Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

 Downsized Turbo vs NA, Jimat Minyak Cheapass Comparison

views
     
ktek
post May 17 2022, 09:09 PM

拼拼拼多啦
********
All Stars
12,546 posts

Joined: Jul 2006
QUOTE(DM52 @ May 17 2022, 09:04 PM)
Just arrived tanjung bungah, penang from klang not human live one. lol.

speed consistent all the way 90kmh. use left lane like 95% journey. only use cruise control on flat road.

feel like forever. luckily got tons of playlist. definitely can die from boredom if not play music.

fill fuel tank 60litre at klang. just drop a ittle. ts can try too. hope not died from boredom.

I think many car can achieve excellent fc. just u can tahan or not drive slowpoke.
*
vtec saving
SUSDezs
post May 17 2022, 09:27 PM

On my way
****
Junior Member
623 posts

Joined: Jan 2011
From: Lobang Batu


QUOTE(ktek @ May 17 2022, 07:51 PM)
so in the end is gear isu. u wanna jimat use high gear.
want power use low gear.
na turbo enjin pun nvm
*
QUOTE(DM52 @ May 17 2022, 09:04 PM)
Just arrived tanjung bungah, penang from klang not human live one. lol.

speed consistent all the way 90kmh. use left lane like 95% journey. only use cruise control on flat road.

feel like forever. luckily got tons of playlist. definitely can die from boredom if not play music.

fill fuel tank 60litre at klang. just drop a ittle. ts can try too. hope not died from boredom.

I think many car can achieve excellent fc. just u can tahan or not drive slowpoke.
*
Unker want pull to extreme measurements ma.. If die die want maximum 25km/l can drive 70kph all the way to penang.. 350km... 14L consumed, not even 1/2 tank., 5 hours journey KEK. If add N rolling and tailing buses, 27km/l also can, provided tak masuk longkang haha. Unfortunately big cars can't say the same no matter how soft u drive, they got too much dead weight on them.

The thing is the high gear rpm can be reduced further cause the engine can still do fine around 1.5k rpm before it start to terbahak2, while at 110kph, the current gearing brings it to 3.5k which is not the most efficient, hamster start to rage a bit. Can feel the sweet spot for my milotin is around 1700 to 2250 rpm when its damn smooth and little to no vibration/effort to spin. U go up u can feel the hamster wheel starting to spin liao.

Someone did suggest a final ratio adjustment, but that will affect all gears and unker only would truly want to reduce the overdrive gear, if need accelerate the lower gears will still be needed for torque. Prob gonna test drive the CVT maibi to see how it does on cheapskate mode.

This post has been edited by Dezs: May 17 2022, 09:27 PM
ktek
post May 17 2022, 09:33 PM

拼拼拼多啦
********
All Stars
12,546 posts

Joined: Jul 2006
his accord is special ratio 5at.
gear 4 gear 5 super long one i driven b4
ktek
post May 17 2022, 09:33 PM

拼拼拼多啦
********
All Stars
12,546 posts

Joined: Jul 2006
accord we kira big car rite
constant_weight
post May 17 2022, 09:44 PM

Enthusiast
*****
Junior Member
856 posts

Joined: Jun 2017
QUOTE(Dezs @ May 17 2022, 06:18 PM)
» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

The big problem is that 1.8/2L NAs come packaged with big fat asses, unker kenot brain, so they lose out any efficiency gained from better rpm. Mazda cx-3 look small with 2L, but the fugger is as heavy/fat as ketam niama. So hard to put a bit bigger engine into milotin size meh?
*
Put it this way, there is not 1 size fit all.

CVT good a variable speed by reducing the empty load during shifting, but loose out at constant speed due to CVT belt slip. If dead dead 80km/h on same car, same engine, minor weight different due to different transmission -> MT/AT/DCT vs CVT, CVT will be less efficient, even though no more than 2-3% with modern CVT. So overall CVT still save in combined usage city + highway.

Then engine most efficient rpm is not constant. We have
high rev low load,
high rev high load,
low rev low load,
low rev high load scenario.

I haven't seen enough research on their effect to fuel economy, but direct injection engine has different valve timing and injection pattern for each scenario. For low rpm low load, direct injection use stratified (that's the S is TSFI or TSI) combustion which burn extra lean, higher than standard 14.7:1 ratio, so fuel is closer to explosion rather than smooth combustion. But they can control so precise that it happens at the middle of cylinder away from cylinder wall.

The on high load, I think you more expert than me in this, it burn rich that inject extra fuel.

Here I want to introduce the idea -> Highway constant cruising rpm is determine by gear ratio and wheel circumference, ideally. No matter how powerful the engine, at the same ratio, same wheel circumference, it has to be the same rpm. What differs a big engine vs a small engine is the load, bigger engine running at lower load relative to max potential capacity. Ultimately it is the throttle opening the amount of air that flow through that matters, not the rpm alone, that's how TCR, GT3 racing put air restrictor to make everyone running at more or less same power capacity.

In real life, bigger engine allow the car maker to put a higher over drive ratio than small engine to let it run at even lower rpm.

Downsize turbo vs NA of equivalent power. A 1.5L turbo allow it idle more efficient than a 1.5L NA (due to reduce pumping loss), it also idle more efficient than bigger capacity engine due to smaller contact surface area of the piston to cylinder wall. But that's all the efficiency benefit ends. Downsize turbo + Direct Injection is super efficient at low rpm low load situation, it is basically a hack for city traffic jam driving. Highway, if you light enough on the throttle, keep it at low rpm low load, it is for sure more efficient than NA with same max power. That's 1.5L turbo vs 2.5L-2.8L NA, not 2.0L. vs 2.0L is still a fair play, depends on driving condition, no clear winner. On high rpm high load, it simply drink 2x fuel like a 2.5L-2.8L NA engine depend on the boost, if boost pressure is 2 bar it is 2x the volume = 3L, as simple as that.

Weight play bigger role in a lot of speed variation, then highway constant speed cruising it is more on aerodynamic drag. It is very hard to judge in theory, we know certain feature is more efficient, but overall package just get from real world test. Want most efficient all rounder, need multiple cars for city, highway, personal drive, or carry load.

All in all technology has done wonders, my 2 tonnes PHEV with turbo ICE on 750km long highway journey, depleted charge and drive like regular hybrid still manage 15km/l driving legal 110km/h most of the time (short 15-20min 160km/h to pass a crowded section). That's with 3 passengers + luggages. If push 180-200km/h+, I have seen 5-6km/l, you see it is the effect when the turbo is in max boost.


SUSDezs
post May 17 2022, 09:44 PM

On my way
****
Junior Member
623 posts

Joined: Jan 2011
From: Lobang Batu


QUOTE(ktek @ May 17 2022, 09:33 PM)
his accord is special ratio 5at.
gear 4 gear 5 super long one i driven b4
*
QUOTE(ktek @ May 17 2022, 09:33 PM)
accord we kira big car rite
*
Welp imagine if it wasnt kek.. 1620kg... 600kg to remove, +if manual further reduce losses.

But can just change ratio for one gear? Ingatkan its a whole pack everytime tanya sini sana.. Seems like only thing can find is final change.
Quazacolt
post May 17 2022, 11:11 PM

Riding couple
*******
Senior Member
5,216 posts

Joined: Jan 2007
From: KL Malaysia


QUOTE(constant_weight @ May 17 2022, 09:44 PM)
Downsize turbo + Direct Injection is super efficient at low rpm low load situation, it is basically a hack for city traffic jam driving. Highway, if you light enough on the throttle, keep it at low rpm low load, it is for sure more efficient than NA with same max power.
*
One minor correction or rather, real life scenario experiences that it isn't as hack as most engineers/designers think it is.

Simply put, traffic jams and constant stop go will kill most if not all of the down sized turbo benefits due to:
1) extra weight
2) if you're out of the turbo spooled range you're essentially driving a 1.5NA (carrying the extra weight), or if you're within the spooled range, you're just burning more fuel with more air from the turbocharger.

