How does the fuel mileage of a "properly built" 2270cc motor ...

Alfred1 · 07-26-2004, 04:40 PM

compare to the fuel mileage of a stock 2.0L?

sean_V8_914 · sean_V8_914's Garage

I bet Jake knows...

Alfred1 · 07-26-2004, 04:57 PM

I'm looking for some realistic figures.

Tom Perso · 07-26-2004, 06:15 PM

I was in the high 20's with a 2270 in my 63 Bug that was running a bit rich.

I have it in my 914 now, but I keep ragging the ***** out of it, so I have no idea...

Later,
Tom

Alfred1 · 07-26-2004, 06:36 PM

Tom,

It's your description of how your motor performs (e.g., lighting up your tires at will) that keeps bringing me back to the idea of building a 2270. I'm trying to figure out how much more it will cost to build a 2270 using a 1.8L core motor that I have compared to rebuilding my 2.0 to stock.

Jake Raby · 07-26-2004, 06:50 PM

Are you calling me a liar?? What a puke!

I highly suggest that you atleast make an engine run before you step up to the plate to build a 2270 anyway.

pbanders · pbanders's Garage

My prior motor was a 2.2L with 40IDF Webers, built by Garretson's. I didn't have dyno figures on it, but the prior owner of the engine claimed it was about 140 HP or so. It had plenty of power when I had it and ran fine. I typically got about 17 to 19 mpg in the city, and a bit better on the highway. Other owners of similar engines I have known got mileage in the same range. That's what I'd expect from the motor you describe.

Alfred1 · 07-26-2004, 07:50 PM

I'm not calling you a liar I'm just saying that you're full of hyperbole. In the past, you've stated on this forum that one of your 2270s has gotten 38 mpg while cruising at 80 - 90 mph. Why don't I believe that? Because a freakin' 2004 Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic econobox can't do it (not at 80 mph)!

Check out the fuel mileage for a new 2.0L 914 given in this article.

Jake Raby · 07-26-2004, 08:49 PM

That engine was NOT a 2270. It is a 2056 that just turned 60K miles in my 912E over this past weekend.

Thats 60K in 22 months. The car has gotten 38MPG and still gets 32 after not having an oil change in over 12,000 miles.

Its getting Kit Carlson EMS tomorrow. Its getting an engine swap to a 2270 Roller cam beast next month... Its not a lie, atleast 2 members that frequent this board have ridden in it, and one of them went all the way to Florida with me (725 miles one way) at 85MPH the whole way last November-

Alfred1 · 07-26-2004, 09:01 PM

Ok, sorry a 2056. Still, that's much better than a stock 2.0L and better than what a new econobox can do.

Biggy72 · Biggy72's Garage

that article says that, but I got 30 mpg consistently with my 1.7, instead of their suggested 25.5

Jake Raby · 07-26-2004, 09:46 PM

Yes, a stock 2.0 is about as inefficient as they come! The 1.7 had better efficiency.

This uindustry has had 30 years on the factory now. Better parts, better knowledge and better minds to push the engines to the max..

The factory was not filled with individuals trying to get mpore power out of one cylinder than an entire stock engine makes- whoever designed the stock cam, needs his ass beat!

Tom Perso · 07-27-2004, 03:30 AM

It's pretty simple - the more efficient you make a motor, the better fuel economy it's going to get... So, when you let it breath and combine it with a camshaft that promotes complete "filling" of the cylinder at each cycle, you are going to get a more efficient motor.

A 914 takes the same amount of HP to cruise at 80, regardless if it's a 1.7, 2.0, 2056, 2270, 350, etc, etc... You get the point.

Stock motors are no fun... I could never bring myself to suggesting someone to build a "stock" motor. The lowest combo I would EVER suggest would be the 2056 that Jake has in his 912. I've seen that same (pretty close, at least) in person and it's a GREAT combo. Smooth power delivery, revs to 6000 with ease, and cruises at 90mph without a beat.

Jake, as a sidenote... Grant dumped the silly 4 speed in his 912 and put a converted 914 box in it's place!!! Too bad his 930 wheels don't fit so he is grafting in SC flares! It should be on the road soon again!

Tom

Jake Raby · 07-27-2004, 06:39 AM

Tom, that sounds sweet!

Alpine, The engine that Tom has was "Jake inspired"...... He just did one thing that I didn't totally agree with. The power he derives from itis due to his combo..... It would be a sin if you do anything near that- since you hate me so much...... Hell it might even become haunted and go wide open throttle on you one day with no way of being shut down- what a shame!

Tom Perso · 07-27-2004, 07:15 AM

Yeah, it's a shame that I had the heads done before we really started talking about the combo, Jake.

If I were to do it again, Adrian would have had those heads and done up right for cheaper than what I paided for mine!!! Oh well... Live and learn.

Even so, it still rips!

Tom

pbanders · pbanders's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Tom Perso
It's pretty simple - the more efficient you make a motor, the better fuel economy it's going to get... So, when you let it breath and combine it with a camshaft that promotes complete "filling" of the cylinder at each cycle, you are going to get a more efficient motor."

Can you describe the characteristics of such a cam, as compared to the stock cam? I ask because nearly all of the aftermarket cams that I've seem are performance-oriented: big lift, significant overlap, etc. All things that move the torque peak higher and further up the engine speed range, resulting in poorer fuel economy, especially at low throttle angle cruising in a bigger gear.

Additionally, most non-stock cams are on motors that have been converted to carbs. Carbs are inherently less efficient than fuel injection systems, due to a number of well-known factors. And carbs are often illegal for use in various states on cars that were originally equipped with FI, as they have much higher emissions under various operating conditions - startup, overrun, acceleration, etc.

Jake Raby · 07-27-2004, 08:15 AM

Those cams off the shelf are most of the time more performance oriented..... Thats why I OWN 43 cam grinds.

The stock cam MAKES heat, no matter if you have FI or carbs.. I have simply made a cam change to a 100% otherwise unaltered engine and made 15HP, increased revs by 650 RPM and cooled the heads off 60 degrees! This engine did have stock D jet FI- FYI

Not many people have back to back test data to back up claims, but when you own a dyno you create tests just to play...

Alfred1 · 07-27-2004, 08:30 AM

Tom,

Does your car have a limited slip differential?

1bad914 · 07-27-2004, 08:44 AM

It's not limited slip, it's unlimited slip, thats what his tires do when he hits the gas.

Tom's car is my old one and does not have limited slip, he took my paltry 2056 out and put in the monster. I have yet to drive it, but soon I will.

Sorry for answering for you Tom!

Randy

pbanders · pbanders's Garage

Jake, generally the higher the temperature that an engine operates at, the more efficient it is, perhaps that's why Porsche/VW set up the motor the way they did (Carnot efficiency, n=1-Tl/Th). Are you saying that a cooler motor is more efficient? Also, did your cam change alter and shift the torque curve towards higher engine speed?