Car power ratings?????

Ned Senior

Well-known Member
Hi all
I am looking at the renault crossover Kadjar.....
The 1.2 petrol engine is stated 130ps
And the 1.5 diesel is 110ps

Would they feel dodgy driving round the welsh or Cumbrian hilly roads???

The 1.6 diesel is 130ps aswell

Nowhere seems to have the two smaller engines to test drive yet!!!!
Might have to sit on the fence a while longer
 

un1eash

Distinguished Member
You would have to work the petrol alot more to get the performance out of it and the mpg on them is never as good as they make out.
110ps might be enough for most people but only you can really decided if you can live with it daily as it depends on your driving style.
 

PSM1

Distinguished Member
110ps is 108bhp so it does not have loads of power but not exactly no power either. I would imagine if you load it up with 5 passengers and luggage then it may struggle a little up very steep hills but it will still get up them. I have a T4 with 88bhp and full camper conversion and this did fine in Cornwall up the very steep hills there. Did need to change down the gears a bit but was fine. So another 30bhp on top should mean it will be fine. No racing car but more than enough for most people.
 

Ned Senior

Well-known Member
Thanks, 360 days of the year it is 30/40 mph around suburban roads Liverpool I think I will wait to try both when dealers have them for demo..... Tempted to run my clio into the ground and NOT put another burner on the road for a while ecologically minded thinking this aft
 

gibbsy

Moderator
My friends have a Qashqai with the 110ps diesel engine. She lives in the middle of the Brecon Beacons and is quite happy with the power of the engine. It does run out of puff on one of the very long steep climbs and when I followed them recently the 177ps of my Audi passed it with ease. Sadly the toxins coming out the Audi's exhaust killed them as I pulled in front.:facepalm:
 

mjn

Distinguished Member
Nothing worse than getting stuck behind a low powered car going up the hills. Especially when a caravan is involced as well.
 

FZR400RRSP

Banned
The petrol only has 151lb/ft of torque, compared with 190lb/ft for the 1.5 diesel and 236lb/ft for the 1.6 diesel.
So it's definitely going to feel a bit weedy in comparison, it's going to have to be revved more to make up for lack of torque.
Unless you have a good reason to avoid diesels, they are the sensible option for the Kadjar.
It's a really nice car, I just have reservations about build quality.
We have a Captur and a Juke, identical cars under the skin.
Whilst the Renault isn't badly built in isolation, there's no denying the Juke is a lot more solid feeling.
If similar differences exist between the Kadjar and Qashqai, the Qashqai would be the sensible option.
 

Sloppy Bob

Distinguished Member
Having a read at the latest reviews it does seem to favour the Qashqai over the Kadjar for refinement, interior build quality and singles out the poor head unit on the Renault although unless you're speccing a satnav unit that may not be relevant.

Possibly all that may be irrelevant to you if the difference in a deal is large enough.
 

FZR400RRSP

Banned
I'd also be reluctant to go for a Kadjar right now for several reasons.

1/ New car that will inevitably have teething troubles, do you want to be the guinea pig?
2/ I bet dealers will claim it's in high demand/short supply etc.etc., but I bet if you wait a few months you'll get a decent discount.

It is quite surprising the difference in build quality between the Juke and Captur though.
Evidently the boys in Sunderland are better are building cars than Spaniards (Captur built in Spain).
 

Sloppy Bob

Distinguished Member
there is no car out there just now that I truly feel 'Wow' about

Wow, just, like WOW

MPY1bKY.jpg


Also Wowsome..

T6RCCKb.jpg


Need a bit more space for the grandkids, this is it.....

cqoaUUm.jpg
 

EndlessWaves

Distinguished Member
Tempted to run my clio into the ground and NOT put another burner on the road for a while ecologically minded thinking this aft

Well a Captur is a Clio Crossover so how well your clio copes with the hills should give you some idea on how the captur will fare.
 

FZR400RRSP

Banned
We have the 90bhp Captur and the 110bhp Juke (both 1.5dci engine).
TBH, the 110bhp is probably overkill in the Juke and it's a lively little thing.
Easily keeps up with a colleague's 2.0 diesel Insignia, right up to illegal speeds.
I think that engine would be perfectly fine in the bigger Kadjar.
The 1.6 diesel with 130bhp would be even better still.
 

outoftheknow

Moderator
Out of interest I wonder why do car manufacturers in the UK use ps when it was supposed to be replaced by kW in Europe in something like 1992? It is so close to bhp anyway - presumably because it gives one or two more as the number it looks more powerful;) mind you in the low hundreds the numbers are pretty much interchangeable. UK cars should be bhp and in metric countries kW - IMHO :smashin:
 

lovegroova

Well-known Member
Out of interest I wonder why do car manufacturers in the UK use ps when it was supposed to be replaced by kW in Europe in something like 1992? It is so close to bhp anyway - presumably because it gives one or two more as the number it looks more powerful;) mind you in the low hundreds the numbers are pretty much interchangeable. UK cars should be bhp and in metric countries kW - IMHO :smashin:
Marketing is the main reason. Think of all those Renault hatchbacks with "180" or "200" in their name. For example: Clio R.S. 200 EDC - Renault Sport - Renault France

PS is technically a metric measurement, so that gets used in Europe.
 

