This 2020 BMW 730Li LCI’s Massive Nostrils Mask A Small 2.0L Four-Cylinder

[12,000 RPM]

You are correct. The engines in both my turbo cars run 10.2:1.

The difference that I can get with the turbo engines by varying my driving style is huge. That applies to the V8TT X5 as well. I've come to the conclusion that the turbos are indeed more efficient. ut if you are caning them, the difference tends to evaporate fast.

Transmissions make a huge difference too. As far as auto boxes go the ZF8 is a masterpiece. Strange that the FWD ZF9 is a dud.

But they need  a Toyota/Honda style system for hybrids. I'd bet the 330e could do 40MPG combined with more power with such a system.

[MexicoCityM3]

Transmissions make a huge difference too. As far as auto boxes go the ZF8 is a masterpiece. Strange that the FWD ZF9 is a dud.

But they need  a Toyota/Honda style system for hybrids. I'd bet the 330e could do 40MPG combined with more power with such a system.

Has the G30 330e been EPA rated yet? It should be better than the F30.

[GoCougs]

So what's going on then?

Compression ratio = efficiency. Turbo motors run lower compression ratios, so when not on boost, they are less efficient than an equivalent N/A motor running a higher compression ratio.and why these days both hybrids and turbos don't look so good WRT boring ole N/A motors.

[MX793]

Marginally less efficient, I suspect.  I'm surprised at the L/100km that I get with my Discovery Sport with an Ecoboost 2L in the range of 6.6L/100km vs the 2.5L Mazda engine in my wife's Escape which, at best, gets 7.6L/100km.

It's more than just the engines.  Not sure what year your wife's Escape is, but it's either sporting a 4AT or 6AT vs the 9AT in the Disco.  Also, the 2.5L Duratec 4-cylinder has a rather low compression ratio of 9.7:1.  It's not the model of efficiency.  The Ecoboost in your Disco is 9.3:1, so not too much lower.  Several of the latest generation of Ecoboost motors are 10:1 and most of Ford's NA motors are 10.5:1 or greater.  Coyote was 11:1 and now 12:1 in DI form.  The Cyclone V6s are 10.5:1 (the new 3.3 is 12:1).

[Submariner]

Transmissions make a huge difference too. As far as auto boxes go the ZF8 is a masterpiece. Strange that the FWD ZF9 is a dud.

But they need  a Toyota/Honda style system for hybrids. I'd bet the 330e could do 40MPG combined with more power with such a system.

My folks have an E300 loaner at the moment - 2.0 turbo 4 with a 9 speed A/T.  Around town it gets 27.  Over a 50 mile highway jaunt it got 38.  The engine turns about 1300 RPM @ 60 in 9th.  Super thrifty for being a 3,800 lb sedan.  Of course that's according to the trip computer, but I've found them to be generally reliable in other Mercedes, so maybe it is telling the truth.

[12,000 RPM]

So what's going on then?

Compression ratio = efficiency. Turbo motors run lower compression ratios, so when not on boost, they are less efficient than an equivalent N/A motor running a higher compression ratio.and why these days both hybrids and turbos don't look so good WRT boring ole N/A motors.

This all sounds good in internet theory but reality often says otherwise

In 3 years the 528i went from a 10.7:1 3.0L I6 + 6AT to the same engine with an 8AT to the 10:1 2.0T with the same 8AT

Transmission bumped efficiency by 20% despite a huge gain in weight (E60 to F10), turbo lump bumped efficiency another 10% in the same body. Often times within a company going turbo yields huge efficiency gains... comparing across companies is disingenuous

[cawimmer430]

Anyone speak Arabic? 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pn0O2MtajDg

[FoMoJo]

It's more than just the engines.  Not sure what year your wife's Escape is, but it's either sporting a 4AT or 6AT vs the 9AT in the Disco.  Also, the 2.5L Duratec 4-cylinder has a rather low compression ratio of 9.7:1.  It's not the model of efficiency.  The Ecoboost in your Disco is 9.3:1, so not too much lower.  Several of the latest generation of Ecoboost motors are 10:1 and most of Ford's NA motors are 10.5:1 or greater.  Coyote was 11:1 and now 12:1 in DI form.  The Cyclone V6s are 10.5:1 (the new 3.3 is 12:1).

Yes, it's more than just the engine.  The Escape is a 6AT vs. the 9AT (ZF-9 which is a good transmission providing the software is up to snuff).  However, I would wonder that a 2.5na engine with limited torque could deal with a transmission that has 4 overdrive gears.  Also, the weight is a consideration.  The Disco is 500 lbs. heavier than the Escape; which gives a substantial advantage to the Escape.  The overall assessment, imo, is thaat a small displacement turbo can deliver substantially better mileage than a larger NA engine with equivalent hp/torque; providing it's driven in a reasonably efficient manner.  Those who complain about turbo engines not achieving stated mileage are likely driving like idiots.

[MX793]

Yes, it's more than just the engine.  The Escape is a 6AT vs. the 9AT (ZF-9 which is a good transmission providing the software is up to snuff).  However, I would wonder that a 2.5na engine with limited torque could deal with a transmission that has 4 overdrive gears.  Also, the weight is a consideration.  The Disco is 500 lbs. heavier than the Escape; which gives a substantial advantage to the Escape.  The overall assessment, imo, is thaat a small displacement turbo can deliver substantially better mileage than a larger NA engine with equivalent hp/torque; providing it's driven in a reasonably efficient manner.  Those who complain about turbo engines not achieving stated mileage are likely driving like idiots.

Number of overdrives is moot.  "Overdrive" is any transmission gear with a ratio of >1:1.  I could have a dozen overdrives, but a tallest gear ratio of 0.9:1, which is shorter than most top gears in cars today.  Additionally, one needs to consider axle ratio.  A 1:1 transmission ratio (which technically isn't an overdrive) paired with a 2.5:1 axle is the same as a .5:1 transmission ratio (which would be considered a "tall" overdrive) paired with a 5:1 axle.  From what I can find (info is incredibly hard to find on the Disco sport), the final drive ratio is a very short 4.54:1.  9th gear is .48:1.  Total ratio is 2.179.  That is tall.  My guess is that it's only used on flat ground and the instant you need to dial up any kind of thrust beyond what's necessary to maintain 65 mph on flat ground (which isn't a lot), that transmission is dropping down a gear or 3.  That is, after all, the whole point of having lots of ratios.  They can be more specialized because if the one you're in isn't ideal for the load case, you just shift to a shorter ratio that is better suited.

The other thing to consider is that a 2.0T at low RPM with low throttle application, as cruising on flat ground when top gear would be used, there's very little boost.  You are effectively running a low compression, 2.0L NA motor.  If that motor has enough grunt to keep the car loafing along at highway speed off-boost, a larger 2.5L could absolutely generate enough power to do the same.  Afterall, Jeep uses the same ZF 9AT in the Cherokee paired with their NA 2.4L which has similar power and torque output to the Ford/Mazda 2.5 and a much taller axle ratio than the Disco Sport of 3.73:1.

[r0tor]

I have an AWD 4 door turbo 4 sedan that runs 0-60 in the low 4s and the 1/4 mile in the low 13s... and gets 35-37 mpg on trips

Don't know of many or any awd 4 door sedans with N/A motors that can match that

[FoMoJo]

Number of overdrives is moot.  "Overdrive" is any transmission gear with a ratio of >1:1.  I could have a dozen overdrives, but a tallest gear ratio of 0.9:1, which is shorter than most top gears in cars today.  Additionally, one needs to consider axle ratio.  A 1:1 transmission ratio (which technically isn't an overdrive) paired with a 2.5:1 axle is the same as a .5:1 transmission ratio (which would be considered a "tall" overdrive) paired with a 5:1 axle.  From what I can find (info is incredibly hard to find on the Disco sport), the final drive ratio is a very short 4.54:1.  9th gear is .48:1.  Total ratio is 2.179.  That is tall.  My guess is that it's only used on flat ground and the instant you need to dial up any kind of thrust beyond what's necessary to maintain 65 mph on flat ground (which isn't a lot), that transmission is dropping down a gear or 3.  That is, after all, the whole point of having lots of ratios.  They can be more specialized because if the one you're in isn't ideal for the load case, you just shift to a shorter ratio that is better suited.

