What's made you not grumpy but not smile either today?

[StevenRB45]

Yes the Cordoba - actually the yellow car "hiding" behind Felicity Fiat in my avatar picture - had the old, pre PD engine with a distributor type pump (electronically controlled). I think it was 90Hp as you say which makes it interesting to compare with the Ibiza which is also the 90Hp (actually 94Hp quoted I think?) In terms of outright acceleration the two feel very similar but the Cordoba was better at ultimate "pulling" which was noticeable with my trailer. In terms of driving the Ibiza feels much more agile and responsive handling wise, The Cordoba felt heavy and "reluctant" in comparison. Really the only thing I don't like about the Ibiza is the turbo lag when trying to pull away if you've been idling along in heavy traffic or perhaps let the revs drop to near idle revs when negotiating speed bumps. The Cordoba, although it was turbo'd too, pulled much better in that particular scenario. Other than that I prefer driving the Ibiza but I'm "terrified" by the complexity of the direct injection engine with it's coolant stabilized intercooler, twin circuit cooling system with two thermostats, and with separate belt driven and electric water pumps and so much more - for instance the new battery i had to get when on holiday last year which had to be coded to the car and cost over £200 at the dealer down in Devon! At least my version does not have a dual mass flywheel!

Difference in turbo lag will likely be the difference in displacement. Although bearing technology has moved on a lot you still need a flow of exhaust to spin the turbo. 1.0 will be flowing less than a 1.9, the turbo may also be smaller to compensate but the 90bhp output of the diesel suggests it didn't have a particularly big turbo on it either given it had up to 160bhp in other trims.

Will say ours became pretty laggy and somewhat difficult to drive prior to the inlet valve cleaning. After the valves were cleaned the power curve was a lot more filled in at the bottom.

The diesel like character tends to be a thing on the small turbo petrols especially the lower powered. Not sure about yours though think they did a higher powered version for the polo with 110 odd. Why that's important in terms of character is they tend to be mechanically identical to the higher power version but electronically restricted to the lower output.

So in our case the engine is mechanically identical to the one you see powering things like the Peugeot 5008 or C5 aircross but electronically has a preset power level. So if you ever see the Dynograph for one...it climbs quickly up to about 2200 rpm, achieves (slightly more than) the advertised numbers and just stays there as the waste gate is used to stop any more power being generated.

In some ways it's good as the turbo and bottom end are operating well below their maximum most of the time also it's hard to be in the wrong gear as there's little difference between what it gives at 2k rpm and 4k rpm..but if it was remapped it would do 145bhp at 4k rather than 110.

So you end up with a flat torque curve...it just runs on longer than a diesel which would be all done at 4k also less weight over the nose even with ancillaries taken into account.

 

[Pugglt Auld Jock]

Difference in turbo lag will likely be the difference in displacement. Although bearing technology has moved on a lot you still need a flow of exhaust to spin the turbo. 1.0 will be flowing less than a 1.9, the turbo may also be smaller to compensate but the 90bhp output of the diesel suggests it didn't have a particularly big turbo on it either given it had up to 160bhp in other trims.

Will say ours became pretty laggy and somewhat difficult to drive prior to the inlet valve cleaning. After the valves were cleaned the power curve was a lot more filled in at the bottom.

The diesel like character tends to be a thing on the small turbo petrols especially the lower powered. Not sure about yours though think they did a higher powered version for the polo with 110 odd. Why that's important in terms of character is they tend to be mechanically identical to the higher power version but electronically restricted to the lower output.

So in our case the engine is mechanically identical to the one you see powering things like the Peugeot 5008 or C5 aircross but electronically has a preset power level. So if you ever see the Dynograph for one...it climbs quickly up to about 2200 rpm, achieves (slightly more than) the advertised numbers and just stays there as the waste gate is used to stop any more power being generated.

In some ways it's good as the turbo and bottom end are operating well below their maximum most of the time also it's hard to be in the wrong gear as there's little difference between what it gives at 2k rpm and 4k rpm..but if it was remapped it would do 145bhp at 4k rather than 110.

So you end up with a flat torque curve...it just runs on longer than a diesel which would be all done at 4k also less weight over the nose even with ancillaries taken into account.

