Is there too little displacement for a vehicle with 110 hp and 1000 cc?
I'm currently interested in a Skoda Rapid/Spaceback petrol engine. But it only has a displacement of 1000 cc and 81 kW/110 hp. It used to be said that more displacement meant more power and therefore more hp, but 1000 cc seems a bit small to me now. Maybe someone can enlighten me.
(3 rating, 3 votes, rated)You need to be a registered member to rate this.
Loading...
This is the hotly discussed topic "DOWNSIZING", or expressed in terms of an earlier US film title, "Liebling, I shrunk the engine" 🙂
12 years ago, one would have installed a larger, heavier, but cheaper (!) 1.6-liter engine for 100 hp performance. This larger, heavier, cheaper engine achieved consumption values on the New European Driving Cycle Test Stand (NEFZ) which were about half to a whole liter higher than the new 1.0 liter engine.
And the German car manufacturers must try to push the NEFZ consumption of their cars as far as possible. This is because, in comparison with French, Italian and Japanese manufacturers, they have much more consumption-intensive sports and top-class models in the program, which negatively affect the so-called fleet consumption, ie the consumption average of all models. Accordingly, they need more economical models on the NEDC test stand. What these consumption in practice is not important at all. Downsizing engines tend to excessive consumption while driving fast, but this fast driving is not measured at all on the NEDC test stand.
So VW now managed the (unloved?) Child "Downsizing", the reduction of the petrol engines with simultaneous coupling with the turbocharger, and all others moved. This is why the new, smaller engines are also more expensive than the old ones: the turbochargers with control and charge air cooling are very expensive, especially when they break down: this is the main disadvantage of the new downsizing engines.
But do they also offer advantages? As far as consumption is concerned, the picture is bizarre. At moderate speeds, ie partial load range, downsizing motors can actually be moved in terms of consumption. Due to the surprisingly high torque of the turbo engine at low speeds, a low, consumption-saving speed level is established. Lower friction, engine oil and cooling water circulation, engine weight etc. also contribute to this. It is surprising, however, how low the fuel savings actually fails in view of the driven outlay: about 0.8-1.5 liters/100 km. And the higher consumption savings are often only achieved by additional measures such as the cylinder shutdown in the partial load range, as in the VW Golf 1.5 ACT or the Ford Focus 1.5.
The rear of the car comes at full-gas motorway: Then some downsized turbomotors boil without inhibition, some 14-15 liters. The reason is probably the need to protect the catalysts installed near the engine from overheating by a more greasy mixture.
So: is a downsizing turbo engine now a curse or blessing? This depends on how long the expensive (turbo) technology holds: turbocharger, charge air cooler, high-pressure pump, injectors. All parts that were not connected to an earlier 1.6-liter suction engine and could not break as a result. As far as the durability of the basic motors is concerned, no final statement can be made, because the extreme downsizing motors are not yet long enough. The 110 hp from 1000 ccm at the Skoda Rapid are by the way not great of speech, a very common Honda base civic fetched from the same cylinder 129 hp
Since you get practically nothing else you do well to be friends with the downsizing turbo engines for short or long, they often do surprisingly well. There are still some secondary advantages as candy:
The small engines are small and light, so that the long-term trend towards ever heavier cars can be partly reversed. And very important: due to the smaller engine, more deformation space remains in the engine compartment, ie Normally, smaller engines with their lower cooling water and engine oil volumes also reach the operating temperature required for optimum exhaust gas purification faster. Does this all justify the high effort? Everyone has to decide for themselves.
Whether a specific power level is too much or not for a unit, is less a matter of literal power (ie from which capacity one obtains what power), but rather of constructive quality and design. In the past, there have already been some units with very low liter capacity, which still "gloss" with frequent failures.
However, it is unbelievable that very small, highly charged three-cylinder engines simply do not drive well when compared with larger suction engines. In the lower region, these motors vibrate, for example, strongly, one has a large turbohole, the response behavior is sluggish because the charging pressure must always be built up, and these motors are not even particularly economical compared to good suction motors. Lastly, what is not installed is not broken. Turbochargers are typical components that eventually break and then provide a very expensive repair. In addition, the EA211 line of VW, which is also part of the 1.0 TSI, has been encoded by the former control chain motors in such a way that they all have longed for a toothed belt, although the control chain is normally superior to the house, has again received a toothed belt which is no longer maintenance-free.
Therefore, my tip: Compare with a good four-cylinder suction motor with sufficient displacement, and then assess what characteristics you like better. The most economical and advanced suction engines with a neatly gifted space (without turbo it is also necessary to generate as much torque as possible) are currently building Mazda. The competition vehicle to the Skoda Rapid 1.0 TSI would be, for example, a Mazda 2 G90 or G115.
In the past, however, the engines were not charged. Until a few years ago, large automobile manufacturers have built large-volume engines with 6 or 8 cylinders to achieve performances of more than 300 hp (generally speaking).
Today you get this out of 2L and turbocharge without any problems.
20 or 25 years ago, old 2l 4 cylinders of Mercedes or BMW had hardly more than 120 or 130 hp. That was normal. In order to achieve more power over a large scale (no small series), you either had to build extremely high-speed engines (Honda S2000) or work with double ignition (Alfa Romeo Twin Spark).
You don't need anything like that anymore. Your car has 1/3l capacity on the 3 cylinders, well this is not exactly at the thermal optimum of 0.5l per cylinder, but also not too much power with 110 hp/liter.
The only disadvantage of the whole story is that the more power the engine has to less space, the greater is the charger or the load pressure higher. At the bottom you will stay in a clear hole until the loader breathes. In particular, the power development is not linear.
But the advantages are manifold. The engine weighs less below. Grade compared to the same car with suction motor or just more engine capacity. A weight saving on the engine makes a great deal.
So to summarize the answer again:
with a turbo, soon also paired with electric motor as a precompressor, you don't need a big engine to generate a lot of power.
Greeting
True, from the performance you don't need it, only unfortunately there is more than just performance, not only in people.
It only asks for power, not for durability, torque or cost
Nowadays, many manufacturers are trying to make a balance between enough power and low fuel consumption by means of extremely small capacity and a charge.
Unfortunately, there is a problem that has been known for decades:
Turbo's running, Turbo's cleaning!
You have gasoline, and you get some power from that gasoline. The motor converts this power to a large part in heat, to a usually smaller part in motion energy. The part also speaks of efficiency. For older petrol engines, this efficiency is about 25%.
Modern petrol engines come to about 35%. A turbo can change this as long as it theoretically accelerates somewhat better in the optimum speed range.
However, as soon as you want to achieve comparable driving performances with such a motor, any failure is there.
You can only change the fuel consumption effectively by changing the combustion.
For example, this makes Mazda in the Skyactiv engine or next year in the Skyactiv-X engine. This engine should achieve an efficiency of 56%.
This makes a large 1.8 liter suction motor more economical than any of these downsizing defects and also significantly more durable.
In the case of a suction motor, very low forces act in the motor. That's why they last much longer than turbocharged engines.
I'd make a big bow around such vehicles.
You're going to get vulnerable engines into the house with a normal fuel consumption.
LG
@roboboy, there I have to hook in, and this several times.
Paragraph 3 has not been known for decades, but has not been valid for decades. Because it does not apply "Turbo runs, turbo purifies", but rather "power runs, power purifies". Today's turbo engines are hardly compacted less than comparable suckers due to the almost surface-covering direct injection, and for the same reason they are not more powerful than suckers – for example, the Ford 1.0 Eco Boost with 125 hp never runs under Lambda 0.90 if that's what tells you. Most of the suction cups add a thick fat at full load, such as 0.85 to 0.87. Thus, if at all, additional consumption can only occur due to the “grafting” in the AGA (ie the charger wheel), but this minimal disadvantage is usually compensated by the considerably longer transmission.
The 25% efficiency indicated in paragraph 4 at the optimum point (I assume that this was meant) is only found in classic cars. More than 35% are found in vehicles which are scrapped to a large extent, all developments in this regard after roughly 1990 only concern nuances and hybrid concepts. Always in the area "Otto engine".
In paragraph 10, you can read something about lower forces in suction engines. That may be right if you look at the medium pressure. However, there are also suction motors that reach a liter capacity of 215 hp (Yamaha R6 RJ 15 for example). The exorbitant speeds required for this purpose generate entirely different forces.
Lastly, I believe the 56% efficiency in the Mazda Skyactiv X concept (which, by the way, does not provide 1.8) only after I was shown a source. I have seen other figures (sometimes very good, but much lower).
So go ahead again:
I just write answers so they understand each other. Not everyone has a automotive or mechatronics course or a mechanical engineering degree.
If you come with Lambada, the average citizen might know something about the car. That's it. If the FS understood that, he wouldn't ask here.
Because it does not apply "Turbo runs, turbo purifies", but rather "power runs, power is acidifying
Thank you for your approval. So it doesn't matter if I'm running a 115hp 1.6 liter or a 1.0 liter.
Or in other words: turbo running, turbo purifying.
And then I'm getting too stupid. I have the feeling you just liked it because I wrote it. What's your problem?
I write "At older petrol engines this efficiency is about 25%." You say it would be wrong and write something different in the same sentence "But this is only the case with older engines." I can fuck myself, I don't need you.
Then, in a discussion about car engines, you start to put my statement as wrong, because in motorcycles the engines rotate much higher. I'm not coming to you with a ship's diesel to discuss whether a VW Polo Diesel also drives with heavy oil! I'm gonna be too stupid to discuss with you.
