Roadside failure
My first car was a BMC 1300, and like you say not fast and 30mpg would be maximum. I'm repeatedly amazed by the misses T-Cross, 998cc 3 cyl, goes like a rocket, and consistently never below 50 mpg even driven enthusiastically. Your right about the tech that makes that possible.
B4 AWD Inscription , Fusion Red, Blond interior. Drivers Assist, Climate, Tinted rear windows and Towing pack.
Ordered 14 Dec 20, delivered 10 March 21
Ordered 14 Dec 20, delivered 10 March 21
-
Deleted User 3629
Who cared about mpg when fuel was by the gallon and prices compared to wages was very cheap too - and a 998cc 3-cyl that goes like a rocket pulling the weight of a car in my opinion must be so stressed it can't last long??
Yet 3-cylinder turbo engines have been around for many years now, and there isn't an epidemic of them suddenly going "pop" and conking out by the roadside. All engines are subjected to huge internal stresses, and modern engines are light years ahead of old ones in their materials and technologies. They don't make 'em like they used to - thank goodness. Nostalgia for lazy old engines is a classic case of survivorship bias - the surviving engines that have run for hundreds of thousands of miles without incident are still visible, but the poorly engineered, poorly built and poorly maintained ones that were scrap after a few years are now out of sight, out of mind.
-
Deleted User 3629
@Krystof - a 998cc three cylinder in a small city car is one thing but in medium and even larger car capable of carrying 5-people is quite another - that poor poor piece of engineering, just 3-cylinders each only 332cc relying on huge amounts of turbo boost to give it at least some urgency. Must make anyone who understands all the moving parts and stresses of what a engine goes through just 
Hi Oldie,
Certainly a 3-cylinder engine in a heavier car would not be my own choice - I'd want at least a 4-pot to have a comfortable power reserve for safely accelerating out of hazardous situations. But that's just my personal preference as a driver, not from a technical point of view.
I understand your aversion to the idea of putting that much load on an engine. But it's an aversion based on feeling - mechanical sympathy. In reality, those engines appear to be quite capable of coping with the strain placed on them, thanks to advances in technologies and materials. There's just no hard evidence to suggest otherwise (demonstrable, statistically significant increases in real-world failure rates). If real evidence does ever come to light, then of course I'll revise my opinion.
Certainly a 3-cylinder engine in a heavier car would not be my own choice - I'd want at least a 4-pot to have a comfortable power reserve for safely accelerating out of hazardous situations. But that's just my personal preference as a driver, not from a technical point of view.
I understand your aversion to the idea of putting that much load on an engine. But it's an aversion based on feeling - mechanical sympathy. In reality, those engines appear to be quite capable of coping with the strain placed on them, thanks to advances in technologies and materials. There's just no hard evidence to suggest otherwise (demonstrable, statistically significant increases in real-world failure rates). If real evidence does ever come to light, then of course I'll revise my opinion.
Last edited by Krystof on Fri Aug 26, 2022 6:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Deleted User 3629
@Krystof - I guess most folk are not fussed what engine is in a car, and equally guess they have no need or desire to know how an ICE engine works, and as long as it functions and meets their needs it's all good - and maybe that's how it should be - then their are some folk who have stripped and built small capacity engines for extra performance and understand what it takes to make a small capacity engine equal to the power output once reserved for engines 3-times the size - a feat of engineering really - 150ps out of 1000cc is normal today and possibly more to come - but knowing what it takes to squeeze all that power out of such relatively small engines is unfortunately my reluctance to one for day-to-day driving - and just to say, there is no hard evidence to suggest significant real-world failures, does not change the dynamics required.
-
Deleted User 3359
@Oldie, from an engineering point of view I think you're in a rose tinted world. The engines in 70's cars were rarely fully designed in the 70's so the Escort engine block went back as far as the side valve Ford Popular. The Marina from BL mechanically was a bored out Morris 1000 even down to the suspension and running gear, and in that particular heyday (70's -80's) BL dealers were spending about 80% of their workshop time on warranty work (I worked for a dealer group and in my Volvo side the equivalent was 15%).
In motorcycles it was even worse. The "famous" parallel twin designed by Edward Turner in the early 1930's was in production engineered beyond its physical limits right up until the 70's death of the bike industry at the hands of the Japanese.
There is absolutely no reason why a small triple should be an issue when properly engineered. The main thing is it's not having to lug around it's own massive weight like a cast iron 4. In fact, torque wise a triple has a better torque curve than a similar sized four, and even worse is the six.
In motorcycles it was even worse. The "famous" parallel twin designed by Edward Turner in the early 1930's was in production engineered beyond its physical limits right up until the 70's death of the bike industry at the hands of the Japanese.
There is absolutely no reason why a small triple should be an issue when properly engineered. The main thing is it's not having to lug around it's own massive weight like a cast iron 4. In fact, torque wise a triple has a better torque curve than a similar sized four, and even worse is the six.
Having started this divergence to discuss 3 cyl's I can see both sides of the argument. However Oldie, you say about working on older engines to take increased power, so it's possible. These modern engines are not decades old reworked, but new designed from the block up to take the forces expected of them, and designed by engineers who are scientist.
Certainly the 'Cross isn't heavy, maybe 1400 kg, but there's no indication the engine is labouring in it, far from it, with the low level of throttle you have to give it, and the level of mpg it returns it feels very comfortable and relaxed. I understand in detail how engines work, but I have every faith in this great little 3 pot.
Certainly the 'Cross isn't heavy, maybe 1400 kg, but there's no indication the engine is labouring in it, far from it, with the low level of throttle you have to give it, and the level of mpg it returns it feels very comfortable and relaxed. I understand in detail how engines work, but I have every faith in this great little 3 pot.
B4 AWD Inscription , Fusion Red, Blond interior. Drivers Assist, Climate, Tinted rear windows and Towing pack.
Ordered 14 Dec 20, delivered 10 March 21
Ordered 14 Dec 20, delivered 10 March 21
-
Deleted User 3629
Had a few days trial with a small capacity 3-pot some time back - and happy to hand it back with a easy no thanks - from the thrum of the engine to the high revs at relatively low speed, and the constant gear changing 
, and as for the MPG increase? , the higher revs made sure it was not that much better than a B4 - but what sealed its fate was entering the motorway and (wrongly) thinking I could just nip in front of this lorry on my right and put my foot down to do so - that was a lesson learned 
, and as for the MPG increase? , the higher revs made sure it was not that much better than a B4 - but what sealed its fate was entering the motorway and (wrongly) thinking I could just nip in front of this lorry on my right and put my foot down to do so - that was a lesson learned