Basically, the new Civic FE under Melaka traffic jams and insane amount of traffic lights, so far I'm getting 7-8 KM/L
The previous (sold replaced by the said Civic) 1.8NA HRV manages 9-10KM/L

that said, yes you're spot on for highway - civic FE gets 16-18KM/L While the HRV gets 14-16KM/L

considering the Civic is still new and maybe breaking in? It's still around 1k km total Odo when i experienced and recorded those figures.
it should be a wee bit better by maybe 1-2 more KM/L Making the overall numbers not too bad and potentially better portray downsized turbo benefits and you (and the vast amount of engineers steered the automotive world in that direction before batteries and EV) may be right after all.

As it is however, under similar/same Melaka traffic conditions, my high strung 2.0 NA gets same, if not better fuel consumption (and smiles per gallon!) Than my wife's new Civic FE laugh.gif

SUSDezs
post May 18 2022, 08:02 AM

On my way
****
Junior Member
623 posts

Joined: Jan 2011
From: Lobang Batu


QUOTE(constant_weight @ May 17 2022, 09:44 PM)
CVT good a variable speed by reducing the empty load during shifting, but loose out at constant speed due to CVT belt slip. If dead dead 80km/h on same car, same engine, minor weight different due to different transmission -> MT/AT/DCT vs CVT, CVT will be less efficient, even though no more than 2-3% with modern CVT. So overall CVT still save in combined usage city + highway.

Then engine most efficient rpm is not constant. We have
high rev low load,
high rev high load,
low rev low load,
low rev high load scenario.

I haven't seen enough research on their effect to fuel economy, but direct injection engine has different valve timing and injection pattern for each scenario. For low rpm low load, direct injection use stratified (that's the S is TSFI or TSI) combustion which burn extra lean, higher than standard 14.7:1 ratio, so fuel is closer to explosion rather than smooth combustion. But they can control so precise that it happens at the middle of cylinder away from cylinder wall.

Here I want to introduce the idea -> Highway constant cruising rpm is determine by gear ratio and wheel circumference, ideally. No matter how powerful the engine, at the same ratio, same wheel circumference, it has to be the same rpm. What differs a big engine vs a small engine is the load, bigger engine running at lower load relative to max potential capacity. Ultimately it is the throttle opening the amount of air that flow through that matters, not the rpm alone, that's how TCR, GT3 racing put air restrictor to make everyone running at more or less same power capacity.

In real life, bigger engine allow the car maker to put a higher over drive ratio than small engine to let it run at even lower rpm.

*
I'm actually a bit curious when it comes to the idea behind fuel injection - from some checks, i.e. even when tuning my engine on dyno, AFR went as lean as 16-17 on low rpm points in the stock ECU map, hence quite lethargic, but really jimat minyak. The tuner told me enriching gives the power set for high load, so more fuel consumed but you get to speed faster to let off the gas and still allow low load cruising (where he claimed the piggyback does not intercept, i.e. the tune map is set for max throttle and pares to zero based on throttle position - well so far he seems to be right given my driving style, the tune has gained me about 0.5 km/l on my mixed average - unker sukak vroom then glide masuk longkang) but its clear direct injection gives better/more efficient control over the combustion no matter how we look at it.

Would it be better to approach the idea from the angle of AFR, meaning that there is only so much power in a unit of fuel, stoic at 14.7, and then determine how much loss comes from the system used to drive it?

The main thing with CVTs is the insanely low RPM they can reach to vs power demand. I'd assume a fixed gear with the same ridiculous ratio should perform better, if such a gear exists haha.. It really puts the engine output right at the bare minimum needed to maintain the car's demand. For a 1.5 Yaris, the 110 kph is sustained at barely 2k rpm (similar output engine) economy levels almost like my manual (frens Yaris got 150kg butt weight to add, and big tayars, if optimised pretty sure it would trump my milotin here). I'd be really interested to make the most of my current engine at cruise, but even the 5th ratio is still wasting rpm range (a good unnecessary extra 1500rpm at 120kph - cross check on dyno too, it should have enough output when i reverse the numbers rempit style to sustain that speed) knowing the car can sustain with just 2k, i.e. new dCVT 1.5 maibi reflects this cruising at a mere 2k+ rpm at those speeds.

