Go Back   Team-BHP > BHP India > The Indian Car Scene


View Poll Results: What means more to you? Engine Capacity (cc) or Power (bhp)?
Engine Capacity / Size (cc) 26 17.33%
Power Output (bhp) 124 82.67%
Voters: 150. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 6th April 2010, 22:22   #31
Senior - BHPian
 
clevermax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Tvm/Amsterdam
Posts: 1,598
Thanked: 401 Times
Default

One thing about the road tax calculation in India:

Our road tax calculation is still done based on the CC !! They don't even care if it's a petrol or diesel!

IMO, the 1500 cc tax slab is just stupid idea. First of all there should be different slabs for petrol and diesel engines.

Secondly, the newer engines produce more power with less CC. So, cubic capacity alone shouldn't be the basis for that.
clevermax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2010, 14:57   #32
BHPian
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 573
Thanked: 176 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clevermax View Post
One thing about the road tax calculation in India:

Our road tax calculation is still done based on the CC !! They don't even care if it's a petrol or diesel!

IMO, the 1500 cc tax slab is just stupid idea. First of all there should be different slabs for petrol and diesel engines.

Secondly, the newer engines produce more power with less CC. So, cubic capacity alone shouldn't be the basis for that.
Mate,

Are you nuts !! (no offense) but we already are paying through our noses for cars, and the excise/taxation/customs policies are confusing enough as it is. If anything what needs to happen is that diesel price needs to be de-regulated, and, we need to standardize all taxes throughout the country (not just for cars)

cheers!
imp!
imp! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2010, 15:17   #33
BHPian
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 573
Thanked: 176 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenParadox View Post
But why? If you elaborate on this part, I believe the debate will become more transparent.


Request: Kindly explain 'more linear power delivery'. Thanks in advance.

My point is, if all that hits your senses is all that you can perceive, how does a larger engine make any difference to the driver? Rather than each one's view, can we look for a technical reason why we should prefer one over the other? (1) In driving; (2) in maintenance; or (3) or ownership costs.

Is there such a reason?

NA's are relatively cheap to manufacture, ergo, they should be cheaper to purchase. They (NA) are also cheaper to maintain. This is also tied into the way the turbo works, all the engine internals are at much higher stresses, and even though the engine block is designed to handle these, the stresses will take its toll on the engine eventually (probably long after you've sold it and moved onto a newer car)
Taking care of a turbo can be a pain, ideally, one should let the car idle for a couple of minutes on a cold start and before switching it off. This is to allow coolant (oil) to circulate through the turbo properly. Many newer cars have a "cut off switch" (forget what it is called) that will make the engine idle for a given amount of time after you've switched it off. I don't think any of the cars we have here offer them.
Before the Turbo kicks in, the car behaves like a naturally aspirated engine. i.e. if it is a 1.8L propelling a Passat, it will behave like it is a 1.8L engine. Compare this to the 2.4 propelling an Accord which is roughly the same size. This makes the car feel sluggish until the turbo kicks in. Once the turbo kicks in, the car suddenly becomes much faster. Hence the term non-linear power delivery. Think of turbo lag.

Cheers !
imp!

P.S
I don't know much, but I hope that my basics are essentially correct. Please let me know if I am wrong.
imp! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2010, 15:37   #34
CPH
BHPian
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: London
Posts: 577
Thanked: 33 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by imp! View Post
This is also tied into the way the turbo works, all the engine internals are at much higher stresses, and even though the engine block is designed to handle these, the stresses will take its toll on the engine eventually (probably long after you've sold it and moved onto a newer car)
Taking care of a turbo can be a pain, ideally, one should let the car idle for a couple of minutes on a cold start and before switching it off. This is to allow coolant (oil) to circulate through the turbo properly. Many newer cars have a "cut off switch" (forget what it is called) that will make the engine idle for a given amount of time after you've switched it off. I don't think any of the cars we have here offer them.
Before the Turbo kicks in, the car behaves like a naturally aspirated engine. i.e. if it is a 1.8L propelling a Passat, it will behave like it is a 1.8L engine. Compare this to the 2.4 propelling an Accord which is roughly the same size. This makes the car feel sluggish until the turbo kicks in. Once the turbo kicks in, the car suddenly becomes much faster. Hence the term non-linear power delivery. Think of turbo lag.

