[bhp_maniac]

Originally Posted by Rahulkool

75% efficiency :o , IIRC the energy efficiency of diesel is ~45-50% and petrol ~35%. I am not very sure of the figures as its almost 4 year since i studied these :P. Anyways higher torque is result of Turbo charging not efficiency of diesel. Efficiency help in FE which is more in case of diesel and less in petrol.

75% is the theoretical efficiency of a diesel engine and never practical. Practical efficiency lies in 45-50% as you said. Things haven't changed much in the last 4 years. Higher torque is due to the higher air compression in diesel. If it was turbo charging then the 1.3 DDiS or MJD will not be having such a great torque even from 1000 rpm, while the turbo kicks in only at 2000 rpm. Also the higher compression is the reason why turbo charging is very much used in diesels.

[supremeBaleno]

Originally Posted by nitrous

SupremeBaleno and Yzfrj, You guys are a classic example of consumer vs enthusiast.

Saar, I dont mind being called a consumer. Enthusiast anyway is a much abused term here - even more than VFM.

Originally Posted by yzfrj

IMO SB is kind of a Paradox. He is passionate about FE and yet drives a "L" petrol and says he loves driving.

Hmm. Can't one love driving and yet aspire to make the experience efficient ? Does love for driving only relate to those owning petro-guzzlers ?

Originally Posted by yzfrj

I got to learn from SB on how to get a kick out of cruising at 40Km/Hr

I am sure you know that your car is not good for that kind of driving.

Originally Posted by Speed Pujari

There is a special logic by budget guys as per which a person if owns a Luna super cannot admire or recommend a R1 to his friend LOL!. (neither he can think to buy one at a later point in time)

You have a Luna ? Cool. The last time I saw one was some 20 years ago. No problem in recommending an R1, but if the recommender instead opts for the safer R15, it means not practising what you preach.

Originally Posted by Speed Pujari

I think a low powered engine is good for low budget guys.

Like the ones that putter around on a Palio 1.2 ?

Originally Posted by Speed Pujari

And the way they drive is kind of evident that a high power engine might be hazardous for them (and for us.)

Suprising to hear you say this, given that you yourself drive a low-power car. Anyway, good to know that you are aware of your limitations.

[Speed Pujari]

Originally Posted by designersf

close to VW's 1.2TSi that makes 108bhp ....

The question is -'When do we get it?" .. All we deserve is launch speculation. This is the apparant madness we are talking about :-( ..

The marketing folks there are smarter than what we think. As I talked about the segmentation of customers, they are well verged about it.

The number of enthusiasts/petrolhead in India are counted on fingers (90% of them are proud tbhp members).

The past story of 'The great Fiat mistake' is used as a case study and certainly all the players will think thrice before taking any step.

Still I have a little hope from europeans since I fall into that puny quadrant of petrolheads.

(I want to get rid of weekend driving of a girlish Palio 1.2 which belongs to my better half.)

[yzfrj]

Originally Posted by bhp_maniac

Friend, theoretical efficiency of a diesel engine as per the current technology used is 75%.

I'm not sure what "efficiency" you are talking about. If its mechanical efficiency probably modern engines are around 90% or more.

But... if by efficiency you mean the amount of fuel converted into usable energy it would be around 25-30% for a petrol and maybe touch 40% for a "modern" diesel. Nothing more. I'm not saying this people who design these things are.

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

Hmm. Can't one love driving and yet aspire to make the experience efficient ? Does love for driving only relate to those owning petro-guzzlers ?

Perhaps. But I ain't getting any kicks driving at 40Km/Hr.
I agree, driving is driving it does't really mean you have to burn rubber and insane amounts of fuel to enjoy it.

One of the best drives I had till date is in the Zen. If you can keep it in the right gear the swift (diesel) is a hoot to drive on twisty roads.

I am sure you know that your car is not good for that kind of driving.

It feels lifeless.

1.2TSi that makes 108bhp ....

Originally Posted by Speed Pujari

The question is -'When do we get it?" ..

Probably never.!!