I enjoyed reading that Steven. I drove both versions before buying and decided the lower powered version would do me fine but didn't explore the turbo lag thing on either car during the test drive - you get to live with it and adapt. I especially like that it does 60MPG on the nose on the Devon trip which is exactly what the old diesel Cordoba did! Yes, the turbo on the ibiza is a tiny wee thing. I like that it's a wastegated design and not one with variable vanes after the load of trouble we had with my boy's old variable vane turbo on his PD engines Fabia, although I suppose a variable vane turbo would be better able to overcome the low speed lag. As you say, it has a greater rev range than the diesel but, unlike a normally aspirated engine, revving it's nuts off is of no advantage you're better to change up earlier and let the torque accelerate you. - can be handy to know you can hang on to the gear and let the revs rise if you find yourself in a tight overtake etc - which these days never happens to me any more, most people are going faster than me!

 

[StevenRB45]

I enjoyed reading that Steven. I drove both versions before buying and decided the lower powered version would do me fine but didn't explore the turbo lag thing on either car during the test drive - you get to live with it and adapt. I especially like that it does 60MPG on the nose on the Devon trip which is exactly what the old diesel Cordoba did! Yes, the turbo on the ibiza is a tiny wee thing. I like that it's a wastegated design and not one with variable vanes after the load of trouble we had with my boy's old variable vane turbo on his PD engines Fabia, although I suppose a variable vane turbo would be better able to overcome the low speed lag. As you say, it has a greater rev range than the diesel but, unlike a normally aspirated engine, revving it's nuts off is of no advantage you're better to change up earlier and let the torque accelerate you. - can be handy to know you can hang on to the gear and let the revs rise if you find yourself in a tight overtake etc - which these days never happens to me any more, most people are going faster than me!

I wish it would do 60...the 44 in my signature is the average...but that's the average of my wife driving it and me.

If I'm driving it expect between 45 and 50...if she's driving it the floor is about 39mpg. On trips it'll maybe get as far as 53mpg but even with me driving I'm very much of the frame of mind "I paid for 108bhp....I will use all of them" so while it doesn't get relentlessly thrashed the horses are not spared when appropriate. Does seem to be better since the inlet clean though so who knows..in the summer later 50s may be possible, though it's on 205s and all seasons are not low resistance so it's unlikely I'd get to 60.

 

[The Panda Nut]

I enjoyed reading that Steven. I drove both versions before buying and decided the lower powered version would do me fine but didn't explore the turbo lag thing on either car during the test drive - you get to live with it and adapt. I especially like that it does 60MPG on the nose on the Devon trip which is exactly what the old diesel Cordoba did! Yes, the turbo on the ibiza is a tiny wee thing. I like that it's a wastegated design and not one with variable vanes after the load of trouble we had with my boy's old variable vane turbo on his PD engines Fabia, although I suppose a variable vane turbo would be better able to overcome the low speed lag. As you say, it has a greater rev range than the diesel but, unlike a normally aspirated engine, revving it's nuts off is of no advantage you're better to change up earlier and let the torque accelerate you. - can be handy to know you can hang on to the gear and let the revs rise if you find yourself in a tight overtake etc - which these days never happens to me any more, most people are going faster than me!

Man after my own heart preferring the lower powered version. I would deviate from this line if the more powerful ones were also more economical as they sometimes are.

 

[The Panda Nut]

@Pugglt Auld Jock
your home town is in the news

Edinburgh branded 'pothole capital of Europe' as residents move traffic cones into holes

Edinburgh Council has advised against moving the cones, saying only those with "relevant training and authority" should amend traffic management.

news.sky.com

Blimey. If its worse than Manchester it must be REALLY bad. I think people, cars and even lorries could disappear down some of the manchester pot ho;es.. Sink holes?

 

[Pugglt Auld Jock]

I wish it would do 60...the 44 in my signature is the average...but that's the average of my wife driving it and me.