So you mean "Turbo running, turbo purifying" that turbo engines at full load need the same amount of fuel as equally strong suckers, and not that, as you could understand, they need more fuel at full load? It used to be that, because of the strong grease.
Looks like it's old for me, really old. The old cars that now become oldtimers are not really old for me, when I look at some vehicles, have the better equipment than a small car without special equipment. I can't really talk about old because not so much has happened since that, apart from passive security.
Also the American ships from the 70s should not have a better efficiency….
The problem is – I wrote exactly the same as you – only you don't want to understand what I meant above.
We're talking about downsizing engines. These have the following meaning:
Same performance, less consumption.
So I'm going out of this moron as a law. According to this claim: A 1 liter engine consumes just as much as a 1 liter engine regardless of whether a turbo is installed or not so the car manufacturers sell it. And only on this assumption is my statement. But I don't care – I don't have to fight you for days when I know what's right.
This has nothing, but nothing to do with who is right, but that you have carried out my statement, have thrown around you with technical terms and at the end exactly what I wrote. Just don't want to understand what assumption I was going on. For every normal person today it is quite clear that a smaller turbo engine does not consume more than a larger vacuum, but it does not consume less.
Oh, yes, and with regard to "older engines" there was probably a definition problem. For you, "older motors" are therefore those from oldtimers, ie about 60 years, the efficiency comes about. For me from the 1990s. We are both guilty because no one has specified what exactly means "older".
Regarding Mazda's Skyactiv X – Engine: have found the source. It actually stimulates an efficiency of 56%, which is true, since you have been right. Let's see if he keeps it.
So to make it short: I have claimed that full load consumption does not depend on whether a turbocharger is installed or not, but on how high the peak performance is – readable in my first post. And now you come, do something about a 60 hp suction motor and a 115 hp turbo engine (the debate didn't exist at all), say exactly what I wrote at the beginning and pretend to have claimed something else. Of course I'm getting stinky. Stand by your mistakes if you want to be taken seriously! You read wrong!
And if I correct you, then not to make you look stupid, but to show you that you are wrong now. For this purpose, forums are there, and wise people should never remain on their knowledge, but constantly learn. So your reaction should actually be "then for the correcting" instead, you're going to get started and pretend I'm going to turn the words around in your mouth and get angry. I don't see the point behind it.
What's the matter with you?
I'll ask you the same.
You say exactly what I've already written, but do as if I've written something else, then I'm gonna have a "special idiot" (what exactly does that give you the right thing? Do you know me and know what I'm doing?) to call. What are you doing?
What is that? I would have said that differently:
I'm writing something, you're answering exactly the same thing to put me down as a moron.
Two times. I'm writing the efficiency of older gasoline, you're contradicting, and I'm writing that this efficiency only has older gasoline.
Then I write that a motor with a turbo on it consumes more and more than an identical engine without turbo, or short: turbo running, turbo purging. You contradict this and write that a turbo engine consumes as much as an equally strong suction engine or: turbo running, turbo purging.
As it goes into the forest, it cries out. Yeah, with people like you, the word not only once, but 5 times in my mouth, I'm going around like that in real life. I hope you're a real person or are you just a robot? That would explain the narrowness.
what exactly is that right to you? You know me and you know what I do professionally
With this you have already given up various paintings publicly. Yes.
Read it, or leave it
That from your mouth is insulting. You turn every word three times and then try to make me look stupid because I try to write simple answers. That's what's cobbled about-this kind of smart guy could never suffer.
It looks different if you simply make some improvements – for example, the 1.8 liter engine. That was a real improvement, that's what I'm happy about. But I really don't have to let this up there.
Especially with the efficiency of older engines, you shot yourself completely off the road with your completely unqualified contradiction.
It's a joke that you're just gonna start hitting around with the Sachlich club.
What's the matter with you? You say exactly what I've already written, but do as if I've written something else, then I'm gonna have a "special idiot" (what exactly does that give you the right thing? Do you know me and know what I'm doing?) to call. What are you doing? Is that what you do with real people? I don't hope for you.
That's enough! Read it or leave it!! And stay in fact, don't get polemic, that's just causing trouble. 🙁
And you're the typical idiot, that's the problem. You don't think beyond the edge of the plate. You know a lot, no question, but that's your problem.
As a result, an answer is quickly wrong because it is very easy to formulate, and as always oriented towards the prevailing opinion.
And a 1 liter suction engine with 60hp simply has a lower consumption than a 1 liter turbo engine with 115hp.
However, a suction engine with 115 hp has a very comparable fuel consumption to a turbo engine with 115 hp.
That's all you have to do.
Don't come to the normal citizen with a richer or leaner mixture. The FS is probably happy that he knows what tap he should take at the gas station.
