Genesis: G70 News - Page 4 - AcuraZine - Acura Enthusiast Community

Notices
Automotive News
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

Genesis: G70 News

 
Old 08-22-2018, 11:20 PM
  #121  
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
 
iforyou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 32
Posts: 8,987
Thanked 553 Times in 376 Posts
Hmmm I don't know...those numbers don't see impressive in this class anymore?

Infiniti Q50 Red Sport 400:
0-60mph: 4.5s
1/4 mile: 13.0 sec @ 112 mph

Infiniti C43 AMG AWD:
0-60mph: 4.1s
1/4 mile: 12.7 sec @ 110 mph

I understand the G70 3.3T will be noticeably cheaper. To me the numbers are alright but nowhere class leading. The better news is that it seems to drive well albeit being a tad too heavy IMO at nearly 3900lb for a RWD model. The C43 AMG with AWD is at that weight for comparison. It's as heavy as the Q50 but the Q50 is quite a bit longer and has noticeably more passenger room (94 vs 100cu.ft),
iforyou is offline  
Old 08-23-2018, 03:56 AM
  #122  
Senior Moderator
 
F23A4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Age: 50
Posts: 16,449
Thanked 470 Times in 313 Posts
For a Korean make lacking any substantive performance “pedigree”, those are impressive numbers. (Nissan and MB have been in this game a long time; their bar should be set higher.) If the TLX had this setup and these performance numbers, it’d likely be far better received than the Accord V6 premium it is now.

Last edited by F23A4; 08-23-2018 at 04:14 AM.
F23A4 is offline  
Old 08-23-2018, 02:56 PM
  #123  
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
 
iforyou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 32
Posts: 8,987
Thanked 553 Times in 376 Posts
I understand where you are coming from but I guess we think of it differently. To me Hyundai is trying to step into the luxury segment with the Genesis and I'd hope that it can match the others at the least. I think it's nice to have something just a good, if not better, and still undercut in pricing. That's not easy to do but I think for a while Acura was able to do that with the 3G TL and most recently, the 3G RDX.

Having said that the article did note that the G70 for whatever reason is quite a bit slower than the Stinger, which doesn't make much sense as the G70 is actually slightly lighter. May be they will do another test to see.
iforyou is offline  
Old 08-23-2018, 03:51 PM
  #124  
Registered Member
iTrader: (2)
 
horseshoez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Southern New Hampshire
Age: 63
Posts: 4,483
Thanked 782 Times in 589 Posts
Originally Posted by iforyou View Post
Having said that the article did note that the G70 for whatever reason is quite a bit slower than the Stinger, which doesn't make much sense as the G70 is actually slightly lighter. May be they will do another test to see.
The only possible mitigating factor here is the G70 tested was either a pre-production model or a very early production model. I'm guessing once production is fully ramped up the numbers may be somewhat improved.

The above said, at some point, unless you are tracking the car (and I don't get tracking 4-Door sedans), the numbers are all academic as you will never even remotely approach the limits of any of those cars on normal roads, errr, at least not without running the risk of being tagged by the local constabulary for a reckless driving citation.
horseshoez is offline  
Old 08-23-2018, 04:05 PM
  #125  
Registered Member
 
oonowindoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 15,261
Thanked 2,475 Times in 1,725 Posts
^ I understand what you saying, but the reality is different.

By that logic, we dont need 2.0T Accord when 1.5T is enough or BMW does not need 340 when 330 can offer V6 performance, or why bother making the Hellcat when the V6 can get to you where you want to go with the same time.
oonowindoo is offline  
Old 08-23-2018, 04:42 PM
  #126  
Registered Member
iTrader: (2)
 
horseshoez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Southern New Hampshire
Age: 63
Posts: 4,483
Thanked 782 Times in 589 Posts
Originally Posted by oonowindoo View Post
^ I understand what you saying, but the reality is different.

