• Hello Guest, welcome to the initial stages of our new platform!
    You can find some additional information about where we are in the process of migrating the board and setting up our new software here

    Thank you for being a part of our community!

Eco-Bricks - 35+mpg club

klr142 said:
So, are you making a general statement
Click to expand...

Please consult governmental fuel mileage specs, and make your case of B23F vs B230F, and use orignal mileage tests, not updated. Or find some motor magazine that fully reports information.

I know 1984-244 (B23F) with 4-speed auto could get decent highway mileage, if your right and left feet were trained, and 55 mph was top speed. My 1993-245 with 4-speed auto gets same mileage as my 1984...same driver with trained feet.
 
klr142 said:
That has NOTHING to do with a b23 vs b230. Nothing.
And increased the internal efficiency of the motor, which does increase fuel efficiency.


So, are you making a general statement pulled out of your butt based on things you've read about fuel efficiency in general on the internet, or are you stating a fact that the 10.3:1 b23 will get better gas mileage than a 9.8:1 b230 with the exact same car/trans/engine management, etc.?
Click to expand...

This is what he does.
 
Lord_Athlon said:
This is
Click to expand...

Just the facts - Today's the high-efficiency engines on many of today's cars owe a lot of their fuel economy to their high compression ratios. But, a high compression engine has its drawbacks, too. To keep it running in tip-top shape, you need to use high-octane gas, which is more expensive than regular unleaded gas


For those staying in touch with "what's happening"


DOE awards Envera $2.8M to develop and to test efficient variable compression ratio engine

22 June 2013

The new engine will achieve high efficiency using the Atkinson Cycle with an 18:1 compression ratio,
 
Lord_Athlon said:
This is what he does.
Click to expand...
Agreed, just wanted to see if he had any facts in him instead of all the other stuff from the internet. Thread is full of generalizations, which are not necessarily bad, but you can't say one engine is better than the other without backing it up. There is not going to be a test in a magazine that exactly says one way or another as they aren't testing the exact same car/drivetrain/management configuration with the only difference being the block.
 
klr142 said:
but you can't say one engine is better than the other without backing it up.
Click to expand...

All you need is two new/rebuilt engines, and a Dynometer. Or you could take a course in Internal Combustion Engine Thermodynamics and learn that


More pressure means more potential work; I'm sure the turbobrickers are fully aware of that;-) But turbobrickers are about the varoom power, not for fuel economy; some of the newer engines use turbos for fuel economy gains these days.

Or, just ask the professor in regards to changes in compression ratios; I'm sure he will agree, when CR is reduced, so does an engine's fuel efficiency decrease.

Problem is when humans review engines, they may twist the reality (advertising hype); but when scientific methods are used (dynometer/fuel flow), then we have reliable data, not influenced by a driver's foot, and motor-mouth.
 
84B23F said:
All you need is two new/rebuilt engines, and a Dynometer.

[...]

More pressure means more potential work; I'm sure the turbobrickers are fully aware of that;-) But turbobrickers are about the varoom power, not for fuel economy; some of the newer engines use turbos for fuel economy gains these days.

Or, just ask the professor in regards to changes in compression ratios; I'm sure he will agree, when CR is reduced, so does an engine's fuel efficiency decrease.

Problem is when humans review engines, they may twist the reality (advertising hype); but when scientific methods are used (dynometer/fuel flow), then we have reliable data, not influenced by a driver's foot, and motor-mouth.
Click to expand...
I agree with the first part, completely. I disagree that turbobrickers are only about varoom power and not for fuel economy. I do also agree that lower compression is less efficient than the EXACT same thing that has higher compression.

THE PROBLEM HERE, IS WE ARE NOT COMPARING THE EXACT SAME THING, and you keep showing us links you found online instead of something that is comparing the EXACT SAME THING.

A b230F(9.8:1) has less compression than a 10.3:1 rated b23F, FACT.
A b230F has less rotating and internal friction than a b23F, FACT.

Which gets better gas mileage in the exact same circumstance? YOU HAVE NOT TESTED IT SO YOU CAN NOT SAY. Nor can I.

Do you disagree with anything I have said?
 
Last edited:
klr142 said:
A b230F(9.8:1) has less compression than a 10.3:1 rated b23F, FACT.
Click to expand...

