Message from @Matt

Discord ID: 476515684080156673


2018-08-07 22:18:39 UTC  

Remove friction, tweak the compression, do a little this, do a little that.

2018-08-07 22:18:50 UTC  

@Matt I was talking about a specific subaru, with a turbo and 4cyl engine which had a similar power output and gas mileage as a heavier, and larger displacement vehicle

2018-08-07 22:18:55 UTC  

I mean...it seems to be working.

2018-08-07 22:19:31 UTC  

All things considiered the Subie is the worse of the two by that comparison, considering it's powering a car about 1k lbs lighter

2018-08-07 22:19:43 UTC  

Exactly

2018-08-07 22:19:50 UTC  

Both are AWD

2018-08-07 22:20:12 UTC  

But the Subaru has a higher thermal efficiency

2018-08-07 22:20:31 UTC  

Eh, but per the drivers, the Tahoe is less efficient on gas

2018-08-07 22:20:46 UTC  

Yeah, same same

2018-08-07 22:21:02 UTC  

Not by as sizeable margin as it should be tho, lol

2018-08-07 22:21:15 UTC  

Well that actually supports me bringing up thermal efficiency and fuel efficiency being quite different, and doesn't explain any misunderstanding on my part.

2018-08-07 22:21:24 UTC  

What?

2018-08-07 22:21:27 UTC  

No, it doesn't

2018-08-07 22:21:27 UTC  

Unless you tagged me instead of @LordCaledus by accident.

2018-08-07 22:22:16 UTC  

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.

2018-08-07 22:22:42 UTC  

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

2018-08-07 22:23:06 UTC  

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.

2018-08-07 22:23:06 UTC  

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

2018-08-07 22:23:12 UTC  

Yes.

2018-08-07 22:23:31 UTC  

And it has a higher compression

2018-08-07 22:23:43 UTC  

From forced induction

2018-08-07 22:23:44 UTC  

Ok, why are you saying this stuff though?

2018-08-07 22:24:40 UTC  

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

2018-08-07 22:24:43 UTC  

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

2018-08-07 22:24:55 UTC  

forced induction in general has traditionally lead to worse economy

2018-08-07 22:25:15 UTC  

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

2018-08-07 22:25:18 UTC  

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

2018-08-07 22:25:24 UTC  

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

2018-08-07 22:26:11 UTC  

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

2018-08-07 22:26:14 UTC  

Wankel me off.

2018-08-07 22:26:24 UTC  

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

2018-08-07 22:26:24 UTC  

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

2018-08-07 22:26:26 UTC  

@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.

2018-08-07 22:26:56 UTC  

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

2018-08-07 22:27:28 UTC  

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

2018-08-07 22:27:34 UTC  

Also, you said compression has no effect on fuel efficiency

2018-08-07 22:27:42 UTC  

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

2018-08-07 22:27:43 UTC  

What?

2018-08-07 22:27:44 UTC  

I mean, I didn't.