Turbos on cars

Sporky

PC_Dave said:

Nope. On my everyday commute, using both cars in exactly the same manner, the smaller “more economical” car is less economical over a 4 week period.

Interesting. I take the BMW is petrol too? 

PC_Dave

Sporky said:

PC_Dave said:

Nope. On my everyday commute, using both cars in exactly the same manner, the smaller “more economical” car is less economical over a 4 week period.

Interesting. I take the BMW is petrol too? 

Yup - M140i

menamestom

PC_Dave said:

Sporky said:

PC_Dave said:

Nope. On my everyday commute, using both cars in exactly the same manner, the smaller “more economical” car is less economical over a 4 week period.

Interesting. I take the BMW is petrol too? 

Yup - M140i

The Juke 1.2 is particularly poor, honest john only claims a real world of MPG of 33mpg.  You'd see over 40 from a 1l focus or similar, so there is an improvement if you look at it like-for-like.

Also, my brother has an M135i, he can get 30mpg out of it but gets far worse in stop start traffic, probably low 20's.  Our Cmax never dips below 35mpg, so I think it really depends on driving conditions.

So to summarise I'd rather have an M140I than a 1L Cmax.

 

ToneControl

menamestom said:

PC_Dave said:

Sporky said:

PC_Dave said:

Nope. On my everyday commute, using both cars in exactly the same manner, the smaller “more economical” car is less economical over a 4 week period.

Interesting. I take the BMW is petrol too? 

Yup - M140i

The Juke 1.2 is particularly poor, honest john only claims a real world of MPG of 33mpg.  You'd see over 40 from a 1l focus or similar, so there is an improvement if you look at it like-for-like.

Also, my brother has an M135i, he can get 30mpg out of it but gets far worse in stop start traffic, probably low 20's.  Our Cmax never dips below 35mpg, so I think it really depends on driving conditions.

So to summarise I'd rather have an M140I than a 1L Cmax.

 

my twin turbo 3.0d heavy BMW automatic can do 50mpg over a long journey, and never drops below 34mpg.
I thrash it constantly, and normal get 38mpg to 40mpg
And that's on a big car doing 0-60 in 5.5 secs

PC_Dave

ToneControl said:

menamestom said:

PC_Dave said:

Sporky said:

PC_Dave said:

Nope. On my everyday commute, using both cars in exactly the same manner, the smaller “more economical” car is less economical over a 4 week period.

Interesting. I take the BMW is petrol too? 

Yup - M140i

The Juke 1.2 is particularly poor, honest john only claims a real world of MPG of 33mpg.  You'd see over 40 from a 1l focus or similar, so there is an improvement if you look at it like-for-like.

Also, my brother has an M135i, he can get 30mpg out of it but gets far worse in stop start traffic, probably low 20's.  Our Cmax never dips below 35mpg, so I think it really depends on driving conditions.

So to summarise I'd rather have an M140I than a 1L Cmax.

 

my twin turbo 3.0d heavy BMW automatic can do 50mpg over a long journey, and never drops below 34mpg.
I thrash it constantly, and normal get 38mpg to 40mpg
And that's on a big car doing 0-60 in 5.5 secs

That’s Derzzle.....

menamestom

ToneControl said:

menamestom said:

PC_Dave said:

Sporky said:

PC_Dave said:

Nope. On my everyday commute, using both cars in exactly the same manner, the smaller “more economical” car is less economical over a 4 week period.

Interesting. I take the BMW is petrol too? 

Yup - M140i

The Juke 1.2 is particularly poor, honest john only claims a real world of MPG of 33mpg.  You'd see over 40 from a 1l focus or similar, so there is an improvement if you look at it like-for-like.

Also, my brother has an M135i, he can get 30mpg out of it but gets far worse in stop start traffic, probably low 20's.  Our Cmax never dips below 35mpg, so I think it really depends on driving conditions.

