[gshanky]

Originally Posted by CPH

It is an all new engine. Injection developed by Bosch and the engine developed by FEV.

the fuel consumption of 40kpl shouldn't be an issue. Even the discontinued Lupo 3l achieved an average of 42kpl with a much heavier kerb weight and a higher specific engine output. The ECO version of the new Lupo scheduled for 2012 is said to more than double that. The Nano is much lighter than the new Lupo, ahs got a lower specific power output and an engine with less internal friction. It should easily achieve it.

Thats good to know because in one of the previous post it was mentioned that NANO diesel engine is

triple cylinder direct injection Diesel engine based on the Tata Ace's diesel engine

It would be awesome though to do 50kmpl in NANO. With the petrol/diesel prices soaring I wouldn't be surprised with the introduction of more powertrains like hybrid, electric, etc.

[julupani]

I think the Lupo 42kpl was under extreme driving to maximise fuel efficiency and not under normal conditions, where it would drop to about 20-25kpl. In the case of nano we are talking of 40kpl under normal conditions.

[CPH]

Originally Posted by gshanky

Thats good to know because in one of the previous post it was mentioned that NANO diesel engine is
It would be awesome though to do 50kmpl in NANO. With the petrol/diesel prices soaring I wouldn't be surprised with the introduction of more powertrains like hybrid, electric, etc.

Unfortunately there is a lot of information floating about that isn't correct. Adapting the engine to the Nano's spec would have been possibly more costly than developing an all new unit.

Originally Posted by julupani

I think the Lupo 42kpl was under extreme driving to maximise fuel efficiency and not under normal conditions, where it would drop to about 20-25kpl. In the case of nano we are talking of 40kpl under normal conditions.

The 3l was tested under normal conditions by a number of testers simply to prove VW wrong on their claims and they were surprised to fare that well.

On a longdistance test over most of Europe this was bettered nearly another 30%.

[julupani]

Wasn't the 3L something of a special edition type, with special modifications for higher mileage like low-friction tyres, start-stop systems etc etc. I don't think it was supposed to be a standard Lupo, but something of a limited production run kind of car. They even had a 1L I think, as a further improved version of the 3L.

Dont think the Nano diesel is meant to be like that.

[vivekgk]

This is a bit confusing. Is the engine a 3cyl or 2cyl? I see no issues with basing it on the Ace's engine, as it is proven and reliable. Bosch is probably working on the head and the CRDI system. If you've listened to the Maxximo mini truck from Mahndra, you'll have an idea of how a 2cyl CRDI engine sounds like. I've ridden in one, and man that thing can pull. It felt like a motorcycle twin, quite busy and very free revving. With the counterbalancer, NVH should be acceptable. In any case, I think this will turn out to be the Ace in Tata's car segment (pun intended). There simply isn't another diesel car that can offer such an immense VFM.

[Mpower]

Originally Posted by CPH

The ECO version of the new Lupo scheduled for 2012 is said to more than double that. The Nano is much lighter than the new Lupo, ahs got a lower specific power output and an engine with less internal friction. It should easily achieve it.

Double as in 1.5l/100. It wont look like the Lupo we know. They just showed a concept that something that looks like a rolling carbon fiber coffin.

BTW, what does specific power have to do with FE? These are hwy FE numbers where aero is more important that weight.

[CPH]

Originally Posted by vivekgk

This is a bit confusing. Is the engine a 3cyl or 2cyl? I see no issues with basing it on the Ace's engine, as it is proven and reliable. Bosch is probably working on the head and the CRDI system.

It is a 3 cylinder engine.

Just because it is a proven engine does not mean it is the right choice for any car. The engine bay is in the rear in the Nano, which means that a lof of things are opposite to front mounting. This creates problems that are not appearent in front engined cars.

Originally Posted by Mpower

Double as in 1.5l/100. It wont look like the Lupo we know. They just showed a concept that something that looks like a rolling carbon fiber coffin.

BTW, what does specific power have to do with FE? These are hwy FE numbers where aero is more important that weight.

The specific power output has got a lot to do with fuel consumption. BHP is an expression of work done. If you double the work you also increase the energy input accordingly.

Aerodynamic is certainly important, but the mass does weigh in as heavy in day to day driving. Take your car in the daily stop and go traffic fully loaded for one tank load and then for another tank load without any load other than yourself. You will notice quite a difference in fuel consumption.

[Mpower]

Originally Posted by CPH

The specific power output has got a lot to do with fuel consumption. BHP is an expression of work done. If you double the work you also increase the energy input accordingly.

Aerodynamic is certainly important, but the mass does weigh in as heavy in day to day driving. Take your car in the daily stop and go traffic fully loaded for one tank load and then for another tank load without any load other than yourself. You will notice quite a difference in fuel consumption.

Aero is more important for hwy numbers and weight is more important for city numbers. But then again it depends on the nature of the drive cycle used for testing.