Originally Posted by Speed Pujari

the way they drive is kind of evident that a high power engine might be hazardous for them (and for us.)

I think its purely because of the large volumes they sell so there are a large percentage of "new" drivers having hatches.

But make no mistake morons come is all shapes and sizes.
I've seen a Innova (sadly driven by a "young" mother) this lazy is a real Hazard. Its not that she does't know how to drive she is just reckless.

On the flipside there is one lady in our office most chaps need to learn "How to park" from her. Sadly she drives an Estilo (Yuck....!)

I see and old gentleman near our place (probably in his 70's) Man that guy drives. I wish I'd be able to do the same at that age.

[bhp_maniac]

Originally Posted by yzfrj

I'm not sure what "efficiency" you are talking about. If its mechanical efficiency probably modern engines are around 90% or more.
But... if by efficiency you mean the amount of fuel converted into usable energy it would be around 25-30% for a petrol and maybe touch 40% for a "modern" diesel. Nothing more. I'm not saying this people who design these things are.

By efficiency, I meant the final energy which is available on the wheels. Means of so much litres burnt how much are you actually converting to movement including all adversing facts like friction, mechanical loss, thermal loss etc. Most of the engines have a mechanical efficiency of above 90% thats the story for ages. But 40% final efficiency is a bit old. Modern diesels can attain above 45% and designers are expecting to achieve above 50% final efficiency in the near future.

[Jayant..B]

Originally Posted by mpksuhas

There is news of VW Polo with 1.6L diesel engine coming to market by Sept.

I think it is Vento (Polo Sedan) which will have 1.6L engines, both petrol and diesel. And petrol version will have option of AT.

[yzfrj]

Originally Posted by bhp_maniac

Modern diesels can attain above 45% and designers are expecting to achieve above 50% final efficiency in the near future.

up to an over all maximum efficiency of 56% for a diesel engine till date.

As per test results the 1.3 DDiS or MJD or Quadrajet is having an efficiency of 54%,

theoretical efficiency of a diesel engine as per the current technology used is 75%.

I'd suggest you finalize on a figure first before making bold claims.
75% then 56% then to 54% for the fiat 1.3 finally its now "expecting to achieve above 50%"

No offense all this was said by you sir, not me.

I'd suggest you come up with something you can substantiate before making statements. Engine efficiency figure is not a "personal opinion" so if it is stated as a fact kindly substantiate your claim.

Thanks.

EIDT : I do understand that its not an engine designed by you. However don't expect blokes to stand up and clap just by putting a higher efficiency figure without any sort of proof.

PS : No sarcasm intended, Its simply not correct to put just a figure "out there" and expect people to nod their head in compliance.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by Jayant..B

I think it is Vento (Polo Sedan) which will have 1.6L engines, both petrol and diesel. And petrol version will have option of AT.

Polo 1.6 is mentioned on the site/brochure: the Vento may share this same engine, may be available with smaller/bigger engines, we do not know, but I think we can say that the Polo 1.6 is coming.

No indication of the pricing, though

[bhp_maniac]

Originally Posted by yzfrj

I'd suggest you finalize on a figure first before making bold claims.
75% then 56% then to 54% for the fiat 1.3 finally its now "expecting to achieve above 50%"

No offense all this was said by you sir, not me.

I'd suggest you come up with something you can substantiate before making statements. Engine efficiency figure is not a "personal opinion" so if it is stated as a fact kindly substantiate your claim.

Thanks.

EIDT : I do understand that its not an engine designed by you. However don't expect blokes to stand up and clap just by putting a higher efficiency figure without any sort of proof.

PS : No sarcasm intended, Its simply not correct to put just a figure "out there" and expect people to nod their head in compliance.

