Small turbocharged engines fuel economy

[superfly]

Originally Posted by CAT600

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:

Well bugger me. I drove a AWD turbo Subaru (Liberty RS and WRX) for 15 years and I never realised they benchmarked themselves on the GTR. I thought they were interested in winning rally's thus benchmarking them on the other rally cars. And my comment was never about the GTR to begin with (I really don't care about the GTR). My Nissan comment was in relation to making a turbo charged diesel engine last.

Originally Posted by CAT600

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

Daniel

Correct.

[39ClevoUte]

Originally Posted by 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

Agree. Example switch to instantanious fuel economy. Our BA 5.4 at full throttle in first from the lights changes gear at about 5700 and at about that time has climbed to 95litres per 100ks. Awesome!!!!

[Nic85]

Originally Posted by 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

The new V8 petrol Patrol is rated at 14.5L/100km on the combined cycle - 11L/100km pure highway, which in the real world will mean around 12.5L/100km on the highway and about 18L/100km on the combined cycle. The rated city use is 20.6L/100km, which in the real world will be closer to 25L/100km. Ridiculous vehicle. . Nissan have a perfectly good 3L V6 diesel they could use which would be awesome.

[302 XC]

Originally Posted by Nic85

The new V8 petrol Patrol is rated at 14.5L/100km on the combined cycle - 11L/100km pure highway, which in the real world will mean around 12.5L/100km on the highway and about 18L/100km on the combined cycle. The rated city use is 20.6L/100km, which in the real world will be closer to 25L/100km. Ridiculous vehicle. . Nissan have a perfectly good 3L V6 diesel they could use which would be awesome.

Similar fuel usage to my 4.2 L petrol 6 pot GQ ....
Actually i cant get near 12.5L/100K highway , more like near 20L/100K
Other than the new cost id find, id go to a more powerfull engined car if the economy is on par with what i currently get
You dont take on your opposition like toymota who have a V8 turbo diesel,with a 3L V6 ....
You fight fire with fire

[EDManual]

If you have enough $ to buy a new patrol, you are not going to mind paying for fuel.

[mcnews]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

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.

New triple-turbo diesel BMW does 0-100 in 4.something and claims 6 litres per 100km on combined cycle I believe.

[123Cat]

What is the estimated life of the small Turbo compared with the 6

Say over 20 years like mine

[jpblue1000]

While I havent owned one for 20 years, Im only hypothesizing, over a long period I doubt the small capacity turbo engine would last as long as a larger N/A engine. More highly stressed components, more things to go wrong. Im guessing, from previous experience the Turbos giving up first, How newer roller bearing turbos etc go is yet to be seen.
In saying that I drove a suzuki with their 1.3 litre engine for 330,000km's and it didnt use a drop of oil or water and never needed towing. My current falcon 285,000km's uses both. But I bought the suzuki new and serviced it, but it did track days, the falcon, who knows?
But Im betting the ancillaries give up well before the main long block.
Cars today appear to be more appliances to be replaced after 3 years, do they need to last longer than that?

JP_

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by mcnews

New triple-turbo diesel BMW does 0-100 in 4.something and claims 6 litres per 100km on combined cycle I believe.

You mean the 3L triple turbo diesel...

1/ I wasn't aware we were talking about diesels

2/ I don't consider a 3L a small engine

3/ It needs 3 turbos for crying out loud

Impressive engine though

So yeah I'm still waiting for genuine example of similar performance/economy from a small turbocharged engine.

Like I said before I don't doubt they exist, but they must be few and far between.

I note flappist cant name a Subaru (let alone any others) that has 300+ kW and decent economy.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

You mean the 3L triple turbo diesel...

1/ I wasn't aware we were talking about diesels

2/ I don't consider a 3L a small engine

3/ It needs 3 turbos for crying out loud

Impressive engine though

So yeah I'm still waiting for genuine example of similar performance/economy from a small turbocharged engine.

Like I said before I don't doubt they exist, but they must be few and far between.

I note flappist cant name a Subaru (let alone any others) that has 300+ kW and decent economy.

There are squillions of them, rather that typing with your eyes closed why don't you just use google.

https://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&saf...=1920&bih=1084

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by flappist

There are squillions of them, rather that typing with your eyes closed why don't you just use google.

https://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&saf...=1920&bih=1084

Stock standard as they came from the factory.... yeah right !

[jpblue1000]

Mr magpie, why are you fixated on 300+Kw's The coyote engine your so proud off sure makes some power but it needs too, to lug 1844kgs around. The Falcon GT produces 244Hp per tonne, many smaller engined cars produce this figure easily, My own modified suzuki swift produces 212Hp/tonne. Now we are comparing fuel economy here so for the same performance speed/tonne the smaller turbo engine is equal if not better.

