Jump to content
Create New...
  • 💬 Join the Conversation

    CnG Logo SQ 2023 RedBlue FavIcon300w.png
    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has been the go-to hub for automotive enthusiasts. Join today to access our vibrant forums, upload your vehicle to the Garage, and connect with fellow gearheads around the world.

     

  • William Maley
    William Maley

    Automakers In Europe To Go Back To Larger Displacement Engines

      The small displacement engine in Europe is going away

    The current trend in powertrains is to downsize engine displacement to meet emission standards. Paired with a set of turbochargers, three-cylinder and even two-cylinder engines can produce enough power to move large vehicles. But this trend is coming to an end in Europe.

    Reuters reports that a number of European automakers are beginning to scrap their small displacement engines for larger displacement ones. With a number of real-world tests showing these engines produce higher CO2 and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions than in the lab, and stricter tests coming in the next few years, automakers are making a costly reversal.

    "They might be doing OK in the current European test cycle, but in the real world they are not performing. So there's actually a bit of 'upsizing' going on, particularly in diesel," said Pavan Potluri, an analyst with IHS Automotive.

    Industry sources gave Reuters some examples of automakers going bigger in terms of displacement.

    • General Motors will ditch the 1.2L diesel in 2019. The smallest engine will be 25-30 percent bigger in displacement
    • Renault will be increasing an almost 10 percent increase on the 1.6L diesel engine in the near future
    • Volkswagen will replace the 1.4L three-cylinder diesel for a new 1.6L in their Polo subcompact

    "The techniques we've used to reduce engine capacities will no longer allow us to meet emissions standards. We're reaching the limits of downsizing." said Alain Raposo, head of powertrain at the Renault-Nissan alliance.

    We can't help but wonder if this change will extend into the U.S. There are a small number of three-cylinders engines on offer, but many automakers have been swapping V6s for turbocharged four-cylinders. 

    Source: Reuters

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    I'd assume they will still be under 2 liter engines, but they have probably found they can rev it less and put less stress on a 1.6 liter, than they do on a boosted like crazy 1.2 or 1.4 that revs higher.  I don't think they'll be going back to widespread V6s.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    46 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

    I'd assume they will still be under 2 liter engines, but they have probably found they can rev it less and put less stress on a 1.6 liter, than they do on a boosted like crazy 1.2 or 1.4 that revs higher.  I don't think they'll be going back to widespread V6s.

    How many cars in Europe even have v6 engines in them?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Its still all relative though. 

    Adding 10% to a 1.6L diesel ( Renault ) is only adding 160cc..

    GM of europe small diesel will be 1.8L

    They're not ditching tiny engines for  " large displacement " Large displacement in Europe is what, like a 2.5L?

     

     

     

     

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    1.5 in my malibu is pretty good little small displacement mill and actually gets pretty good mpg.  would love the power of a 2.0 but it would suck lots more gas.  A 1.75 turbo would be about perfect.

    Like the turbo mid range punch so much, driving the pentastar van makes me think the midrange is sluggish on it.  Ford Edge sport has the 2.7 turbo v6, but that isn't super on gas either.  Wonder if a 2.5 turbo 6 wouldn't be a great mill for good power and mpg mix for vans and SUV's

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    most of us probably remember Dwightlooi's many technicals about large displacement, low piston count engines and such...  good times, and interesting.

    22 minutes ago, regfootball said:

    1.5 in my malibu is pretty good little small displacement mill and actually gets pretty good mpg.  would love the power of a 2.0 but it would suck lots more gas.  A 1.75 turbo would be about perfect.

    Like the turbo mid range punch so much, driving the pentastar van makes me think the midrange is sluggish on it.  Ford Edge sport has the 2.7 turbo v6, but that isn't super on gas either.  Wonder if a 2.5 turbo 6 wouldn't be a great mill for good power and mpg mix for vans and SUV's

    why not an atkinson cycle ~3L I4 using ~2.6L of it with a low/medium pressure turbo probably good for 230+HP possible, but really good low/mid torque and decent FE...?

