Editorial: Will Americans buy cars with engines smaller than 1.5 liters?

[Thirty-Nine]

With the discussion about the 2011 Yaris lately and what engine it will have, (such a 1.3-, 1.5-, or 1.8-liter engine), I began to think about smaller engine options. FYI, Toyota hasn't offered anything smaller than a 1.5 in the U.S. since the 1984 Toyota Starlet.

Do Americans have an aversion to engines smaller than 1.5 liters?

http://www.subcompactculture.com/2009/06/us-market-will-people-buy-cars-with.html

[darthbauer]

I'd rock it if It got like 70mpg.

[Kaotic Lazagna]

I wouldn't mind a smaller displacement engine that is a diesel or is force-fed; i.e. Suzuki Cappuccino.

[ezhacker1]

lol the Cappuccino, i only know of that car from Initial D. I think cars should be 1.5 and 1.8 only cept for trucks and SUVs. save the planet some.

[Kaotic Lazagna]

lol the Cappuccino, i only know of that car from Initial D. I think cars should be 1.5 and 1.8 only cept for trucks and SUVs. save the planet some.

LOL. I knew of it from the Gran Turismo series. hehehe. I personally don't need a lot of hp, as I'm a very conservative driver. I'd much rather have loads of torque at the moment.

[yaris-me]

With CAFE going up, we will be faced with smaller engines or guzzler tax.:frown:

[SilverBack]

I welcome it as a daily driver, but I won't go any lower than 1.3 L. About 75 HP is plenty to get from Point A to Point B. No question about it :biggrin:

[SailDesign]

I drove a 650cc car for years. Diidn't accelerate for shi'ite, but corm=nered just fine. :smile:
Fiat 126.

[BailOut]

I have never used more than 44hp in the Yaris and could have gotten by with a few less at the time, so I'd be perfectly happy with a 1.0L.

[Loren]

Geo Metros were sold with 1.0 liter 3-cylinder engines, and later with 1.4's. Honda has sold a lot of 1.3 liter engines in the US, too.

I think the people who would be hesitant to buy a car with a SMALLER than 1.5 liter engine are the same people who would be hesitant to even buy a 1.5 liter engine. You know the type.

But, technology is a wonderful thing. I don't think about the displacement of the engine so much as the output of the engine. Bailout is right, nobody really "needs" more than about 50 hp just to get around in a 2400 pound car. But, most people like to have that extra power on tap to get out of the way when they need to. It's just something we've gotten used to having.

Personally, I autocross my daily driver car, and there is a lower limit to how much power I'll accept. Generally speaking, I need a car that will get me to 60 mph in about 8-9 seconds. That takes a well-managed 100 hp and 100 ft/lbs of torque in a 2400 pound car.

What's amazing is that Toyota (and Honda, and probably others) has managed to get almost 108 hp and 103 ft/lbs from 1.5 liters... AND still return fantastic fuel economy. I read somewhere yesterday that there's a new Toyota 1.3 liter engine coming that will have about the same power output from 1.3 liters. Same power, less displacement... probably better economy! I'd be all over it. Especially if it came to me in an IQ that only weighs 1950 pounds. That would rock on many levels.

But, realistically, for these smaller-engined and lower-powered (lower than the stuff being offered by Ford and Chevy) cars to become popular in the US, gas prices will need to take another hike. And they will... eventually.

[tuckevalastin]

1.5L is already to small for me

[Kaotic Lazagna]

I think grannies use more hp than I do. LMAO.

[Thirty-Nine]

I owned a 1979 Civic 1200 (1.2-liter). It was very slow, but it got around fine, and was great for city driving. I'd buy a smaller engine if it would return higher mileage for sure. I don't need a rocketship for daily driving. And yes, technology has come a long way as Loren said. Gone are the days of smog pumps, choked-off engines, and such. Now you can have lower displacement engines that still create good, usable power.

And yes, gas prices will (and are) going up again. Just went up to $2.89 for 87 here in Portland.

With regards to CAFE, I don't think you can have your cake and eat it, too. We'll either have cars with smaller, more fuel-efficient engines, or keep cars with larger, less-fuel efficient engines and a gas tax.

[Bob Dog]

My 1000cc 1996 Metro delivered a very real and wonderful 49 mpg, but it could not pass, safely enter a 65mph highway, or climb a moderate grade at 55mph in fourth gear. I would buy a vehicle with a small displacement engine, but only if it generated adequate torque and horsepower to operate safely on the American system of highways. However, to generate higher hp with lower displacement it is generally necessary to increase compression, which in most cases leads to greater engine wear and shorter engine life, and therefore an increase in cost to own per mile.

