[BlackPearl]

I had never liked the concept of downsizing engines in order to increase efficiency. Though I must admit that I am not in a position to challenge it, but had always thought that it is not going to work for diesel workhorse engines which need a lot of torque low down the rev range. In fact I do not like the characteristics of the new gen crdi engines after being used to the low end torque of the Di engine, specially in the mountains.
I am sure that it is not just me because there is a very old saying - "There is no replacement for displacement". But the current trend had us worried that finally this saying will be laid to rest in order to make way for ultra efficient engines of the future.
However there seems to be a silver lining or light at the end of the tunnel. Here are two articles that I found that are highlighting the end of the era of downsizing engines! I wish it is true. Next, I will keep on searching for articles where it will say that autonomous cars will be banned, forever

Is downsizing dead?

https://www.autocarindia.com/auto-bl...ng-dead-410640



"Buzzwords, don’t you love ‘em? A new one seems to surface almost every day. And while some make sense, the vast majority only serves to infuriate. The often overused ‘downsizing’ is one such. Meant to describe a reduction in capacity of an engine, or the downward trend in engine size, we’ve been getting ‘downsized’ engines for years.

The theory behind downsizing is simple enough. A smaller capacity engine, even with a turbo, will consume less fuel. Problem is, this isn’t always completely true; what works in the lab often doesn’t work in the real world. And the automotive world is rapidly discovering this. The difference between the two is said to be around 35 percent! And it isn’t just downsized engines, we’ve also have our fair share of engines with downsized power outputs; a double whammy.

Yes, a couple of successfully downsized engines have been introduced here. VW’s super 1.2 TSI comes to mind, and there have been others, but, by and large, downsized engines haven’t been very successful here.

Let’s see; Honda got its fingers burnt with the second-gen City that put out just 77hp as against the 100-odd horses back in 1998. Honda fixed this soon and got in a proper 100hp VTEC under the hood after three years. And then, on the third-gen City, the underpowered i-DSi was dropped altogether. The City hasn’t looked back since. Maruti, normally a company joined at the hip with Indian customers, has fallen into the same pit, several times. Its 48hp, two-cylinder diesel Celerio bombed so badly the car was quickly withdrawn. And pulling out a model is something Maruti almost never does; see the Omni, Gypsy, etc. The Baleno RS got a downsized engine next, and, truth be told, the 102hp, 1.0 litre, three-cylinder Boosterjet engine could have worked. But since the engine hasn’t been localised, Maruti has to charge a premium for it. It begs the question – why hasn’t Maruti invested in manufacturing the Boosterjet locally? Well, for one, it would be more expensive compared to the 1.2K Series, and then, fuel economy on these turbocharged petrol engines tends to go south as soon as boost from turbo comes in. And that sort of negates the very fuel-efficient driving style of Indian drivers. This is also the reason Ford hasn’t used the EcoBoost engine in more cars here. What it has done, in fact, is introduce the all-new 123hp, 1.5 Dragon engine for India; an upsize. Or, as some like to call it, a ‘right-size’.

Maruti has done some ‘rightsizing’ of its own. The Ciaz facelift came with a larger and more powerful 105hp, 1.5-litre engine that finally allows it to compete better with cars like the Honda City. The same engine has replaced the 1.4 in the Ertiga as well. Yes, we will continue to get a trickle of smaller-capacity engine, like VW’s recently introduced 1.0 petrol, but apart from these missteps, it’s fair to say downsizing is dead."

The age of engine downsizing is over, says Volkswagen

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/new...ys-volkswagen/

"The trend of making engines smaller is over, says Herbert Diess, Volkswagen's chairman, marking an end to a decade-long development where engine capacity has been reducing leading to the current vogue for 1.0-litre, three-cylinder engines.

"The trend of downsizing is over," he said at the launch of the new updated version of the Golf – VW's most popular car.

