Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > General Efficiency Discussion
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 09-12-2017, 02:35 PM   #21 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: pacific
Posts: 32
Thanks: 9
Thanked 25 Times in 14 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5 View Post
I don't get the appeal of powerful sedans. It's pointless in that a sedan is a practical vehicle, made uselessly fast and expensive.
I would argue that modern base-engine sedans *are* powerful as well as affordable. 0-60 in under 8 seconds used be considered quick. Fact, its just as quick as it ever was, its just that people are power drunk these days.

__________________
99% bev now
1% other junk
  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 09-13-2017, 08:20 AM   #22 (permalink)
It's all about Diesel
 
cRiPpLe_rOoStEr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Posts: 9,133
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1,058 Times in 928 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by easythereturbo View Post
people are power drunk these days
Absolutely. Personally, I prefer a lower-power, lower-revving engine with some greater low-end torque than a high-power, high-revving one with such a low torque. I see it comparing some 1.0L engines fitted to small cars in my country due to fiscal benefits, while a 1.2L or 1.4L with a similar power rating and more torque could do better.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 11:02 PM   #23 (permalink)
halos.com
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Oklahoma City, OK
Posts: 528

ECONORAM - '07 Dodge RAM 1500 QC SLT flex-fuel
90 day: 18.16 mpg (US)

the Avenger - '08 Dodge Avenger SXT
90 day: 27.06 mpg (US)
Thanks: 385
Thanked 93 Times in 79 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to ECONORAM
I saw this article the other day about Mazda's new engine... Mazda
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2017, 03:59 AM   #24 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,755

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: 1,582
Thanked 3,541 Times in 2,211 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr View Post
Absolutely. Personally, I prefer a lower-power, lower-revving engine with some greater low-end torque than a high-power, high-revving one with such a low torque. I see it comparing some 1.0L engines fitted to small cars in my country due to fiscal benefits, while a 1.2L or 1.4L with a similar power rating and more torque could do better.
Example: Ford Tempo. Intended to be mated to old-school 3-speed no lock-up no OD a/ts, it's 2.4 was tuned for low and mid-range torque vs high rpm horsepower. The result? It was a sales leader for many years in spite of nearly universal disparaging publicity in the motoring press about it's "tractor engine".
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2017, 09:55 PM   #25 (permalink)
Master Novice
 
elhigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SE USA - East Tennessee
Posts: 2,306

Josie - '87 Toyota Pickup
90 day: 26.89 mpg (US)

Felicia - '09 Toyota Prius Base
90 day: 48.73 mpg (US)
Thanks: 421
Thanked 606 Times in 445 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by serialk11r View Post
What is really interesting is that Toyota is sticking with relatively large displacement NA when Honda is committing to small turbo engines.
It's been my impression that greater volume in the cylinder = less cylinder wall per unit of volume through which to lose heat. When Deere was still using two cylinder engines, one of their biggest tractors at the time set a record for fuel efficiency that wasn't broken for over 25 years. Each cylinder displaced about three quarts - seriously, each cylinder displaced more than my truck's entire engine.

Turn up the compression, keep the cylinders big, employ Atkinson cycle because that works, laugh all the way past the gas station on your way to the bank.
__________________




Lead or follow. Either is fine.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2017, 11:03 AM   #26 (permalink)
It's all about Diesel
 
cRiPpLe_rOoStEr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Posts: 9,133
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1,058 Times in 928 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by elhigh View Post
It's been my impression that greater volume in the cylinder = less cylinder wall per unit of volume through which to lose heat.
Makes sense.


Quote:
When Deere was still using two cylinder engines, one of their biggest tractors at the time set a record for fuel efficiency that wasn't broken for over 25 years. Each cylinder displaced about three quarts - seriously, each cylinder displaced more than my truck's entire engine.
Match the bigger cylinder displacement with a fewer amount of cylinders, and it ends up decreasing the overall amount of internal friction spots.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2017, 08:03 PM   #27 (permalink)
Master Novice
 
elhigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SE USA - East Tennessee
Posts: 2,306

Josie - '87 Toyota Pickup
90 day: 26.89 mpg (US)

Felicia - '09 Toyota Prius Base
90 day: 48.73 mpg (US)
Thanks: 421
Thanked 606 Times in 445 Posts
Bob Lutz once said...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee View Post
...The result? It was a sales leader for many years in spite of nearly universal disparaging publicity in the motoring press about it's "tractor engine".
"Americans buy horsepower but drive torque."

Torque output of the HSC engine available in the old Tempo/Topaz twins was modest but decent at about 125-130 ft-lbs.
__________________




Lead or follow. Either is fine.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2017, 08:11 PM   #28 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Elmira, NY
Posts: 1,729
Thanks: 305
Thanked 333 Times in 278 Posts
Decades ago SAAB or Volvo figured that 36 lbs per horsepower was ideal. I rarely get my engine (Dodge 3.3L) above 3600 rpm and cruise at 2500 rpm.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2017, 10:35 AM   #29 (permalink)
It's all about Diesel
 
cRiPpLe_rOoStEr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Posts: 9,133
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1,058 Times in 928 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by elhigh View Post
"Americans buy horsepower but drive torque."
The late Carroll Shelby would say "horsepower sells cars, torque wins races". Soichiro Honda would strongly disagree with that
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to cRiPpLe_rOoStEr For This Useful Post:
Xist (09-20-2017)
Old 09-20-2017, 12:38 PM   #30 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Ecky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 4,294

Gaptooth (retired) - '00 Honda Insight
Team Honda
Gen-1 Insights
90 day: 54.26 mpg (US)

Such Fit - '07 Honda Fit Sport
90 day: 41.27 mpg (US)

Connect - '15 Ford Transit Connect XL
90 day: 20.83 mpg (US)

K-sight - '00 Honda K-sight
Team Honda
90 day: 41.4 mpg (US)
Thanks: 2,085
Thanked 1,855 Times in 1,191 Posts
Probably best to look at torque after the transmission. Two 200HP motors, one with twice the torque at the crank and the other with twice the RPM, both have the same output after gearing.

  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Ecky For This Useful Post:
Daschicken (09-21-2017)
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




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