Horse before the Cart

[ProfJohnL]

I have no formal evidence to support my suggestion that newer smaller engines can be as reliable as older larger units. The reliability of any technology can easily be masked by failure so of supporting systems rather than the prime mover, so truly apportioning car breakdowns is complex.But equally my opponents of my view cannot prove otherwise.

I therefore surmise there is probably not a great deal of difference between the reliability of old and new.

References to super high performance motor sport engines are not entirely relevant, except to show that prodigious amounts of power can be produced by smaller capacity engines. Though in reality the design of High Performance engines will be biased towards super performance racing rather than longevity needed for a family car.

Back in the real world of family cars, some of the high performance developments are diluted and re-engineered for a reasonable life expectancy in newer models.

Where there there is more of a difference between old and new, is the way the power and torque is delivered especially in relation to engine RPM, and I would agree that for relaxed caravanning older larger engines may "seem" better suited, but that does not mean newer units can't tow, it simply means you have to re evaluate the way you drive and what to expect.

This is another example of how "bigger is better" older values have become ingrained and blindly followed without question, despite the fact the world around is changing, and such traditional views and methods are less capable of meeting those new demands.

It is almost inevitable now with the governments push to rid our transport system of pollution, that IC engines will start to disappear and simply not be available, even for caravanners, so we have got to start looking for ways to embrace the newer technologies as they come along.

 

[seth1]

I presume John L you have first hand experience of these smaller engine diesels and petrols.It depends what you expect and class as good performance,personally i dont class climbing hills at 40 mph particually good,yes its do able but not fun.Then take a glance at the reliabilty statistics.Not good.

I would be interested to see the reliability statistics. Do you have a link(s)?

Try google ecoboost exhaust manifold problems

 

[otherclive]

I presume John L you have first hand experience of these smaller engine diesels and petrols.It depends what you expect and class as good performance,personally i dont class climbing hills at 40 mph particually good,yes its do able but not fun.Then take a glance at the reliabilty statistics.Not good.

I would be interested to see the reliability statistics. Do you have a link(s)?

Try google ecoboost
exhaust manifold problems

Thanks but that's just one engine and my search threw up the F150 which is a large Smerican pickup. What about any issues with CP Puretch, Honda, Vauxhall, Hyundai etc. Your comment implied that these small engines are unreliable. I'm not seeing much evidence.

 

[seth1]

I presume John L you have first hand experience of these smaller engine diesels and petrols.It depends what you expect and class as good performance,personally i dont class climbing hills at 40 mph particually good,yes its do able but not fun.Then take a glance at the reliabilty statistics.Not good.

Unless something has changed with the the way Horse power is measured, a 1.6L 140Hp engine will have the same hill climbing ability as 3L 140Hp engines assuming all other things are equal. However I would agree all other hings are not necessarily equal but never the less provided the engine is kept in its power band there should be no difference between the hill climbing ability. to claim otherwise is a scientific absurdity.

This is my point,if wanting a relaxed tow why quote power as a measurement of climbing abilty.Power(hp) is a measure of engine speed.
Again smaller engines have to be kept in the "power band",larger engines dont because they dont relie so much on turbocharging.As an example my wife has a 165hp 1.4 turbo,when not on boost its nothing to write home about and in no way hold a candle to any 3litre car from the 70,s 80s or 90,s and ive had a couple.

 

[seth1]

I presume John L you have first hand experience of these smaller engine diesels and petrols.It depends what you expect and class as good performance,personally i dont class climbing hills at 40 mph particually good,yes its do able but not fun.Then take a glance at the reliabilty statistics.Not good.

I would be interested to see the reliability statistics. Do you have a link(s)?

Try google ecoboost
exhaust manifold problems

Thanks but that's just one engine. What about any issues with CP Puretch, Honda, Vauxhall, Hyundai etc. Your comment implied that these small engines are unreliable. I'm not seeing much evidence.

I thought we were specifically talking about ecoboost engines.Hondas latest 1.6 diesel doesnt seem to get good reports either,especially for lack of drivability.

 

[otherclive]

I presume John L you have first hand experience of these smaller engine diesels and petrols.It depends what you expect and class as good performance,personally i dont class climbing hills at 40 mph particually good,yes its do able but not fun.Then take a glance at the reliabilty statistics.Not good.

