Editorial: Will Americans buy cars with engines smaller than 1.5 liters?

[Thirty-Nine]

With the discussion about the 2011 Yaris lately and what engine it will have, (such a 1.3-, 1.5-, or 1.8-liter engine), I began to think about smaller engine options. FYI, Toyota hasn't offered anything smaller than a 1.5 in the U.S. since the 1984 Toyota Starlet.

Do Americans have an aversion to engines smaller than 1.5 liters?

http://www.subcompactculture.com/200...cars-with.html

[darthbauer]

I'd rock it if It got like 70mpg.

[Kaotic Lazagna]

I wouldn't mind a smaller displacement engine that is a diesel or is force-fed; i.e. Suzuki Cappuccino.

[ezhacker1]

lol the Cappuccino, i only know of that car from Initial D. I think cars should be 1.5 and 1.8 only cept for trucks and SUVs. save the planet some.

[Kaotic Lazagna]

Originally Posted by ezhacker1

lol the Cappuccino, i only know of that car from Initial D. I think cars should be 1.5 and 1.8 only cept for trucks and SUVs. save the planet some.

LOL. I knew of it from the Gran Turismo series. hehehe. I personally don't need a lot of hp, as I'm a very conservative driver. I'd much rather have loads of torque at the moment.

[yaris-me]

With CAFE going up, we will be faced with smaller engines or guzzler tax.

[SilverBack]

I welcome it as a daily driver, but I won't go any lower than 1.3 L. About 75 HP is plenty to get from Point A to Point B. No question about it

[SailDesign]

I drove a 650cc car for years. Diidn't accelerate for shi'ite, but corm=nered just fine.
Fiat 126.

[BailOut]

I have never used more than 44hp in the Yaris and could have gotten by with a few less at the time, so I'd be perfectly happy with a 1.0L.

[Loren]

Geo Metros were sold with 1.0 liter 3-cylinder engines, and later with 1.4's. Honda has sold a lot of 1.3 liter engines in the US, too.

I think the people who would be hesitant to buy a car with a SMALLER than 1.5 liter engine are the same people who would be hesitant to even buy a 1.5 liter engine. You know the type.

But, technology is a wonderful thing. I don't think about the displacement of the engine so much as the output of the engine. Bailout is right, nobody really "needs" more than about 50 hp just to get around in a 2400 pound car. But, most people like to have that extra power on tap to get out of the way when they need to. It's just something we've gotten used to having.

Personally, I autocross my daily driver car, and there is a lower limit to how much power I'll accept. Generally speaking, I need a car that will get me to 60 mph in about 8-9 seconds. That takes a well-managed 100 hp and 100 ft/lbs of torque in a 2400 pound car.

What's amazing is that Toyota (and Honda, and probably others) has managed to get almost 108 hp and 103 ft/lbs from 1.5 liters... AND still return fantastic fuel economy. I read somewhere yesterday that there's a new Toyota 1.3 liter engine coming that will have about the same power output from 1.3 liters. Same power, less displacement... probably better economy! I'd be all over it. Especially if it came to me in an IQ that only weighs 1950 pounds. That would rock on many levels.

But, realistically, for these smaller-engined and lower-powered (lower than the stuff being offered by Ford and Chevy) cars to become popular in the US, gas prices will need to take another hike. And they will... eventually.

[tuckevalastin]

1.5L is already to small for me

[Kaotic Lazagna]

I think grannies use more hp than I do. LMAO.

[Thirty-Nine]

I owned a 1979 Civic 1200 (1.2-liter). It was very slow, but it got around fine, and was great for city driving. I'd buy a smaller engine if it would return higher mileage for sure. I don't need a rocketship for daily driving. And yes, technology has come a long way as Loren said. Gone are the days of smog pumps, choked-off engines, and such. Now you can have lower displacement engines that still create good, usable power.

And yes, gas prices will (and are) going up again. Just went up to $2.89 for 87 here in Portland.

With regards to CAFE, I don't think you can have your cake and eat it, too. We'll either have cars with smaller, more fuel-efficient engines, or keep cars with larger, less-fuel efficient engines and a gas tax.

[Bob Dog]

My 1000cc 1996 Metro delivered a very real and wonderful 49 mpg, but it could not pass, safely enter a 65mph highway, or climb a moderate grade at 55mph in fourth gear. I would buy a vehicle with a small displacement engine, but only if it generated adequate torque and horsepower to operate safely on the American system of highways. However, to generate higher hp with lower displacement it is generally necessary to increase compression, which in most cases leads to greater engine wear and shorter engine life, and therefore an increase in cost to own per mile.

[firebob]

My step dad that’s a SUZ man loved the 30 miles I took him down the parkway. We had to hit the interstate on the way home and told me I was using all the power the car had on the parkway. I took my big toe off the peddle and put a few more toes on it and showed him it had more get up and go then his V8 SUZ.

I have been all over the US in my Yaris. I pulled the back seat, pulled the hubcaps, and built a light weight platform with some foam under it. If you put me, my wife, and the junk we carry for our work it would be around 800 to 850 pounds.


I would think that all the Harley people be after the small cars. A drz 400 has more HP at the wheel then most of the huge hogs that weigh a few hundred pounds more with there huge motors. But if you look at it the owners need the huge trucks so they can get there bikes with in a few miles of where there going unload and ride there bikes the last 50 miles to where there going.
Better yet next time you have time to spare stop by a Harley dealership and aks them how many HP a bike has. They will just toss out a number but I be they will not be able to show it on paper.

[gokartride]

Originally Posted by Bob Dog

My 1000cc 1996 Metro delivered a very real and wonderful 49 mpg

I had a '91 Metro and I agree...I did enjoy the car though. Another factor is weight....the challenge of making small cars safe generally means they are heavier and that is a big challenge for a small engine. However, back in the day, smaller engines worked great in the Midgets and Sprites and Spitfires...maybe lighter cars can re-emerge one day w/ the right safety engineering. I'm not holding my breath on this one...not in the States.

[highwaypass]

small displacement=happy car.It doesn't need to rush,just enjoy the good life

*once i drive my grandma VW bettle and had no problem with that except the rear engine and heavy steering wheel

[gokartride]

Originally Posted by highwaypass

small displacement=happy car.

Ah, give me a 2CV any day!!!