1.8 vs 2.0

[Bozz]

I have a 1.8 TS hire car on loan for a couple of weeks for business and have just completed the first of two 400 mile trips.

It's an interesting comparison with my 2.0.

The 1.8 is older (69 plate) and has done about 30k miles. Its also pretty battered as most hire cars are these days but just wanted to post a few observations.

The 1.8 obviously has quite a bit less power than the 2.0 and that is noticeable when climbing steep hills or demanding a swift overtake but what I wasn't expecting was how busy the engine is on the 1.8. 

Of course it may be just this car but the software seems to demand more of the engine more of the time and its often hunting up and down the rev range but most noticeable is the demand for engine braking under heavy vehicle braking. I've never noticed this on my 2.0. The 1.8 will actually increase engine speed to nearly max revs under these conditions. I guess this is to allow MG2 to dump some energy to the engine and dissipate via pumping losses instead of the Battery.

Other than that its obviously more economical even driven like a hire car  and the engine sounds very similar although maybe the 2.0 is a bit noisier due to its direct injection when used under heavy load. 

Wheel and tyre wise the 1.8 has 16" wheels vs the 17" on my 2.0 and the ride is a little more compliant and the response from the car a little less direct. I do prefer the bigger wheels though because I personally think the smaller wheels look a bit lost in the wheelarches even though the rolling radius is probably the same.

If I notice anything else of interest I'll post it here this time next week.

[Roy124]

I think the 2.0 has a larger Battery which might change the management.  What speed were you cruing at and what consumption did you get? 

[Bozz]

1 minute ago, Roy124 said:

I think the 2.0 has a larger battery which might change the management.  What speed were you cruing at and what consumption did you get? 

70 ish and indicated 63mpg

[Roy124]

Thanks, not bad. 

[Spo2]

6 hours ago, Bozz said:

I have a 1.8 TS hire car on loan for a couple of weeks for business and have just completed the first of two 400 mile trips.

It's an interesting comparison with my 2.0.

The 1.8 is older (69 plate) and has done about 30k miles. Its also pretty battered as most hire cars are these days but just wanted to post a few observations.

The 1.8 obviously has quite a bit less power than the 2.0 and that is noticeable when climbing steep hills or demanding a swift overtake but what I wasn't expecting was how busy the engine is on the 1.8. 

Of course it may be just this car but the software seems to demand more of the engine more of the time and its often hunting up and down the rev range but most noticeable is the demand for engine braking under heavy vehicle braking. I've never noticed this on my 2.0. The 1.8 will actually increase engine speed to nearly max revs under these conditions. I guess this is to allow MG2 to dump some energy to the engine and dissipate via pumping losses instead of the battery.

Other than that its obviously more economical even driven like a hire car  and the engine sounds very similar although maybe the 2.0 is a bit noisier due to its direct injection when used under heavy load. 

Wheel and tyre wise the 1.8 has 16" wheels vs the 17" on my 2.0 and the ride is a little more compliant and the response from the car a little less direct. I do prefer the bigger wheels though because I personally think the smaller wheels look a bit lost in the wheelarches even though the rolling radius is probably the same.

If I notice anything else of interest I'll post it here this time next week.

 

 

 

 

 

I won't take a slow car, and it comes from driving torquey diesel engine cars in the past. I had a 3 pot 1 litre turbo petrol, it was bit slow but efficient. The 2 litre hybrid is okay but you do sacrifice about 5mpg vs 1.8 hybrid. I like the EV acceleration, so might like Tesla - never driven yet. 

[Bozz]

On 4/29/2022 at 3:30 PM, Bozz said:

I have a 1.8 TS hire car on loan for a couple of weeks for business and have just completed the first of two 400 mile trips.

It's an interesting comparison with my 2.0.

The 1.8 is older (69 plate) and has done about 30k miles. Its also pretty battered as most hire cars are these days but just wanted to post a few observations.

The 1.8 obviously has quite a bit less power than the 2.0 and that is noticeable when climbing steep hills or demanding a swift overtake but what I wasn't expecting was how busy the engine is on the 1.8. 

Of course it may be just this car but the software seems to demand more of the engine more of the time and its often hunting up and down the rev range but most noticeable is the demand for engine braking under heavy vehicle braking. I've never noticed this on my 2.0. The 1.8 will actually increase engine speed to nearly max revs under these conditions. I guess this is to allow MG2 to dump some energy to the engine and dissipate via pumping losses instead of the battery.

Other than that its obviously more economical even driven like a hire car  and the engine sounds very similar although maybe the 2.0 is a bit noisier due to its direct injection when used under heavy load. 

Wheel and tyre wise the 1.8 has 16" wheels vs the 17" on my 2.0 and the ride is a little more compliant and the response from the car a little less direct. I do prefer the bigger wheels though because I personally think the smaller wheels look a bit lost in the wheelarches even though the rolling radius is probably the same.

If I notice anything else of interest I'll post it here this time next week.

 

 

 

 

 

Ok. I've completed nearly 1000 miles in the 1.8 and the management of the Hybrid powertrain is completely different to my 2.0 and I agree that the Battery size and type must be the main reason although I think the E-CVT transmission is also different between the cars, just looking under the bonnet, so whether the MG's are different sizes I don't know. The operation of the engine to act as a mechanical resistor is the most obvious difference and of course it also has the B function on the gear selector which the 2.0 doesn't. Weirdly the action of the engine under braking reminded me of the airbrakes on a plane as the rev counter swings round and the brake force increases and then swings back again as the car or plane slows. 

The 1.8 is less like a conventional petrol auto than the 2.0 and that's maybe a conscious decision by Toyota to try and encourage folk to buy the 2.0 if they prefer a standard petrol hybrid auto like many of the big European manufacturers sell.

The 1.8 in this trim level (Icon Tech) is much noisier than my 2.0 Design under all conditions (road, wind and drivetrain). Sometimes I thought the engine was running but it wasn't. 

It does have great economy though even at motorway speeds it was doing nearly 65mpg and it goes OK although I did miss the 2.0 'shove' at times.

Must get a life.

 

[Hardy888]

Great insights.

I'm pretty sure the MG on the 2.0 is more powerful. Whether that translates to physical siz, not sure.

[newda898]

I came to mine from a 1 litre turbo petrol engine, so was used to having a bit of torque when i squeeze the throttle. I test drove a 1.8 first and through town, no issues. Onto a bypass and it was sluggish and revved hard to gain any speed. Found it very underwhelming and was exactly how I feared a cvt to be.

I then tried the 2 litre and it was a revelation, it had that torque that pushed you back into the seat when accelerating that I was used to and the engine didn't rev nearly as much.

[Big_D]

44 minutes ago, newda898 said:

I came to mine from a 1 litre turbo petrol engine, so was used to having a bit of torque when i squeeze the throttle. I test drove a 1.8 first and through town, no issues. Onto a bypass and it was sluggish and revved hard to gain any speed. Found it very underwhelming and was exactly how I feared a cvt to be.

I then tried the 2 litre and it was a revelation, it had that torque that pushed you back into the seat when accelerating that I was used to and the engine didn't rev nearly as much.

Exactly why I went for the 2.0

[Gray86]

6 hours ago, Hardy888 said:

Great insights.

I'm pretty sure the MG on the 2.0 is more powerful. Whether that translates to physical siz, not sure.

It’s bigger, as is the CVT transaxle