By that logic, we dont need 2.0T Accord when 1.5T is enough or BMW does not need 340 when 330 can offer V6 performance, or why bother making the Hellcat when the V6 can get to you where you want to go with the same time.
Trust me, I understand power sells cars, but seriously, at some point enough is going to have to be enough. For my part, a G70 2.0T with a sweet shifting 6-Speed manual will be more than adequate. I just get a chuckle out of folks who stress over the lack of a couple of tenths of a second for any car which can return sub-5-Second 0-60 times; way too many other important things to stress about in life.
horseshoez is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to horseshoez For This Useful Post:
rockstar143 (08-29-2018)
Old 08-23-2018, 05:20 PM
  #127  
Registered Member
 
oonowindoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 15,261
Thanked 2,475 Times in 1,725 Posts
And that is perfectly acceptable.

But there are also a lot of buyers who think the performance difference is a deal breaker... like me.
By 2018's standard sub 5 sec to 60 or mid to high 14s cars are considered average, or maybe slow if we wanna talk about performance cars.
oonowindoo is offline  
Old 08-26-2018, 10:33 PM
  #128  
Banned
 
Saintor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MTL, Canada
Age: 51
Posts: 2,906
Thanked 117 Times in 99 Posts
Originally Posted by biker View Post
22 MPG combined from an I4 is pretty lame these days.
Basically the same fuel economy as a manual BMW 330i 2006... lame indeed for a 2.0Toy, and sacrifying so much in the process.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find...39913&id=21797
Saintor is offline  
Old 08-27-2018, 12:15 AM
  #129  
Registered Member
 
TacoBello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: In an igloo
Posts: 30,496
Thanked 4,403 Times in 3,312 Posts
Coming from the guy who drives in sport+ mode all the time, and never gets any good fuel economy because otherwise his car is a completely turd with a bigger turd transmission
TacoBello is offline  
Old 08-27-2018, 06:48 PM
  #130  
Registered Member
 
oonowindoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 15,261
Thanked 2,475 Times in 1,725 Posts
V6 or 2.0T are the same... you will get great MPG if you drive it like it is made of glass (In Acura's case, it is made of glass)... Then you might as well go get a Prius,

The moment you drive it like it is meant to be driven, your MPG will suffer....

We spend shit load of $$ for all sort of hobbies, entertainment and whatever unnecessary shit you like, All of a sudden the few dollars per tank is not worth the enjoyment ???
oonowindoo is offline  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to oonowindoo For This Useful Post:
00TL-P3.2 (08-28-2018), TacoBello (08-29-2018), ttribe (08-28-2018)
Old 08-28-2018, 09:19 PM
  #131  
Banned
 
Saintor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MTL, Canada
Age: 51
Posts: 2,906
Thanked 117 Times in 99 Posts
Originally Posted by TacoBello View Post
Coming from the guy who drives in sport+ mode all the time, and never gets any good fuel economy because otherwise his car is a completely turd with a bigger turd transmission
A Tacodummy [read: bogus] argument again.

If my car was manual, it wouldn't be different. The last place I want my engine RPM to be all the time is at 1500-2000rpm.
Saintor is offline  
Old 08-28-2018, 10:22 PM
  #132  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 27,310
Thanked 2,146 Times in 1,269 Posts
Originally Posted by Saintor View Post
If my car was manual, it wouldn't be different. The last place I want my engine RPM to be all the time is at 1500-2000rpm.
Wut. So you don't like the idea of less engine noise and vibrations (low RPMs) while at cruising speed?

My BRZ is at around 3500rpm on the freeway, coupled with my loud exhaust it can get pretty grating. I actually kinda miss the stock loudness, especially after I ditched that stupid induction noise tube.

My Camaro was loud as shit in general, but at 80mph putted on at 1600rpm. Incredibly relaxing.
Costco is offline  
Old 08-28-2018, 11:17 PM
  #133  
Moderator
 
ttribe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Age: 47
Posts: 14,088
Thanked 4,249 Times in 2,330 Posts
Originally Posted by Saintor View Post
A Tacodummy [read: bogus] argument again.

