New 1.4 turbo engine 130bhp

[Dobster]

Saw this and thought maybe the engine could be used in the Twingo in the future?

http://www.whatcar.com/news-special-report.aspx?NA=238781&EL=3318205

Would be much better than the current 1.6 used in the renault sport twingo, back to a 1.4 just like the R5.

[Aidy]

Rumours are that it will appear in the Twingo CC.

RenaultSport seem to prefer naturally aspirated ;)

[Penn]

Gordini anyone? Seriously hope not.

[Dobster]

Gordini anyone? Seriously hope not.


Why.......? maybe because it would show how weak the 1.6 engine is?

IMO the 1.6 has nothing over the 1.2t. The new engine sounds like the engine the twingo needs.

[Aidy]

Because we want the Gordini to be a Twingo Supercar, not just measly performance version.

If it's to take a place above the current RS, it needs a more powerful engine.

The 1.4 TCE engine is built to offer economy (Turbo Controled Efficiency), not performance.

Your not gonna buy a Gordini because your after something economical.

It's the electrically powered Gordinis that we can look forward to most, just think about it, instant torque and unbeatable acceleration, plus the government (if still in power) will give you 5 grand towards the cost of buying it ;D

[WES133RS]

the 1.6 is not weak in any way it just delivers power in a different way. A good driver could show that! ;)

[Evilbobo]

TCE doesn't mean it's economical, just that when not spooling you can get 1.4 economy, but the turbo itself isn't economical. It is more economical than a big turbo, in that it's a light-pressure turbo, it kicks in to aid acceleration more than to bolster top speed(though it does), and so is intended in big cars to decrease the power gap on a weaker engine, or in a small car, to add some welly kick.

Think the 1.2 is a TCE.

As I say, the main differences in a TCE are early kick-in and lower pressure. Mine arms to range +-10PSI, while my mate's imprezza goes up to 1.2bar.

[Al]

Hmmm. I'm at work so can't write a long reply but I have some points about this...

Number 1 being the Gordini is not going to surpass the engines in RS models (official word from Renault)

As said, the 1.6 is not a weak engine, just a different delivery train. Anyone can stick a turbo on an engine, but that is why RS's are different because n/a engines are currently their forte (with the exception of the larger 225, 230 and soon to be 250).

[Evilbobo]

1.4T wouldn't be a better engine than 1.6, but in my opinion, would be immensely popular. I'd like to see the Gordini go this way, because it can have an identity through this. It wouldn't trump RS, and wouldn't just be a rebadged GT, and I think as such could bring new people into the market, open up the modding options somewhat, and convert a lot of us GT owners who wouldn't want to change just for a new name and colour scheme. I personally don't want to be forced out of petrol as a feul source or out of a turbo.
And just think of the re-map. *drools*

[RS133]

Why.......? maybe because it would show how weak the 1.6 engine is?

IMO the 1.6 has nothing over the 1.2t. The new engine sounds like the engine the twingo needs.
[/quote]

Having owned and driven both Twingo GT and RS, I've got to say the 1.6 is the better engine; and by a long, long way! Top end it rips the 1.2 to shreds and sounds a damn sight better. Take the bung out and shove in the KTec filter and the sound is just awesome. I passed a GT on the dual carriageway last week and he knew about it. The only better 1.6 engine I've driven is the 207 GTI 1.6 THP (Turbo High Pressure) (175) - the BMW/Peugeot job. Now that's fun, shame the 207 is a lardy-arse.

This would be the engine to put in! (But it'd outrun the Clio RS200 so hardly going to happen)

[Penn]

Yup, 1.6 turbo in a Twingo would make the thing fly and would affect Clio sales big time!

[WES133RS]

i agree. i work for bmw and the mini/peugoet lump it fantastic, aswell as the excellent mini chassis but considering a mini cooper s is quicker than a 197 round a track not a good idea to put it in a twingo...
The 1.6 n/a engine in the rs is what sports cars are about and that is a revvy and exciting engine when you want to really go for it!

Its just for fuel economy like has been said and to be honest i couldnt care less about economy when your looking at a car this small anyway

[orbitalwalsh]

if they would do anything to 1.6 engine, most likely be a supercharger, although it add bhp, it loses half in the belt running it, maybe push it to 180 odd. but like someone stated would hurt clio RS and the insurnce group would hit sky high. all this talk about it not being a good engine, or 1.2t is better. think about looks, the cup features and the insurnce group your getting for a low price. i wonder what group the 1.4 if made would im into?

[Dobster]

Why.......? maybe because it would show how weak the 1.6 engine is?

IMO the 1.6 has nothing over the 1.2t. The new engine sounds like the engine the twingo needs.


Having owned and driven both Twingo GT and RS, I've got to say the 1.6 is the better engine; and by a long, long way! Top end it rips the 1.2 to shreds and sounds a damn sight better. Take the bung out and shove in the KTec filter and the sound is just awesome. I passed a GT on the dual carriageway last week and he knew about it. The only better 1.6 engine I've driven is the 207 GTI 1.6 THP (Turbo High Pressure) (175) - the BMW/Peugeot job. Now that's fun, shame the 207 is a lardy-arse.

