- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: No replacement for displacement: Engines are about to grow again
Posted on 10/14/16 at 10:02 pm to Nutriaitch
Posted on 10/14/16 at 10:02 pm to Nutriaitch
GM had had to replace a very large amount of top ends because of that
0
Posted on 10/14/16 at 10:03 pm to Hammertime
Fine. I have a 4cyl turbo diesel in my car that gets 52 mpg and will outrun any shitty economy car. Still can't touch the efficiency of crosshead engine. Not even in the same realm. There's only so much you can do with a small bore, short stroke, and fast pistons.
Slow, big, plenty of air, plenty of fuel, plenty of inertia, and steady state operation are how you achieve efficiency.
Slow, big, plenty of air, plenty of fuel, plenty of inertia, and steady state operation are how you achieve efficiency.
Posted on 10/14/16 at 10:04 pm to Nutriaitch
Cylinder deactivation is largely useless. The power needed to roll your trucks big arse at 60 mph doesn't chance. Pull it out of 4 cylinders or 8, either way you're not changing much.
Posted on 10/14/16 at 10:07 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:
Cylinder deactivation is largely useless. The power needed to roll your trucks big arse at 60 mph doesn't chance. Pull it out of 4 cylinders or 8, either way you're not changing much.
You're gonna have to explain this.
Posted on 10/14/16 at 10:11 pm to upgrayedd
Engines only make as much power as is being used. It takes X amount of power to move a vehicle at a given speed. Whether you're doing it with 1 cylinder or 16, it still takes X power. Power comes from amount of fuel used. Putting a 4 cylinder engine at 80% load is generally more efficient than an 8 cylinder at 40%, so it is technically better. Over the life of a pickup truck though, you'll never notice an appreciable difference.
Posted on 10/14/16 at 10:11 pm to Hammertime
quote:
emissions tests?
Has anyone here actually had to go through one of these for an inspection sticker. I mean for an extra $10 you get the idea
This post was edited on 10/14/16 at 10:12 pm
Posted on 10/14/16 at 10:12 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
well i don't know how use it is or isn't, but this by far gets the best mileage of any truck i've ever owned.
including the '09 i had without the Cylinder deactivation.
hell, this beats the '99 Ranger i had with the 3.0 and stick shift.
including the '09 i had without the Cylinder deactivation.
hell, this beats the '99 Ranger i had with the 3.0 and stick shift.
Posted on 10/14/16 at 10:13 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:
Engines only make as much power as is being used. It takes X amount of power to move a vehicle at a given speed. Whether you're doing it with 1 cylinder or 16, it still takes X power. Power comes from amount of fuel used. Putting a 4 cylinder engine at 80% load is generally more efficient than an 8 cylinder at 40%, so it is technically better. Over the life of a pickup truck though, you'll never notice an appreciable difference.
Right but compare that with a turboed 6.
Thats my point. An 8 with deactivation is just as efficient, if not more than a turboed 6.
This post was edited on 10/14/16 at 10:14 pm
Posted on 10/14/16 at 10:40 pm to upgrayedd
A naturally aspirated 8 with deactivation is not more efficient than a 4 cylinder with a turbocharger, generally speaking at least.
There's a wholeeeee lot that goes into how many pounds of fuel you consume to move your vehicle X miles. Less RPM, more heat recovery, and more chamber volume are the ways you make big leaps in efficiency.
There's a wholeeeee lot that goes into how many pounds of fuel you consume to move your vehicle X miles. Less RPM, more heat recovery, and more chamber volume are the ways you make big leaps in efficiency.
Posted on 10/14/16 at 11:12 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
The two designs serve different purposes. You can take two engines with the same displacement and different bores and strokes, and get two different results out of them. Ferrari has been experimenting with that for a while
quote:People near areas with higher SOx and NOx levels do (and hippie states)
bulldog95
This post was edited on 10/14/16 at 11:14 pm
Posted on 10/14/16 at 11:18 pm to UltimateHog
quote:You say that like it's a bad thing
Would still be a camaro
Posted on 10/14/16 at 11:29 pm to Hammertime
Of course you can. A reciprocating engine is an archaic thing that we modernize with electronics and fancy piston designs. There is absolutely no doubt however that if everything is proportionally equal, the bigger, slower engine will be more efficient. It takes time to burn fuel. The more time that fuel spends burning on top of the piston, the more work it does.
Posted on 10/14/16 at 11:31 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:
A naturally aspirated 8 with deactivation is not more efficient than a 4 cylinder with a turbocharger, generally speaking at least.
I know. I said 6 cyl
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News