Oh, and unker prob found my new love in the 2022 miata hahaha...
» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «


This post has been edited by Dezs: May 18 2022, 08:16 AM
constant_weight
post May 18 2022, 08:17 AM

Enthusiast
*****
Junior Member
856 posts

Joined: Jun 2017
QUOTE(Dezs @ May 18 2022, 08:02 AM)
Oh, and unker prob found my new love in the 2022 miata hahaha...
» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

*
Miata ot the new GR86 2.4L in 1270kg chassis.
Zot
post May 18 2022, 08:25 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
7,592 posts

Joined: Mar 2014
QUOTE(Dezs @ May 17 2022, 09:27 PM)
Unker want pull to extreme measurements ma.. If die die want maximum 25km/l can drive 70kph all the way to penang.. 350km... 14L consumed, not even 1/2 tank., 5 hours journey KEK. If add N rolling and tailing buses, 27km/l also can, provided tak masuk longkang haha. Unfortunately big cars can't say the same no matter how soft u drive, they got too much dead weight on them.

The thing is the high gear rpm can be reduced further cause the engine can still do fine around 1.5k rpm before it start to terbahak2, while at 110kph, the current gearing brings it to 3.5k which is not the most efficient, hamster start to rage a bit. Can feel the sweet spot for my milotin is around 1700 to 2250 rpm when its damn smooth and little to no vibration/effort to spin. U go up u can feel the hamster wheel starting to spin liao.

Someone did suggest a final ratio adjustment, but that will affect all gears and unker only would truly want to reduce the overdrive gear, if need accelerate the lower gears will still be needed for torque. Prob gonna test drive the CVT maibi to see how it does on cheapskate mode.
*
MyVi 1.5 without mod already can go more than 20km/L, right? CVT is programmed to maintain max torque and power, so may not be most efficient all the time. I guess still need manual + driiving skill laugh.gif

Maybe you've seen this about turbo in small engine

SUSDezs
post May 18 2022, 08:49 AM

On my way
****
Junior Member
623 posts

Joined: Jan 2011
From: Lobang Batu


QUOTE(Zot @ May 18 2022, 08:25 AM)
MyVi 1.5 without mod already can go more than 20km/L, right? CVT is programmed to maintain max torque and power, so may not be most efficient all the time. I guess still need manual + driiving skill  laugh.gif

Maybe you've seen this about turbo in small engine

*
Yes... stock was able to go up to 24km/l hypermiling. It was actually more adept at highway cruise prior than some of my mods mostly because of the lightweight rims. If I knew this earlier, i wouldn't have spend the 3k to pull off 2kg's per corner lol.. But well, it was also a free brake upgrade (this i really happy - cause my brakes are still the shitty useless burukdua set the workshop was begging me to change lol). Essentially the stock set is 12.5kg, so nearly 20% reduction in rotating mass to stop it.

The mods that did really help all around was the exhaust+tune, brought my average from 17km/l to 18km/l. Light wheels added another 0.5 km/l, but its mostly savings at low speed since i drive daily. Somehow above 70kph, I tested many times, it simply can't sustain speed as well, prob less mass for same wheel size, and at high speeds its really a drawback now, hence I used to be able to go 20km/l average on roadtrips (usually 100-120 kph rides), now can only get 19.5km/l at best, usually because my cheapass mode kenot accept 19km/l as the new cruise consumption hahahaha. At high speed I do like the effect even tho fuel is horrible, i.e. at 140kph the moment you lift off throttle, the car just drags itself down so quickly in gear no need brakes.

Don't ask me the logic tho, it has no basis since i can easily pay for a few litres of petrol more. Its a strange obsession.

My latest DIY mod is an underbody air dam and DIY wheel deflectors (for some god forsaken reason my maibi dun have, but all new burukdua cars got, so pretty damn sure its doing something) - its showing a 0.5-1km/l improvement at 110kph.. so for a RM20 stupid stationery plastic project, that thing can break as many times as it wants under the bumper, go stationery shop ganti new one for RM20 hahaha...

