Olsic03STR, you used a vehicle/engine that one would use to prove that a vehicle with a superior power to weight ratio can in some parts of the power band, out perform in MPG, a vehicle with a similar chassis but less powerful engine. You also used your Honda Civic engine placed in an "S" only performing in the 55 mph range; actually a death nell to your example. Let's apply your theory from the beginning: Accelerating from a dead stop... A 150 hp @ 150 lb/ft 1.8 L motor must launch the 4000 lb. "STR" with its 2.88 rear end cogs. First: The 1.8 L motor would wheeze as it strains in earnest to push the severely neutered STR off the line, using a bunch of fuel to try to maintain its peak power band. Second: As the tiny motor manages to run through the ZF's first five gears (which by the way requires a bunch of power to operate) almost a 1/2 mile has lapsed, using a bunch of fuel to achieve this point vs 100 yards for the 4.2 L 400 hp/410 lb./ft trq. Now comes the "Coupe De Gra", when finally reaching 55 mph or so, the ZF shifts to sixth, a very tall gear I may add. What happens next? Nothing! The poor tiny tit of a motor wouldn't be able to maintain enough horsepower and torque to remain in 6th, searching up and down from 4th to 5th, as its proverbial ***** drop then rise, turning cyanodic blue from a lack of trq. The fuel consumption would be enormous, the likes of 12 mpg! This is why you rarely find 1.4 or 1.8 L motors pushing vehicles over 2800 lbs. Even then their transmission and rear end ratios are markedly lower than that of larger vehicles with much more powerful engines. As I mentioned much earlier in this thread, an example of MMME (Moving the Mass More Efficently) is Ford's 302 cu. in. V8 Econoline van produced a higher mpg than the 300 cu. in. straight six varient.

 

Wow, completely asinine.

As I mentioned in my post... of course gearing ratios play a role in this scenario. A 150 HP motor would have absolutely no problem sustaining 55 mph more efficiently in a 4000 lb car than a 400 horsepower motor would.(If properly geared.) This is not advanced physics, it is 101.

The dramatic effect you are trying to make through the use of impressive analogies, words, and synonyms is lost when your lack of spelling, grammar and meaning are considered.

"Death 'K'nell"
"cyanoTic"
... and most of all, please do not make up abbreviations, such as "MMME", in order to prove a point. It hurts your credibility.

Using the example of the econoline proves nothing. The motors are engineered completely differently. Different gearing, timing, materials, etc.

The reason we do not see 1.4/1.8 liter engines propelling larger vehicles is because people enjoy performance. People do not want to drive 55 mph. These engines are absolutely capable of propelling the STR to 55mph and sustaining it. The thing is, you can only put so much fuel into a 1.4 liter engine before the air/fuel mixture is too rich to achieve combustion.

4.2 liters and 400 HP is complete overkill for a 4000 lb car to travel on the highway. The thing is, we as people, especially Americans, and especially myself, LOVE OVERKILL. It is what we do.

Read an entry level physics book and a few articles..

Needs More Horsepower | The New Republic

Two ACTUAL abbreviations which apply to myself, "ME" & "IE" masters.

Done, and out.

 

Yo, Cool off Olsic03STR! Before I retort to your argument, you need to be reminded by myself or a forum moderator regarding proper decorum on this good forum. Personal attacks are prohibited and have resulted in suspension. Now my retort: You're wrong. Assuming stock gearing, a 1.4 L 125-150 hp @ 125 lb/ft trq. motor would not only fail to maintain speed in overdrive in a 2.88 cogged 4000 lb. car, it would also consume larger amounts of fuel than a 400 hp motor. This would also be the case if lower gearing were utilized to compensate for weight. In a 4.10 rear geared STR, the 1.4 L motor would be wound out to the top of its powerband, consuming even more fuel. The 3.0 V6 "S" developed 235 hp and churned 3.30 rear cogs. Do you believe Ford-Jag would have went down in displacement to gain the advantage of fuel economy when they saw that the 2.5 L used in the X-Type (I owned a 2002 3.0 X-Type) faired worse in mpg than the upgrade 3.0, which eventually became the "X" only available engine. I'll remind you one more time...cool it bro. I didn't become a doctor on air alone, spending 10 years of my life post highschool in books, bodies, and yes, advanced physics too.

