quote: Given the drastic weight reduction that makes the Ford Lightweight Concept comparable to the Ford Fiesta, we should likewise see similar fuel economy if such materials were used in a future iteration of the Fusion. That would mean city/highway/combined fuel efficiency ratings of 32/45/37 mpg when using the 1.0-liter EcoBoost engine.
quote: The 4cyl has a touch more HP/Torque than my previous cars 6cyl and I saw no sense in getting a 6cyl just to pay a few K more to have worse gas mileage on my commute.
quote: Similar HP didn't translate to same fuel economy from my previous car. I get 10% more from the 4cyl in local driving than I did from my 6 and my 6 never got over 32 on the highway.
quote: The goal I think ford is looking for is getting hybrid level performance without it costing you 6k more. That's about the difference I recall when I was looking at the differences. I couldn't justify spending 6k more when I don't think I will spend 6k in gas the entire time I would own the car and Ill never have to replace a battery pack that would ruin any cost savings.
quote: Are you comparing two identical cars in terms of weight and aerodynamics? Because I can get over 30 MPG on the highway in a 400HP V8. In any case, power is power and there is a specific amount of fuel that must be burnt to produce X amount of power.
quote: Wrong! Engines are far from 100% efficient. A bigger engine weighs more and naturally consumes more fuel than a smaller engine of similar efficiency. Even with cylinder deactivation more cylinders still uses more gas.
quote: A 200HP turbo 4-cylinder will give better mileage than a 200HP NA 6-cylinder and it's pretty simple to understand why.
quote: If you have a 3.0L 6 that makes 200HP it is fueling 3.0L all of the time. A 2.0L 4 cylinder capable of 15psi of boost, will act like 3.0L 200HP when you are on boost, and a 120HP 2.0L when you aren't; which is basically anytime you aren't accelerating in my experience.
quote: Less cylinders also means less pumping losses, valve-train losses, and lighter weight.
quote: It is true that a larger displacement engine will use more fuel simply because the air:fuel ratio has to be maintained and more displacement means more air, and thus more fuel is required...but that's at idle.
quote: quote: quote:A 200HP turbo 4-cylinder will give better mileage than a 200HP NA 6-cylinder and it's pretty simple to understand why. Not when they are both putting out their peak rated power
quote: quote:A 200HP turbo 4-cylinder will give better mileage than a 200HP NA 6-cylinder and it's pretty simple to understand why.
quote: During acceleration the turbo vehicle is likely to consume more fuel.At cruising speeds, the turbo vehicles smaller engine will spin at a higher RPM than a larger displacement NA, so even off-boost the fuel consumption rates are going to be similar at best.
quote: Any "losses" incurred by the additional cylinders is more than offset by the greater number of power strokes per rev
quote: The benefit of a smaller engine, with a equal power ceiling but lower floor, is the ability to make less power when it isn't required.
quote: A good amount of time is spent at idle in the city cycle, it has a big enough impact that stop/start has been developed.
quote: Your original position was that a 4 cylinder and 6 cylinder engine (with the same rated HP) will have the same mileage.
quote: If this is true, and you are accelerating the same car at the same rate why would the 4 cylinder burn more fuel?
quote: The same is true for cruising, in the same vehicle at the same speed the same power is required, so the implication that the 6 would have equal or better mileage is directly against your original statement.
quote: So far then, we have less fuel at idle for the 4
quote: the same fuel for accelerating
quote: and the same for cruising.
quote: For arguments sake call the weights the same. Sounds like the 4 is more efficient.
quote: Not sure why losses are in quotes, are you implying they aren't real? It takes power to intake,compress, and exhaust the air in the cylinders (pumping losses) and it takes power to open the valves. If you have more cylinders and more valves it will take more power.
quote: Having more power strokes doesn't help at a rated power. One more power stroke also means 3 more "wasted" strokes.
quote: A 1.0 liter 3-cyl engine is going to be a noisy, vibro-matic failure...but people seem to be eager to lower their standards or discard them altogether.
quote: How in the world is it possible to average 37 mpg in the city with a 3200-pound vehicle, a 2.5-liter, and 180hp engine... even with a CVT?
quote: He did not say he was ave 37 in the city... he said Highway.
quote: currently am averaging 29-34 around town. Before the summer and needing to run the AC, it was 33-37.
quote: putting 5 people in a Fiesta is suicide
quote: That's right, the BMW M3 is a tiny one-lung econobox.
quote: You can't even get a V8 Mustang in Europe, you have to pay like $100k for something with that kind of horsepower level and performance.
quote: Ford brags that the 1.0L 3-cylinder EcoBoost engine will deliver the same 123 hp as its 1.6L four-cylinder counterpart, but will offer 148 lb-ft. of torque (peak) at around 1,400 RPM.
quote: So, practically, reducing weight is more a means of improving acceleration and handling, with some city economy thrown in for good measure.
quote: If all cars were 500 lbs lighter, the same accident rates in all the same scenarios, then you would see a dramatic decrease in fatalities and injuries.