Is 2 litres enough?

[Deleted member 37751]

Lee, you do need an exception to prove the rule

You’re certainly exceptional my friend!

 

[Flyinspanner]

My 2L Subaru GTB had two turbos.....plenty brisk enough

Forgot to add, GTBs were 280hp manual, 260hp auto.....plenty of fun to be had....

Especially as it was an estate that Very few are aware of...

 

[Meldrew2]

I used to think that 2 was ample, but have discovered that more is better. My Sierra 2.0GL was trumped by the 2.9l XR4x4, and my 2.1 C220 was trumped by the 3.0 CLS350.

I had a different experience in the '90's when my 3.2 litre 321bhp M3 Evolution convertible was replaced by an SLK230. I enjoyed driving the SLK far more - it really "came alive" on sweeping A road bends, roads where the M3 felt dead and simply "on rails". No doubt the M3 is a better car in the hands of a Stig on a closed road, but in real world motoring at sensible speeds, the SLK was a far more involving car to drive.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

I had a different experience in the '90's when my 3.2 litre 321bhp M3 Evolution convertible was replaced by an SLK230. I enjoyed driving the SLK far more - it really "came alive" on sweeping A road bends, roads where the M3 felt dead and simply "on rails". No doubt the M3 is a better car in the hands of a Stig on a closed road, but in real world motoring at sensible speeds, the SLK was a far more involving car to drive.

That's a very good point. A car feels more exciting to drive when it's closer to it's limits, and it's difficult to get anywhere near the limits of some cars on the road without driving dangerously. I suspect you were driving your SLK at eight tenths, but your M3 was barely past five tenths at the same speed.

I used to have a great deal of fun threading our W163 ML270 through the winding roads of North Devon, unyet it was at the opposite end of the scale to being a sports car. It was closer to it's limits when making progress than any other car we have/had, and the challenge I set myself was to make as much progress as I could as smoothly as I could so that Mrs D wouldn't invite me to slow down a touch. Good times.

 

[Rory]

Currently my X1 is being repaired (after being hit while it was parked) and I have been lent a Mercedes GLA with a 2 litre diesel. Allegedly an "equivalent". Because the auto box is nowhere nearly as keen to down-change, the car feels woolly and underpowered by comparison.

Bit late now, and I'm sure you did this if possible, but does the GLA's gearbox have different modes?

 

[flowrider]

Engine cc is no longer an indication of engine performance. It it were then a C63 should be more than twice as fast as a C43 but it isn't. There are a lot of factors that make one car perform better than another, engine cubic inches and even power aren't the be all and end all anymore.

 

[TheFoX]

I had a different experience in the '90's when my 3.2 litre 321bhp M3 Evolution convertible was replaced by an SLK230. I enjoyed driving the SLK far more - it really "came alive" on sweeping A road bends, roads where the M3 felt dead and simply "on rails". No doubt the M3 is a better car in the hands of a Stig on a closed road, but in real world motoring at sensible speeds, the SLK was a far more involving car to drive.

I know what you mean. When I had the CLK500 I test drove a SLK350 and found it handled loads better than its bigger sister. The CLK was the traditional Mercedes ride, whereas the SLK was set up for the more sportier ride.

Then again, look at all those American muscle cars, and the Vauxhall Vectra VXR. Brilliant on the straight yet try to corner those beasts and you have a fight on your hands.

 

[Londonscottish]

Engine cc is no longer an indication of engine performance. It it were then a C63 should be more than twice as fast as a C43 but it isn't. There are a lot of factors that make one car perform better than another, engine cubic inches and even power aren't the be all and end all anymore.

Well yes and no.

When you're looking at N/A petrols, bigger is usually better in a luxury/GT car. I'd argue that the 5.5 V8 is better that the 5.0 V8 which is better that the 4.3 and so on.

Modern turbo chargers muddy the water some what but AMG Mercs are still using relatively large V8's in their flagships - 4.7 and 5.5.

When you add in battery assist to the turbos the S Class is still being fitted with a 3.0 I6.

The smaller engined are more efficient then their predecessors but you still need an above-average size and a multi-cylinder approach to get the over package of refinement, low down grunt and healthy top end.

 

[Alex]

Engine cc is no longer an indication of engine performance. It it were then a C63 should be more than twice as fast as a C43 but it isn't. There are a lot of factors that make one car perform better than another, engine cubic inches and even power aren't the be all and end all anymore.

