Wildguzzi.com
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Penderic on December 24, 2014, 10:31:12 PM
-
I thought this might interest a few gearheads here! FYI.
A few articles on a Honda sketch showing an NC750 parallel twin with a supercharger component layout. The bike and engine seemed designed from the start to work with the added hardware. Clever Honda!
(http://i1299.photobucket.com/albums/ag77/Penderic/Honda-NC750-Supercharged-Patent-Drawing-750x515_zpsdb86d6f6.png)
http://motorcyclefeed.com/hondas-supercharged-motorcycle-will-soon-be-on-its-way-2166/
http://www.motorcyclenews.com/news/new-bikes/2014/december/hondas-supercharged-nc750/
The MCN web article mentions that the primary reasons for this direction are economy and emissions. Smaller lighter motor and less CO and HC out the pipe.
:pop
-
Whilst I understand there have been advances its sorta been done before. Turbo Honda CX650, Kawasaki 750 and Yamaha 650 from memory.
What you had then was a mid sized bike that cost as much as a big bike, weighed similar to a big bike, went like a big bike so why wouldn't you just buy the less stressed big bike?
One thing I've learned in engineering is that engines are like athletes. Sprinters can develop a lot of power and speed for seconds but a marathon runner will do a nice measured pace for hours. You can only get so much work out of a piece of metal. As a road rider and not a racer then I'm after endurance and reliability before speed at any cost.
Added: the other issue is that both turbo and super charging get their greatest boost at higher revs at the expense of lower range torque. In this day and age of speed limits it is hard to see practical advantages for the average rider besides emissions.
Merry Christmas.
-
Penderic, I've read articles that confirm what you're saying. The push is coming from Europe to reduce emissions, and it's likely that we'll see more motorcycles like the new Kawasaki Ninja H2, or at least something along those lines. Personally I'd love a 300 or 400 cc sub-300 lb. bike with 60 or 80 torquey HP and the handling that would go along with one that light.
-
Turbos etc have come a long way since the 80s. I've driven about 1,000,000 in turbocharged cars, the days of peaky, lag-ridden engines has passed.
My current 2 liter turbo pulls like a much bigger engine. Built for grunt.
I bet they'll be cool. By the way, I've never had a turbo problem of any sort.
-
I also read somewhere that Honda might be taking one of their V4 VFR motors and replacing the rear two cylinders with a supercharger unit there instead - dont know if all that work/complexity will be worth it if there is not much change in engine weight or Hp. Are 2 pistons that heavy?
-
We enjoyed the hell out of our CX500 Turbo. ;D Only good for a straight line but a lot of fun. :+=copcar :BEER:
Matt
-
(http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b234/TurboN2O/Motorcycles/4959D6D0-1F26-44ED-85AB-A09BFDCDC142_zpsvtzspfuv.jpg) (http://s20.photobucket.com/user/TurboN2O/media/Motorcycles/4959D6D0-1F26-44ED-85AB-A09BFDCDC142_zpsvtzspfuv.jpg.html)
Picture of the custom Turbocharged 1981 Yamaha Maxim my 16 year old and I built last year. 16 psi of boost 121 horsepower. It's the engine and driveline out of an 1983 Seca Turbo. Its a pile of parts I had laying around. Sportster Seat. Suzuki Sidecovers and fenders. GPS speedometer. The tank and fenders are powder coated Black Wrinkle and the Wheels and other bits at powder coated Silver Vein.
(http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b234/TurboN2O/Motorcycles/1ABC2AF0-0AFA-4A3A-9DB0-281FD089F1EE_zpsan94r29o.jpg) (http://s20.photobucket.com/user/TurboN2O/media/Motorcycles/1ABC2AF0-0AFA-4A3A-9DB0-281FD089F1EE_zpsan94r29o.jpg.html)
I like the old Gpz and CX turbo bikes. Made medium displacement bikes a lot more fun.
-
Just for clarity, the Hondas had fuel injection. My 650T was an absolute blast and very dependable. Merry Christmas! :BEER:
-
More moving parts and more complications. From the old Ludite.
-
I have to say that I'm with Yak Fat. The addition of turbos will indeed get us more power from bike engines, but at what cost? The higher stressed the engine, the less it lasts. Sure a crotch rocket will rev to 15k, but if you ride it like it's meant to be ridden revved out on a track for an hour at a time then that engine will only last 25k miles before it needs rebuilt. Add forced induction and now you'll get even less life out of the engines.
And then comes the whole small penis thing. Sport bikes are already too powerful for the average squid that buys them and they end up in pieces on the road. With supercharged liter bikes with 250hp we're just going to end up with more dead bodies if squids get their hands on them.
I do see the point of giving serious power to small, light bikes. But when the engine needs rebuilding more often, it just isn't worth it. This is one of the reasons I go for V-twins, and especially big bore twins: You get the awesome torque that makes the bike fun, but the engine still lasts forever. To each their own I guess.
-
Turbo or supercharged diesel engines could last forever and deliver prodigious mid torque great economy. Is the M/C community ready for diesel?
-
Turbos etc have come a long way since the 80s. I've driven about 1,000,000 in turbocharged cars, the days of peaky, lag-ridden engines has passed.
My current 2 liter turbo pulls like a much bigger engine. Built for grunt.
I bet they'll be cool. By the way, I've never had a turbo problem of any sort.
I've only owned three modern petrol forced induction engines (2 turbo, 1 supercharged) and though they were/are all fun enough, I'm not sure I agree.
For starters they all had lag.
They all required premium (or at least 91 US octane) fuel.
And though they made decent power, they weren't as efficient as billed.
I just don't see what such a package in a bike would really get us in terms of advantages I care about.
-
From the article it appears Honda is doing this to a mid-sized 700 twin that puts out "OK" power to make it more efficient and a mild boost of power. The test ride I did on the NC700X felt a bit underpowered for the size. If this brings it up a bit in the torque department without overstressing the engine, killing economy, or requiring premium fuel, I would welcome it.
I ended up with a CB500X as it "felt" more peppy and having to raise the back seat to add fuel was a turnoff as it will have saddlebags and a tail bag strapped on the back seat when traveling. Needed to put the filler on the side like BMW did.
-
If the supercharged engine was exhibiting lag , something was wrong with it .
Dusty
No, that is not necessarily a fundamental difference anymore.
A supercharged motor still may require some revs to get in its peak power range, especially considering the small size of the motors.
And turbos HAVE improved having LESS lag, but it's still there.
But that's probably one of the reasons why BMW did abandon the supercharger and switched to a turbo in the that application after a few model years, I.e. because there was no real advantage.
-
Forced aspiration in spark ignited motors is a loathsome excercise in diminishing returns. I LOVE forced aspiration for diesels but loathe it for petrol engines. Jude has a turbo petrol Eos. Biggest turd ever!
Pete
-
My 5 cylinder Audi turbos had lag. My chipped 1.8 turbo had lag. Neither the other standard 1.8 nor my current 2.0 have lag. Peak torque starts at 1500 rpm. And of course the TDI had no lag at all.
Any lag in a supercharged car is not related to pressurizing. I find more hesitation in cars with dual-clutch transmissions/drive-by-wire, normally aspirated, than any turbo I've driven.
No need for lag in any modern turbo these days anyway, and of course no need for 250 hp in a bike either. But we'd all be riding old MZs if need were the main reason for motorcycles.
-
The type of compressor is a BIG factor on speed of boost rise.
Either a centrifugal or positive displacement (roots or scroll) The positive displacement have the practical potential of almost instant boost.
But the fly in the ointment is the high bmep and how to deal with that.
There is always a trade somewhere. (over simplified of course)
mike
-
The type of compressor is a BIG factor on speed of boost rise.
Either a centrifugal or positive displacement (roots or scroll) The positive displacement have the practical potential of almost instant boost.
But the fly in the ointment is the high bmep and how to deal with that.
There is always a trade somewhere. (over simplified of course)
mike
This would be an engineer speaking here :D Yep , a true supercharged engine should not exhibit lag if tuned
properly .
Dusty
-
But the fly in the ointment is the high bmep and how to deal with that.
mike
Exactly
-
This would be an engineer speaking here :D Yep , a true supercharged engine should not exhibit lag if tuned
properly .
Dusty
I'm sure that's true in theory, but perhaps not so easy in practical reality.
Another fly in the ointment is they have found small petrol turbos do exceptionally well in EPA rating tests, but moreso than their NA counterparts don't live up to the numbers in two life.
-
Talking about instant power that's been working for a long time.
Go to the drag strip and take a look at the AA fuel dragster. If a turbo/centrifugal compressor could do this they would be using them because they pull less HP from the drivetrain and are arguably lighter.
Instant power..don't blink or you'll miss it as in about 4+ seconds they are !/4 mile away.
As I said the instant boost/throttle response is not the problem, although its (positive displacment) maybe not the best way to do it??? seems that its better than the rest.
:-)
-
I'm gonna guess that doesn't translate well into a practical street car.
-
The concept is valid and it could most likely be done, but then it needs a reason to do it that justifies the cost of development.
I like the idea of lighter more effecient system but...
My CX works for me .although it hurts!
mike
-
So... do ya want 5000 HP or practicality ? ;D
Dusty
Yes. ~;
-
So... do ya want 5000 HP or practicality ? ;D
Dusty
In my cars? Mostly practicality.... MOSTLY... :-*
-
Me? I'm gonna have another rum...
This is a bit of a tangent, but I'm on an anti turbo kick these days BECAUSE of the unintended consequences of these EPA ratings and café standards shoving them down our gullets when they aren't actually an improvement.
My 3.6L NA Pentastar makes nearly 300 hp and regularly exceeds EPA ratings in a 2.5 ton vehicle on regular fuel, while our almost 200 hp 1.8 turbo in a 1.5 ton vehicle can't get near EPA ratings and just barely beats the larger, heavier, NA motor/vehicle running like a granny on premium.
And Chrysler is talking about adding a turbo to the Pentastar. >:(
-
Forced aspiration in spark ignited motors is a loathsome excercise in diminishing returns. I LOVE forced aspiration for diesels but loathe it for petrol engines. Jude has a turbo petrol Eos. Biggest turd ever!
Pete
Amen!
The direct injected diesels use allot more of the energy contained it the fuel in the combustion chamber, therefor the exhaust gas temp is much lower than the gasoline recips.
They normaly never rise (egt) above 800 F so they don't burn up turbos so fast and the direct injection controls the detonation problem much more precisly. Lean gasoline engines are capable of 1700 F+ and can melt the pistons.
A brilliant system for "working" vehicles 'cause of the low piston speeds and good torque.
-
What about a pressurized single cylinder pushrod with a two speed transmission James old boy ? ;D
Dusty
Like a steam engine? Oh be still my beating heart!
-
Old prejudice dies hard.
But my 2 liter turbo Audi gets the same fuel mileage as my 2 liter normally aspirated Focus did. I'm sure if I always used the extra 60 HP the Audi has, the fuel economy would drop, but the pumping losses of the two engines doing the same work are about the same.
That is all.
-
I think some you guys are missing the point. It's not going to be about most power we can squeeze out of a small block engine, but improved volumetric efficiency so they can use less fuel and meet tighter emissions laws. A small lightweight blower built with fuel injection in mind ain't like the blowers used on drag bikes/cars. It's all about volumetric efficiency and best lean-burn possible.
-
My middle name is 'killjoy' :D
-
Killroy the Killjoy?? ;) :D
-
But in reality the volumetric efficiency ISN'T occurring, at least in the automotive market.
-
Well What can I add to the debate? I think a 400-800cc supercharged bike would be great. I think if we are going to have water cooled motorcycles they might as well have forced induction. I like superchargers for motorcycles because of the lag and plumbing that come with turbos. I can see how a turbo especially could meet emissions while off boost and provide fun when the throttle is opened. With all the electronic controlled garbage new bikes come with forced induction not only makes sense but is the natural progression and something every fossil fuel engine will have in the future. Soon there won't be a new engine made without some sort of forced induction. It's all about thermo efficacy. Before long manufactures will incorporate more and more ways to harness the thermodynamic losses to increase both MPG, emissions and HP per displacement.
As far as the AA drag debate, I believe Turbos are heavily regulated against and discouraged in almost every way in Drag racing. Please correct me if I am wrong but last I checked there were rules against Turbos and that is why you don't see them.
-
But in reality the volumetric efficiency ISN'T occurring, at least in the automotive market.
Don't underestimate the Japanese motorcycle industry. At the end of the day, it won't need to be a wonder bike that produces more power than a normally aspirated engine and gets 90 mpg, it just has to perform the same and meet the new emission laws. Better emissions and same power? Quite doable I expect.
-
When I'm on the laptop tomorrow I'll post the link to the Consumer Reports that details the tend they've seen in real world testing that patterns what many owners are complaining about.
The real world direct injection turbo motors are fairing much better on the US EPA tests, but worse in real world mileage.
My personal example I referred to earlier would be:
3500# 1.8L turbo ~200 hp Nissan Juke rated at 25/30, but that typically gets 22/25, and can maybe struggle to 27 @ < 65 mph with only me in it.
Vs
5500# 3.6L NA ~300 hp Jeep Grand Cherokee rated at only 16/23, but with the same drivers gets 19/24, the highway number at 75-80 mph, but has turned in 26+ over 500+ round trip miles with 5 passengers, their luggage for a week, and some off road driving.
-
Don't underestimate the Japanese motorcycle industry. At the end of the day, it won't need to be a wonder bike that produces more power than a normally aspirated engine and gets 90 mpg, it just has to perform the same and meet the new emission laws. Better emissions and same power? Quite doable I expect.
I'm certain it will make the numbers on paper and the real world power.
But if it follows their cars, it won't make as good fuel mileage numbers (not that such things are an issue to as many motorcyclists, but it'll negatively impact range I bet).
-
When in boost mode the motors can be quite lively, and burn gas. This can be addictive so I wonder how much that has to do with lower "real" world mileage figures; people dipping too much into the boost mode. I.e. being lead foots and not taking it easy. Just wondering and thinking out loud.
-
Kev m did mention that Jenn thinks the accelerator pedal is an On/Off switch ;D
Dusty
Ahhh, but if you remember that full conversation I also said the Jeep chief her and the JEEP is currently HER daily driver. So she's getting that mileage on the bigger, heavier, more powerful vehicle and I'm struggling to hyper-mileage the smaller, lighter, less powerful turbo.