This post has been edited by Dezs: May 18 2022, 08:50 AM
constant_weight
post May 18 2022, 09:14 AM

Enthusiast
*****
Junior Member
856 posts

Joined: Jun 2017
QUOTE(Quazacolt @ May 17 2022, 11:11 PM)
One minor correction or rather, real life scenario experiences that it isn't as hack as most engineers/designers think it is.

Simply put, traffic jams and constant stop go will kill most if not all of the down sized turbo benefits due to:
1) extra weight
2) if you're out of the turbo spooled range you're essentially driving a 1.5NA (carrying the extra weight), or if you're within the spooled range, you're just burning more fuel with more air from the turbocharger.

Basically, the new Civic FE under Melaka traffic jams and insane amount of traffic lights, so far I'm getting 7-8 KM/L
The previous (sold replaced by the said Civic) 1.8NA HRV manages 9-10KM/L

that said, yes you're spot on for highway - civic FE gets 16-18KM/L While the HRV gets 14-16KM/L

considering the Civic is still new and maybe breaking in? It's still around 1k km total Odo when i experienced and recorded those figures.
it should be a wee bit better by maybe 1-2 more KM/L Making the overall numbers not too bad and potentially better portray downsized turbo benefits and you (and the vast amount of engineers steered the automotive world in that direction before batteries and EV) may be right after all.

As it is however, under similar/same Melaka traffic conditions, my high strung 2.0 NA gets same, if not better fuel consumption (and smiles per gallon!) Than my wife's new Civic FE laugh.gif
*
Turbo at engine idle, the slow spool with electronic control wastegate has boost pressure just enough to reduce pumping loss (piston pulling vacuum due to close throttle and air filter). Overall nett pressure still below 1 bar, similar to NA can at idle.

That's why I said ideally it can be potentially to have better thermal efficiency than a NA engine of same capacity. The modern turbo engine gets 38-39%, if I remember correctly the Hyundai CVVD+turbo+ GDI hit 40%. Thats pretty darn close to Akinson cycle engine.

Well is real life average 1.4L-1.6L turbo would be similar fuel economy as a 2.0L NA at low rpm low load, typical daily drive, then more efficient at highway legal speed, accelerate smoothly to keep at low rpm low load. Once push it, LOL happy hour 2x free flow.

So my philosophy is if 1.5L turbo with 1.8bar, 1.5x1.8 = 2.7L. I'll benchmark the power and fuel economy of the 2.6-2.8L NA, I feel very happy.

Maybe it is your run-in period, or do you take exact same route same time with both car? Or maybe the new NA is more efficient than I had. I was benchmarking 1.5L Vios with only single intake VVT-i + 4AT + port injection vs modern a 1.6T Elantra Sport vs a New Mazda3. Maybe my benchmark was too old... lol

16-18km/l is about right, I think another 2km/l should be achievable. Elantra Sport is around 17km/l that if drive at legal speed and in civil way, Civic FC has be about 2km/l better overall I guess 0W20 oil makes a difference, ES still using 5W40.

But that number only achievable with me driving so far. Now the car with my sister, she only did 14-15km/l on highway drive. Another example of turbo has a lot bigger fuel consumption variations over different load and rpm range vs NA, same condition ever slight acceleration pattern make a dent. Have to keep it at the stratified combustion mode as much as possible if one objective is economy.

Your 2.0NA is port injection + direct injection, don't know how's they play out...don't waste your fun car mileage in traffic jam. When traffic jam, the the Civic!!! Hahaha
constant_weight
post May 18 2022, 09:32 AM

Enthusiast
*****
Junior Member
856 posts

Joined: Jun 2017
QUOTE(Dezs @ May 18 2022, 08:02 AM)


Would it be better to approach the idea from the angle of AFR, meaning that there is only so much power in a unit of fuel, stoic at 14.7, and then determine how much loss comes from the system used to drive it?


*
You mean all the higher processing power ECU + any computers to achieve the precise control of modern engine? Additionally the new direct injection upgraded from 250bar to 350bar needs high pressure fuel pump, change engine driven water pump with thermostat to a electric water pump etc...

That's interesting idea, I haven't though of those. On the electronics, provided they don't need active cooling fan, they should not be more than 30-40W at the chip level. Overall control module I have no idea.