There wont be many small capacity 'factory' turbo engines that produce 300+Kw why should they as they don't need to, lighter cars, more fuel efficient and comparable power to weightratios. If they do need to do it in some alternate reality Im sure its achievable, Look to 80's F1 1500Hp from 1.5 litres. yes 1120Kws from 1.5

JP

[flappist]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

Stock standard as they came from the factory.... yeah right !

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

Show me a small turbocharged engine that can produce 300+ kW and average 9.5 l/100km like a Coyote can

Where is the word factory in this quote?

And besides that, your car is not factory standard is it?

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

Original point is not invalid...

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

Well maybe as the original post referred to and article that contained this:

Ford F-150 3.5 V6 Turbo 7.7 17 15


But if you do want factory standard I found this one
http://www.porsche.com/australia/mod...turesandspecs/

And of course for the price of a 2011 Mustang you could buy a 2011 Nissan GTR.

[Sprint]

power is petrol ,not cubes.

take a std rb25det(2.5 litre) in std form can have 500-600kms a tank.

make it 300kw and now seen 350km a tank it chews.

rb 2.5 litre can make 300- 500 kw+, thats a impressive 200kw per litre

[Franco Cozzo]

Small capacity turbo engines are easier to get to meet emission standards rather than a bigger NA engine with equivalent power figures.

[smoo]

Originally Posted by flappist

Where is the word factory in this quote?

And besides that, your car is not factory standard is it?



Well maybe as the original post referred to and article that contained this:

Ford F-150 3.5 V6 Turbo 7.7 17 15


But if you do want factory standard I found this one
http://www.porsche.com/australia/mod...turesandspecs/

And of course for the price of a 2011 Mustang you could buy a 2011 Nissan GTR.

As you say, what would the fuel burn be of the Porsche when the full 500hp is call on... Between that and say a 500hp ZO6 7.0l... probably bugger all between them.
Fact is large N/A engines can be highly efficient in the real world.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by smoo

As you say, what would the fuel burn be of the Porsche when the full 500hp is call on... Between that and say a 500hp ZO6 7.0l... probably bugger all between them.
Fact is large N/A engines can be highly efficient in the real world.

Yes they can, but they are not the only configuration that is.

[302 XC]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

I note flappist cant name a Subaru (let alone any others) that has 300+ kW and decent economy.

So you have an engine that can produce 300 KW and off power and driving to the speed limit you can get good economy ......
Whats the issue
Go stand on the gas ,produce your 300 KW and tell what your economy is ...
I dont know whats the problem ....
Many moons ago ,my dad bought new a pulsar ET Turbo
Long time ago now
He had a 351 LTD as well
Both on the hammer,standing start full noise they both drank similar juice

[39ClevoUte]

Originally Posted by Sprint

power is petrol ,not cubes.

take a std rb25det(2.5 litre) in std form can have 500-600kms a tank.

make it 300kw and now seen 350km a tank it chews.

rb 2.5 litre can make 300- 500 kw+, thats a impressive 200kw per litre

RB25DE - NON-TURBO twin-cam 140 kW/190 PS (180 - 200 hp ) @ 6000 rpm, 255 N·m (26.0 kgf·m) @ 4000 rpm)

RB25DET - twin-cam TURBO (T3 Turbo) (245 to 250 hp and 319 N·m)

From what I can find out they run a factory 4.8 to 5.5psi in a factory auto. So lets compare this from a cubes/ltr point of view.

Std engine is 2.5ltr.
Turbo engine at 5.0psi uses or is equiv to
2.5+(2.5*(5.0/14.7))= 3.4 ltr So this is the cubes/ltrs that this engine uses (on boost). This is a 34% increase in capacity or fuel that can be burnt.
A 34% increase of the non turboed engine performance would deliver about 240 - 268 this is very close to the 245 to 250 quoted for the turbo.
So it is all about cubes. Power comes from the amount air/fuel you can burn and a turbo or S/C simply increases your cubes on boost.

Also if both engines were on wot for the same time the turbo would use 34% more fuel.

[superfly]

Originally Posted by Sprint

power is petrol ,not cubes.

take a std rb25det(2.5 litre) in std form can have 500-600kms a tank.

make it 300kw and now seen 350km a tank it chews.

rb 2.5 litre can make 300- 500 kw+, thats a impressive 200kw per litre

It will all come down to the tune. My WRX standard ran very rich so even with just a tune you can get more power but still return the same fuel economy figures.
Stock my WRX made around 110kw atws. Modified it made around 190kw's atws. Still gave the same fuel economy round town but was a much quicker car.