"Emissions tend to go up as engines get smaller," he said, referring to the way that small-capacity engines can perform worse in real world Driving Emissions Tests (RDE) due to be introduced in Europe in 2019 as part of the Worldwide Harmonized Light-duty Vehicles Testing Procedure (WLTP).

Diess says VW will continue with its current 1.0-litre, three-cylinder engine for its smaller cars such as the Up and Polo, but it will not be developing smaller petrol engines than that and its diesel units will not be getting smaller than that current 1.6-litre unit, either.

"Small diesels are just not economic," he says. "The Polo is currently 30 per cent diesel, but as diesel gets more expensive [to meet RDE tests], it will not be as popular."

He says the popularity of diesel engines, which in some European countries take more than 50 per cent of the market, "has not been a customer choice, but a result of favourable tax regimes. Once you have a price advantage, people will play along", he says.

So while the next generation Polo, due this year, will be offered with a diesel engine, Diess isn't as sure that its replacement will have an oil-burning option.

"It is difficult to predict," he says. "Today diesel take-up is still strong, but if you look at the difference between the current [economy] cycle and RDE it is worse in Germany, where the test only requires between nine and 10 kilowatts [12 to 13bhp] to do, but on the autobahn you need 100kW [124bhp]to do 200kmh [125mph]."

He says the disparity between current tests and real-world consumption and emissions is also wide in China where cars sit in traffic for much of their lives, but the new American tests, which have effectively added 40 per cent to the total emissions detected in tests, have closed the gap.

His opinion echoes a Reuters report last autumn which stated that new emissions tests had exposed flaws in downsized engines. In real life, the report stated, these turbocharged units have a tendency to overheat when their tiny turbos are called on to deliver real-world performance.

To combat this, the engine's software strategy will over-fuel the engine, which results in increased emissions of CO2, oxides of nitrogen as well as unburnt hydrocarbons, particulates and carbon monoxide.

@Moderators, I searched but could not find any separate thread on this topic. Please delete or merge if any thread already exists.

[landcruiser123]

Don't know about diesels, but first hand experience from my uncle in the US: Downsized petrol engines are rubbish. He says that Honda V6s from the yesteryears are better to drive than turbo I4s of today. The newer engines offer very high EPA rated numbers though.

I think manufacturers are really not going to place their bets on smaller engines with turbos- they are going to switch to EVs now. All engine development for the next decade is only going to be incremental, to meet some new emission norms.

[androdev]

Once the focus has shifted to real world emissions and fuel efficiency, the benefits of downsizing don't look as promising. The industry could have moved in the direction of hybrids and EVs instead of downsizing. I am glad VW is rethinking their trend of downsizing overkill. The correct response to their emission scandal should have been an aggressive move towards greener tech like hybrid/EV.

[Hayek]

Don’t think this is correct. We are confusing different kinds of emissions here - what has happened post the diesel-gate scandal is that people are more focused on NOX and particulates than on CO2 emissions. The fact is that small diesels are better in terms of CO2 emissions but far worse on particulates and NOX. And yes, petrol hybrids are far better than diesels on balance for urban usage.

[GTO]

The examples used in the Autocar article are all rubbish. E.g. the 2nd-gen Honda City (Dolphin shape) actually had an engine that its owners were very happy with; it suited the practical nature of the car. Unlike what the article claims, Honda "didn't get burned". It was a runaway success!! And the Ciaz' old 1.4L was hardly the effect of downsizing.

I wouldn't say that downsizing is dead, but yes, the fad around downsized motors is certainly wearing off. The 1.0L EcoBoost is perhaps the most indicative of why. Smaller turbo engines:

- Are more expensive to make
- Need higher maintenance (turbo, intercooler etc.)
- Can be heavier
- Suffer from turbo-lag
- And the worse, their fuel economy isn't as good as claimed. Just ask any EcoBoost owner about the city FE

I think the 1.2L petrols & 1.5L diesels are just perfect for mass market cars. There are some really good engines out there. And let's not forget, India - due to its FE obsession - will never be a "big engine" market. These two sizes hit the sweet spot.

