engines

in general, I prefer big ones

I don't like the need for low weight or FI to compensate for lack of capacity

I like the S2000 engine, because it suits and differentiates the car

but that's an exception

what about the rest of you?

 

I'm not a fan of FI, as it spoils the sound.

One can have an engine that is too big, but bigger is usually better.

 

NA, S/C if necessary. Don't like turbo's.

For me it's all about delivery and throttle response.

But I dislike "lazy engines". A high specific output is necessary.

I love my current 3.2 inline 6. Ticks all the right boxes.

 

Horses for courses.

I just like engines, if they suit what they're attached to, I like them even more.

I like a big, lazy V8 in a FMC (Fat Man's Car) or a 4x4.

I like a big, muscular tubodiesel in a tractor or truck.

I like small, light revvy high output/capacity engines in racing and trackday cars.

I like the kick in the back from a turbo petrol engine.

I like 'clever' engines like the stirling engine.

I like my petrol lawnmower.

 

Larger rather than smaller and with as many foot pounds of torque as bhp.

 

I haven't driven anything with a larger capacity engine that I think ticks all the boxes, but I suspect an M3 CSL or 997 Carrera S would come close.

I think you need torque in an engine, but I don't think it's the be all and end all. For example I find diesels with all the torque in the world completely devoid of thrills. They're such uninvolving unexciting things, they just leave me cold. But I always lamented the S2K's lack of torque unless you were in the right gear.

Like Mark says, so long as the engine suits the car I'm happy. The 111R because of its lack of weight has very good pickup in most gears from quite low revs (6th gear has great pickup from 70mph on). I'd love to try one of those little 160bhp Fiat 500's. Who cares if it's only a 1.4 or something; I'd bet they're a good laugh.

 

I just test drove a 9 month old SLK 55 AMG, I just loved the big 5.5l V8 engine and noise it made was glorious ! Shame about the auto box though.

 

Well, it's law of diminishing returns.

Cars over 1,500 Kgs need a big engine and big suspension and rapidly end up nearer 2,000 kgs if you're not careful. They are then sleepy barges and not my cup of poison.

Cars under 1,500 Kgs are much more chuckable and don't need massive power. They can still be relaxing on a longer drive, but a reasonably compact engine can still be fitted.

Cars around 1,000 Kgs are a hoot to drive. You can than have a small engine and thrash it to within an inch of destruction, which is great fun for us sadists. The car will be very rewarding, but probably rather exhausting.

Of course, what you mustn't do is put a littler engine in a bigger car, unless it's incredibly light and aerodynamic. I'm thinking Panhards and Citroens and Audis and NSUs from the days when those companies were worthy of respect.

Similarly, putting a VAG W12 in an Elise will only result in despair.

So it's whores for intercourses, really.

 

Are you aware that you actually posted that for every one to see?

Mark you must really get out more mate

 

Wondered if anyone would spot it.

I did up the compression by using the thinner gasket when I serviced it though