Engine capacity: Fuel consumption (FC) dependent on it?
-
I have some questions to clarify here.
I have had this notion for quite some time that the smaller the engine capacity of a car, the lesser the fuel consumption (FC) would be. Is this true? Or is this a serious misconception?
Is it also true that COE cars have higher road tax fees than newer cars? If so, what are the reasons?
What about insurance? Is the age of the car one of the factors considered in determining the insurance premium?
Thanks to all in advance. -
when i was in australia, roommate's old Datsun (yes.. it was that old) Skyline 2.4 litre straight 6 burnt more fuel than his newer 3.3 litre Holden Commodore.. a lot more...
-
when i was in australia, roommate's old Datsun (yes.. it was that old) Skyline 2.4 litre straight 6 burnt more fuel than his newer 3.3 litre Holden Commodore.. a lot more...
Thanks for the response.
I think we cannot really compare those two as there are more than one variables in this case:
1) Engine capacity
2) Age/technology of car
Therefore, we cannot use this to conclude whether FC is/is not dependent on the engine capacity. -
Anyone care to share their expertise on this?
-
so scared burnt fuel? i recommend you ride bicycle like the boys do....
-
well... how do i say this? it kind of depends. u see... normally we would say yes a higher capacity car burns more fuel. that sounds logical doesn't it? but do consider the driving styles which would vary. one thing about smaller capacity cars is that, the engines are actually working much harder, so in a sense, they would actually burn more petrol to produce the same amt of bhp as a larger capacity engine. but then, cars with larger capacity engines tend to be bigger, and heavier, henceforth, that is why they may have to burn more fuel, to get more power to move that extra mass. to put all these into perspective:
a mazda RX8 with a 1.3l has a very high fuel consumption(FC)
a corolla 1.6 burns less.
a Kelisa 1l burns the least among these 3. but how do we determine how much of the FC is due to the engine or the car's intended usage? to get the same bhp, the smaller engine has to rev to a higher rpm. logically, this means higher FC.
comparing a civic type R with a 1998cc engine, a Renault Cliosport with a 1998cc engine, a Ford Racing Puma with a 1679cc engine and a Toyota Celica T-Sport with a 1794cc engine.
the CTR (1998cc) returns a FC of 31.7mpg
the Cliosport (1998cc) returns a FC of 34.9mpg
the Racing Puma (1679cc) returns a FC of 34.7mpg
the Celica (1794cc) returns a FC of 33.6mpg
CTR n cliosport have the same CC but one has a higher FC(CTR). Celica and Racing Puma's engine sizes are both smaller than the CTR and cliosport but both have a higher FC than the cliosport, and a lower FC than the CTR, while the puma has a smaller engine than the celica but drinks less fuel. so how do we judge how these car's FCs are affected by their engine capacities? we can't! engine capacity is but a factor in deciding a car's FC. -
well... how do i say this? it kind of depends. u see... normally we would say yes a higher capacity car burns more fuel. that sounds logical doesn't it? but do consider the driving styles which would vary. one thing about smaller capacity cars is that, the engines are actually working much harder, so in a sense, they would actually burn more petrol to produce the same amt of bhp as a larger capacity engine. but then, cars with larger capacity engines tend to be bigger, and heavier, henceforth, that is why they may have to burn more fuel, to get more power to move that extra mass. to put all these into perspective:
Thanks, Heng.
a mazda RX8 with a 1.3l has a very high fuel consumption(FC)
a corolla 1.6 burns less.
a Kelisa 1l burns the least among these 3. but how do we determine how much of the FC is due to the engine or the car's intended usage? to get the same bhp, the smaller engine has to rev to a higher rpm. logically, this means higher FC.
comparing a civic type R with a 1998cc engine, a Renault Cliosport with a 1998cc engine, a Ford Racing Puma with a 1679cc engine and a Toyota Celica T-Sport with a 1794cc engine.
the CTR (1998cc) returns a FC of 31.7mpg
the Cliosport (1998cc) returns a FC of 34.9mpg
the Racing Puma (1679cc) returns a FC of 34.7mpg
the Celica (1794cc) returns a FC of 33.6mpg
CTR n cliosport have the same CC but one has a higher FC(CTR). Celica and Racing Puma's engine sizes are both smaller than the CTR and cliosport but both have a higher FC than the cliosport, and a lower FC than the CTR, while the puma has a smaller engine than the celica but drinks less fuel. so how do we judge how these car's FCs are affected by their engine capacities? we can't! engine capacity is but a factor in deciding a car's FC.
It took me quite some time to absorb all those information though.
My own conclusion from my own findings and your views is that a car's FC is not neccesarily dependent on its engine capacity. The FC really depends on a combination of factors such as amount of load the car is carrying, the type of engine as well as the engine capacity.
A combination of these factors would then determine the amount of fuel needed to be burnt to propel the car into motion.
Do you agree? -
My question,
Camry 2.0 and 2.4. Which FC is lower? -
My question,
Good question. I wanted to know abut this too because there is also Honda Accord 2.0 and 2.4.
Camry 2.0 and 2.4. Which FC is lower?
My guess is that car manufacturers intentionally make these two types to cater to people with the 'money' so that they can brag about having a 'bigger engine capacity' car. But of course, they have to pay more on road tax.
Fuel consumption-wise, let's wait for a reply from any of the more knowledgeable ones here. -
My friend who drives the Camry 2.4 told me that his is better or lower FC than the 2.0 version. Don't know true or not, but I do know both engines are totally different other than capacity.Originally posted by hotxyz2002:Good question. I wanted to know abut this too because there is also Honda Accord 2.0 and 2.4.
My guess is that car manufacturers intentionally make these two types to cater to people with the 'money' so that they can brag about having a 'bigger engine capacity' car. But of course, they have to pay more on road tax.
Fuel consumption-wise, let's wait for a reply from any of the more knowledgeable ones here. -
ENGINEOriginally posted by PhantomGT:My friend who drives the Camry 2.4 told me that his is better or lower FC than the 2.0 version. Don't know true or not, but I do know both engines are totally different other than capacity.
Engine Type _______________ 2.0 - liter ____________ 2.4 - liter
Number of cylinders _______ 4-cylinder In-line ____________ 4-cylinder In-line
Valve mechanism _____Twin-cam 16 valve with VVT - i____Twin-cam 16 valve with VVT-i
Displacement (cc) _____________1998 ___________________ 2362
Seem to me that both engine are the same other than c.c. -
Paisei, my mistake. I thought they are different other than cc. Remember wrongly lah....Originally posted by Lancer947:ENGINE
Engine Type _______________ 2.0 - liter ____________ 2.4 - liter
Number of cylinders _______ 4-cylinder In-line ____________ 4-cylinder In-line
Valve mechanism _____Twin-cam 16 valve with VVT - i____Twin-cam 16 valve with VVT-i
Displacement (cc) _____________1998 ___________________ 2362
Seem to me that both engine are the same other than c.c. -
Big CC does not = higher FC
There's this concept ard also, tt says: A higher CC car have more power to move unlike smaller CC car. Once u step on the accelerator, the smaller CC cars may not be able to move easily thus require the driver to step harder on the acclerator pedal unlike the bigger CC car. Thus the FC of the smaller and bigger car would be roughly the same.....(directly translated from chinese,pardon me)
Btw, a 2 litre Nissan Primera's FC is ard the same as a 1.6 Nissan Sunny.....
But if u really wanan save fuel,drive a toyota.... 10bucks can go ard 80++ km...... v worth it,i once drove a SBV toyota corona, the fc was something like 10 dollars for 90km.... tt's damn high for a 1.6 manual car.... -
Big CC does not = higher FC
So, small c.c. car drivers have to bear the brunt of impatient motorists (who might horn them or overtake them) if they do not want to 'waste' unnecessary fuel.
There's this concept ard also, tt says: A higher CC car have more power to move unlike smaller CC car. Once u step on the accelerator, the smaller CC cars may not be able to move easily thus require the driver to step harder on the acclerator pedal unlike the bigger CC car. Thus the FC of the smaller and bigger car would be roughly the same.....(directly translated from chinese,pardon me) -
Originally posted by hotxyz2002:
yes. more factors to be considered: the car's drag co-efficent, transmission setup, drivetrain efficiency, individual driving styles, engine loading etc.
Thanks, Heng.
It took me quite some time to absorb all those information though.
My own conclusion from my own findings and your views is that a [b]car's FC is not neccesarily dependent on its engine capacity. The FC really depends on a combination of factors such as amount of load the car is carrying, the type of engine as well as the engine capacity.
A combination of these factors would then determine the amount of fuel needed to be burnt to propel the car into motion.
Do you agree?
[/b] -
My personal feeling is that Carmy itself has a heavy body. With its 2.0 litre engine, it is under-power and required to step more and uses more fuel.Originally posted by PhantomGT:My friend who drives the Camry 2.4 told me that his is better or lower FC than the 2.0 version. Don't know true or not, but I do know both engines are totally different other than capacity.
