Why do some countries have limits on auto engine displacement when having a low revving...

no, because you have a floor a 4-cylinder eurotrash/jap crap shitbox engine everywhere unless you want cyclists and tractors to overtake you, whereas with a real vee-ate you can just drive around at low rpm

More displacement doesnt get you to work faster.

>certain countries
>getting fucked in the ass by taxes
That has more to do with the national character than engine size. Take away cars and they will find something else to sodomize each other with.

And the V8 will still be less efficient.

Okay, show me a V8 getting the 40 mpg of my 90 hp shitbox. That's average, not peak mpg.

You can floor a 1.5l constantly and get 27 mpg. V8s can be efficient but only cruising. On the other hand my 3.2L V6 gets 32 highway and has enough HP and torque to beat 4.6L Mustangs, I think its a good compromise

I doubt 32mpg.
Especially if penastar

Because only Americans build 3.2L V6s?

why do you think people are going wot constantly

politics my man, it's all about politics. if you can afford yourself something better than a 2.0 then i'm sure you can give us a bit of your wealth as a contribution for this country. otherwise fuck your cars and just enjoy dull and boring cars like everyone else, if they can do it then you can endure it too.

I didnt say that.
Even if its the audi, you're not getting 32.
Your defensive and frankly poor attitude makes me believe you would be a liar too.

>muh taxation is theft
>muh I should be allowed to benefit off public infrastructure without contributing to it

That's a narrow minded view.
I would say OVER taxation is theft.
Like if they tax every single little thing.
But i can understand public infrastructure

>because turbos are more fuel efficient
Nope
>and therefore cleaner
0 for 2 there champ want to try again?

Its sad how ford shills truly believe turbos are efficient and clean

Lol if I cared enough I would take a pic. Definitely get 32 mpg. J32a3

If it uses less fuel per mile it also produces less emissions per mile. It's a basic equation of Input and output. Do you have gravel in your head or why can't you comprehend this? A better fuel oxygen mix also burns cleaner.

Oh you're the idiot that thinks the TL is gods gift to man.
Now i extra don't believe you.

>Income Tax
>Consumption Tax
>Local Authority Tax
>Additional duties on "luxuries" such as fuel, alcohol, etc.
>Health Service "contributions"

Living is hell.

forums.edmunds.com/discussion/4365/acura/tl/acura-tl-real-world-mpg lolwat. No its not. But it does get 24/32

I have a TL as well, 6 speed, on highway can get upwards of 34 mpg if I try, more than enough power. Only concern with that car is no RWD/AWD option, and engine doesnt have a big aftermarket

OP here, I want to clarify and further explain

I don't want to bring in the V8 vs i4 shitposting. This is a real question I am asking.

I assumed it was implied, but the engines would have the same power output, just at a diffrent rpm/torque ratio. The low revving, high displacement engine burns more fuel per cycle, while the high revving, low displacement engine runs more cycles in the same amount of time. If it was a perfect system, the fuel consumed over time and power output of the engines would be equal.

In the real world however, the low displacement, high revving engine is less efficient because of momentum. For each cycle of each cylinder, the fuel has to accelerate the piston to maintain the high rpm. With the high displacement, low revving engine, more fuel moves more mass but accelerates it less. So what basically takes place is that more mass is accelerated less in the LR/HD engine while the HR/LD accelerates less mass more. With thermodynamic principals, the less mass accelerated would be more efficient, as less of the force can be lost by acceleration.

So are displacement restrictions just bureaucratic meddling? Or is there something missing in my understanding?

>So are displacement restrictions just bureaucratic meddling?
Essentially, yes.

More displacement = more fuel
Displace more air means you need more fuel to burn correctly

I though I accounted for that already. You are burning more fuel per cycle, but less cycles overall, meaning the total amount of fuel burned for energy output is equal in a perfect system. Since the more air is accelerated less than in the air in the high rev engine, it loses less energy.