That 60 mpg is measured full tank (second click cut off) to full tank (second click cut off) over the whole journey so driving out of Edinburgh and around the bypass, down the A702 'till it hits the M74 then onto the M6, M5 onto Tiverton and then across to Barnstaple on the North Devon Link road and on up, through those narrow lanes, into the hills behind the town to where Mrs J's sister lives. I'm very pleased to get 60 mpg doing that. Couple of times it's been 58/59 and once 61 but mostly it's bang on the 60.

Through town and then out to my boy's houses south of the city is usually high 40's low 50's showing on the dash display but I haven't really paid much attention what she does in the mostly 20mph limited town streets. Being a 3 cylinder, she's not too happy doing 20 in 3rd gear so I mostly use 2nd which translates into around 2,000 rpm which I would have thought wouldn't give a good mileage figure?

 

[Cheest]

Jeez, the only thing I've ever seen 60 mpg on is my 79 Honda CX 500, and that's if I don't exceed 50 mph. That said, I'm told my VeloSolex toys are capable of well over 100 mpg, but I'm not sitting on either one that long to find out.

 

[StevenRB45]

Jeez, the only thing I've ever seen 60 mpg on is my 79 Honda CX 500, and that's if I don't exceed 50 mph. That said, I'm told my VeloSolex toys are capable of well over 100 mpg, but I'm not sitting on either one that long to find out.

Big gallons this side of the pond not quite as impressive in American gallons. Be around 50.

Being a 3 cylinder, she's not too happy doing 20 in 3rd gear so I mostly use 2nd which translates into around 2,000 rpm which I would have thought wouldn't give a good mileage figure?

My understanding is pumping losses don't get too punishing until in the higher reaches of the rev range over 3.5k hence why these engines are built to perform low end. Although I find the absolute lack of engine breaking caused by the lack of internal friction somewhat annoying on ours. It's apparently all covered in something called DLC (diamond like coating). It's meant to make it efficient but it also means it has no braking effect and doesn't heat up unless in winter unless you clog it.

 

[Cheest]

Big gallons this side of the pond not quite as impressive in American gallons. Be around 50.

Oh yeah, I forgot about the 'Imperial Gallon'. I haven't seen those since Cunuckistan went metric.

 

[s130]

I've never been a fan of parking in gear. Especially as 'official' advice is to put in a forward gear when facing uphill, and reverse when facing downhill. Why would engine compressin be greater when the engine was running in reverse? Nonsense. But, it might cause the timing belt or chain to jump a tooth or several. Whilst compression will leak away, piston to valve contact would hold it on any hill.

The theory / advice (if you do park in gear) to select the 1st if pointing down hill and reverse in pointing up hill is that if the car did move then the engine would rotate in the correct/normal direction. Certainly on a cambelt engine with dynamic/floating belt tensioner this is advisable because rotating the engine backwards will uncompress the tentioner due to compression and the belt is far more likely to slip.

I gather on some Ferarri engines *any* backward rotation *is terminal*. Not sure what makes them so susceptible to damage and can't find a web reference but I was told this by Rosneath Engineering? a Ferarri specialist.

A good friend (70+ and long time old classic car man) always parks (on the level only) with handbrake off and in gear. Some of his cars are parked outside for long times without use and in damp and colder winter conditions have caught him out with either frozen or siezed handbrakes. This is actually quite a common occurence on caravans in storage so advice is often (on the level) to put the all the corner stedies down and release the handbrake. With caravans they often require hand moving so even the slighest friction can cause real issues.

 

[s130]

Whilst looking for info on Ferarri engines and reverse rotation I came across and interesting question obut old piston engines and why do they manually rotate the engine before starting?

Hydraulic Lock (accumulated oil stops piston from completing a full compression stoke)

This is especially true and necessary on radial piston engines. What can happen is oil seaps from all the pistons and can accumulate in the lowest piston. By rotating the propeller by hand and few times then aircraft technician/ground person can feel if there is any haydraulic lock in the lower cyclinders.

If there is the spark plug is removed to allow the oil to drain out. On older warbird rotary engines left standing a tube is inserted into the spark plug hole to drain into a pan / catch vessel.

 

[portland_bill]

The theory / advice (if you do park in gear) to select the 1st if pointing down hill and reverse in pointing up hill is that if the car did move then the engine would rotate in the correct/normal direction. Certainly on a cambelt engine with dynamic/floating belt tensioner this is advisable because rotating the engine backwards will uncompress the tentioner due to compression and the belt is far more likely to slip.