outoftheknow

Moderator
Marketing is the main reason. Think of all those Renault hatchbacks with "180" or "200" in their name. For example: Clio R.S. 200 EDC - Renault Sport - Renault France

PS is technically a metric measurement, so that gets used in Europe.
Indeed it is referred to as metric horsepower - what is needed to lift 75kg one metre vertically against gravity. That is why it is about 98.6% of the BHP number and I don't think anybody could care less if the number on a car is 200 and the bhp is 197.2.... Each engine won't be that anyway. The point is in Europe the ps has been replaced by an EU or EEU or whatever they are called Directive by the kW since 1992. Europe is the last place the unit should be used :smashin:
 

lovegroova

Well-known Member
Indeed it is referred to as metric horsepower - what is needed to lift 75kg one metre vertically against gravity. That is why it is about 98.6% of the BHP number and I don't think anybody could care less if the number on a car is 200 and the bhp is 197.2.... Each engine won't be that anyway. The point is in Europe the ps has been replaced by an EU or EEU or whatever they are called Directive by the kW since 1992. Europe is the last place the unit should be used :smashin:
But it gets used for marketing purposes, or did you miss that point entirely?
 

outoftheknow

Moderator
But it gets used for marketing purposes, or did you miss that point entirely?
Nope - it just seems pointless when they can say in the UK the number is bhp - the difference is minuscule. They like to keep using it i reckon because in Europe it gives a much bigger number than if they used kW as the European measurement of power like they are supposed to. In the uK it has zero marketing power that I can fathom :thumbsup:
 

EndlessWaves

Distinguished Member
Out of interest I wonder why do car manufacturers in the UK use ps when it was supposed to be replaced by kW in Europe in something like 1992? It is so close to bhp anyway - presumably because it gives one or two more as the number it looks more powerful;) mind you in the low hundreds the numbers are pretty much interchangeable. UK cars should be bhp and in metric countries kW - IMHO :smashin:

I disagree, we use kW for every other electric motor so not using it for the ones in cars seems pretty stupid. Especially when battery capacity is always given in kWh and efficiency in Wh/km, Wh/mile or kWh/100km (Nissan, Mitsubishi and VW respectively).

Lone internal combustion engines won't be around much longer so the discussion on what to use their is a bit of a moot point.

Even many internal combustion engines are designed in kilowatts so if you see an odd number in PS or HP it almost certainly has a nice round Kilowatt equivalent.

I've no objection to sticking with a different measurement system when everything is internally consistent, but sticking to a single familiar imperial measurement when we're using metric for everything related is just awkward.

For me the most sensible choice now would be to shift to Kilowatts for power and fuel but stick to miles for distance. We really need to swap over to miles per litre now we pay for fuel in litres and fuel tank sizes are quoted in litres. Although the continent uses litres per 100km (62 miles) so that way around would be an option too.
 

FZR400RRSP

Banned
For me the most sensible choice now would be to shift to Kilowatts for power and fuel but stick to miles for distance. We really need to swap over to miles per litre now we pay for fuel in litres and fuel tank sizes are quoted in litres. Although the continent uses litres per 100km (62 miles) so that way around would be an option too.

Would take years/decades for people to accept this.
Even if the change was made, websites offering conversions to bhp and mpg would be busy for a long time.
Fact is bhp, even for electric cars, is (excuse the pun) the yardstick people go by.
You tell me an electric car is twelvty jigawatts, it means nothing to me.
You tell me it's equivalent to 100bhp and I'm happy.
 

outoftheknow

Moderator
I disagree, we use kW for every other electric motor so not using it for the ones in cars seems pretty stupid. Especially when battery capacity is always given in kWh and efficiency in Wh/km, Wh/mile or kWh/100km (Nissan, Mitsubishi and VW respectively).

Lone internal combustion engines won't be around much longer so the discussion on what to use their is a bit of a moot point.

Even many internal combustion engines are designed in kilowatts so if you see an odd number in PS or HP it almost certainly has a nice round Kilowatt equivalent.

I've no objection to sticking with a different measurement system when everything is internally consistent, but sticking to a single familiar imperial measurement when we're using metric for everything related is just awkward.

For me the most sensible choice now would be to shift to Kilowatts for power and fuel but stick to miles for distance. We really need to swap over to miles per litre now we pay for fuel in litres and fuel tank sizes are quoted in litres. Although the continent uses litres per 100km (62 miles) so that way around would be an option too.
I am in oz so I don't disagree the UK should use kW for cars - I had the impression many Brits wanted to stick with imperial units of power forever :) all I meant was no manufacturer should be using ps and pretending it is a (the) European unit.

The litres per something indeed makes sense when you purchase litres of fuel and not gallons. As you say you may need to call it litres per 62 miles but the number would match the rest of the world - excluding US and a few others of course. Their gallons are different as well anyway just to ensure confusion reigns :)
 

The latest video from AVForums

Star Wars Andor, Woman King, more Star Trek 4K, Rings of Power & the latest TV, movies & 4K releases
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

Google set to launch the Pixel 7 and Pixel 7 Pro smartphones
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Focal launches Bathys noise-cancelling wireless headphones
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Formovie Theater UST projector hits the UK
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Sonus faber unveils new flagship Arena speaker series
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published
Sharp showcases its upcoming 4K TV and audio line-up
  • By Ian Collen
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom