America and big engines

[teeb]

Most of the big engines are in the SUV's, other than the mustang and vette there was a big drop off in cars with big engines in the US for the past 5 years. SUV's and trucks were/are the only place to find the Big engines. And if you look at US fuel economy ratings, the big engined trucks get better fuel economy than the smaller ones. And example is the Ford explorer, the 4.0 v6 gets piss poor mileage compared to the 5.0 v8. Toyota's 4 cylinder SUV's got junk mileage compared to the larger engined equivalents from GM or Ford.

I've read the thread through but not got my head round this.

Please could someone explain (in layman's terms if possible) how a larger engine in a big, heavy pickup truck gets better fuel economy compared to a fair bit smaller engine?

I'm trying to think it through in my head but can't work it out.

I mean, the comparison over here is (I guess) buying a 1.2 litre Golf and a 2.0 litre GTi and the latter getting better mpg (I've made up the engine sizes).

 

[CyberMonkey]

A smaller/less powerfull engine will have to rev higher to get the thing moving. That's why some people over here actually get better mileage when they chiptune their engines. You have to take the driving style into account. If you would drive exactly the same way with the GTI as with the 1.2, I guess the GTI would score better since you wouldn't have to floor it every time you would want to get it moving.

Maybe we Europeans are constrained by our tax system too. At least in Belgium, where the taxes to get a car registred (so only once, but we got yearly taxes too, which are a little lower) are based mainly on engine size. And to prevent you from buying a 2 litre car with a bigass turbo and 200 bhp, they have a kW mark too. And yes, the last numbers are in Euro.

(1550 cc) (till 70 kW) 61,50

(1551-1750 cc) (71-85 kW) 123,00

(1751-1950 cc) (71-85 kW) 123,00

(1951-2150 cc) (86-100 kW) 495,00

(2151-2350 cc) (101-110 kW) 867,00

(2351-2550 cc) 867,00

(2551-2750 cc) 867,00

(2751-3000 cc) 1,239,00

(3051-3250 cc) 2,478,00

(3251-3450 cc) 2,478,00

(> 3450cc) (> 155 kW) 4,957,00

So buying a car with an American-sized engine over here is utterly insane. You can buy a whole car with the taxes. And that system is why my dad's 2.0 litre turbodiesel has exactly 100 kW or 136 bhp. The taxes would almost double if it had 2 bhp more.

I suppose a system like that in the USA doesn't exist (I gues taxes are much lower overall) so the only reason why not to buy a big truck with a huge engine would be fuel efficiency, which until recently, wasn't a big issue.

 

[chaos386]

I've read the thread through but not got my head round this.

Please could someone explain (in layman's terms if possible) how a larger engine in a big, heavy pickup truck gets better fuel economy compared to a fair bit smaller engine?

I'm trying to think it through in my head but can't work it out.

I mean, the comparison over here is (I guess) buying a 1.2 litre Golf and a 2.0 litre GTi and the latter getting better mpg (I've made up the engine sizes).

Like power and torque, efficiency changes with RPM. A larger engine with more low-end torque is more able to cruise near its efficiency peak than a smaller engine that has to strain harder at the same cruising speed. Large American V8s (especially Chevy's recent pushrod smallblocks) are also surprisingly fuel efficient. Compare the fuel economy of the Corvette convertible with the S2000: The corvette gets 18/28 MPG, while the S2000 gets 20/26, even though the 'vette has a 400 hp 6.0L V8 instead of a 237 hp 2.2L I-4 and is 344 lbs. heavier.

 

[Ottobon]

excessive amounts of raw materials=less need to be clever with raw materials

also we don't all drive that slow, i was passed by a cop in the west side of my state while doing 100mph



PS to Mopar Man: you can still have the good sound and have lots of power from a V8, been to the drags much?

or forget the drags check this out [YOUTUBE]http://youtube.com/watch?v=9daEU5RIPN0[/YOUTUBE]

 

[TheCleaner]

one thing i cant understand is, from reading what i have, i understand generally american like lows of near-idle torque for cruising yes?

