Porsche N.A. flat six vs new turbo flat 4

wenger2015 posted:

rsch posted:

wenger2015 posted:

I have a 986 Porsche Boxter 3.2 full leather spec with all the extra toys, absolutely love it, unfortunately last year I did 56 miles!!! 

The only good news, at least it's now starting to appreciate in value...

 

I have a friend in Bruxelles who did 172 km since he took delivery in March last year if this can console you.

Regards

Roberto

Glad it's not just me..

Wenger, I finished my Motor Technicians Apprenticeship in 1975 in 1980 I ended up working for a large Civil Engineering Merchant  maintaining there fleet of cars the landowner of the local depot had a1972 VW Caravelle it was kept in a heated well ventilated garage, every year I had to pick it up take it to the company workshops check it over, present for a MOT then deliver it back a round trip of 14 miles.

I did this for eight years when I got promoted to Transport Manager the chap that took over the spanners carried out this task for a further 5 years quite unbelievable.

rsch posted:

tonym posted:

rsch posted:

tonym posted:

rsch posted:

I totally agree with you about Cayenne and more so with the Chelsea tractor genre. I don't really see the point to drive with such an elevated driving position. On cars like BMW X5 or Merc ML you have actually to climb on it and land when you get out. 

Regards

Roberto

It depends on what use you put your vehicle to, as well as personal preference. For our family use Porsches or somesuch are about as much use as a chocolate fireguard. Our X5 is superbly comfortable  on our regular long journeys from Suffolk to the Lake District. It holds all the paraphernalia we need, lots of room for our two dogs. The high driving position is a real plus as far as we are concerned, and during the winter the four-wheel drive is an added benefit (I've been on a transpennine road which has become alomst impassable in minutes due to sudden snowstorm). It's a damn sight easier to get in and out of than a normal car, particularly if, like me, you suffer from arthritis.

We've our Merc SL for the occasional pottering about on sunny days with the roof down, but it's just a toy really. Perhaps it's my age, but even given the increasingly rare opportunity to find oneself on a clear bit of twisty road, I do find I'd rather wend along gently than belt around. 

In my opinion, a decently sized estate is well up to family/all weather duties (BMW series 3/5)   less offeding for other road users and more eco friendly

Regards

Roberto

 

Nope, been there... Had a 5 series Touring, an Audi 6 Avant, and a Merc something-or-other estate (my wife's company car for a bit). Too low inside, nothing like the space of our X5 (or, indeed our old Honda CR-V). You lose the high driving position which is a real plus. More eco friendly than what, exactly? And pray why should other road users be offended? It's shorter than a 5 Series estate, a tiddly bit wider.

i don't really see the point of an elevated driving position, when you drive a normal car (not extremly low sports car) like my Toyota IQ which is pretty high too or Polo, it's not very nice having a wall of metal in front of you.

About fuel economy Italian mag Quattroruote, did a comparison test last year with with difference in fuel consumption  between saloon/estates and equivalent Suv version. It came out a difference from about 10% up to 30 % in favour of normal cars. Not only at motorway speeds where Suvs are penalized by larger frontal  section, but also on urban cycle being these pretty heavier.

Regards

Roberto

The point of a high driving position? You can see much further ahead than if you're in a standard type car, and over hedges, handy down country lanes. So visibility is much improved. It's more relaxing and safer - watching when other folks' brakelights come on when there's a hazard ahead's quite revealing. I presume then that commercial vehicles, camper vans, tractors etc. must also incur your displeasure. Urban cycles don't interest me personally since I live in the countryside and really only do long journeys. The fuel consumption thing's a bit of a red herring - my X5 is rather better on fuel than my old mini was, doing 50+ mpg. and of course everything is dependent on how many miles you do per annum, how you drive etc. etc.

If you happu driving a truck good for you.

For fuel economy you have to compare apples with apples and that test, on controlled conditions, showed a clear advantage for saloon/hatch cars, An heavier and less aerodynamic car (SUV) can't  be better than a smaller one.

Regards

Roberto

Your use of language betrays your bias. Pretty silly really; I assume then you drive a very small electric car and wave your fists at everything else? Everyone has a personal preference based on many things, which I"ve tried to convey to you, but for reasons unclear you seem incapable of grasping.

Edit - just noticed you've a Porsche. Very green and sensible!

There are very many very sensible drivers of SUVs, and clearly they have their uses and advantages. When I'm out on my bike, it's more often than not SUV drivers who wait patiently behind and then wave happily as they overtake. But then there are those who live in towns, use them to take Tarquin and Tinkerbell to school, take up the whole road and drive like they own the place, looking down (literally) on those that dare to get in their way. It's the latter group who engender the dislike of these vehicles, and there are plenty around here - you can watch them flooding into the drive of the local private school. Why do they need such a big car? Is it to demonstrate how successful they are? Do they realise that most people dislike them? Why can't they drive a small car to school? What's wrong with a Golf? My neighbour has just bought a Jaguar F Pace. It looks like crap. It's as big as his drive. He likes it for some funny reason and he's a lovely guy. He had an Evoque before that, and before that a Freelander. As time goes by, and the roads get more crowded, his cars get bigger. It baffles me. 

