What engine size would you consider big?

DillyDilly0121

I would say 1.5+

2.5l+

It's not the size that matters, it's how you use it.

Reply 3

Nuffles

It's much more about power output than displacement. There are older 1.9SDI engines from VW that put out 60bhp. That same displacement engine also came from the factory with 150bhp, and can be remapped north of 200bhp.

There are some small displacement turbo petrols putting out silly numbers these days as well.

Personally nothing under 2 litres is worth bragging about, and the fun doesn't really start until 3 litres. Turbos change everything though.

Reply 4

JesseSW

Totally depends on whether turbo/supercharged or not. A 3.0 litre BMW 330ci is pushing 230hp no turbo, while a 2.0 turbo Mitsubishi evo could have 360bhp+ stock with a 0-60 of 4 seconds vs the BMWs 6.5 time. Even tho the BMW has an extra litre of displacement I would know which one I would want :wink:

Reply 5

Dunnig Kruger

I'd have the 3 litre BMW turbo diesel. For 245 horsepower, plenty of torque, 42 real world mpg. Plus the diesel reliability and longevity.

Reply 6

arjanvirdi

If you're a new driver, 1.4+. Otherwise 2.2+

Reply 7

NX172

Original post by IWMTom

It's not the size that matters, it's how you use it.

In short, this.

@OP, from a power perspective, if you have to compare cars, perhaps BHP/ton is probably more useful to determine the power characteristics of the car.
For example, my daily car is a 3.2L N/A engine and produces a reasonable 256BHP, but due to its weight, it has a poor power to weight ratio and would lose to a lighter car with similar power output in a straight line.

Even then, power to weight is not the most useful metric, as despite my weekend car has a similar power to weight ratio as a Lamborghini Huracan, it wouldn't be as quick off the line due to it being RWD instead of AWD, it would also be slower round the track due to having less aero and handling than the huracan, but it might be quicker in a 60-130 due to having less drivetrain losses and traction not being an issue at those speeds.

So really, displacement size really doesn't matter, perhaps consider the scenario and all the variables relevant to it rather than looking at a single thing. E.g, 0-60, 0-130, 60-130, 60-0, drag racing? sedan? hatchback? racing?

Did you know modern Formula 1 engines are only 1.6L V6s? Does that make them weaker than your average road car? Of course not. Explore why that is and you'll find out why purely looking at displacement isn't a good way for determining power nowadays.

Here's an article as to why a mid sized Toyota engine is capable of producing more power than engines with much larger displacement.
https://jalopnik.com/heres-why-the-toyota-supras-2jz-is-such-a-legendary-eng-1794949464

If the objective of your question is to determine a suitable vehicle for a learner or beginner driver, then my answer is to ignore any suggestions relating purely to engine displacement. Look at real world performance figures in scenarios relevant to you. Notice insurance groups don't go up purely based on engine size alone. A 2.0L family vehicle such as the Toyota Verso is going to be cheaper to insure than a 1.6L Golf. Give some thought into why you think that is.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 8

TajwarC

Original post by Dunnig Kruger

I'd have the 3 litre BMW turbo diesel. For 245 horsepower, plenty of torque, 42 real world mpg. Plus the diesel reliability and longevity.

Their newer B48 2l turbo petrol is also a good option imo. Pushes similar if not a little more power but also decent efficiency and sounds good too (if you're into that).