2.4 litres engine on the other hand is sufficient to overcome the weight and thus more fuel efficient. Right????
-
for the camry i honestly can't say, as its not offered in UK, but the Accord's2.4l has a higher FC than the 2.0lOriginally posted by Lancer947:My question,
Camry 2.0 and 2.4. Which FC is lower? -
yes. more factors to be considered: the car's drag co-efficent, transmission setup, drivetrain efficiency, individual driving styles, engine loading etc.
Ok, thanks again.
There's really more to it than just the engine. A 'perfect' car would have to get all these work seamlessly.
I am reading about coefficient of drag (cd) currently and would read up about the rest that you mention when I am free. -
certainly, if assuming u keep the accel rate constant for both cars, as the 2.4 would of course, have a better accel at expense to the FC, but not by much. if u kep the accel rate of the 2.4 to the same as u would in the 2.0, certainly, assuming equal weight for both cars, the 2.4 would get a better FC.Originally posted by Lancer947:My personal feeling is that Carmy itself has a heavy body. With its 2.0 litre engine, it is under-power and required to step more and uses more fuel.
2.4 litres engine on the other hand is sufficient to overcome the weight and thus more fuel efficient. Right????
as for the debate between the diff between the 2.0 and 2.4 engine, the main diff is likely to be in the stroke and bore. thats how manufacturers can offer diff capacity engines from virtually the same engines. -
Heng,Originally posted by HENG@:for the camry i honestly can't say, as its not offered in UK, but the Accord's2.4l has a higher FC than the 2.0l
How do you arrive at that? Can elaborate more? -
they could just keep to the left really, but the truth is that smaller engined are often very willing to rev, hence the temptation to bring it up into the red and listen to the musical zing of the engine is very very strong. and many ppl just can't resist it now and then.Originally posted by hotxyz2002:So, small c.c. car drivers have to bear the brunt of impatient motorists (who might horn them or overtake them) if they do not want to 'waste' unnecessary fuel. -
yes. a perfect car would have to get everything to gel seamlessly. although the defination of a perfect car differs greatly... for instance, for racing, the perfect car now is the Ferrari F2004. nothing ever seems to break on that car unless u crash it. thats what i call seamless mechanical integration. A case of all the aforementioned factors being in perfect harmony.Originally posted by hotxyz2002:Ok, thanks again.
There's really more to it than just the engine. A 'perfect' car would have to get all these work seamlessly.
I am reading about coefficient of drag (cd) currently and would read up about the rest that you mention when I am free. -
oh haha, the FC, its simple really. I have a great stack of car mags in my room, and they make great reference material.Originally posted by Lancer947:Heng,
How do you arrive at that? Can elaborate more?
-
Originally posted by hotxyz2002:
Hi...actually other than the capabilities of the car...FC depends quite abit on how you drive too...driving hard will definitely use up more fuel. Also it will depend on if u do alot of city driving or high way cruising. Frequent city driving definitely gives u a bad FC as u are on 1st or 2nd gear or waiting most of the time.
I have some questions to clarify here.
I have had this notion for quite some time that [b]the smaller the engine capacity of a car, the lesser the fuel consumption (FC) would be. Is this true? Or is this a serious misconception?
Is it also true that COE cars have higher road tax fees than newer cars? If so, what are the reasons?
What about insurance? Is the age of the car one of the factors considered in determining the insurance premium?
Thanks to all in advance.
[/b]
Road tax increases by 10% each year from the 11th year onwards. This is till 15 years where road tax is at 150%. this is the ceiling of the revised road tax for cars older than 10 yrs. For example...my car is 21 yrs old but my road tax is 150% of the norm. I believe the government introduced this measure to discourage pple from keeping old cars.
Age of the Car is definitely a concern. In my case, only AXA insurance was willing to insure my car. Companies would be afraid of the cost of replacement of spare parts and stuff should u be involved in an accident. -
bloody hell...to summarise and to make things simpler:-
Generally it all depends on:-
1) Overall weight of the car, e.g., continental cars are heavier.
2) Yes it is true, the capacity of the car, e.g., the larger the capacity, the higher the FC.
The other factors are rather unique:-
1) Technology employed, e.g., Engine Technololgy:- VVTi / iDSI; Transmission Technology:- CCVT / CVTC / CVT, etc.
2) Electricity driven? Petrol driven? Or both?
3) Ergonomical Design of the car, e.g, is it as aerodynamic as Honda or Celica?
even if you do not have the best ergonically designed car but has VVTi or iDSI, your car will still achieve good F.C. efficiency.