Does engine size matter?

SailorSam

Does engine size matter ?
If i'd started this thread i would have just put the title as ........ Does size matter ?
I'm sure more people would have come to read it.

Gloomendoom

I have never driven the Ford offering but I borrowed a Skoda with the 1.2 tsi engine and ersatz autobox for a month. It was fine most of the time but sometimes it would judder when pulling away from rest, particularly on hills.

The car belonged to my sister-in-law and she has since swapped it for a car with a torque converter autobox.

perfume_waggon

Does engine size matter ?
If i'd started this thread i would have just put the title as ........ Does size matter ?
I'm sure more people would have come to read it.

Don't think it didn't cross my mind!

bigjl

I would personally go for the Focus.

But I suspect either would do the job just fine.

bigjl

BeenThroughItAll wrote: »

So, you're basing your opinion and the categorical statement of how awful all robotised manual, double clutch automatics and non TC autos in general are on ONE experience?

You don't half spout some drivel.

Have to agree with that.

Have driven a couple of DSG/Powershift boxes and they were both fine.

Have also driven loads of TC autos, from large heavily laden van conversions and the wife's old Accent 1.3 Auto.

Perhaps he drove a single clutch auto like the Citreon system or the Vauxhall system as they were pretty poor.

The double clutch systems feel like a super quick shifting TC auto to be honest.

Or maybe the engine mounts were broken?

Silver-Surfer_2

I was never really a fan of small engined auto cars. In the 80s the fiesta auto was dreadful, think it was a daf variomatic? In the past I would not have been a fan of a 1 litre turbo focus, however things have changed. Apparently you need to drive it hard to get the best out of it. It's a company car so I'd give one a go.

loskie

look at a honda jazz auto if available to you

facade

bigjl wrote: »

Have driven a couple of DSG/Powershift boxes and they were both fine.

The double clutch systems feel like a super quick shifting TC auto to be honest.

I've driven them too, when brand new, they are very good.

However, the high milers are usually broken.

Even an oil bath clutch is just not suited to slow urban crawls when commuting, wheras a torque converter, if there is enough oil, and sufficient cooling doesn't mind.

Have to say I'm a bit luddite when it comes to 7 or 8 speed 'boxes, just smacks of a small inflexible engine to me, the old 5 litre V8s managed with 2 speed TC autos for years

To answer the original question:

IMHO, there is no substitute for engine capacity, bigger is better

These teeny little twin turbo screamers need thrashing mercilessly to move at all, and require a ridiculous number of gears to mess with to keep them screaming, so "auto" is the way to go.

(However, if someone else is paying for the car and fuel, you just need a lead right foot and earplugs )

WellKnownSid

facade wrote: »

I've driven them too, when brand new, they are very good.

However, the high milers are usually broken.

Even an oil bath clutch is just not suited to slow urban crawls when commuting, wheras a torque converter, if there is enough oil, and sufficient cooling doesn't mind.

Have to say I'm a bit luddite when it comes to 7 or 8 speed 'boxes, just smacks of a small inflexible engine to me, the old 5 litre V8s managed with 2 speed TC autos for years )

Early VAG DSGs had mechatronics problems, but most later ones have proven reliable. Ford I believe has had issues with several of theirs. Oil changes are required on the VAG boxes every 40,000 miles - doubt many get done and deterioration will be terminal soon after.

Thankfully, TC autos are catching up in the unreliability stakes now that DMFs are being fitted along with secondary oil systems.

facade

WellKnownSid wrote: »

Oil changes are required on the VAG boxes every 40,000 miles - doubt many get done and deterioration will be terminal soon after.

Don't they need ferociously expensive fluids blended from rare oils, plus some sort of special tool to fill them up, so the owner of a 40,000 miler would never pay that much money as it is a significant proportion of the value of the car?

WellKnownSid wrote: »

Thankfully, TC autos are catching up in the unreliability stakes now that DMFs are being fitted along with secondary oil systems.

Never ceases to amaze me how manufacturers can "improve" something that has worked perfectly well for years, and make it break quicker, yet somehow sell us the idea that the "improvements" have made it "better"


e.g. the asbestos roof on my garage has lasted well over 50 years. The plastic roof on my [STRIKE]lean-to[/STRIKE] conservatory needs replacing every 6 or 7. (And when you get to my age, 7 years is like yesterday :rotfl:) But somehow plastic is "better".