What?

No, it doesn't

Unless you tagged me instead of @LordCaledus by accident.

I'm the person who within the last few minutes said thermal efficiency is not fuel efficiency after he was using the terms as if they were interchangeable.

It's the difference between power/lbs of fuel, and miles/gal of fuel

I don't know what you think the misunderstanding was here, and it seems like you don't either since you can't express it.

The Subaru is more *efficient* with the displacement it has

Yes.

And it has a higher compression

From forced induction

Ok, why are you saying this stuff though?

I don't know what comment you think you're responding to at this point, but it wasn't one I made.

Look, higher compression will lead to higher power but that doesn't mean you will use less fuel, it just means the car will move easier

forced induction in general has traditionally lead to worse economy

It's worse economy per vehicle, because it has been used to INCREASE POWER.

because it forces more fuel in, which means you burn more in each detonation

I used the wankel as a good example, the Subaru engines work too.

Also, forced induction has often been used to allow for otherwise underpowered engines to be put into vehicles too heavy for the engines

Wankel me off.

I mean it would kind of depend on the strategy behind it wouldn't it?

again, this isn't going to help economy at all

@Fitzydog who are you thinking is disagreeing with this? You're making the same point I made when I came in here and saw it being used interchangeably with fuel economy.

No one used it interchangeably, we used it as a direct correlation

@LordCaledus was using it interchangeably, as well as using emissions and fuel economy interchangeably.

Also, you said compression has no effect on fuel efficiency

for the most part, yes, a high compression ratio will allow for more energy to be developed from each detonation, but a higher compression ratio will also often result in more fuel and air being pushed into a cylinder

What?

I mean, I didn't.

I didn't even mention emissions

Which is why I said you had a fair point when you said what you did about turbos helping emissions

@Fitzydog you're literally responding to stuff that wasn't said.

@LOGiK It's still using that fuel more efficiently than a lower compression on the same engine

Because I didn't say anything about it and was wrong not to consider it.

I never even said compression in this chat.

For fuck's sake, can we stop this running around in circles?

@LordCaledus you confused mpg targets with emissions targets.

@Matt You are a fucking retard and a god damned liar.

No, I literally only _mentioned_ mpg targets and was _wrong_ to.

I called Rat Attac a retard because of one sentence he made which he hasn't retracted, and which you inaccurately defended. "To get better mileage you need more compression." The context of this line is that the WRX could be made more efficient by increasing its engine's compression ratio and the implication was that this was the best way Rat could recognize to improve fuel economy.

Problem: compression ratio being increased will not on its own increase fuel economy.

Increasing compression and _decreasing boost_