Cheers !
imp!

P.S
I don't know much, but I hope that my basics are essentially correct. Please let me know if I am wrong.
The part of your statement I highlighted is a fallacy. Strain is strain on a big capacity engine or on a small capacity engine. The number of cylinders and the cc have no influence on the wear factor. If an engine is designed to take a certain amount of stress for a set life cycle then that is it. No ifs and buts.

Also turbo technology has changed dramatically over the past 10+ years, which is why manufacturers come back to them.

One important argument, which makes small capacity engines disrable is the weight issue.

First of all the engines get more compact, which means less space is required for their housing. Less space means less weight.

The smaller engine has got less weight to start with.

This makes it easier to balance the car, which means the manufacturer doesn't need to bump up the car's weight for better balance.

The results are better handling cars, less fuel consumption and less tcomponent wear.
CPH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th April 2010, 15:50   #35
Senior - BHPian
 
clevermax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Tvm/Amsterdam
Posts: 1,598
Thanked: 401 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by imp! View Post
Mate,

Are you nuts !! (no offense) but we already are paying through our noses for cars, and the excise/taxation/customs policies are confusing enough as it is. If anything what needs to happen is that diesel price needs to be de-regulated, and, we need to standardize all taxes throughout the country (not just for cars)

cheers!
imp!
I told this because we had to pay extra tax for out 1570 cc TUD5 diesel engine equipped car since it is above 1500cc slab. The car just has 60 or 57 bhp power. Since it is an NA diesel, it has more cc than a petrol for the same power. So paying extra money just for that cc and not for more power didn't make any sense. A more powerful petrol engine under 1500cc can escape this tax slab!

Last edited by clevermax : 7th April 2010 at 15:52.
clevermax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th April 2010, 18:27   #36
BHPian
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Hyderabad
Posts: 45
Thanked: 9 Times
Default

yeah.. unlike americans we dont need things that are big in size.. i prefer pocket rockets!
Snowman79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th April 2010, 21:25   #37
BHPian
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Alappuzha
Posts: 249
Thanked: 66 Times
Default

There is a saying that " there is no substitute for cubic capacity". Less CC and More power is very well but when it comes to overall reliability and tolerance of the engine, cc plays a crucial role.It is true that modern petrol engines( eg: Honda engines)produce high BHP figures and great torque at HIGH RPMs.But vehicles with such engines are never meant to be haulers, but will be excellent performers. But to pump enough low end torque at low RPMs (without revving up the engine) for hauling , ie from 1400-1500 Rpms, CC is inevitable. Offcourse for fun vehicles, this rule has no application. I think a healthy mix of power and CC,which was done in the earlier Scorpio 2.6 Turbo DI chaindrive, is the best way to go.

Last edited by Ashley Nair : 11th April 2010 at 21:28.
Ashley Nair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th April 2010, 23:00   #38
BHPian
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chennai
Posts: 181
Thanked: 40 Times
Smile

Hi
To me the output is more important. Greater bhp is what i look at in a engine. But longhorn had made it clear. The torque factor is applicable to indian roads. I agree with his views.
Cheers
drrajasaravanan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2010, 00:35   #39
Senior - BHPian
 
Shan2nu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hubli - Karnata
Posts: 5,525
Thanked: 87 Times
Default

Quote:
But to pump enough low end torque at low RPMs (without revving up the engine) for hauling , ie from 1400-1500 Rpms, CC is inevitable. Offcourse for fun vehicles, this rule has no application.
Where the engine produces max torque does not depend on the CC of the engine. If an engine is designed to produce power/torque at high rpm, it will do so, whether it is a 1ltr engine or a 5ltr engine.