    Edited by loki
    changed the equivilent displacement estimate.
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    9 hours ago, loki said:

    most of us probably remember Dwightlooi's many technicals about large displacement, low piston count engines and such...  good times, and interesting.

    why not an atkinson cycle ~3L I4 using ~2.6L of it with a low/medium pressure turbo probably good for 230+HP possible, but really good low/mid torque and decent FE...?

    Mazda has done excellent work along just this line.

    On 10/17/2016 at 10:37 AM, Drew Dowdell said:

    It's just a reversal of a trend... and a good reversal too. I originally felt that displacement reduction + turbo charging was the answer, but it hasn't seemed to be the case. 

    The devil is in the details. I really like some of the small displacement Turbo stuff. I want to drive a JCW 2017 Mini really badly.

     

    But yes, the trend can go too far, and I think we need to see a bit more displacement.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    10 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

    Mazda has done excellent work along just this line.

    The devil is in the details. I really like some of the small displacement Turbo stuff. I want to drive a JCW 2017 Mini really badly.

     

    But yes, the trend can go too far, and I think we need to see a bit more displacement.

    about mazda, yeah, but just make a mazda3 speed already?! haha.
    I do like the torque peak mine has at 3250... it can tool around in 5th from 30-40mph fairly well.and if the road is flat estimates at 60MPG on my DIC is common.

    be interesting if mazda skipped the 2.0L and turboed the 1.5L for ~150HP... just because.. hehe. you think that'd be better than the 2.0L in the MX-5?

    • Agree 1
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    13 hours ago, loki said:

    about mazda, yeah, but just make a mazda3 speed already?! haha.
    I do like the torque peak mine has at 3250... it can tool around in 5th from 30-40mph fairly well.and if the road is flat estimates at 60MPG on my DIC is common.

    be interesting if mazda skipped the 2.0L and turboed the 1.5L for ~150HP... just because.. hehe. you think that'd be better than the 2.0L in the MX-5?

    Not sure, the MX5 is pretty tempting as is.

    And yes on a speed three, although I am thinking maybe WRX for my next car.  You only live once!

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Support Real Automotive Journalism

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has delivered real content and honest opinions — not emotionless AI output or manufacturer-filtered fluff.

    If you value independent voices and authentic reviews, consider subscribing. Plans start at just $2.25/month, and paid members enjoy an ad-light experience.*