[adi_gt]

Originally Posted by GTO

The examples used in the Autocar article are all rubbish. E.g. the 2nd-gen Honda City (Dolphin shape) actually had an engine that its owners were very happy with; it suited the practical nature of the car. Unlike what the article claims, Honda "didn't get burned". It was a runaway success!!

I completely agree to your views. I have owned the city zx 2006 model with that 77bhp and never felt let down except at low city crawling speeds where the frequent downshifts took a toll on my left knee. I still see a lot of those models on the roads.

[Santoshbhat]

Downsizing helps upto a point I guess. Go beyond that and it can be counterproductive, both in terms of costs of building the engine and emissions. 3L ----> 2L downsizing has been the most successful IMO.

[Rahul Rao]

I agree that Downsizing was a dumb idea.
If you compare larger engines at lower RPM tuned for the same BHP output as smaller engines at higher rpm, the larger one actually turns out to be more efficient, it also has excellent low end torque.
My Polo 1.2 Tdi returned 20 or so on highways, and 15 to 17 in Pune city. Anything above 85 -90 and efficiency was below 20.

Current Terrano returns 21 in the 90-100 range, and never below 19 even if driven faster. In City it is again 14 to 17. This figures are in spite of the 300 or so kg higher weight, and displacement increase by 300 cc.
Trucks and buses where tax is not related to displacement have gone up from 6 Lit to 9 and now 11 Lit with redline rpm dropping from 2500 to 1900.


Rahul

[Hayek]

Originally Posted by GTO

The examples used in the Autocar article are all rubbish. E.g. the 2nd-gen Honda City (Dolphin shape) actually had an engine that its owners were very happy with; it suited the practical nature of the car. Unlike what the article claims, Honda "didn't get burned".

Agree fully. I owned the second generation City and loved the engine - it was perfect for my commute in Bombay traffic. I was among the first people to book that car, and had the option of the previous gen VTEC at a very similar price. I actually found the iDSI better than the VTEC for city driving - you really had to wring the VTEC to get it performing (and yes it was fabulous when wrung) but I took a call that the practical aspects for day to day driving and the better interiors outweighed the once in a blue moon benefit while highway driving.

[gthang]

Downsizing was a knee-jerk reaction to escalating oil prices.
Unfortunately, the oil price swing curve and the downsizing development and production time cycle did not synchronize.
Live and learn, I suppose.

Cheers.

[Durango Dude]

Where this downsizing trend appears odd is when you see a 4 pot biturbo diesel engine in place of a smooth 6/8 cylinder diesel and costing upwards of ₹ 1 crore, like in the Volvo XC 90.

[blackwasp]

Originally Posted by BlackPearl

I am sure that it is not just me because there is a very old saying - "There is no replacement for displacement". But the current trend had us worried that finally this saying will be laid to rest in order to make way for ultra efficient engines of the future.

Thanks for starting this thread. At the beginning, let me clarify that manufacturers have not been kind to the Indian market. Compared to global spec, we have always been given the shorter end of the stick. Now, this could be due the taxation (<1.0, <1.2, <1.5) or the Indian population's obsession with FE. I will not go into this argument, but fact remains, we have always got one or at the most 2 engine options in our cars.

Is downsizing dead?
The often overused ‘downsizing’ is one such. Meant to describe a reduction in capacity of an engine, or the downward trend in engine size, we’ve been getting ‘downsized’ engines for years.

Downsizing has hit developed economies in the Europe and America much harder than other (developing) economies simply for one reason - we were never offered bigger engines that are now being downsized. In global context, its happening, and I feel sad large displacement NA engine now being shrinked and being slapped with a turbo or two.

Originally Posted by landcruiser123

I think manufacturers are really not going to place their bets on smaller engines with turbos- they are going to switch to EVs now. All engine development for the next decade is only going to be incremental, to meet some new emission norms.

