ideas for saving fuel???

[JamesM]

In my first job I had to drive a 1.7d Astra estate panel van thing. I think it had 50hp. It had no punch at all, especially when loaded up, but I got on alright in it. I don't remember having trouble on the motor way or anything. Having no power makes you a more chilled out driver

 

[Neil]

That really is the point, and I think all LGF is pointing out is that the engines are dogs regardless of the vehicle they are in.

Hardly contentious.

?

Of course it's contentious - this all started by slating it in a Lupo, FFS. They're pretty tiny.

I did plenty of miles in a Polo, in the late 90s, with an SDI engine. At that point, the most popular engine choice was probably the 1.4. After that, probably the 1.0.

The SDI had peak power to match the 1.4, and probably performed similarly in terms of acceleration. Of course it would be signficantly more economical.

So quite clearly the type of car the engine is in does have a significant bearing.

Now I'm not suggesting for one minute, that it's a better choice than newer TDs - not at all. I'm just merely pointing out, that of it's time, with the other engines it was lined up with, that for small-ish cars like the Polo and the Lupo, the SDI had performance about middle of the range of the petrol line-up - so that's hardly dog-like.

True enough, there were far from the last word in refinement, but were reasonably econmical for a diesel, given a small-ish car to punt around, and pretty damned reliable.

LGF started criticising the SDI because he spent many miles driving it in significantly larger cars. But it was given as an example, in this thread, in a pretty damned small car. So criticism about how it performed in bigger cars is of no relevance, unless somebody has an axe to grind. And I've driven a fair few miles with an SDI in a small car, and also many miles in the same type of car with petrol engines, back then, too - and I'm telling you, it was fine, it was far from being underpowered in a Polo, especially in comparison to what seemed to be the most popular of it's time, the 1.4.

Given a Lupo is no bigger than a Polo, and probably no heavier - perhaps lighter, I put it to you that a 2002 1.9SDI Lupo was not notably underpowered.

 

[tintin40]

Blimey this thread has changed since i last looked 4 pages ago

 

[highlandsflyer]

I reckon saying an engine is a dog is not saying it does not work o.k. in some vehicles.

Many engines have co-existed in several similar cars in periods of transition, allowing a direct comparison.

It is perfectly fair to call some dogs on that basis, or in pure terms.

LGF is clearly saying they are inferior in many ways to Td versions.

That can be demonstrated over and over again; many engine designs began as non turbo and reached their zenith in a turbo version.

 

[Neil]

I reckon saying an engine is a dog is not saying it does not work o.k. in some vehicles.

Many engines have co-existed in several similar cars in periods of transition, allowing a direct comparison.

It is perfectly fair to call some dogs on that basis, or in pure terms.

LGF is clearly saying they are inferior in many ways to Td versions.

That can be demonstrated over and over again; many engine designs began as non turbo and reached their zenith in a turbo version.

Let's cut all the guff, for small cars like the Lupo and Polo, they performed about the middle of the range of petrol engines, but with considerably more economy.

So hardly dogs, then, in those implementations (and lest we forget, the example for such invective started with a Lupo) - comparable with around the middle of the petrol range on performance - which to me at least seems perfectly reasonable of their time.

That newer diesels came along and performed better? Big fecking surprise, the same thing happened with the petrol engines.

 

[highlandsflyer]

I think the comparison is with those newer diesels.

 

[t-stoff]

Course.... petrol: start/stop, downsizing, turbos, multiair..
diesel... common rail, start stop, downsizing, turbos.

 

[Neil]

I think the comparison is with those newer diesels.

Okey dokey, big fecking surprise, newer engines (petrol or diesel) tend to perform better than their ancestors.

 

[highlandsflyer]

The point I would make is that many makes, even to this day, are running the old dogs when the new engines are well developed.

It is all about patents and such, economics of manufacturing and all that.

Thus there is a validity in pointing out some of them are indeed dogs.

 

[Neil]

The point I would make is that many makes, even to this day, are running the old dogs when the new engines are well developed.

It is all about patents and such, economics of manufacturing and all that.

Thus there is a validity in pointing out some of them are indeed dogs.

It may be valid, and worth pointing out - I have no issue with that.

I'm just wholly unconvinced a Lupo with an SDI engine falls into that category. Go look at the stats in relation to all the other engines in that era / model line-up, then tell me that it was the dog of all the engines you could have opted for.