-
:D Yeah , but don't you need a calender to do performance testing on a jeep ? ;D
Dusty
I had an 86 Jeep Cherokee (former Forest Service jeep) with the 2.8 V-6. On a few hills where I go hunting, I had to drop into 4 low in order to get enough torque to climb the hill. It was not that steep of a hill either. Have walked up it a multitude of times. I have never seen a 6 banger so week. It was almost impossible to kill though.
-
Nate , turbos are allowed in any NHRA class allowing forced induction .
Dusty
I don't know if that is true. Maybe with motorcycles I have not checked. I do know that NHRA Top Fuel cars no turbo chargers are allowed. That is a forced induction class and the rules are very tight no only can you not use turbos but the type and how fast you are allowed to turn the supercharger are even regulated. Those are the fastest cars that run. Heck they all still run a engines based on the 2 valve Chrysler Hemi that was stopped in 1971.
-
:D Yeah , but don't you need a calender to do performance testing on a jeep ? ;D
Dusty
Or most Guzzis?
So what are we talking here, what we want to live with every day or a toy?
-
To quote a wise man, "YES" ;D All of this matters not to me , won't ever need or buy any new vehicle . My point is simply that dismissing the ability of the Japanese to perfect and implement high tech is always a mistake .
Dusty
It has nothing to do with the ability of a country or race to engineer something.
It's like how those same engineers are often criticized for lousy fuel mapping.
Why?
Unintended consequences of poor regulatory conditions.
The same thing is happening to the US automotive marketplace right now, so I wonder if we won't see similar problems with turbo bikes adopted for similar reasons.
That's all...
-
I never meant to say that bike manufacturers couldn't pull off supercharged or turbo bikes, but the expected lifespan can't be realistically expected to equal that of production bikes nowdays. You can get pretty much as much power as you want out of an engine, Formula 1 and drag cars spring immediately to mind as examples, but those engine lives can be measured in hours or minutes.
A friend of mine turbocharged a Honda 919 this year and it ate two engines in two months. Granted it's because he did it himself, fancying himself a decent engineer because he just graduated from college. I appreciate his effort and determination, but it just goes to prove my point...
-
This is oversimplified but:
Formula 1 "engines" make a fraction of the HP they used to. They now are Hybrids and are referred to as Power Units. Each has a V-6 Combustion engine that is turbocharged. The turbocharger is connected to an electric motor/generator. They use the motor to spin the turbo up at low combustion engine revs to reduce/negate any turbo lag. On overrun/coasting the generator charges the batteries. There's yet another electric motor/generator in the drivetrain that is used for power boosting and charging.
There is a limit of 5 power units to be used for an entire 19 race season. It's made F-1 become an exercise in Aerodynamic efficiency and a bit boring.
Eric
-
Best F1 season in years, boring.
F1 engines have to last a lot longer now, and they very seldom fail.
My first turbo car had 275,000 miles on it when I sold it, it was at 325,000 last I heard, the idea that turbos cause short engine life in OEM condition is completely false.
-
VW has been turboing their diesels for a couple decades now, and the engines are rated for 10,000 hours before rebuild. That's around a half million highway miles, and long before then the car has usually rusted out.
-
With the new diesel emissions regs and controls it will be interesting to see if the latest generation of US market diesels are as long lived as their historical predecessors.
-
Turbochargers are wonderful :)
Problem is they are a design compromise. You can design for less lag (smaller turbo) but then you don't get as good flow at the top end. Design for top end and you get a lot of lag. You can kinda get both if you use two smaller turbos, but, that is even more expensive.
Have had three turbos, WRX, Mini and the truck. The WRX had a 'lot' of lag because it was tuned for high end power. The Mini had less lag but did not have as good a high end. The truck, well, it's a truck :) The WRX we still have and is at 180k with no engine issues (and it was modified to put out a bit over 300hp).
Never had a supercharger and never want one. Dealt with them enough on Detroit Diesels. The only thing that ever went wrong with those engines was related to the supercharger. Roots design blowers have really tight tolerances to work right. OTOH, a brother-in-law had one in an old Thunderbird and loved it, except for the poor gas mileage. That is the drawback. They do not really increase mileage and can make it worse than a bigger engine with same power. But, emissions can be made lower simply due to lower swept volume in the cylinders.
So, to me it is a compromise. One I'd rather not have on a bike.
-
Link to Feb 2013 Consumer Reports article on EPA ratings vs. their real world actual numbers for NA cars vs. small turbos:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/02/consumer-reports-finds-small-turbo-engines-don-t-deliver-on-fuel-economy-claims/index.htm
Chrysler to turbo their workhorse motor, the Pentastar:
http://blog.caranddriver.com/report-chrysler-pentastar-v-6-engines-to-get-direct-injection-turbocharging/
Personally, as I said earlier, I see this trend as an unfortunate unintended consequence of EPA rating test methods which are actually compelling our manufacturers to make their fleets actually less efficient while at the same time also more expensive and more complicated.
http://blog.caranddriver.com/report-chrysler-pentastar-v-6-engines-to-get-direct-injection-turbocharging/
I just don't see the upside of say a small turbo gas motor in a Jeep Wrangler or a minivan.
-
Noticeable turbo lag in the Ford Power Stroke 6.7 engine I used back in July.
Of course, with over 800 lb/ft of torque available right off idle, it was only noticeable when towing near max load at interstate speeds.
I like the idea of a small supercharged motorcycle. However, unless the OEMs can keep cost and weight down, then naturally aspirated is a better deal.
Right now, naturally aspirated motorcycle engines are putting out incredible amounts of horsepower per cc. There is no benefit to blowing small or mid sized engines unless size and weight can be less than what it is on a larger bike.
Looking at the size and weight of today's top performing liter bikes, I don't see how that can happen. What is to be gained when you have 375 lbs motorcycles putting out 150+ bhp ??
-
I agree with Kev and Rocker say.
-
When I'm on the laptop tomorrow I'll post the link to the Consumer Reports that details the tend they've seen in real world testing that patterns what many owners are complaining about.
The real world direct injection turbo motors are fairing much better on the US EPA tests, but worse in real world mileage.
My personal example I referred to earlier would be:
3500# 1.8L turbo ~200 hp Nissan Juke rated at 25/30, but that typically gets 22/25, and can maybe struggle to 27 @ < 65 mph with only me in it.
Vs
5500# 3.6L NA ~300 hp Jeep Grand Cherokee rated at only 16/23, but with the same drivers gets 19/24, the highway number at 75-80 mph, but has turned in 26+ over 500+ round trip miles with 5 passengers, their luggage for a week, and some off road driving.
Kev, I bought my daughter an AWD Juke when they first came out. She is in college in Anderson, SC. Her trips from school to home and back are mostly on I-85. She usually gets over 30mpg for the trips and I recall her getting 33mpg on one of the trips.
-
This was in the NY Times last week about early American turbos and their problems in the 60's.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/21/automobiles/collectibles/50-years-ago-the-turbocharger-was-a-disruptive-technology.html?hpw&rref=automobiles&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=1
50 Years Ago, the Turbocharger Was a Disruptive Technology
-
Kev, I bought my daughter an AWD Juke when they first came out. She is in college in Anderson, SC. Her trips from school to home and back are mostly on I-85. She usually gets over 30mpg for the trips and I recall her getting 33mpg on one of the trips.
That if AMAZING and almost unheard of on the Juke forums where there is over a 1000 post thread of owners complaining about mileage.
-
Looking at the size and weight of today's top performing liter bikes, I don't see how that can happen. What is to be gained when you have 375 lbs motorcycles putting out 150+ bhp ?
