Small turbocharged engines fuel economy

[flappist]

Originally Posted by tweeked

Terms are a bit too simple. The power required would be the same. Efficiency of the engine is a lot more than just drive train friction. Combustion efficiency in the rev and load range would account for more than the friction losses

The power about which I am speaking in that demonstrated at the flywheel. Internal engine losses and quantity of fuel used to create this is for the purposes of the point irrelevent.

The purpose of the point is to highlight and debunk the not uncommon misbelief that a, for example, "335kw V8" engine is demonstrating 335kw regardless of operational state.

[MAGPIE]

Missed the point entirely aye

Originally Posted by flappist

I can show many many small turbocharged engines that can average 4.5l/100km and go just as fast legally on any road in Australia as a coyote can.

That's not what I asked, simply doesn't interest me.

Originally Posted by flappist

Now you show me a coyote that gets 9.5l/100km WHEN it is demonstrating more than 300kw.

You show me any small turbocharged vehicle that gets 9.5l/100km WHEN it is demonstrating more than 90% of it's maximum rated output.

Originally Posted by flappist

And just in case your lack of understanding of engines is even greater than I suspect, an engine only ever produces enough power to enable it to do the current job.

Wow, really

Originally Posted by flappist

But if you really do want a small turbo engine that can demonstrate more than 300kw there are lots of them with BMW, Nissan, Toyota, Mitsubishi, Subaru and many other badges..........

Name one Subaru (stock) that you can buy and drive legally on the road today ?

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by mcnews

Well an F6 can do that with a litre less and for around 8.5l/100km, while producing a lot more mid-range torque to boot :-)

Granted, but it is not a small turbocharged engine (well it is compared to a W16 I suppose).

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by Rodge

WTF are you and Magpie smoking ????
There's no way a Coyote can average anywhere near 9.5 L/100 km's or an F6 can get anywhere near 8.5 L/100 km's.

Its possible on the open road if you drive like a granny, but that's not on average and who the heck buys there cars to drive them like a granny ???

(A very large dose of realism is called for ).

F6 - real world 13.3 L/100 km's on average
SC GT-P - real world 15.0 L/100 km's on average

Check your facts Rodge, a Coyote (not Miami) has a Official Hwy fuel economy rating of 9.40 l/100km.

I have personally averaged as low as 8.59 on a trip between Akl and Gisborne, and no I wasn't driving like a granny, just going with the flow of traffic and overtaking when the opportunity arose.

Average over life of vehicle 9.4, very limited city driving though.

[jpd80]

Put it this way,
Someone buys an new Ecoboost Falcon and then promptly has it modified to produce 300 Kw and compared
to other Falcons and Holdens of similar power, the modified 2.0 Turbo should put down similar performance.

But, when asked to drive for economy, you can bet your left nut the little turbo engine
will normally come up trumps against the larger I-6 turbos and V8 of similar power output.

That's the difference..

I wonder who will be the first to criminally modify an Ecoboost 2.0 and go terrorising unsuspecting V8s and Turbo sixed..

[CAT600]

Originally Posted by superfly

...Nissan just don't know what they're doing

Yep, the GT-R is proof of that... The R32-34's pumped WRX and Evo for so many years, the last generation of STi and Evo finally caught up to 2001 GTR then the R35 smashed them back to the stone age.

In the real world the RB38DETT makes 400kw from 3.8L, uses 12l per 100 combined cycle (I get 15 punishing it around town where the FG gets 25+) and is an all out performance car with little compromise.

So from a 3.8l twin turbo with 9.5:1 comp if you halve the engine capacity, lift the compression a little and it's easy to see a small turbo engine killing bigger NA stuff for economy.

Less frictional losses in the engine is where the saving is at cruise, smaller engines are typically in smaller lighter cars with less frontal area and drag which is the other half of the equation

Daniel

[Rodge]

Well I don't know how you do it Magpie. Are you sure the fuel computer isn't telling you porkies ? as its very unusual to be able to better the official ADR figures by 10%, its usually at least that much the other way.

My universal rule of thumb is official ADR fuel figures plus 10% with average driving, 30-50% more if you're really having fun .