Specific power...depends on how the power is made. F1 engines have one of the highest specific power....

[CPH]

Originally Posted by Mpower

Aero is more important for hwy numbers and weight is more important for city numbers. But then again it depends on the nature of the drive cycle used for testing.

Specific power...depends on how the power is made. F1 engines have one of the highest specific power....

An F1 car has got a FE of about 1.2kpl. This is with extreme breaking and acceleration. The AMG 6.3 has an FE of 0.8kpl at a constant top speed This is without breaking. The drag of the F1 car is certainly not better as it needs downforce to be able to be quick throughout the circuit. If the weight of the AMG would have to be brought around the circuit you would have to have a tanker following you.

Aerodynamics hardly affects the fuel consumption under 80kph (4-5%) and not much more at the legal speeds on Indian roads unless you drive a real brick, which modern cars aren't

How much the specific output affects fuel consumption show the bikes. At most GPs the Ducatis run only 240bhp on the 800cc engines. If they would go above that they would have to re-fuel.

ou also might want to watch the documentary done by Auto Motor Sport in conjunction with 9ff, where the fuel consumption of a Mk6 Golf was virtually halfed, by first of all removing weight as well as other measures. No aerodynamic improvements have been nade. Unfortunately the documentary was made in German.

[Trapezio]

Aerodynamics seldom play a role under 80-100kph. Whereas weight is a factor every second of the ride.

Thats why internationally the earlier culture of 'bigger and heavier is better' philosophy is fast disappearing. The new Mazda 2 is lighter (and exciting!) than its predecessor.

More crucially compared to aerodynamics and engine tech, weight management is relatively new and a lot more could be achieved in this direction with the same effort.

The 'I need a bigger car for no reason' syndrome means that cars in India are getting heavier every year.

[Mpower]

Originally Posted by Trapezio

Aerodynamics seldom play a role under 80-100kph. .

Originally Posted by CPH

Aerodynamics hardly affects the fuel consumption under 80kph (4-5%) and not.

you guys are just repeating what I already said. (city vs Hwy #s). Since you brought up the Lupo, brought up aero. 80 kph = 50 mph. I'll get run over if I drive 50 on the motorway.
I can agree that Nano customer is unlikely to drive above that.

At most GPs the Ducatis run only 240bhp on the 800cc engines. If they would go above that they would have to re-fuel

.
this tells me that higher the specific output worse the fuel economy.

Originally Posted by Trapezio

Aerodynamics seldom play a role under 80-100kph. Whereas weight is a factor every second of the ride.

Thats why internationally the earlier culture of 'bigger and heavier is better' philosophy is fast disappearing. The new Mazda 2 is lighter (and exciting!) than its predecessor.

More crucially compared to aerodynamics and engine tech, weight management is relatively new and a lot more could be achieved in this direction with the same effort..

Nopes, once you are up to cruising speed weight plays only a small factor.

Weight management has been around since ages, peaked in the 90s and faded off. Heard of the Audi Al2?

Maz2 has been made physically smaller and suffers worst in class rear seat room.

[julupani]

Aero plays a pretty small part in cars of today, most of which have pretty low drag co-eff as it is and cant be improved much.Agreed it does get worse with speeds, but the effect isnt that pronounced unless you are on the unrestricted Autobahns of Germany, trying to keep pace with a Porsche 911turbo. Upto 70mph,just about 120kph, most cars dont build up heavy enough air resistance to affect fuel efficiency more than 4-5% "by itself". Though I am not considering any changes in driving methods, just comparing constant 50mph to a constant 70mph.

Weight on the other hand is always much more important, more weight, more friction force, more work that needs to be done by the engine to maintain speeds on the highway. A lighter car will always be a lot more efficient, even losing a 100kgs will effect the efficiency perceptibly. The FE of a single driver in a Nano, and a fully loaded will be quite different.

Again, you cant compare anything like this in the practical world, where the biggest factor of FE is driving style.

F1 engines are very very different from normal engines, so there isnt much point using that as a reference. They are high speed low stroke engines where power at high speeds is more important. Specific power output is high because of the fact that they compromise heavily on torque. The only car yet to have anything similar to a F1 engine on the road was the Ferrari F50. In that car the engine's stroke had to be lengthened considerably to provide enough torque to allow for decent enough acceleration. Though at the speeds F1 cars operate, they are the most FE machines out there.

[CPH]

Originally Posted by Mpower

Nopes, once you are up to cruising speed weight plays only a small factor.

In theory this is right, but in practical terms it isn't for at least 2 reasons reasons.

One is that you will never be able to maintain a steady speed, whether on a German motorway or on the roads of Mumbai in rus hour.

And the other is that India is geographically very different from the Netherlands, which is the flattest country I ever dorve through with cars and trucks. Going uphill 38 ton trucks do as bad as 0.3kpl (an unloaden one does at worst twice as many kpl), whereas they do an average of 3kpl.

