horrendous low powered petrol cars

[Yugguy]

Got a 1.4 astra hire car from work. It has a whole 100bhp and a staggering 96lbft of torque. Its absolutely frustratingly awful to drive, it simply can't accelerate. There's no pleasure in driving it whatsoever. I don't understand why people buy low powered petrol cars. Fair enough, you might need an economical car, so get a diesel, the mpg is just the same and it will be far better to drive as it will have some torque. Even in standard unremapped form my bora had 2.5 times the torque and only 2mpg average less than this astra.

 

[bigbadjoe]

I have the same here. 1.4 Astra. Terrible cars. They don't even put in an arm rest in the middle. They are slow, uncomftable and a nightmare to drive.

I have never understood small engine cars. Smallest I have had is a 1.8.

 

[stamford]

It is painful having to drive such a thing. They are there for hire purposes, cheap to lease, insure, service and less chance of something happening when hired, unless you pull out and get hit as you can't meet the flow of traffic! Could be worse, could be a nasp diesel!

I had a Micra once as a courtesy car, I thought I wrote if off once when I closed the door! It was so tinny and thin, that was gutless as well.

 

[HDi fun]

Try my father's 75bhp 1.6 8 valve if you want a real treat. Sure it'll take 5th gear at 35mph - he calls this torque, I just call it low gearing. Spineless isn't the word for this car.

It uses more fuel than my 528i (which has a 24 valve six cylinder engine and is surprisingly economical), costs more to service than my car, goes wrong a couple of times a year, thus incurring even more cost.

And his justification for getting and keeping it;.... - low running costs :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink:

 

[old-git]

It is amazing how quickly we get used to power. My 1967 Lotus Elan had, when new, 105BHP in standard form and 116 in the Special Equipment version. That was a lot of power back in the mid 60s. Now people are complaining about having as little as that

I know today's cars are heavier, but the Ford Anglia 105E had around 40BHP back in the early 60s and we managed. One plus point of having so little power was that a little work on the engine might only give you a few more BHP but it was noticable. Today a lot more work, and money, is required to make a noticable difference. It was also easier to improve the handling as cars of the day were rubbish in standard form.

 

[HDi fun]

It is amazing how quickly we get used to power. My 1967 Lotus Elan had, when new, 105BHP in standard form and 116 in the Special Equipment version. That was a lot of power back in the mid 60s. Now people are complaining about having as little as that

I know today's cars are heavier, but the Ford Anglia 105E had around 40BHP back in the early 60s and we managed. One plus point of having so little power was that a little work on the engine might only give you a few more BHP but it was noticable. Today a lot more work, and money, is required to make a noticable difference. It was also easier to improve the handling as cars of the day were rubbish in standard form.

It's also amazing how we learn to deal with a lack of it [power].

Long range observation and what the police call acceleration sense compensates for all sorts of inadequacies in a car's performance envelope.

Perhaps that's how I see over 30mpg from my car in general driving and nearly 40mpg on a longer run?

 

[T9 man]

Could be worse, could be a nasp diesel!

Noooooo don't even go there! I had a Peugeot 1.3D for a day once, it was so slow that in the morning when I left home to pop round and see my mum, I had time enough to send her a letter first to put the kettle on! :sad2:

 

[stamford]

Noooooo don't even go there! I had a Peugeot 1.3D for a day once, it was so slow that in the morning when I left home to pop round and see my mum, I had time enough to send her a letter first to put the kettle on! :sad2:

Lol too true! A long time ago the works director where I used to work had an Escort estate that was nasp and I had to drive that from Portsmouth to Birmingham carrying equipment (he hated driving). Every junction and round-a-bout needed half a days gap to pull out and get going, was the most dangerous car I have ever driven. Funny thing was he found it fast enough for him. No-one wanted to use it when it came to company use.

 

[Yugguy]

Oldgit's right, but remember back then all cars were slow apart from the odd supercar so its all people were used to.

Hdis right too, small petrol engines are not economical cos you have to rev the nackers off them to even go at the same pace as everyone else.

 

[obi_waynne]

I remember drooling over my Bosses Cosworth Sapphire Sierra with 200bhp, but now I drive a relatively ordinary car with 220bhp! It's insane that things have moved on so much!

Try driving a 600cc Panda into a head wind, the thing practically stops with each gust.

I do think that each car has a power band you need to get used to. Changing gear at the right time and holding on to every RPM you can will often make it bearable.

The big plus with slow hire cars is that yours seems so much faster when you get them back.

I just wonder if Audi would lend me an R8 when mine goes in for a service!

 

[stamford]

I made the mistake once when I bought a smaller engined car to save money. It ended up costing me more as I had to push it hard to move it along. Not long after I sold it the engine let go! oops! Funny thing was my manager at the time bought it for his wife. I never buy a car that feels underpowered for its size, I always go up peg or two, best to have some in reserve than beating it within an inch of its life everytime.

 

[claymore]

Similar to Waynne, My first Porsche 911 was a 1974 impact bumper model with a whopping 150bhp.

 

[thexav]

I had a car that struggled to get up most hills at 30mph. It seems an age away now and I do feel some pity for those stuck in underpowered cars.

 

[herb]

Got a 1.4 astra hire car from work. It has a whole 100bhp and a staggering 96lbft of torque. Its absolutely frustratingly awful to drive, it simply can't accelerate. There's no pleasure in driving it whatsoever. I don't understand why people buy low powered petrol cars. Fair enough, you might need an economical car, so get a diesel, the mpg is just the same and it will be far better to drive as it will have some torque. Even in standard unremapped form my bora had 2.5 times the torque and only 2mpg average less than this astra.

its strange it feels so gutless for a long time now ive been using my liquid gauge to see what bhp/torque i use on a average drive. and 110bhp & 120lb/ft of torque is adequate to push my 1.5 tonne leon around competently!!

 

[obi_waynne]

But I bet the Astra only gives 90bhp in the top third of the rev range and you get your 100bhp around 2000 rpm.

 

[Yugguy]

But I bet the Astra only gives 90bhp in the top third of the rev range and you get your 100bhp around 2000 rpm.

Yep, very little happened until 5k rpm, then it just got slightly faster - faster being relative, sub 5k was snail-pace, over 5k was tortoise-pace.

It had only done 3k miles so the engine would be tight but even so. I wonder if there was something wrong with it, an air filter blockage or something.

The 0-60 is supposed to be 12.7 seconds and a top speed of 105mph. It felt every bit this slow. Combined mpg of 51. I can almost get that mpg in my Bora.