[firebob]

My step dad that’s a SUZ man loved the 30 miles I took him down the parkway. We had to hit the interstate on the way home and told me I was using all the power the car had on the parkway. I took my big toe off the peddle and put a few more toes on it and showed him it had more get up and go then his V8 SUZ.

I have been all over the US in my Yaris. I pulled the back seat, pulled the hubcaps, and built a light weight platform with some foam under it. If you put me, my wife, and the junk we carry for our work it would be around 800 to 850 pounds.


I would think that all the Harley people be after the small cars. A drz 400 has more HP at the wheel then most of the huge hogs that weigh a few hundred pounds more with there huge motors. But if you look at it the owners need the huge trucks so they can get there bikes with in a few miles of where there going unload and ride there bikes the last 50 miles to where there going.
Better yet next time you have time to spare stop by a Harley dealership and aks them how many HP a bike has. They will just toss out a number but I be they will not be able to show it on paper.

[gokartride]

My 1000cc 1996 Metro delivered a very real and wonderful 49 mpgI had a '91 Metro and I agree...I did enjoy the car though. Another factor is weight....the challenge of making small cars safe generally means they are heavier and that is a big challenge for a small engine. However, back in the day, smaller engines worked great in the Midgets and Sprites and Spitfires...maybe lighter cars can re-emerge one day w/ the right safety engineering. I'm not holding my breath on this one...not in the States.

[highwaypass]

small displacement=happy car.It doesn't need to rush,just enjoy the good life :biggrin:

*once i drive my grandma VW bettle and had no problem with that except the rear engine and heavy steering wheel

[gokartride]

small displacement=happy car.Ah, give me a 2CV any day!!!

[SailDesign]

I just back-checked, and the first car I owned with more than 100hp was when we first came to the States, in 1984. I had a '69 Mustang, with a whole amazing 120hp for it's 3000+ lbs! Next down from that before was a Peugeot 304, with 65 hp for its 2050 lbs. The 'Stang was a dog, the Peug a joy to drive.

[YarisDude]

Used to drive an old VW bug. It had a 1.3 L engine and I must say it did just fine. It would do 90 MPH (it just took its time getting there). I never got stuck in the snow in that car. The only bad thing was the air cooled engine used heater boxes to transfer the heat into the cabin. They always rusted out and you got really poor heat or gassed by the exhaust.

Yes, I would buy a 1.0 or 1.3 L Yaris. Especially if it was equipped with a 6 speed manual tranny - it prolly get 60 MPG. I don't know why, but I always liked small cars and the old pharts that drive em.

[talnlnky]

With the discussion about the 2011 Yaris lately and what engine it will have, (such a 1.3-, 1.5-, or 1.8-liter engine), I began to think about smaller engine options. FYI, Toyota hasn't offered anything smaller than a 1.5 in the U.S. since the 1984 Toyota Starlet.

Do Americans have an aversion to engines smaller than 1.5 liters?

http://www.subcompactculture.com/2009/06/us-market-will-people-buy-cars-with.html

Hell yeah american's will buy less than 1.5L engines... they are called RX-7's.... and RX-8's (think the 8 still is a 1.3)

Crap... I'd love to have a yaris with a rotary engine.... tho... my MPG's would drop in half instantly.

[GeneW]

With the discussion about the 2011 Yaris lately and what engine it will have, (such a 1.3-, 1.5-, or 1.8-liter engine), I began to think about smaller engine options. FYI, Toyota hasn't offered anything smaller than a 1.5 in the U.S. since the 1984 Toyota Starlet.

Do Americans have an aversion to engines smaller than 1.5 liters?



Yes. I think that many but not all Americans intensely dislike smaller motors.

Americans like "butt dyno". They also like size, as I've seen repeatedly from the attempts at bullying my smaller car from cretins in trucks and SUVs. Especially solipsists who like to chatter on their cell phones while cruising in the passing lanes.

Until the pain of expensive gasoline changes behavior I don't see much hope. Certainly don't think that coercing people into buying them is going to help.

Gene

[SailDesign]

<snip>
Especially solipsists who like to chatter on their cell phones while cruising in the passing lanes.
<snip>

Tough to be a true solipsist when you're talking to someone else.... :tongue:

[GeneW]

Tough to be a true solipsist when you're talking to someone else.... :tongue:

In the strictest sense of the world you're right. When you're driving you're only "half there", half on the phone and half driving the car. This kind of selfishness is pretty solipsistic.