This is a much sensible argument. An acquaintance reports 14-16 km/l in his Camry hybrid in Mumbai traffic! Meanwhile my 1.4 turbo car is lucky to get double digit FE numbers.

Originally Posted by androdev

Once the focus has shifted to real world emissions and fuel efficiency, the benefits of downsizing don't look as promising. The industry could have moved in the direction of hybrids and EVs instead of downsizing. The correct response to their emission scandal should have been an aggressive move towards greener tech like hybrid/EV.

While emissions and downsizing is directly linked, I will hold the policy makers responsible out here. They set up static conditions (lab / bench tests) for emission norms which the car makers were too happy to game. I'm frankly appalled that even in India, we are moving towards BS 6 norms, but what about enforcement? Most of the PUC machines are never working and getting reading about idling emissions is very difficult in modern cars - A friend's Jetta was showing 0 readings on the machine at idle ~ no doubt a faulty machine, but none the less we got the PUC test passed!

Now that authorities are cracking hard on these loop holes, manufacturers will have no option but to adopt better (electric) technologies. I don't mean to say all electric cars are the future, but hybrid that can run on 40-50 km just on battery juice should offer much better emission savings, especially in traffic jams most cities have today.

Originally Posted by GTO

The examples used in the Autocar article are all rubbish.

I agree, we were never fortunate to get good engines in the first place, so don't think it matters. The only examples that I can think of are:
Polo 1.6 Petrol -> Polo 1.2 TSI
VWs 1.6 Diesel -> 1.5 Diesel (main reason being taxation, + 3rd party insurance for >1500cc engines is much higher)
Polo 1.2 Petrol -> Polo 1.0

The 1.0L EcoBoost is perhaps the most indicative of why. Smaller turbo engines:

- Are more expensive to make
- Need higher maintenance (turbo, intercooler etc.)
- Can be heavier
- Suffer from turbo-lag
- And the worse, their fuel economy isn't as good as claimed. Just ask any EcoBoost owner about the city FE

Valid points. Not to mention the added complexity will reduce the reliability of the vehicle as well. That said, Ford does sell the 1.5-litre concurrently, so not a downsize per se.

I think the 1.2L petrols & 1.5L diesels are just perfect for mass market cars. There are some really good engines out there. And let's not forget, India - due to its FE obsession - will never be a "big engine" market. These two sizes hit the sweet spot.

I agree with the diesel, but disagree with the petrol. Having lived with the 1.2 Petrol Punto, I can attest that while 1.2 engines were ok 10 years ago, these rules deserve to be updated for 2018 and beyond. For an enthusiast, no 1.2-litre petrol (barring the Tsi) offers enough punch for 1 ton cars. I agree that a vehicle's weight also matters, but at the end of the day, the car should move.

Originally Posted by Santoshbhat

Downsizing helps upto a point I guess. Go beyond that and it can be counterproductive, both in terms of costs of building the engine and emissions. 3L ----> 2L downsizing has been the most successful IMO.

The 3.0 to 2.0 downgrade has been successful so far because there has been weight reduction, increase in tech, etc. eg. C300d 2.0 makes 241 BHP / 500 Nm, very close the E350d's 253 BHP / 620 Nm figures. Now that's a difference of just 12 BHP / 120 Nm but a reduction of 33% of the engine size. I'm sure same numbers can be seen across other luxury cars.

[Samba]

Interesting thread!

Personally i am a fan of bigger engines and i believe, there is 'no replacement for displacement'.

The initial low end torque produced by the bigger engines are simply unmatched. Turbo's do compensate that to some extent in the smaller sized engine's but the fun starts and ends in the turbo zone itself.

Just giving an example, in Himachal at kaza-Manali highway there was a water crossing with boulders. I was driving my 1.5L petrol Etios and it just went over the boulders easily without revving it much.

On the same water crossing when i sat in my friends 1.2L petrol Swift to take it out, i stalled it twice and on the 3rd attempt i took the car out with much higher revs.

At-least for those, who love to drive on the hilly region will always prefer an engine with higher displacement.