War of the Engine Displacement: 1.5, 1.6, 1.8, 2.0

[Gerbo]

0.5 or less lang and difference between them.

Which gives the better compromise of fuel economy of city driving and the speed and power of highway/speedway driving.

Of course, there are other factors to consider, power output, tranny, gear ratio, power to weight ratio, etc. But how critical is the engine displacement to come up with a choice?

Mga gurus, your enlightenment please.....

[yapoy86]

small car - small engine = economy

big car - big engine = economy

small car - big engine = gaz guzzler

big car - small engine - gaz guzzler + engine wear prematurely

sa mga midsize sedans like civic and altis 1.6 engine to 1.8 is ideal

sa mga compact like vios and city 1.3 to 1.5 is ideal na...

sa mga sedans like accord and camry 2.0 is ideal na... assuming na 4 cylinders lang but as of now kadalasan V6 ang mga makina nyan

OT: nakita yung 1998 Toyota Crown luxury vehicle ito ng Toyota manufactured in Italy.. it has a 2.0 liter engine pero straight six... akala mo maliit makina kasi dos litros lang 6 cylinders naman pala...

[niky]

0.5 or less lang and difference between them.

Which gives the better compromise of fuel economy of city driving and the speed and power of highway/speedway driving.

Of course, there are other factors to consider, power output, tranny, gear ratio, power to weight ratio, etc. But how critical is the engine displacement to come up with a choice?

Mga gurus, your enlightenment please.....

Depends on the size of the vehicle and the engines in question.

In steady-state cruising or idling, the smaller engine will always use less gas. It's just that in traffic, where you need to "go with the flow", a small engine on a heavy car (note: current 1.3 liter Sentra) just won't cut it.

But for most vehicles, the smallest engine is the most economical. You get the bigger engined variants only for the higher acceleration and top speed. Even given the same power-to-weight ratio... a heavier car with a bigger engine will likely have a higher top speed than a smaller car with a smaller engine... top speed is more dependent on the power-drag ratio than the power-to-weight ratio.

But again, it's all highly dependent on the engines in question and the conditions. Given enough torque and very long gears, a bigger engine can be more economical at highway speeds than a smaller engine (many European and American cars have amazingly long overdrive gears, which makes for more economical highway running than Japanese cars, which typically have shorter gears)... but again (errh... again), a smaller engine will always drink less gas at idle.

[niky]

small car - small engine = economy

big car - big engine = economy

small car - big engine = gaz guzzler

big car - small engine - gaz guzzler + engine wear prematurely

sa mga midsize sedans like civic and altis 1.6 engine to 1.8 is ideal

sa mga compact like vios and city 1.3 to 1.5 is ideal na...

sa mga sedans like accord and camry 2.0 is ideal na... assuming na 4 cylinders lang but as of now kadalasan V6 ang mga makina nyan

OT: nakita yung 1998 Toyota Crown luxury vehicle ito ng Toyota manufactured in Italy.. it has a 2.0 liter engine pero straight six... akala mo maliit makina kasi dos litros lang 6 cylinders naman pala...

Ferrari's early sportscars had two liter V12s.



The only reasons you don't see engines like that nowadays is because it doesn't make any economical sense to make a V12 that small, though.

Back in the 90's, 1.8 and 2.0 V6s were available in small Mazdas (MX3... a 323-based sportscar) and Mitsubishis (Lancer, FTO)... but not locally. They're terrific engines... not necessarily any more powerful than their four-cylinder counterparts... but they're amazingly smooth and sound wonderful.

With modern 4-cylinders having better internal balancing and often balancer shafts (which remove some of the vibration inherent in 4-cylinders), there's not much reason to make small 6 cylinders, anymore... which is a shame... though thankfully, Nissan still makes a relatively small (2.3 liter) V6 for the Teana.

[Gerbo]

Thanks for the quick replies.

Pero dito ako nalilito. Noong una 1.3 at 1.6 lang usually for mass produced sedans. Ngayon meron na 1.5, 1.8, at 2.0 ngunit lumalaki at bumibigat din mga oto.

To simplify and given the arguments above, would it make the most sense then to go with the 1.5L?
-not so big as to guzzle at idle and stop-and-go traffic.
-enough moolah to speed up in highway runs.

[niky]

Depends on the size of the vehicle.

The problem is, really, weight.

Back in 89, your typical "compact" sedan, like the Corolla or Civic, could weigh around 800-900 kilograms. By the mid-90's, that would rise to between 900-1000... By 2000, car weights of "compacts" were around 1100 kilograms, minimum, with some pushing 1200... and nowadays, your common (non-2.0) compact weighs between 1200-1300 kilograms.