I gather on some Ferarri engines *any* backward rotation *is terminal*. Not sure what makes them so susceptible to damage and can't find a web reference but I was told this by Rosneath Engineering? a Ferarri specialist.

A good friend (70+ and long time old classic car man) always parks (on the level only) with handbrake off and in gear. Some of his cars are parked outside for long times without use and in damp and colder winter conditions have caught him out with either frozen or siezed handbrakes. This is actually quite a common occurence on caravans in storage so advice is often (on the level) to put the all the corner stedies down and release the handbrake. With caravans they often require hand moving so even the slighest friction can cause real issues.

The official advice given in the Highway Code, and in other DVSA publications, is to use reverse if facing downhill, and 1st if facing uphill. This would turn the engine the wrong way. I have asked the DVSA why. They are unable to answer, but still persist with this silliness. I have had the same argument with several advanced driving trainers, all of which insisted on selecting the 'opposite' gear, but with no technical backup to their argument. I'm thinking the decision was made a very long time ago, by someone without technical knowledge, and it is now set in stone.
I will continue to park my vehicles out of gear, and ensure the handbrake is operational.

 

[Pugglt Auld Jock]

Big gallons this side of the pond not quite as impressive in American gallons. Be around 50.


My understanding is pumping losses don't get too punishing until in the higher reaches of the rev range over 3.5k hence why these engines are built to perform low end. Although I find the absolute lack of engine breaking caused by the lack of internal friction somewhat annoying on ours. It's apparently all covered in something called DLC (diamond like coating). It's meant to make it efficient but it also means it has no braking effect and doesn't heat up unless in winter unless you clog it.

Yes, virtually no effective engine braking. Annoys me too.

Whilst looking for info on Ferarri engines and reverse rotation I came across and interesting question obut old piston engines and why do they manually rotate the engine before starting?

Hydraulic Lock (accumulated oil stops piston from completing a full compression stoke)

This is especially true and necessary on radial piston engines. What can happen is oil seaps from all the pistons and can accumulate in the lowest piston. By rotating the propeller by hand and few times then aircraft technician/ground person can feel if there is any haydraulic lock in the lower cyclinders.

If there is the spark plug is removed to allow the oil to drain out. On older warbird rotary engines left standing a tube is inserted into the spark plug hole to drain into a pan / catch vessel.

Now that's very interesting. I've noticed that radial engines often start up with a great burst of oil smoke before settling down to normal, smoke free running. Oil accumulating in the "upside down" cylinders would perfectly explain this.

 

[Pugglt Auld Jock]

The official advice given in the Highway Code, and in other DVSA publications, is to use reverse if facing downhill, and 1st if facing uphill. This would turn the engine the wrong way. I have asked the DVSA why. They are unable to answer, but still persist with this silliness. I have had the same argument with several advanced driving trainers, all of which insisted on selecting the 'opposite' gear, but with no technical backup to their argument. I'm thinking the decision was made a very long time ago, by someone without technical knowledge, and it is now set in stone.
I will continue to park my vehicles out of gear, and ensure the handbrake is operational.

I will probably continue to park with handbrake "properly" applied but in gear too - in first if pointing down hill and reverse if pointing up. The "official" advice is not only illogical but also could be positively harmful - wonder if you could successfully sue?

 

[portland_bill]

I doubt you could sue anyone, as they're likely to point out your responsibility to maintain your parking brake.
A company I do a lot of training work with has advised their drivers to always park in gear, after a few vehicles ran away. Those vehicles have electric parking brakes, and a 'hill hold' feature. The hill hold will operate for a limited time, usually only 2-3 seconds, then let go. I do not think there has been any actual parking brake failures, only driver error. They stop, hold the footbrake, then get out, and moments later, the vehicle rolls away. Of course they will always say they applied the brake. Most vehicles with electric parking brake will now automatically apply it if the driver's door is opened, which is why we have to have a service mode for maintenance.
I have demonstrated, many times, how the engine will not hold the vehicle on a hill anyway. Stop facing down the hill, select 1st gear, turn off the engine, and gently release the footbrake. The vehicle will move and lean on the first cylinder's compression. Wait as the compression pressure leaks away, and the vehicle moves to the next cylinder. The momentum hits the second cylinder harder, causing the presure to leak faster, so each lurch is harder, until it just gently rolls down the hill, increasing speed, with the engine just going bump-bump-bump. All parking in gear does is slow the fall.
Parking with the wheels turned against the kerb can hold it, but not with vans, or anything else with large tyres, that just roll up over the kerb.

 

[vexorg]

I had always taken the engine going backward problem more to do with the oil system since the pumps is positive displacement. But even then, it should be no worse than an oil change.

Can see the timing belt being an issue for any modern car, you struggle to get the belt on most cars with the tensioner fully slackened.

 

[The Panda Nut]

I doubt you could sue anyone, as they're likely to point out your responsibility to maintain your parking brake.
A company I do a lot of training work with has advised their drivers to always park in gear, after a few vehicles ran away. Those vehicles have electric parking brakes, and a 'hill hold' feature. The hill hold will operate for a limited time, usually only 2-3 seconds, then let go. I do not think there has been any actual parking brake failures, only driver error. They stop, hold the footbrake, then get out, and moments later, the vehicle rolls away. Of course they will always say they applied the brake. Most vehicles with electric parking brake will now automatically apply it if the driver's door is opened, which is why we have to have a service mode for maintenance.
I have demonstrated, many times, how the engine will not hold the vehicle on a hill anyway. Stop facing down the hill, select 1st gear, turn off the engine, and gently release the footbrake. The vehicle will move and lean on the first cylinder's compression. Wait as the compression pressure leaks away, and the vehicle moves to the next cylinder. The momentum hits the second cylinder harder, causing the presure to leak faster, so each lurch is harder, until it just gently rolls down the hill, increasing speed, with the engine just going bump-bump-bump. All parking in gear does is slow the fall.
Parking with the wheels turned against the kerb can hold it, but not with vans, or anything else with large tyres, that just roll up over the kerb.

All common sense really use the parking brake. I will also add lock and rest the car on a kerb and leave it in gear as overkill. I have never considered the cambelt issue. I feel a combination of measures will mean no one thing is taking all the strain and hope the car will be where it was left. Some good points made all round in this thread. DVSA should read what they write and think about bringing the whole code upto date. Not enough resources to do this now I suppose.

 

[Pugglt Auld Jock]

I had always taken the engine going backward problem more to do with the oil system since the pumps is positive displacement. But even then, it should be no worse than an oil change.

Can see the timing belt being an issue for any modern car, you struggle to get the belt on most cars with the tensioner fully slackened.

That's an interesting observation, about the oil pump pumping oil back into the sump I mean. Never occurred to me before.

 

[portland_bill]

For just over 4 years, I have been battling with carers, not to wash up. Their job is to get my partner out of bed and dressed each morning, and help her to the toilet during the day. They also help her get lunch, but there's really no reason why she shouldn't get her own, she's just been conditioned to be helpless while in hospital. Any crockery or cutlery used should be left by the sink, as the dishwasher will do it all once a day. No reason to use copious amounts of dishwash liquid for one or two items.

We've mostly won, at last. But recently, I've noticed that she has lunch, a buttered roll, with stuff in it, but there's often no knife left that might have been used to spread the butter. Today, I arrived home while the carer was making the roll, nicely buttered, no knife. I had to ask.

She's been using the breadknife. That's a long, serrated blade, dipped in the butter tub, and used to spread the butter. Quite a skill. But why? Where do these people come from? Have they never seen a breadknife before? Do they only ever eat sliced bread? What do they use for butter at home? I'm stunned.

 

[vexorg]

She's been using the breadknife. That's a long, serrated blade, dipped in the butter tub, and used to spread the butter. Quite a skill. But why? Where do these people come from? Have they never seen a breadknife before? Do they only ever eat sliced bread? What do they use for butter at home? I'm stunned.

It is more green and ecofriendly, less washing up to do, technically more efficient too if you can do it (not that I would!!)