Question about "power"

coffeehound

Thesaltmustflow said:

I remember 'thinking' my 2.8i Capris were fast and I guess for the time they were but they felt heavy, like steering a tugboat and when I switched to a 205 1.9gti, what a difference!!!!! only 126bhp on the Pug, 150bhp on the Capri but worlds apart so everything was in play even back then with weight/power ratios. The world has indeed moved on a LOT. 

I found the way the torque interacted with the steering on the 205 GTi a bit wearing on long journeys

Nice to see the Capris on reruns of the Professionals

maxsteam

Yup, look at power and weight together. Or simply look up the acceleration figures.

tr7phil

Deleted_User said:

onomatopoeia99 said:

Deleted_User said:=

35 years ago - I owned a Ford Capri 3 litre - it used to pull like a train from very low revs but used to run out of gruint at about 4000 rpm - my latest (1.0 turbo) car is 1/3 of the engine capacity - produces more than 3/4 of the power and torque of the Capri, and driving from A to B, with traffic, even on the Motorway, I would say is probably quicker, uses less than half of the fuel and is much more comfortable !

It weighs about 2/3 of the Capri

The Essex engine fitted to the 3.0 Capri (as also used in the Transit of that era) was something of a boat anchor and wasn't exactly a free revving screamer out of the factory, even in RS3100 form.  It could be tuned to work at higher revs and produce more power (TVR used it in some cars at one point), but you wanted to retrofit a Cosworth GA if you really wanted it to go as they revved past 9000 and produced over 450bhp. However they were also mindbendingly expensive.

My Capri 3000s had a full length Webasto sunroof and Recaro interior, and used to average 20mpg !!

I was a 23 year old student at the time - the Capri was immaculate and then the rear axle destroyed itself - I part exchanged the  Capri for  a Cavalier SRi - and received less than £1000 in part ex - today, in good condition, the Capri could have been worth around £50k !!

The problem is even with the ridiculous prices for Capris these days, the amount you'd have had to spend to have it in good condition now would have still made it not much of an investment.  Still at least it would have made something unlike my Triumph TR7 but it's academic anyway as I'm not selling!

Ditzy_Mitzy

BOWFER said:

Deleted_User said:

35 years ago - I owned a Ford Capri 3 litre - it used to pull like a train from very low revs but used to run out of gruint at about 4000 rpm - my latest (1.0 turbo) car is 1/3 of the engine capacity - produces more than 3/4 of the power and torque of the Capri, and driving from A to B, with traffic, even on the Motorway, I would say is probably quicker, uses less than half of the fuel and is much more comfortable !

It weighs about 2/3 of the Capri

I had this discussion with someone recently, he could not get his head around a three-cylinder 1000cc turbo engine putting out as much power/torque as a normally aspirated 2000cc engine from 'his era', reliably.
He was convinced the things are on the edge of grenading themselves into a thousand pieces.
basically his argument was "they must be"
Like someone who refuses to believe an iphone has more computing power than an old spacecraft.

But one also has to consider the fact that the 1.0 turbo three cylinder is producing something close to the maximum power that it is able to, given the constraints of its small capacity and missing cylinder.  The modern 1.0 Ford Focus produces 123 bhp and 148 lb/ft.  My old 2.0 basic one produces 143 bhp and 136 lb/ft of torque.  It's significantly faster too, oddly.  According to the article I looked at, the 1.0 is capable of generating about 180 bhp with a larger turbo, which is interesting.  

Let's consider, though, that the specification on the old 2.0 is about as basic as one could possibly find.  There's variable something or other but other than that it's nothing but a naturally aspirated twin cam with sixteen valves.  The engine isn't tuned to anything approaching its potential output, however.  A version that sort of is exists: the old 2.0 is the heart of the new ST engine, which is turbocharged.  That puts out 247 bhp and 254 lb/ft, and that's with a factory warranty.  Forgetting that, there are tuning kits to push the engine to 350 bhp and 370 lb/ft.  With racing internals it can put out 450 bhp, and on we go.  

There's no magic involved; it's more a case that manufacturers have cottoned on to what engine tuners have been doing for decades and applying the principles to very small engines.  It's something of an unfair comparison, I think.  If larger engines are given a fighting chance, they will almost always eclipse small ones.  

AdrianC

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

BOWFER said:

I had this discussion with someone recently, he could not get his head around a three-cylinder 1000cc turbo engine putting out as much power/torque as a normally aspirated 2000cc engine from 'his era', reliably.

He was convinced the things are on the edge of grenading themselves into a thousand pieces.
basically his argument was "they must be"
Like someone who refuses to believe an iphone has more computing power than an old spacecraft.

