well in that brief Autocar test. |
And because while turbos aren't necessarily more efficient in the real world, they return better figures in the artificial conditions of the official mpg and CO2 tests. And do I need to reiterate the argument that turbos increase weight because everything - transmission, cooling - has to be upgraded to cope.
|
TimR
|
| Dr. Hfuhruhurr wrote: | | Matt wrote: | | Sadly, I believe M are opting for blown engines because Audi are trumping them on power and the BMW board decree it, despite the engine in the X6 M not going down to well in that brief Autocar test. |
And because while turbos aren't necessarily more efficient in the real world, they return better figures in the artificial conditions of the official mpg and CO2 tests. And do I need to reiterate the argument that turbos increase weight because everything - transmission, cooling - has to be upgraded to cope. |
Ah but look at the mpg figures, in particular, for the current M5 compared with the E39.
It may have an extra 100BHP - if you remember to press the switch - but it appears to be 25% less economical for what is, probably realistically, no gain.
I doubt the replacement with a 4.4 (?) turbo will be any less efficient in real world.
|
Dr. Hfuhruhurr
|
That's what I mean though, official figures make turbo engines look relatively better. BMW's large petrol sixes are reknowned for being fuel-efficient, and whenever I'm in the UK (and thus relatively constrained in how fast I can go), the GT3 regularly returns figures in the high twenties.
|
TimR
|
I know the official figures are a load of crap - CAR mag now list their actual and the official during long term test reports.
I was meaning fuel economy based on what people are saying on forums like Pistonheads.
I don't think anyone on there with a V10 M5 is getting fuel economy into the 20s unless they have a sustained motorway run at sensible speeds.
I reckon 15-18 is the most likely day-to-day result wheras E39s get 20-25.
|
Turbonutter
|
| Pkh72 wrote: | | Turbonutter wrote: | | Pkh72 wrote: |
I also noticed a little snippet in yesterdays autocar about the price of the new Fabia Vrs starting at £16k, i fear that Skoda are no longer the value brand, i wouldn't be paying £16k for one i'd need at least £2k discount off that.
|
Did you see the used 5K hot hatch test PKH - Fabia came out well.
Should have had a 'Neverbeen' decal to fit in though! |
I've not read the article yet, just looked at the pictures and captions, nice to see it doing well.
I tried to recommend to the wife that chipping hers would be a good idea but she's couldn't be less interested! |
I quite fancy having a drive in a Fabia Vrs to see how they go
|
Frank Bullitt
|
Being the 1.4TSI engine (122bhp) is a lovely peach, then I suspect the twinchargerthingy is more than tasty.
Superchargers and turbochargers are reasonably simple bolt-on parts though with decent reliability nowadays so I wouldn't loose sleep over having one with a few miles on the clock.
Agree with Mark on the Cupra-kak though.
|
simonp
|
I really liked the engine in the Golf GT I tested, it was just the all-too-common Golf externals that put me off! The points where the turbo kicked in and the s/charger bowed out were imperceptible and there was just linear power from one end of the revs to the other. Get out and try one, folks!
|