The 3471cc Accord V6 produces 339nm@5000rpm but, the 1991cc Cruze engine produces 327nm@2600rpm. Thats 96% of the Accord's torque at 52% of its rpm and with an engine thats is just 57% of its size.

These days, if an engine designer needs a certain amount of torque at a given rpm, he need no go in for higher cc, he can achieve the same results with a low revving small engine and forced induction.

Shan2nu

Last edited by Shan2nu : 12th April 2010 at 00:40.
Shan2nu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2010, 13:14   #40
BHPian
 
Manu Krishna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 11
Thanked: 0 Times
Default

Can somebody please help me understand this with numbers, with body/mass to power ratio prospective? Eg: Mahindra Scorpio > weight - 2.5 tones (2X4), 2.2 ltr engine and 120bhp. For the weight of this scale, I believe it should handle an easy 3L engine with a min 220bhp plus, but it’s down sized to achieve mileage! Agreed. 2.2L with 120bhp sounds to be a stress for a fully loaded Scorpio driving up the hill with 2.5 tones of its own weight, plus 600kgs of passenger weight and 300kgs of luggage (Total 3.4tones). So will more “bhp” or more "CC" helps in this scenario? Also, where does torque come into picture?
Manu Krishna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2010, 13:47   #41
BHPian
 
brijesh1977's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: cochin
Posts: 45
Thanked: 4 Times
Default

more BHP with less CC should be ideal for small cars but i guess for SUV,s as the weight of the car goes up you need more cc, i,am really not sure, request advise...
brijesh1977 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th April 2010, 17:13   #42
Senior - BHPian
 
aniketi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Pune
Posts: 1,270
Thanked: 711 Times
Default

I guess with less cc & more power you are able to achieve more FE. Also it will be economical. Thats the reason we are getting such cars in India now. Mariti's 1.2 K series is classic example of that
aniketi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th April 2010, 13:50   #43
BHPian
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 886
Thanked: 64 Times
Default

In the current context Power/ torque matter more than the engine size (CC). Earlier days the two were directly proportional in most contexts.
shatrughna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th April 2010, 19:08   #44
BHPian
 
Grafin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 218
Thanked: 2 Times
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manu Krishna View Post
Can somebody please help me understand this with numbers, with body/mass to power ratio prospective? Eg: Mahindra Scorpio > weight - 2.5 tones (2X4), 2.2 ltr engine and 120bhp. For the weight of this scale, I believe it should handle an easy 3L engine with a min 220bhp plus, but it’s down sized to achieve mileage! Agreed. 2.2L with 120bhp sounds to be a stress for a fully loaded Scorpio driving up the hill with 2.5 tones of its own weight, plus 600kgs of passenger weight and 300kgs of luggage (Total 3.4tones). So will more “bhp” or more "CC" helps in this scenario? Also, where does torque come into picture?

Well, power isn't everything.
In an SUV, like the Scorpio you've mentioned, torque is the key factor.
To climb a hill with 3.4 tonnes to pull, having a torquier motor is the best option.
Grafin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th April 2010, 19:11   #45
Senior - BHPian
 
arjunrudra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: chennai
Posts: 1,515
Thanked: 13 Times
Default

I think it again boils down to what the purpose is for . The mitsubushi evo series are all 2 litre engines and they produce mind numbing power and some are tuned to even a 1000bhp. So thats a standing example.
arjunrudra is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Different manufacturers : Exactly the same engine capacity gsbhatia Technical Stuff 14 28th June 2016 17:18
Daimler India expands solar power capacity to 3.3 Megawatts dZired Commercial Vehicles 3 9th June 2016 18:10
Engine oil capacity of Indigo's 475idi Diesel engine HIGHNOON Technical Stuff 17 15th August 2013 20:50
Amidst downturn, Ford India expands engine plant capacity DukeNukem The Indian Car Scene 15 7th September 2012 02:25
Increasing the cubic capacity of a bike engine - pros & cons? ev1lsyk0 Motorbikes 8 19th March 2009 16:04


All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 06:38.

Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Team-BHP.com
Proudly powered by E2E Networks