Diesel Payback - Page 2 - Kia Forum
User Tag List

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
#11 (permalink) Old 11-07-2012, 04:44 PM
Senior Member
 
Spencernj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: France, Pas-de-Calais
Posts: 263
Drives: Kia Ceed, MGTF, Various Jeeps new and old, FIAT 500
Gallery: 0
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

(Thread Starter)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace Demon View Post
Err, quite.

I agree that modern normally aspirated petrol cars feel gutless. Too much weight and not enough cubes.
It also due to the fact that petrol engines (and particularly small ones) have got more and more over-square in recent years so they have a shorter stroke and wider pistons need to be reved more and produce more bhp at peak but less torque. I am not sure what the thinking behind this is but probably due to reasons of compactness and also that over-square engines have wider bores so have more room for more vales (i.e 16 valve engines) and bigger valves which are better for efficiency.

Cars: 2011 Kia Ceed CRDi EcoDynamics; 2010 Fiat 500 Lounge 1.2: Various Jeeps new and old. https://www.facebook.com/Neil.SpencerJones
Spencernj is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#12 (permalink) Old 11-08-2012, 01:35 AM
Full Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 194
Gallery: 0
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spencernj View Post
It also due to the fact that petrol engines (and particularly small ones) have got more and more over-square in recent years so they have a shorter stroke and wider pistons need to be reved more and produce more bhp at peak but less torque.
Not a fact in all cases. Mr Fords engines were oversquare in the 60's the 1600 x-flow was 81 bore x 78 stroke approx but move to the late 90's and the Focus 2 litre petrol was 85 bore x 87 stroke approx. The 1600 petrol in the Ceed is 77 bore x 85 stroke, not oversquare by any stretch of the imagination..
seven7 is offline  
#13 (permalink) Old 11-08-2012, 05:36 AM
Expert
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Berkshire, UK
Posts: 647
Drives: Ceed 1.6crdi ('07)
Gallery: 0
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spencernj View Post
It also due to the fact that petrol engines (and particularly small ones) have got more and more over-square in recent years so they have a shorter stroke and wider pistons need to be reved more and produce more bhp at peak but less torque. I am not sure what the thinking behind this is but probably due to reasons of compactness and also that over-square engines have wider bores so have more room for more vales (i.e 16 valve engines) and bigger valves which are better for efficiency.
More valves make better use of head area which allows bore to be reduced. Which is what has happened. Modern engines don't produce less torque. The issue is that cars have got about 30% heavier without a corresponding increase in engine capacity, hence no increase in torque (unless forced). That means more revs are required to get the same response.
Ace Demon is offline  
#14 (permalink) Old 11-08-2012, 08:54 AM
Expert
 
dubster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: UK! Tunbridge Wells & Rochester
Posts: 853
Drives: RIP :( 2010 Pro_Cee'd - Infra Red 2
Gallery: 0
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Garage

Default

Apologies, my last post on this thread was rather off topic, was just thinking aloud
To redeem myself, I've just excel'd last months' fuel usage in petrol, and compared to my current diesel's average on same journey.

Petrol: 1408 miles @ 37mpg (avg) @ 1.38/litre = £236 in fuel (24 sept - 24 oct)
Diesel: 1408 miles @ 46mpg (avg) @ 1.42/litre = £195 in fuel

That's a clear £40 cheaper in that month, £480 per year extrapolating that out!
Even just working out a single month, that completely tallies up with Seven7's figures

In case it's helpful, excel sums are:
Miles / MPG * cost per gallon

If in doubt, Accelerate!

Last edited by dubster; 11-08-2012 at 09:00 AM.
dubster is offline  
#15 (permalink) Old 11-09-2012, 12:02 PM
Full Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 194
Gallery: 0
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)

Default

Dubster

Not only is the 46 mpg well short of the official urban its 27% short of the official combined of 62.6 mpg.

And people moan that Kia's perform badly compared to the official figures.

If I had my anorak handy I would read what they say on a Seat forum.
seven7 is offline  
#16 (permalink) Old 11-11-2012, 02:28 AM
Expert
 
dubster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: UK! Tunbridge Wells & Rochester
Posts: 853
Drives: RIP :( 2010 Pro_Cee'd - Infra Red 2
Gallery: 0
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Garage

Default

Yes indeed mate, it should manage better than 'urban mpg' on my 30 mile country lanes commute!

If in doubt, Accelerate!
dubster is offline  
Reply

  Kia Forum > KIA Models > Kia Cee'd Forum


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On