[mxx]

[quote=bhp_maniac;1938516My old 1.4L engine was giving only 70PS, while my new 1.2L engine is giving me 75PS and a much better FE.[/quote]
80 PS for i10 and 90PS for Jazz all from 1.2L.
I expect to see a 100PS 1.2L in the near future.
So that is power with FE. And why not?

[bhp_maniac]

Originally Posted by mxx

80 PS for i10 and 90PS for Jazz all from 1.2L.
I expect to see a 100PS 1.2L in the near future.
So that is power with FE. And why not?

That's it my friend. More power and more torque, coupled with good FE is what we want. At the end of the day what matters is power and not CC. Heard of a newer generation engine in testing from Ilmor who were making F-1 engines for Merc which will be squeezing 130 horses from its 700CC engine, i.e. lesser CC than our good old M800 which produced only 37 bhp !!! They did it by adding another stroke to the engine cycle and we can expect this engine in production soon. Days are gone when power was only driven by mere cubic capacity. Look for newer options and even newer technologies than just doing the easy job of just scaling up the engine for power.

Maruti M800:

Cubic Capacity - 796 CC
Cylinders - 3
Power - 37 bhp

Ilmor 700 CC:

Cubic capacity - 700 CC
Cylinders - 3
Power - 130 bhp

[ramzsys]

It is glad to see less gas producing more workable power, and thus scaling better fuel efficiencies, better for the environment too.

But the question here is, will these engines (e.g. K series) perform at least as reliable as their previous generation (1.3 suzuki) after its midlife?

[echo77]

Originally Posted by bhp_maniac

They did it by adding another stroke to the engine cycle

Awesome, a 5-stroke engine! I had to google to believe it:

ilmor 5 stroke - Google Search

[Gooney]

Originally Posted by yzfrj

Just so that other folks know, cars are not at the front line is "fossil fuel" consumption. I'm not saying less car will not help the cause, there are better things to do for the "greater good".

Point taken dude. Passenger car tail pipe emission comes third, I guess, after industrial and transportation (air, train, frieght) emission. As an individual what makes more sense - refusing basic ammenties like foodgrain, stop using factory produced goods or supporting cleaner engines to reduce pollution?

And I would greatly benefit, so will a couple of fellow T-Bhpians, if you can elaborate on "there are better things to do for the 'greater good'". 'Cause I darn sure would want to do it, if not for me, for my grandchildren.

[WindRide]

Will Maruti introduce the new 1.2L VVT (94 PS @ 6000 rpm and 118 Nm @ 4800 rpm ) in next-gen Swift? This can co-exist with the current K-series engine.

Hope it does....!

[DWind]

If there is a vote to support / not support this 1.2 litre rule I would whole heartedly support it. Now because of this rule every car manufacturer who is serious about volumes in India has come up with an engine either by reducing the stroke (Hyundai Kappa) or removing a cylinder (VW) or developing an all new engine (Honda). This is just Round ONE! Winner: Suzuki 1.2 K series.

Give it few more years. Now all these manufactures would want to push the envelope by enhancing their reportaire to bring in more power / torque to engine by using supercharging / turbocharging / Variable valve timing or OOB methods (like ILMOR's 5 stroke) in this cut-throat market like hatchback. This will be Round TWO which I am waiting for eagerly and I hope we will be rewarded. Please note it just takes initiative from one manufacturer to bring in turbo charged engine and the rest will follow! Remember this is what happened to common rail technology. Hyundai gave it first (mass produced ones) on the Accent and then the rest had to join.

[supremeBaleno]

Originally Posted by yzfrj

Assumptions are dangerous SB, anyway just for the record I sold the Zen.

Oops, my mistake there - I did ask you about the Zen via PM, but since you did not mention anything, I assumed you retained it. Anyway, having more than a car (esp. if it is for specific purposes) is not a bad thing.

Originally Posted by yzfrj

I was shocked when my dad said "ok" for the OHC. He want low fuel bills (as he drives around a lot).

Is the OHC-V that big a guzzler ? Assuming your Dad drives normally (without revving the car till the rev-limiter), why should the fuel bill be high ? Yes, higher than the Zen, but would it be that substantial ?

Originally Posted by yzfrj

The point to ponder here is how many of the "new" car owners (who are the obvious targets of this 1.2Ltr cars) will actually "drive" enough distance.

Why do you think they won't drive enough distance ? Sample this - my colleague buys his first car (Spark) 8 months ago and has done 11K kms - most of it on highways because he & his family love travelling & seeing new places. In comparison, I struggled to get the 10K kms done in 1 year for the 3rd service.

Originally Posted by yzfrj

anything under 3Ltr is puny in US, for us 1.5Lts is huge ?

So ? Why should the US be an example for us ? Actually they should be the last thing to use as an example given their reckless & wasteful consumption of resources (not just crude oil). Also did you check out their roads and ours ?

Originally Posted by yzfrj

For all the "mileage kya hai" brigade, damn...! drive a diesel nano.

Diesel ? Nano ? No way. We love FE, but we also love driving. Our K-series and Balenos do just fine on both counts, enabling us to burn rubber without burning a hole in the leather (wallet).

