GM invests £36m to safeguard V8 production
Discussion
ZX10R NIN said:
Max_Torque said:
wow, 25 mpg hey, where do i sign up?? Party like it's 1999 eh!
( i drive a car today, that averages 180mpg on a year round basis. That, my friend is the problem)
( i drive a car today, that averages 180mpg on a year round basis. That, my friend is the problem)
good for you do you enjoy it though?No,
Not the fastest car
Not the sexiest
Not the most fun
Not the most capable
Not the most capacious
Not the best handling
But as a car, to get us around, doing the thing that a car does, which is lets not forget what what 99.9% of people buying cars want, it's amazing, and it IS fun, a lot of fun, in fact it's a car that makes me smile every time i drive it!
The futures bright chaps, the futures electric!
SarGara said:
Max_Torque said:
wow, 25 mpg hey, where do i sign up?? Party like it's 1999 eh!
( i drive a car today, that averages 180mpg on a year round basis. That, my friend is the problem)
Thanks someones got to take one for the team. I hope the mumsnet crowd are accepting of your mpg prowess!( i drive a car today, that averages 180mpg on a year round basis. That, my friend is the problem)
Max_Torque said:
fortfive said:
As others point out the latest engine technology can give these engines 25 mpg average in normal driving
wow, 25 mpg hey, where do i sign up?? Party like it's 1999 eh!( i drive a car today, that averages 180mpg on a year round basis. That, my friend is the problem)
Captain_Chaos said:
Good, and common sense as well. In the real world the 6.2 V8 is no less economical than the downsized 6 cylinder engines with similar power outputs being used by the Germans. The engine is quite happy to switch to v4 doing 1500 rpm at 70 mph.
how good is cylinder deactivation in real usage? Would seem to be having your cake and eating it - simple big capacity engine that does eco - but if that were the case wouldn't everyone be on it?Mind I swapped a 3.0 vito for a 2.0 latest super eco transit this year and tbh while I haven't bothered to measure mpgs it still feels like I'm putting just as much in in mostly urban driving.
My Dodge Challenger has MDS, being Mopar's displacement-on-demand system.
The reality is that this was developed out of a necessity to meet North American CAFE mandate - in order to make subsequent production more fuel efficient than the preceding version.
In my car, the system shuts down 4 of it's cylinders, effectively reducing the motor's capacity to a piddling 3.2 liters. It is triggered by a combination of light throttle load/sufficient road speed/locked trans clutch. MDS is only available with automatic transmission and only active when the transmission is in full auto configuration. It is very obvious when the system is triggered, due to a distinct change in engine note.
In the case of my car, MDS makes scant difference to fuel economy - it is more of a mathematical thing to satisfy CAFE rules for this engine.
The reality is that this was developed out of a necessity to meet North American CAFE mandate - in order to make subsequent production more fuel efficient than the preceding version.
In my car, the system shuts down 4 of it's cylinders, effectively reducing the motor's capacity to a piddling 3.2 liters. It is triggered by a combination of light throttle load/sufficient road speed/locked trans clutch. MDS is only available with automatic transmission and only active when the transmission is in full auto configuration. It is very obvious when the system is triggered, due to a distinct change in engine note.
In the case of my car, MDS makes scant difference to fuel economy - it is more of a mathematical thing to satisfy CAFE rules for this engine.
Max_Torque said:
The good news is that i get 180 mpg driving like a tit! If i "hypermile" it does about 230 mpg!
Joke's on you when you try to fill up and find that nowhere sells electricity by the gallon...(I love the mental image of someone driving an electric car like a tit... It reminds of this scene from Horrible Bosses.
)Variable displacement engines deliver fuel savings in the real world. We know this because meaningful sample sizes of vehicle owners are reporting their day-to-day figures:
"Owners reporting their fuel economy on forums and on the EPA's fueleconomy .gov website show real-world performance very close to the window label number. Some drivers claim to get higher than the EPA window label number."
https://www.autonews.com/article/20140106/OEM06/30...
Variable displacement is not new (nor is it limited to just one or two manufacturers). There have been multiple iterations. Current best-in-class systems are ever more precise and ever more transparent:
"What's impressive is how seamlessly the Dynamic Fuel Management system works. If it weren't for a digital readout showing the fraction mode the computer was in (1/3, 5/9, etc.), you'd have no idea that the system was working."
https://news.pickuptrucks.com/2018/05/chevrolets-n...
Teddy Lop said:
how good is cylinder deactivation in real usage? Would seem to be having your cake and eating it - simple big capacity engine that does eco - but if that were the case wouldn't everyone be on it?
Mind I swapped a 3.0 vito for a 2.0 latest super eco transit this year and tbh while I haven't bothered to measure mpgs it still feels like I'm putting just as much in in mostly urban driving.
I drove a Camaro SS for 5100 miles in the US last summer, and averaged (in UK terms) 34 mpg (about 29 US). This isn't necessarily representative of everyday driving as there was a large proportion of longer trips and a significant amount at higher altitudes which can mean improved economy (although winding mountain roads go some way to counter that) The engine had no issues switching seamlessly between four and eight cylinders as needed - any time I put my foot down it switched back and off it went. Any time I was going to hoon I'd put it in sport mode and use the paddles anyway, which seems to stop it switching to V4 within any relevant timescales (presumably due to the higher rpm being used). Mind I swapped a 3.0 vito for a 2.0 latest super eco transit this year and tbh while I haven't bothered to measure mpgs it still feels like I'm putting just as much in in mostly urban driving.
The only issue with it is a little bit of vibration (minor) that you don't get when all eight are working, but it's not a luxury car and IMO the economy gain is worth it. Real world figures apparently suggest that it gets 25% better fuel economy than a Mustang GT, despite having 1.2 litres more displacement.
Teddy Lop said:
how good is cylinder deactivation in real usage? Would seem to be having your cake and eating it
Roughly speaking... As we travel from the top, downward, of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, we are likely to encounter countries with households that are generally lower in income and opportunity.To the people in those households, many of the products, services, and solutions taken for granted in OECD countries do indeed appear to be like "having your cake and eating it."
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff