Simplest engine, pros and cons?
 

If you're like me, you probably one time spent several thousand dollars in moding an engine to try to get the best fuel economy possible only to realize that it would take an eternity to get back the money you put into the vehicle.

If you're like me you might have even went and bought an old hybrid only to realize that the thing now needs an expensive battery, catalytic converter, maybe a brake actuator and possibly even needs an engine replacement... :eek:

So what about just going back to good old simplicity? Could a simple engine that get's 30mpg trump a complicated engine that gets 40?

The Simplest Modern Engine

For those that don't have time for the video it talks about the 2.0L engine from VW between 2010 and 2015 that wasn't turbocharged, had a single overhead cam, no variable valve timing, no coil on plugs, no EGR, and an iron block.

I'm favorable to simpler engines too, not only because they're easier to service (and this may lead them to also be cheaper to have serviced). A lower manufacturing cost may render them more affordable than some downsized engines which are too complicated and only justifiable in countries where the taxation is displacement-biased such as Brazil. No wonder the VW T-Cross is exported from Brazil most often with a naturally-aspirated 1.6L 4-pot instead of the 3-cyl 1.0 TSI or the 1.4 TSI which are the only engines available locally. Not to mention how some half-assed maintenance is still widely performed in neighboring countries such as Argentina where many folks go as far as adapting a carburettor into engines originally fitted with EFI...

Lost me at 'fuel rail'.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_66sTMVcQ7...tment_View.jpg
thisvw.blogspot.com/2010/03/engine-compartment.html

Even though I wouldn't hold my breath for carburettors making a comeback to new mainstream cars, some modern port-injection systems are not so much of a rocket-science. Do you remember when Asian cars relied on a lot of vacuum pipes and hoses to make the EFI work? That was a real PITA.

Maybe try going back a few decades to 1975, all US models?

At this very moment, I have a 1971 Superbeetle and a 1979 Dasher diesel (both with expired tags). So, one foot in both worlds.

The Dasher was a royal pain to get it to hold water. Why is the lower radiator hose one diameter on one end and different on the other? All the hoses are new now, except the smaller ones that go into the dashboard for cabin heat, those are still 40 years old.

The dashboard is a flexi-cable with LEDs. The oil pressure indicator light is unsorted. :(
________________

Thankfully, the XFi is roadable.

To be efficient an engine doesn't need to be complicated.
I got my best car fuel economy with a Toyota 1KR-FE:
Went 1000 km with only 35L of gas, so 3,5L/100 km or 67 mpg in a totaly stock car.
That engine was an inline 3 cylinder with port injection, no turbochrager and generaly nothing special.
These engines are also pretty robust.

My best motorcycle fuel efficiency is with a Simson S51, wich has an ancient 2-stroke engine, takes some roughly 2-2,5 L/100 km.
Haven't actualy measured it precisely yet as I didn't ride much this year.

Sometimes even ancient features such as a pushrod valvetrain may be worth, just look at Ford replacing the 6.8L V10 with the 7.3L Godzilla V8.

I'd argue that these are not exactly fuel efficient engines.
However in case of the 1KR-FE the valvetrain was a pretty simplistic DOHC with variable valve timing on one cam.
No hydraulic valve lash adjustment, no variable lift and no variable duration.

If my 1ZZ-FED blows again, I might drop in a 1KR-FE for ****s, giggles and superior fuel economy.
That little engine got me 3,5L/100km in a not very aerodynamic car.
I wonder what it would do in my spyder, especialy if I actualy ran tires with a fuel economy rating better than F :D

Perhaps we're making assumptions and confusion between fuel efficient engines and fuel efficient vehicles. Anyone have the new Godzilla engine bsfc handy?