I think where small turbo's really rock is around town. Effectivly they're displacement on demand.
Urban consumption Ecoboost Falcon XT 11.8 L/100 SC FPV 20.8 L/100 ..and i'm silly enough to use mine 90% around the city

[_Ben]

Originally Posted by CAT600

In the real world the RB38DETT makes 400kw from 3.8Ll

VR38DETT :P


So many people here fail the understand that these little turbo engines are more efficient that big ol V8s and 6s. Yes, they don't have the character or manliness, but they are 'better' engines.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Rodge

Well I don't know how you do it Magpie. Are you sure the fuel computer isn't telling you porkies ? as its very unusual to be able to better the official ADR figures by 10%, its usually at least that much the other way.

My universal rule of thumb is official ADR fuel figures plus 10% with average driving, 30-50% more if you're really having fun .

I think where small turbo's really rock is around town. Effectivly they're displacement on demand.
Urban consumption Ecoboost Falcon XT 11.8 L/100 SC FPV 20.8 L/100 ..and i'm silly enough to use mine 90% around the city

Rodge, magpie is quoting US EPA Highway figure for a Coyote (5.0) as in Mustang...
The US highway cycle is NOT steady state and can easily be bettered at light cruise on flat road

[greenfoam]

The new Fiesta ST makes 200hp. 0-60mph in 6.9 and a combined city/highway of 5.9l/100. With the 6 speed box it comes with and low revs I bet it does better than 5.0l/100 on the highway. Has to.

[greenfoam]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

yes but once the energy is past the exhaust valves it is normally wasted after all that is the function of the exhaust ( a waste disposal system) by harnessing that energy you increase the overall efficiency of the engine, it should be noted supercharging does not have the same benefit as it is driven by the crankshaft so it is parasitic

that's not exactly correct. The escaping gas's make considerable extra power in the exhaust system as they leave the engine and exhaust. So much so that even a leaky header gasket shows up on the drag strip on a mild engine. that's more or less totally givin up on a Turbo car, sure you gain in other ways. The function of an exhaust system is first and foremost to pull clean air and fuel into the cylinder. If it wasn't exhaust manifolds would just be a big can.

Its completely normally all the rest of the exhaust aside to pick up 10-20hp from a simple xpipe because of this effect.

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Rodge, magpie is quoting US EPA Highway figure for a Coyote (5.0) as in Mustang...
The US highway cycle is NOT steady state and can easily be bettered at light cruise on flat road

I think this highlights the inherent inefficiency of a SC engine, most noteably the parasitic loss of the supercharger and the fact that FPV tune these cars very rich from the factory. Not sure on the weight difference, SC FPV to Mustang but I seriously doubt I could get anywhere close to 8.5 L/100 km's on an Auckland to Gisborne run.

On topic, a little known fact is that the Ecoboost Falcon XT is rated at 6.0 L/100 on the highway, that's pretty impressive IMO.

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by Rodge

I think this highlights the inherent inefficiency of a SC engine, most noteably the parasitic loss of the supercharger and the fact that FPV tune these cars very rich from the factory. Not sure on the weight difference, SC FPV to Mustang but I seriously doubt I could get anywhere close to 8.5 L/100 km's on an Auckland to Gisborne run.

On topic, a little known fact is that the Ecoboost Falcon XT is rated at 6.0 L/100 on the highway, that's pretty impressive IMO.

GT-P = 1855 kg (NZ Autocar) Mustang GT = 1657 kg (Ford NA)

so near enough 200 kg.

[EDManual]

I find the small turbo engines to be terrible for my style of driving :-) which is flat out in these slower cars everywhere.
I have tried a few too.

The reason behind this is that they are making all their power most of the time, and I am using it all the time.
In a small NA you only use full power(and so full fuel rates) at full revs, so I use less fuel in them.

If you drive like a grandma, sure it may be better...

I average amounts like 20 litres per hundred in 1.8t a4s, 18 in 1.4t holden Cruze etc etc.

Bigger cars like falcons/commys (sv6 not the 3.0 litre though) with more power use less as I am up to speed quicker and just cant keep the car floored as much! (more like 16 - 17)

A mate of mine has a porsche (light Club race car), has so much power, you just cant use it! And so averages 12 on the road!!

[flappist]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

Missed the point entirely aye

That's not what I asked, simply doesn't interest me.

You show me any small turbocharged vehicle that gets 9.5l/100km WHEN it is demonstrating more than 90% of it's maximum rated output.

Wow, really

Name one Subaru (stock) that you can buy and drive legally on the road today ?

Yep, I did not underestimate it at all.......

At what rev/torque combination in your Mustang do you get 9.5l/100km while demonstrating 90% of maximum output.

