Have you ever driven a non-turbo diesel, they are pretty dreadful. We had a Golf TDI 90 PS and a Polo Diesel 65 PS at the same time and it was nigh and day between them. Not only was the Golf way faster it was also way more economical in both day to day use and on motorways.

I'd also argue that this is more to do with being spoiled with ever more unnecessarily powerful and fast (with regards of their use, UK speed limits and UK traffic conditions) cars, along with the impatience of most drivers.

This was back in 1996, before the days of ever increasing power output of cars. Simple fact was you had to really thrash the Polo to drive at decent speed (and overtaking took planning and nerves of steel) whereas in the Golf it was easy to keep up a good average and overtake even though it had (by todays standards) only 90 PS and 148 torques.

When I sold the Polo I vowed to never have such a low powered car again.

Simple fact was you had to really thrash the Polo to drive at decent speed (and overtaking took planning and nerves of steel)

It can't be a fact if someone else with the same car never had any trouble keeping up a decent speed (without thrashing it), nor overtaking (which was my experience with my wife's 1999 Polo). Same for the 75bhp Peugeot Partner Combi, the 80bhp Ford Fusion, and the 68bhp Daihatsu Sirion which followed.

Though reading various comments on the forum over the years, it always surprises me how much power people seem to think they need in order to overtake or keep up a decent speed.

Since selling the Polo (in 1999) we have had 2 1.2 litre Micras (a 2005 and a 2007) the last of which we sold in 2015. Both had the 80 PS engine and we never had issues maintaining a decent speed or overtaking and neither needed thrashing. Guess it fair to say the 1.9 VW diesel was well beyond its sell by date in 1996 or more likely the TDi engine in the Golf was far superior and actually more economical.

Wife had a 1.0 litre Metro in the late 80's and that was positively dangerous.

Hmm, not sure just how much you have looked into that, but that certainly isn't the case with the Renault Clio and Captur (full) self charge hybrids I have been looking into re our next car.

Just had a quick look at the Clio and it just shows how ludicrous a modern city car has got. Whilst I would never want a low powered car again the 145 PS the Clio has is far beyond what any city car needs.

Our Fabia has 110 PS and never lacks in acceleration cruising ability. Off to Cadwell in it tomorrow and I just wish it was the late 80's when you could drive faster and still be legal. I am sure it would be quicker than the cars I had in that period that had about the same power but without turbo's were not as flexible.

The Fabia has been available with up to 180bhp in previous guises.

But that isn't relevant, I brought up the Clio in reference to this comment by you:

Whist the hybrid part does add some torques its minimal compared to what a turbo adds.

Now the closest VAG equivalent engine for power to the Clio E-Tech is the 150bhp 1.5TSI. This makes 250NM in the Ibiza, quite a long way short of what the Clio can muster.

You were spoilt bbd. In 1974 I had a 30hp Renault 4 with a theoretical 0-60 of 38 secs. I was living in your neck of the woods then and it got me from Aberdeen to Banchory of an evening as fast as the traffic allowed.

Edited by catsdad on 06/05/2023 at 15:34

Having driven slower vehicles as well it does become something of a fine art getting everything out of the vehicle and maintaining monentum, can be both rewarding and frustrating in some areas if you are forced to stop regularly before building up to 70 again

I used to drive a Bedford Rascal for work sometimes. That was hilarious, especially on mini roundabouts in the wet.

Looked all over and the only figures I can find for the Clio are 140 PS @ 4500 - 5500 rpm and 250 Nm torque between 2250 and 2750 rpm. It also says 1 electric motor is for driving up to 27 mph, the other is a starter/generator.

So about the same as the 1.4 - 1.5 TSI which has no battery and electric motor.

Maybe try Renault?

From the Clio E-Tech brochure:

Maximum torque (NM)- petrol engine: 144 @ 3200rpm, electric motor: 205

Not much progress there.

Excluding the smaller electric motor, that makes 349NM, or an extra 40% over the 250NM of the VAG 1.4 and 1.5TSI.

Also, Renault claim in an urban environment the Clio E-Tech can run up to 80% of the time on electric power alone. Supporting this, I watched a video clip of the Clio E-Tech being tested in a city environment, it managed 85.6mpg.

So no. not much progress at all!

You were spoilt bbd. In 1974 I had a 30hp Renault 4 with a theoretical 0-60 of 38 secs. I was living in your neck of the woods then and it got me from Aberdeen to Banchory of an evening as fast as the traffic allowed.

You sure about that catsdad?

I ask because when I first started getting into cars, the Citroen 2CV was still in production. It's stats were 29bhp and 0-60 in 32 seconds!

Also, back then it seemed most motoring journalists had owned a 2CV to learn the art of conserving momentum.

But the least powerful vehicle I've owned was a Suzuki ST90 panel van (predecessor to the Supercarry/Rascal), it mustered 38bhp. No idea how fast it was as the speedometer never worked during the time I had it, but it was certainly nippy in town.

Bbd I am going from it’s age, engine size and three speed gear box but Google might be wrong on the figures. I do recall it cost £70 to buy and that I couldn’t afford a 2CV which had a lot more street cred amongst us wannabe hippies.

I remember a supplement in a motoring magazine about the most influential cars. The R4 was on it and was summed up something along the lines of, "The 2CV is for tourists, real French farmers drove a Renault 4"

At school in the Shetland Islands, one of the teachers had a 2CV and another had an R4. I didn't much like the one with the 2CV.

;-)