My weekend toy is an MX5 (mk 2.5), I do actually feel guilty driving it around the South Pennine roads, as soon as I get up onto the smaller roads, I can't see over the dry stone walls. I regularly end up being followed by an SUV or "real" 4x4 (more common round there because of the height/weather), they never seem to get the  fact that I'm doing 20 because I can't see over the walls at all and have no idea what's round the next corner, while they have clear views. I end up pulling in to farm gates every half mile or so to allow them to go past.

Hungryhalibut posted:

 But then there are those who live in towns, use them to take Tarquin and Tinkerbell to school, take up the whole road and drive like they own the place, looking down (literally) on those that dare to get in their way.  

That made me laugh. And there's some truth in that humour.  

I see plenty of such examples on the various school runs where I live. It's not the 4x4 vehicle I object to, as such, the problem is much more that many of the mums that drive them seem incapable of handling properly a vehicle of such size. Many don't seem to have any appreciation of vehicle width, either vastly over-estimating the room they need on the near-side, thus driving well over the white-lines and causing havoc for on-coming road users. Or vastly underestimating the vehicle's size, trying to get through gaps and into parking spaces that are far too small.  And many mums seem to get very irritated with other road-users when they get into self-made difficulty in the 4x4.  

My guess is, and this is not intended to be sexist, its the husband that chooses the vehicle and leaves the wife to drive it. I suspect many mum would be far happier with a smaller vehicle for the school run and popping to Waitrose, as they will very rarely need to tow anything or encounter treacherous off-road conditions on such trips.      

Cars are a big waste of money. I hate the damn things these days, people are obsessed with them. 

Cars make hifi look like good value for money.

Big cars and mothers on the school run...Don't work....all is fine until a reversing manoeuvre is required.... 

I live a couple of hundred yards away from a side entrance to a Primary School it's like free entertainment twice a day, it seems when you put a Range Rover in reverse it suddenly becomes bigger than a double decker bus.

Nothing wrong with us SUV drivers. Those of us who drive the originator vehicle aka Land Rover can sometimes come in very handy like a couple of winters ago when I was doing runs to the doctor for elderly neighbours including insulin runs for one. We do have our uses and we don't all have kids called Tarquin! Winter over we tend to get forgotten about but come tempest or flood those around where I live soon remember who owns a  LR 

Hungryhalibut posted:

We are very happy with our VW Up! No need to compensate for inadequacies in the trouser department. 

I have never had the slightest interest in super cars after I was 12, but this doesn't mean that a) other people can't have, b) that loving big cars automatically means some deficiency in the genital (no need to be so British as to call it trouser) dept. and that c) all owners of supercars drive like arrogant idiots.

I find it strange that voices rise in protest at the idea of owning a big Porsche – and inferring from this that RSCH has issues with the size of his – how do Brits call it? – and nobody has commented his choice of funeral music, which reveals his taste for probably the pair of most infamous, notorious filo–Nazi musical groups in existence. Have you followed his link to the Youtube page, and considered the other references? Has someone done it?

But I can understand also that perhaps HH has presently more to fear from arrogant or idiot drivers than from filo–Nazi revivals.

CD

Is filo-Nazi some kind of pastry?

Hungryhalibut posted:

Is filo-Nazi some kind of pastry?

No, but filonazista is an Italian word meaning pro-nazi! 

Crompton Divided posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

We are very happy with our VW Up! No need to compensate for inadequacies in the trouser department. 

I have never had the slightest interest in super cars after I was 12, but this doesn't mean that a) other people can't have, b) that loving big cars automatically means some deficiency in the genital (no need to be so British as to call it trouser) dept. and that c) all owners of supercars drive like arrogant idiots.

I find it strange that voices rise in protest at the idea of owning a big Porsche – and inferring from this that RSCH has issues with the size of his – how do Brits call it? – and nobody has commented his choice of funeral music, which reveals his taste for probably the pair of most infamous, notorious filo–Nazi musical groups in existence. Have you followed his link to the Youtube page, and considered the other references? Has someone done it?

But I can understand also that perhaps HH has presently more to fear from arrogant or idiot drivers than from filo–Nazi revivals.

CD

Dear  Cd, i can't think you are so stupid to deem a person  as above by the cars he owns or the music he  listen.

If you enquire carefully about that group  this is far from true. Moreover if you already payed attention to my collection, you can see that it varies from French Medieval to Neo Romantics, Brit Pop an so on.

About sexual attributes i can't figure out there is still people thinking that the main reason to own supecars or big cars is to compensate the size of the former. Did you ever think that it can be only for the sheer pleasure of driving or enthusiasm for fine engineering ? Btw for the record my DD car is Toyota IQ one of the smallest around, and other cars in our family  are below 4m long.

The intentions of this post was to discuss technical and behavioral aspects of engines since i thought that a few people  here shoewed an interest in automotive engineering but probably it seems that most people is more interested in football or wines.