The answer is right there in your post itself dear friend. Yes, its not an engine designed by me. I am quoting facts said by experts and that too what I got from researching through net and using my own brain. Regarding the figure, 75% please read the post carefully before making any issues. I expect you have read the word "theoretical" near the figure 75%. That is not a figure which you will get finally out of an engine. I have never ever said that. Regarding 56%, its the maximum efficiency somebody has achieved of a diesel engine. Regarding 54% for 1.3, its the maximum expected final efficiency which can be obtained from that engine. And regarding 50%, it is the maximum figure which has been actually obtained till date. And these are not figures I have found out from my experiments. Scientists are trying to get this figure above 50% practically, I have told. Please do take some time to read posts before responding something. All who are here are not automobile scientists, but enthusiasts or semi-professionals. We all are trying here to share what we've found out from various sources and our own experiences. I do suggest a bit more respect can be given to the members here. I don't think a PS at the end of the post is not the right way to do that.

[yzfrj]

Originally Posted by bhp_maniac

"theoretical" / can be obtained / practically

In short we (that included you and me) are taken for a ride.
No IC engine till date (that I know of) is close to 50% efficient in the real world. If you figured that by now, its a good thing. Else its up to you and what you want to believe.

Please do remember numbers are just one thing and "real world" situation is another. An engine might be 80% efficient in "ideal conditions". That is not even close to what it really will be in the real world conditions. Do keep that in mind while copying the numbers.

I do suggest a bit more respect can be given to the members here. I don't think a PS at the end of the post is not the right way to do that.

No disrespect meant or intended. My sincere apologies if you felt so.

[Gooney]

This thread had so much potential. It could have been so informative - tbhp-ians sharing their point of view on a very valid topic - engine size.
But alas, it has become but a mud-slinging session. "Petrolheads" trying to bash "non-enthusiasts". Sorry for getting so philosophical.

Just because you are an enthusiast, does not mean you look down upon people who prefer "smaller", more fuel efficient engines. We all are enthusiasts here, but not every one drives around in a Gypsy or a Palio 1.6 sport (even if they have one, it is their second car, in most cases). Let me illustrate, my cousin drives a Gypsy but he has no clue what Team-BHP is and he is not an enthusiast. His childhood friend does not even have a car, but he can't get through a day without checking the Team-BHP website.

I kept telling that "smaller" not necessarily is "less powerful". Engines are getting smaller in displacement but powerful in comparison to similar engines of yore. I do not understand this fixation with displacement of the engine.

Since when did T-bhpians start calling themselves more macho because their car's engine is bigger (or they wished for a bigger engine) and their fellow T-bhpians puny because they believe in smaller more efficient engines.

And please do not say it was "all in good spirit". 'Cause it darn well wasn't. Generalization like people driving i10 and what-have-you driving like dorks is NOT in good spirit.

The latter posts in this thread are so anti-T-BHP spirit.

[yzfrj]

Originally Posted by Gooney

"Petrolheads" trying to bash "non-enthusiasts".

Since when did T-bhpians start calling themselves more macho because their car's engine is bigger (or they wished for a bigger engine) and their fellow T-bhpians puny because they believe in smaller more efficient engines.

You got the wrong picture here.
A petrolhead is one who talks about it and does't mind taking his car to track and having a ball.
A non-enthusiast is one who talks about it but never does it.

And no its got nothing to do with the engine size.

I did the last track day in a 9yr 95k kms zen with 50bhp and did a 2:31.852
I saw lot of "bigger" engines and cars who did't.

So there is the difference.
However is does't mean any of the so called "groups" are superior or inferior compared to the other.

The point of this thread IMO is that the engine size cap is a god sent for the "non-enthusiast" and does't help the cause for a "petrolhead" as the mantra here is Km/Ltr and not Bhp/Ltr.

[supremeBaleno]

Originally Posted by yzfrj

A petrolhead is one who talks about it and does't mind taking his car to track and having a ball. A non-enthusiast is one who talks about it but never does it.

Are you suggesting that those who don't take their cars to the track are not enthusiasts ? What about those who don't have access to a track due to their location ? They automatically become non-enthusiasts ? And by your definition, you became an enthusiast only post getting your car on track last time.

