[Nicks67GTO]

Worth a read. Could be a pretty big deal for all of us....

http://www.freep.com/story/money/car...ers/100716174/

[i82much]

Sweet. I would love to be able to put a small supercharger on my 10:1, aluminum-headed engine and feel like it would hold together. Have to see just how this pans out.

[Nicks67GTO]

Or build a 14:1 compression mill, drive it coast to coast and not ever bat an eye at it. It would change the way vintage street engines are built for sure.

[i82much]

Yeah there is nothing like the throttle response of a vintage high compression engine. It is like the engine wants to jump out of the engine bay. Doesn't sound half bad either.

[Will]

If only they'd done this 20 years ago.... or maybe not.. I wonder how being able to build iron headed engines with true 10.5:1 CRs would have affected the popularity of aluminum heads? I get that increased flow is the big attraction to them, but compression ratio issues were definitely a factor in people wanting to move away from iron. A lot of guys with aluminum heads don't actually need 290+ CFM.

It would be really cool to build my next engine with 11.5:1 aluminum heads and fill up at the pump!

I'm curious about the economics of the whole thing though. Does the increased engine efficiency REALLY offset the increased cost of the fuel, or will the manufacturers just continue to add more and more "stuff" to cars that makes them heavier and less efficient?

Think of it this way - I owned an '89 Corolla that knocked out 34-38 MPG all the time depending on how I drove it. That was a small, lightweight car. They don't build them like that any more and even with 30 years of technical progress in engine efficiency you still don't get 38 MPG from a Corolla these days, or just about any other non-hybrid for that matter because of all the safety and creature comfort improvements that have made cars heavier, and people's desire for increased power. That little Corolla had no power, I'm sure a new one would run circles around it.

So what I'm getting at, is if the engineers are able to get 10% more efficiency out of the engines, what's to stop the marketing people from saying the cars need to have a lot more power and even more gadgets and air bags and whatever than they do now that would offset those gains in terms of fuel mileage?

[The Champ]

Originally Posted by Will

Think of it this way - I owned an '89 Corolla that knocked out 34-38 MPG all the time depending on how I drove it. That was a small, lightweight car. They don't build them like that any more and even with 30 years of technical progress in engine efficiency you still don't get 38 MPG from a Corolla these days, or just about any other non-hybrid for that matter because of all the safety and creature comfort improvements that have made cars heavier, and people's desire for increased power. That little Corolla had no power, I'm sure a new one would run circles around it.

30 years of technology has given you the current Toyota Corolla that can do just as well on fuel efficiency as your '89 and be much more comfortable and using your words "run circles" around the old one.

Current EPA ratings for the Corolla are 30 city, 40 highway and 34 combined.

I don't know about doing it with a Toyota, but I've always been able to duplicate or exceed the EPA ratings on my GM cars.

My 2014 Chevy Sonic with the 1.4L Turbo is rated 27 city, 36 highway and 30 combined. I typically get about 42 MPG on trips to Madison, WI (about 200 miles of Interstate driving) and day in/day out 33 - 34 MPG overall.

My 2014 Cadillac ATS4 with the 2.0L Turbo is rated 20 MPG city, 29 highway and 23 combined, yet routinely delivers 33 MPG on the same trip to Madison, WI and currently is running just over 29 MPG combined. And this is an AWD car - but it does require 91 octane gas instead of the 87 that I use in the Sonic.

[i82much]

Originally Posted by Will

If only they'd done this 20 years ago.... or maybe not.. I wonder how being able to build iron headed engines with true 10.5:1 CRs would have affected the popularity of aluminum heads? I get that increased flow is the big attraction to them, but compression ratio issues were definitely a factor in people wanting to move away from iron. A lot of guys with aluminum heads don't actually need 290+ CFM.

It would be really cool to build my next engine with 11.5:1 aluminum heads and fill up at the pump!

I'm curious about the economics of the whole thing though. Does the increased engine efficiency REALLY offset the increased cost of the fuel, or will the manufacturers just continue to add more and more "stuff" to cars that makes them heavier and less efficient?

Think of it this way - I owned an '89 Corolla that knocked out 34-38 MPG all the time depending on how I drove it. That was a small, lightweight car. They don't build them like that any more and even with 30 years of technical progress in engine efficiency you still don't get 38 MPG from a Corolla these days, or just about any other non-hybrid for that matter because of all the safety and creature comfort improvements that have made cars heavier, and people's desire for increased power. That little Corolla had no power, I'm sure a new one would run circles around it.

So what I'm getting at, is if the engineers are able to get 10% more efficiency out of the engines, what's to stop the marketing people from saying the cars need to have a lot more power and even more gadgets and air bags and whatever than they do now that would offset those gains in terms of fuel mileage?

I thought I heard somewhere that the 80's cars ran leaner mixtures, like 16 or 17:1, but this caused increased NOx emissions. Now I believe they run at 14:7.

Again I am not certain, but if that is the case it would seem to help explain why fuel economy does not appear to have improved as much as one might have expected.

[ponjohn]

About 5 years ago the state redid all of the rest stops along 95. At that time they did not add E85 but now have installed Tesla Stations.

I cannot for the life of me figure how this makes sense?