So to summarise I'd rather have an M140I than a 1L Cmax.

 

my twin turbo 3.0d heavy BMW automatic can do 50mpg over a long journey, and never drops below 34mpg.
I thrash it constantly, and normal get 38mpg to 40mpg
And that's on a big car doing 0-60 in 5.5 secs

Impressive and best of both worlds if you do a lot of miles.  But the sound of that petrol 6 cylinder!   

SexualChocolate

 

SexualChocolate

menamestom said:

PC_Dave said:

Sporky said:

PC_Dave said:

Nope. On my everyday commute, using both cars in exactly the same manner, the smaller “more economical” car is less economical over a 4 week period.

Interesting. I take the BMW is petrol too? 

Yup - M140i

The Juke 1.2 is particularly poor, honest john only claims a real world of MPG of 33mpg.  You'd see over 40 from a 1l focus or similar, so there is an improvement if you look at it like-for-like.

Also, my brother has an M135i, he can get 30mpg out of it but gets far worse in stop start traffic, probably low 20's.  Our Cmax never dips below 35mpg, so I think it really depends on driving conditions.

So to summarise I'd rather have an M140I than a 1L Cmax.

 

I get high 20's from my M240i, but I drive it on Sport+ everywhere, and my commute is short and consists mainly of country roads. On a long motorway cruise I can easily get mid 40's, where my wife's 1.6 petrol Focus does high 30's.

The efficiency of modern engines is getting really good. I could easily get mid 30's if I drove more economically which for a 3l turbo straight six is pretty amazing.

SexualChocolate

Double post...

SexualChocolate

Triple post...  

Garthy

modellista said:

Garthy said:

randella said:

Another vote for small turbos, the Peugeot 1l is great, the VAG 1.4 TFSI in 150bhp tune in a Leon pulls like a train.  They're refined on the motorway too.

I have a courtesy car at the moment, a Nissan Juke in poverty-spec 1.6 normally-aspirated guise.  It's crap.  I would take any small turbocharged unit instead in a heartbeat.

People perceive rate of change very badly, I've had a turbo car with double the torque of my N/A car and passengers would be utterly convinced that the turbo car was much, much faster especially in the mid range, the N/A car is actually faster in gear, especially in 4th and 5th.

I'm scratching my head about this. How can a car with half the torque be quicker in gear?  

If the gear ratios are the same (edit: and the weights are roughly equal i.e. not an X3 v a Caterham) it simply can't be. 

Weights are 150kg in favour of N/A. Peak torque on its own is meaningless, ie if you know a car has 200bhp/ton you know within a ball park how it performs. 200lbs.ft/ton and you couldn't begin to guess what it could do as there is no correlation with torque and performance, even among petrol cars and we ignore diesel.

Dodge

I've got a 3 cylinder 1 litre Suzuki engine with a little hybrid generator and battery which is a hoot, plus I'm getting 55 mpg around town too.

menamestom

Just have hired a Seat Leon in Spain.
It’s the first hire car we’ve had in 10 years that hasn’t got piss poor performance.  Pulls really well in 2nd.

Trouble is it gives no indication as to what engine it has in it, says TSI on the back and that’s it.   I assume it’s the 1.4 125 or 150 PS.

Either way, it’s a nice engine, I’m looking for a car and whatever it is I’f be happy with it.
Is there an easy way to find out which varient it is?

Electro_Ham

From the VIN? A web search should give you a way to decode the VIN.

ICBM

menamestom said:

The Juke 1.2 is particularly poor, honest john only claims a real world of MPG of 33mpg.

That's probably because the Joke has the air resistance of an ocean liner (even though the interior capacity of a fridge...) - I'd take a bet that the BMW is more aerodynamic.

Engine efficiency is getting good enough that other factors become more important quite quickly.

menamestom

Electro_Ham said:

From the VIN? A web search should give you a way to decode the VIN.

Seems to decode everything but the engine model....