The other thing to consider is that a 2.0T at low RPM with low throttle application, as cruising on flat ground when top gear would be used, there's very little boost.  You are effectively running a low compression, 2.0L NA motor.  If that motor has enough grunt to keep the car loafing along at highway speed off-boost, a larger 2.5L could absolutely generate enough power to do the same.  Afterall, Jeep uses the same ZF 9AT in the Cherokee paired with their NA 2.4L which has similar power and torque output to the Ford/Mazda 2.5 and a much taller axle ratio than the Disco Sport of 3.73:1.

My experience is that it holds top gear in more than just on flat surface over 110km/h (roughly 65mph).  Once at highways speeds, between 100 - 130km/h, it seldom shifts down unless it's a pretty steep hill or I vigorously accelerate.  However, 110km/h seems a sweet spot as it is just turning around 1750rpm when, I believe, is just before boost kicks in.  Top gear is usually engaged at around 80-90km/h. Certainly, a slightly larger, 2.5na engine would benefit from more gears, but the transmission would, likely, be a lot busier. 

[GoCougs]

I have an AWD 4 door turbo 4 sedan that runs 0-60 in the low 4s and the 1/4 mile in the low 13s... and gets 35-37 mpg on trips

Don't know of many or any awd 4 door sedans with N/A motors that can match that

Guilia Ti AWD:

Reality for the Guilia Ti is ~22.5 mpg (what is shown is 23.48 mpg, includes some RWD models too, so the AWD will be a bit lower): http://www.fuelly.com/car/alfa_romeo/giulia/2018?engineconfig_id=13&bodytype_id=&submodel_id=1578

Real-world is lower than rating: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=39289

Performance is 0-60 in 5.4 sec and 1/4 mile in 14.0 sec @ 98.3 mph:  https://www.motortrend.ca/en/news/alfa-romeo-giulia-2018-car-of-the-year/

G37X:

Reality for the G37x sedan is ~20 mpg (shown is 19.7 mpg for all cars (6sp cars get the lowest mpg, AWD cars middle and RWD cars the highest, so the average here is about the average for the G37x): http://www.fuelly.com/car/infiniti/g37/2011

Real-world about matches rating (19.7 vs. 20 mpg for mixed): https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=26309

Performance is 0-60 in 5.4 sec, and 1/4 mile in 13.9 sec @ 100.5 mph: https://www.motortrend.com/cars/infiniti/g37/2009/2009-infiniti-g37x-s-sedan-test/

***************************************************************
So, in summary, the 10-year-older AWD sedan design is quicker, bigger, heavier, and has more power, a more performance-oriented AWD system, and one less overdrive gear yet gets ~10% lower mpg. That, my 'SPIN friend, is a *r0tor shrug*.

[12,000 RPM]

Wow all that text for a tenth and 2MPH. The burdens of a bench racer

Now do the F30 328i

[r0tor]

Guilia Ti AWD:

Reality for the Guilia Ti is

No, reality is my car has 40 more hp then stock, hit 60 in 4.4 se to 60, similar cars have done the 1/4 in 13.4 sec and my max tank of fuel was a calculated 36mpg average and I'm consistently getting 32mpg on my work commute

Take my turbo and blow it out your ass

[r0tor]

Also funny how coug's fuely link shows the Giulia with an average of 25/26mpg and the G37 at 20 miserable mpg

[FoMoJo]

No, reality is my car has 40 more hp then stock, hit 60 in 4.4 se to 60, similar cars have done the 1/4 in 13.4 sec and my max tank of fuel was a calculated 36mpg average and I'm consistently getting 32mpg on my work commute

Take my turbo and blow it out your ass

Seems reasonable on a highway without a lot of stop-and-go.