I dont get why diesels arn't alot more popular, espicually in Non-V8 variety, like maybe being able opt for the cheaper V6, but still have the same amount of low end torque as the petrol-V8 (ok, so it wont sound as good)

it just surprises me the dislike for diesel when it seems to deliver what you want.. TORQUE!

 

[BlaRo]

My 67 hp of 1.5 liter fury does quite well and we only have 2 lane (each way) interstates out my way. Granted it also only weighs in at 2300lbs and "belts out" over 90lbs-ft.

You, sir, are braver than I am. Then again, we're not called "Massholes" for no reason.

Its because their petrol is wayyy cheaper than ours. And that is the one and only reason.

Hey! Way to not read a single thing in this thread!

 

[Spectre]

Part of the reason we "don't like diesels" is that gas/petrol is still (or was until recently) relatively cheap, so there was no imperative economic reason to look at diesels.

Second, diesels enjoyed a brief wave of popularity here in the late 70s, early 80s. Thing is, almost all the light duty diesels we got were smoke-belching, underpowered hyperloud-clattering wonders. Many of them were from people like Mercedes, VW, Toyota, etc. Reliability wasn't all that great for most of them. And people intensely disliked the smell.

Then GM came out with their 5.7L diesel for their cars. It was quite possibly the worst diesel ever produced. Totally underpowered, totally unreliable.

Between those two issues (no price advantage, bad experience with past diesels), diesel was pretty much dead in the US until fairly recently, with the cleaner diesels finally making it into the market. In fact, it wasn't until the late 90s with the 24V Cummins turbo diesel in the Dodge Rams that the general public even considered purchasing a standard truck with a diesel as a normal non-business-use option. In addition, US diesel emissions laws (in regards to cars) are stricter than Europe's (and have been for some time), so most diesel cars made over the past 20 years in Europe would not be legal here - which means that we had less selection.

Even today, there are people who object to the exhaust smell of a diesel, if nothing else.

 

[Blind_Io]

Second, diesels enjoyed a brief wave of popularity here in the late 70s, early 80s. Thing is, almost all the light duty diesels we got were smoke-belching, underpowered hyperloud-clattering wonders. Many of them were from people like Mercedes, VW, Toyota, etc. Reliability wasn't all that great for most of them. And people intensely disliked the smell.

Umm, the Mercedes diesel cars of the late 1970s and early 1980s were bullet-proof. Many have well over 300,000 miles on them and are still running strong. I would gladly have one.

 

[nomix]

Yup. Mate of mine's got an 80s Merc diesel, has 490 000 miles on the clock. There is no trouble with it, the seats are in perfect condition (which is insane), the interior looks nice and solid, the suspension is nice and tight and it looks very nice indeed.

Old Merc diesels are the closest thing to a trouble free drive, change the oil once in a while, and it'll keep on going forever.

Forever.

 

[thedguy]

how a larger engine in a big, heavy pickup truck gets better fuel economy compared to a fair bit smaller engine?

Chaos386 pretty much said it all but I'll add a bit more.

It comes down to a required amount of power to run a vehicle. A big heavy truck running a very small, low torque/hp engine is going to be working very hard to move it a long. More than likely it'll have to cruise at speeds to far from the engines peak efficiency, for maximum fuel economy you want to cruise just below peak torque. Combine that with gearing meant to help haul a lot of weight (on top of the heavy vehicle), big tires (lots of rotating mass), and designed to handle a bit of off-roading which inevitably requires hill climbing, and you've got poor fuel economy.

The other thing is, the V8's have a nice wide torque curve. This combined with their natural smoothness and lightweight (compared to an I-6 anyway), makes them great engines. One reason why GM stuck with the pushrod design is that combined with all of that, they could make the engine extremely compact. Basically it's a rare case of "have your cake and eat it too."

You, sir, are braver than I am. Then again, we're not called "Massholes" for no reason.

I learned to drive in Southern California, the mid-west is a breeze :lol: Now you can see why I advocate that all new drivers should be forced to drive on an underpowered, fear inducing (i.e. "unsafe") car for a couple of years before they can upgrade to anything like a 3 ton death bringer/ H2.

it just surprises me the dislike for diesel when it seems to deliver what you want.. TORQUE!