This would be the engine to put in! (But it'd outrun the Clio RS200 so hardly going to happen)
[/quote]


Owning one and having driven the other, i have to disagree. I was really dissapointed in the 1.6.

[dazw1983]

just in my opinion i think the 1.6 engine as it is is perfect for the renault sport range because if it was more powerful you would be getting a bit too close to the performance of the 197. also you would not be able to keep the cost of the car down and it would never be in group 8 insurance and cost more in fuel. this then would all take it out of the 133's target audience of young drivers and it would probably take away sales from the 197.

the twingo is as it is because it is purely entry level to get young drivers hooked to eventually move through the renault sport range.

so yeah you may want more from the engine but in the grand scheme of renault sport its exactly as it should be.

[Al]

The whole point in the 133 was to introduce prospective owners to the world of RS. Yes, it's new and costs more than a secondhand 182, 197, 225 etc but it was aimed at people who could afford the tax group and insurance group, and now with 0% a much more affordable monthly payment which wouldn't ever be found on secondhand cars. More people can now afford secondhand RS models but it's the insurance and petrol that keeps them away. The 1.6 was the perfect and still is the perfect entry level engine size enabling group 8 insurance (182 for example is 16, 197 is 15), better economy and cheaper tax. The 1.4T would probably be the sameish economy as the 1.6, depending on how driven, but the insurance is guaranteed to be higher.

Besides, it's never going to be put in a Twingo so point rested ;)

[dazw1983]

in total agreement with you al.

also its quick when you want it to be quick i.e if you wanna drive fast your not gonna be in the low rev range. and its comfortable when you dont wanna drive quick.

turbo's are cheating anyway!!!

[RS133]

That's exactly it, the Jekyll and Hyde side of the RS. The 1.6 RS drives like a normal car returning 40mpg until you floor it; and then its a completely different car to the 1.2T. I know at first on the test drive i thought there's no difference. But then the sales guy said hit the green light - so I did and I've never smiled so much. Once the revs are over 4k the car just flies and the engine sounds great. Knew straight away I had to chop and swop. The engine is run in now 3k and it was defo the right thing.

[Al]

The only 1.4T (ish) engine ever worth considering for power and economy and n/a engine similarities is the 1.4TS made by VW/Audi. The turbo/supercharger combination covers the powertrain band issues by blending the supercharger and turbo over different rev ranges making an apparent seemless power delivery as found in n/a engines. I haven't driven one myself but would love to - supposedly amazing and returns of 40mpg with 170bhp ish.

[GT08]

That's exactly it, the Jekyll and Hyde side of the RS. The 1.6 RS drives like a normal car returning 40mpg until you floor it; and then its a completely different car to the 1.2T. I know at first on the test drive i thought there's no difference. But then the sales guy said hit the green light - so I did and I've never smiled so much. Once the revs are over 4k the car just flies and the engine sounds great. Knew straight away I had to chop and swop. The engine is run in now 3k and it was defo the right thing.


No need to be smug just because you own an RS. No one said the GT is better and that's cos it isn't better. Personally I would rather keep my GT as having an RS would be £100 more a month!! For the money I think Twingo GT is fantastic and always makes me smile when I press the fast button.

[dazw1983]

i dint say anything about the rs being better than the gt but a powerful non turbo engine is a much bigger engineering feet as it is pure power and not aided by anything.the mclaren f1 is naturally aspirated and even has no spoiler!!possibly the greatest car ever made!!!!!also there are no turbo's in formula one!!

but in the same way a turbo is excellent for obtaining a huge amount of power out of an engine and well all of the turbo's ive driven including the twingo gt are really really good fun.

i am a purist and i like to drive a car and think about all the work, time, engineering and design gone in to making it as good as it can be and not just have the idea of "lets stick a turbo on it, that'll do"

i dont want this to be a turbo vs natural aspiration as i like both. its just my own personal preference to natural aspiration as i feel it is a bigger engineering feet to get the power out of it and it is much more controllable to the style you want to drive on any journey. i do love the fun you can have with turbo's though. but just imagine what the insurance would be on the rs having 'sport' and 'turbo' describing it!!!

[sgtard]

i have had turbos and n/a engine cars i have also had the pleasure of owing the gt and the rs both are great fun and surprisingly diffrent set ups but yet are both good cars. I think that sticking a turbo on is not a lazy option to engineering at all its just down to personal preference i have had a skyline gtr which has big power down to the use of 2 turbos and i also own the Honda civic type r which is n/a but its high revving engine has a 2 cam set up i enjoyed both cars but both have draw backs and bonuses.

[dazw1983]

your skyline was a bit of a beast!!!!

[sgtard]

yeah loved the whole 13 monthes i owned it cost me 60 quid a week in petrol just to get to work ! ;D but loved every second was the first time i had been 167 mph in a car (private track controlled conditions) with mark riding shot gun lol he didnt like it much just kept saying "o my god".

[RS133]

Sam, I never said the GT was a bad car, I should know I bought one! ....and for the price toptastic fun. All I said was the RS is a better car for me, nothing smug, its just a better car for me....that is why it has a higher list price, and that's why it corners like the devil.