OK I am being incredibly sad/bored but...
Having read something about a Chevy Suburban in another post, I went to see what one was.
The biggest engine available is an 8.1 V8, with 'N/A' mpg. It only has 340bhp! Well 'only,' because this equates to what, 40-odd per litre? Its not that torquey either, relatively.
Are big American cars built with engines that should really develop more power because the designs are old or because they are tuned such that they last a long time?
Something Ive wondered about, thats all.
|
I guess its a bit of both - my Ford Explorer had the higher performance version of the 4.0 V6 (i.e. with SOHC's !) but was still about the same power as the 3.0 Omega I replace it with, though a bit (not much) more torquey. Even so the engine was the best part of the Explorer. (I guess we all have at least one unexplained moment of madness, and mine was buying that heap of rubbish)
CS
|
|
|
"engines that should really develop more power"
Why's that then? We are used to relatively high specific outputs because, for various reasons, engine displacements tend to be smaller here, but there's nothing wrong with 40 bhp/litre. It's all relative, though - the Yamaha R6 motorbike has a specific output of around 200 bhp/litre, and that doesn't even have a turbo!
Big, lazy engines have a lot in their favour - they last for ever, they have wide, flat torque curves, they vibrate less, and are not necessarily more thirsty, as they can take tall gearing (in the current Chevrolet Corvette, if you're in top gear with 2000rpm on the rev counter, you're breaking the speed limit).
American V8's seem old-fashioned to us because many still use push-rods, but there's no good reason not to in a design that rarely needs to exceed 5000 rpm, and it suits V-engines very well. No cam belts to break, either...
|
|
There's no replacement for displacement.
|
|
|
|
Of the cars I have owned, the one with the smallest engine gobbled the most juice, especially on the motorway.
|
|
|
|
The biggest engine available is an 8.1 V8, with 'N/A' mpg. It only has 340bhp!
N/A mpg. Do you really think that anyone would consider buying it if they publicised it's mpg (or should that be gpm). Seriously what do you reckon - 8mpg?
|
As I believe it the biggest production engine was the 500.1cu in GM V8 as fitted to some of the Caddy's in the States (obviously) back in the late 70's.
I have a load of old Trump Cards and sure enough, the 8.2 Caddy averaged 8pmg...
Also 120l tank in the UK would cost about 96 quid to fill and taking it that you'd only get it down to about 5 or so litres, would only last 211 miles :)
Still, at a few pence a litre at the time, who cared!
Interestingly though many of the more recent Yanks, they're still employing largeish (say 3.8 V6's) but fuel consumption isn't far off what you'd expect out of a much smaller engined British car e.g. 30's mpg.
Dan J
|
Dan,
When talking US you must remember that their gallon is quite a lot smaller than ours. I believe that
1 US gallon = 3.7854 liters
1 imp gallon = 4.546 litres
Therefore a US vehicle saying 30mpg = 25 European mpg
|
|
The Suburbans around 6litres do 12mpg, American mpg.
|
Last year had an Excursion 6.8 ltr V10 started up in NJ ended up in FL.
driving gently 13mpg (UK gallons)
driving normally 7 mpg (UK galls)
bought a frightening amount of gas on the trip.
Middle Man has seen the photo! Monster truck or not MM?
|
|
|
|
My figures for the Caddy were correct as I'd worked it from litres/100km (34.82 - can you believe it!).
You're obviously correct regarding the difference between US and UK gallons but I'd actually already taken that into account. I still think it's quite impressive that engines so significantly larger and less stressed than ours can still come out with reasonable fuel consumption.
|
Got some difficulty with the good eocnomy theory, Dan.
Look at an SUV: battle-tank weight, brick aerodynamics, slushbox transmission...can't quite see that adding up to anything other than a smile on the face or Mr Exxon
|
:) I was talking about cars specifically.
Not quite sure how they worked it but SUVs don't come under the CAFE regulations [1] so although Yank Tanks are actually getting a little better on fuel these days SUVs if anything are getting worse. Think they come under some dodgy "working vehicle" category and so are exempt. And of course what are the best selling types of vehicle in the US......
Am sure there are smiles, big smiles, not only on Mr Exxon's face, but Mr Texaco, Mr Chevron...
[1] Where all cars across a manufacturer's brand have to average a specific fuel consumption across their range.
"The current CAFE standards are 27.5 miles per gallon (mpg) for cars and 20.7 mpg for light trucks." - www.mpgplus.org/perspective/cafe.html
|
|
I don't get it sometimes. These are the people who put a man on the moon 30 odd years ago, and they think 20/27mpg is okay in this day and age??
|
Well, in Europe there are no regulatiosn at all, just high fuel prices and CO2 based taxation.
(Oh and 27 mpg US is the same as 32.5 mpg UK, which is slightly better.)
|
|
|
|
Surely, CM it is the other way round. 30 miles per US gal = 36 miles per Imperial (UK) gal.
I get 25 mpg (Imp) from my 4 litre Jeep Grand Cherokee on a long run. Pretty close to some people's Focuses from what I read here. This does drop to 18 in town.
CMark
|
|
|
Surely if their gallons are smaller it means that their mpg figures are actually better than ours not worse as CM writes. If the Americain car does 30miles (on 1 US Gallon = 3.7854 litres) and a British car does 30 miles (on 1 imp gallon = 4.546 litres) then the Americain car is using less fuel per mile.
Therefore a US vehicle saying 30mpg = 35+ European mpg
|
|
Sorry guys - didn't read the whole post before writing almost a repeat of the above! Glad to see someone else spotted it though!
|
|
|
In the summer I hired an open top Mustang to drive 'round New England. It was a fantastic holiday and a great experience.
Although the Mustang had a certain "something" (it's the sort of car that makes small boys stare and point) its huge, 3.8 litre V6 developed just 193 BHP which is plenty to move the car along but is pathetic for its size.
The car itself was also deeply primitive. It supposedly had both traction control and ABS but neither worked properly. Also, the autobox took so long to kick down that when it eventually happened it was rather a shock.
Having said all that, I still rather liked it and, to be fare to Ford, a bottom-of-the-range Mustang costs just $17k....
|
|
|
|
"Therefore a US vehicle saying 30mpg = 25 European mpg"
Other way round, surely?
If it does 25 miles on the (smaller) US gallon it will do 30 miles on the (larger) UK gallon.
|
|
Of course it is. I could say that i was trying to keep you on your toes (but I am not sure if that would work!). So much for having a maths A level!
|
|
|
|
|
|
