HJ's review of the QUBO says the 1.3 engine is 1248cc. Surely that should be a 1.2 then?
I couldn't find the cc on the Fiat website, but Parkers says the same as above.
|
cos 1.3 means another 800 to 1000 pounds on the list price
|
|
Well, whatever size of engine it has, I thought it was kinda cute. Sadly it's probably also what I should buy given my needs/usage. Just not sure I'm ready quite yet.
|
|
Maybe to distinguish between the petrol and diesel which are both in effect 1.2
|
|
|
Humoh,
I didn't have you down as a "cute" type Humph.
|
Touche PU Touche......
;-)
|
Time was when a number in a car name did relate to the engine size. SFAIK BMW gave up on this some time ago ie a 530 doesn't (necessarily) have a 3 litre engine. In the end a customer isn't going to cite Trade Descriptions Act over this! If they are interested they'll check before buying.
|
|
Engines are usually rounded down or up if under the 50cc or over. So your FIAT engine is 1248cc and is a 1.2 where a Ford diesel engine is 1753cc and is a 1.8. There of course will be a few exceptions.
|
Sorry just read the post, the Fiat engine is a 1.3!
I'll go back to bed
|
Nobody else gets confused. Most manufacturers have the same size diesel and petrol engines.
Knowing that the much raved about Panda engine is a 1.2 diesel makes it even better performing for its size, although I suppose there will be people comparing it against 1.4 PSA engine found in the Fiesta, C3, 207 etc.
|
|
Engine size is not a good indication to performance, just look at some of the junk VW put in some of their cars, the Fox has dire engines, the 1.4 produces less power than others 1.1s, while at the same time having terrible MPG and Co2. I could see a potential for creative advertising such as used to advertise CPUs. 1.3+ 1.6+ etc
|
|
This is not a new habit. Mum had a Talbot Horizon in 1982 or 3 that was described as a 1.5, but had 1442cc. Had the performance of a 1300, if that.
|
|
Asthmatic if memory serves me right. COTY weren't they ?
|
COTY because it had the first onboard computer I seem to remember. And that was only on the top version which wasn't available when we got ours in 1978, a GLS 1.3 (sorry, 1.294). It was a mistake - reliable enough but otherwise undistinguished and it had the most ferociously heavy unassisted steering this side of a Volvo 340. I thought it would be a cheaper and better family car than a Golf: it was cheaper but wasn't better.
Talking of rounding, the Honda Jazz is currently the worst offender - 1339 cc but always called a 1.4 by Honda and its dealers. Honda really are losing it in terms of marketing aren't they - everything is too expensive and they still won't bring the 1.5 Jazz to the UK. One of those would be an excellent downsizing substitute for a bigger car - less frenetic at motorway speeds than the 1.3 (sic).
Edited by Avant on 18/01/2009 at 20:14
|
|
Funnily enough, avant, mums Horizon replaced an 18 month old Golf 1.1L, which was even more underpowered. The Golf had the flakiest metallic paint known to man, on which basis she refused to buy a metallic painted car until very recently, and then only because Nissan dont do a doom blue Micra.
|
Yes - a 1.1 Golf wouldn't have pulled the skin of a rice pudding. The 1.3 was slow too: we were looking at the '1.5' which from memory was also a bit short of 1500 cc.
Random thought - isn't it strange that for many, many years - certainly when I was a child in the 50s - we have been quite happy to take a lead from industry and think about litres and cubic centimetres when measuring the size of an engine, yet outside industry we were to be faithfully Imperial for years to come.
Edited by Avant on 19/01/2009 at 00:19
|
|
|
