Large naturally aspirated engines are more efficient than small turbos

[razor02097]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

Read the consumer report on the Citicar.

Boiling exploding batteries blow acid all over occupants.

Can't say I ever experienced that.

Where is that? I thought Consumer Reports criticized the citicar in 1974 because the EV's of the time weren't put through all of the same tests as other cars?

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by RobertISaar

V8? you're referring to the K5 blazers then? because the smallest engines those got were the 4.1 straight six...

Compare:
Fuel Economy of 1984 GMC K15 Jimmy 4WD
V8 engine
To:
Fuel Economy of 1984 GMC T15 (S15) Jimmy 4WD
V6 and 4 cylinders.

[RobertISaar]

that's comparing the fullsize blazer with the S10 based ones...

[justme1969]

[QUOTE=tjts1;354983]I'm sure you're perfectly capable of beating the CR economy numbers, thats not the point of the test. The point is to replicate real world driving by the average driver who isn't constantly thinking about efficiency. If you're keeping track thats 99% of the people on the road and precisely 0% of people on this forum.

CR IMO is the worst automotive advisor out there!
These same brainless twits rated most of the worst vehicles out there in #1 categories for the last 25 years.
Case in point late 90s Mopar mini vans and all 2000- 2010 Hondas Thier Bias against American trucks and sedans.
They love cute! if the front of the vehicle does not resemble a smiling Baby it gets low markes everywhere.

The fact that yahoo repeated the result should be enough reason for most people to raise thier B/S flags.

[ever_green]

my 2.3L Acura RDX with variable geometry turbo, atkinson cycle engine and i-vtec functionality gives me 20mpg at best on the highway. The newer RDX with a 3.5L v6 get about 25mpg. but they do have a less complicated AWD system, variable cylindar management and an extra gear...so that might be the reason. But i found my turbo RDX to do better than a v6 3.5l TL (which is a 500lbs lighter 2WD sedan) in the city. If i try hard enough i can get 25mpg with my turbo RDX on a warm sunny day. I can't even get close to that with my mom's TL unless cruising on the highway. So i think V6 engines are good for highway cruising given that they have a proper overdrive gear and cylinder shutoff system. In the city it is a different story though, but the fact that honda killed it's 2.3L turbo for a 3.5L V6 is interesting.

by the way i have driven a rental sonata 2L turbo and with my driving i scored less than official MPG figures. However driving the v6 santa fe i had no trouble getting better than EPA. i find modern turbo MPG figures to be slightly optimistic. In the end it's all about how you drive it. Turbo powertrains enrich mixture heavily under load while modern NA engines tend to stay stoich.

[bestclimb]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Yes GM tried this in the early 1980s. They put 2.8L V6 engines in chevy blazers.
You gained like 1 MPG over the V8 and had no towing ability and little to no get up and go.

That and pistons started swapping holes.

[NHB]

I'n my opinion that topic is misleading. If you compare same models with turbo and N/A engines, most of the turbo engines perform better.

[NHB]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

A Turbo gasoline engine need 20% fuel to make the same horsepower as a N/A motor..

That statement needs an explanation.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by NHB

I'n my opinion that topic is misleading. If you compare same models with turbo and N/A engines, most of the turbo engines perform better.

Due to improvements on turbocharging technology, often the vehicles can retain a broader torque band, which ends up allowing to cruise at lower revvings, then leading to savings