Gene

[Thirty-Nine]

Hell yeah american's will buy less than 1.5L engines... they are called RX-7's.... and RX-8's (think the 8 still is a 1.3)

Crap... I'd love to have a yaris with a rotary engine.... tho... my MPG's would drop in half instantly.

If you'll notice, I put in italics that I didn't include the Mazda rotary engines, since they're niche ... and thirsty.

[GeneW]

If you'll notice, I put in italics that I didn't include the Mazda rotary engines, since they're niche ... and thirsty.

I think that they were discontinued in the US because the EPA emissions standards from 1990 or so on were WAY too tough for them.

They could also be bears to start in the winter. Recall a neighbor of a friend of mine who used to have to heat it up with electricity before he could start it. I think it was out of tune because it wasn't that cold back then.

The Wankel is a neat concept - a motor with a "linear" torque curve. The faster it goes the more torque it generates.

Had a neighbor who had a little Mazda truck. One day he did about 120mile per hour in it going through a local business district that was set at 45 miles an hour. Later, after a brief stint at drug dealing that included having his place and stash "ripped off", he finished college and became a Parole Officer.

Gene

[Thirty-Nine]

Actually, they still offer the rotary in the RX-8.

[TLyttle]

Yup, I drove Morris Minors for 30 years, and the largest engine was a 1098cc. I could get 59mpgImp and average just under 60mpg on long trips, performance I couldn't match until the Yaris came along. The Moggie was also a hoot to drive. Had it had the advantages of today's ignition systems and tires, it would still be a viable car, except for the goofy "safety standards" imposed by the governments. The Moggie needed some sophisticating, but the lack of weight and displacement were never a problem. Bring on the smaller engines, I'm on onboard!

[GeneW]

Actually, they still offer the rotary in the RX-8.

I've been wrong about a half dozen times this week.... make that seven. At least this error didn't cost anyone any money.

Gene

[GeneW]

Yup, I drove Morris Minors for 30 years, and the largest engine was a 1098cc. I could get 59mpgImp and average just under 60mpg on long trips, performance I couldn't match until the Yaris came along. The Moggie was also a hoot to drive. Had it had the advantages of today's ignition systems and tires, it would still be a viable car, except for the goofy "safety standards" imposed by the governments. The Moggie needed some sophisticating, but the lack of weight and displacement were never a problem. Bring on the smaller engines, I'm on onboard!

My Dad had one long ago. My Mom loved it. Dad hated it.

Gene

[SailDesign]

Yup, I drove Morris Minors for 30 years, and the largest engine was a 1098cc. I could get 59mpgImp and average just under 60mpg on long trips, performance I couldn't match until the Yaris came along. The Moggie was also a hoot to drive. Had it had the advantages of today's ignition systems and tires, it would still be a viable car, except for the goofy "safety standards" imposed by the governments. The Moggie needed some sophisticating, but the lack of weight and displacement were never a problem. Bring on the smaller engines, I'm on onboard!

Great cars, except for the kingpins. These would "go" with great regularity, usually while stiopping for a light or a stop-sign. Perfectly normal to see a moggy with one or both front wheels lying flat on the ground underneath it. :smile: We used to call it "Praying".

[TLyttle]

Yup, I had a couple of "prayers" in my day. It had to do with American-style maintenance (a very long 4-letter word); they had to be PROPERLY greased EVERY 2,000 miles or they would fail. I was working out a modification that would stop these failures, but sold the car before it got done...

[Loren]

Straying off topic, but... a lot of those "lubrication" problems on older cars can be cured by simply using a modern synthetic grease. (the same thing that allows all of our new cars to have "lifetime" lubricated bearings, that DO actually last for hundreds of thousands of miles)

[TLyttle]

Somehow, my response was lost...

yes, better grease works fine, IF you get to them soon enough, but usually it is too late. Seems to me the Spitfires had the same trunnion setup, and I have seen them worn to the point of failure as well. My cure (had I been able to use it) had to do with some simple machining, brass bushings, and a big nut...

[Loren]

I wondered if we were talking about the same crappy trunions. Yeah. Fresh parts and good grease are the answer. The factory actually specified OIL for them, which did the job, but, of course, leaked out in short order.

Remind me to check that when I get my car back from it's heart-transplant.

(Ironically, I'm replacing it's original 1.5 liter engine with a 2.0! But, the 2.0 will be far more efficient, in addition to making more power... modern engineering is good.)