IMO, wrong definition. You dont need the track to have fun driving. You can do it on the road, without driving crazily. We had fun on the Yelagiri tbhp-drive for eg. Nice drive in my car with the needle hovering to a max. of 160kmph with bottle's Palio1.6 giving awesome company.

Originally Posted by yzfrj

I did the last track day in a 9yr 95k kms zen with 50bhp and did a 2:31.852. I saw lot of "bigger" engines and cars who did't.

I don't know whom you are referring to when you say bigger engines, but if it's me, I have done track day on my Baleno much earlier. Have also done runs on the FISSME. But I don't think that automatically makes me an enthusiast. I just happen to stay close to the track, that's it.

Originally Posted by yzfrj

The point of this thread IMO is that the engine size cap is a god sent for the "non-enthusiast" and does't help the cause for a "petrolhead" as the mantra here is Km/Ltr and not Bhp/Ltr.

The Govt does not say dont make a car more than 1.2l. Just that they encourage this category so that manufacturers can come out with better engines in this category which happens to be the most bought segment and has the potential to help reduce petro-product usage and emissions drastically.

If you think small cant be big, check out the evolution of the City engines in India. In the late 90s, their 1.5l engines churned out 93, 100 and 106bhp. In 2003/2004, the same cc engine churned out 76bhp and awesome mileage. Today, the same cc engine churns out 115+ bhp.

Ofcourse these engines have their own cons, but the amazing range is IMO awesome. Compare it to the Baleno which even though has 100cc more, came with 94bhp and then reduced to 91bhp (BS-III). Or the SX4 which at 1.6l just gives 100bhp.

So, it is possible to have fun with low cc engines. And the law will hopefully force the manufacturers to do that while still abiding by it.

Originally Posted by yzfrj

The point of this thread IMO is that the engine size cap is a god sent for the "non-enthusiast" and does't help the cause for a "petrolhead" as the mantra here is Km/Ltr and not Bhp/Ltr.

And FE means different things to different people. For some, it is all about the money outgo for them. For others, it is about a resource not being utilised optimally, with the monetary impact to their pocket not mattering much.

At 15years of age, when a litre of petrol cost Rs.9.50, my concern was about how to manage my love for driving with the limited money I had access to then - pocketmoney of max. 10bucks a week.

Today, even if petrol prices were to double to 100bucks, the outgo on fuel does not make any dent on my finances. But I am concerned about the fact that petroleum is rapidly depleting and I feel that in my lifetime I will see the time when the oil-wells dry up. More efficient engines would help delay this by some years, that's all.

Yesterday, while returning home after watching the saloon races at MMSC track, this was the conversation I had with my wife & son (Aman).

Wife : Aman, would you like to race cars like we saw today ?
He : Yes, when I grow up.

Me : If petrol is still around when he gets to driving age.
Wife : You think it won't be around when he starts driving ?

Me : Not sure, but I have a feeling that it would be over.
Wife : What about our Baleno then ?

Me : Most probably useless. // Though I said it, the mere thought of such a possibility was hurting.
Anyway, some other technology (electric, hydrogen etc) would be in vogue by then.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Many of us, perhaps the majority even, are just interested in normal driving on normal roads. I doubt that I would go to a track, even as audience, let alone to drive.

That does not mean that, in some of my more materialistic-daydream moments, and putting aside many practical considerations, I wouldn't be doing my ordinary driving in 3.0 car --- or that I wouldn't like to have the choice between 1.2, 1.4, 1.6.

EDIT: Crossposted with supremeBaleno

[@ri]

Right put in supremeBaleno. Completely agree with your points.
Simply put not anymore does CC relate to more BHP and to me be it the "Non-Enthusiast" or the "Petrohead" or whatever... Everyone who drives a car would like more of the "BHP" when he wants to have a feel of power. As a concern over the environment and depleting resources, the FE would matter most for "Daily Commute". Both of these are no longer contradictory requirements with the advancements of technology.
If by the govt's encouragement over the use of 1.2Lts engine, manufacturers can give us both then nothing like it to a mere "commoner" like me.
bottomline, I don't really care about the CC as long as the goods are deilvered