After some more thorough investigation, I might venture to say that the answer is jack squat. The Kawasaki H2 will supposedly make 200 hp and weigh 525lb soaking wet, and it can be yours for an expected MSRP of $25k. The BMW S1000RR makes 193hp and weighs 450lbs soaking wet with an MSRP of $15k. 75lbs heavier (because of a massive cooling system) and 7 more hp? for TEN GRAND more? The power and torque curves might make a difference, but realistically I wonder what the point is other than to simply make a point. Sure the 300hp H2R might win a lot of races if they let it compete, but that has no bearing on street bikes.
Also, for those saying diesel turbos prove that turbo bikes would work... You can't possibly compare the two as apples to apples. Diesels have a redline of 5k at the absolute top end. The fuel is different and burns slower, diesel is a lubricant and gasoline with ethanol isn't. Sure a diesel will last forever, but that has little bearing on a gasoline engine
-
Turbo or supercharged diesel engines could last forever and deliver prodigious mid torque great economy. Is the M/C community ready for diesel?
Well here are some diesel MCs including some Guzzi diesels.
http://www.dieselbike.net/yanmar/yanmar.htm
(http://i1318.photobucket.com/albums/t652/redrider901/PettersBike1_zpse2076732.jpg)
[URL=http://s1318.photobucket.com/user/redrider901/media/YanmarGuzzi1_zpsada2a5f9.jpg.html](http://i1318.photobucket.com/albums/t652/redrider901/YanmarGuzzi1_zpsada2a5f9.jpg) (http://s1318.photobucket.com/user/redrider901/media/PettersBike1_zpse2076732.jpg.html)
-
Wikipedia has some information about them too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_motorcycle
-
Me? I'm gonna have another rum...
This is a bit of a tenant, but I'm on an anti turbo kick these days BECAUSE of the unintended consequences of these EPA ratings and café standards shoving them down our gullets when they aren't actually an improvement.
My 3.6L NA Pentastar makes nearly 300 hp and regularly exceeds EPA ratings in a 2.5 ton vehicle on regular fuel, while our almost 200 hp 1.8 turbo in a 1.5 ton vehicle can't get near EPA ratings and just barely beats the larger, heavier, NA motor/vehicle running like a granny on premium.
And Chrysler is talking about adding a turbo to the Pentastar. >:(
The manufacturers don't care about real world fuel economy. They only care about making the required EPA numbers, and those required by the other countries they sell in. I'll bet that most people don't even check their fuel economy. For the most part, the only ones that "know" what their vehicles are getting for fuel economy are relying on what the on-board computer is telling them. In my experience, those on-board computers typically lie by about 10% optimistic. I've had 3 BMW's, a MINI, and two VW's with on-board computers. All but one read about 10% high, and that one was one of the BMWs (2005 330ci).
Using actually tank-to-tank records for MPG, the only vehicles that I've been able to get EPA MPG numbers on a regular basis have been the two VW TDI's that we have now. The 3 normally aspirated BMWs and supercharged MINI all had to be babied to get EPA numbers.
But, if I relied on the computer, then, I'd thinking I was meeting or exceeding EPA numbers.
-
Kev m did mention that Jenn thinks the accelerator pedal is an On/Off switch ;D
Dusty
True-dat!
I've experienced it first hand. :D
:D Yeah , but don't you need a calender to do performance testing on a jeep ? ;D
Dusty
No. I've ridden in their Jeep. It's pretty quick for a 2.5 ton vehicle. That motor in a 3,800 lb car would be fun.
-
Unintended consequences of poor regulatory conditions.
Case in point, Ford's Powerstroke turbo diesel engines.
The 7.3L power stroke, circa 1997-2003 was capable of returning 18-19 MPG in a 7,500 lb F250.
Then along comes tougher EPA regulations on emissions of NOx (oxides of nitrogen, NO, NO2, etc). The easy solution was EGR, which reduces these emissions by lowering combustion chamber temps. Of course, lower combustion chamber temps also cuts efficiency. The resulting 6.0L power stroke (2003-2007) made more power than the 7.3L (by using higher boost), but, returned about 15% lower fuel economy, and had additional complexity in the form of the EGR system, and its accompanying EGR cooler.
The lower combustion temps, in addition to lowering efficiency, also caused production of my particulate emissions (soot). Well, gotta fix that now. So, for the 2008 model year, the EPA required diesels to be fitted with a DPF (Diesel Particulate Filter), which requires a "regen" cycle to clean it, which essentially burns extra fuel to get the DPF real hot, thus burning the trapped particles to a (supposedly) less harmful gas.
The result is the 6.4L Powerstroke of 2008-2010 gets about 15% less fuel economy than the 6.0L of 2003-2007, bringing it down to the same as the V10 petrol powered engine, but, much more expensive and complicated.
For the 2011 model year, NOx emissions standards got tighter again. So, now, most diesel vehicles (including large commercial trucks) are fitted with DEF injection (Diesel Emissions Fluid, urea). This did allow the amount of EGR to be reduced, in turn reducing DPF regen cycles. The results of those changes brought the fuel economy of the 2011 6.7L power stroke back to that of the 1998 7.3L. How's that for progress.
Also, consider if you will the false savings in emissions of these various targeted standards that, not only cause more fuel to be burned, but, also INCREASE emissions of green house gasses CO2 and CO ("carbon emissions"). The EPA measures these in "parts per million", which is a percentage of total exhaust gasses, so, in the EPA's eyes these numbers didn't get worse, but, any way you measure it, more fuel burned = more carbon emissions, and also more costs, not only in terms of fuel cost for the end user, but, the total environmental cost of extraction, refining, and distrobution of said fuel.
Another thing to consider is the considerable complexity these emissions systems have added to vehicles, which translates directly into higher costs, both at time of purchase, but, also maintenance and repair. The same can be said of turbo petrol vehicles.
Another example of this is the VW TDI. The 2006 Golf TDI was good for 50 MPG highway. It didn't have a DPF. The 2009-2014 Golf TDI has a DPF, and is only rated for 42 MPG highway.
-
For the most part, the only ones that "know" what their vehicles are getting for fuel economy are relying on what the on-board computer is telling them. In my experience, those on-board computers typically lie by about 10% optimistic. I've had 3 BMW's, a MINI, and two VW's with on-board computers. All but one read about 10% high, and that one was one of the BMWs (2005 330ci).
Using actually tank-to-tank records for MPG, the only vehicles that I've been able to get EPA MPG numbers on a regular basis have been the two VW TDI's that we have now. The 3 normally aspirated BMWs and supercharged MINI all had to be babied to get EPA numbers.
But, if I relied on the computer, then, I'd thinking I was meeting or exceeding EPA numbers.
I'm gonna throw a theory out that the computers are likely more accurate than your calculations.
Why?
1. Talk to someone from the bureau of weights and measures (we've had a member chime in before) has pumps may easily be slightly out of calibration.
2. What's the chance that the auto fill stops at the same point every time?
Vs
An ECM so precise in measuring fuel delivery that it holds the air/fuel ratio in a very narrow band.
I'm thinking YOU are more fallible.
My experience with personal owned 2 Jeeps, 2 Subarus, 1 VW, 1 Mini, 1 Nissan (not to mention years of press fleet vehicles) is the mileage read outs were always close, often < +/- 1 mpg.
I find it hard to believe there's a pattern of straight optimistic readings. That smells of personal tin foil beanie bias bra.