But one also has to consider the fact that the 1.0 turbo three cylinder is producing something close to the maximum power that it is able to, given the constraints of its small capacity
...
There's no magic involved; it's more a case that manufacturers have cottoned on to what engine tuners have been doing for decades and applying the principles to very small engines.  It's something of an unfair comparison, I think.  If larger engines are given a fighting chance, they will almost always eclipse small ones.

That 2.0 was chucking out as much power as the manufacturer could persuade it to back then, too.

They didn't look at the lump and thing "Nah, let's downrate it massively". They wanted more power - they just couldn't get it to produce it from a carb and points. Sure, they could have chucked a pair of big Webers and a lumpy cam on. But then it would have driven like a bag of nails around town.

And, yes, I deliberately snipped "...and missing cylinder". There is no absolutely preordained optimum number of cylinders. There have been glorious engines with multiple teeny thimble pistons, and with relatively few huge buckets. There have been godawful boat anchors with the generally accepted "correct" 350-500cc/cylinder. Four pots just hit a sweet spot of price and packaging for most European car requirements decades ago, and the habit stuck.

Absolutely price is a constraining factor, too. But, now, emissions have become the really big one. They simply can't meet Euro6 requirements as easily with a 2.0 four pot as you can with a 1.0 turbo with the same power. And, yes, it costs a bit more to build - but they can sell it...

BOWFER

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

BOWFER said:

Deleted_User said:

35 years ago - I owned a Ford Capri 3 litre - it used to pull like a train from very low revs but used to run out of gruint at about 4000 rpm - my latest (1.0 turbo) car is 1/3 of the engine capacity - produces more than 3/4 of the power and torque of the Capri, and driving from A to B, with traffic, even on the Motorway, I would say is probably quicker, uses less than half of the fuel and is much more comfortable !

It weighs about 2/3 of the Capri

I had this discussion with someone recently, he could not get his head around a three-cylinder 1000cc turbo engine putting out as much power/torque as a normally aspirated 2000cc engine from 'his era', reliably.
He was convinced the things are on the edge of grenading themselves into a thousand pieces.
basically his argument was "they must be"
Like someone who refuses to believe an iphone has more computing power than an old spacecraft.

But one also has to consider the fact that the 1.0 turbo three cylinder is producing something close to the maximum power that it is able to, given the constraints of its small capacity and missing cylinder.  The modern 1.0 Ford Focus produces 123 bhp and 148 lb/ft.  My old 2.0 basic one produces 143 bhp and 136 lb/ft of torque.  It's significantly faster too, oddly.  According to the article I looked at, the 1.0 is capable of generating about 180 bhp with a larger turbo, which is interesting.  

As you've mentioned Ford, at one point they were talking about making the 3 cylinder 1-litre ecoboost the only engine they made, as they decided it could do over 200bhp perfectly well and would therefore be able to be used in just about every car in their range, from smallest to biggest.
Perhaps they still plan to do this, seeing as ICE has a limited life anyway.
Certainly makes a lot of sense to only use one basic engine with lots of differing power levels.

[Deleted User]

BOWFER said:

Ditzy_Mitzy said:

BOWFER said:

Deleted_User said:

35 years ago - I owned a Ford Capri 3 litre - it used to pull like a train from very low revs but used to run out of gruint at about 4000 rpm - my latest (1.0 turbo) car is 1/3 of the engine capacity - produces more than 3/4 of the power and torque of the Capri, and driving from A to B, with traffic, even on the Motorway, I would say is probably quicker, uses less than half of the fuel and is much more comfortable !

It weighs about 2/3 of the Capri

I had this discussion with someone recently, he could not get his head around a three-cylinder 1000cc turbo engine putting out as much power/torque as a normally aspirated 2000cc engine from 'his era', reliably.
He was convinced the things are on the edge of grenading themselves into a thousand pieces.
basically his argument was "they must be"
Like someone who refuses to believe an iphone has more computing power than an old spacecraft.

But one also has to consider the fact that the 1.0 turbo three cylinder is producing something close to the maximum power that it is able to, given the constraints of its small capacity and missing cylinder.  The modern 1.0 Ford Focus produces 123 bhp and 148 lb/ft.  My old 2.0 basic one produces 143 bhp and 136 lb/ft of torque.  It's significantly faster too, oddly.  According to the article I looked at, the 1.0 is capable of generating about 180 bhp with a larger turbo, which is interesting.  

As you've mentioned Ford, at one point they were talking about making the 3 cylinder 1-litre ecoboost the only engine they made, as they decided it could do over 200bhp perfectly well and would therefore be able to be used in just about every car in their range, from smallest to biggest.
Perhaps they still plan to do this, seeing as ICE has a limited life anyway.
Certainly makes a lot of sense to only use one basic engine with lots of differing power levels.

Similar to my Suzuki 1.0 3 cylinder turbo - I wonder about reliability - when you are producing so miuch power from a small engine (especially when powering a larger car)  - surely reliability /lifespan must suffer ?