Unless something has changed with the the way Horse power is measured, a 1.6L 140Hp engine will have the same hill climbing ability as 3L 140Hp engines assuming all other things are equal. However I would agree all other hings are not necessarily equal but never the less provided the engine is kept in its power band there should be no difference between the hill climbing ability. to claim otherwise is a scientific absurdity.

This is my point,if wanting a relaxed tow why quote power as a measurement of climbing abilty.Power(hp) is a measure of engine speed.
Again smaller engines have to be kept in the "power band",larger engines dont because they dont relie so much on turbocharging.As an example my wife has a 165hp 1.4 turbo,when not on boost its nothing to write home about and in no way hold a candle to any 3litre car from the 70,s 80s or 90,s and ive had a couple.

Power isn't solely a function of engine speed it is derived from the equation PLAN. P is pressure in cylinder, L is length of stroke, A is area of piston, and N is revolution speed. So a slow speed engine can deliver more power than a high speed engine. It all depends on what it is designed for and its usage cycle.

 

[seth1]

Isnt that a way of measuring hp without a dynometre?BMEP is a true measuring stick.

 

[otherclive]

To use BMEP you need an engine Using PLAN you could start designing an engine.

 

[seth1]

Clever stuff

 

[ProfJohnL]

......
I thought we were specifically talking about ecoboost engines.Hondas latest 1.6 diesel doesnt seem to get good reports either,especially for lack of drivability.

Hello Seth,
You can continue to point out specific examples by all means , but look back over the years you can level criticisms at at many previous power units that became noted for certain traits, The odd bad apple doesn't mean the whole tree is worthless.

Like it of not the days of large engined personal transport is going to disappear, and we will have to look at the alternatives, and that will almost certainly mean compromises, especially for caravanners.

Rather than grasping to hold onto the past, look for the opportunities in the future, or your likely to be left behind.

 

[seth1]

I asked you a question in an earlier post,do you have experience of these talked about smaller engined vehicles?obviously you dont,but i do.In 2040 all internal combustion engines are likely to be banned but until then all the big makers are offering larger engines,correct.VAG have just released a 4 litre v8 diesel so again your argument falls flat on its face.Hgv makers are still offering engines up to 16 litres,coaches are still available with up to 13 litres.As i previously said what you find satisfactory others may not.To promote vehicles with no experience what so ever is misleading.

 

[ProfJohnL]

I asked you a question in an earlier post,do you have experience of these talked about smaller engined vehicles?obviously you dont,but i do.

May I remind you that I am not obliged to answer questions posted on the forum, and I choose what I answer for my self. Therefore it is wrong to make the assumption that a null response to a specific challenge such as yours, cannot and must not be used or suggested as an indication of my experience or position on a subject.

In 2040 all internal combustion engines are likely to be banned but until then all the big makers are offering larger engines,correct.VAG have just released a 4 litre v8 diesel so again your argument falls flat on its face.Hgv makers are still offering engines up to 16 litres,coaches are still available with up to 13 litres.

Falling flat on its face!!!, -What you are forgetting is that 2040 is 23 years away, and whilst the governments proposals have just been announced, It would be unreasonable in the extreme to suggest that all manufacturer should change completely now - this instant. It will be a progression towards and will occur as the technologies are developed.

Manufacturers will still be offering IC engines of all sizes for a few years to come, and VW are perfectly in their rights to produce a V8 if they wish. but over the period there will be greater showing of the new technologies that will have to take over from IC emission rich forms of motive power.

The 2040 deadline will give imputes to the transport industry to come up with new solutions for motive power. It is easier with smaller vehicles like cars, which is why we are seeing a increasing numbers of smaller engines, hybrids and all electric vehicles in use.

As i previously said what you find satisfactory others may not.To promote vehicles with no experience what so ever is misleading.

My standards may well be different to yours, I think this short correspondence has shown that, However everyone is allowed to make their own minds up about the subject and becasue its all supposition at the moment there will be differences of opinion.

I have previously suggested that whenever a traditional view or process is expressed and used to validate a statement or action, it always worth just checking if it still make logical or even legal sense. Often such long held views loose their validity in the light of technological, social or legal advances.