Remember that power = torque * rpm.

300kw = 1432Nm at 2000 RPM
300kw = 955Nm at 3000 RPM
300kw = 478Nm at 6000 RPM

So which of these is the most likely to be true:

1) Your Mustang has a 1000++Nm engine which is Bugatti Veyron territory.
2) You drive around everywhere at 6000 RPM in first and second gear as 6000 RPM as top gear might attract a bit of unwanted attention.
3) You have no idea at all and just fantasise that you are getting 9.5l/100 with 300kw.

[MAGPIE]

Your unbelievable

Of course it can't average 9.5 l/100km while actively producing 300+ kW

My statement (maybe I worded it poorly) was that the Coyote is an engine that can produce 300+ kW (if called upon) and is capable of averaging less than 10 l/100 km during normal real world driving.

If you can't get your head around that it's not my problem

[flappist]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

Your unbelievable

Of course it can't average 9.5 l/100km while actively producing 300+ kW

My statement (maybe I worded it poorly) was that the Coyote is an engine that can produce 300+ kW (if called upon) and is capable of averaging less than 10 l/100 km during normal real world driving.

If you can't get your head around that it's not my problem

If that is the case then you original point is invalid as many many turbo 4s and 6s can do the same and often better.

You may not like small turbo engines but stating that they are not capable of performing as well as yours is completely incorrect.

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

GT-P = 1855 kg (NZ Autocar) Mustang GT = 1657 kg (Ford NA)

so near enough 200 kg.

Interesting that there's such a big difference.

Had a look on the U.S. Ford website and don't even start me on the GT Premium Mustang selling for a RRP of $35K U.S. when we're asked to pay so much here for FPV product...nuff said on that otherwise i'll start feeling really, really sick too the bottom of my stomach...

Anyway on the fuel economy thing.

I noted a claimed 15 / 26 m.p.g. consumption, city / highway for a 5.0 Coyote Mustang. I converted this to litres and kilometres using the 1 U.S. gallon = 3.79 litres and 1 kilometre = .62137 miles and arrived at fuel consumption in terms we're familiar with, of approx 15.5 L/100 km's urban and 9.0 L/100 km's open road.

I understand that the Australian ADR system weights open road 2/3's and urban 1/3 rd, (happy to be corrected on that one), so that gives an inferred combined consumption of 11.2 L/100 km's, (15.5 + 9 + 9)/3.

With repsect and giving you credit for already disclosing this, your usage pattern is far from what most people consider normal and probably represents an optimal possible result in very close to ideal conditions.

I would typically expect to get the above figure plus 10% = somewhere in the mid 12's L/100 km's for my driving conditions, which I am happy to conceed is a very good result for a vehicle of that performance, but bringing it back to the context of this thread a combined consumption of 11.2 L/100 km's is still 38% more than an Ecoboost 2.0 Falcon XT at 8.1 L/100 km's combined, a vehicle that weigh's almost exactly the same as your's and proof that small turbocharged engines can be very efficient if driven in a conservative manner IMHO.

That said, I'm really looking forward to driving the new 2015 Mustang in due course, can't wait !!

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by flappist

If that is the case then you original point is invalid as many many turbo 4s and 6s can do the same and often better.

Original point is not invalid...

Why are you bringing 6's into it, there not small turbocharged engines.

Still waiting to see a small turbocharged car with 300+ kW (stock) that you can buy and drive legally on the road and average under 10 with.

Maybe they exist, I don't claim to know every detail about every car available but as was my original point there wouldn't be many.

Originally Posted by flappist

You may not like small turbo engines but stating that they are not capable of performing as well as yours is completely incorrect.

You assume a lot don't you, never have I said I dislike small turbo engines. I own a car with a small turbocharged engine (my second as it happens) and yes I bought it brand new too before you go getting on your high horse about that one.

I never said they are not capable of performing as well as a Coyote, I said show me one that has 300+ kw on tap, you still cant name a Subaru can you.

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by Rodge

With repsect and giving you credit for already disclosing this, your usage pattern is far from what most people consider normal and probably represents an optimal possible result in very close to ideal conditions.

On the contrary Rodge I would say my usage pattern is fairly typical of anyone that doesn't live in a large metro area ie anyone o/s Akl/Wgt/Chc.

Also rural driving in the Nth Island of NZ is I would say far from ideal conditions, and especially Gisborne/Coromandel/Waikato where the majority of my km's have been.