If my car was manual, it wouldn't be different. The last place I want my engine RPM to be all the time is at 1500-2000rpm.
How many times do you have to be told to quit the name calling? Stop it.
ttribe is offline  
Old 08-29-2018, 12:09 AM
  #134  
Registered Member
 
TacoBello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: In an igloo
Posts: 30,496
Thanked 4,403 Times in 3,312 Posts
Originally Posted by Saintor View Post
A Tacodummy [read: bogus] argument again.

If my car was manual, it wouldn't be different. The last place I want my engine RPM to be all the time is at 1500-2000rpm.
Please realize that your arguments make zero sense whatsoever. You whine day in, day out about needing to get the best MPGs, and yet your actions dictate 100% opposite of that. Drive in Sport+ mode all the time. Donít want to be down low in the rpm range, apparently ever. So which one is it? Because by what youíre suggesting, your fuel economy has to be shit and yet you argue and argue and argue all about squeezing that extra 40km out of a tank of gas.
TacoBello is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to TacoBello For This Useful Post:
00TL-P3.2 (08-29-2018)
Old 08-29-2018, 06:40 AM
  #135  
Moderator
Chapter Leader (South Florida Region)
iTrader: (6)
 
rockstar143's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 66,022
Thanked 14,560 Times in 10,876 Posts
Originally Posted by TacoBello View Post
You whine day in, day out
Saintor is a supercharger?
I hope that's not considered name calling.


rockstar143 is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to rockstar143 For This Useful Post:
RPhilMan1 (08-29-2018)
Old 08-29-2018, 06:43 AM
  #136  
Moderator
Chapter Leader (South Florida Region)
iTrader: (6)
 
rockstar143's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 66,022
Thanked 14,560 Times in 10,876 Posts
Okay seriously...
I have a decent variety of driving experiences and I can say that yes, after a certain point who cares if you have 500hp or 540hp or can do the quarter in less time.
also...about rpms...the yukon highway cruises at like 2k...the S2000 is more like 4500...the Yukon is a lot more relaxing to drive cruising down the road. Now...if we're
hitting some curves...shiettt....
rockstar143 is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to rockstar143 For This Useful Post:
00TL-P3.2 (08-29-2018)
Old 08-29-2018, 09:23 AM
  #137  
Ex-OEM King
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Minnesnowta
Posts: 5,654
Thanked 1,597 Times in 1,106 Posts
Originally Posted by oonowindoo View Post
V6 or 2.0T are the same... you will get great MPG if you drive it like it is made of glass (In Acura's case, it is made of glass)... Then you might as well go get a Prius,

The moment you drive it like it is meant to be driven, your MPG will suffer....

We spend shit load of $$ for all sort of hobbies, entertainment and whatever unnecessary shit you like, All of a sudden the few dollars per tank is not worth the enjoyment ???
This.

Gasoline has a specific amount of energy per unit volume. If all efficiency in the engine is held the same, if you want more power you have to shoot more gas. Turbo engines cram more air in there so they can shoot more gas. NA engines add displacement to shoot more gas. The advantage of the turbo engines is, if you stay off the boost, you don't have more air and can shoot less gas for cruising. It's physics at this point, no way around it.
SamDoe1 is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to SamDoe1 For This Useful Post:
00TL-P3.2 (08-29-2018)
Old 08-29-2018, 01:31 PM
  #138  
Moderator
Chapter Leader (South Florida Region)
iTrader: (6)
 
rockstar143's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 66,022
Thanked 14,560 Times in 10,876 Posts
Sam is smart.
rockstar143 is offline  
Old 08-29-2018, 01:31 PM
  #139  
Moderator
Chapter Leader (South Florida Region)
iTrader: (6)
 