Originally Posted by Mpower

Weight management has been around since ages, peaked in the 90s and faded off. Heard of the Audi Al2?

When the new CEO of Peugeot started his job, he announced that as long as he is CEO, the cars would get lighter.

Jaguar followed Audi with Aluminium construction, BMW, does more components of the chassis in Aluminium and so is the new Audi A6. The A8 is till date made from ad aluminium body. Bmw has developed a new process to build cars with carbonfibre chassis, which will be first employed at the Mini to counteract the weight of the batteries.

The reaosn for discontinuig the A2 was that it didn't sell because the environmentalists didn't want to folk out for the premium the Aluminium costs. The worst selling was the A2 3l.

The budget idea of the Nano forced down the weight of the Nano, which will help it long term. As the Diesel unit will help fuel consumption and raise the price, it might be a opportunity for Tata to improve on the fuel economy by using lighter materials annd give the Nano a new identity.

[Trapezio]

Originally Posted by Mpower

Weight management has been around since ages, peaked in the 90s and faded off. Heard of the Audi Al2?

Maz2 has been made physically smaller and suffers worst in class rear seat room.

I suppose by 'peaking in the 90s' you mean the debut of aluminium components in cars particularly aluminium frames. All those cars including the A2 (definitely) were too premium and niche to make any significant impact. Those vehicles simply have too marginal market share to make any change in the mainstream auto industry. The Audi A2 was simply too expensive!

The Mazda 2 on the other hand is a mainstream budget car which normal folks can afford without spooling out money for aluminium tech. BTW the new Mazda 2 is more spacious and lighter than the older one and it costs roughly the same!

I believe its only in the 2000+ that we started seeing weight reduction being prioritized on normal cars which does not include any exotic metals. Specific weight gains started being included in the project targets. Moreover the fuel price boom in the last ten years means there is added incentives to reduce weight in normal cars.

In simple words, 'weight reduction' became 'democratic' and started reaching the normal cars.

Originally Posted by Mpower

Nopes, once you are up to cruising speed weight plays only a small factor.

Isn't the work done in moving 20kg over 100 kms more than that of moving 10 kg over the same 100 kms? It is more work particularly in real life driving acceleration/deceleration cycles.

[vivekgk]

Originally Posted by CPH

It is a 3 cylinder engine.

Just because it is a proven engine does not mean it is the right choice for any car. The engine bay is in the rear in the Nano, which means that a lof of things are opposite to front mounting. This creates problems that are not appearent in front engined cars.

Well, the Ace engine is based on the 475DI, which is the 1.4L engine used in the Indica. In both the Indica and the Nano, the engine is mounted transversely. In fact, I'd say that the layout is simpler on the Nano since the driving wheels are not steered.

Originally Posted by CPH

Aerodynamic is certainly important, but the mass does weigh in as heavy in day to day driving.

True. Aerodynamics takes a lower priority in road cars, especially city cars. The purpose of Aerodynamics in road cars is primarily to reduce wind noise than to decrease drag.

Originally Posted by Mpower

Nopes, once you are up to cruising speed weight plays only a small factor.

Weight management has been around since ages, peaked in the 90s and faded off. Heard of the Audi Al2?

Maz2 has been made physically smaller and suffers worst in class rear seat room.

Cruising speed, yes. But the Indian Driving Cycle involves lots of overtaking and city driving, which means acceleration. a=F/m, which means that the lower the mass, the lesser the force required for the same acceleration, leading to lower fuel consumption. It also means that less force is required for braking, which means it can make do with smaller (and lighter) brake components, which again leads to lower weight.

The reason the 90s saw such huge advances in efficient auto engineering and a move towards lighter, smaller and more efficient cars is because of several factors, including the Gulf War, Clinton and Gore taking the lead on reducing dependence on oil, a rising awareness about the environment, and most importantly, fiscal regulations. This was followed by a decade of excessive consumption, aided by cheaper oil prices and financial deregulation.

The reason it 'faded off' as you say, has nothing to do with science or efficiency. It didn't fade off, it just went mainstream. Small cars got lighter and more efficient, while the luxo barges grew heavier and more powerful, and yes, more efficient in that they now made more power without lowering the FE. What happened was that 'lighter and more efficient' simply didn't rate as highly on the cool-o-meter as 'faster and more powerful', and no longer sold cars for luxury brands. The reason the average small car of today weighs more than it did in the 90s is because of improved safety measures, like impact beams and cross members and stiffer superstructures.

Which is why I love the Nano. It represents simple, honest, efficient engineering and is a car that will get a nation off of overloaded two wheelers. I am just in love with the idea.

It will be a much better move for Tata to move to a 3-cyl engine for the Diesel Nano, because 3 cylinders are much more socially accepted nowadays, what with Suzuki, VW, Skoda and Nissan going the same way for their newest mills. The 2-cyl, no matter how efficient, will never sound like a real car.