[yzfrj]

Originally Posted by bhp_maniac

then my for the politicians.

Let me not stop you. Cheer for them if you feel like it.

As per test results the 1.3 DDiS or MJD or Quadrajet is having an efficiency of 54%, even though it convinces us to be more fuel efficient. So even in this award winning engine, the rest 46% is wasted. Let the

Can you provide more details please on the tests who done it and so on. If I know my facts a NA or Turbo 4 stroke IC engine is't that efficient. If that is indeed a fact I'd like to get to know more.

Originally Posted by Gooney

if not for me, for my grandchildren.

Make sense and well said. I agree with you on that.

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

Yes, higher than the Zen, but would it be that substantial ?

Considering the fact that Zen was carb I'm actually getting better FE from the Vtec .

So ? Why should the US be an example for us ? Actually they should be the last thing to use as an example given their reckless & wasteful consumption of resources (not just crude oil). Also did you check out their roads and ours ?

Why are we always looking at the "bad" side. All I'm saying is limiting the cubic capacity is just one way and not the "best" way. I feel tax should be calculated based in the actual emissions and that will level the playing field and "we" will get better and efficient engines. Anyway I'm not saying much more.

PS: If anyone has any doubts reducing emissions will in-turn increase the "efficiency" I suggest to read more. And no efficiency is not just the FE its a combination of factors. But I guess we all know that.

We love FE, but we also love driving.

See you on the next P&P then, eh ?

[nitrous]

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

[yzfrj]

Originally Posted by nitrous

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

Enthusiast on a Budget

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

I got to learn from SB on how to get a kick out of cruising at 40Km/Hr (The speed limit inside city)

[bhp_maniac]

Originally Posted by yzfrj

Can you provide more details please on the tests who done it and so on. If I know my facts a NA or Turbo 4 stroke IC engine is't that efficient. If that is indeed a fact I'd like to get to know more.

Friend, theoretical efficiency of a diesel engine as per the current technology used is 75%. But that is for engine only, and in theory. There are a lot other mechanical parts including the drive train, transmission system etc. which burns lots of energy as heat which rounds up to an over all maximum efficiency of 56% for a diesel engine till date. Scientists are working hard on the figures. In practice it will again range between 37-50% depending on the driving conditions and a lot or other factors. In the case of petrol engines, the figures are much lesser than the diesel. And that coupled with the more torque produced makes diesel engines more fuel efficient than their petrol counterparts. Got all these details during my academics as an engineer and googled again to confirm the same. If you have time, spend some on the topic and you will find at least a thousand pages discussing the efficiency figures of an internal combustion engine. Please correct me if I am found wrong. I mentioned the case of a 1.3 DDiS just to make others know how much energy is wasted even in such an engine which is acclaimed as a highly fuel efficient engine.

[Rahulkool]

Originally Posted by bhp_maniac

Friend, theoretical efficiency of a diesel engine as per the current technology used is 75%. But that is for engine only, and in theory. There are a lot other mechanical parts including the drive train, transmission system etc. which burns lots of energy as heat which rounds up to an over all maximum efficiency of 56% for a diesel engine till date. Scientists are working hard on the figures. In practice it will again range between 37-50% depending on the driving conditions and a lot or other factors. In the case of petrol engines, the figures are much lesser than the diesel. And that coupled with the more torque produced makes diesel engines more fuel efficient than their petrol counterparts. Got all these details during my academics as an engineer and googled again to confirm the same. If you have time, spend some on the topic and you will find at least a thousand pages discussing the efficiency figures of an internal combustion engine. Please correct me if I am found wrong. I mentioned the case of a 1.3 DDiS just to make others know how much energy is wasted even in such an engine which is acclaimed as a highly fuel efficient engine.

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.

[Speed Pujari]

Originally Posted by yzfrj

Enthusiast on a Budget

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

I got to learn from SB on how to get a kick out of cruising at 40Km/Hr (The speed limit inside city)

@yzfrj you kind of hit the nail at the very right spot. 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)

Jokes apart. I think a low powered engine is good for low budget guys. No offence to anyone here but I see majority 'L' board on i10,i20, Figo and Alto on road. And the way they drive is kind of evident that a high power engine might be hazardous for them (and for us.).

As rightly said, with power comes responsiblity.

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

@kiku007, you have summed it up brilliantly. The majority (on tbhp and otherwise) drool over performance variants of cars (Palio 1.6, City Vtec, Fiesta 1.6 etc), but when it comes to their purchase, it is the safe option of Palio 1.2, NHC-iDsi, Fiesta 1.4/TDCi etc. No wonder manufacturers don't see any incentive in offering choice and stick to the bread-and-butter 1.2 variants.

But I don't really think the 1.2l excise clause makes any difference (other than making cars cheaper for the consumer) because even before this clause came in, the actual purchase behaviour was tilted towards the low-cc variants.

[designersf]

New Swift makes 94bhp with VVT from a 1.2. So it beat the Jazz and comes close to VW's 1.2TSi that makes 108bhp and Micra's supercharged 1.2 that makes 97bhp.