Market demands... (cars need more space, because people are getting bigger... seriously... and people want more refinement, which means more insulation... more features... more weight) and safety requirements (some of that weight is in frame reinforcement) mean that cars have ballooned in the last ten years.

There aren't any modern "compacts" that still use 1.3s and 1.5s (except for the Sentra... and in the Sentra, the 1.3 is really underpowered). If you're talking about Vioses and City sedans, then the 1.3 is still the better choice for economy.

[ghosthunter]

big car - big engine = economy

small car - big engine = gaz guzzler

I'd like to differ from your opinion on these two.

Big car with a big engine is still a gas guzzler. Take the more extreme example which is the Ford Expedition which only manages only 2 to 3 km/L in city driving although it gets a respectable 8km/L to 10km/L in highway driving.

As for small car with big engine, this can be very economical to drive if you drive using the engine's torque at low RPM ranges. Example is my project car which is a lightened Nissan Sentra B14 with a SR20DE 2.0L engine. It's even more economical to drive than my Corolla 1.6L in city driving (in gasoline mode) and just about as economical in out of town driving (if I don't floor the gas pedal). The only advantage my corolla has is it's an automatic which makes it easier to drive in city traffic. The Sentra has a racing clutch which makes that car a bit more twitchy to drive in bumper to bumper traffic.

[yapoy86]

its just putting the "ideal" in use... why would you use a big engine that will consume much when you can use a smaller engine that would do the same purpose...the Ford expedition is relatively a Big SUV that needs a Big engine especially it is gas fed which is low in torque compared to a diesel..its V8 gas will compensate for this... still its economical given its huge size...
its just like building a bungalow house that you use 20mm steel rods when you can use 10mm steel rods and still will have the same purpose...its an overkill and not economical

car manufacturers use bigger engines on most sedans to compensate for the weight especially for Top of the Line models..Toyota vios standard model comes in 1.3 engine and compared to a vios with 1.5 engine, the standard model comes with much lesser insulation and dampers for noise which make it lighter and ideal for a 1.3 engine

^like what you've said its only economical because "you don't floor the gas pedal" well its seems your engine for the sentra will serve its purpose in racing..

[coiter]

Thanks for the quick replies.
To simplify and given the arguments above, would it make the most sense then to go with the 1.5L?
-not so big as to guzzle at idle and stop-and-go traffic.
-enough moolah to speed up in highway runs.

IMO, i think these are the more important aspects to justify 'what displacement is enough':

1. perception/expectation - if you're used to driving a 2.0, most likely you'll find a 1.3-1.6 'underpowered'. my wife finds our kia 1.1 'too fast'

2. load - if you carry a lot of it most of the time, get ready to shell out more for gas for a lower displacement engine

3. route - if it's mostly uphill, again the bigger displacement makes more sense

i think car makers put in the smallest engine possible that can meet the most minimum of requirements of simply enabling the car to move based on the assumption of least load, moderate inclines, forgivable acceleration, etc. if your needs go beyond those parameters, an incremental increase in displacement is necessary.

so test drive with your daily load, driving style and route to see what suits you. whatever the fuel consumption would most likely be the optimum based on your requirements. if you get a 1.3 based on quoted fuel consumption but you have to let your whole family get down just to climb up your garage, then it doesn't makes sense diba?

[uls]

i agree with Ghosthunter

A small car that has a big engine isnt necessarily a gas guzzler

actually, a small car with a big engine can be economical coz the engine has more than enough power to get the car moving at low rpm.

i used to have a lancer with a transplanted 4G63T (2 liter turbo).

Lakas sa gas yan lalo na when u drive it aggressively (rev till past boost, shift, rev till past boost).

Pero if i drive it off-boost, nagiging economical.

the engine is powerful enough to get the car moving at low rpm...

i just try not to step on the gas too much and up-shift early, nagiging economical.

it's the POWER-TO-WEIGHT ratio that matters.

Not engine displacement.

---------

actually, the engines of underpowered vehicles don't last long.

Pwersado e.

the drivers rev more to get the cars up to speed.

More wear and tear sa makina.

[meledson]

Di ba, newer engines tend to be more efficient (more powerfull) than older engines of the same displacement?

For example, according to what I have gathered before, the 1.3 EFI engine of the avanza is almost as powerful as the carburated 1.6 engine of the APV. And the avanza has a better FC. basically the same power with less gas. BTW, I just compared the manufacturer's specs. no dyno data.

[niky]

Di ba, newer engines tend to be more efficient (more powerfull) than older engines of the same displacement?

