If money was no object, then there's no reason not to go for the most powerful engine option available in a given model of car, but as you say, that model is also likely to have silly rubber-band tyres and firm suspension, which can get very annoying on the average pockmarked road.

In general usage, there's no reason why the more powerful engine should need more maintenance than others in the range. There are exceptions, of course - my brother-in-law had a Mitsubishi Lancer Evo, which had a specified service interval of 6,000 miles, but that's a rally homologation model.

However, a punchy, pokey engine is usually available in other, more comfort-oriented models in the range if you choose carefully. For example, the Golf GTi has 210bhp, and a wide spread of torque, which will give you all the performance and overtaking punch you're ever likely to realistically use on the road.

My 10p worth is, the power output and 0-60 standing-start times that are always quoted mean nothing. What's more important is in-gear acceleration, especially 30-70 in 3rd gear (manual gearbox) or kickdown (automatic box). Good in-gear acceleration is a product of torque output, which is more important on the road than outright peak power.

Test drive lots of different models until you find one that suits you!

I see cars as being on a kind of spectrum, at one end are the super quick high tech cars like the BMW M5 and the low tech basic cars like the MX5. In one you have massive power, grip and the computing power of NASA to look after everything for you. Then at the other end the MX5 has only enough power and grip,to go quickly you need to work at it, and you can get it wrong if you dont concentrate. One is effortlessly fast the other you need to work at. After a 50 mile A/B road drive the BMW will be there first but the MX5 will have the bigger smile on its face. To get fun from the BMW you need to do licence sheddihg speeds.

Is more power good,? yes it is but its not the be all and end all. It depend what your looking for. Most of us end up with something in the middle, a jack of all trades and where on my spectrum you place yourself is purly a matter of choice and money.

A magazine did a test on motorbikes, some lower power and some superfast bikes. It was a race around a given route, 25 miles mixed urban / opem road / motorway. The only rule was not to break the speed limit and you can probably guess the result. no differense to speak of, the fast bikes only used 30% of their power and the slow bikes used 55% of theirs. The real world keeps a lid on things.

Edited by Stanb Sevento on 07/05/2017 at 10:21

If money was no problem, is there any reason not to go for the mega power (e.g. an R).

None whatsoever. The possibly lower reliability, longevity and higher running costs will not be an issue.

It's nice to have a bit of poke to get out of trouble or overtake if needed.

This is probably the best reason for having a large amount of instantly available naturally aspirated power, preferably in an ordinary-looking car as another poster has observed for good reason. It's certainly the most fun.

Fuel consumption not a major priority as don't do big mileage.

Quite so. Nowadays there is overemphasis on incremental fuel economy which detracts from the huge profits the motor industry now makes from depreciation, heavily disguised as various financial deals. At extremes, 4000m per annum at 20mpg will need 100gals more than 40mpg, around £550 pa.

Any maintenance or other worries about going for the most powerful engine in a range?

Depends on the engine. Large naturally aspirated ones with less than 80bhp per litre and a good evolutionary pedigree are likely to last longer and have fewer repair and maintenance bills. The jury is still out on thrashy turboed small ones with more than 100bhp per litre.

I suppose the car is more likley to come with large wheels and thin tyres so a firmer ride.

Probably, but these can be changed.

It's usually best to get the most common engine of a particular car model as the most R&D will have been done with this engine. If you buy a version with the biggest engine shoe-horned in then the development cycle might not be 100% - eg suspension balance, brakes, maintenance (eg cambelt change involves removing the engine - which can only come out from under the car after suspension removal!)

I have to say, i am genuinely curious to learn what kind of trouble you are getting into that you need a 300bhp golf to get out of?!

The 2nd part of that statement regarding overtaking left me rolling my eyes at the apparent inability of the 'modern' driver (shall we say, the 'Clarkson generation') to overtake, or indeed, simply travel quickly in a low powered car. To suggest that you need a 300bhp golf in order to overtake?, seriously?. My transit connect van has 88bhp and probably about 155lb/ft of torque at 2000rpm. When i leave the house in the morning the half ton of water in the back means it weighs pretty close to the 2.3 tons GVW. Yet i have little difficulty overtaking slower moving traffic, so i have no idea whatsoever why you cant manage in your 'warm' hatch.

You dont need a powerful car to travel quickly, just the skills to read the road properly, and know how to exploit the car you are driving. Back when i first got into cars it seemed that most of my favourite motoring journalists had owned a citroen 2cv, it seemed like a right of passage. Entirely understandable though, because driving a low powered car makes you a better driver by learning about reading the road, looking ahead, preserving momentum by carrying as much speed as possible through the corners and only using the brakes when absolutely necessary. The 2cv was the perfect car for this as its soft loping suspension and ability to keep on gripping long after you expected the 125 section tyres (yes really, like your space saver!) to give up, meant that it could be driven flat out more or less everywhere, getting round the impossibility of going 'fast' (70mph top speed), by simply never going slowly!.

