Modern Small Engines & High Mileages ?

Aletank

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 1, 2002
Messages
1,058
Location
Liverpool,UK
I'm just wondering what peoples thoughts are on manufacturers putting these small eco type engines in big cars . For example Ford have a 1.6 in the Mondeo & 1 Litre in a Focus, Vauxhall a 1.4 in the Insignia, Mercedes putting a 1.6 in a C-Class & probably the E-Class.
These cars are typically high mileage vehicles, I wouldn't of thought these small engines will cope with 100k+ miles as well as say 2.2, 3 Litre engines etc.
These cars have always been a good used buy with 100k + but will that still be the case in future ?
 

G.P

Active Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
376
Car
Leon & Sprinter
I wouldn't of thought these small engines will cope with 100k+ miles as well as say 2.2, 3 Litre engines etc.
These cars have always been a good used buy with 100k + but will that still be the case in future ?
Time will tell, Mazda have confirmed they are not going down this smaller cc/turbo route like many others to maintain longevity of their engine's, and are proving on paper they are just as efficient especially in the real world..
 

Sambo

Active Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
447
Car
2 x MB
Displacement isn't connected to reliability.

The Ford 1.0 is awesome, in terms of performance, sound and efficiency. All of these new range of small engines would have completed millions of miles prior to hitting the shelves so there shouldn't be absolutely any concern.

There will be folk whose old engine has done a million trouble free miles and as a result cannot show any appreciation or trust in this new generation, but for the rest of us it's an exciting time.... Embrace it.
 

LTD

MB Enthusiast
SUPPORTER
Joined
May 21, 2009
Messages
5,616
Location
Planet Earth
Car
Yep, one of THOSE !!!
Good bearings, decent oil pathways and regular servicing will make any engine last as long as it should.

It's only as good as the weakest link in the chain albeit design, operator usage or maintenance.
 

Timster

Active Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
556
Location
Scottish Borders
Car
Currently Merc' Less.
Car no 2 in the Timster household is an 02 1.6 focus with over 100k on it and still going strong. (mind you the Merc 2003 S210 E220 CDI is almost double the mileage at 195k and also going strong, somehowi don't see the focus getting to that but we'll see!)
 

Sp!ke

Administrator
Joined
Jun 2, 2002
Messages
11,968
Location
West London
Car
SL500 & The Fart Car
Im not convinced at all about this.

I don't think these smaller turbo charged engines even provide much in the way of economy. They are building smaller engines because the EU demand that they do so, not because it is better for the purchaser in any way.

The extra loads on small lightweight high stressed components will I suspect mean a much earlier demise than that of a lesser tuned lazier and less stressed engine.
 
Last edited:

IanA2

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 17, 2003
Messages
4,534
Location
East Mids
Car
SL60 AMG, GES300, Lexus GS 430
Im not convinced at all about this.


The extra loads on small lightweight high stressed components will I suspect mean a much earlier demise than that of a lesser tuned lazier and less stressed engine.
I tend to agree with that. But then I think anything under 4 litres is small!
 

Scott_F

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Messages
4,094
There's nothing new about this.

Back in the 80's there was a 1.3 litre Sierra, a 1.4 litre Cavalier etc.
 

Sp!ke

Administrator
Joined
Jun 2, 2002
Messages
11,968
Location
West London
Car
SL500 & The Fart Car
Well if smart car engines are anything to go by ....
Well my smart has 50bhp so not sure if that could be considered highly stressed but yes, point well made despite smarts showing as being more reliable than most Mercedes other models in a recent post.
 

theogeor

Active Member
Joined
May 6, 2011
Messages
246
Location
Greater London
Car
B180 SE (w246), A160 (W169) Avantgarde, Porsche 911 (997 C2)
There's nothing new about this.

Back in the 80's there was a 1.3 litre Sierra, a 1.4 litre Cavalier etc.
but those cars had between 50-60bhp were extremely slow to the point of dangerous and the fuel economy and CO2 emissions were not great. remember what the power of the w123 200d was ir the w124 2.0 petrol ? not a lot. .
 
Last edited:

John Jones Jr

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
4,620
Location
London & Dublin
Car
Mazda MX5 10AE, W201 2.5-16, W202 230K Sport man, Honda Accord & Suzuki 'Ricer'.
but those cars had between 50-60bhp were extremely slow to the point of dangerous and the fuel economy and CO2 emmis
+1

And a 1.6 Sierra wasn't any better either.
 
Last edited:

Scott_F

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 12, 2010
Messages
4,094
but those cars had between 50-60bhp were extremely slow to the point of dangerous and the fuel economy and CO2 emissions were not great. remember what the power of the w123 200d was ir the w124 2.0 petrol ? not a lot. .
They weren't dangerous - just slow and a bit rubbish.
 

John Jones Jr

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
4,620
Location
London & Dublin
Car
Mazda MX5 10AE, W201 2.5-16, W202 230K Sport man, Honda Accord & Suzuki 'Ricer'.
The extra loads on small lightweight high stressed components will I suspect mean a much earlier demise than that of a lesser tuned lazier and less stressed engine.
Agree.
 

