Manufacturers that can't adapt ...... are doomed - Page 3

Steffo · 30-08-2005, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t2te50

Any taxi drivers here? How do you guys get maximum engine life? Do you run the engine on petrol for a few kms once a fortnight or something?

You'll find, that most taxis, are LPG only. When they convert them, the petrol system is de-activated. It is illegal for them to run on petrol.

Taxi's are maintained properly, that is all. They have to be well maintained, again, legal requirement. Here in NSW at least, Department of Transport is very strict on the taxi's and how road-worthy they are. Even if its 1 million km old, near the end of its service life, it has to be mechanically A1. The interior my be falling apart and body might not look crash hot, but underneath where it counts, they're looked after well.

RED_EL_XR8 · 30-08-2005, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AUII_SE_Ute

Yes, I'm not in the best mood either, people who are bagging gas, don't knock it until you try it.

Does the your same rule apply for the proponents? Most of those promoting the LPG alternative have not tried it. And I might add what work for your circumstances may not work for others, there is a lot of second guessing by the bystanders of those working with these decisions for a living.

Black XR6 · 30-08-2005, 01:32 PM

They offer it but dont utilise it to its full potential. I only got into the LPG debate as I was reading a lot of opinion and nothing put forward as evidence.

In my opinion LPG is not bad as is stated by some and is a very real option to become the dominant fuel used in the automotive industry. Not just an option for a small sector.

RED_EL_XR8 · 30-08-2005, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

Taxi's are maintained properly, that is all. They have to be well maintained, again, legal requirement. Here in NSW at least, Department of Transport is very strict on the taxi's and how road-worthy they are. Even if its 1 million km old, near the end of its service life, it has to be mechanically A1. The interior my be falling apart and body might not look crash hot, but underneath where it counts, they're looked after well.

This has to be a joke right? Its a cost conscious industry, we have seen numerous photos of some of the quick turn around handiwork which is common place in taxi-workshops. Down time is money.

Just look at the tyres these things run on and tell me honestly its a safety conscious industry. Shot diffs, no shocks, worn & broken suspension rubbers are the norm. These things are run to the depth of their economic life or the onset of metal fatigue whichever occurs first.

And any correlation between what is cost effective for a taxi cab and what is best for a 10 to 30,000km PA private or business vehicle is purely coincidental.

MrSparkle · 30-08-2005, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED_EL_XR8

Does the your same rule apply for the proponents? Most of those promoting the LPG alternative have not tried it. And I might add what work for your circumstances may not work for others, there is a lot of second guessing by the bystanders of those working with these decisions for a living.

Yes you are right, oh ugly one! I have a car of each and they both have advantages and disadvantages. There are a LOT of variables that determine which fueling solution is right for each individual, so blanket statements are a bit silly. In my S15, the advantage of petrol is reliability and performance, the disadvantage is cost per litre. In my Pimpin Landyacht™ it's pretty much the opposite - needs more tuning and produces less power than an unleaded modified one would, but by f@rk is it cheap to fill and run!

Every fueling option is compromised in some way. If they weren't, then there would be only one type of fuel!

:

py:

RED_EL_XR8 · 30-08-2005, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSparkle

......Every fueling option is compromised in some way. If they weren't, then there would be only one type of fuel!

:

py:

At last a thinker! Betchin Avatar you have there!

Falcon Freak · 30-08-2005, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EF_Dave

140kw simply will not cut it in a car that weighs very close to 2tons (remember these falcons with this power weighed alot less then the current), having a small capacity motor has nothing to do with fuel savings, having an underpowered engine will probably use more fuel as it has to work a hell of alot harder, then an efficiant, low reving 4.0

It annoys me immensly how many people use this as an argument against a smaller capacity version of the 6 cylinder engine. Fuel comspumption is directly related to engine capacity. A smaller engine will use less fuel than a larger engine. People who would purchase a car with the smaller engine do so because they place more emphasis on economy rather than power. People who flog a small capacity engine to keep up with a larger capacity engine are driving the wrong car for their needs.

The reason the last small capacity 6 cylinder in a Falcon was a failure (3.2 litre) is because it was gutless and also because the price gap to 3.9 litre engine was small. Today an equivalent 3.2 litre engine could easily put out 120kW minium. And with five forward cogs versus three on the EA the transmission would allow better use of the engine.

FF

XplosiveR6 · 30-08-2005, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falcon Freak

It annoys me immensly how many people use this as an argument against a smaller capacity version of the 6 cylinder engine. Fuel comspumption is directly related to engine capacity. A smaller engine will use less fuel than a larger engine. People who would purchase a car with the smaller engine do so because they place more emphasis on economy rather than power. People who flog a small capacity engine to keep up with a larger capacity engine are driving the wrong car for their needs.

The reason the last small capacity 6 cylinder in a Falcon was a failure (3.2 litre) is because it was gutless and also because the price gap to 3.9 litre engine was small. Today an equivalent 3.2 litre engine could easily put out 120kW minium. And with five forward cogs versus three on the EA the transmission would allow better use of the engine.

FF

well get anoyed, because engine capacity is not releated to fuel consumption, there is simply too many another factors to conside, big engine = high fuel consumption is a very old way of thought. tell me this then, why is the 5.7l genIII better on fuel then a 5.0l windsor, or even better then the 5.4l Boss, motor? Hell, LS1s can get fuel consumption very close to a 4.0l falcon, with almost double the power!

Falcon Freak · 30-08-2005, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EF_Dave

well get anoyed, because engine capacity is not releated to fuel consumption, there is simply too many another factors to conside, big engine = high fuel consumption is a very old way of thought. tell me this then, why is the 5.7l genIII better on fuel then a 5.0l windsor, or even better then the 5.4l Boss, motor? Hell, LS1s can get fuel consumption very close to a 4.0l falcon, with almost double the power!

Fuel consumption IS related to engine capacity! I will retrieve my thermodynamics book from my university days to prove to you that this is correct. And I never stated that this is the ONLY factor. There are many other factors such as air / fuel ratio and engine speed just to name a few. Wait a couple of days all will be revealed.

FF

4Vman · 31-08-2005, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EF_Dave

because engine capacity is not releated to fuel consumption, there is simply too many another factors to conside, big engine = high fuel consumption is a very old way of thought. tell me this then, why is the 5.7l genIII better on fuel then a 5.0l windsor, or even better then the 5.4l Boss, motor? Hell, LS1s can get fuel consumption very close to a 4.0l falcon, with almost double the power!

Thats a nieve position to take, yes i agree there are other factors that come into play (such as old inefficient technology V newer more efficient tech) but generally speaking the larger the capacity the more fuel it will use, why? because of air/fuel ratios..
Engine efficiency and vehicle design will play a part but there is an air/fuel ratio that provides optimum burn efficiency without leaning out or being too rich.
The larger the amount of space in a cylinder the more fuel that needs to be combined with air to meet that ratio per engine rpm.
The only area that muddy's the water is how efficient each engine is at propelling the vehicle. ie: how much energy from a litre of consumed fuel can be converted to kinetic energy to provide and maintain satisfactory acceleration and momentum.
Generally speaking there would be a hypothetical optimum capacity per kg of car weight that will achieve this result, if the capacity is larger than optimum than careful driving will be needed to get good economy, if the capacity is smaller the engine will have to work harder to propel the vehicle.

merlin · 31-08-2005, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EF_Dave

. tell me this then, why is the 5.7l genIII better on fuel then a 5.0l windsor, or even better then the 5.4l Boss, motor? Hell, LS1s can get fuel consumption very close to a 4.0l falcon, with almost double the power!

Because LS1 powered vehicles weigh a crap load less! There are many factors that influence how efficient an engine is, the only way to tell would be to run all 4 engines you mentioned at the same time/temperature on an engine dyno, give em all 50 litres of fuel and see who wins!

SB076 · 31-08-2005, 06:03 PM

Stupid question but why is the 6.0 l LS2 more economical than the 5.7 l Gen III, when they are both in almost identical cars

4Vman · 31-08-2005, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SB076

Stupid question but why is the 6.0 l LS2 more economical than the 5.7 l Gen III, when they are both in almost identical cars

I doubt it is, my mates hate the fuel economy of their LS1's, 16-17L/100km's, worse than my Boss 260.
Id say its all advertising guff and propaganda to sell HSV commodores.

Steffo · 31-08-2005, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SB076

Stupid question but why is the 6.0 l LS2 more economical than the 5.7 l Gen III, when they are both in almost identical cars

Greater efficiency, and lighter weight. The LS2 is something like 30 or 60kg (forget which one) lighter then the LS1.

RED_EL_XR8 · 31-08-2005, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

Greater efficiency, and lighter weight. The LS2 is something like 30 or 60kg (forget which one) lighter then the LS1.

They must have used the smaller lions on the rocker covers !

4Vman · 31-08-2005, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

Greater efficiency, and lighter weight. The LS2 is something like 30 or 60kg (forget which one) lighter then the LS1.

Do you seriously think 30 or 60KG has any significant effect on fuel economy??
My fuel economy doesnt change if i carry a passenger or carry a few samples to customers or from full to empty tank so i cant see how 60kg's would make a measurable difference..

Steffo · 31-08-2005, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Do you seriously think 30 or 60KG has any significant effect on fuel economy??
My fuel economy doesnt change if i carry a passenger or from full to empty tank so i cant see how 60kg's would make a measurable difference..

If the weight comes from the engine it does. If it has a lighter rotating assembly, it won't have to work as hard, translates into fuel savings.

4Vman · 31-08-2005, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

If the weight comes from the engine it does. If it has a lighter rotating assembly, it won't have to work as hard, translates into fuel savings.

Common Steffo! you're clutching at straws now i think!!!

:
Lighter rotating assembly's can have a negative effect on strength, torque and inertia.. which might in some cases have a negative effect on economy!!
What's the difference in weight between the 2 rotating assembly's??

_2:
Any fuel efficiency id suggest would come from head design differences and fuel metering/injection changes.

Bossxr8 · 31-08-2005, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

Greater efficiency, and lighter weight. The LS2 is something like 30 or 60kg (forget which one) lighter then the LS1.

How did you come out with that figure. Thats the dumbest thing i've ever heard. The engine only weighs about 150kg in total. The difference between LS1 and LS2 is about 3 kgs. The additional beefing of the drivetrain in the LS2 powered cars would have taken away that small weight difference anyway.

Steffo · 31-08-2005, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

How did you come out with that figure. Thats the dumbest thing i've ever heard. The engine only weighs about 150kg in total. The difference between LS1 and LS2 is about 3 kgs. The additional beefing of the drivetrain in the LS2 powered cars would have taken away that small weight difference anyway.

It was in an LS1 vs LS2 article posted on this very forum a while back. And the LS1 weighs 220kg... 220 - 150 = 70.

Bossxr8 · 02-09-2005, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

It was in an LS1 vs LS2 article posted on this very forum a while back. And the LS1 weighs 220kg... 220 - 150 = 70.

Go through your collection of magazines and find an article comparing LS1 and LS2. The weight difference is about 2-3 kgs. I only guessed that the engine was 150kg. How do you think 2 near identical engines can be 70 kgs different.