Small turbo engines

But does it have those engine specs?

Small high strung engines were their bread and butter though, they knew how to make an engine not shit the bed through regular use.

The problem is that it has to move a car, not a bike.

I belive the citroen c1 turbo uses one too. I might be wrong.

>I think they
Not based on that post you don't.

This. The weight of the car is not that much less. You're talking about a car that's maybe 800 pounds lighter than a v8 turbo, so that's over 2/3rds the weight on 3 Pistons vs 8 Pistons.

>I think they will break down after 5 years because they have so much horse power for such a small engine
They'll break down because people don't bother doing basic maintenance once the warranty is over.

Most cars in Europe have I4 turbo engines with displacements in the 1.6 to 2.0 range.

The best selling car in Europe is the 2L TDi Golf, the only cars with 3 cylinder engines are in the City Car segment (2 sizes down on the Golf) and they weigh 3/4 of fuck all. So you aren't looking at stressing the engine much. (plus they aren't made by Americunts so they don't blow up every 300 miles).

Not with all the downsizing hype, seeing midsize cars with 1.4l engines or even a 1l 3cyl isn't uncommon nowadays.

Golf has the 1.0 TSI engine too

>seeing all those efficient 1L 3cyl abominations
>just bought an old 5L V8 benz thirstier than a family from ghana

Alfa Mito has an option for it too.

You show me a 2,800 lbs V8 turbo.

>1.6 liters
>670 hp

thats not a lot of power for the displacement even when all motor let alone turbo

are you actually an American or something and think 180hp from a 8.2l is good

>180hp from a 8.2l
in what world???

1971?

I meant 190hp but welcome to 70s American cars

You're thinking 74 to the late 80s. Smog and unleaded gas was a mofo for muscle cars...

it really wasnt that bad

the switch to net ratings so you got your true hp rating is why people think it was horrible

Link? Looks legit

AMG Project One, it's basically a street legal F1 engine.

Ok this is a thread full of nonsense so i'm about to sperg you some knowledge, kiddo.
First of all: passat and octavia didn't use I3. At least not in any relevant production numbers. Only very light and small cars use them in significant numbers and usually other engine options are available.
Secondly, a very common number is 0,5L per cylinder. And 100 hp/L. That amounts to 50hp/cylinder. (as a rule of thumb.) any engine with lower hp/L or lower hp/cylinder is under stressed.
This would suggest that a 3cylinder 1L 100hp engine is under stressed. not overstressed.
HOWEVER:
Driving a 100hp engine at say 40% on average. puts more strain on that engine than driving a 200hp engine at 25%.
So in short; yes a smaller engine has to work harder. but when I4's can easily drive medium cars 10 times around the globe (400k km), 3cylinder engines can probably do about the same for cars that are 25% lighter.
Combine that with the fact that interior quality is lower for very small cars and there is one thing you know for sure: the engine is not going to be the problem.

well to be fair remember that the redneck who put that thing together probably forgot to wire up at least 2 sparkplugs. and one of the cylinders might've been in reverse so realistically speaking that's 190 hp from a 4.1L. which is still atrocious but not as bad as it seems.
Just kidding. Americans have 0 idea what they're doing when it comes to engines.

>this
No. Every manufacturer uses a different one.

Bike engines have been pushing 200hp n/a for a while now, 120 out of a turbo 1L turbo is pretty consistently achievable.

>BMW makes a 400hp 3.0L I6
>Mercedes makes a 600hp 4.0L V8
>Alfa makes a 500hp 2.9L V6
100hp/l turbo engines are pretty weak if you ask me.

>>Alfa makes a 500hp 2.9L V6
>meanwhile Audi only gets 450hp from their own 2.9l twin turbo V6
It's like pottery.

The C1/107/Aygo all use an n/a 1.0L three cylinder. I'd buy the fuck out of one if they made a ~150hp ''Gti'' version with a turbo.

And yet nobody buys those.

The AMG Project One makes about 750hp from it's V6, which is still peanuts compared to the real deal:
motorsport.com/f1/news/analysis-has-mercedes-broken-the-1000bhp-barrier-829341/

can you please stop picking on audi?
they've been reduced to being driven by poorfag brainlets because their cars are so shit they devalue to 2 months worth of unemployment after 5 years

And they're incapable of making anything other than a badge swapped skoda.
Just leave audi alone, it's like picking on a kindergardener

Go look up the smog era and how it killed muscle cars. Also, switching from gross to net HP.

