Bad example. I Googled the transcript, and they use the term "warp engines" three times in that episode before Sulu even says "The engines!". Should have gone with "Encounter at Farpoint". The term "warp engines" never appears in that entire episode. Heck, the word "engines" only appears once! (Wouldn't be surprised if TOS featured the term "warp engines" more that TNG at this point.) Anyway, once you've said "Warp" half a dozen times in reference to velocity, you don't need the tell anybody which engines you're referring to. That doesn't mean they're not called "warp engines", it just means it's implied. I guess the Warp Scale is good for something after all. Depends on the situation. If you're already in FTL, and someone says that the "engines" can't take much more of this, that's fine. So long as the audience can tell if you're referring to the FTL or sublight engines, it doesn't matter. However, as soon as you need to say that one is working and the other isn't, there needs to be a term for it, even if that term is just "FTL".
How many times in "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" did they say simply "engines" without using the word "warp"? I'll wait.
I think seven. Interestingly, though they use the term "impulse power", they never say "impulse engines". What's the difference between maneuvering engines and thrusters? Also, some may consider the sublight engines the "main engines", especially if they provide part of the thrust during warp. Isn't that how the refitted Enterprise worked?
I count eight. Either way, it's a fine example of how simply saying "the engines" is workable, especially since this isn't even remotely the only episode where they did that. Don't forget, it's just the "engine room" or "engineering," not "warp engine room." Right, notice how the commands to helm are only things like, "give us some altitude" and "gain altitude faster." Could it be any less technical?
If you distinguish their use in dialog, the audience won't care. Just be consistent and entertaining.
Actually, I feel it's an example of how you don't have to keep repeating the term "warp" once you've established the context. It's not like the words "warp" or even "warp engines" are never stated in the episode. Show me an episode where they NEVER say warp and also unambiguously use the term "engines" to mean "warp engines" and you'd start to have a point. Engineering is not located inside the warp engines (and Andrew Probert would probably have a fit if it were). However, the "Warp Core" is in main engineering, which undermines your whole argument. If anything, this proves that you don't need a name for the SUBLIGHT engines, not the FTL system. Besides, commands like "target the lead ship" and "return fire" are given as well. That doesn't mean the Captain never specifies whether to use Phasers or Photon Torpedoes, and it doesn't mean that the audience doesn't need to know the difference between those two types of weapons. It simply means that the Captain doesn't always have to tell the tactical officer how to do his job. Let me give you a metaphor so you can see where I'm coming from. Just because the crew of the Enterprise call Kirk "Sir" doesn't mean that the audience doesn't need to know he's a "Captain". (This metaphor would be much harder with Janeway.) I wasn't disagreeing on principle, just to your specific choice of terms. Actually, you could just say that the engines are an all-in-one design, capable of both sublight and FTL. When the engines are hit, and FTL is disabled, you could just say "damage to the engines limits us to sublight velocities". Then you could always just call them "the engines". There, I solved the problem for you.
The general rule I have always applied is how much explanation is necessary. Thus, my engines work very simply as a dimensional gateway and that's it. Beyond that, the captain orders engines to be fired up and that's the end. Not sure what else is needed, but simple seems to be the best. Any explanations are usually for my own benefit.
The terminology only matters as far as its impact upon the story. Writing the story can help determine the need of describing the engines, and not slowing down the audience or the pacing. Audiences are smarter than most give them credit for, so the distinction of FTL drive vs. sublight is identifying a trout vs. a bass. I don't particularly care, since its dinner.
I'm sure, that every time @Matthew Raymond drives his car, he never fails to mention the car's engine, as the "automobile's internal combustion engine".
LOL, I actually know people who DO talk about their engines and the like in real life. Just as they get into arguments about Ford vs Chevrolet vs Dodge. I think sf should have enough foresight to have whatever the FTL drive is treated as something special, easily done with a name like jump drive, warp drive, FTL drive, etc. For goodness sake, don't explain it. Don't give it silly rules. Joe Friday doesn't explain how his revolvers work. They do. That's all that matters. Same way with the FTL drive. I don't need to know how an internal combustion engine works. I push the accelerator and go. Good sf shouldn't bombard their audience with bs,
Agreed - It's go fast, go faster, You don't need to explain how the rubber band works, just how to fix it when it breaks.
It's not pedantry to mention that you're making an "apples and oranges" comparison. Setting aside the metaphor, I do think the audience is smarter than most people give them credit for. I think people know when you haven't bothered to consider how the ship actually goes. Some people may not care, but that doesn't mean they didn't notice. I realize you're joking, but the punchline doesn't make sense for the following reasons: a) I mostly drive to work alone, so who would I be talking to? b) I drive an automatic. c) It's an ICE car with no separate engine for going really fast, so the engine used is implied. I have a reservation for a Tesla Model 3, and when people ask me about it, you better believe I'm going to mention that it's an electric car because it's an important distinction. I don't necessarily think FTL needs a complicated name like "Tachyon Quantum Coupling Drive". Something like "Jump Drive" may be fine, depending on what you're trying to do. (In fact, I'd go with FTL for my own purposes if it weren't for the fact that BSG has basically made it synonymous with a Jump Drive.) The point is the engineer needs to be able to tell the Captain that it's broken. That's not entirely true. You need to know that the engine consumes gasoline, or else you'll be stranded on the side of the highway in no time. You need to know that it's lubricated with oil and that you have to change that oil periodically. Anyone operating a vehicle needs to know a great deal about its engine, even if they don't know the finer engineering details. If, for instance, you're making a TV show about taxi driving, then how they operate might never come up, so the audience may not need to know anything about engines. However, because the engine is vital, chances are that its operation will eventually come into play, at which point the audience will definitely need to have a basic idea of how it works. Now, I'm not saying that every sci-fi story need a detailed description of how the FTL works. I'm just saying that if you make propulsion a point of your plot, you need sufficient explanation for the audience that they can continue to suspend disbelief. In a space opera, that's not so much a concern because rigorous science is not the purpose of the genre. Hard sci-fi is a different matter, though, especially if you draw attention to how a drive system works. For instance, if gravity causes them to stop in a particular system, the audience is instantly going to wonder how gravity relates to your drive system.
Now I've got it. Just call your FTL "Nitro Drive"... Captain: "Hit the Nitro!" Helm: "Aye, sir!" Ship suddenly hurdles forward at an impossible speed, leaving only flaming space tracks behind.