|
Information |
|
Petrol Engine ConfusionViews : 1355 Replies : 8Users Viewing This Thread : |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Jun 10th, 2017, 09:45 | #1 |
New Member
Last Online: Dec 11th, 2017 14:14
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Tunbridge Wells
|
Petrol Engine Confusion
Hi
I'm new to Volvo but am thinking about buying a petrol V40, I've test driven a 2014/15 1.6l T2 which I liked, but have noticed there are also 2.0l T2's which appear to be the same power (122bhp), economy, tax band etc, the only difference seems to be the higher insurance group. The current Volvo brochure doesn't seem to mention the 1.6, so I'm guessing the 1.6l was replaced by the 2.0l, but why would they replace the engine with what seems to be a less efficient one? Is there any advantage of the 2.0l over the 1.6l? Thanks! |
Jun 10th, 2017, 11:23 | #2 |
Senior Member
Last Online: Today 05:59
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Dorset
|
The 2.0L T2 engine from 2016 model year is a Volvo engine with a Volvo gearbox whereas the old 1.6L is I believe a Ford eco boost engine and gearbox.
I have a 2016 V40 with the new T2 engine and it pulls very well, averages around 40 mpg but can get high 40's on a longer run. I have not driven a 1.6L T2 so cannot compare the two engines but given the choice I would go for the 2.0L Volvo motor. I have not read anything on here though about any issues with the 1.6L. As for the insurance the V40 is about £100 less a year than my old V50 1.6 diesel so I doubt if there would be that much of a difference between the two T2 engines. |
Jun 12th, 2017, 13:29 | #3 |
New Member
Last Online: Dec 11th, 2017 14:14
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Tunbridge Wells
|
Thanks for the information, this is kind of what I suspected may have happened, finding out for sure turned out to be more difficult than I thought.
Not sure if this is completely true but my initial investigation suggested that the 1.6l T2 was group 18 insurance, but the 2.0l T2 was group 24 - which is mad because they are both 122bhp. Getting quotes from the same insurer added £100/year. But you're right, should really drive a 2.0l before deciding. Thanks |
Jun 22nd, 2017, 22:11 | #4 |
FCW Auto Service
Last Online: Yesterday 23:31
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Gloucester
|
I'd always take a Volvo engine over a Ford engine where possible.
Not saying ford engine's are bad, but Volvo makes particularly strong engines. |
Jun 26th, 2017, 20:28 | #5 |
Master Member
Last Online: Jan 25th, 2019 17:19
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Kent
|
Just to add to confusion, T3 my16 with geartronic gearbox is only a 1.5ltr engine with same power as man 2.0Ltr T3.
|
Jun 26th, 2017, 20:46 | #6 | |
Experienced Member
Last Online: Today 22:32
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: L/H side
|
Quote:
remember all these new petrol engines are GDI technology - Direct injection into the combustion chamber like a diesel .
__________________
My comments are only based on my opinions and vast experience . |
|
Jul 6th, 2017, 13:17 | #7 |
Member
Last Online: Aug 26th, 2019 10:17
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Knutsford
|
I had an S40, older model which was a 1.8GDI (Mitsubishi) engine, worked great until the injection system failed at 105K miles.
|
Jul 6th, 2017, 22:01 | #8 |
Experienced Member
Last Online: Today 22:32
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: L/H side
|
Just about every new petrol engined car on the road now is GDI,
__________________
My comments are only based on my opinions and vast experience . |
Jul 8th, 2017, 07:58 | #9 |
Premier Member
Last Online: Jul 22nd, 2021 23:43
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Huddersfield
|
There are significant differences (thankfully!) between current direct-injection methodologies and Mitsubishi's abortive GDI tech.
Currently, direct injection is used to give higher accuracy of fuel delivery, more precisely delivering the correct stoichiometric air-fuel mixture (AFR 14.7:1), in order to give lower emissions. Mitsubishi GDI was quite different. It was designed in order to precisely place the fuel charge in the cylinder with carefully shaped pistons in order to allow a "lean burn"mode with AFR as high as 40:1, as well as unusually high compression ratio. This lead to issues with coking (as the high afr leads to soot) and high NOX emissions (which they developed a special catalyst for in Japan, but the sulphur in European fuel poisoned the catalyst, so they had to detune the engines a lot and install a different catalyst. The benefit was that if you could keep it in the lean-burn mode then it was quite fuel efficient - I managed over 50mpg on one 150 mile motorway run in my Mitsubishi Galant 2.4 GDI. There were too many downsides, and with tightening emissions legislation the whole concept of lean-burn petrol engines was dropped. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|