Go Back   EcoModder Forum > Off-Topic > The Lounge
Register Now
 Register Now
 


Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 02-10-2019, 10:29 PM   #1 (permalink)
It's all about Diesel
 
cRiPpLe_rOoStEr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Posts: 10,911
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1,341 Times in 1,192 Posts
Simply picking a smaller engine may not lead to an actual improvement to fuel-efficiency

Some of those Chinese mini trucks, for example, are usually fitted with copies of the Suzuki-designed G13A engine, and their fuel consumption is in pair with larger vehicles, since some lower gearing is required in order to cope with a similar payload.

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 02-11-2019, 03:09 AM   #2 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Stubby79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 1,747

Firefly EV - '98 Pontiac Firefly EV
90 day: 107.65 mpg (US)

Little Boy Blue - '05 Toyota Echo
90 day: 33.35 mpg (US)

BlueZ - '19 Nissan 370Z Sport
90 day: 17.19 mpg (US)
Thanks: 75
Thanked 570 Times in 425 Posts
Too small is as bad as too big. Engine needs to be sized correctly for it's intended use.

That thing would probably do well with one of the various 1.4L turbo engines out there. Turbo would allow for taller gearing and bigger pay load, while maintaining small displacement efficiency on light load.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2019, 06:15 AM   #3 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 2,442

2004 CTD - '04 DODGE RAM 2500 SLT
Team Cummins
90 day: 19.36 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,422
Thanked 736 Times in 556 Posts
It’s not the engine. It’s the operator. Every vehicle needs a plan. Use it incorrectly and be disappointed.

Gearing & transmission covers engine “deficiencies”. That is where it happens.

Nominal fuel burn can be outweighed by reliability & longevity.

FE is ONLY a use marker.

.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2019, 07:01 AM   #4 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Ecky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Michigan
Posts: 4,599

K-sight - '00 Honda K-sight
Team Honda
90 day: 35.71 mpg (US)
Thanks: 2,454
Thanked 2,192 Times in 1,362 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowmover View Post
Nominal fuel burn can be outweighed by reliability & longevity.

FE is ONLY a use marker.
To an extent. I remember some years ago reading about a very proud Chevy Suburban owner who rolled past 500k miles. I recall calculating the fuel costs at being over $150,000. Now mind you, a Suburban has more utility than a Metro, but those fuel costs will also buy a lot of used cars plus the gas to take them all to 500k. I could buy 8 Insights for instance, and put 250k more miles on each of them for the price in fuel alone of taking the Suburban that far.

Reliability has a dollar value, but it's not the ultimate and only value
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2019, 10:55 AM   #5 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,550 Times in 2,216 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecky View Post
Now mind you, a Suburban has more utility than a Metro...
POTENTIAL utility. When it is used as a solo commuter it has the same utility as a Metro or even a bicycle depending on trip distance.

Similar dynamic with the "too small engine" scenario: If the vehicle is subjected to "overload" (operating on the far side of it's BSFC sweet spot) 100% of the time then yes it'll burn more fuel vs an engine in it's BSFC sweet spot under identical conditions OR it will be capable of superior fuel economy those times it's not under max payload OR if the operator doesn't simply go WOT the whole time.
__________________



Last edited by Frank Lee; 02-11-2019 at 11:08 AM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2019, 11:04 AM   #6 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Ecky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Michigan
Posts: 4,599

K-sight - '00 Honda K-sight
Team Honda
90 day: 35.71 mpg (US)
Thanks: 2,454
Thanked 2,192 Times in 1,362 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee View Post
POTENTIAL utility. When it is used as a solo commuter it has the same utility as a Metro or even a bicycle depending on trip distance.
Indeed. So having both a Metro and a Suburban in the driveway, or even just renting the larger vehicle when necessary if it's infrequent enough, ends up being far more economical than having a reliable guzzler.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2019, 06:31 AM   #7 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 2,442

2004 CTD - '04 DODGE RAM 2500 SLT
Team Cummins
90 day: 19.36 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,422
Thanked 736 Times in 556 Posts
As said, it’s the operator.

