|
The Seat Ateca 1.0 has a 3 cyl engine producing 115bhp from 5000-5500rpm and 147.5lb/ft of torque from 2000-3500rpm. It weighs 1280kg (with driver) so has a power to weight ratio of 89.8bhp per ton and 115.2lb/ft per ton.
The original Range Rover was cosidered to have more than adequate performance, especially for a 4x4. It had a 3.5l V8 producing 130bhp at 5000rpm, and 185lb/ft of torque at 2500rpm. It weighed 1770kg, so had a power to weight ration of 73.5bhp per ton and 104.5lb/ft of torque per ton.
As i see it, there are 2 problems here. 1st, as with a lot of people, you are simply looking at this from the point of view of it having a 1.0 engine in a relatively large body. And not what you should be looking at, which is how much power does it have, how much torque (at what rpm) does it have, and how much does it weigh. 2nd problem is expectations of performance. Thanks, in part, to numpties like Clarkson, people expect to be able to go as fast as they want and to be able to beat everything else away from the traffic lights. Car magazines are all very guilty of this, essentially dismissing pretty much any car which takes longer than about 6 or 7 seconds to hit 60mph. For people who want and expect this, the Ateca 1.0 will be worse than useless. The stats say the Ateca will do 114mph flat out and takes 11 seconds to hit 60mph. For comparison, the 2.0 8 valve version of the MK4 golf GTI was only a second quicker to 60mph.
Nobody is saying the Ateca is going to be a ball of fire, but does that really matter?. It is perfectly capable of keeping up with the traffic flow. So people who have a realistic expectation of it's performance and have no need to be at the front of the queue all the time will find it perfectly acceptable.
As to the long term reliability of having an engine like this in a car like the Ateca, well that is a whole different argument. But if you plan to get one new and be out of it before the warranty is up, you shouldn't need to worry about it.
|