:-*
-
Case in point, Ford's Powerstroke turbo diesel engines.
The 7.3L power stroke, circa 1997-2003 was capable of returning 18-19 MPG in a 7,500 lb F250.
Then along comes tougher EPA regulations on emissions of NOx (oxides of nitrogen, NO, NO2, etc). The easy solution was EGR, which reduces these emissions by lowering combustion chamber temps. Of course, lower combustion chamber temps also cuts efficiency. The resulting 6.0L power stroke (2003-2007) made more power than the 7.3L (by using higher boost), but, returned about 15% lower fuel economy, and had additional complexity in the form of the EGR system, and its accompanying EGR cooler.
The lower combustion temps, in addition to lowering efficiency, also caused production of my particulate emissions (soot). Well, gotta fix that now. So, for the 2008 model year, the EPA required diesels to be fitted with a DPF (Diesel Particulate Filter), which requires a "regen" cycle to clean it, which essentially burns extra fuel to get the DPF real hot, thus burning the trapped particles to a (supposedly) less harmful gas.
The result is the 6.4L Powerstroke of 2008-2010 gets about 15% less fuel economy than the 6.0L of 2003-2007, bringing it down to the same as the V10 petrol powered engine, but, much more expensive and complicated.
For the 2011 model year, NOx emissions standards got tighter again. So, now, most diesel vehicles (including large commercial trucks) are fitted with DEF injection (Diesel Emissions Fluid, urea). This did allow the amount of EGR to be reduced, in turn reducing DPF regen cycles. The results of those changes brought the fuel economy of the 2011 6.7L power stroke back to that of the 1998 7.3L. How's that for progress.
Also, consider if you will the false savings in emissions of these various targeted standards that, not only cause more fuel to be burned, but, also INCREASE emissions of green house gasses CO2 and CO ("carbon emissions"). The EPA measures these in "parts per million", which is a percentage of total exhaust gasses, so, in the EPA's eyes these numbers didn't get worse, but, any way you measure it, more fuel burned = more carbon emissions, and also more costs, not only in terms of fuel cost for the end user, but, the total environmental cost of extraction, refining, and distrobution of said fuel.
Another thing to consider is the considerable complexity these emissions systems have added to vehicles, which translates directly into higher costs, both at time of purchase, but, also maintenance and repair. The same can be said of turbo petrol vehicles.
Another example of this is the VW TDI. The 2006 Golf TDI was good for 50 MPG highway. It didn't have a DPF. The 2009-2014 Golf TDI has a DPF, and is only rated for 42 MPG highway.
Preach it brudda!!! 8)
-
Careful what you wish for in VW diesels, the '06 indeed had better fuel economy, due to better injection pressure, but it will eat its camshaft and lifters. They didn't change the design for emissions, not completely.
-
The Breva I ride always shows my milage about 2-3 mpg lower than what I get when I do it the old fashion way. My Mazda 3 which has no trip com, gets 25-27 around town constantly. Just slightly better than EPA numbers.
-
I'm gonna throw a theory out that the computers are likely more accurate than your calculations.
Why?
1. Talk to someone from the bureau of weights and measures (we've had a member chime in before) has pumps may easily be slightly out of calibration.
2. What's the chance that the auto fill stops at the same point every time?
Vs
An ECM so precise in measuring fuel delivery that it holds the air/fuel ratio in a very narrow band.
I'm thinking YOU are more fallible.
My experience with personal owned 2 Jeeps, 2 Subarus, 1 VW, 1 Mini, 1 Nissan (not to mention years of press fleet vehicles) is the mileage read outs were always close, often < +/- 1 mpg.
I find it hard to believe there's a pattern of straight optimistic readings. That smells of personal tin foil beanie bias bra.
:-*
I'm using longer-term calculations over several tank fulls to help eliminate the errors of getting the same top off every time.
Any error in attaining a precise top-off would cancel out over many tankfuls.
Yes, the ECM *can* calculate fuel used exactly, the same as speedometers *can* calculate exact speed, but, are often 3-5% optimistic.
Add to that countless forum posts to the same (Ford Powerstroke forum being one of them).
-
The Breva I ride always shows my milage about 2-3 mpg lower than what I get when I do it the old fashion way.
Funny, the MPG readout on my Breva 1100 is usually about 2-3 MPG HIGHER than wha tI get calculating it the old fashion way (again, like with my cars, tracking and averaging many tankfuls).
-
Serious question . Is EPA mileage testing done with straight gasoline as opposed to ethanol blends ?
Dusty
-
I'm gonna throw a theory out that the computers are likely more accurate than your calculations.
Maybe in some or many cases, but not in my own experience. We keep log books of all the gasoline that goes in each car and the miles they go. Our 2004 Taurus' average MPG readout consistently shows 20% lower than my log book calculations, which when averaged over the same tankfuls, pretty well removes the problem of exactly where the pump shuts off.
In case anyone wonders why we bother keeping logs, I find it helps me know if a car needs attention, particularly if it's one that I don't drive very often.
-
(http://i1318.photobucket.com/albums/t652/redrider901/YanmarGuzzi1_zpsada2a5f9.jpg)
(http://s1318.photobucket.com/user/redrider901/media/YanmarGuzzi1_zpsada2a5f9.jpg.html)
I want one of these :)
-
I'm using longer-term calculations over several tank fulls to help eliminate the errors of getting the same top off every time.
Any error in attaining a precise top-off would cancel out over many tankfuls.
Yes, the ECM *can* calculate fuel used exactly, the same as speedometers *can* calculate exact speed, but, are often 3-5% optimistic.
Add to that countless forum posts to the same (Ford Powerstroke forum being one of them).
Nah, several tankfulls just allows you to potentially increase the inaccuracy no? Especially if you're a creature of habit and use the same station/pump multiple times.
And forums are probably filled with tons of guys making bad calculations or with agendas or...
PS, I equally doubt all assumption that speedos are optimistic. Many late-model vehicles have GPS tied in and you can tell right away. Plus optimistic speedos would normally be coupled with optimistic Odo's which would open the manufacturer to warranty law suits.
-
Funny, the MPG readout on my Breva 1100 is usually about 2-3 MPG HIGHER than wha tI get calculating it the old fashion way (again, like with my cars, tracking and averaging many tankfuls).
And I often got closer numbers with that and bike, but I was way snap anal-retentive about fueling to the lower lip of the filler neck, on the center stand, on level ground or I threw the calculation away.
-
Serious question . Is EPA mileage testing done with straight gasoline as opposed to ethanol blends ?
Dusty
I BELIEVE it is...
-
Maybe in some or many cases, but not in my own experience. We keep log books of all the gasoline that goes in each car and the miles they go. Our 2004 Taurus' average MPG readout consistently shows 20% lower than my log book calculations, which when averaged over the same tankfuls, pretty well removes the problem of exactly where the pump shuts off.
In case anyone wonders why we bother keeping logs, I find it helps me know if a car needs attention, particularly if it's one that I don't drive very often.
Well, I'd still want to eliminate the variables of the pump, level-ness of the station, accuracy of the odo (throw tire sizes in that), but I'm not going to doubt that some manufacturers, models, or particular examples might be more or less accurate.
Still 20% seems high...
-
I BELIEVE it is...
Well, that could account for some of the variation in EPA and real world mileage figures .
Dusty
-
Well, that could account for some of the variation in EPA and real world mileage figures .