My car has over 20 controller modules LOL, seen it during service software update.
SUSDezs
post May 18 2022, 09:39 AM

On my way
****
Junior Member
623 posts

Joined: Jan 2011
From: Lobang Batu


QUOTE(constant_weight @ May 18 2022, 09:32 AM)
You mean all the higher processing power ECU + any computers to achieve the precise control of modern engine? Additionally the new direct injection upgraded from 250bar to 350bar needs high pressure fuel pump, change engine driven water pump with thermostat to a electric water pump etc...

That's interesting idea, I haven't though of those. On the electronics, provided they don't need active cooling fan, they should not be more than 30-40W at the chip level. Overall control module I have no idea.

My car has over 20 controller modules LOL, seen it during service software update.
*
Lol.. must as well start considering a steam engine heat recovery system in from the radiator also kan.. I guess it will go into a wall eventually. Just chug carbon and pay for it better la. Just unker's random evening thoughts pulling ideas out of ass.
Quazacolt
post May 18 2022, 09:41 AM

Riding couple
*******
Senior Member
5,216 posts

Joined: Jan 2007
From: KL Malaysia


QUOTE(constant_weight @ May 18 2022, 08:17 AM)
Miata ot the new GR86 2.4L in 1270kg chassis.
*
LOL laugh.gif

QUOTE(constant_weight @ May 18 2022, 09:14 AM)
Turbo at engine idle, the slow spool with electronic control wastegate has boost pressure just enough to reduce pumping loss (piston pulling vacuum due to close throttle and air filter). Overall nett pressure still below 1 bar, similar to NA can at idle.

That's why I said ideally it can be potentially to have better thermal efficiency than a NA engine of same capacity. The modern turbo engine gets 38-39%, if I remember correctly the Hyundai CVVD+turbo+ GDI hit 40%. Thats pretty darn close to Akinson cycle engine.

Well is real life average 1.4L-1.6L turbo  would be similar fuel economy as a 2.0L NA at low rpm low load, typical daily drive, then more efficient at highway legal speed, accelerate smoothly to keep at low rpm low load. Once push it, LOL happy hour 2x free flow.

So my philosophy is if 1.5L turbo with 1.8bar, 1.5x1.8 = 2.7L. I'll benchmark the power and fuel economy of the 2.6-2.8L NA,  I feel very happy.

Maybe it is your run-in period, or do you take exact same route same time with both car? Or maybe the new NA is more efficient than I had. I was benchmarking 1.5L Vios with only single intake VVT-i + 4AT + port injection vs modern a 1.6T Elantra Sport vs a New Mazda3. Maybe my benchmark was too old... lol

16-18km/l is about right, I think another 2km/l should be achievable. Elantra Sport is around 17km/l that if drive at legal speed and in civil way, Civic FC has be about 2km/l better overall I guess 0W20 oil makes a difference,  ES still using 5W40.

Your 2.0NA is port injection + direct injection, don't know how's they play out...don't waste your fun car mileage in traffic jam. When traffic jam, the the Civic!!! Hahaha
*
hence, yes, idle similar to NA, but additional 100+ kilos of turbo charging equipment.
but, yes, if you consider the 1.5L turbo as a 2.7L NA, then yeah it is damn fuel efficient with power very very comparable to an actual 2.0 NA sports car tongue.gif

yes, your benchmark was too old, and the lol 4AT should be a clear indicator tongue.gif
yes i do exact same routes with both (or all 3 cars) since Melaka is very small.

2.0 NA 86 are pretty efficient especially the taller gear ratio auto.
and for me, even with traffic jams, just able to drive my 86 is already a bliss by itself, even though yes traffic jams and 3 pedal manual transmission wub.gif
constant_weight
post May 18 2022, 10:15 AM

Enthusiast
*****
Junior Member
856 posts

Joined: Jun 2017
QUOTE(Quazacolt @ May 18 2022, 09:41 AM)
LOL laugh.gif
hence, yes, idle similar to NA, but additional 100+ kilos of turbo charging equipment.
but, yes, if you consider the 1.5L turbo as a 2.7L NA, then yeah it is damn fuel efficient with power very very comparable to an actual 2.0 NA sports car tongue.gif

yes, your benchmark was too old, and the lol 4AT should be a clear indicator tongue.gif
yes i do exact same routes with both (or all 3 cars) since Melaka is very small.