rockstar143's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 66,022
Thanked 14,560 Times in 10,876 Posts
Sam is a 2.0 turbo.
I'm a big dumb V ate.
rockstar143 is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to rockstar143 For This Useful Post:
RPhilMan1 (08-29-2018)
Old 08-29-2018, 03:28 PM
  #140  
Ex-OEM King
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Minnesnowta
Posts: 5,654
Thanked 1,597 Times in 1,106 Posts
Originally Posted by rockstar143 View Post
Sam is smart.
Appearing to be smart to strangers on the internet is far better than actually being smart.
SamDoe1 is offline  
Old 08-29-2018, 04:02 PM
  #141  
Registered Member
 
TacoBello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: In an igloo
Posts: 30,496
Thanked 4,403 Times in 3,312 Posts
Originally Posted by SamDoe1 View Post
This.

Gasoline has a specific amount of energy per unit volume. If all efficiency in the engine is held the same, if you want more power you have to shoot more gas. Turbo engines cram more air in there so they can shoot more gas. NA engines add displacement to shoot more gas. The advantage of the turbo engines is, if you stay off the boost, you don't have more air and can shoot less gas for cruising. It's physics at this point, no way around it.
Thank you!

and now he will come back and argue the sound of the 2.0t is inadequate... tell me, if youíre hyper-miling your car, how would you know what the engine even sounds like? So is it performance or is it mileage youíre chasing? Because you surely cannot have both.
TacoBello is offline  
Old 08-29-2018, 05:50 PM
  #142  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 27,310
Thanked 2,146 Times in 1,269 Posts
If a 2.0T is a toy, then what is a 2.0?

I can only beat snails if they give me a car length
Costco is offline  
Old 08-29-2018, 08:27 PM
  #143  
Banned
 
Saintor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MTL, Canada
Age: 51
Posts: 2,906
Thanked 117 Times in 99 Posts
Originally Posted by TacoBello View Post


Please realize that your arguments make zero sense whatsoever.
They totally make sense and if your brain eventually turns on, instead of stupidly nagging, here is what doesn't make sense at all.

Basically the same fuel economy as a manual BMW 330i 2006... lame indeed for a 2.0Toy, and sacrifying so much in the process.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=39913&id=21797
AGAIN, a 2019 G70 2.0Toy manual gets the same fuel economy (18/28mpg) as a 2006 330i I6 manual, marginally better than the 3.3T.

Gasoline has a specific amount of energy per unit volume. If all efficiency in the engine is held the same, if you want more power you have to shoot more gas. Turbo engines cram more air in there so they can shoot more gas. NA engines add displacement to shoot more gas. The advantage of the turbo engines is, if you stay off the boost, you don't have more air and can shoot less gas for cruising. It's physics at this point, no way around it.
Are you implying that "if you stay off the boost", you will magically get better than the range of 18/28mpg? Heu.... NO! lol. Even a freaking Impala gets better fuel economy with a NA 3.6L, in an heavier vehicle.
Saintor is offline  
Old 08-30-2018, 03:46 AM
  #144  
Registered Member
 
TacoBello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: In an igloo
Posts: 30,496
Thanked 4,403 Times in 3,312 Posts
Back to the insults, I see.

Anyway, why are you bringing up a near 13 year old bmw? You do realize that due to physics, there is literally only so much we can pull from an internal combustion engine, right? Whether it be power or economy, we are still limited. No one is making any leaps and bounds in this regard, these days. The turbo allows you to get better economy when not boosting. This is 110% well known in the automotive community, not some made up BS.

Again, you have no clue how a turbo engine works. If you aren’t hitting boost, you have just a regular I4 chugging along. The thing with that is the heavier the vehicle is, the worse the economy will be. Once again, physics. Yeah, a 2.0L NA I4 will get terrible economy if moving 5000 pounds of mass. What you are missing, and even though you pointed it out, you CAN get marginally better fuel economy... and in this day and age, with all the regulations in place, companies are dying to reach better numbers, no matter how small.