Dusty
True, though it wouldn't account for CR's comparative variances, nor our own NA model that has been beating epa ratings on E10 for about 3 years/36k miles.
-
True, though it wouldn't account for CR's comparative variances, nor our own NA model that has been beating epa ratings o n E10 for about 3 years/36k miles.
Probably not . I am curious about the effect of blended fuels on pressurized engines .
Dusty
-
Nah, several tankfulls just allows you to potentially increase the inaccuracy no? Especially if you're a creature of habit and use the same station/pump multiple times.
WRONG. You're forgetting which one of us is an engineer. I log, track, and analyze data as part of my JOB.
By doing this on EVERY tankful, I get total gallons over total miles.
For example, if top off, then drive 10,000 miles on, and top off again, and I put 250 gallons in over those 10,000 miles, my average MPG for the 10,000 miles is 10,000 / 250 = 40 MPG. It does matter if I topped off every tank during that time at all, so long as I kept track of EVERY fill during that time.
And forums are probably filled with tons of guys making bad calculations or with agendas or...
PS, I equally doubt all assumption that speedos are optimistic. Many late-model vehicles have GPS tied in and you can tell right away. Plus optimistic speedos would normally be coupled with optimistic Odo's which would open the manufacturer to warranty law suits.
Actually, in many cases the speedo is optimistic, but the odo accurate. This is, supposedly be design, so that if there is a real speedo error, someone doesn't end up getting a ticket and suing. If the odo is accurate and the speedo optimistic, it HAS to be designed that way, at least with electronic speedos. In the days of mechanical speedos, the discrepancy could've been do to wear.
-
WRONG. You're forgetting which one of us is an engineer. I log, track, and analyze data as part of my JOB.
By doing this on EVERY tankful, I get total gallons over total miles.
For example, if top off, then drive 10,000 miles on, and top off again, and I put 250 gallons in over those 10,000 miles, my average MPG for the 10,000 miles is 10,000 / 250 = 40 MPG. It does matter if I topped off every tank during that time at all, so long as I kept track of EVERY fill during that time.
Actually, in many cases the speedo is optimistic, but the odo accurate. This is, supposedly be design, so that if there is a real speedo error, someone doesn't end up getting a ticket and suing. If the odo is accurate and the speedo optimistic, it HAS to be designed that way, at least with electronic speedos. In the days of mechanical speedos, the discrepancy could've been do to wear.
Well, it seems that YOU as an engineer seem to doubt the work of OTHER engineers who came up with the mpg monitoring programs so I'm in good company. :-*
The problem with your objection is your calculations ASSUME the accuracy of inputs not proven to be so.
For instance you're ASSUMING the number on the pump is never wrong.
Why is it that only the speedo and mpg calculators are suspect but not the pump and odo?
-
Kev , I'm guessing that if Jay has logged and averaged mileage for 10,000 miles the figure he is coming up with is damned accurate . Unless he only buys fuel at the very same pump every time , the other variations will average out over that data period . Of course , I enjoy a good squabble twixt brothers , so carry on ;D
Dusty
-
Kev , I'm guessing that if Jay has logged and averaged mileage for 10,000 miles the figure he is coming up with is damned accurate . Unless he only buys fuel at the very same pump every time , the other variations will average out over that data period . Of course , I enjoy a good squabble twixt brothers , so carry on ;D
Dusty
Perhaps, but it makes a lot of assumptions, odo accuracy alone can swing it one way or the other no?
Why is my theory the least plausible when all it really is boils down to the thought that WE as humans are the least accurate. That it's just as likely the factors we are using to log and calculate mpg are at least as flawed as the ECM based calculations from which we are seeing deviations!
For example, he runs winter tires on most (all) of his cars. Are they the exact diameter of the OEM tires? How about the summer tires?
Until his last two vehicles he tended to buy used with at least 50k on the odo, while I tend to sell by that point. How does that effect the fuel system or drive line with regards to accuracy of not only fuel metered, but miles traveled?
-
Perhaps, but it makes a lot of assumptions, odo accuracy alone can swing it one way or the other no?
Why is my theory the least plausible when all it really is boils down to the thought that WE as humans are the least accurate. That it's just as likely the factors we are using to log and calculate mpg are at least as flawed as the ECM based calculations from which we are seeing deviations!
So... if Jay starts charting all of his trips , and measures his odometer readings against GPS mileage figures , and only makes right turns on the second Tuesday of each month while driving with his windows half way up , then will you believe his numbers ? Huh , huh ;D
Dusty
-
So... if Jay starts charting all of his trips , and measures his odometer readings against GPS mileage figures , and only makes right turns on the second Tuesday of each month while driving with his windows half way up , then will you believe his numbers ? Huh , huh ;D
Dusty
I might believe YOU then... ::)
-
Well, it seems that YOU as an engineer seem to doubt the work of OTHER engineers who came up with the mpg monitoring programs so I'm in good company. :-*
The problem with your objection is your calculations ASSUME the accuracy of inputs not proven to be so.
For instance you're ASSUMING the number on the pump is never wrong.
Why is it that only the speedo and mpg calculators are suspect but not the pump and odo?
I don't so much doubt the work of OTHER engineers, but, suspect the motives of the corporations themselves ($$$).
-
Serious question . Is EPA mileage testing done with straight gasoline as opposed to ethanol blends ?
Dusty
From the EPA website...maybe we can argue if the EPA is lying.. ;D
EPA's test fuel for light-duty gasoline-fueled vehicles does not currently contain ethanol or other oxygenates. However, EPA does account for the impact of low-level ethanol blends in our fuel economy estimates. Ethanol has a lower energy density than gasoline—about 1/3 less energy per gallon. That means a car operating on E10 (10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline) would require about 3 percent more fuel to travel one mile than a car operating on gasoline and thus have about 3 percent lower fuel economy. EPA adjusts the fuel economy label estimates downward by about 10 percent to account for a variety of factors that are not currently accounted for during laboratory fuel economy testing, such as tire under-inflation, wind, hills, and road conditions. It also includes a 1.5 percent downward adjustment to account for the average national ethanol content.
-
I don't so much doubt the work of OTHER engineers, but, suspect the motives of the corporations themselves ($$$).
Which brings us back to my tin foil beanie comment.... ;)
In related news I finally checked on the new Eco Boost Ford motors and it does look like they can at least run on regular and not premium. That's a plus.
-
.... Until his last two vehicles he tended to buy used with at least 50k on the odo, while I tend to sell by that point. How does that effect the fuel system or drive line with regards to accuracy of not only fuel metered, but miles traveled?
I would guess that the onboard computer uses injector "on" duration to calculate how much fuel is used. I would think that as the injectors age, that the orifice could wear and become larger, thus letting through more fuel than the computer thinks is getting let through.
Since all EFI (4+ wheeled) vehicles have an O2 sensor for closed loop control, this is OK from a mixture standpoint, as the ECU will compensate. BUT, it's fuel usage calculation would then be low.
I'd be willing to bet that small variation (tolerance) in actual orifice sizes, as well as open and close times are at least as big, if not bigger than errors in fuel metering at fuel dispensing pumps.
Which brings us back to my tin foil beanie comment.... ;)
Do YOU trust greedy corporations and/or the gov't?
-
I do think that could be a factor.
And it's not about trusting corporations so much as trusting the market place would figure it out.
