I have a BMW520D , tuned up to 204HP and 420nmTorq.(original 177HP and 350nmTorq) 2 litre engine with turbo runs on diesel. The diesel here cost 0.93 euro a litre. On highway 5 litre / 100KM in the city 6.5 litre / 100KM. I do about 1100KM with one tank. Steptronic gearbox , M-kid , full leather ...... And i like it , it's my second BMW and never going to change.(as long as my wife keeps sponsoring me) I've been in the States for maybe 12 times an driven all sort of cars there. They are cool but so slow in changing gear (talking about a sedan and SUV) like you'r riding a ship on the road. Ok they are cheaper the US cars , but not over here. The selling price is ok but all the takes that we have got to pay on those big engines are insane. And the fuell cost here 1.39 euro's a litre and the car consumes more then a diesel. So no thank u. But sometimes in my dreams i have a Mustang , Camaro , and a big ass SUV and for the lady a Corvette. But here in europe i gotta keep dreaming. I got a little bit of the American dream : Buell and Harly-davidson Street-rod and that rocks way better than the europe bikes. [/IMG] [/IMG] [/IMG]
That's not always the case. And almost never the case when talking about forced induction applications.
Actually, that's not saying much. You do know Toyota issues more recalls than any other manufacturer?
Perhaps show me where I'm wrong then. And bringing boost into it greatly confuses things, but the statement still holds when talking about identical boost and compression levels.
Sure: 2008 VQ35HR (350Z) Displacement: 3.5L Output: 306HP & 268TQ EPA MPG: 18 MPG City, 25 MPG HWY, 20 MPG Combined 2009 VQ37VHR (370Z) Displacement: 3.7L Output: 332 HP & 270 TQ EPA MPG: 18 MPG City, 26 MPG HWY, 21 MPG Combined Source: Edmunds.com Granted, the compression ratio is slightly higher on the VQ37VHR (11.0:1 vs 10.6:1), yet engine efficiency is quite improved. It's quite difficult to find the exact same engine, in the exact same car, with only an increase in displacement and no other change. There is another example I'm trying to find information for you too.
Those engines are slightly different in design. There are other factors at work than just displacement. From an engineering standpoint, when all other things are equal, the engine with the larger displacement will lose more energy as waste heat through the cylinder walls and head from increased surface area. It's just something that results from the geometry of the larger engine. You can compensate by increasing volumetric efficiency and/or compression ratio, which is what you guys are pointing out.
I suppose this is best handled by finding the best compromise of displacement, cylinder count, compression ratio, volumetric efficiency, and even aspiration. An increase in displacement provides potential to make greater power, assuming more fuel and air are used. I think the reason you don't see an engine with an increase in displacement alone is the greater displacement is usually not used without a greater VE to take full advantage.
There are dozens upon dozens of examples of engines with increased displacement and pathetically low VE. The best is to increase VE without increasing displacement. I.E. boost....as with N/A tuning you can only increase volumetric efficiency so much. As far as I know the Honda F20C still holds the record for the highest VE of a naturally aspirated production roadcar engine at around 115%
I don't like the ForTwo all that much. I feel it's too expensive for its size and performance. Decent mileage but for it's size and weight it seems kind of crappy. If the cost were $10k or lower I think it'd be one hell of a car.
Really? Show me one example of an engine created that is a direct successor that has no other change except displacement. That's what I was saying. You won't see that happen without other changes made to the engine. Of course boost is the most efficient aspiration. In fact, boosted boost is the most efficient. And the F20C is not the record holder anymore. There have been several examples but the first that comes to mind is the Porsche GT3 RS making 450 PS with 3.8L.