Diesels (at least the ones we've got up until recently) always ran out of steam very early on, and still have low acceleration from a stand still (in gear acceleration is great though). The big engines we have have that torque and response old diesels don't have. Modern ones are obviously better, and in the truck market, sales are picking up quite a bit. We just don't get that many diesel cars yet, but I'm sure thats about to change.

Umm, the Mercedes diesel cars of the late 1970s and early 1980s were bullet-proof. Many have well over 300,000 miles on them and are still running strong. I would gladly have one.

His choice of brands could have been better. The oldsmobile attempt at a diesel engine was a notorious engineering failure.

 

[Spectre]

Umm, the Mercedes diesel cars of the late 1970s and early 1980s were bullet-proof. Many have well over 300,000 miles on them and are still running strong. I would gladly have one.

I said most of them. I should have specifically stated that the Mercedes didn't have reliability issues. I listed the makers to show it wasn't just domestic marques making the diesels. However - the VW diesels weren't reliable. Neither were the Toyota, Nissan or Isuzu offerings. We got the 524td - it didn't do well either. I haven't seen any of those on the road in years.

The Mercedes diesels from that era are extremely reliable. Unfortunately, they are also extremely slow, rather loud, and emit large clouds of smoke when pressed. I used to own one, a W123 turbodiesel.

 

[RUU-CHAMA]

Yeah, apart from some Volkswagen's I could not find any modern diesel cars all I found was this.

The F-350 with its 550ft/lb of torque at 2000rpm .Without importation fee's it would cost 8000 pounds used and it gets 20mpg on the highway which isn't bad considering that diesel costs $2.65 a gallon. Oh, by the way, this truck is not that big...

This one is.

 

[jetsetter]

Yeah, apart from some Volkswagen's I could not find any modern diesel cars all I found was this.

Well, Dodge and GM make their trucks.

 

[eMKay]

Cheap gas, plus no tax based on engine displacement = big engines. /thread

 

[bigsweezey]

Other than all the tech stuff. Alot of the top people in GM, ford, and dodge are from the muscle car era, or the muscle cars were all the rage when they were too young to drive, or they couldn't afford one. They are just trying to bring it back, look at the new mustang, the ford GT, challenger, GTO, and the sorry excuse for the charger. Not only did they put a larger displacement V-8 in it, they brought back the names too.

As for diesels, I was actually going to buy a vw, but after looking, diesel isn't at every gas station, mostly only the ones right off the interstate actually.

 

[Steve Levin]

I'll provide one more reason that the small engine transition has been slower in America -- emissions.

The US emissions standards have been much, much higher for a lot longer. For example, catalytic converters became mandatory in the mid 1970's. I forget when leaded gasoline went away, but it was only a few years later -- certainly by 1986 there was no leaded gasoline.

For a given displacement, in a world of theory, more power equals worse emissions.

Especially in he fairly low-tech 1970's...output plummeted with emissions controls and so forth. Truly small motors were really anemic. And safety requirements made cars much heavier...again, years before Europe and Asia began to institute serious safety. I mean, how old is EuroNCAP? 5 years?

I'd also argue that, off motorway, that Europeans drive faster than people in the US. For example, in US suburbs, there are many road where on drives at least 35-40mph. Compare that to London, where I've driven across the city at 35mph -- at 3am; and it felt like being at a racetrack! I'd say the typical commute for Americans is done at higher speeds overall -- with more start and stop, so acceleration is a bigger issue.

And, as others have mentioned, fuel has only recently gotten significatly expensive by US standards. There was simply little incentive to give up performance.

Even now, fuel's only a moderate thing.

I have a car that averages 17 mpg for the driving I do (averaged over the first 11,000 miles, or roughly 1 year that I had the car before I took it to the track recently and reset the mileage just to see how bad it was on the track )

So 12,000 miles at 17mpg is 705 gallons a year. That works out to $2,467.50 a year at $3.50 a gallon (which is only reccently the standard).

Going to a car with a smaller engine that averaged 25mpg would reduce my annual uel spend by $800. Less than $50 a month, and I would not have the joy of 425 horsepower when I need to drop the hammer.