The problems wasn't with the engineers or assembly workers, but with the oil crisis, insurance companies, and the government.

they're taking the electric engine in the calculation it's around 200hp
the v6 alone actually makes near 800hp

but does it REV as high as an F1 engine?

Like 15k I believe? Not entirely sure of that one though.

My CRV has a turbo 1.5 that makes almost 200hp.

This.
My car have 80HP/cylinder, or 139.13HP per liter and it's passing 300k km this winter if I keep driving the same distance I've driven the last year.

Dragging along a 1700lb clowncar vs a 3500lb pigfat car. Kind of different levels of stress.

>3 hp per cubic inch
>mass manufactured tolerances
If it has forged H beam rods and a forged steel crank maybe 250-300k if not abused. New rings these days are actually pretty good. Depending on your manufacturer though it could have bad tolerance s

>1.0L turbo
I have a JDM as fuck Wagon R turbo 8.5k redline

engine still seems strong 100+ horsies running 12psi rather than the stock 9psi

Normies change cars often that's why.

No, it only makes 12K RPM, which is about as much as they make during racing. It only has more power because it probably has more boost.

Pics pls, rarely see wagon r these days

...

What is this part for?

Also, I'd rather have an electric car than some i3 cuckbox.

But it doesn't sell anything like as well as the 2L TDi.

1l of pure angry tarbo

Got to love them. Thanks

>mfw the turbo on 1l ecoboost engines spins at 250,000 RPM

>Putting a turbo in your daily
>Expecting it to last

Pick one. They run hotter, have higher pressure, and out everything around then through more heat cycles that are more intense than before.

Paint, rubber, hoses, seals, o-rings, plastics, and electronic will all fail sooner in a turbo car that has a N/A option.

Get a car with a naturally aspirated engine if you have a choice and want it to last a long time. And by long time I don't mean 8 years. I mean 15+.

Lexus NA V6 > German turbo shit

Lol what
Citation required

The 1.0 TSI is a popular engine choice for the urban Polo, Up! and their Seat/Skoda equivalent.

These engines are actually pretty great if you use them for what their were built for in the first place : city driving.
You are not going to use that 100 bhp in the city. You will be using 30-40 bhp at most, in the urban jungle. Even less if you go for the smaller and lighter cars such as the Up!, Aygo and stuff like that.
You are not supposed to be doing performance related stuff with these cars and these engines. That is why they will last for long. Not because of build quality, but because of low stress. You are certainly not putting a stress on the engine when it is moving at 5 km/h. The brakes, the clutch? Yea, sure, those will suffer the punishment of the stop-start-traffic light traffic, but an engine that goes 0-15-0 km/h is hardly stressed out.

The 1.4 TSI 122 bhp was planted in the Passat for the exact same reason stated earlier : its a city engine for a city car. Maybe some people never get out of the city. Maybe all some people do is drive around the city and sometimes go on a trip but its not worth going for something more powerful, just for 2 trips a year. And for that purpose, the 1.4 TSI 122 bhp has proven to be an fantastic engine with great reliability and low fuel consumption. It has the same fuel consumption as the 2.0 TDI, only with none of the drawbacks except for the actual power. But not everyone cares about power. Not when you are doing 12 km/h average speed.

Yea sure there are retards like BMW who put the 1.5 TSI in their 3 series, but even them get the point : some people just want a small, city engine for a city car and they dont care about performance all that much.

TL;DR : These engines are not for performance. Drive them like the city engines they are and they will be fine.

>break down
hopefully that puts the people who make fun of micro cars in their place

try 1 hp per 20 cc
then you are in flavour county
>tfw 20 second 0 to 60

>turbos spin fast
N-no they don't

Unless you thought he meant engine rpms

>yfw you are spreading lies on the internet

*blocks your path*

Sadly it even comes in stuff like the skoda octavia wagon. But mist of the problems come from drivers anyway, i won't be able to source it as im phoneposting, but i read that you need to rev them pretty high which most drivers wont do

>The engine's turbocharger spins at 248,000 rpm, and provides 24 psi of pressure. The engine produces up to 138 horsepower, depending on the version.
autoblog.com/2014/08/11/recharge-wrap-up-ford-1-0l-ecoboost-a-hit-in-europe-build-a-ti/

What would Veeky Forums do to improve current inline 3 engines?

biturbo supercharged kompressor

one on each wheel

"The range of models offering the 1.0-litre EcoBoost engine will rise to 11 when the all-new Mondeo is launched in the coming months"
For you Muricans that is a 1.0 Ford Fusion.

True.
My car is 1700kg so it's like 3-4 times as heavy as some of these tiny cars so my performance per kilo is lower, but I can get to higher speeds, which is totally unimportant for the usage of these smaller city cars.
Since they are so light they get from stop light to stop light faster which is king in the city.

>The engine's compact, low-inertia turbocharger spins at up to 248,000 rpm

Up to, not at.

Sure I'll agree that people constantly flooring it won't see high mileage but normal drivers won't be affected for a long time. So many people are losing their minds thinking these engines won't even last 100k, why are people so against these new ranges of engine? I think they're neat.

>So many people are losing their minds thinking these engines won't even last 100k, why are people so against these new ranges of engine?
Because engines that blow up at 100k will inevitably end up on the used market right before they blow, and if the entire used market consists of nothing but ticking timebombs everyone will be forced to just finance a brand new soulless shitbox that blows up at 100k.
Do you want to be forced to just finance a soulless shitbox that blows up at 100k?

If Ford done that then there would be massive repercussions in what, 3-4 years? Their sales would plummet, not saying that planned obsolescence isn't a thing but it would be so stupid for a car manufacturer to behave like that. I'd wager with you that if a turbo small car is looked after we'll then it'll last a good while.

Good goy

>If Ford done that then there would be massive repercussions in what, 3-4 years?
Why? If the engine blows outside the warranty period you're shit out of luck, this is common knowledge.

...

That tiny thing has 181hp? Neat.

They were hitting crazy horsepower in the 60s by running 13:1 compression ratios and rich fuel mixtures, aggressive valve timing etc. Because leaded fuel and who gives a fuck about the environment.

In the 70s that all changed. Lead fuel additives were banned and 14.7:1 was established as the basically mandatory stoichiometric ratio in order to minimize pollution.

The 70s in American cars were sort of a "what do?" period. So they just took what they already had on the production line, toned down the compression ratios, valve timing, etc. in order to meet the regulations. If somebody wanted to drag race their 70s car they could just catalog order different internals and rebuild their engine, pretty much everybody with a penis could rebuild an engine back then.

Toyota had already broken into the US market by the late 1970s but people still wanted big cars back then. Those old boat motors still had plenty of torque and could thus tow campers and shit no problem.

V8s for everybody was dealt it's final death blow by the Arab Oil Embargo. The advent of the Catalytic Converter is what re-ignited the horsepower race because suddenly you could run higher compression ratios again and still meet emission requirements.

Meanwhile Europe never saw as strict of emission regulations during this period of time which is why Europe was a smoggy mess full of faggots who don't know anything about automotive history and
>muh specific output.

could this fit in a geo metro?

I love diesel torque but hate how they rev like ass. I drove a 1.6 tdi for a year on loved the pulls but they only lasted 2k revs.

No I drive a 1.2 na petrol and it revs nice. Sounds pretty whiny though, probably the camp belt.
Makes diddly squat power and torque but it does rev to 7k. There isn't anything up there but it does rev there.

What do I do Bros? Spend money for mawds or save up for something better.

would be easier to centralize those 4 I3s and put their power through a single gearbox.
oh wait a moment...

The shiny part is probably meant to have some threaded holes in it for the engine mount. All 3 cyl engines need huge wide mounts to make up the space of the missing cylinder to keep the gearbox and driveshafts in the correct place in the engine bay.

The ford/peugeot 1.6 tdci/hdi engines die at 100k like clockwork, but people still buy the things.

I have a Hyundai Tucson with this engine . I got 43k on this motor as we speak. 195lb of torque and a staggering 175 HP. AWD with 31 mpg on thr avg.
>how much longer til she blows?