Fuel Economy, Hypermiling, EcoModding News and Forum - EcoModder.com - View Single Post

Christ · 12-15-2009, 12:33 AM

Yep, the 6G73 and the 2.5 MPFI are the engines I was referring to.

If I had to choose one, I'd frankly rather have the V6 mated to turbo gears.

The V6 will inherently make more torque because of a smoother revolution with more power strokes, but use the same amount of fuel per revolution due to displacement. (There are variables, but I don't really care...)

Mated to the turbo gears, which are longer than snot trails from quick snails, and a nice, long overdrive at the end, you could easily take a 2200# car down the highway at 60-65 MPH just off idle. (Like 1k-1.2k RPM.) The 2.5 I4 can also do that, but I think where the V6 would really shine is during acceleration, where it's higher torque/RPM value could really be exploited for the best acceleration for the least fuel.

12-15-2009, 12:33 AM	#51 (permalink)
Christ Moderate your Moderation. Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Troy, Pa. Posts: 8,919 Pasta - '96 Volkswagen Passat TDi 90 day: 45.22 mpg (US) Thanks: 1,369 Thanked 430 Times in 353 Posts	Yep, the 6G73 and the 2.5 MPFI are the engines I was referring to. If I had to choose one, I'd frankly rather have the V6 mated to turbo gears. The V6 will inherently make more torque because of a smoother revolution with more power strokes, but use the same amount of fuel per revolution due to displacement. (There are variables, but I don't really care...) Mated to the turbo gears, which are longer than snot trails from quick snails, and a nice, long overdrive at the end, you could easily take a 2200# car down the highway at 60-65 MPH just off idle. (Like 1k-1.2k RPM.) The 2.5 I4 can also do that, but I think where the V6 would really shine is during acceleration, where it's higher torque/RPM value could really be exploited for the best acceleration for the least fuel. __________________ "¿ʞɐǝɹɟ ɐ ǝɹ,noʎ uǝɥʍ 'ʇı ʇ,usı 'ʎlǝuol s,ʇı"