Same gallon of gas in 4 or 6 cylinder

[JPmedia]

Someone explain to me how a 4-cylinder engine getting the same mileage as a 6-cylinder engine is more fuel efficient.

They both burn the same amount of fuel in the same distance and a gallon of burned gas emits the same 20 lbs. of CO2 in either case. Other than reduced costs for the manufacturer, what advantage is there?

 

[TonyR]

Someone explain to me how a 4-cylinder engine getting the same mileage as a 6-cylinder engine is more fuel efficient.

I know about the almost 20 lbs. of CO2 per gal of gas burned but where did you hear/read that "a 4-cylinder engine getting the same mileage as a 6-cylinder engine is more fuel efficient" ?

 

[JPmedia]

I know about the almost 20 lbs. of CO2 per gal of gas burned but where did you hear/read that "a 4-cylinder engine getting the same mileage as a 6-cylinder engine is more fuel efficient" ?

That's what Toyota and other auto manufacturers are claiming. More fuel efficient and better for the environment.

If you ask me, it's virtue signaling and BS. My 2022 3.5 liter 6-cylinder Toyota Tacoma averaged 20.5 MPG combined. My 2024 2.4 liter 4-cylinder Tacoma averages 17.6 MPG. How the F is that more fuel efficient?

 

[TonyR]

That's what Toyota and other auto manufacturers are claiming. More fuel efficient and better for the environment.
If you ask me, it's virtue signaling and BS.

I agree.

My 2022 3.5 liter 6-cylinder Toyota Tacoma averaged 20.5 MPG combined.

...and my 2018 3.5L V6 Ecoboost Ford F-150 SuperCrew gets 20.9. Not bad when you consider it wasn't purchased for it's gas economy but for what it could haul, its practicality, etc.

 

[JPmedia]

It's all about consolidation and cutting costs, it has nothing to do with saving the environment, but they want you to believe it is.

Each cylinder of a 6-cylinder engine produces roughly 17% of the overall output of the engine. In a 4 cylinder, each has to produce 25% of the output. Which design do you think will last longer, especially if it is stuffed in the same 4000 lb. vehicle?

The load is less for 6 guys vs 4.

 

[Ri22o]

I had a 2016 Chevy Colorado with the 2.8l 4 cylinder diesel. I deleted the exhaust, DEF, etc and was getting near 700 miles to a tank. This was also with oversized tires and definitely heavier wheels, so economy could have been even better.

Fuel capacity is listed at 21 gallons with a combined rating of 23mpg. From 483mi to 700mi is a 45% increase in range. At what point does better economy outweigh slightly more emissions? Especially when I no longer had to use DEF, which came in plastic bottles and cardboard, had to be produced, transported, and also had a footprint?

 

[TonyR]

I had a 2016 Chevy Colorado with the 2.8l 4 cylinder diesel. I deleted the exhaust, DEF, etc and was getting near 700 miles to a tank. This was also with oversized tires and definitely heavier wheels, so economy could have been even better.

Fuel capacity is listed at 21 gallons with a combined rating of 23mpg. From 483mi to 700mi is a 45% increase in range. At what point does better economy outweigh slightly more emissions? Especially when I no longer had to use DEF, which came in plastic bottles and cardboard, had to be produced, transported, and also had a footprint?

Reminds me of my first wife who'd drive 8 or 9 miles across town to pick up toilet paper on sale to save 50 cents......or get gas at a nickle a gallon cheaper but could only fill up about 14 gallons.....

 

[JPmedia]

I had a 2016 Chevy Colorado with the 2.8l 4 cylinder diesel. I deleted the exhaust, DEF, etc and was getting near 700 miles to a tank. This was also with oversized tires and definitely heavier wheels, so economy could have been even better.

Fuel capacity is listed at 21 gallons with a combined rating of 23mpg. From 483mi to 700mi is a 45% increase in range. At what point does better economy outweigh slightly more emissions? Especially when I no longer had to use DEF, which came in plastic bottles and cardboard, had to be produced, transported, and also had a footprint?

All that shit on the engine is designed to make it less reliable and force you to frequently change parts that have little to no real improvement. In many cases, it actually decreases efficiency and performance with no benefit to the environment. As I said, it's all about the money. More pennies here, a few more nickels there and whadda know, the execs can now get another luxury item

 

[Ri22o]

Not to mention, the amount of emissions you are allowed is related to the size of the vehicle (or the other way around, even). This is why trucks have gotten so much bigger. The envelope the vehicle size has to meet for the emissions has gotten bigger, so they just make the truck bigger until it's equal to the size needed for the emissions produced.

 

[rolibr24]

There is No Replacement For Displacement.

 

[JPmedia]

Fuel capacity is listed at 21 gallons ...

That's the other kicker; they shrunk the size of the fuel tank from 21.5 gallons to 18.5 gallons in the redesign of the Tacoma. Why? Slightly less weight? Possibly, but my tinfoil hat says it's to lower the range you can travel on a single tank. I get the feeling that this will be a trend as we go on.

 

[TonyR]

That's the other kicker; they shrunk the size of the fuel tank from 21.5 gallons to 18.5 gallons in the redesign of the Tacoma. Why? Slightly less weight? Possibly, but my tinfoil hat says it's to lower the range you can travel on a single tank. I get the feeling that this will be a trend as we go on.

My F-150 has one of the less common, but not rare, 36 gallon tanks. Talk about sticker shock back when gas was $4+ a gallon! But a range of 720 miles is kind of nice.

 

[JPmedia]

My F-150 has one of the less common, but not rare, 36 gallon tanks. Talk about sticker shock back when gas was $4+ a gallon! But a range of 720 miles is kind of nice.

I don't think a 36-gallon fuel tank would fit on a Tacoma, but it would be nice for the trip to Pennsylvania every year to visit family and friends. Being almost 1200 miles one way, I would still have to refuel along the way, it would only be once. Now I have to fill up 4 times on the way there and 3 more on the way home

 

[Ri22o]

That's the other kicker; they shrunk the size of the fuel tank from 21.5 gallons to 18.5 gallons in the redesign of the Tacoma. Why? Slightly less weight? Possibly, but my tinfoil hat says it's to lower the range you can travel on a single tank. I get the feeling that this will be a trend as we go on.

My theory has always been that they size the tank to get you 300 miles. No bigger, no smaller.

 

[JPmedia]

My theory has always been that they size the tank to get you 300 miles. No bigger, no smaller.

Every vehicle I've ever owned had a range of almost 400 miles or more. My 2024 Tacoma cannot get above 300 miles per tank according to the gauge, so they must have a pretty large reserve in the tank. Either way, it's no real problem for my everyday driving, just a pain when I do long distance travel

 

[vandyman]

My 2015 f150 2.7L gets the same mileage as my 2001 5.4L did. So go figure. Around 17 miles to the gallon.

But believe it or not. The 2.7L has more balls.
Side note, I only have 60000 miles on my 2015.

 

[TonyR]

But believe it or not. The 2.7L has more balls.
Side note, I only have 60000 miles on my 2015.

Talk about balls...this stock 2018 3.5L V6 twin turbo Ecoboost @ 375 HP is quick.....you can't slam your foot down anytime unless you're doing at least 15 MPH unless you like smoking expensive 20 inch rubber!