Paparazi

Active Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2013
Messages
73
Location
NOTTINGHAM
Car
SLK200 KOMPRESSOR
I pretty much agree with that last comment.....undersized engines, I guess you would call them, are without a doubt going to be revved and stressed more and inevitably this will lead generally to a higher wear rate. I cannot see that there could be any other conclusion.
Having been in the motor trade more years than I can remember, it is easy to see patterns and although larger engines in 'smaller bodies' do have issues it is the smaller engines that need the rebuilds..in my opinion and as a very general observation, smaller engines in the same body shape do need more basic attention not to mention that servicing becomes much more critical to keep reliability.
Martin
 
Last edited:

flango

Hardcore MB Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 10, 2008
Messages
10,983
Location
Gods own country
Car
Mercedes SLK R171
I personally think the limit is 1.6 litres some of these in diesel and petrol form with twin turbo's make reliable engines my mate has a Volvo 1.6d in a V70 with 236k on it and it runs sweet as a nut. I've seen some spectacular failures on the Vauxhall 3 pot engines mainly down to poor maintenance, the Ford ones have not been out long enough to comment. Small engine < 1.3 litre small car usually works, small engine big car generally doesn't due to increased stressed placed on components, it usually works in a direct relationship to rpm so a small high revving unit may be more susceptible to a failure than a large high revving engine such as Honda's 2 litre Vtec which revs high but very rarely fails.

My opinion for what its worth is its the wrong way to go demanded by Bureaucrats to drive emissions down and not by what the public actually want to buy.
 

trapperjohn

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
7,305
Location
Lancashire
Car
124 300D 24V Estate
SWMBO has taken a fancy (not a coat in hells chance) to the new Honda 4x4 with the 1.6 Diesel engine in it. - Ill give it a few years. Big old motor - small engine.
 

grober

MB Master
Joined
Jun 22, 2003
Messages
28,360
Location
Perth, Scotland
Car
W204 C200CDI Estate
It possibly related to mean piston speed which is always quoted as indicative of the stress put on an engine. e.g. this comment from a motor cycle group but relevant anyway. It also talks about thermal stress which would loom large in turbocharged engines I guess.


The corrected piston speed is from King (1963). He
discovered the relation between the theory from Lanchester and Janke. King's argumented was that the mean pressure in a bearing is an indication for the
mechanical strain on the driving gear. This is a good indication for the
strain of the Big-end (because it takes into account the piston weight) He
came up with the formula:
corrected piston speed =
mean piston speed*√(bore/stroke) (ps there is a squareroot sign after the *
sign)
It is an indication for the life expectancy of the piston engine.Another
term is the thermal strain. This is indicated as (Power/Piston area)
The corrected piston area = Piston area*√(stroke/bore)
(ps there is a squareroot sign after the * sign)
This is an indication of the degree of development of the engine. The writer
looked in an article at the Honda NSR500 V-twin. The Honda has some
107kW/11500 rpm. The bore/stroke is 68.6/68. The mean piston speed is 25.5
while the corrected is 25.4 so not that high.
The piston area is 72.6 cm^2 this means 1.48 kW/cm^2.
For comparison the latest Ducati WSB has 140kW/12800 which means mean piston
speed 22.4, corrected 32.5 and thermal strain 1.06 kW/cm^2.

It would be nice to find an article which examines such criteria on some of these latest small capacity engines to see how they stack up?
 

flango

Hardcore MB Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 10, 2008
Messages
10,983
Location
Gods own country
Car
Mercedes SLK R171
SWMBO has taken a fancy (not a coat in hells chance) to the new Honda 4x4 with the 1.6 Diesel engine in it. - Ill give it a few years. Big old motor - small engine.
A colleague of mine has one it drives very nice and if no one told you it was a 1.6 you would never know its quiet refined and performs very much like the 2.0
 

HumberMart

Active Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2010
Messages
447
Location
North Lincolnshire
Car
CL500 4.7 twin turbo
A colleague of mine has one it drives very nice and if no one told you it was a 1.6 you would never know its quiet refined and performs very much like the 2.0
The new CRV is a good example to analyse.

Can anyone really argue that the new 1.6D is going to any less reliable than the older 2.2D within this installation?

Surely 99% of CRV users will never push their vehicle much more than 10% above national speed limits, race Corsa's from the lights, or venture off road. Newer technologies and lighter vehicles, the 1.6 should be well within its comfort zone.

Even then, how many vehicles are scrapped or suffer chronic reliability issues due to the actual engine unit?

These days it's electronics or major suspension/gearbox/driveshaft issues that are the main reason to scrap a car. Similar with reliability issues. If it is an 'engine fault', it tends to be ancillary that is not often 'size' related. OK so 'higher stressed' turbos may push the boundaries a bit on this.

The other angle of course is than manufacturers aren't building cars for people buying them at 7 years old and 110,000 miles. They need to keep pace with current fashions, and encourage people to but new cars more often. Plus engines could become like mobile phone batteries, modularised and cheaply/easily replaceable.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top Bottom