Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > EcoModding Central
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 06-15-2008, 03:23 PM   #1 (permalink)
A madman
 
brucey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: WV
Posts: 1,012

Pequod - '17 Subaru Outback
90 day: 22.79 mpg (US)
Thanks: 70
Thanked 179 Times in 96 Posts
Send a message via AIM to brucey
Engine Rebuild.. Fuel Economy?

So I just remembered my engine isn't stock, I had it rebuilt a few years ago. Bored .40 over stock, so its technically a larger engine. Would this be hurting or helping my fuel mileage? I'm getting pretty close to 35 mpg with no real mods, so 40 mpg with some work seems possible for me still.

Just curious what you guys think it would do. I am thinking more displacement = more gas, but I'm not an automotive engineer.

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 06-15-2008, 04:47 PM   #2 (permalink)
A madman
 
brucey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: WV
Posts: 1,012

Pequod - '17 Subaru Outback
90 day: 22.79 mpg (US)
Thanks: 70
Thanked 179 Times in 96 Posts
Send a message via AIM to brucey
Thats what I was thinking too, but it came up and I wanted to make sure. Best case theres no difference, worse case theres a minor difference for the worse from an OEM engine.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2008, 05:51 PM   #3 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
ttoyoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: boston ma
Posts: 381
Thanks: 0
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
What did you have done to the camshafts.. If you had more overlap put in (is the idle kind of lopey or rough) then I would expect power to go up and mileage to go down.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2008, 06:08 PM   #4 (permalink)
A madman
 
brucey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: WV
Posts: 1,012

Pequod - '17 Subaru Outback
90 day: 22.79 mpg (US)
Thanks: 70
Thanked 179 Times in 96 Posts
Send a message via AIM to brucey
The power did go up, it was actually quite noticeable increase in pep.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2008, 06:12 PM   #5 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
ttoyoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: boston ma
Posts: 381
Thanks: 0
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
I mean, did you ask them to put a new grind on the camshafts? Or did they or you index the camshafts differently relative to each other relative to what is stock spec for the car? Did you put the motor together yourself after the machine work was done?
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2008, 10:08 PM   #6 (permalink)
Recycling Nazi
 
Bror Jace's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: People's Republic of Albany
Posts: 234

Blue Bullet - '06 Honda Civic Sedan LX
90 day: 35.68 mpg (US)
Thanks: 2
Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts
Arrow

In the 60s, when representatives from Chevrolet were asked why they put a 454 in the 'Vette instead of the 427, they said they bored it out to "save weight."

Obviously, the weight savings is insignificant ... and the extra displacement (I think you bored it .040"?) is just a few cubic inches ... but if that is 1% then you will probably be close to 1% more power and 1% more fuel consumption.

The increase in pep was probably better compression, not increased displacement.
__________________
--- Bror Jace
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2008, 10:54 PM   #7 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Posts: 531
Thanks: 11
Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts
Bror, I think you have your engines mixed up because 427 to 454 was a pure stroke increase.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Big-Block_engine

I am sure somebody said in in relation to something though.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2008, 11:29 PM   #8 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
wagonman76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Northwest Lower Michigan
Posts: 1,006

Red Car - '89 Chevrolet Celebrity CL 4 door
Team Chevy
90 day: 36.47 mpg (US)

Winter Wagon - '89 Pontiac 6000 LE Wagon
90 day: 28.26 mpg (US)
Thanks: 8
Thanked 17 Times in 16 Posts
Im not sure what a larger bore would do. I know that I have had 2 examples of the same car which gets better mileage with a larger engine. The 3.1 is a stroked 2.8 and in my case gets 2-3 mpg better in the same car driving the same roads.

90 Pontiac 6000 wagon with 3.1 got 30 highway
89 Pontiac 6000 wagon with 2.8 got 28 highway
Both have 4 speed automatic with 3.33 final drive
Both have same options and are basically the same car

89 Celebrity with 2.8 got 29 highway
Same 89 Celebrity with 3.1 got 32 highway
Same 4 speed automatic with 3.33 final drive

A stroked engine gets the benefit of a longer lever arm in addition to more displacement for extra torque.

These are just my experiences. Other cars may differ greatly.
__________________

Winter daily driver, parked most days right now


Summer daily driver
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2008, 11:55 PM   #9 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Albany, ny
Posts: 248

NewBlue - '07 Honda Civic EX
90 day: 38.13 mpg (US)

The Better Half - '97 Ford Ranger XLT
90 day: 25.84 mpg (US)
Thanks: 0
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Final Drive? I am only moderately car literate, when it comes to trannies (car part not crossdressers) do you want a high final drive (my civic is 4.294) or a low final drive?
__________________
2007 Honda Civic Ex
Second Goal = 50mpg
First goal = 40mpg Goal Achieved 3 tank average over 40mpg
Starting point 30mpg ready...... GO.

  Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2008, 12:38 AM   #10 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
bhazard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toledo, OH
Posts: 500

2012 Golf TDI - '12 Volkswagen Golf TDI
TEAM VW AUDI Group
90 day: 45.51 mpg (US)
Thanks: 6
Thanked 34 Times in 27 Posts
A higher numerical final drive (its actually 'lower' or 'shorter' gearing) means higher rpms at any speed. You'll have better acceleration and a lower top speed. City mpg could even go up, but highway mpg may go down.

A lower numerical final drive (which is 'higher' or 'taller' gearing) gives you lower rpms at any speed. Pretty much the opposite of shorter gearing. Highway mpg should go up, city mpg depends, you may end up lugging your engine more.

__________________
'05 Outback XT, 19 mpg

BP-turbo 93 Festiva (long gone)
1/4 mile - 12.50@111.5
Best MPG - 36.8
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fuel Economy related papers tasdrouille General Efficiency Discussion 41 03-19-2021 06:31 PM
smart cdi (diesel) owner from BC, Canada smartzuuk Introductions 29 09-06-2018 03:09 PM
Engine braking without using fuel idea Dane-ger EcoModding Central 38 02-04-2010 10:35 AM
Basic EcoDriving Techniques and Instrumentation SVOboy Instrumentation 2 11-17-2007 11:38 AM



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com