The traditional view that you need big cc's to tow a caravan, is potentially misplaced as some modern small cc engines are quite capable of producing the power needed to tow - its characteristics may well be different but is the reality of the changes we face as we lurch towards 2040. I don't think that is promoting, it is educating.

 

[seth1]

Obviously our standards are different.I,ll let people make their own mind up.If your quite happy crawling up the A30 at 40mph thats fine by me.

 

[seth1]

Just thought what better way,take a look at tow car tests.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Obviously our standards are different.I,ll let people make their own mind up.If your quite happy crawling up the A30 at 40mph thats fine by me.

Full circle, the ability to climb a hill is dependant on the power available, if power is the same the rate of climb will be the same!

 

[seth1]

This debate has been done a hundred times,HP v torque on this forum.You completely drifted on everything ive said,not responded to any of my questions,shown no factual evidence.Try reading my original post.
So i have a 165hp petrol turbo,also i have a 245hp diesel,by your reckoning the smaller less powerful will be just as effective?Well i can tell you now its not,it has half the torque,it would be a last resort to tow with it.Satisfactury best describes it.

 

[otherclive]

This debate has been done a hundred times,HP v torque on this forum.You completely drifted on everything ive said,not responded to any of my questions,shown no factual evidence.Try reading my original post.
So i have a 165hp petrol turbo,also i have a 245hp diesel,by your reckoning the smaller less powerful will be just as effective?Well i can tell you now its not,it has half the torque,it would be a last resort to tow with it.Satisfactury best describes it.

I've been following this debate with interest but cannot understand your latest post in the context of power. My reading is that Prof John said that you need the same power to go up a hill at a defined speed irrespective of engine size. Agreed that different engines develop their power at different revs but I can't understand your logic in the above post. It's obvious that the bigger engine with lots more power will go up a hill faster than the smaller engine if the ascent speed requires more power than the lower power engine can provide.

 

[seth1]

Of course we all know that.Its obvious.My original post which has been completely side tracked by thread drift and not my drift was comparing smaller engines to larger ones which John L doesnt accept.As normal using figures on paper but not in hand.This very thread has been done before,and again John L didnt accept it.My view and experience is still unchanged is that the smaller engine as said will do the job,satisfactury but no where near like a larger engine.Why do think makers have had to resort to twin turbocharging and multispeed transmissions,because the torque is so narrow on a smaller engine,it does not have the capacity,therefore it does not have the volume of the larger engine.
As a side note comparing hp v torque i looked at a power curve for my diesel this morning.My car only has 6 gears,at 60 mph in 6th the engine turns at 1500rpm.Obviously a hill like is found on the A30 drops it to 5th.That then equates to 1800rpm.At 1800 rpm it produces 115 hp and 425nm of torque.This yet again backs up my view.As said take a look at the tow car tests.

 

[otherclive]

Of course we all know that.Its obvious.My original post which has been completely side tracked by thread drift and not my drift was comparing smaller engines to larger ones which John L doesnt accept.As normal using figures on paper but not in hand.This very thread has been done before,and again John L didnt accept it.My view and experience is still unchanged is that the smaller engine as said will do the job,satisfactury but no where near like a larger engine.Why do think makers have had to resort to twin turbocharging and multispeed transmissions,because the torque is so narrow on a smaller engine,it does not have the capacity,therefore it does not have the volume of the larger engine.
As a side note comparing hp v torque i looked at a power curve for my diesel this morning.My car only has 6 gears,at 60 mph in 6th the engine turns at 1500rpm.Obviously a hill like is found on the A30 drops it to 5th.That then equates to 1800rpm.At 1800 rpm it produces 115 hp and 425nm of torque.This yet again backs up my view.As said take a look at the tow car tests.