[GoCougs]

No, reality is my car has 40 more hp then stock, hit 60 in 4.4 se to 60, similar cars have done the 1/4 in 13.4 sec and my max tank of fuel was a calculated 36mpg average and I'm consistently getting 32mpg on my work commute

Take my turbo and blow it out your ass

I almost feel awkward about that level of centimation if it helps. FWIW you have a tendency to throw down such easy challenges - you have to expect it at this point.

But now you see why I'm so angry about new cars. 10+ years on and things have gotten worse.

But no, a tune doesn't give you +50 hp and +40% better mpg. C'mon, bro.

[2o6]

I don't understand how Cougs is trying to say that the VQ engines aren't gas hogs.


I don't understand how he thinks getting 32MPG all freeway out of a 2.0T engine with like eight gears is not within the realm of possibility. At freeway speeds it's probably not in boost.


Side note, the Infiniti G is one of the worst entry level lux cars.

[r0tor]

I almost feel awkward about that level of centimation if it helps. FWIW you have a tendency to throw down such easy challenges - you have to expect it at this point.

But now you see why I'm so angry about new cars. 10+ years on and things have gotten worse.

But no, a tune doesn't give you +50 hp and +40% better mpg. C'mon, bro.

Sorry Bro, but your fantasy of turbo cars not getting EPA numbers doesn't hold up.  Mid 30s is normal for these cars. 
https://www.giuliaforums.com/forum/761-giulia-mpg-fuel-economy-discussion/44486-giulia-ti-2018-fuel-economy.html

As for performance, plenty of info on mildly modified 0-60 runs here
https://www.giuliaforums.com/forum/289-alfa-romeo-giulia-general-discussion/44288-0-60-who-has-quickest-2l-qv.html

The only way a G37 is doing that is if it's being towed.

[GoCougs]

Sure, Mr. 22.5 .

But seriously, I don't know why you put yourself through this trauma. You really need to stop making these ridiculous claims; as if no one has access to The Internets.

[r0tor]

Sure, Mr. 22.5 .

But seriously, I don't know why you put yourself through this trauma. You really need to stop making these ridiculous claims; as if no one has access to The Internets.

When wrong, make like an eqyptian had head down de-Nile

[12,000 RPM]

Side note, the Infiniti G is one of the worst entry level lux cars.

Relax bro

[12,000 RPM]

Cougs enjoys a regular torque tubing

[giant_mtb]

My mom's Q5 (2.0T) averaged ~31mpg on my 900-mile round trip downstate a couple weekends ago, with the majority being 70+mph speed-limit freeway downstate, and 65mph speed limit across the UP.  With winter tires still on! (they got them swapped the following week lol)

[giant_mtb]

Also interesting on the Q5...it's over 85k miles now, and zero issues besides a couple of bulbs burning out.  Kinda surprised...we'll see what happens when it gets to 100k miles.

[r0tor]

Just for Coug's, my current tank of gas

[giant_mtb]

BS!  You reset the meter and coasted down a 162-mile-long hill!

[GoCougs]

Just for Coug's, my current tank of gas

Maybe you should get more tune?

[GoCougs]

My mom's Q5 (2.0T) averaged ~31mpg on my 900-mile round trip downstate a couple weekends ago, with the majority being 70+mph speed-limit freeway downstate, and 65mph speed limit across the UP.  With winter tires still on! (they got them swapped the following week lol)

The Q5 actually bests r0tor's 22.5 mph Guilia at 24.9 mpg (note this is MY2018 with the more efficient DCT):  http://www.fuelly.com/car/audi/q5/2018

And why are you driving your mom's car?

Jesus - this thread is of the rails...

[giant_mtb]

The Q5 actually bests r0tor's 22.5 mph Guilia at 24.9 mpg (note this is MY2018 with the more efficient DCT):  http://www.fuelly.com/car/audi/q5/2018

And why are you driving your mom's car?

Jesus - this thread is of the rails...

I drove my mom's car because we all went together and I did the driving......lol  Do you expect me to stick a 64 year old in the back of an Access Cab Tacoma for 7 hours or something?