>a small engine at low rpms doesnt consume less fuel than a big engine at low rpm

Good job on being fucking stupid

Lucky. 6 Speeds are quick as fuck, im looking at G37s but im starting to open my mind to a 6MT SH-AWD

Thats not how it works

But it is. The more air is accelerated, the more of energy is wasted.

It doesn't work that way

No

It prevent Mazda and Americans to be able to compete.

They are efficient compared to a naturally aspirated engine with the same power output but higher displacement.

A 1.0 3 cyl turbo producing 75hp will use less fuel on average than a 1.4 4 cyl producing 75 hp.

no country actually has limits on auto engine displacement

The reason for high displacement low rev engines being more efficient is simply because of something called a throttle body.

Engine volumetric efficiency is wildly dependant on throttle position. Certainly enough to sway the numbers between comparing the two engine architectures you are describing. Pumping losses are minimized and efficiency maximized when the throttle is wide open.

All of this aside, are you seriously taking real life empirical data between real engines and trying to compare it against your highly theoretical ideas? There are way too many variables for that.

>****** if you stay out of boost

Thermodynamically speaking a turbocharged engine is more efficient even in boost. The volumetric efficiency increases above 100% because the pumping losses of dragging air through the intake is gone, and if properly insulated, the combustion heat is retained in the turbo and efficiency is kept high.

Except you get worse mpg.
So less efficient then.

You get worse MPG because your making more power. It would be even worse if you took a bigger displacement NA and made the same power with it.

It's all relative to the fuel flow.

No.
A 2L NA will EASILY reach the same power and MPG as a 1L turbo
Hell. Some are above the power and same mpg as a tiny turbo engine.
Youre a tard

No I'm a mechanical engineer you fuck.

For a given amount of fuel input, the engine that retains the most heat in the exhaust is the one that is the most efficient.

And besides, driving style is the real determining factor of MPG for your anecdotal "evidence".

Sure about that? Why does a Corvette get better highway MPG's than a Civic at normal speeds (90mph)? Why aren't semi tractors constantly downsizing engines like cars? People need to stop drinking the low displacement kool aid.

>A 2L NA will EASILY reach the same power and MPG as a 1L turbo
No they won't. Name one 2L car that gets the same power as a 1L turbo

*That are in the same class

youtube.com/watch?v=uQialnqMFxs

39.1mpg is not 40

This. The only thing a lower displacement means is less power potential. Combined with draconian inspections and modification laws it's a very effective way to prevent anyone but the elite from owning anything fast, powerful or even fun.

>90mph
>normal speeds
thats way beyond the civic's efficiency curve

You are fucking autistic. Even 30mpg out of a big "inefficient" V8 makes your boat anchor a piece of shit.

Skyactiv 2.0 has more HP and same mpg as the ecoshit 1.0
All while being in a larger car.

To further my point.
The ecoshit can only achieve that mpg while OFF boost.

When your shitbox blows a head gasket at 100,000 miles it'll be the real boat anchor.

OVERtaxation is theft
>soviet euro land
>52% income tax
>21% sales tax
>mustang gt is 120k

Alot, and I mean a shitload of people doing uni right now in Europe have no plans to stay

Where is there to go? The land of actual theft and shit infrastructure?

You're the retard, retard
He's saying all things equal a turbo engine will make power more efficiently than the same size engine n/a

It doesnt though.

Stay btfo you hick
automotiveforums.com/t1023602-how_can_forced_induction_increase_engine_efficiency_.html

>some random forum
Oh wow its nothing
See

It's none of that. An engine with more displacement has more cylinder wall, piston and cylinder head surface area to exchange heat with the coolant, hence wasting it.

because it isn't

So is that why turbo is more efficient on lower displacement? The air is heated more and loses less of the heat to the engine/cooling system so more is recovered by the turbo?

The other thing is that turbos decrease pumping losses because for a given power demand the throttle will be opened wider due to reduced displacement so there's less vacuum generated by the engine on the intake stroke.

So turbo is more efficient on smaller displacement, and turbo is always more efficient than NA, so is that answer for OP?

Uh no

probably germoney since mustangs are like 40k euros.