21st Jun 2026, 22:11
Tax and insurance. Especially pre-globalisation. Many countries had much higher initial sales taxes on cars the moment the displacement hit 2,000 cc, hence cars like the BMW 520i, Ford Granada 2.0 Ghia, or the Mercedes 200. Then drilling down, insurance categories in several countries result in a substantial premium increase if you get a car whose engine is a 1.6 (sometimes 1.5) instead of a 1.3. Worse if you're a new driver. The size of the engine was simplistically the way average fuel consumption (and ability to get to high/dangerous speeds) was assumed in the days of the carburettor. For many countries, fuel imports used up precious foreign exchange so anything to penalise high fuel use was introduced. Ecology (acid rain killing forests) in the '80s led to the introduction of technologies that may have made cars far more complicated, but made them (for the same engine size) more powerful, much cleaner, and more economical. This may have changed how vehicle use taxation was done since. I remember maybe 20-25 years ago reading how, because of catalysts and electronic fuel injection, it took 20 1988 (?) Ford Granada 2.9i V6 cars to emit the same pollutants as a single 1976 Ford Fiesta with a carb.
23rd Jun 2026, 08:27
Yes, the 2.0 six makes no sense over a four cylinder, 2.0 is an ideal capacity for a four banger. But then you can "brag" about having a six cylinder car, people will be fooled. Even more crazy is sub 2.0 sixes, both Ford, Mitsubishi and Mazda have had 1.8 V6 engines. It sounds cool, but in engine design any six under 2.5 capacity makes no sense.
23rd Jun 2026, 21:27
Not to discount anything you said here, but there is also an element of ‘teaching for the test’. When agencies set to measure the mileage rating that ends up in advertising, they do it in a way that often diverges from how an actual human driver behaves. A smaller engine uses less fuel than a larger one when it’s left to its task of reaching a certain speed or RPM. Most drivers will not accept simply accelerating slower than the traffic around them, and will wring the smaller engine out past its peak efficiency.
28th Jun 2026, 12:54
Well, this is true. Test results are never achieved in reality. They're designed to be identical and repeatable in controlled environments, and don't take into account some real driving condition nuances, like wind resistance, a slightly inclined road, or accelerating with passengers. But that's also one reason why several cars I've driven with manual gearboxes had this weird gearing ratio gap between some gears - because they were designed to ace the official tests, and not to make the cars more driveable. As for engine size, there's often an ideal variant within range that will allow the car to pull itself (plus the weight of passengers, and air conditioning on). Decades ago, I found out for example, that the Ford Laser (aka Mazda 323/Familia/GLC) 1.3 carb used more fuel in real world driving than its 1.5 stablemate, simply because the slightly larger engine didn't struggle.
21st Jun 2026, 18:39
In some countries it might be tax reasons for smaller engines. Production cost should be more or less the same. I've overhauled both the 1.3 and the 1.6 back in the days. Machining cost is the same. Replacement parts cost basically the same. For example, gasket sets cost the same. Bearing sets are the same. For the Kent engine, bore is the same across all capacities, only the stroke differs.