2.0 NA 86 are pretty efficient especially the taller gear ratio auto.
and for me, even with traffic jams, just able to drive my 86 is already a bliss by itself, even though yes traffic jams and 3 pedal manual transmission wub.gif
*
Yours is modern engine. I'm looking at things like E46 328i. 2.8L inline-6 also made around the same power. That's my biggest consolation 🤣

Comparable to 2.8L NA... Yay Yay!

I think net curb weight doesn't differ a lot vs 2.0NA car. Give and take 50kg could be less too. Current turbo integrated to exhaust manifold + intercooler + piping + extra 0.5L of engine oil + but with smaller engine block, engine weight different should be smaller than 100kg vs 2.0L NA. Weight contributed more by other comfortable features, or they found saving elsewhere.
abhipraaya
post May 18 2022, 10:27 AM

On my way
****
Junior Member
541 posts

Joined: Sep 2011


i'm using a 1.4l twincharge, turbo + super charge. Powerful car.
df569
post May 18 2022, 10:27 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
91 posts

Joined: Dec 2020
My Myvi 1.5 dCVT so far returning 14.5km/L for 100% city driving in Subang Jaya/Petaling Jaya area, but once get on highway can easily do 18+km/L.

In gear acceleration is surprisingly slow, need to tekan throttle until 3000rpm only the car will accelerate briskly, and the notorious CVT whine.

I'd say above 20km/L is not possible for city+highway mix, no matter traffic conditions.
SUSDezs
post May 18 2022, 11:14 AM

On my way
****
Junior Member
623 posts

Joined: Jan 2011
From: Lobang Batu


QUOTE(abhipraaya @ May 18 2022, 10:27 AM)
i'm using a 1.4l twincharge, turbo + super charge. Powerful car.
*
Thats the 1.4 Jetta right? The thing is driving 2 boosters how does it affect efficiency when trying to run it off the low load range? Just sayang the Jetta is a tad bit heavy. klu mcm swift 1.4 with the small size baru machiam.

QUOTE(df569 @ May 18 2022, 10:27 AM)
My Myvi 1.5 dCVT so far returning 14.5km/L for 100% city driving in Subang Jaya/Petaling Jaya area, but once get on highway can easily do 18+km/L.

In gear acceleration is surprisingly slow, need to tekan throttle until 3000rpm only the car will accelerate briskly, and the notorious CVT whine.

I'd say above 20km/L is not possible for city+highway mix, no matter traffic conditions.
*
Hmm full on city drive looks nice, your highway speed is berapa? I seen even 23+ on online vids in sibeh unker driving mode la.. Give it a test to check the consumption at 70-80-90-100 then you can see which is the best speed for it. It would be a good way to tell how much you can squeeze out of potentially lowering rpms. My bet is around 70-80, my frens Yaris CVT at 80kph is 21km/l++, Its 150kg heavier than maibi, so yours should be doing better.

This post has been edited by Dezs: May 18 2022, 11:16 AM
df569
post May 18 2022, 11:51 AM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
91 posts

Joined: Dec 2020
QUOTE(Dezs @ May 18 2022, 11:14 AM)
Hmm full on city drive looks nice, your highway speed is berapa? I seen even 23+ on online vids in sibeh unker driving mode la.. Give it a test to check the consumption at 70-80-90-100 then you can see which is the best speed for it. It would be a good way to tell how much you can squeeze out of potentially lowering rpms. My bet is around 70-80, my frens Yaris CVT at 80kph is 21km/l++, Its 150kg heavier than maibi, so yours should be doing better.
*
Highway speed 100-120, I try to maintain under 2k rpm. Too bad fuel tank only 36L, range difficult to reach 500km.

I'd say maibi with cvt immediate acceleration no longer like 4AT....so just drive smoothly to maximise fuel economy.

23+ is keep pressing reset button laugh.gif


3 Pages < 1 2 3 >Top
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0161sec    0.40    6 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 01:27 PM