Empirical evidence

A b230F has less rotating and internal friction than a b23F,FACT.
Click to expand...
Their press release so indicates, just like they state "there is no reduction in engine durability in spite of the lighter components,"
but I'll take a B23F over B230F;-)

Assumed to be true...I have not verified.

Which gets better gas mileage in the exact same circumstance?
Click to expand...
If better fuel mileage existed, would Volvo "toot" their horn?

Please read these two press releases, and quote where they talk about a difference in fuel savings. Can you cite any Volvo literature where they "toot" their horn about fuel savings with introduction of B230F?

1. FOR 1985 VOLVO FEATURES NEW MODELS AND NEW ENGINES

2. A NEW ENGINE DYNASTY FROM VOLVO

Do remember, 1984 had LH 2.1 and 1985-1989 had LH 2.2

Footnote - 1993-245-NA: Upgraded to Gen-III Bosch 0 280 155 746 - 200cc/min @ 3bar injectors last Sunday; driving around 40-55 mph on rural highways with a pinch of city miles, 79-miles total with 2.7-gallons (filled up), vehicle got 29.25-MPG and using GPS based mileage. Need more miles to evaluate, but point is both vehicles would have to have same electronics, etc.
 
Lord_Athlon said:
Talking to him....
Click to expand...

I qualified my position in post 198: "I'm not contesting the friction aspect...they dropped the compression ratio, which does reduce fuel efficiency."

I further added back then, " "By increasing the compression ratio from 8:1 to 9:1, for example, you can improve fuel economy by about 5 to 6 percent."


1983 B23F ? 10.3:1 compression
1985?1986 B230F ? 9.8:1 compression

So, we have 0.5 change, and extrapolating, maybe a 3 percent change.

If vehicle gets 25 mpg (US), then one would expect to see 25.75 mpg; as in BFD.
 
84B23F said:
Empirical evidence

Their press release so indicates, just like they state "there is no reduction in engine durability in spite of the lighter components,"
but I'll take a B23F over B230F;-)

Assumed to be true...I have not verified.

If better fuel mileage existed, would Volvo "toot" their horn?

Please read these two press releases, and quote where they talk about a difference in fuel savings. Can you cite any Volvo literature where they "toot" their horn about fuel savings with introduction of B230F?

1. FOR 1985 VOLVO FEATURES NEW MODELS AND NEW ENGINES

2. A NEW ENGINE DYNASTY FROM VOLVO

Do remember, 1984 had LH 2.1 and 1985-1989 had LH 2.2

Footnote - 1993-245-NA: Upgraded to Gen-III Bosch 0 280 155 746 - 200cc/min @ 3bar injectors last Sunday; driving around 40-55 mph on rural highways with a pinch of city miles, 79-miles total with 2.7-gallons (filled up), vehicle got 29.25-MPG and using GPS based mileage. Need more miles to evaluate, but point is both vehicles would have to have same electronics, etc.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tidbits but that's not even 30mpg, the thread title is 35+.

:-P

My D-jet - 73 145 - M40 - 410's got 30 at 70 mph coming down I5, my 86 245 - M46 got 32.6 combined coming 600 miles down the coast from Newport, and my 82 245 TIC - M46 gets 30 mpg on the first leg of the Oregon coast where the average speed is ~ 55mph.
 
He's got valid points..

:e-shrug:

However I can say from real world experience I upped the CR on a car before and it's FE took a dive,it could've been because of a few other things though...too many things were done at once to be honest..

Probably explains why diesels get better FE,but then again doesn't diesel have more energy vs gasoline?
ah I digress...
 
Redwood Chair said:
Thanks for the tidbits but that's not even 30mpg, the thread title is 35+..
Click to expand...


OP discriminated against vehicles with automatics, AW70 in this case.

Besides, Eco-Bricks don't look like this: not ecologically healthy.

volvo-diesel.jpg
 
Rocky Mountain driving my 1977 245 4.10 R&P, later alloy cased m46 + a 1983 flat-top piston B23F with lambda KJet and new pumps, injectors and careful tune is managing a consistent 32.5MPG ~60-65 MPH, The B23F is fitted with a B cam. Ignition is 1988 Chrysler pulled from a M47 240 with a more advanced timing curve.

Nothing fancy, but it works great.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top