For example, according to what I have gathered before, the 1.3 EFI engine of the avanza is almost as powerful as the carburated 1.6 engine of the APV. And the avanza has a better FC. basically the same power with less gas. BTW, I just compared the manufacturer's specs. no dyno data.

The 1.6 APV actually makes decent power on the dyno... despite its claim of just 95 hp, it puts out power comparable to other 1.5 - 1.6 "105 - 110 hp" cars on the dyno. Haven't seen an Avanza engine on the dyno, but I'm awfully impressed by the power of the 1.5.

[Gerbo]

Back in 89, your typical "compact" sedan, like the Corolla or Civic, could weigh around 800-900 kilograms. By the mid-90's, that would rise to between 900-1000... By 2000, car weights of "compacts" were around 1100 kilograms, minimum, with some pushing 1200... and nowadays, your common (non-2.0) compact weighs between 1200-1300 kilograms.

Exactly...I remember the Ford Escort in the 1970s is now considered puny for today's standards for a compact car...

So it seems they have to increase the engine displacement for more power. It follows then that a bigger displacement will consume more fuel in idle and stop-and-go conditions.

Ditto, the late 1990s-early2000s 1.8L SE Altis lovelife body consuming more than the typical 1.6L verson.

On the other hand, how does technology affect power output without compromising fuel consumption for a similar displacement engine.
Case in point: EFI vs. VVTI. Di ba mas matipid ang VVTI? Put it in another way, would fuel consumption be better achieved in a AE101 4AFE Corolla when replaced by an Altis engine both 1.6L displacement?

--------
Sa diesel kasi the current 2.5 DiD uses the 4D56 powerplant but the change in injectors gives a wide difference in power output (re: Strada vs. Adventure). Or even the 2.0 (Tucson, Carens) and 2.2 (Sta Fe) CRDI engine of Hyundai di hamak malaki horsepower rating. Now, sa kabilang thread mainit usapan tungkol sa fuel consumption.

Kaya napag-isip ako sa engine displacement sa sedans--magkalapit lang kasi 1.5, 1.6, 1.8 and 2.0L.

--------
From the above post, it seems the consumption of a 2.0L car is in another category by itself, miles apart from the 1.5-1.8L.

Kasi karamihan ng mga prospective buyers (non-enthusiast at that) when scouting for a new car seem to consider the engine displacement rather than pansinin ang weight, gearing ratio, etc.

[basti08]

small car + big engine = guzzler?

i dont think so, it might be fast but the least in consumption is that it isnt worse than the same unit with smaller engine.. case in point, a friend of mine used to have a Sentra Super Saloon B14. when it was still stock it can return with 8km/l FC. when friend shoehorned an SR20DE, it still returned with the same FC, but is waaayyyy quicker than stock, of course.

[basti08]

small car + big engine = guzzler?

i dont think so, it might be fast but the least in consumption is that it isnt worse than the same unit with smaller engine.. case in point, a friend of mine used to have a Sentra Super Saloon B14. when it was still stock it can return with 8km/l FC. when friend shoehorned an SR20DE, it still returned with the same FC, but is waaayyyy quicker than stock, of course.

[niky]

The effects of technology can counterbalance the increase in displacement and weight.

Take the change from carburators to EFI. While you can tune a carburated engine to be fuel efficient and powerful... you can't get both at the same time... there's no way to adjust the air-fuel mixture to operating conditions. That's why people still ask if a 1.1 or a 1.3 liter engine can make it uphill (even though, nowadays, even an 800cc car can climb up to Baguio)... because old carburators tuned for economy could choke under load and would not run properly (sometimes starve for air) at high altitude.

EFi gives you both economy and power. But cam profiles (which govern valve lift, duration and timing) on carburated and EFi cars are optimized only for a certain rpm band and use... due to the timing and amount of intake and exhaust air the valves can flow. So a car will run well and fuel efficiently at a certain rpm, but will be choked for power at higher rpms or will run badly at low rpms (if the cam is optimized for top end power).

That's where VTEC, VVT, VVTi, etcetera come in. VTEC was a revolution, not in that it allowed Honda engines to make a ton of power... no... but rather that it allowed you to have a cam profile aggressive enough to make 160 hp out of just 1.6 liters, yet could switch back to "economy" cams at low rpms.

Newer modes, like iVTEC and VVTi, can change the cam-timing by moving the camshaft itself around... not just changing cam lobe profiles... which means you can change when the valves open while retaining the same profile (old VTEC changed the valve opening and closing events as a function only of the different cam profile).

Which all means smoother running at all rpms, more power up top and more economy down low. And everyone's happy. ;)