You're all about saving apparently, so on that note, when premium, at least here, was hitting $1.55/L, why would you say the minimal improvements in fuel economy aren’t worth it? You even admit the turbo engines save a bit on fuel. We know they have equal performance as an NA V6, if not slightly better also. So a turbo engine has slightly better fuel economy and slightly better performance and you piss on it saying it’s garbage, because... of the sound?

Also, when they do fuel economy testing, what are the conditions? If they’re testing the cars under WOT acceleration, of course it won’t have any better numbers. Please re-read what Sam wrote. But what you’re missing is the car is putting out equal horsepower and more torque (even while still being heavily held back by the manufacturer). Every turbo car is held back. On purpose. It’s funny, my 2.0T Sonata could easily get better fuel economy, by as much as 3.5L/100km, vs my 3.2L NA V6. I’m not going by any claimed numbers. I’m going by actual driving. My TL, at best, could hit 9.5L/100km on the highway, and I’d be doing whatever possible to hyper-mile that bitch. Doing the exact same on the Sonata, I got as low as 6.5L/100km on the highway. And comparing power figures... the Sonata had 274hp/270lbft of torque. My TL has 252hp and I don’t remember the torque, but it was substantially less. I even raced the two against each other from a dead stop. No dropping the clutch, not revving up, nada. Light turned green, both drivers hammered the throttle and went. The Sonata time and again would pull ahead by about 1.5 car lengths. And the Sonata had a shitty auto transmission vs the sporty 6MT.

You keep saying we are we are all idiots, yet EVERY brand out there is following the same trend. Hmmm... maybe EVERY brand is on to something that you still refuse to admit. No one is trying to rain on your parade. Quite the contrary. But it’s also a well known fact that the older we get, the more afraid of change we become. You seem terrified of anything besides the good ol’ days.

TacoBello is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to TacoBello For This Useful Post:
00TL-P3.2 (08-30-2018), SamDoe1 (08-30-2018)
Old 08-30-2018, 03:49 AM
  #145  
Registered Member
 
TacoBello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: In an igloo
Posts: 30,496
Thanked 4,403 Times in 3,312 Posts
Honestly, you don’t have much of a leg to stand on. Sound? Sure. But you’re whining about fuel economy all the time, so I’m not sure why sound even matters. In a “luxury” car that is also sound deadened to crazy levels, at that. Unless you enjoy fake engine sounds. Then get a 2.0T and pump in Ferrari engine sounds all day long. I’ve seen aftermarket systems like that.
TacoBello is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to TacoBello For This Useful Post:
kurtatx (08-31-2018)
Old 08-30-2018, 03:52 AM
  #146  
Registered Member
 
TacoBello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: In an igloo
Posts: 30,496
Thanked 4,403 Times in 3,312 Posts
Originally Posted by Saintor View Post
They totally make sense and if your brain eventually turns on, instead of stupidly nagging, here is what doesn't make sense at all.



AGAIN, a 2019 G70 2.0Toy manual gets the same fuel economy (18/28mpg) as a 2006 330i I6 manual, marginally better than the 3.3T.



Are you implying that "if you stay off the boost", you will magically get better than the range of 18/28mpg? Heu.... NO! lol. Even a freaking Impala gets better fuel economy with a NA 3.6L, in an heavier vehicle.
100% this. Iím guessing the standards they use to get fuel economy numbers Are likely based on a variety of driving styles, to get some sort of average. Once again, as mentioned, if youíre hammering the throttle, you will not get better economy. Please reread Sams statement. If youíre off the boost you will get regular I4 engine fuel economy. This isnít some kind of myth. This is reality.
TacoBello is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to TacoBello For This Useful Post:
00TL-P3.2 (08-30-2018)
Old 08-30-2018, 04:01 AM
  #147  
Registered Member
 