-
Which brings us back to my tin foil beanie comment.... ;)
In related news I finally checked on the new Eco Boost Ford motors and it does look like they can at least run on regular and not premium. That's a plus.
The question of F150 Eco boost engine real live fuel mileage got me interested so I looked on several forums dedicated to these trucks....Form what I saw the average fuel mileage most reported by owners was 14-20 MPG. About the same as larger N/A engines with similar performance.
No matter what,it takes a certain amount of fuel for a given power rating.
-
First off, measuring exact mileage cannot be done on the open road in a manner that allows comparison between vehicles. Too many other variables that cannot be repeated. Even driving them on the same road at the same time doesn't work due to other cars on the road disrupting air flow differently. So, one person, measuring mpg in an accurate manner is not comparable to what I would get in the same car. If you want to discuss in pure engineering terms I can, but, I guarantee that none of you have measured enough of the variables to make a meaningful comparison.
What you have done, in some cases, is measured how much you have paid for fuel, a close number for how much fuel you have pumped into your tank, and a close (some of the time) measure of mileage driven. So, FOR THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH YOU DROVE, you have a close approximation of the mileage you got in that vehicle. It does not mean that anyone else will match those numbers, and , they might not even be within 20% of your numbers.
As to turbo effects on gas mileage it is an arguement against driving styles. If you take two cars, in identical conditions and drving speeds, the turbo should get better mileage. BUT, people who own turbos don't drive them at the same speeds as their NA counterparts. So, they will typically get less mileage.
Superchargers, unless some 'tricks' are employed, like disengaging the supercharger at less than full throttle, will typically not see a much increase. Yes there will be a little, since combustion efficiency will be a little bit better, but, since the engine is still directly compressing the air charge, then there is not a savings on work thatyou get with a turbo.
-
First off, measuring exact mileage cannot be done on the open road in a manner that allows comparison between vehicles. Too many other variables that cannot be repeated. Even driving them on the same road at the same time doesn't work due to other cars on the road disrupting air flow differently. So, one person, measuring mpg in an accurate manner is not comparable to what I would get in the same car. If you want to discuss in pure engineering terms I can, but, I guarantee that none of you have measured enough of the variables to make a meaningful comparison.
What you have done, in some cases, is measured how much you have paid for fuel, a close number for how much fuel you have pumped into your tank, and a close (some of the time) measure of mileage driven. So, FOR THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH YOU DROVE, you have a close approximation of the mileage you got in that vehicle. It does not mean that anyone else will match those numbers, and , they might not even be within 20% of your numbers.
As to turbo effects on gas mileage it is an arguement against driving styles. If you take two cars, in identical conditions and drving speeds, the turbo should get better mileage. BUT, people who own turbos don't drive them at the same speeds as their NA counterparts. So, they will typically get less mileage.
Superchargers, unless some 'tricks' are employed, like disengaging the supercharger at less than full throttle, will typically not see a much increase. Yes there will be a little, since combustion efficiency will be a little bit better, but, since the engine is still directly compressing the air charge, then there is not a savings on work thatyou get with a turbo.
LOL! Me thinks you're overthinking this. You must be an engineer. "Accurate" fuel economy is a "Close-Enough" kind of deal. "Approximate" fuel economy is easy to figure and is regularly repeatable. In over 700 tanks of fuel in my 2002 Suburban, I'm am sure I can figure fuel economy within 1mpg on a repeatable basis, and that is close enough.
I do not need to know the fuel economy out to three places past the decimal point, but it is nice to know within one or two mpg what I'm getting. My odometer has been checked with maps and GPS and is spot-on. I always refuel with 25-26 gallons of fuel. I check fuel economy on every tank and it's surprisingly repetitive.
I know what I'll get on cruise at 70mph. I know what I'll get in commuting/combined. I know what I'll get with the horse trailer. And I know how the wind will affect those numbers.
I am quite sure that if I was alternating two vehicles, I would have a clear picture of both vehicles fuel economy in order to make a valid comparison.
-
The question of F150 Eco boost engine real live fuel mileage got me interested so I looked on several forums dedicated to these trucks....Form what I saw the average fuel mileage most reported by owners was 14-20 MPG. About the same as larger N/A engines with similar performance.
This is what I've been reading as well. V6 Ecoboost = 5.0L NA V8 in both performance and MPG. I'll take the simpler NA motor, thank you very much.
I can see where it might be possible that the Turbo motor might be better for those who live in in the mountains. I'd think the V6 Ecoboost might do better towing a load over a 9,000f t mountain pass than the NA V8, provided that the turbo can provide the added boost to make up for the thinner air.
No matter what,it takes a certain amount of fuel for a given power rating.
True fact.
-
Gotta agree with Rocker on this , one doesn't need be an engineer to do basic calculations and gather data accurately,
anymore than one need be a horticulturist to grow good tomatoes . Sheesh ::) :D
Dusty
-
Gotta agree with Rocker on this , one doesn't need be an engineer to do basic calculations and gather data accurately,
anymore than one need be a horticulturist to grow good tomatoes . Sheesh ::) :D
Dusty
Yup...My 4 wheel vehicles are old junkers with no onboard calculators...My bikes don't have speedos so just take off the fuel cap and have a look inside... ;D
-
My 1200 Sport computer calculated MPG was fairly accurate, however my Stelvio was optimistic by the same percentage that would equal the difference between imperial gallons and US gallons. Coincidence, I think not. ;) My new to me R1200GS is pretty spot on also, but that is only over one thousand miles.
And I fall into that OCD engineer category that over analyzes things regularly, especially when on trips where I am averaging fuel economy over thousands of miles. ~;
-
Darren , have you tried measuring out exactly one gallon of gasoline and seeing how far your GS will travel before running out ? Seems to me that would satisfy some of our members ;D
Dusty
-
Darren , have you tried measuring out exactly one gallon of gasoline and seeing how far your GS will travel before running out ? Seems to me that would satisfy some of our members ;D
Dusty
If you do that, be sure and run the bike out of gas before adding the certified 1 gallon to the tank.
Don't want any residual fuel in the lines or filter or whatever that would taint the results.
-
Let's see, design of experiment...
Measure out 231 cubic inches of pure 91 octane gasoline (as recommended by manufacturer) at a temperature of 20*C. Run bike out of gas and pour in the measured one gallon of gas. Shouldn't be a problem finding a flat, straight road here in central Oklahoma, and ride at 60 MPH in 5th gear with a GPS verified distance in statute miles until bike runs out of gas again. I should probably do this on a 68* F day, with 40% humidity, and calm winds. That might be a problem in Oklahoma!
-
My 1969 international 3/4 ton 4 wheel drive 392 ci 4 barrel carb pick-up has 2 gas tanks, and that is because it gets 8 MPG on a good day if I keep it under 65mph...uh with the Alaskan camper in the down position.
My credit is good.
mike
-
Let's see, design of experiment...
Measure out 231 cubic inches of pure 91 octane gasoline (as recommended by manufacturer) at a temperature of 20*C. Run bike out of gas and pour in the measured one gallon of gas. Shouldn't be a problem finding a flat, straight road here in central Oklahoma, and ride at 60 MPH in 5th gear with a GPS verified distance in statute miles until bike runs out of gas again. I should probably do this on a 68* F day, with 40% humidity, and calm winds. That might be a problem in Oklahoma!