I understand your view but surely another engine producing 115hp to ascend the A30 hill would do a similar speed to yours. In fact it was on a trip to Dartmoor along the A30 that persuaded me that my 2.0 NA 150bhp Subaru Forester wasn't the tow car for me as it developed its power high up in the rev band. But saying that it certainly didn't have any problem climbing the hills.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Of course we all know that.Its obvious.My original post which has been completely side tracked by thread drift and not my drift was comparing smaller engines to larger ones which John L doesnt accept.As normal using figures on paper but not in hand.This very thread has been done before,and again John L didnt accept it.My view and experience is still unchanged is that the smaller engine as said will do the job,satisfactury but no where near like a larger engine.Why do think makers have had to resort to twin turbocharging and multispeed transmissions,because the torque is so narrow on a smaller engine,it does not have the capacity,therefore it does not have the volume of the larger engine.
As a side note comparing hp v torque i looked at a power curve for my diesel this morning.My car only has 6 gears,at 60 mph in 6th the engine turns at 1500rpm.Obviously a hill like is found on the A30 drops it to 5th.That then equates to 1800rpm.At 1800 rpm it produces 115 hp and 425nm of torque.This yet again backs up my view.As said take a look at the tow car tests.

Please stop telling people what you think I know or don't know. You have absolutely no idea of my experience or understanding of these matters. This thread is not dependant on personal experiences but an understanding of matters involved.

Your original post in this thread was

I presume John L you have first hand experience of these smaller engine diesels and petrols.It depends what you expect and class as good performance,personally i dont class climbing hills at 40 mph particually good,yes its do able but not fun.Then take a glance at the reliabilty statistics.Not good.

Your response clearly benchmarks your key performance indication (KPI) as the ability to climb the A30 @ more than 40MPH. And success or failure is determined by the achieving 40mph or not. We agree that requires a certain quantity of power. Where we seem to disagree is that you believe smaller CC engines cat't produce the necessary power, where as I claim the advancements in car engines has allowed the same levels of power to be produced from some engines of a small cubic capacity, and provided the figure are the same, the engine will have the same hill climbing ability.

I totally agree and have openly stated that the increasingly common smaller CC engines will feel different, but provided they are allowed to operate in their power band and produce enough HP they are capable of meeting or exceeding your KPI.

Personal experience is not a prerequisite for producing such an understanding - nor should this statement be used as an induction of my experience or otherwise.

Otherclive has correctly pointed out the position I have maintained is that two vehicles regardless of engine cc producing the same power will have the same ability to climb your A30 hill, and it reinforces the point I have made quite clearly that it is the case that modern smaller engines given whatever ancillaries are capable of producing the necessary power to tow caravans.

Consequently the fact a manufacture updated model with a smaller (i.e. smaller Cubic Capacity) engine does not need to be discounted simply becasue its got a smaller capacity engine. Provided the power figures are comparable the new vehicle should be equally capable in the towing stakes - just different. Whether it suits the caravanner is a matter of personal preference.

 

[seth1]

Of course we all know that.Its obvious.My original post which has been completely side tracked by thread drift and not my drift was comparing smaller engines to larger ones which John L doesnt accept.As normal using figures on paper but not in hand.This very thread has been done before,and again John L didnt accept it.My view and experience is still unchanged is that the smaller engine as said will do the job,satisfactury but no where near like a larger engine.Why do think makers have had to resort to twin turbocharging and multispeed transmissions,because the torque is so narrow on a smaller engine,it does not have the capacity,therefore it does not have the volume of the larger engine.
As a side note comparing hp v torque i looked at a power curve for my diesel this morning.My car only has 6 gears,at 60 mph in 6th the engine turns at 1500rpm.Obviously a hill like is found on the A30 drops it to 5th.That then equates to 1800rpm.At 1800 rpm it produces 115 hp and 425nm of torque.This yet again backs up my view.As said take a look at the tow car tests.

Please stop telling people what you think I know or don't know. You have absolutely no idea of my experience or understanding of these matters. This thread is not dependant on personal experiences but an understanding of matters involved.

Your original post in this thread was

I presume John L you have first hand experience of these smaller engine diesels and petrols.It depends what you expect and class as good performance,personally i dont class climbing hills at 40 mph particually good,yes its do able but not fun.Then take a glance at the reliabilty statistics.Not good.

Your response clearly benchmarks your key performance indication (KPI) as the ability to climb the A30 @ more than 40MPH. And success or failure is determined by the achieving 40mph or not. We agree that requires a certain quantity of power. Where we seem to disagree is that you believe smaller CC engines cat't produce the necessary power, where as I claim the advancements in car engines has allowed the same levels of power to be produced from some engines of a small cubic capacity, and provided the figure are the same, the engine will have the same hill climbing ability.