BOWFER

Deleted_User said:

Similar to my Suzuki 1.0 3 cylinder turbo - I wonder about reliability - when you are producing so miuch power from a small engine (especially when powering a larger car)  - surely reliability /lifespan must suffer ?

This is the whole crux of the argument.
Why must it?
I've been a member of the latest AW Polo forum for three+ years now, there's not been a single post about engine-related reliability, even from the members who remap them.
It just doesn't stand to reason that they're fragile, the manufacturers would be opening themselves up to warranty claims all over the place.
I'm not ruling out the odd one throwing a rod, that can happen with any engine.
But the evidence is there that modern build techniques and materials can mean reliability from small engines.
I thrashed my 3-cylinder Polo every day, mercilessly - I wouldn't buy a car off me.
No issues.

caprikid1

tr7phil said:

Deleted_User said:

onomatopoeia99 said:

Deleted_User said:=

35 years ago - I owned a Ford Capri 3 litre - it used to pull like a train from very low revs but used to run out of gruint at about 4000 rpm - my latest (1.0 turbo) car is 1/3 of the engine capacity - produces more than 3/4 of the power and torque of the Capri, and driving from A to B, with traffic, even on the Motorway, I would say is probably quicker, uses less than half of the fuel and is much more comfortable !

It weighs about 2/3 of the Capri

The Essex engine fitted to the 3.0 Capri (as also used in the Transit of that era) was something of a boat anchor and wasn't exactly a free revving screamer out of the factory, even in RS3100 form.  It could be tuned to work at higher revs and produce more power (TVR used it in some cars at one point), but you wanted to retrofit a Cosworth GA if you really wanted it to go as they revved past 9000 and produced over 450bhp. However they were also mindbendingly expensive.

My Capri 3000s had a full length Webasto sunroof and Recaro interior, and used to average 20mpg !!

I was a 23 year old student at the time - the Capri was immaculate and then the rear axle destroyed itself - I part exchanged the  Capri for  a Cavalier SRi - and received less than £1000 in part ex - today, in good condition, the Capri could have been worth around £50k !!

The problem is even with the ridiculous prices for Capris these days, the amount you'd have had to spend to have it in good condition now would have still made it not much of an investment.  Still at least it would have made something unlike my Triumph TR7 but it's academic anyway as I'm not selling!

If you kept it as a daily car then yes the Capri would have cost to maintain, I have a few (2.8 , 3.0 and 1.6) probably less that cycling cars every few years though.  I was lucky bought mine years ago, averaged a 1000 miles a year. In my opinion the 2.8 was a step backwards, the 3.0 with 2.8 is the best combo or a 2.8 Turbo. I guess it's the motorbike equivalent of a Triton.

Ditzy_Mitzy

BOWFER said:

Deleted_User said:

Similar to my Suzuki 1.0 3 cylinder turbo - I wonder about reliability - when you are producing so miuch power from a small engine (especially when powering a larger car)  - surely reliability /lifespan must suffer ?

This is the whole crux of the argument.
Why must it?
I've been a member of the latest AW Polo forum for three+ years now, there's not been a single post about engine-related reliability, even from the members who remap them.
It just doesn't stand to reason that they're fragile, the manufacturers would be opening themselves up to warranty claims all over the place.
I'm not ruling out the odd one throwing a rod, that can happen with any engine.
But the evidence is there that modern build techniques and materials can mean reliability from small engines.
I thrashed my 3-cylinder Polo every day, mercilessly - I wouldn't buy a car off me.
No issues.

From Ford's site

The engine’s compact, low-inertia turbocharger spins at up to 248,000 rpm – more than 4,000 times per second and almost twice the maximum rpm of the turbochargers powering 2014 F1 race car engines.

The 140 PS 1.0-litre EcoBoost engine’s turbocharger delivers 1.6 bar (24 psi)* of boost pressure. Peak firing pressure of 124 bar (1,800 psi) equates to a five-tonne African elephant standing on the piston.

Source: Ford’s Tiny but Powerful 1.0-litre EcoBoost Wins International Engine of the Year for Unprecedented Third Straight Year | Ford of Europe | Ford Media Center

Every single mechanical component is under greater strain than in a two litre engine with comparable output.  The EcoBoost uses very high intake and injection pressure to cram more air and fuel into the cylinder, which generates the power, but it also has a high compression ratio for a forced induction engine at 10.0 to 1.  As a result, the crank has to push harder on the upward stroke and the connecting rod has to take greater force.  The same happens on the firing stroke, in that there's powerful combustion in a small space.  As such the ignited charge exerts huge pressure per square inch on the piston crown.  Extra cubic inches take the pressure off, to a degree, as the power is produced in a more natural fashion and the ignited charge is allowed to spread out. 

*The Sierra Cosworth produced 10.1 psi turbo boost in standard trim