For the GT3 RS, about 118%. I'll try to dig up the other cars I've read about before that match this or beat in terms of VE for NA applications.
i..... honestly have no idea what to say to that. haha. It's a car that's built by Mercedes. It also is the highest fuel mileage non-hybrid car in the US. And for what you get... or can get.... it costs quite a bit less than what other cars would cost for what you can make of it. $12,000-17,000 is too much? How many convertibles do you know of that go for under $20k? You can get a fully loaded ForTwo Passion Coupe with heated leather seats, 6-disc in-dash CD changer, alarm system, fog lights, and all the other stuff you can get in it, including all the STANDARD safety features, for i believe just under that $17k mark. Size and performance? Have you sat in a Smart? You don't feel like you're in a car that's barely longer than most cars are wide. I'm around 6'2" and i can get in and out of my Smart a LOT easier than i can get in and out of my parent's '07 or '08 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo. I also don't feel almost claustrophobic when i get into the Smart like i do when i get into the Jeep. I hate sitting in the driver seat, and feeling my hair rubbing the roof of the car.... knowing that such vehicles haven't really been tested for roof strength..... while i KNOW that the Smart has had it's roof strength tested, and was able to withstand 9,000 pounds of force and only crushed like 5 inches. I also feel that it performs just as well, if not better than it should with a small 1.0L 3-cylinder gas engine. I've only found two hills in my area that i absolutely CAN'T go faster than 45mph up without dropping a gear and having it rev to high hell.... and those are STEEP, LONG hills, that i rarely ever drive on. This isn't no Tata Nano.... which by the way that probably won't see your "$10k or lower" price tag either if it get's loaded up with safety features out the yang.... which if it DOES make it to the US.... it more than likely will be.
It depends on personal preference. I couldn't justify purchasing a Smart either as it would simply be impractical for my needs as a person with a single vehicle. If I lived in a city and wanted a commuter car, which that was the only purpose of the vehicle, I suppose it would be more attractive. At most, for me, it is an oddity. If it works for you that's great, just don't think that value to a driver is strictly in safety and bottom line cost. Storage, seating, and yes, engine power, are all factors which can trump the Smart even in the same price range.
Yes, but the ability to gear a car higher and have the same performance with better fuel economy is its own form of efficiency. And as the owner of an FI subaru, I can tell you that FI ain't doing wonders for fuel economy. People with 3.0L flat six legacies get better fuel economy than my 2.5L turbo (and they have autotragics). And they both put out ~250hp stock.
Norvekh: i live in a small town.... and commute 20 miles one way to another relatively small town. Wouldn't exactly say they're only for commuting. quite a few people have taken their Smart's on cross-country trips. I had considered it somewhat.... but A) i hate driving, and B) i don't know what the hell i'd do in Cali, or where i'd stay. Kinda plan on going on a decent trip though sometime this summer. It has quite a bit of storage for how small the car is. Granted it's not a pickup that you could fit damn near anything in, nor is it a large SUV with more space than you'd really need to store anything in (seriously... how many times do you see people with an SUV packed to the gill with crap? Usually a TV, or some boxes.... only time you really see "packed to the gill" is people on a family vacation). Like people say... The smart is just enough. not too little, not too much. I can agree with you on the seating bit..... it's not usable for more than 2 people.... but chances are, if you're planning on going somewhere with someone else.... and they have friends along too.... i'm guessing they also have a vehicle, which in most cases more than likely has more than two seats. Not really a family car.... but not exactly only for single/*SPAM* people, either. And again.... you'd be surprised how much power a tiny little 3-cylinder has.
The bolded part says a lot... I really don't have anything against Smart's and other tiny cars, but if you enjoy driving they're probably not the best choice.
Agreed. After I had my Civic with a measly 170ish HP, I vowed never to drive a car again with under 200hp per ton. never again I tell you!
200HP per ton? Hrm, that's quite an expectation as the average mid-size sedan here in the U.S. is 3200+ lbs. And that's being conservative. Most sedans don't have over 300 HP though.
I know I'll probably get something like an MR2 turbo or boosted IS300. It's just that after owning a B16 I think every Honda owner would agree with me in saying that they want to move on to RWD and torque I'm not the biggest fan of most cars after 2000 or so. Although the new FT86 looks promising.
