Why do people still fall for the small engine meme Veeky Forums?

Why do people still fall for the small engine meme Veeky Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2784592/Why-big-car-best-comes-fuel-economy-Research-finds-vehicle-makers-tests-not-reflect-reality-car-driven-road.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Wow I love blue cars now

Wow a fucking chart with no source.

It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure that my 4 cylinder 2000lb shit box is going to get better fuel economy then a 4000lb Suv

>no data cited
>not testing parameters indicated
>no indication weather thats city or highway or both

shitpost is shit

You’re retarded. Obviously a big a suv weighs much more, but if the same weight car had a bigger engine that’s not antiquated, it would get better fuel economy for the same driving experience

ok but are these motorway stats or town stats?

>0-1 litre cars

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2784592/Why-big-car-best-comes-fuel-economy-Research-finds-vehicle-makers-tests-not-reflect-reality-car-driven-road.html

If the fucking daily mail isn’t shilling small engines, you know it’s obvious

Arguably the best newspaper in the world

It is entirely dependent on your style of driving. If you drive a big engine efficiently to get from A to B, itll get better economy than if you thrash a small engine to get the same experience

Fuck it, I'll bite
The only way this is true is if said higher displacement engine is geared much higher
Let's posit the 2 cars are identocal in every way other than the displacement (they won't be)
Car A is a 1.5l NA shitbox
Car B is a 3l NA hot shitbox
In one crank rotation A uses 0.1 liters of fuel
Car B on the other hand uses 0.2
Car B will thus consume double as much as car A
BUT it will use as much fuel when cruising if its top gear is twice as high as A's
What's more, since power is the force the exploding gasoline exerts on the pistons you know that, if the engines and equipment is the same or similar, to generate X power you will always need y amount of fuel

not entirely. it also depends on vehicle weight, type of transmission, hilled roads vs flat roads etc

that article was vague as fuck and provided no real citation to the data or testing practices used

That's because the Dailymail is a parady newpaper that people take at face value.

>Researchers chose a range of different models, and a mix of both petrol and diesel vehicles,
>both petrol and diesel vehicles

I'd think it has more to do with driving habits and environment. A 4 banger sub 2 liter engine will always be more efficient on a flat road going 100km/h all other things equal. A bigger engine also means more weight.

Problem is, people want those 4 bangers to accelerate like a V6. Not gonna happen with good fuel economy. Where as a V6 would get up to 100 in 10 seconds without being pushed hard, the i4 would take 10 seconds going all out. You lose efficiency that way. If you drive like a normal person and allow for 15 -20 seconds time to get to speed, you'll be better off than a V6.

t.civic driver

Fuel economy tests are made in controlled environment and they purposefully are made to look good, you can advertise a car for 30km/l this way.
Big engines do consume more, but the fact is that they'll do it regardless of the condition they are put in, hence why the difference between lab and real world is small.
You should have done a little bit more research before shitposting

Also 0-1 MPG do get ridiculous MPGs because in lab environment drag is conveniently ignored. Such small engines have to work really hard to overcome drag and the weight of the car.
On dyno a car doesn't have to overcome his own inertia, just the rollers one and they can be again *conveniently* set to not be so accurate
100MPG is better marketing than 48

>researchers
more like
>hire me to make a chart :D

What is this? The driver revving the piss out of it?

I have a 600cc sportbike that makes over 100hp/l. Ridden conservatively and out of the powerband, it is approximately as fast as a 250cc scooter and gives me a 40-42mpg city that is satisfactory with a scant 3 gallons of gas. Ridden like it should be ridden I burn a third of a tank on my 20 mile trip to and from work.

So you're suggesting that power requires fuel?
Jesus hit the brakes, we're going in uncharted territory here

Much truth to this article I had a BA XR8 it is rated at 12.5l/100 I averaged 10.5. To save fuel got an Alfa 156 rated at 6l/100 it averaged 9. The tests definitely favour smaller engines

Fuel consumption increases with RPM even if you're not gaining that much power. It's a matter of tuning, displacement, bore, stroke, etc. Small engined city cars are meant to be driven very slowly at very slow speeds, where their engines consume less fuel. however, they produce so little torque anywhere that they need to rev much higher to produce enough power to give the car any pep or, at higher speeds, just overcome wind resistance. Don't think about hills. A bigger engine producing more torque can operate in a more fuel efficient rev range more often, given proper gearing.

If you're getting sportscar mileage out of a corolla, maybe your driving environment isn't well suited to a corolla. As for my bike, 250 scooter fast is still accelerating faster than most cars and 20mpg is pretty good for something that runs low 11s in a straight line and high 7:00s around a shitty german racetrack, so I'm happy with it.