If these km's had been on straight flat Canterbury roads I'd agree with you.

[OzJavelin]

Fiat 500 twinair

Re: http://www.themotorreport.com.au/551...view-australia

It may only have two cylinders and less than a litre of displacement, but the 500 TwinAir’s 62.5kW 875cc turbo engine is a plucky little performer.

Fuel economy isn’t sparkling either. We couldn’t get our fuel consumption to dip below 7.4 l/100km despite a listed consumption figure of 3.9 l/100km.

Probably would have been better of stuffing a Suzuki GSX1400 engine in there ..

[greenfoam]

In my experience the only time you will ever match the highway fuel adr is on the Hume highway. No other road in Australia is smooth enough. On the average highway you'll be somewhere between. .5 and 1 litre above specs.

[superfly]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

.

I have personally averaged as low as 8.59 on a trip between Akl and Gisborne, and no I wasn't driving like a granny, just going with the flow of traffic and overtaking when the opportunity arose.

Average over life of vehicle 9.4, very limited city driving though.

That's pretty good economy. My XR50 gives me pretty much the same economy as my WRX did which was modified to around 190kw's atw's. Both driven mainly round town, both driven just as hard (WRX obviously being quicker) and both return around 11L/100kms. I think for me an F6 or GT would return higher fuel consumption than 11L/100kms.

Originally Posted by CAT600

Yep, the GT-R is proof of that... The R32-34's pumped WRX and Evo for so many years, the last generation of STi and Evo finally caught up to 2001 GTR then the R35 smashed them back to the stone age.

Geez it's flattering to the STi and Evo that you're comparing them to a car worth twice as much. I wonder if I bought a STi and added $70K worth of mods to it. Would the GTR still win?
Dont' get me wrong though, I do think the GTR is an amazing car but it's unrelated to my earlier comment. It was someone else bagging Nissan, I just made a joke out of it.

Originally Posted by CAT600

In the real world the RB38DETT makes 400kw from 3.8L, uses 12l per 100 combined cycle (I get 15 punishing it around town where the FG gets 25+) and is an all out performance car with little compromise.

So from a 3.8l twin turbo with 9.5:1 comp if you halve the engine capacity, lift the compression a little and it's easy to see a small turbo engine killing bigger NA stuff for economy.

Daniel

Totally agree. I'm sure if I was driving an Ecoboost, my fuel bills would be less.

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

On the contrary Rodge I would say my usage pattern is fairly typical of anyone that doesn't live in a large metro area ie anyone o/s Akl/Wgt/Chc.

Also rural driving in the Nth Island of NZ is I would say far from ideal conditions, and especially Gisborne/Coromandel/Waikato where the majority of my km's have been.

If these km's had been on straight flat Canterbury roads I'd agree with you.

Dunno mate, all depends on how close to home people stay, even people who live in say Masterton spend a heck of a lot of their time commumting around, yeap Masterton.. Anyway, lest agree to disagree on that one. As it sits the official combined fuel consumption of your Coyote powered Mustang appears to be 11.2 L/100 km's, considerably better that the 13.7 L/100 km's of a SC FPV but not world class either, the twin turbo E63 with 400 kw's and 800 nm's is rated at 9.9L/100's.

Originally Posted by greenfoam

In my experience the only time you will ever match the highway fuel adr is on the Hume highway. No other road in Australia is smooth enough. On the average highway you'll be somewhere between. .5 and 1 litre above specs.

Driving cars for 35 years and as far back as I remember i've never been able to achieve official open road ADR figures,, (with one exception noted below), let alone better them. Recent example was a leisurely open road trip to Palmerston North with my daughter, about 1,200 km's spead over 5 days so I was really just crusing along...official open road ADR for my Merc diesel, (not sure if a 3.0 diesel turbo is classified as a small turbo engine or not), anyway the official open road ADR is 6.6 L/100 km's, actual consumption achieved was 7.3 L/100 km's, there's that pesky ADR + 10% over and over and over again , spread over I can't remember how many vehicles now... I checked this against fuel fills too, as we all know there's what the trip computer says and what the real truth is and there appears to be very little variance with that car.

Once just for the hell of it, I did a return trip Auckland to Thames, (all open road and motorway and reasonably flat) and was in full "grandpa mode" just to see if I could get the official 6.6 L/100 km'[s out of that vehicle...and you know what, cruising at 85 k.p.h. like there was a raw egg under the accelerator I managed to do it and annoy a lot of other motorists in the process !! But who wants to drive like that ????

