underpowered cars

[coiter]

a frustrated driver

...and an embarrassed one. especially kung paakyat ka ng isang steep na ramp tapos kinapos at may ibang nakapila sa likod mo. kakahiya.

[niky]

For me, it's got to get to 100kph in 8-10 seconds at least. But I wouldn't consider a car underpowered unless it can't get to 100kph in less than 16 seconds.

Poor fuel economy, not enough merging power, frustration on the highway...

TOO POWERFUL a car, and you'd have poor fuel economy, frustration in traffic... etc...

It all depends on what you want. I don't consider a 1.3 sedan underpowered... but a 2.5 diesel or a 2.0 gas AUV, yes.

[pixelparadigm]

Toyota Liteace! hehe... Rev too low and you're slow. Rev too high and you're much slower. Kakaiba ang powerband ng 5k engine.

[mantoy]

...a 2e's not gonna give you much confidence when overtaking

hmmm... baka naman puno kayo kasi sa kotse.

[empy]

TOO POWERFUL a car

no such thing :bwahaha:

[andre]

Crosswind AT is underpowered, but it can give you good mileage

[badkuk]

mantoy:hmmm... baka naman puno kayo kasi sa kotse.

er, it's on an ae92 kasi...presidente pa si cory when we bought it :D

[mbt]

a small, "underpowred" engine will only compromise fuel economy (compared to if a larger engine were fitted) IF the driver constantly revs it higher (this is assuming that gearing for the two engines will be the same).

it will NOT necessarily translate to poor fuel economy outright.

take for example a Mazda 3 1.6 and a Mazda 3 2.0:
let's say the greater torque of the 2.0-liter engine will allow it to shift at 2,000 rpm relatively comfortably in the city. the 1.6, on the other hand, will be too slow if the engine is kept to 2,000 rpm or less... in other words, the 1.6 will give acceptable around-town performance if the engine is revved up to, say, 3,000 rpm.

if the driver keeps the 1.6-liter engine at 2,000 rpm anyway (maybe he's really patient and going slwly, or maybe there's heavy traffic on his route), then the 1.6-liter engine WILL get better fuel economy than the 2.0-liter.

the fuel injectors of a 1.6-liter engine squirt less fuel than the injectors of a 2.0-liter engine. smaller displacement, same 14.7:1 air-fuel ratio, smaller total fuel volume (for naturally-aspirated engines; a turboed engine will ask for more fuel since more air is crammed into the combustion chambers). the 1.6-liter engine will only consume more gas than the 2.0-liter engine IF it revs more than the 2.0-liter engine to offset the difference in squirted fuel per revolution.

hence, i think smaller engine displacements, even if "underpowered" compared to a larger engine option will still be more fuel efficient in ordinary driving... again, this is assuming that gearing for the two engines are the same. in heavy traffic, the smaller engine WILL always consume less gas than a bigger engine at idle, of course.

the smaller engine will give compromised fuel economy in the real world probably only in high-load applications,... like if you're on a racetrack and the small engine has to be at redline all the time to keep up... or you're climbing a steep mountain road and the small engine has to be redlined to give decent performance... or if the two engines in question are vastly different in displacement (stick a 1.6-liter gas engine into an expedition, and i bet it'll need ultra-short gearing and will have to be redlined until it dies to get the heavy expedition up to 20 kph hehe... whereas a big V8 engine may loaf comfortably at 1,500 rpm all the time)

a larger engine will have greater torque too probably, so it allows longer gearing (which gives less revs and thus, higher fuel economy)... but if i'm not mistaken, it all boils down to revs vs. acceptable performance.

[BlueBimmer]

316i IMO is underpowered..a 1.6L 4 banger pulling 1,400+ kilograms of metal

[BlueBimmer]

and 5 people including driver with stuff in the trunk = 1,600++ Kilos for the little 1.6!