Not everyone is a commuter. The number of scenarios where a non-FE vehicle IS the right choice is only limited by imagination. Or the tax code.

FE is a ONLY a marker of sound operating practice. No decline (10%) means all is good for that plan.

The reason for records is to project costs based on use data. The AVERAGE MPG over a calendar year against fuel price.

Given that 99.97% won’t ever change their driving habits as part of a (business) ownership plan (that includes this crowd: not combining trips, etc, to dead-minimize cold starts) is almost only ever set against present conditions.

In other words, the car is accessory to all else. Address, “lifestyle” (I just love that bull**** term), etc.

Economy would place Transportation near the top given its cost.

But it’s address first. And “homes” that also place transportation last.

Those two are where all the money lays. The dollars.

The fractions of a cent of fuel cost is playing with tiddly-winks.

The 22R Toyota is a dog. Not fuel efficient. But it lasted. For guys who couldn’t change a spark plug or a fuel filter. Reliability/Longevity is its own merit.

I’d bring up IH truck motors, but nearly everyone who’d bought them new has already passed on. Same for the Big Three “Industrial” motors. The jobs they were put to were about proper gearing use. FE was abysmal.

A V8 318-3 would last. A V8 440-3 would as well, and more easily move those lighter loads. But was more expensive to build, buy, and maintain.

Daily fuel costs are against IRS-deductible miles. Neither was terribly far from the other in this.

I can think of countless examples of a small-block car just BARELY being more fuel efficient than the big block offering WHERE the big block owner was genuinely motivated. Average fuel cost over a year. (Rarely is this for a business).

“Business” is usually the cheapest means to net. The luxury of very exact specifications comes in long later.


.

Last edited by slowmover; 02-14-2019 at 06:46 AM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2019, 09:04 AM   #8 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Philippines
Posts: 2,173
Thanks: 1,739
Thanked 589 Times in 401 Posts
The problem with the G13 is it's mounted longitudinally with a crappy drivetrain.

Even with the bigger G16, fuel economy sucks for those Suzuki-style vans.

The economy drag of front-engine RWD and associated hardware becomes proportionately worse the smaller the engine gets.

That said, I've driven small diesel Suzuki Carry vans that get 30 km/l. I'm betting they'd get much better, however, if they were FWD.
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2019, 11:53 PM   #9 (permalink)
It's all about Diesel
 
cRiPpLe_rOoStEr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Posts: 10,911
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1,341 Times in 1,192 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by niky View Post
The problem with the G13 is it's mounted longitudinally with a crappy drivetrain.

Even with the bigger G16, fuel economy sucks for those Suzuki-style vans.

The economy drag of front-engine RWD and associated hardware becomes proportionately worse the smaller the engine gets.
RWD might not be the problem. You know, they're geared quite too low in order to enable them to climb steep hills and rice fields with an overload which predictably kills fuel economy...


Quote:
That said, I've driven small diesel Suzuki Carry vans that get 30 km/l. I'm betting they'd get much better, however, if they were FWD.
Maybe if it had the same driveline of the former Suzuki Celerio Diesel which used the same engine mounted transversely in FWD?
  Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2019, 03:50 AM   #10 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Philippines
Posts: 2,173
Thanks: 1,739
Thanked 589 Times in 401 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr View Post
RWD might not be the problem. You know, they're geared quite too low in order to enable them to climb steep hills and rice fields with an overload which predictably kills fuel economy...
While that part is true, the losses are still a big deal. We dyno'd one. The drivetrain losses given the quoted power were hilariously high.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr View Post
Maybe if it had the same driveline of the former Suzuki Celerio Diesel which used the same engine mounted transversely in FWD?
Most likely. Though apparently, the Celerio gets low gearing also.

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com