Can anyone post a link to a road test or long term independent test of any vehicle where the person doing the evaluation has achieved better than ADR figures, because I can never remember one and i've read a hell of a lot of road tests over the years...

[greenfoam]

Well having a WS fiesta its claimed 4.9l/100 just can't be done UNLESS you are running the skinny base model Tyre and on the Hume: ). The problem is they give the same spec fuel consumption on the upper spec models that have twice as sticky and fatter tyres.

On the other hand I can easily do better than the urban rating because I live in a small town

The new territory diesel doesn't do what its rated either. Again probably partly to do with wheel spec.

[jpblue1000]

The arguments here are irrelevant, Fuel consumption quotes along with co2 etc are not judged by manufacturers but by an independent laboratory test conducted according to the australian design rule (ADR) 81/02
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2012L01037

'The fuel consumption figures quoted in the GVG in litres/100km are derived from ADR81/02 Fuel Consumption Labelling for Light Vehicles. Fuel consumption is measured in accordance with defined procedures and ADR 81/02 requires that a fuel consumption label is affixed to the windscreens of new vehicles prior to their first supply to the market.'

'All vehicles are tested to the same test procedure (drive cycle) under carefully controlled conditions in specialised vehicle emission laboratories. The test methods used for determining exhaust emissions and fuel consumption are specified in the ADRs. The same drive cycle is used for determining air pollutant emissions, CO2 emissions and fuel consumption. The ADRs adopt the test methods from the United Nations ECE Regulations (ECE R83 and ECE R101).
As the results displayed in the GVG are based on a standardised drive cycle, different vehicle models can be compared with confidence. However, no test can simulate all possible combinations of conditions that may be experienced on the road. Real world emissions and fuel consumption may vary from the results provided in the Green Vehicle Guide, depending upon a number of factors including driving and road conditions, driver behaviour and the condition of the vehicle.'


The documentation even states the laboratory test may be different to the real world, and offers that the figure quoted is for comparison of all vehicles for those who care. It must be assumed looking at the results thatgenerally, in the testing regime a large capacity engine uses more fuel than a small capacity engine.
And I don't know how many of you have engineering degrees and world experience but I'm going to side with the billions of R&D dollars spent globally by auto engine manufacturers, that a trend towards fuel efficiency coming from small capacity turboed engines rather than what you might prefer or believe is better is proof.


JP

[39ClevoUte]

Price and weight difference between Mustang and Falcon. Have a look at the technology of the stang (suspension) and those who remember EAs will tear up. Look a Jag or a Aston Martin and you'll see B series. Our cars are years ahead.

[39ClevoUte]

Old saying "there's no subsitute for cubes". Cubes = fuel that can be burnt = power.
There's three easy ways to get cubes:
1) Big engine.
2) Turbo
3) Supercharger
That's as simple as it is.

[302 XC]

I dont think it really maters what some can or cant acheive in economy
If we all drive around like granpa we can get good economy regardless of engine size
But who really does that ...???
Noone i know of,and some of these you beaut economy figures people claim are a once in a while claim
Go drive that same highway stretch day after day,week after week ,and the figures will be all diferent
You buy the car regardless of the power,it needs fuel, you dont buy any you run out ,simple
The new 300KW nissan patrol V8 spose to get 11L/100Ks,not bad for a barge
But ill bet when the 300Kw of power is at peak, theres no way 11L/100Ks would even be remotely feasable

[CAT600]

Originally Posted by superfly

Geez it's flattering to the STi and Evo that you're comparing them to a car worth twice as much. I wonder if I bought a STi and added $70K worth of mods to it. Would the GTR still win?
Dont' get me wrong though, I do think the GTR is an amazing car but it's unrelated to my earlier comment. It was someone else bagging Nissan, I just made a joke out of it...

Its common knowledge that Mitsubishi and Subaru targeted R34 performance (it was the benchmark) for many years... yes Nissans premium car was more expensive but the point is it hasnt been bettered in Japan, even the LFA at 3 times the price is less of a performance package total. If you did this exercise in its native environment (where you would have around 30-40K to play with) the STi would have no chance but the superior Evo would go close, Inside line did this a while back with the older 2009 GT-R:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdpBvLlWbXE

Regardless, the argument is about smaller displacement and turbos and as far as economy goes you cant beat them.

Daniel