F1 to switch back to 4 cylinder power in 2013

[HarryPotter]

I was trying to compare in a hypothetical manner where each had a perfect ratio of fuel to air. If so then I guess they would consume the same amount of fuel correct?

Basically a 2.5L N/A 6 vs a 1.8L T 4 at the same peak hp with the same ratios would consume the same amount of fuel?

[mrsleeve]

Fusion Diesels keep the bulk of their mileage due to the fact that they use little fuel when not on boost. Just like anything else if you can keep your foot out of the tarbo, they are not really making any boost as the EG velocities are not great enough to spin the turbine up past what the Waste gate is venting off (or with modern vvt getting the computer to change vane angles based on load).

No boost = no extra fueling, = very similar mileage to non chipped versions on long cruise's

[Fusion]

Yea but since the turbos start farting at around 1800rpm, its almost impossible to drive the car only up to this point daily driving. Cruises, ok, but not DD.
And the chips are supposed to boost low-mid power and torque so its not like they can skip that part of the range.

My point being that you can't have awesome consumption and a high powered engine in one. All combustion engines are a compromise of that in some way or another. Essentially, once you have worked out fuel mngt. to as perfect as possible, what you want to aim at eliminating is the energy losses.

[mrsleeve]

Yea but since the turbos start farting at around 1800rpm, its almost impossible to drive the car only up to this point daily driving. Cruises, ok, but not DD.
And the chips are supposed to boost low-mid power and torque so its not like they can skip that part of the range.

Right they do spool that low, till you have the car up too speed, it takes MUCH LESS power input to keep the car going at a constant speed (law of Conservation of Momentum) thus there is NO LOAD, No load so very little fuel is needed to keep the car moving to over come friction, and aero. Very little Fuel needed = Lower Exhaust Gas Velocities which is what makes the turbo spin fast enough to make boost.

Basicly think of it like this...... at a constant speed when very little input energy is need everything is just kinda free wheeling. Now all this falls apart once you get well up into the RPM range, and the turbo that is sized for low to mid torque is now too small and the shear volume of Exhaust gases is enough to spin it up to make boost and require the extra fuel.

[gstuning]

A 1.5l spining at 12k RPM with 60lbs od boost making 500hp, Will use just same amount of fuel as a 5l spinning at 6500 No boost to make the same amount of power.

An engine in nothing more than and Air pump, you move a given amount of Air with a Given amount of fuel you get power.

thats why Displacement is king for naturally aspirated engines, the only replacement is BOOST when you go to 15lbs positive pressure you have effectively Doubled the HP of the engine as you are moving twice the amount of air as you would if it was N/A.

You move 2 times the air, you need to add fuel or you run way too lean and burn shit down in seconds.

Again POWER IS MADE BY FUEL, to get xxx power you need YYY amount of fuel

Your simplification is to simple for actuality.

You do not include rotating mass losses due to inertia, friction losses due to piston ring pressure, burn efficiency, mechanical efficiency.

A engine gulping up 10lbs of air can make anything from 70-130hp.
Quite a big difference.

[mrsleeve]

Your simplification is to simple for actuality.

You do not include rotating mass losses due to inertia, friction losses due to piston ring pressure, burn efficiency, mechanical efficiency.

A engine gulping up 10lbs of air can make anything from 70-130hp.
Quite a big difference.

Yes dear I am fully aware of all the "Variables" and the implication there of.

its over simplified so that the slow ones can at least Grasp hold of the Concept, and thus have a better working (all be it very basic and general) knowledge, of what one would assume to be common understanding amongst "Car Guys"

[gstuning]

I´m sure you are.

[b*saint]

motogp is next.

[T Verdier]

i wish my e30 had a 2.4 liter v8.

would be sick!

Are you nuts? One of the principle aspects of F1 is developing engine/suspension/braking systems and components that will be further developed and used on street cars. Those components are engineered to their maximum potential for use on the track so that the technology can be adapted and used for street cars.

this!
The future is smaller more efficient engines. One day we're gonna have 2.0 motors that make 300hp and get 60mpg and the only way that will happen is if racing does the R and D for us!

[u3b3rg33k]

Right they do spool that low, till you have the car up too speed, it takes MUCH LESS power input to keep the car going at a constant speed (law of Conservation of Momentum) thus there is NO LOAD, No load so very little fuel is needed to keep the car moving to over come friction, and aero. Very little Fuel needed = Lower Exhaust Gas Velocities which is what makes the turbo spin fast enough to make boost.

Basicly think of it like this...... at a constant speed when very little input energy is need everything is just kinda free wheeling. Now all this falls apart once you get well up into the RPM range, and the turbo that is sized for low to mid torque is now too small and the shear volume of Exhaust gases is enough to spin it up to make boost and require the extra fuel.

Yea but since the turbos start farting at around 1800rpm, its almost impossible to drive the car only up to this point daily driving. Cruises, ok, but not DD.
And the chips are supposed to boost low-mid power and torque so its not like they can skip that part of the range.

My point being that you can't have awesome consumption and a high powered engine in one. All combustion engines are a compromise of that in some way or another. Essentially, once you have worked out fuel mngt. to as perfect as possible, what you want to aim at eliminating is the energy losses.