>Fuel consumption increases with RPM
Not exactly, it is a bit more complicated.
Every engine has a BSFC chart that usually looks like this:
The lower the number, the lower the amount of fuel required to produce a certain amout of power, here it is g/kwh.

The two small 1.0L NA engines here run most efficient at 2800 rpm and a torque of 65 or 70 Nm.
That is about 20 kW or 27 Hp or about the amount of power you need to cruise at highway speed.
It stays pretty much as efficient untill about 3500 rpm and 80 NM about 30 kW or 41 hp.

So if you mainly have your engine produce below 41 hp, a larger engine will not be more efficient.

i dont think theres a single diesel car on sale that's under 1L
the old smart car is the only one i can think of

First generation smart had a 0.8L diesel.

Can confirm. I get 35ish city economy in this, a 59hp 3cyl, because I have to cane it 99% of the time to not get honked at.

>59hp
WTF?
That is less than my 1.0L NA shitbox.
Does it have something like sub 1 L engine?

It's a 1l NA shitbox too
Hilariously, a first gen Twingo makes 75hp in 16V form from a 1.2

Even the ultimate econobox 1KR-FE shitbox engine that not even has hydraulic lifters has about 10 hp more.

Admittedly the 60hp version is tuned for maximum fuel economy, they also do a 75hp version of the same exact engine.

Never heard of milliliters?

I get 3,5 l/100 km on average in a simmilar siezed car with my 1KR-FE, is that more or less efficient than the up?

According to manufacturer data the Up does 4.1/100km, Toyota wins again

>because I have to cane it 99% of the time

OP's graphic explained above

/thread

I get 3.8l/100km from a 1200kg, 1.8 liters diesel focus, without common rail.
Pathetic

>3.8l/100km from a 1200kg, 1.8 liters

it's a diesel dude
my dad's pathfinder get's around 8l/100km for more than 2 tons

Seeing is believeing right?
Although I must be honest the cold was harsh on the engine lately and my economy dropped significantly, I can get those figures when it's warm

>that article was vague as fuck and provided no real citation to the data or testing practices used

Too many professionals are spending too much time on Veeky Forums and it is starting to show.

...

A big engine can cruise around effortlessly at low RPM, while a small engine needs to be pushed hard to achieve the same thing, it makes sense why it would have worse fuel economy in some situations.

This is entirely because of diesel engines. Engines below 1 litre are almost always petrol and often primitive sohc things with no turbo, variable cam timing, DI etc.

Say that to a 300hp boxer from the STI getting less mpg than a 4000 pound 400hp large displacement v8 escalade

300hp in an Impreza looks the same as 300hp in an Escalade, because 300hp = 300hp regardless.
Power don't come out from thin air, assuming two engines has the same efficiency into turning gasoline into work, they'll get the same economy.

Even if the Escalade is putting down 400hp it's probably at RPM that are outside the range of the average use.

So the 1.0L VW engine has:
>less power
>less efficiency
>same emissions
>costs more
What is the point of it?
Shouldn´t german engineers be good or something?

If we're gonna get really fucking autistic about this, the C1/Aygo/107 have
>slightly worse emissions
>fractionally less torque
compared to the Up, and its official manufacturer fuel consumption figure is the same as the Up's 4.1l/100km

>slightly worse emissions
Both meet the exaust standards we have today, there is no difference.
Only that one gets better real life fuel consumption.

>german engineering

what did you expect from the company that thought this was a good idea

A weird way to drive the valvetrain and 3 cylinders in a VR configuration for maximum compactness.
There was a time when german engineering was good, pic related...

does any of this matter when gas is $2.20 a gallon?
that's
.41gbp per liter or
.46eur per liter
for you eurofags

Depends on how much you drive:
If you drive like 200 km/month it doesn´t realy matter all that much.
If you drive about 1800 km/month like I do it does have a impact.
Especialy when fuel is 1,40€/L or about 5,80$/gallon

I do pay x3 for a single liter, which would be like 6.60 burgers per gallon, so I do care.
Also I always love when shit happens and gasoline becomes x10 times higher and all murricans with single digit MPG struggling to even do 100 miles start shitposting on Veeky Forums about how much the world is unfair to them.

>I always love when shit happens and gasoline becomes x10 times higher
>x10 times higher

the highest gas goes in the states is into the mid $3 range
once that starts to happen it becomes a priority to lower the price via increased production

I would bet that we only have maybe one or two more "gas crisis" type events (1980/2008/2012) where something triggers this reaction and increased electric vehicles renders this irrelevant in the next 10-20 years

because these dinky small engines don't have much torque so when you have to climb a hill or have to negotiate poor roads that all kills mpg, same with poor tires and shit. The MPG ratings are based on the most ideal conditions