I totally agree and have openly stated that the increasingly common smaller CC engines will feel different, but provided they are allowed to operate in their power band and produce enough HP they are capable of meeting or exceeding your KPI.

Personal experience is not a prerequisite for producing such an understanding - nor should this statement be used as an induction of my experience or otherwise.

Otherclive has correctly pointed out the position I have maintained is that two vehicles regardless of engine cc producing the same power will have the same ability to climb your A30 hill, and it reinforces the point I have made quite clearly that it is the case that modern smaller engines given whatever ancillaries are capable of producing the necessary power to tow caravans.

Consequently the fact a manufacture updated model with a smaller (i.e. smaller Cubic Capacity) engine does not need to be discounted simply becasue its got a smaller capacity engine. Provided the power figures are comparable the new vehicle should be equally capable in the towing stakes - just different. Whether it suits the caravanner is a matter of personal preference.

For a start this is a forum so i will say what i deem to be correct,and not governed by you.As in the past you talk from text book,me from experience.The problem John L as has always been,is your opinion is stone and woe betide anyone who dares to differ.Open your eyes and reread my original post.i used the words "expect" and "class" i did not say they are not capable.Maybe if you read the latest post by otherclive it may sink in what im trying to say.

 

[seth1]

Of course we all know that.Its obvious.My original post which has been completely side tracked by thread drift and not my drift was comparing smaller engines to larger ones which John L doesnt accept.As normal using figures on paper but not in hand.This very thread has been done before,and again John L didnt accept it.My view and experience is still unchanged is that the smaller engine as said will do the job,satisfactury but no where near like a larger engine.Why do think makers have had to resort to twin turbocharging and multispeed transmissions,because the torque is so narrow on a smaller engine,it does not have the capacity,therefore it does not have the volume of the larger engine.
As a side note comparing hp v torque i looked at a power curve for my diesel this morning.My car only has 6 gears,at 60 mph in 6th the engine turns at 1500rpm.Obviously a hill like is found on the A30 drops it to 5th.That then equates to 1800rpm.At 1800 rpm it produces 115 hp and 425nm of torque.This yet again backs up my view.As said take a look at the tow car tests.

I understand your view but surely another engine producing 115hp to ascend the A30 hill would do a similar speed to yours. In fact it was on a trip to Dartmoor along the A30 that persuaded me that my 2.0 NA 150bhp Subaru Forester wasn't the tow car for me as it developed its power high up in the rev band. But saying that it certainly didn't have any problem climbing the hills.

So as the debate is,smaller v larger,to answer your question which you have already done,i expect it would,i would also expect it to not be as relaxed,i would also expect a lot more use of gears.
My reason for this expectation,a smaller engine does not produce as much total power.Therefore at the same engine speed it will have less power.fact.Therefore more engine speed will be required.Smaller engines are not ideal and how about engine braking on the way down.

 

[otherclive]

Seth
Smaller engines can produce high powers. F1 engines are 1.6 litres. A more reasonable comparator would be Fords Ecoboost which powers the Mustang. Much smaller than traditional V8 but high power too. 2.3 litre and 300bhp. Subarus 2.0 Forester xt puts out around 250 bhp. So a 1.6 with around 150 bhp and tuned for torque is well within capability without stressing the components beyond levels that are normal.

 

[seth1]

Seth
Smaller engines can produce high powers. F1 engines are 1.6 litres. A more reasonable comparator would be Fords Ecoboost which powers the Mustang. Much smaller than traditional V8 but high power too. 2.3 litre and 300bhp. Subarus 2.0 Forester xt puts out around 250 bhp. So a 1.6 with around 150 bhp and tuned for torque is well within capability without stressing the components beyond levels that are normal.

Your moving the goal posts,can an F1 engine tow a caravan?We build race engines for race trucks.We get 1500hp out of MAN,s D26 engine,but it could not pull a trailer.My wifes 1.4 turbo has 165hp and 172 lbs ft of torque is that going to make an amazing tow car?Granted i agree its likely it will stay together but after that i dont think so.Please remember we were specifically debating smaller engines.

 

[ProfJohnL]

Seth1

Stop making statements about me for which you have absolutely no evidence. You have no idea of my experience or knowledge on these matters.