Even taking the number to 34mpg only saves $100/month -- and clearly at that point, it's hard to imagine one is getting a lot of performance -- I couldn't get 34mpg as an average on my 2003 MR-2, and that was a fairly light sports car.

I'm not saying Americans shouldn't push downwards on engine size now -- we should for the people who don't care. But there's a lot of momentum to overcome -- a lot of people who will say the little engines "just don't let it get out of its own way!"

Steve

 

[KaJuN]

ok, but to quote Jeremy "how do they get such a small amount of horsepower from an engine?"

I have to say I agree with Clarkson on this. My last car, a Chevy Beretta, had a massive 3.1 liter V6. It produced a whopping 135hp. Wow that's pathetic! Maybe that's the reason there aren't any American F1 teams. They wouldn't be able to get enough power out of the 2.4L engines the FIA mandates. :lol:

 

[Blind_Io]

The Mercedes diesels from that era are extremely reliable. Unfortunately, they are also extremely slow, rather loud, and emit large clouds of smoke when pressed. I used to own one, a W123 turbodiesel.

I would disagree with the "slow" when it comes to the Mercedes Turbo Diesels. We had a 300D Turbo; sure it was slow up to about 25 mph, but then the boost kicked in and you got a surge of power. There were a couple times I raced from the light onto the freeway against other cars (I was young and dumb). I would always get dusted off the line but half way down the ramp that Merc Turbo would come storming past with the 5 cyl diesel roaring like a hurricane.

I can't argue with the smoke, although it was only at startup and when you put your foot hard down. I remember having a black spot on the garage floor from the cold weather starts, but when you take into consideration the reliability and quality of construction I would rather have that 300D than any other sedan on the road today.

 

[Spectre]

I would disagree with the "slow" when it comes to the Mercedes Turbo Diesels. We had a 300D Turbo; sure it was slow up to about 25 mph, but then the boost kicked in and you got a surge of power. There were a couple times I raced from the light onto the freeway against other cars (I was young and dumb). I would always get dusted off the line but half way down the ramp that Merc Turbo would come storming past with the 5 cyl diesel roaring like a hurricane.

I can't argue with the smoke, although it was only at startup and when you put your foot hard down. I remember having a black spot on the garage floor from the cold weather starts, but when you take into consideration the reliability and quality of construction I would rather have that 300D than any other sedan on the road today.

0-60mph on the non-turbos took 25 seconds. That qualifies as deathly slow.
When the lightest and most powerful of the classic Merc diesels, the W123 300D Turbo, was new and in good shape, it made 0-60 in a claimed 13.9 seconds at best. Most of them were observed doing it in about 15 seconds in reality. Yeah, once the thing was rolling at about 30 it started to wind up, but still, they could be dangerous to merge into highway traffic or try to get away from a light. I had an 82 300D Turbo that I drove until the transmission went south (common failure on the turbo cars). 30mpg, but slow. My neighbor had a 300D non-turbo, and you couldn't PAY me to drive that thing in Dallas traffic.

Either way, they're still slow by modern standards or the standards of the day - the heaviest and least powerful variant of my XJ6 Series III (the 150hp California-market Vanden Plas version) making it to 60 in 12 seconds, despite having almost 800lbs more car to lug around and only a few more horsepower.

Of course, people *have* hot-rodded the OM-series engine to produce double or triple the power it came from the factory with (which solves the problem) but the factory transmission can't take the power and it grenades in short order. Last I'd checked in with that crowd, they hadn't come up with a replacement transmission swap yet - though they may have by now.

 

[MadCow809]

Low revving, lazy V8 suits the autobox that the americans love so much. The yanks dont really drive around, they cruise. which is why the low revving characteristic of the V8 suits them better, and it suits the sluggish autobox better as well, because the engine can produce 75% of the maximum torque from almost idle, thus making the gearbox very relaxed and smooth.
Where as an standard european city runabout car, a 1.6 or 1.8litre 4pot with a manual gearbox will needed to be revved alot higher to get the same sort of performance. And if the engine is mated with an auto slush box, the 4pot can not perform at its best, beacuse the gearbox is always searching for the gears, trying to get power from its poor little 4pot engine. This makes the car very jerky and its not what the americans are after.

i rekon its all about driving style.....