Cascade Crew

blue89 · Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 2:54 pm Post subject: Monkey power

http://www.motoiq.com/magazine_articles/articletype/articleview/articleid/1847/technobabble--monkeypower-redefined.aspx

I thought this was an interesting read.

Dewey316 · Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:21 pm Post subject:

Hehehe. We should hook a weight up to a hamster wheel and see how far it lifts it. We could then have a proper small car power measurement of hamster-power (hP, not to be confused with HP).

BTW, his miatabusa/cx7-diesel comparison is not very good

--John

blue89 · Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:29 pm Post subject:

I think he was trying to compare motorcycle 300 hp to diesel 300 hp. Ideally, it doesnt matter where you make the power. However, weight and drivetrain are important.

Twilightoptics · Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 4:09 pm Post subject:

IROCDave · Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:04 pm Post subject:

Maybe my speed reading (ADD?) comprehension failed me again, but what I got out of the article was that small displacement, high revving motors can produce the same power as a low revving large displacement motor.
Notice the site this was posted on?

What the author ignores is that high revving small displacement motors lack efficiency when not at or near there optimum efficiency RPM. That RPM would be at max power, just as is the case with any combustion powered motor. He aslo neglects to mention that it takes a given amount of fuel to make a givin amount of power. There is a factor of internal combustion efficiancy that factors into the equation, but in the big picture is doesnt effect the outcome much.

What would be really interesting would be to take two motors, one small displacement and one large with the same HP output and put them on a engine dyno and measure the amount of fuel used over time.

chevymad · Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 5:46 pm Post subject:

On a similar thought, on a pontiac board that I read, one of the head engineers for ford that worked on the ecoboost motor is there. There's been some discussion of the new ecoboost f150. 3.5l v/6 with a twin turbos.. makes 425ft/lbs of torque and has the highest tow rating of any ford other then the diesel. 11,900lbs. Some new owners of these trucks have been discussing their real world mpg. Empty and just driving around in an extended cab 4x4 they're pulling in 23-24mpg. Towing they dont do any better then the larger motors for mpg. This comes back to the so much work=so much fuel idea. It takes a certain amount of energy to move that mass a certain distance.

Twilightoptics · Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:24 pm Post subject:

Indeed. But it sucks when you haul 12,000lbs and get 8mpg..... and when you haul an ATV you get.... 8mpg.

chevymad · Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:30 pm Post subject:

BluFbdy · Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:57 pm Post subject:

i like it! that was actually pretty funny, on the ecoboost note Id take it over the powerstroke, my dad had a powerstroke and im not a big fan of diesels in the first place, I also had the chance to test drive the ecoboost when ford was doing their cross country trips with them, id take one in a heartbeat lol the turbo lag is minimal compared to the powerstoke, i beat the piss out of the throttle and got up to speed faster than i expected, mpg dropped down to 24ish on the dash, then i started driving it how i would my dads old 7.3 and the mpg peaked at around 30, for a truck that isnt bad in my book lol towing or not it still beats the camaro in fuel consumption

aaron_sK · Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:23 pm Post subject:

iansane · Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:41 pm Post subject:

I say we start using cowpower.

iansane · Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 9:51 pm Post subject:

chevymad · Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 10:29 pm Post subject:

Here's a thread with the ford engineer talking about the ecoboost.. Also alot of people bickering with the same thoughts we're having about it. Interesting read. You'll see Tom Vaught was also in on putting a v/8 into the explorer/mountaineer and building the lightning pickups.

http://forums.performanceyears.com/forums/showthread.php?t=680334

blue89 · Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 11:06 pm Post subject:

Do they just not put big enough journals in a smaller displacement engine? If a larger engine has a load of say 10% but a smaller would have a load of say 40%, why not just put much bigger bearings and journals in it? I've had someone tell me once that the germans design their engines for a higher load since they can drive faster over there. Don't know if it has any truth to it.

QwkTrip · Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 11:36 am Post subject:

I think the article was written for humor and not to be critiqued serious. Wink

The 'power vs. torque' debate happens a lot on car forums. I mean a LOT!!! Laughing

I'll list a few classic mistakes that I see often. I'm sure you guys can add a dozen more to the list. Very Happy

"HP isn't real. It's just a measurement." Let's play a game of scrabble and rearrange all the words in your statement... If something can be measured is it real? Next time you get clobbered by a Mazda RX7 rotary then tell me how 'make believe' is HP.