Fusion Diesels keep the bulk of their mileage due to the fact that they use little fuel when not on boost. Just like anything else if you can keep your foot out of the tarbo, they are not really making any boost as the EG velocities are not great enough to spin the turbine up past what the Waste gate is venting off (or with modern vvt getting the computer to change vane angles based on load).

No boost = no extra fueling, = very similar mileage to non chipped versions on long cruise's

Seems we're forgetting to mention that diesels are lean burn engines. You can run lean under boost on a diesel, in fact, that's how they all run.

A diesel running at stoich will typically pour smoke out of it, so it's typically not done (the exceptions being rather obvious).

People seem to forget that the whole stoich thing is done solely for emissions, and no other purpose. Your M20B25 doesn't care if it's cruising at 14.7:1 or at 17:1, but the EPA and CARB do. the same is true for piston engine aircraft, they actually have an adjustment for fuel mix. You typically run rich for take off and climb, then lean out for your 65-75% throttle cruise (so there goes the you can't run lean and put down power argument).

You can have a high power vehicle that gets good cruise mileage. It requires things that until recently just weren't done, like a 6th or 7th gear, and things the EPA won't allow, like lean cruise.

Regarding car A @ 180hp and car B @ 180hp, and one getting better mileage than the other, don't forget that the e30 is a brick.

[5Toes]

^ Yes!

[z31maniac]

As far as someone asking earlier about upping HP and gaining mileage on a turbo engines, you already discussed diesels so I'll skip that.

Most production turbo cars run OUTRAGEOUSLY rich as a safety measure against detonation, the excess fuel carries away heat to keep down cylinder temps. So you can lean them out and up the boost and get some more power and most times better mileage as well.

My Speed 3 runs something like 10:1 a/f stock, whereas with an NA motor you would tune to around 13-13.5:1. You can see it dumping gas behind the car when you put your foot in it.

Are you nuts? One of the principle aspects of F1 is developing engine/suspension/braking systems and components that will be further developed and used on street cars. Those components are engineered to their maximum potential for use on the track so that the technology can be adapted and used for street cars.

I'm not nuts. F1 was never intended for that.

Now, some of the technology has ended up trickling down into production cars, no doubt. But Ferrari hasn't been spending $500 million per year on the F1 team over the last 15 years just so they could bring seamless-shift gearboxes to the street.

They just figured out how to do it after years of racing.

As far as suspenion/brakes, can you point out any production based street vehicles that use pushrod/pullrod suspensions? We have carbon/carbon brakes for the street now from Porsche/Ferrari/Lambo, but again, they didn't go racing to develop that stuff for the street, the racetrack happended to develop it and was transferred to the street.

[b*saint]

mrsleeve is right. Remember when BMW had a turbo engine but they rated to size to include the displacement of the turbo? It was like a 745 even tho the engine was a 3.5l the turbo displaced 1 liter. Something along those lines.

[nando]

Mrsleeve is correct, but still I fail to understand how all those diesel chipsters keep claiming that their power goes up (allegedly +20-30% HP and Tq on a 100hp engine ie.) but fuel consumption is equal or less than before the chip. It makes no logic, especially when most of those 1.6-1.9-2.5-3.0 etc. liter engines smoke black like fukn volcanoes, which to me means terrible effieciency.

Potter: you're comapring M20B25 (Jetronic) and probably 1.8T VW engines? If so, way different generations of fuel management.
Precise fuel management (system as a whole) is a huge factor for modern engines to have the same consumption at higher displacement and power/tq output, compared to 25yo technology. Though you could object that the newer systems rely on fragile expensive parts like MAFs, which is true. And when Lambda/crank/MAF sensors poop, consumption usually goes to hell for insufficient information to the ECU.

it's because you aren't driving at WOT all the time. Peak power is only 1 specific point in the RPM band, at full load. Just because an engine makes 180hp doesn't mean it always does - it only does that at one specific RPM and load site. and black smoke has NOTHING to do with efficiency - that's because of the composition of the fuel. diesel is dirty.

That's why you can change the power level and not affect fuel economy. The cruise area of the maps can be left stock. That's why EFI and 3D fuel and spark curves are so great.

And the difference in fuel economy you'd see with an M20B25 running a more modern fuel system would be miniscule. Maybe 1-2mpg more. Those efficiencies were gained in the head, increased VE, and reductions in friction/pumping losses, not from the tiny improvements in fuel metering. That technology hasn't changed much for almost 30 years - it's just become less expensive to do things like add extra O2 sensors and injector drivers.

[nando]

Yea but since the turbos start farting at around 1800rpm, its almost impossible to drive the car only up to this point daily driving. Cruises, ok, but not DD.
And the chips are supposed to boost low-mid power and torque so its not like they can skip that part of the range.

My point being that you can't have awesome consumption and a high powered engine in one. All combustion engines are a compromise of that in some way or another. Essentially, once you have worked out fuel mngt. to as perfect as possible, what you want to aim at eliminating is the energy losses.

actually, you can. That high power is only UNDER HIGH LOAD. keep your foot out if it, and mileage stays the same. Turbos don't boost all the time, either - the 335i starts to boost at 1800rpm, but only if you floor it. during cruise, the turbos aren't doing anything.. Superchargers do though, which is why superchargers suck.

That compromise disappeared with the advent of EFI and 3D fuel/spark mapping.