Wait for a day with a South West wind and ride from Seaba Station to Chandler and back repeatedly until you run out ;D
Dusty
-
You guys are better than me, or you don't get a lotof windy dyas. I can usually estimate what I will get within 5mpg. Beyond that it is wind speed and direction, my speed (mileage drops a lot when you go from 70mph to 80mph), what kind of traffic there is, the load and the road (altitude changes especially). All combine to significantly alter my fuel mileage.
-
Actually rode Route 66 from my house to Seba and back today, Temp was low 40's. Dash on the GS said I got 44.5 mpg. Only had to pass 4 cars and generally kept the speed within 10 over, so I was riding quite fuel efficiently.
-
I've always been a fan of supercharging petrol engines believing it massively reduces cyclical stress (vs turbo which increases it).
The reality is modern engines can take a lot of stress if designed properly (eg the old Audi 2L turbo) & I've never heard the bloke in the street discuss stresses in a motor unless they've thrown a rod or snapped a crank.
As for bikes, weight used to be an issue but if the marketers tell the young kids it's better and will only cost an extra 2 grand then that's where we're headed. I used to think 100hp was enough but there's always demand for something new, more power, less weight and now more tech.
I doubt I'll ever own a supercharged bike but never say never!
-
Supercharged? This is the engine I built for my grandson's "mud truck" . 454 Chevy with a GMC type Rootes supercharger.It's designed for midrange torque to power the heavy off road truck. it's only about 450-500 HP but over 600 ft lbs of torque at 4000 rpm.
The biggest engine stresses are from high rpm so a forced induction engine can be quite reliable with reasonable cost parts if tuned for mid range power.
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3705/8839730978_cee11073b1_c.jpg)
-
My 1969 international 3/4 ton 4 wheel drive 392 ci 4 barrel carb pick-up has 2 gas tanks, and that is because it gets 8 MPG on a good day if I keep it under 65mph...uh with the Alaskan camper in the down position.
My credit is good.
mike
;-T I'd like to see that rig!
-
Supercharged? This is the engine I built for my grandson's "mud truck" . 454 Chevy with a GMC type Rootes supercharger.
Wow, great setup. I love to see a nice BBC, especially since smallblocks are so much more common these days.
-
My 1969 international 3/4 ton 4 wheel drive 392 ci 4 barrel carb pick-up has 2 gas tanks, and that is because it gets 8 MPG on a good day if I keep it under 65mph...uh with the Alaskan camper in the down position.
My credit is good.
mike
Internationals were one of my favorites. Solid. Back when you wanted a vehicle to last.
One of my high school buddies drove his folks' Travelall. What a great vehicle. We hauled all kinds of garage band stuff with it.
-
Re: Supercharged 454
Now THAT is what I call an engine!!!
Will it fit in my Suzuki?? :-)
(http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/12/30/421f932c8c46aedefa89d6ef58b3e3bd.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Re: Supercharged 454
Now THAT is what I call an engine!!!
Will it fit in my Suzuki?? :-)
(http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/14/12/30/421f932c8c46aedefa89d6ef58b3e3bd.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The old hot rodders adage applies here . Gimme a welder a cutting torch , and a big enough hammer :D
Dusty
-
Two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. But with a big enough BFH they can get really really close!!
-
Two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. But with a big enough BFH they can get really really close!!
Maybe not , but at Thanksgiving three can occupy the same space , it's called turduckin ;D
Dusty
-
Two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time. But with a big enough BFH they can get really really close!!
I'm not so sure about that...
-
Re: Supercharged 454
Now THAT is what I call an engine!!!
Will it fit in my Suzuki?? :-)
Sure, but the engine is in my grandson's "Rambird", back half is 99 Firebird,front clip from a 2004 Dodge truck, home made frame with the usual stuff.
here he is beating it up on a private course. It's geared pretty high for a mud truck but watch and hear the mega torque pop the 7500 pound lump out the mud when it bogs down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFLhaztnURM&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFLhaztnURM&feature=youtu.be)
-
OR do it the dangerous and rube goldberg way:
http://www.pipeburn.com/home/2014/10/16/65-harley-ironhead-hazan-motorworks.html#.VKGFFAO4IE
(http://www.pipeburn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/11_10_2014_hazan_harley_02.jpg)
-
If all he needs is torque,,my dodge has 800ftlb at 375hp, stock.
-
Could a single cylinder motor use another larger diameter secondary cylinder as a "5 Stroke" engine but in a V configuration?
One spark plug. It would be a real fuel mizer!
(http://i1299.photobucket.com/albums/ag77/Penderic/New-Twin-Cylinder-Marine-font-b-Steam-b-font-font-b-Engine-b-font-with-font_zps91f4572d.jpg)
-
Sure, but the engine is in my grandson's "Rambird", back half is 99 Firebird,front clip from a 2004 Dodge truck, home made frame with the usual stuff.
here he is beating it up on a private course. It's geared pretty high for a mud truck but watch and hear the mega torque pop the 7500 pound lump out the mud when it bogs down.
Love it! But I wonder how long my gearbox would survive!!! :-O
Thanks for the link
:-)
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Rumor that Suzuki will be bringing a 588cc twin turbocharged based on the prototype shown a year ago in Japan.
(http://i1299.photobucket.com/albums/ag77/Penderic/suzukiturbo600_zpsd6d68321.jpg)
The Recursion is said to make 100hp at 8,000rpm with peak torque of 74ft.lb at 4,500rpm, overcoming the poor mid-range associated with early turbo systems.
It weighs 174kg and offers 50% better fuel economy than a sports 600, according to Suzuki.
Read more: http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle-news-new-bikes/suzuki-recursion-concept-heading-for-production/26084.html#ixzz3NvvGPG2A
-
Maybe not , but at Thanksgiving three can occupy the same space , it's called turduckin ;D
Dusty
We had a turducken at Thanksgiving. YUMMY!! It was awesome. :drool :food
-
Now if someone could just figure out TURDUCKENHAM my life would be complete ;D Hmm Turduckenham , kinda sounds like a village in the midlands of England ::) :D Excuse me sir , may I borrow some of your Turduckenham sauce ;D
Dusty
Christmas day I tried to give Lorraine her Christmas goose, she slapped me. :-[ ;)
-
Christmas day I tried to give Lorraine her Christmas goose, she slapped me. :-[ ;)
Well... maybe if you hadn't tried giving her a Cedar Vale goose , followed by an Easter goose , followed by a Memorial Day goose etc etc , she would have let the Christmas goose slide ;D
Dusty
-
I'd hoped this would have died by now, instead it mutated into something fowl.
-
I'd hoped this would have died by now, instead it mutated into something fowl.
Its just gotten wings!!!!!
-
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
That's funny Mark and Matt . Wait , is gotten a word anywhere outside of Iowegia ? :o
Dusty
-
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
That's funny Mark and Matt . Wait , is gotten a word anywhere outside of Iowegia ? :o
Dusty
An Okie making fun of the way someone else talks -- that's funnny (say's the guy from Pennsyltucky). ;D
Like snow drifts, thread drift is a problem around these parts in the winter time.
-
An Okie making fun of the way someone else talks -- that's funnny (say's the guy from Pennsyltucky). ;D
Like snow drifts, thread drift is a problem around these parts in the winter time.
:D :D :D :D
Then there is the region of Georgia where the locals only believe they are speaking English ;D A friend from the hills of Virginia was upset by the accents used on the Beverly Hillbillies . "Effin actors from California trying to sound like hill folk." ;D
Dusty