Small engines are good enough if got good FI systems to boost. Boost is the replacement for displacement.
Small engines - for good or worse.., It's the future for auto industry
Small engines - for good or worse.., It's the future for auto industry
|
|
May 17 2013, 01:22 AM
Return to original view | Post
#1
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
1,704 posts Joined: Sep 2012 |
Small engines are good enough if got good FI systems to boost. Boost is the replacement for displacement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 18 2013, 11:46 AM
Return to original view | Post
#2
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
1,704 posts Joined: Sep 2012 |
QUOTE(kadajawi @ May 18 2013, 02:30 AM) IMHO most engines feel rather sluggish at 1200 rpm, no? The 1.4 TSI kicks in at... mh, I think it was 1600-1800, whereas our 1.4 NA engine really has nothing at all going on below 2000. There is no kick, yes, but even at 2000 there is no power. Now of course with bigger displacement there will be more power, but isn't it so that NA engines usually have the most oomph around 4000 rpm or so? Below that... well, not so much. For N/A, torque down low depends a lot on engine displacement, the bigger it is, the more punch you can get in lower rpm. The trade-off is usually in trying to get the big engine also to rev as high to achieve big power as well at the top of the rev ranges, since there would be bigger/heavier and more parts to move faster, so more difficult than getting smaller engines to rev higher. But big engines do not need to rev too high anyway since they can already generate a lot of power in lower rpms. That's the inherent advantage of big N/A engines. FI nowadays has become more and more sophisticated to substitute for displacement. In a way a car engine is like an air pump, big engines can suck more air while FI serves to supply more air. The challenge is to make it as responsive as N/A response, especially down low. So you cannot compare directly a 1.4 FI with a 1.4 N/A engine and expect the N/A to be able to match the performance of the FI one.Also starting from a 2.0 and then adding a turbo may not be such a good idea... at least according to the Ford PR. They claim that the 1.0 EcoBoost was designed from the start to be turbocharged, thus they could circumvent a few limitations of turbochargers. Currently the Mondeo comes with a 1.6 with 120 hp as baseline engine. They want to replace it with a 1.0 with 120 hp, and probably more low end torque. So that should be ok... hopefully. Any engine as long as they're designed from the beginning to be FI engine, then should be fine, regardless of the displacement. The bigger the engine, top it off with proper FI, the merrier it will be IMHO. |
|
|
May 18 2013, 07:32 PM
Return to original view | Post
#3
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
1,704 posts Joined: Sep 2012 |
|
|
|
May 18 2013, 07:56 PM
Return to original view | Post
#4
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
1,704 posts Joined: Sep 2012 |
|
|
|
May 18 2013, 08:02 PM
Return to original view | Post
#5
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
1,704 posts Joined: Sep 2012 |
|
|
|
May 19 2013, 12:07 AM
Return to original view | Post
#6
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
1,704 posts Joined: Sep 2012 |
QUOTE(Boy96 @ May 18 2013, 11:11 PM) Thats actually good for a 2.5l, my dad's 1.6Turbo once reach an average of 6.9km/l on a single full tank. Avg speed that the car travelled during that single tank of fuel was around 17km/h Those average are measured with everyday trip thru Sungai Besi-Tun Razak route, so yeah not that bad. The 308 cc, but then the Passat also drinks as much fuel, though a little bit less than the 308 cc. I heard the Preve sucks fuel also. Dont know how Vios is so economical. Whoa avg speed really only 17kph?? That must be super massive jams! No wonder FC dropped so bad la. Vios N/A engine and low power too, so nothing special there. |
|
|
May 29 2013, 11:31 AM
Return to original view | Post
#7
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
1,704 posts Joined: Sep 2012 |
QUOTE(katijar @ May 29 2013, 09:44 AM) Good question. Theoretically might not be since smaller engines need to have forced induction and/or rev higher to achieve the same power as bigger engines. Or shall I say it's more effortless for bigger engines to make the same power, hence should not stress the engine as much as smaller engines. With forced induction also will have more parts in the car, so more things can break/wear out. But maybe with the advancement of technology in practical terms it should be reliable enough. |
|
|
May 29 2013, 03:12 PM
Return to original view | Post
#8
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
Senior Member
1,704 posts Joined: Sep 2012 |
QUOTE(cokeaddict @ May 29 2013, 02:57 PM) bro...big or small....any engine will suck fuel in city drive bro... imagine the countless times we get stuck in traffic..on the way to work, meetings and home? Pure waste of fuel. QUOTE(Boy96 @ May 29 2013, 03:00 PM) I know, but somehow N/A engine sucks less than turbo in the same situation, a N/A car like Honda Civic 2.0 is easily able to get +- 10l/100km while cars like the 308 Turbo, under the same condition and driving style would get around 11.5 - 12l/100km Maybe because the turbos are small enough that they'll already spool up fast in lower rpms. Also maybe tuned to be more rich to increase reliability of the engine.QUOTE(h4dRi @ May 29 2013, 03:03 PM) it also depend on engine stroke length, the longer the stroke is, more torquey the engine will be, even if the engine displacement is big, but have big bore short stroke engine configuration , the punch will still be suck at low end but it will be rev happy engine with high rev limit Yeap, oversquare vs undersquare engines.most big engine have long stroke small bore ratio, that's why most car with big CC have low rev limit |
| Change to: | 0.0290sec
0.46
7 queries
GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 22nd December 2025 - 02:12 AM |