[STEELCITYFIREBIRD]

[Will]

Originally Posted by The Champ

...

Current EPA ratings for the Corolla are 30 city, 40 highway and 34 combined.

...

Huh, I hadn't looked but didn't think they were rated that high. Still, the point stands that even with the advances in engine technology we're not seeing better gas mileage because of all the other stuff that's gone along with it.

So, the question is - if they can wring 10% more efficiency out of an engine by running an optimal CR, will the fuel economy increase enough to offset the extra expense of the fuel or will they just make the engines more powerful or add more weight to the cars, leaving us with cars that *still* get around 30-40 MPG even though they require more expensive fuel?

[The Champ]

Originally Posted by Will

Huh, I hadn't looked but didn't think they were rated that high. Still, the point stands that even with the advances in engine technology we're not seeing better gas mileage because of all the other stuff that's gone along with it.

Well, you need to go back to your original post and do some factoring...

Think of it this way - I owned an '89 Corolla that knocked out 34-38 MPG all the time depending on how I drove it. That was a small, lightweight car. They don't build them like that any more and even with 30 years of technical progress in engine efficiency you still don't get 38 MPG from a Corolla these days, or just about any other non-hybrid for that matter because of all the safety and creature comfort improvements that have made cars heavier, and people's desire for increased power. That little Corolla had no power, I'm sure a new one would run circles around it.

The current Corolla is not remotely the same car as your '89 econo box Corolla. It now is a comfortable, well equipped car with much more power. Yet it still provides excellent fuel economy exceeding what your '89 did.

[Tim Corcoran]

If the higher compression increased fuel mileage by 10% and the high octane fuel was only .10 a gallon more then it would make good sense and would be a cost savings and reduction of pollution too. A smaller motor could make the same power of a larger motor and that would be a fuel savings too. Now put a super charger or a turbo on an even smaller motor with advanced computer and fuel injection to control ignition timing and fuel to air ratio and mileage could increase substantially. This would make it much easier for the auto companies to meet new standards for emissions and fuel efficiency. I think it's a good plan.

[Nicks67GTO]

Originally Posted by i82much

Yeah there is nothing like the throttle response of a vintage high compression engine. It is like the engine wants to jump out of the engine bay. Doesn't sound half bad either.

Oh yeah. A guy that was at Midwest Musclecar Challenge last year was running a C2 vette. I think he said it was a 13:1 327. Side pipes and he didn't mind spinning it. Ohhhhh did that car sing the song of its people.

[Nicks67GTO]

I completely agree that all the new car stuff is great.

I'm looking at this from a vintage standpoint. This would be industry changing across the board

[1966Lemans]

Originally Posted by The Champ

The current Corolla is not remotely the same car as your '89 econo box Corolla. It now is a comfortable, well equipped car with much more power. Yet it still provides excellent fuel economy exceeding what your '89 did.

And to throw out another tidbit of information... the new Civic turbo (all trim levels above LX) is rated at 31 city, 40 highway, 35 combined, and the coupe version was tested by Road-and-Track to have a 0-60 time of 6.6 seconds (using the CVT transmission). All of this on REGULAR gas.

I currently have a 2008 Civic coupe as my daily driver, and will probably get a 2018 coupe when they come out.

[track73]

Very interesting. Back in 1963 I read McGurks 6 cylinder hop up book and noted that the higher compression pistons in road trucks would increase gas mileage. HMMMMM

[geeteeohguy]

This is exactly what happened in the 1950's with the advent of high compression OHV engines. Power and economy went way up. When I yanked some 66 113cc heads off a 400 and installed 87cc 15's, I gained about 7 mpg immediately. The problem in CA where I live is that ALL gas has alcohol in it, and it is 91 octane at the highest. It vapor locks/heat soaks in carbureted cars. When I drive my GTO out of state and use pure gas, I get much better performance, and better fuel economy, too. Gasoline has twice the 'energy' as alcohol, unit per unit.

[TedRamAirII]

Originally Posted by geeteeohguy

This is exactly what happened in the 1950's with the advent of high compression OHV engines. Power and economy went way up. When I yanked some 66 113cc heads off a 400 and installed 87cc 15's, I gained about 7 mpg immediately. The problem in CA where I live is that ALL gas has alcohol in it, and it is 91 octane at the highest. It vapor locks/heat soaks in carbureted cars. When I drive my GTO out of state and use pure gas, I get much better performance, and better fuel economy, too. Gasoline has twice the 'energy' as alcohol, unit per unit.

Well, not quite "twice the energy" but a big difference. Its funny how E85 is cheaper, but then you get less MPG and most people think they are saving money. I think I read somewhere that is costs more to produce the ethanol than it pays to buy it, Govt Subsidies.

[Blued and Painted]

Snake oil.
Im sure the new hi octane concoctions will have plenty of additives not suitable for carb innards.

Even the lowly Beetle got close to 30 mpg.

VVT-i, DIS, 16 hole injectors, OD transmissions, have increased total efficiency and reduced emissions. But a well tuned carbureted engine can have the same cruising speed efficiency?? Oh Snap.

[VCho455]

Well it's been 5 years and I'm still waiting.