TacoBello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: In an igloo
Posts: 30,496
Thanked 4,403 Times in 3,312 Posts
I literally *just* saw a news clip on BBC, here in Europe, where they say pretty much all manufacturers are bullshitting fuel economy claims. So by that note, whatever is claimed can’t even be trusted. What needs to be done is real world testing. Aka, take your car out, fill it up, drive until empty, refill again to see how much fuel was actually used and how many miles were actually covered. Even that isn’t 100% accurate because you don’t actually know when a tank is back to its original fuel level when you started... it’ll be close, but likely not exact. But... if you do it for five tanks of gas, you’ll likely get an accurate number.

Once again, in my real world experience, as far as fuel economy was concerned, my 2.0T destroyed my 3.2 V6. Also, in my real world experience, my 2.0T kicked the 3.2 V6s ass.

And do you know what sucks? I was hoping to God my TL would school the Sonata, and I was left with the SO laughing at me at the next set of lights. both cars weighed similarly, both had 18” wheels. The major difference was one had a slush box auto, while the other had a 6MT. Every time I had to shift, the 2.0T just kept pulling. I was trying to shift as fast as physically possible, and even ended up grinding one of my gears one time because I did it much too fast. Could. Not. Keep. Up.

Do you know why manufacturers are bullshitting their numbers? Because we’ve been developing internal combustion engines for over 100 years now and have pretty much maxed out what we can do with them. It’s simply due to the limitations of physics on this planet. Direct injection was the only real new development that happened in the last decade, and that came with all sorts of problems on the side. It’s easy to implement new and more stringent regulations... hell, they don’t have to be based on anything at all. “Hit 50MPG by 2030, or else”. Sadly, physics doesn’t work that way.

You don’t have to prove anything to us. We already know. But... if you want to learn for yourself, feel free to do some real world testing. Hell, rent a “shitty” 2.0T for a week and see what happens. It’ll all come down to your bias though. If you’re able to stay objective about it all, you’ll likely be left surprised.

And finally, why on earth would Honda spend hundreds of millions developing all new turbo platforms if the existing J series was the better alternative? It was tried, tested and true. It had 20 years of development. And yet even Honda decided to move on.

Last edited by TacoBello; 08-30-2018 at 04:10 AM.
TacoBello is offline  
Old 08-30-2018, 06:34 AM
  #148  
Moderator
Chapter Leader (South Florida Region)
iTrader: (6)
 
rockstar143's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 66,022
Thanked 14,560 Times in 10,876 Posts
  • V8 has more displacement that allows for more air which requires more fuel.
  • I4 with a turbo forces more air in which requires more fuel.

If I drive the Cadillac nicely, I can get near 15mpg...if I beat on the Audi I get around 18mpg...think about a 3 mpg variance on a 4.2L delta/
I know that Saintor is now just stringing us along to try and get a reaction and waste time on long responses addressing things he knows are Ludacris.


All I'm gathering from this convo though is that the 2006 BMW got some pretty respectable gas mileage.

Why don't we try and get back on topic...this is supposed to be a discussion about an overpriced Korean vehicle!
rockstar143 is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to rockstar143 For This Useful Post:
kurtatx (08-31-2018), TacoBello (08-30-2018)
Old 08-30-2018, 08:52 AM
  #149  
Registered Member
 
biker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Fairfax, VA
Age: 54
Posts: 11,519
Thanked 107 Times in 85 Posts
Originally Posted by TacoBello View Post
Because weíve been developing internal combustion engines for over 100 years now and have pretty much maxed out what we can do with them. Itís simply due to the limitations of physics on this planet.
The limitation is the amount of BTU in a given volume of gas - the most efficient ICE is in the 40% range (diesels do better). Mazda and Infiniti are approaching 50% with a few tricks, but I get your point that we are getting to the diminishing returns point soon.
biker is offline  
Old 08-30-2018, 09:12 AM
  #150  
Registered Member
iTrader: (2)
 
