View Single Post
  #28  
Old 11-23-2006, 11:48 PM
kachok25 kachok25 is offline
AF Enthusiast
Thread starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 360
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Larger displacement for better mpgs?

Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiBacon
Standby losses are the amount of power it takes to turn the engine. They are not changed by direct injection, battery charging or any other such factors.

Anything a petrol can gain by using hybrid drive, a diesel can also gain.

You may not spend much time at a dead stop, but the average car engine spends almost all of it's time heavily throttled. In these situations a large engine is nothing but a waste of space and fuel.

Comparing highway MPG is not the whole story. There are many standards worldwide for fuel consumption tests, a large engine will do poorly in all of them.

It takes me 15 minutes to pedal to work on a mountainbike. The same journey in a car takes 7 minutes and consumes over half a litre of petrol.
I would have to disagree with you several large engines have done well on the highway, the massive 6.0L 400hp LS2 gets 28 mpg in the 07 vette, the 5.3L V8 Chevy gets as good or better fuel ecconomy than their smaller 4.8 V8 or even their v6. I work at a GM dealership I see examples of this all the time, I got a trade in the other day a full size GMC pickup with 168,000 mile on it with a 5.3L V8 that was still getting over 23mpg without displacement on demand (it had the drivers information center with exact fuel consumption) the 4.3L v6 only gets 21 mpg so how are you going to tell me that it is not possable for a larger engine to get better fuel effecency??? There are plenty of other examples I can point out if you want me too.