Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonesome Trail
I just let the results speak for themselves. It's pretty amazing the looks I get when folks see my little notebooks of fuel numbers (I keep a log for tax purposes, small business owners FTW!) It freaks people out that my lopey cam Fox Body pulls pretty consistent 21-23 depending on if I get stuck in traffic, but I always point this out to folks: When I'm on the freeway and am going up the hills (we have overpasses every mile, it's fabulous for fuel economy) I just sort of imagine my throttle increasing a hair and the car maintains speed just fine. Every 'econo' car I've owned with a stock 4 banger required rolling into the throttle to maintain speed. Same scenario, similar vehicles in terms of weight, aerodynamics, speeds, but the big 'thirsty' engines don't have to work as hard to accomplish the same tasks as the little thrifty engines.
|
Also, a flaw in your reasoning here; gas engines are less efficient at smaller throttle openings. That 4 banger that has to "roll into the throttle" to go up an incline does so at a lower BSFC (i.e. less fuel consumed per power unit produced), and, assuming the same weight, aerodynamic load, etc., and consequently same power produced, the car with the larger engine that
seems to do less work to produce the same power to go up the same hill, actually consumes more fuel to do so because the BSFC is higher.
This Autospeed article explains the concept; the crux of it being:
"For example, anything that allows you to keep the throttle open wider and the revs lower (like changing up to a tall gear and then holding it) will reduce fuel consumption because BSFC will be improved."
Modding the engine to produce more power at a smaller throttle opening without changing the gearing does the opposite.