horseshoez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Southern New Hampshire
Age: 63
Posts: 4,483
Thanked 782 Times in 589 Posts
Originally Posted by biker View Post
The limitation is the amount of BTU in a given volume of gas - the most efficient ICE is in the 40% range (diesels do better). Mazda and Infiniti are approaching 50% with a few tricks, but I get your point that we are getting to the diminishing returns point soon.
I haven't worked for an auto manufacturer for nearly 20 years now, but there are technologies we working on back then which are still being developed which can greatly increase engine efficiency. Back in the 1990s one of the senior engineers I was working with at Daimler-Benz in Stuttgart opined 75% efficiency was achievable, but probably not within his lifetime (or mine even). That said, getting engine efficiency up in the 60% range should easily happen before I go Tango Uniform.
horseshoez is offline  
Old 08-30-2018, 09:16 AM
  #151  
Moderator
Chapter Leader (South Florida Region)
iTrader: (6)
 
rockstar143's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 66,022
Thanked 14,560 Times in 10,876 Posts
military talk makes me hot and bothered...
rockstar143 is offline  
Old 08-30-2018, 11:47 AM
  #152  
Ex-OEM King
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Minnesnowta
Posts: 5,654
Thanked 1,597 Times in 1,106 Posts
Originally Posted by Saintor View Post
AGAIN, a 2019 G70 2.0Toy manual gets the same fuel economy (18/28mpg) as a 2006 330i I6 manual, marginally better than the 3.3T.

Are you implying that "if you stay off the boost", you will magically get better than the range of 18/28mpg? Heu.... NO! lol. Even a freaking Impala gets better fuel economy with a NA 3.6L, in an heavier vehicle.
And? What's your point? The G70 4 cylinder also produces an extra 30hp and 50 ft-lb of torque using that same amount of fuel. I'd call a 10+% increase in hp and a 20+% increase in torque using the same amount of fuel a win.

No, I'm not implying anything. That's a scientific fact. If you stay off the boost, there's less air going into the intake manifold and therefore less fuel injected to combust with that air. That's the whole point of smaller displacement forced induction motors. I've gotten 35mpg with my Golf R by driving off the boost for 300 miles and routinely get 32mpg for shorter highway jaunts. The EPA rating is 22/29. My explanation is that, when off boost, it's no different than any other base model Golf model. I'd love to hear yours.
SamDoe1 is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to SamDoe1 For This Useful Post:
00TL-P3.2 (08-30-2018)
Old 08-30-2018, 11:48 AM
  #153  
Moderator
Chapter Leader (South Florida Region)
iTrader: (6)
 
rockstar143's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 66,022
Thanked 14,560 Times in 10,876 Posts
Sam...he's calculated. Don't bother.
rockstar143 is offline  
Old 08-30-2018, 11:57 AM
  #154  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
00TL-P3.2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Spring, TX
Age: 33
Posts: 10,896
Thanked 1,470 Times in 1,084 Posts
I don't have enough miles on my C yet to make a valid comparison, but I did look back at my tracking for my '00 TL.
Lifetime (55k miles, 174 fill-ups) average MPG on it was 24.2 with a max 1-tank MPG of 28.8
I've been seeing mid to high 30s on the highway & so far am averaging about 27-28mpg in the C with a decent amount of city driving recently.

I expect our Austin trip in October will give good highway MPG baseline.
00TL-P3.2 is offline  
Old 08-30-2018, 12:11 PM
  #155  
Registered Member
 
oonowindoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 15,261
Thanked 2,475 Times in 1,725 Posts
Originally Posted by SamDoe1 View Post
And? What's your point? The G70 4 cylinder also produces an extra 30hp and 50 ft-lb of torque using that same amount of fuel. I'd call a 10+% increase in hp and a 20+% increase in torque using the same amount of fuel a win.

