View Single Post
Old 06-10-2014, 01:08 PM   #26 (permalink)
kir_kenix
kir_kenix
 
kir_kenix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Emerson, Ne
Posts: 207

1997 Chevy s10 - '97 Chevy S10 WT
Pickups
90 day: 32.71 mpg (US)

1997 Ford Escort - '97 Ford Escort LX
Team Ford
Last 3: 32.29 mpg (US)

Razz - '97 Yamaha Razz
90 day: 109.57 mpg (US)

2004 Ford F250 - '04 Ford F250 XLT
90 day: 16.32 mpg (US)

2000 S10 4.3 - '00 Chevrolet S10 W/T
Pickups
90 day: 19.4 mpg (US)

2010 corilla - '10 Toyota Corolla LE
90 day: 32.82 mpg (US)

'Yota - '22 Toyota Rav4 LE
90 day: 37.41 mpg (US)
Thanks: 15
Thanked 30 Times in 19 Posts
I agree that downsizing the engine does not automatically increase the fuel economy. The new engine and transmission would have to be set up to return better economy as well. It does however take less materials to build a smaller engine, which lowers the weight further. Reducing the weight also means that it takes less HP to get that vehicle moving, and less HP (assuming aerodynamics are the same) to keep that vehicle cruising on the highway.

If set up correctly, a lighter vehicle with an adequate engine will return better fuel economy than a heavier vehicle requiring a bigger/more powerful/heavier engine that performs as well on the road.
  Reply With Quote