Since the discussion is turning on politics and lifestyle polemics,  it would be better ift he administrator closed the post

Regards

Roberto

Hungryhalibut posted:

Is filo-Nazi some kind of pastry?

Too flakey.

G

wenger2015 posted:

Big cars and mothers on the school run...Don't work....all is fine until a reversing manoeuvre is required.... 

Wenger, I have the results of The Chelsea Tractor Reverse Parallel Parking Competition carried out adjacent to the school gates earlier today.

We had four entrants, three failed to complete the manoeuvre in the allocated 10 minute time slot.

The fourth vehicle was parked dead centre between the kerb and middle of the road which is a remarkable achievement in itself as the road has no markings for guidance.

Fortunately the local taxi firm  turned up in a matter of seconds and gave little Johnny and Matilda a lift to the kerb.

I drive a small car with a small turbo engine, it gets 180PS from a 1.4.  Despite that there's almost no turbo lag - it cheats, it also has a modified Eaton-Roots supercharger on a magnetic clutch.  Squeeze the throttle and even at 3000rpm the supercharger kicks in to fill the hole until the turbo really starts spinning.

Huge posted:

I drive a small car with a small turbo engine, it gets 180PS from a 1.4.  Despite that there's almost no turbo lag - it cheats, it also has a modified Eaton-Roots supercharger on a magnetic clutch.  Squeeze the throttle and even at 3000rpm the supercharger kicks in to fill the hole until the turbo really starts spinning.

Is that the old Twin Charger VAG unit ?

james n posted:

Huge posted:

I drive a small car with a small turbo engine, it gets 180PS from a 1.4.  Despite that there's almost no turbo lag - it cheats, it also has a modified Eaton-Roots supercharger on a magnetic clutch.  Squeeze the throttle and even at 3000rpm the supercharger kicks in to fill the hole until the turbo really starts spinning.

Is that the old Twin Charger VAG unit ?

Yep, that's the one - have to make sure you run it on VAG504 oil though, it'll tear anything else apart in short order.  (other oil = )

Hungryhalibut posted:

We are very happy with our VW Up! No need to compensate for inadequacies in the trouser department. 

Sorry your trousers are inadequate Nigel 

Huge posted:

james n posted:

Huge posted:

I drive a small car with a small turbo engine, it gets 180PS from a 1.4.  Despite that there's almost no turbo lag - it cheats, it also has a modified Eaton-Roots supercharger on a magnetic clutch.  Squeeze the throttle and even at 3000rpm the supercharger kicks in to fill the hole until the turbo really starts spinning.

Is that the old Twin Charger VAG unit ?

Yep, that's the one - have to make sure you run it on VAG504 oil though, it'll tear anything else apart in short order.  (other oil = )

Afternoon Huge

I've got the next gen Polo GTi on from yours (assuming it's the Polo) which has been brilliant. I wondered if you'd read anything about your engine as it does seem very advanced but also technically suspect:

https://www.uk-polos.net/viewt...t=66587&start=30

Sounds to me as if you've got a decent version but I'd still be looking at getting rid of it sooner rather than later based on the various threads on its design

I have a CAVE(revised) (MY2012), initially it used about 500ml / 1000 miles, however after careful running in (including the high energy phase at 2,500 miles) it's now down to about 200ml / 1000 miles, and at 65,000 miles, it's showing no signs of deterioration. 

Many people had problems because a 'mate' said "Oh! modern car engines don't need any running in.".  On the other hand some (a small minority) of the early CAVE engines DID have a big problem with oil consumption and subsequently with overheating due to carbonisation of the piston crowns (in the 1st generation engines, the oil control ring was a simple stepped ring and were a bit slack).  Others have had a problem from people running the gearbox in 'S' to much, or manually controlling them with the paddles, and some others due to using cheap oil "because the engine uses so much oil, there's no point in using the expensive stuff".

Run in properly, driven properly (according to the engine's needs, including, when cold, not racing the engine or using too much torque) and with the right oil, they're actually quite reliable!

Huge posted:

I have a CAVE(revised) (MY2012), initially it used about 500ml / 1000 miles, however after careful running in (including the high energy phase at 2,500 miles) it's now down to about 200ml / 1000 miles, and at 65,000 miles, it's showing no signs of deterioration. 

Many people had problems because a 'mate' said "Oh! modern car engines don't need any running in.".  On the other hand some (a small minority) of the early CAVE engines DID have a big problem with oil consumption and subsequently with overheating due to carbonisation of the piston crowns (in the 1st generation engines, the oil control ring was a simple stepped ring and were a bit slack).  Others have had a problem from people running the gearbox in 'S' to much, or manually controlling them with the paddles, and some others due to using cheap oil "because the engine uses so much oil, there's no point in using the expensive stuff".

Run in properly, driven properly (according to the engine's needs, including, when cold, not racing the engine or using too much torque) and with the right oil, they're actually quite reliable!

As I read your reply I just realised it's the automotive version of a Naim with its cable dressing, etc. So probably the perfect car for the OCD amongst us...

LOL.

Yes, I think they assumed that people buying it would have good knowledge of internal combustion power plant engineering (or at least of high performance car engines).
Not a safe assumption!