If I formulate an answer here as I did at the vocational school, then it will be completely correct.
But
a: page-long (the discussions with you too) and
b: completely incomprehensible to anyone without any pre-formation.
It is not about whether it is called "Lambda smaller" or "mixture richer", it is simply about the fact that today it is wrong that turbocharged engines need more fuel with equal power. Why? Because turbomotors aren't metered more fat today, of course I can prove that! Unfortunately, I see that you are not able to learn why I broke this "discussion" here, that makes no sense.
Hello,
I have no experience with downsizing engines. A few years ago, however, there was a basically similar discussion about motor constructions, which brought their high liter capacity solely from high speeds. One wanted to establish at the piston speed how long such a motor works or when it breaks. Examples were the VTEC engines of Honda, AUDI and BMW M engines and others, less well known.
BMW has now moved a bit far from the high-speed concept, just like Audi, who now use a 2.9 liter engine with Biturbo (from Porsche) in their RS4 instead of a high-speed V8. The Honda S2000 is no longer available. The statement "space is not to be replaced by anything, except for more space" I only hear from pronounced US car fans. Personally, 1.0 liter capacity for a power of 110 hp in the very normal road vehicle would be a little too little (1.5 – 1.8 liter capacity and a four-cylinder would be better in person).
The downsized engines with 1L at 3 cylinders and over 100PS are now also in the market for a few days longer.
So far, this is not noticeable to larger machines. 200,000-250,000 km, which is a usual lifetime of these small cars and compact vehicles, keep them out.
more engine capacity more power and thus more horsepower,
Performance = HP
Little space and "many" horsepower are called downsizing. Low capacity and more performance thanks to turbochargers. The ones can, the others can't.
The relationship between displacement and power is no longer as compelling as it was. Higher production precision of the engines, turbochargers and sophisticated injection systems can also be used to tick more power from smaller engine capacity.
One of my employees drives a Fabia with the same machine. He's going very hard and pleasant.
I myself drive a superb with 190 hp from just under 2 liters capacity (diesel). With the same engine block (=same displacement) the machine is also available in 150 hp or in 240 hp…
The same displacement does not mean that the same material was used. From BMW, for example, I know that, depending on the "expansion stage", different alloys use at work to adapt the material to the prevailing pressures and temperatures. There is also a basic motor in very different power levels.
Now the small 3-cylinder is simply equipped with a turbo. A shrinking moth that won't last forever. I'd never lie to myself.
Hello!
Such a small and charged engine has to exert very much and is thus loaded much more than a two-liter or 1.8-liter, which used to make 110 hp. As a result, its durability is also significantly smaller than that of a large-volume engine – this is the great disadvantage from my point of view. In the VW Group, which also includes Skoda, problems are to be expected with these engines.
I wouldn't buy a Skoda anyway – they're too expensive and play only with the "cheap East Block VW" image, but in truth they're hardly cheaper than the original VW. If it has to be something from the VW group, then either an original VW or a Seat, where you can actually save something other than Skoda.
I'd just take a test drive. I don't think of this extreme downsizing where the last HP is spun out of the engine by software. For this, it is then expedient in maintenance or control. So just test drive and see if it's enough for you 😉
Capacity instead of spoiler.
That's why we buy Mazda 1.8 liters and 115 hp.
etc. you're not getting under 1.5 liters.
Hands away from such 3-cylinder engines, they don't last long. Mercedes does not build such engines, the thermal load is too high and they run restless, because badly balanced due to construction, take a 4 cylinder.
Not every 3-cylinder runs restless…motors with balancing shaft run smoothly and without noticeable vibrations.
PS I have the direct comparison (3 and 4 cylinders) with similar performance data in the family, so I have good comparison values.
However, the least R3 motors have a balancing shaft. The BMW B38 (1.5 R3, 109 to 231 hp) is, for example, one, but it does not run very quietly as soon as one compares with an R4. Then the Opel 1.0 DI Turbo (90 / 115 hp), which actually operates quietly, and then the Ford Focus Mk4 1.5 Eco Boost, that was it. It is common to all that, in comparison to good four-cylinder engines, they hardly save any fuel, on the contrary, sometimes even need more of it. Together, their strange sound is always reminiscent of a four-cylinder engine with a broken ignition coil.
Downsizing has become a misdevelopment.
Yes, self-confident
convert to the power per kg, in the constellation will have a good acceleration.
my racing sleeve has 3 cylinders DSG 1000ccm and 98 horses.
3 cylinders, DSG and turbo. The best combination for a car to quickly become an economic total damage;)
good 11 years and around the 108,000 at the hump – still like a kitten – Brabus has helped
At least no VW 😉
^ Fortwo model year 2008
I wish you that it will remain like that 🙂