They are still gutless 4 cylinders man! Horsepower is a measure of torque x rpm. They still have to spin to make power. These engineers are not dummies. If you can produce a 2.5 liter 4 banger that makes 300 lbs/ft at 2500 rpm send them your designs!
No it would be a 4 liter 4 banger with long stroke, long runner intake and high flow heads and direct injection. It wouldn't rev past 4000 but would make 350 torque at 2000. It wouldn't be considered a "high performance"engine but it depends on what you consider high performance. It would get great mpg which oil companies wouldn't like and last like a diesel which the car companies wouldn't like.
That's better then I would have thought, Bill. I had a fellow employee who had a converted lobster boat as his "daily yacht" that had twin 318 Chryslers that did one kpg at 7 knots.
That's the perfect example of planing versus displacement hulls. Once hull speed is attained any more throttle is just going to dump unneeded fuel down the intake. My 65 foot Hatteras with 2 x 550 hp 12-71Ns did about 9-10 mph(hull speed) at 10-12GPH daily from New Orleans to Chicago. If that boat ran up on plane (18-20 mph) it could easily burn 60-70 gallons per hour. The drawback? The 65 would make 90-100 miles in a 10 hour day (not including lock and dam time!), and the 36 Roamer will make 60 miles across the lake (depending on weather of course!) in 3-4 hours on an easy plane. Theres always a trade off for heat rate! Soooo, was that 1 knot per gallon times 7 knots (or MPG?) In sea jargon (for those not understanding it) a knot is not speed per se. its a measure of distance, as in 1.10 statute miles per knot. Ocean distance is in knots and fresh water is in statute miles. A knot by the way is one second of one minute of one degree of latitude. Freshwater plotting is done on a Mercator projection ( a flat map) not showing any earth curvature. Ocean charts are actually distorted according to distance between the equator and N/S poles. Sorry for the drift LOL... Im gonna go varnish for a while. ws
I'm a pilot, not a sea captain. I did know the definition of a Nautical mile, and that's at the equator, but as to marine speed I don't even know what questions to ask! I assumed that he meant that his boat would travel one nautical mile at seven knots on one gallon of gas, but I didn't pursue it further. I remember a Holland-America ship's engineer telling me that the ship in which we were traveling would go 88 feet per gallon at 18 knots. Considering the size of the thing (I can't remember if it was the present Volendam or the Oosterdam), and the number of bodies and the amount of baggage and supplies, I actually thought that this was pretty good.
Drove my 2017 mustang to San Antonio, about 500 mike round trip. Speed limit on the toll road is 85mph...hammered it the whole way avg 90mph I guess and still got an avg of 25 mpg. I bet my Skylark gets 8 mpg lol!
As mentioned earlier the new 2.7 turbo 4 for GM trucks is getting there.....310hp and 348 torque....anything with a fair amount more torque than hp will help mpg.....peak torque 1500-4000 I wonder if they will be putting it in cars as well?
They can do that now that they have direct injection because they can have an 11:1 compression ratio engine with boost and run 87 octane gas without detonating! Higher compression helps tremendously to achieve better fuel economy, just not economical to run race fuel for daily point A to point B driving.
Had a 69 Plymouth Valiant, slant 6, three speed manual and no overdrive. Four people and loaded for vacation trip. Got 24 mpg hwy (65 mph), with just me it got 27-29. But better fuel back then and no emission controls and car was light. Also they used small rims and tires 13" to have less rolling unsprung mass which helped mileage. But you guys are right, engines produced more torque than horsepower in those days. My pushrod, 96, 5.8 Ford conversion van is far better at pullling my car hauler than my 98 5.4 Modular engine Expedition and gets better mileage doing it (both are OBDII). Engines designed that produce significant hp & tq but still deliver good mileage are all shelved and will never see the light of day because energy companies will not allow it. Many builders have come up with designs that work but will never see production. Mikey
You don't think that Ford/GM/Toyota/etc shareholders wouldn't sell their mothers to have the technology that would allow their cars to get 100MPG?
A '69 Valiant would have had PCV, EGR, modified ignition timing, and most likely a milder cam and possibly reduced compression when compared to earlier models. Most likely a 1960-64 would have done better.
i'm betting there was no EGR on a 69 valiant except for possibly California emissions and I doubt that was around in 69 even on Cali cars
I am not sure. What I do know is that GMC produced a 305 V-6 in the 60's that was near bullet proof and ran great. Because it performed so well, the dealers complained that it did not generate enough revenue after the sale. The engine was shelved. Chrysler (actually Plymouth if I remember correctly) accidentally put an experimental carburetor on some of their cars that were delivered to customers. The cars got amazing gas mileage. As each car eventually came in for dealer service, the carburetors were magically replaced with a regular carburetor and the great gas mileage was gone.
It's silly to think there is some "magic" carburetor out there that can defy physics. The last 50 years have refined inefficiencies. Friction(low drag rings, roller valve train, lubricants) . Airflow ( chamber design, valve timing, intake and exhaust tracts). Then downsizing of cubic inches supplemented by turbos etc. What has seen little improvement is thermal efficiency. Internal engines are like 100 watt light bulbs making heat and light is the byproduct. This evidently cannot be overcome so we are going to efficient means of creating electricity with very efficient motors converting it back into motion.
For an interesting read look up smokey yunicks hot air or hot vapor engine. Had great power to ci ratio and excellent fuel milage. Was designed in early 80s i believe with no computer engine managment
My 2003 VW Jetta diesel will get 50 MPG. If I really beat on it it will get 45. Has a bigger turbo and some other mods. It is a torquey little motor. Pretty amazing. Too bad VW is out of the diesel market in this country now and you have no real options unless you buy a truck.
Technology has sure helped. We have a Challenger Scat Pack and got 26 mpg driving home from Montana last year. Speed limits in most areas was 80.
one thing I loved about my 8 speed ScatPack was the off idle torque. I drove a 5.0 Mustang to the dealership when I went to buy it and on the test drive I kept spinning the tires because I wasn't used to having any low end grunt. the Mustang was all top end power.
I was looking at an old Popular Science from the early 60s and there was a Union Pure oil mileage test and a Rambler with straight 6 and overdrive won getting 30 mpg with ancient technology. Even todays oil in it would probably add 1-2 mpg. Synthetic lube in trans and rear. 1 mpg Variable timing by computer along with higher compression another 2-3 mpg. Fuel injection.
If I remember correctly Smokey was getting 340 hp out of the 2.2 L Chrysler four banger and 35+ mpg. Then Chrysler came, picked up the engine, his plans and we never heard about it again. And you are right, before engine management. Mikey
