Ecotec 1.4L & 1.8L Replica-No Replacement for displacement?
Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 2:02 am
Small turbocharged engine is the current trend now and is starting to replace larger naturally aspirated engines. Manufacturer claims it has the same or even better power than its larger counterpart. Today I had nothing to do and browsed Chevy USA's website. When I took a look on Chevrolet Sonic, I was amazed by this:
Reference: http://www.chevrolet.com/sonic-hatchbac ... train.html
Chevrolet Sonic is offered in 2 (or probably more) engine configuration. A turbocharged 1.4L and NA 1.8L. Both has same peak horsepower rating but turbo engine attains it at lower RPM and the 1.4L has more peak torque and occurs in lower RPM. The 1.4L turbocharged engine looks better in any aspect. So I tried creating them both in Automation.
Here's the 1.4L turbocharged.
And here's the 1.8L naturally aspirated.
Quick comparison to them both
Much to my surprise, the 1.4L is not as good as I imagined. It requires 100 octane gas to attain the desired amount of torque and horsepower and the fuel consumption isn't that great either compared to the 1.8L version. Sure it has more torque and burns less fuel than 1.8L engine at 2700 RPM, but as we can see from the BSFC graph, it burns fuel like crazy on idle and past 4000 RPM while the 1.8L engine doesn't use more than 300 g/kwh on 6000 RPM.
Not to mention the 1.4L turbocharged engine costs $358.39 more, heavier, has less MBTF and responsiveness, and more expensive to service.
So.. Is there no replacement for displacement?
P.S. if anyone owns a Chevrolet Sonic, do they really require 95 octane fuel? Can they run on 91 properly? It's amazing that they make such power and torque given their displacement.
Reference: http://www.chevrolet.com/sonic-hatchbac ... train.html
Chevrolet Sonic is offered in 2 (or probably more) engine configuration. A turbocharged 1.4L and NA 1.8L. Both has same peak horsepower rating but turbo engine attains it at lower RPM and the 1.4L has more peak torque and occurs in lower RPM. The 1.4L turbocharged engine looks better in any aspect. So I tried creating them both in Automation.
Here's the 1.4L turbocharged.
And here's the 1.8L naturally aspirated.
Quick comparison to them both
Much to my surprise, the 1.4L is not as good as I imagined. It requires 100 octane gas to attain the desired amount of torque and horsepower and the fuel consumption isn't that great either compared to the 1.8L version. Sure it has more torque and burns less fuel than 1.8L engine at 2700 RPM, but as we can see from the BSFC graph, it burns fuel like crazy on idle and past 4000 RPM while the 1.8L engine doesn't use more than 300 g/kwh on 6000 RPM.
Not to mention the 1.4L turbocharged engine costs $358.39 more, heavier, has less MBTF and responsiveness, and more expensive to service.
So.. Is there no replacement for displacement?
P.S. if anyone owns a Chevrolet Sonic, do they really require 95 octane fuel? Can they run on 91 properly? It's amazing that they make such power and torque given their displacement.