 

Although I still disagree, I am apologizing for turning a discussion into an argument. It was unnecessary. This is my first car forum, and to that point, a Jaguar forum. I would prefer to not be booted, because there is much to learn here.

I am used to my motorcycle forums, which are full of uneducated, uncivilized, know it all, A** H****. Not only that, they are .org, and anything goes.

Peace.

 

We're cool. All is well. Sorry for using my "Gear Head" brain during the posts. It conviently serves as a diversion from the daily health tech. talk. I'm jealous of ya cause I'm a Harley Davidson wanna-be. Don't even own a bike but wish I did. One day may go for it. Be well.

 

Olsic03STR and bfsgross, way to be ciivil at the end. There are points that you both have made, lets leave it at that. I can only see that if this were to continue where it is going to go, and no one would want that.

 

Thanks Rick. We're ok. The adrenalin served as a sleeping aid...wife wasn't too happy though.

 

Way to stay classy, San Diego. That's what we expect around here, so good job cooling off boys. And since Seth is probably high, then that's even more impressive.

I remember reading somewhere that the internal combustion engine is most efficient at WOT. Since I like trees and nature and stuff and wanna do my part to conserve resources, I drive at WOT as much as possible. You're welcome, Earth.

 

hmm, well, reduces "pumping losses" (due to restricted throttle)

 

Chris, I may have been high, cause I do. Imagine forty years from now; this's the way it'll go for most of us here...Oh no! Oh my, Did I write dat? Not me. Someone musta slipped a "Micky" in my eggnog. Mutta? Is that you? Wha? Time for my sponge bath? Sawwy guys, gutta go. It's seven...way past time for my sponge bath and sonic clean my full dentures. Remember...vroom vroom your engines. Bye.

 

On your way back can you check the MPG at a average speed of 110mph?

 

Ditto. One day my STR got 66 mpg (as I enter into a strange interlude) .... It was a cool sunny day this past autumn, the leaves bursting with amazing colors. She got up to 130 mph on the straight. Coasted downhill for a few miles. On the way down, after the smoke in the cabin had cleared enough to view the gauge pod, the mpg meter revealed 66 mpg. What a joyous moment it was.

 

Now I like where this thread is going! I have no problem with people burning things... be it gas... or grass...


So I finally opened her up today on an empty toll road. As my girlfriend sat next to me texting on her iPhone, clueless to the fact that that she was moving at 150 mph +, I was absolutely amazed at not only quickly it got there, but how smooth it was. oooweeee

Problem is, coming down from speed, at around 120, I was given a gearbox fault. Felt like it was stuck in 4th or 5th gear. After restart, no problems. I am hoping for the best. Like I said, this beast is new to me, just went over 1000 miles during my little speed run.

 

Carnac says..... "Olsi's running the original battery, from 2003....."

Any alternative theses?

(Congrats to both you and Seth for an amicable spin-down to the would-be skirmish)

 

Haha, yes thanks, I would prefer to be civil. I may have been about 8 beers deep during the original post.

Regarding the battery, I have read the other posts mentioning the battery and various faults. I am ashamed to say I haven't checked, I guess that is what Sundays are for.

 

Yeah.....seems xmsn fault that clears with a key-off-restart cycle is pretty common with a failing battery, likewise multiple, seemingly unrelated MIL codes. Even if it checks good and starts all the time.....if it is the original you may want to start looking around for a replacement.

 

If it is the original, I will replace it regardless. Also, the high speed run was likely a one time thing(for awhile). I just had to see what it has. So if the fault had anything to do with it, it shouldn't surface it's head again for awhile.

 

olsoc03STR, swap in fresh trans. fluid plus a ECU/TCM reflash.

 

I think you hit the limiter and it set a code because of it.

 

I sincerely hope it would not set a code for that! Especially not a gearbox one.