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Id like to add:  Because it seems NOBODY wants to talk about the REALITY OF WHY manufacturing will NEVER come back to North America no matter WHAT kind of monies we throw at it to try to bring it back. And FYI, NOBODY is REALLY investing in ACTUALLY bringing back manufacturing to North America...  PRELUDE Nixon opened up the door to do trade with China. (not a bad thing) Reagan allowed Wallstreet and corporate America to move manufacturing from the US to China.  (In hindsight, a very bad thing for what it was to be)  CHAPTER 1 The industrial revolution arrived. It supercharged the British Empire and it helped to introduce a young country into being a very powerful nation in the decades to come.  We are here to talk about the young nation and not about the British Empire. CHAPTER 2 Ultimately, the industrial revolution brought many innovations on how to produce and manufacture even more efficiently and faster.  It helped win a world war or two and the last man standing so to speak allowed this young nation become almost the sole superpower on the planet. CHAPTER 3  Many many many products were produced.  Many many new technologies came to be that introduced a new modern society. And those new modern products also brought with them NEW MANUFACTURING TECHNIQUES. CHAPTER 4 Remember when I said that this new nation rose up to the challenge to help win a world war or two?  Well, it was the industrial revolution ace up the sleeve that the USA had and the sheer amount of war machines produced efficiently and with speed was the key to these victories.  Especially that last world war.  When the war was over, the USA enjoyed the technology of mass production that was the envy of the world. (remember the bolded part.) CHAPTER 5  Eventually, manufacturing left the USA to go to China. The world followed suit.  China produces the world's gadgets. CHAPTER 6   (THIS IS THE IMPORTANT CHAPTER THAT NOBODY TALKS ABOUT) China has invested TRILLIONS of dollars in manufacturing. Why? THE WORLD depends on it. China holds itself PROUD to be the world's producer of goods. China wants to CONTINUE TO BE the world's producer of goods. So...China has upgraded their manufacturing plants to be very very state of the art. They will CONTINUE to INVEST not only in monies to ALWAYS RENOVATE their manufacturing plants, but they TEACH their populace to go to ENGINEERING schools so they could ALWAYS have STATE OF THE ART MANUFACTURING.  CHAPTER 7    (ALSO IMPORTANT THAT NOBODY TALKS ABOUT) The USA actually stopped renovating in manufacturing looong before the manufacturing plants left for China. But that is not the issue. The issue is, there are NO monies invested RIGHT now to bring back manufacturing. There are NO plants being built.  LOL tariffs...   And where are those monies from the tariffs?   No American company has invested in manufacturing plants to be built. No American company has worked with AMERICAN engineering schools to teach graduating students to manufacture goods in the USA to actually be with techniques of the early 2000s let alone 2025.  Loooooong gone are those 1930s/1940s/1950s techniques...  We are in 2025 let us not forget.   The USA doesnt even have the TOOLING of those 1930s/1940s/1950s plants. Those were sold to China and elsewhere in the world, but those metal tooling dies right now, have probably been recycled. NEW technologies to manufacture...   CHAPTER 8  (A TRUTH THAT WILL PROBABLY HURT BUT DEFINITELY NOT TALKED ABOUT) A certain American does not favour education.  This certain American favours ignorance.   MOST Americans do NOT want to work in a factory.  But ALL Americans do NOT realize MODERN factory work is NOT how it used to be.  To be fair, Apple iPhone workers in China committing suicide because of shytty work hours is also loooong gone. But then again, American media does not allow for  American peoples to know what a modern manufacturing plant consists of.  Also, engineering is too hard for those subset of Americans to actually learn how to manufacture goods in a modern state of the art way to not only compete with China, but to surpass their prowess in manufacturing to BRING BACK manufacturing from China to the USA.    CHAPTER 9 (ALSO IGNORED) And even if, some manufacturing plants came back to the USA.   There is something that we learned DURING the industrial revolution that says the USA will NEVER get ANY manufacturing plants back.  Sheer volume.  The WORLD has China to produce its goods.  China will ALWAYS remain CHEAPER to produce there just BECAUSE of economies of scale.   The skilled labour is in China.  The raw materials are shipped to China to produce whatever you want to produce. ALL the plants of whatever you have thought of producing whatever you want are ALL in China.  All kinds of different ports exist in China to accept ALL kinds of RAW materials.  ALL the ports are huuuuuge in China. ALL the ports are state of the art.  The BOATS to ship ANYTHING ALL OVER THE WORLD are ALL in China.  The boats are huuuuge and the ports could accept them.  And ALL that coordination is done by STATE OF THE ART communication, education and logistics.   PS:  China and the Chinese government subsidize world ports. The USA once did that...  The USA declares the  Panama Canal as their own.  Past history is past history in subsidizing the canal, but China actually finances it PRESENTLY to open up a bigger canal.  The USA whines abut the name of Gulf of Mexico....      In 2025, CHINA is the envy of the world in manufacturing techniques.     No...manufacturing is NEVER coming back to the USA.   Forget about tariffs, ICE agents, DOGE, assassinations, school shootings and everything wrong (or right) about right wing politics  and left wing lunacy.  THOSE are  just ADDED reasons NOT to do business in the USofA. 
    • IIRC the other founder of Turning Point died of Covid after denying safety steps for covid or something. You can argue morality and logic, but the impacts/results/effects of what you do are objective and real.  A bit of non political fun, this is gorgeous.  If I wasn't turning 60 years old today, I would drive that damn thing. 
    • 100% spot on analysis of Kirk. Yes, the way he died was horrible, no matter what side of the political spectrum on which you stand. However, let us not ignore the man's ACTUAL words and actions that helped fuel the "radicalization" of certain factions in this country and create this exact scenario where someone decided to take matters into their own armed hands. Ten years of pure madness fueled by one giant narcissistic A-Hole in D.C.
    • This guy gets the toxic state of America right on so many levels. it's pretty much cooked.  Drew feel free to delete this if need be. 
    • I like a lot of this guys analysis, he explains well why American manufacturing is declining at a greater and greater pace and why jobs are moving away from the United States.   
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search