No, I'm not implying anything. That's a scientific fact. If you stay off the boost, there's less air going into the intake manifold and therefore less fuel injected to combust with that air. That's the whole point of smaller displacement forced induction motors. I've gotten 35mpg with my Golf R by driving off the boost for 300 miles and routinely get 32mpg for shorter highway jaunts. The EPA rating is 22/29. My explanation is that, when off boost, it's no different than any other base model Golf model. I'd love to hear yours.
How do you stay off boost? i tried but dont seems to be possible as a Prius would accelerate faster than me...
oonowindoo is offline  
Old 08-30-2018, 01:02 PM
  #156  
Ex-OEM King
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Minnesnowta
Posts: 5,654
Thanked 1,597 Times in 1,106 Posts
Originally Posted by oonowindoo View Post
How do you stay off boost? i tried but dont seems to be possible as a Prius would accelerate faster than me...
I didn't say you'd be fast lol. Also, just because you're into a rpm range where boost would normally be present doesn't mean that the wastegate isn't partially open to slow the compressor side down.

Last edited by SamDoe1; 08-30-2018 at 01:10 PM.
SamDoe1 is offline  
Old 08-30-2018, 01:34 PM
  #157  
Registered Member
 
oonowindoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 15,261
Thanked 2,475 Times in 1,725 Posts
Not that i care about staying off boost, but i have always been curious about how people manage to drive while staying off boost.
oonowindoo is offline  
Old 08-30-2018, 02:25 PM
  #158  
Ex-OEM King
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Minnesnowta
Posts: 5,654
Thanked 1,597 Times in 1,106 Posts
Originally Posted by oonowindoo View Post
Not that i care about staying off boost, but i have always been curious about how people manage to drive while staying off boost.
The wastegate is used to modulate boost pressure so even though you're cruising down the highway at a static 75mph with the engine turning at ~3k rpm, there's little boost going into the engine since it's not needed. The minute you stomp on the gas, the gate closes and all hell breaks loose. Also, your fuel economy goes to shit.
SamDoe1 is offline  
Old 08-30-2018, 02:58 PM
  #159  
Registered Member
 
TacoBello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: In an igloo
Posts: 30,496
Thanked 4,403 Times in 3,312 Posts
Yup Sam is right. Alternatively, for cars that don't start boosting until 3k rpm, if you stay below that, you're out of the boost zone. It's harder and harder in modern turbo cars in that regard, because they start boosting as early as 1500rpm. But not all are like that. Especially aftermarket turbo setups.
TacoBello is offline  
Old 08-30-2018, 03:29 PM
  #160  
Ex-OEM King
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Minnesnowta
Posts: 5,654
Thanked 1,597 Times in 1,106 Posts
Originally Posted by TacoBello View Post
Yup Sam is right. Alternatively, for cars that don't start boosting until 3k rpm, if you stay below that, you're out of the boost zone. It's harder and harder in modern turbo cars in that regard, because they start boosting as early as 1500rpm. But not all are like that. Especially aftermarket turbo setups.
Kind of. Modern cars have computer controlled waste gates that allow the computer to modulate the amount of boost pressure given throttle demands. The numbers that manufacturers post are the engine speeds at which peak boost is available but not necessarily present. My previous comment about cruising at 3k rpm would put almost all modern cars into peak boost levels but with the waste gate open, the turbine doesn't spin the compressor enough to shove more air into the intake charge and therefore amount of fuel injected is also reduced. The moment you give it more throttle, the wastegate shuts, turbine spins compressor, intake air charge is increased, more fuel injected, more power, less fuel economy.

My point is that rpm and boost pressure don't necessarily have to be a 1:1 relationship. The computer can control the boost pressure variably based on how much power you desire based on throttle input not on the engine speed. The only thing the engine speed drives is the amount of boost pressure available at a given speed.
SamDoe1 is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to SamDoe1 For This Useful Post:
TacoBello (08-30-2018)

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.