"Torque is what moves the car, not HP." The instant the car moves you develop HP. The two concepts go hand-in-hand and there is no point in trying to separate them.

"My 300 HP small block gasser can keep up with your 300 HP diesel pulling 10K pounds up a hill." Ever tried out that theory? Obviously not. That person focuses exclusively on peak values and not the engine torque vs. speed curve. The diesel will make more average power as it winds out through each gear. There will be a brief moment where the small block can match the 300 HP diesel and then the small block will shift gears and the diesel will continue to pull away. It's the same reason you don't see 300 HP 4-cylinder VTECH in a full size truck. The power band would suck didely uck and the engine wouldn't be durable enough working high effort all the time.

IROCDave · Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:40 pm Post subject:

HP isnt " real" in respect that it isnt measured. Torque ( work) is measured, HP is a sum that is determined by calculation after measuring torque (work).
Torque - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque
Horsepower - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower

It's pretty simple, torque is amount of work done, HP is amount done over time.

As far as towing / hauling with a small displacement gasoline powered engine, there is no way that it is going to be as efficient as a diesel engine. I would aslo venture to say that the gas engine will give up the fight long before the diesel engine if used to their fullest potential over the same amount of time. Diesel engines are made to be run at maximum out put for 200K+ miles. Every manufacture designs to a servise life, the big three shoot for 250K with diesels. The Ford Power Stroke 6.0 ohno was an disaster and should not be considered in this discussion.

The late model light duty diesels are saddled with a DPF filter that sucks any fuel economy advantages out of daily driving one. When it comes to actually needing the modern diesel for work, gas engines do not hold a candle.

What US Light Truck manufactures need to do is come out with a small displacement diesel engine, something along the lines of this - http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/06/gm-ponders-reviving-45liter-duramax-v8-diesel.html

Dewey316 · Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:49 pm Post subject:

HP is measure, to calculate it you have to measure both work and time, then compile the results.

The other thing you are missing though, is the gearing differences and how that effects how things. Comparing a diesel to gas by comparing say a Ford F150 gas to a Ford F350 Diesel is not a straight comparison of gas/diesel. Its also a comparison of gearing choices and other factors. Geared properly, with everything else being equal, the only thing that matters is the area under the curve. Any other comparison is not giving due credit to the drive train designers who calculate out gearing options and other choices for vehicle based on its desired use.

I would be willing to wager money that a gas engine with gearing designed to maximize towing ability would out perform a diesel designed for fuel economy and driveabilty instead of towing.

aaron_sK · Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 1:58 pm Post subject:

QwkTrip · Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:15 pm Post subject:

I have a 7.3L Ford and when I trade up for a newer truck I don't think I'll be getting a diesel. The advantages that the diesel once had are eroding as the EPA forces evolution of the design. I would challenge the idea that new diesels are more reliable than a gasser. Gasser engines are better than ever and run a long time! Sure, diesel core engine will last a long time without rebuild but I'll bet you end up repairing more things and spending more money on diesel engine than the gasser engine.

It made sense to drive a 7.3L Superduty. It didn't cost much more to get into a diesel. I get 19 mpg around town and never had to repair anything. I can run on almost any fuel that will burn without worrying about fuel system failures. And it will hold resale value much better than the gasser because nobody is scared of a 7.3L with 150K miles on the odometer.

New diesels are a miserable prospect. I have to spend ~$8K extra for a diesel. And then I get fuel economy that is barely any better than a gasser. I haven't done the math, but I'll bet the extra cost of diesel fuel offsets any mileage advantage. Diesel requires more maintenance and costs more money for basic service like oil change. And then the engine is carrying around a very unreliable emissions system that when it fails can cause $10K repairs. So that makes people scared to buy a used truck outside of warranty and value plummets. Used truck with 150K miles? Ha! Worth little more than my truck that is 10 years older. Bottom line is I can't afford a new diesel. I can't afford to buy one new, and can't afford to fix one out of warranty.

blue89 · Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 3:36 pm Post subject:

I agree that the extra technogy has taken its toll on reliability. We had a slew of problems with the navistar maxxforce 7 (ford powerstroke v8?). We are talking a brand new, out the crate, zero mileage engine with bad turbos, leaking fuel pumps, cracked vacuum lines, and bad water pumps. Needless to say, we kept the Brattain guy very busy. Not to mention the fuel economy lost due to dpf regens. Price to play i guess. The new stuff really is amazing though. Extremely reliant on the electronics.