Quote:
Originally Posted by Coyote X
Turbo 3 cyl suzuki/geo engine with a 2wd geo tracker 5spd trans? They bolt together and it would be a rwd combo.
Give you lots of power(for a 3 cyl) with a good mileage engine that weighs like 200lbs total. No idea how easy it is to find a turbo 3 but it might not be hard to add a turbo to a normal 3 cyl. If you can get the car down to 1800lbs or so then it would still be plenty fast with a combo like that.
Might be a strange combo but at least nobody else would have a similar car  |
If that was the direction, I think I'd prefer the 1.3 4 cylinder to the 3 cylinder turbo. I'm a big fan of natural aspiration.
I looked for the turbo gas mileage on fuel economy.gov, but couldn't find it. What I did find was this:
2001 swift 1.3 31/38
2000 metro 1.0 31/41
metro 1.3 31/38
swift 1.3 31/38
1999 metro 1.0 34/42
metro 1.3 33/39
SW 1.3 33/39
1998 metro 1.0 36/44
metro 1.3 33/39
swift 1.3 33/39
1997 metro 1.0 37/44
metro 1.3 33/39
swift 1.3 33/39
1996 metro 1.0 37/44
metro 1.3 33/39
swift 1.3 33/39
1995 metro 1.0 37/44
metro 1.3 33/39
swift 1.0 37/44
1994 metro 1.0 38/44
metro xfi 1.0 51/54
swift 1.3 31/39
swift gt 1.3 24-32
1993 metro 1.0 38/45
metro xfi 1,0 43/51
swift 1.0 38/45
swift 1.3 33/39
swift gt 1.3 24/32
Pretty consistently, the 1.0 gets 4-5 mpg better than the 1.3. Project Eco-Z will be heavier than a metro/swift though, I'm thinking the 1.3 maight be a better choice.
Another interesting thing I saw was a 1.6 I4 in Sidekicks. I'm thinking that engine miht be tuned more towards torque, as it was in a heavier vehicle, and might be even better suited for Eco-Z
By the way, what is it about the Swift GT than kills the mileage?