You didn't specify which engines you're comparing but if it's a N/A C63 and a FI C43, then add FI to the M156 and they will end up being 2:1 on power.

 

[flowrider]

You didn't specify which engines you're comparing but if it's a N/A C63 and a FI C43, then add FI to the M156 and they will end up being 2:1 on power.

Agreed but the FI C63 wont be twice as fast as a C43 despite potentially having twice the power.

 

[Alex]

Agreed but the FI C63 wont be twice as fast as a C43 despite potentially having twice the power.

The 'power to speed' argument is meaningless. Especially as you need nearly twice as much power to go from 190 to 200 than you do from 0 to 190mph.

 

[flowrider]

The 'power to speed' argument is meaningless. Especially as you need nearly twice as much power to go from 190 to 200 than you do from 0 to 190mph.

That was the point I was making. Power is not an indication of performance.

 

[Alex]

That was the point I was making. Power is not an indication of performance.

You said 'Engine cc is no longer an indication of engine performance' which is not accurate as extracting power from a bigger and (in some variations forged) 6.2L engine is easier than asking for the same or more power from a standard issue 2.9L V6 or do you disagree with that? I'm not even talking about building both engines up, just strapping some readily available forced induction in order to level the playing field and compare the 'cc' aspect of them. Further more, taking both cars down a straight line to reach top speed will also result in vastly different numbers, even if only by a few mph. Pretty obvious, no?

 

[Deleted96908]

Especially as you need nearly twice as much power to go from 190 to 200 than you do from 0 to 190mph.

Do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that if a car requires 500 hp at 190, then it will require 1000 hp at 200 mph?

 

[Alex]

Do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that if a car requires 500 hp at 190, then it will require 1000 hp at 200 mph?

About that, yes. On a 1.5 miles runway though, not on an indefinitely long stretch.

A 500bhp Mercedes will never get to 190mph on the same runway, btw.

 

[Deleted96908]

About that, yes. On a 1.5 miles runway though, not on an indefinitely long stretch.

A 500bhp Mercedes will never get to 190mph on the same runway, btw.

I'd be very interested to see some evidence of that.

 

[Alex]

I'd be very interested to see some evidence of that.

Results | VMAX200

 

[Ierton]

I won't buy a car with an engine smaller than 3.0l

 

[GeeJayW]

I know what you mean. When I had the CLK500 I test drove a SLK350 and found it handled loads better than its bigger sister. The CLK was the traditional Mercedes ride, whereas the SLK was set up for the more sportier ride.

Then again, look at all those American muscle cars, and the Vauxhall Vectra VXR. Brilliant on the straight yet try to corner those beasts and you have a fight on your hands.

One of the cars I had a play with some years ago was a Ford Mustang 5.0 V8 GT (about 2008 I think). I likened it to a Black Labrador Puppy. Full of boundless energy, loads of fun, but not easy to keep calm and under control. It would spin the rear end up in the wet in pretty much any gear and if pressing on, would be trying to take you to the scene of the accident at any given time. It also had rubbish brakes. That said, it was good to see that the US muscle car idea was still alive.

On the same project we had a Honda Integra Type R DC5. Best handling front-wheel drive car I've played with. A lot of fun from 2-litres.

Also got to drive an SLK350 around the track at Brooklands at the same time that we had an SLK200 Kompressor (R171) of our own. The 350 was great. The 200 was also very good, but 6-cylinder 3.5 V6 with just over 300 hp and decent brakes was better.

 

[TheFoX]

Also got to drive an SLK350 around the track at Brooklands at the same time that we had an SLK200 Kompressor (R171) of our own. The 350 was great. The 200 was also very good, but 6-cylinder 3.5 V6 with just over 300 hp and decent brakes was better.

When I test drove the SLK350, the salesman tried to get me to sign up for the SLK300 but I wasn't interested. His argument was that the 300 was only marginally slower than the 350, whereas my argument was that the 350 was marginally faster than the 300. If I'd followed his thought process, I would have ended up with a Fiesta 998cc, or a 2CV.

I call it 'Aspiration', in that we aspire to better things in life, whereas the salesman is trying to shift something that doesn't sell itself, for his own gratification and targets.