Once, back in about 1993, i drove from Wigan to my home in Aberdeen in exactly 5 hours. Taking into account the 15 minute stop for fuel and toilet, that worked out as an average speed of 70.6 mph!. The car?, a 1986 mk2 fiesta diesel with over 80% less power than a golf r (54bhp). Despite having driven some very powerful (for the day) cars, my most memorable journeys are all ones done in very low powered vehicles, such as the above.

I dont really have much interest in modern 'performance' cars, it seems to have desended into a contest of who has most power and who can get round the'ring fastest. I'll take a 1.5 mazda mx5 thanks

I think this all depends on what you want from a car. If your journeys are mainly short, the 1.4 / 1.5 TSI engine as in the Golf or SWMBO's Audi A1 will do a great job - and it will also do a very good job with excellent economy on longer runs. Skidpan has told us on here how good his SEAT Leon 1.4 was on a trip to the Highlands of Scotland.

But if you often have the need for effortless cruising, and instant but unfussed acceleration from, say, 50 to 70 mph (or faster if you travel in Germany!), then the bigger engine will be worthwhile. I agree that it's a pity that so often you can't have it without rock-hard suspension and rubber-band tyres.

The VW Group 1.4 / 1.5 engine is a particularly good one. With other makes a 1.4 in a medium-sized car can be pedestrian at best.

Does it really matter? Overtaking on modern roads with modern traffic volumes is generally a no no.

Way back when I got my 37 bhp Herald from home to Newcastle upon Tyne in five hours including the time to use the CB to get destructions for the final mile. Mate was in the pub expexting me to arrive two hours later. Chariot was understressed enough to sit at full throttle for hours at a time.

"A good big 'un is better than a good little 'un" fits with my natural behaviour.

"Enough is as good as a feast" is more rational.

Hence I have a tendency to overdo things, but I try to resist it.

Buying too big a back pack means I will put in it more than I need, because I can, and then regret that I have more to carry. Buying a higher performance version of a car, even if I can resist temptation and keep my licence, means spending more money to buy, drive and insure.it for no real benefit. Buying two sandwiches instead of one means I put on weight. The fourth pint is the one that gives me the headache. Et cetera, et cetera.

I love driving, in nearly any car as long as I can get comfortable. The car I most enjoy driving is my old MX5 which although a 1.8 is a slug because I won't use much more than 5000rpm. It matters not at all. It's 18 years old and getting past it so I want a better one - if I can find a good one, it will be a Mk2 1.6. For some reason the 1.6 although "slower" seems nicer engine. When your backside is 9 inches off the ground you always feel as if you are doing 100 miles an hour anyway. You also never escape the sensation that if you hit anything it is likely to hurt. It's real.

Of course we all have our prejudices. I still can't like the idea of 3 cylinders, especially something like the 1.0 Ecoboost in a 1500Kg Mondeo. I'd have to have the 1.5 4 cylinder if I bought one of those.

I think there's a lot of vanity involved in car buying.

I had a Volvo xc 90 as a loan car with a 2 litre diesel engine, huge car but the engine coped really well to my surprise. It seems modern engines get excellent performance from small capacities.

Really from what you've been saying it comes down to: you don't *need* it, but you can easily afford it and are wondering if it's worth it. I think the very fact you're asking the question, given resources aren't a problem, means you should get it otherwise it will forever niggle on your mind and you'll always have the itch to scratch of having a faster car. I'm a mature sensible professional and I have a car that is moderately fast (only 200hp but 0-60 6.2, much faster than anything I've ever owned before). I'm not a boy racer, I'm don't do track days, I don't need a genital extension (well I probably do but that's another matter!) but I LOVE the extra speed I have. As you say it just allows you to get OUT of trouble eg, I've lost count the number of times over the years I've had to put foot on gas to get out of a stick situation like some idiot charging into my last fast etc.. Also it helps with overtaking some tractor or other slow vehicle... again that's getting out of trouble in a way. i.e. with my slower bangers I've thought it's safe to overtake only to find that I misjudged the distance or the car I'm overtaking decided to speed up (almost always women who do this bizarrely, like they don't like being overtaken.. very odd) which is *extremely* dangerous. Now with a faster car it's much much safer. Anotehr example is trying to beat the lights when you're desperate. Easy. The other thing I've found is that I actually now drive SLOWER and am much more relaxed, because with a slower car you drive around thinking you have to constantly keep the speed and momentum up in case you need to overtake or beat the lights, knwoing that your car is too slow to accelerate. With a faster car you have the confidence and knowledge that if you need to you can floor it so ironically it ends up calming you down and you can drive at a leirsurely comfortable pace.

I think you need to try it.