The Best Way To Compare Engine Efficiency - BSFC
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 сен 2024
- Brake Specific Fuel Consumption - How Massive Engines Can Be Efficient
Comparing Engine Performance: BMEP - • The Best Way To Compar...
Subscribe for new videos every Wednesday! - goo.gl/VZstk7
Recommended Books & Car Products - amzn.to/2BrekJm
EE Shirts! - bit.ly/2BHsiuo
Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) is a great way to compare the efficiency of engines. It's often referred to in units of g/kWh, (for example: 200 g/kWh) and represents the amount of fuel flowing into the engine versus how much power the engine actually makes. BSFC is directly correlated to the efficiency of an engine. The lower the BSFC, the more efficient an engine is.
In this video we'll define brake specific fuel consumption, show how it correlates with efficiency, look at a BSFC map, compare BSFC with RPM, air-fuel ratio, and engine size, and talk about ways of optimizing BSFC. We'll also look at how you can analyze the BSFC of your car engine if you have an MPG readout. This is helpful in determining what the best gear to be in for maximum efficiency.
Engineering Explained is a participant in the Amazon Influencer Program.
Don't forget to check out my other pages below!
Facebook: / engineeringexplained
Official Website: www.howdoesacar...
Twitter: / jasonfenske13
Instagram: / engineeringexplained
Car Throttle: www.carthrottl...
Amazon: www.amazon.com...
EE Extra: / @engineeringexplainede...
NEW VIDEO EVERY WEDNESDAY!
BSFC also helps explain why cylinder deactivation is a thing! For example, a V8 going down to four cylinders means those four cylinders have to make more power per cylinder versus eight cylinders. That puts them at a higher load, which is more efficient, and thus fuel economy improves during cylinder deactivation! If you haven't yet, I'd also recommend learning about BMEP, which is another great way to compare engines: ruclips.net/video/bE_1JYrlYYU/видео.html
Isn’t the Mercedes F1 engine the worlds most efficient?50% ?
:cries in rotary efficiency:
it's worth also to note that big marine 2-stroke diesel engines are among the most fuel efficient engines, for the same reason that they have less friction losses for a single cycle, compared to 4-stroke
You are absolutely right. The main purpose of an ICE is to convert the fuel chemical potential energy in mechanical work at the main shaft. How good this process inside the cylinder enclosure has been done is measure by ISFC, and how good this energy is transported through the mechanism is measure by BSFC.
Excellent explanation if the topic!!
Why is there a naked man drawn upside down on the upper left quarter of that white board?
My favourite profs in university taught the same way you do: Original notes written on the board. My least favourite profs made slideshows and talked briefly about each slide - leaving us to our own devices to really learn the material. Thank you for being such a great teacher.
Keep in mind Jason may be a good prof but he has prep time to fill the whiteboard, a prof typically does it on the fly.
It is very rare to find a prof that can do purely notes without errors and unreadable crap
Ideally a prof should do a mixture of both (slides and notes where appropriate)
@@YounesLayachi it's not rare at all. Profs have TAs they can get to write notes as well. You're just making excuses for laziness. The profs I liked the most happened to be the busiest but they were the smartest and most capable at their jobs. The ones who read off slides just suck.
@@blzt3206 you're angry and it's okay. I too hate the slide readers with passion.
But the reality is, extremism is always detrimental. There should be nuances, slides and whiteboards each have pros and cons. So they should be used in conjunction
I don't know which is the most optimal approach. Writing on the board during class takes time (time which can otherwise be spent on covering the syllabus). Moreover, students tend to get distracted and start talking when a professor turns his back to write on the board. On the other hand, pre-prepared slides gives more time to teach and minimizes or avoids the issue of students getting distracted. However, I also feel that writing on the board makes the class more engaging and stimulating for students who really want to listen and learn. So probably a mixture of both might be good.
I had a prof who would have my entire class of MSE students (~150) walk half way across campus from the department's building to the architecture building because it had a projector the biggest whiteboard.
*Jason produces a thermodynamics textbook*
Oh... it's about to get real.
it's just a massive textbook with photos of whiteboards as its diagrams
Leave him. He's cool.
Jason flexing the 1 take 1 breath video xD
I started watching your videos 4 years ago. Now I’m taking an internal combustion class in college where we are calculating this and a lot of the other things you’ve talked about. Thank you for continuing to make these videos. I give you credit for convincing me to go to college by showing just how interesting this stuff is.
Would having a CVT tuned at BSFC as the shift point be the most efficient way to drive on an ICE car?
Yes, but it also is related to road traction, internal vehicle weight and road grade as well. This is similar to what the larger car companies are programming into their ECMs and TCMs now, but it's unfortunately not an exact science as I understand it.
Even I want to know.
Too many variables, but in an ideal scenario, yes.
The way you use the throttle has a huge effect on efficiency. The coeff. Of drag and speed you are travelling has a huge effect on fuel economy.
Yes, using a CVT to keep the engine at it's BSFC/efficiency peak will give the best economy at any given speed.
as far as I know cvt's use belts, which are not efficient. gears in a mt have less losses.
Have you considered spending some time teaching at an Institution of some kind? Your ability to articulate these complex ideas in a robust & simple way is immeasurably valuable. We need enthusiasts such as yourself, bringing forth excitement into otherwise boring fields. Thank you, as an academic, for your contributions. I am much more knowledgeable because of my Subscription to Engineering Explained
Thank you for the very kind words! For now, RUclips is my institution haha.
I'm not sure how much money he can really make as an instructor with a Bachelor's (unless this is different to what I heard years ago). Academia can be this steep hill climb of pursuing a terminal degree, spending countless hours assisting in research, and even then, having to consistently publish just to make a name for yourself, get tenure, better benefits, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if he did it in the distant future despite this, assuming finances are great.
He’s doing more good here tbh, we all get to learn!
@@mrburgermaster That is an incredibly accurate summary description of academia. To even get in the door, a masters (by research) is the absolute minimum prerequisite, with a PhD being essential if you want any respect at all in academia. And having said that, even then you're at the bottom rung of the ladder, and will be saddled with the least interesting roles until you can produce something worthy of note in the research world, or better yet, attract sufficient funding from industry or institutions, that gets you noticed. The bit I hated about academia (whilst doing my PhD) was exactly as you mentioned, publishing papers like you're shooting buckshot at a barn door. The difference between industry and academia when it comes to research I find is the difference between quality and quantity. When I completed my PhD, I entered industry, and now I get academics constantly pitching research to me, and I get to choose who I do and don't fund/collaborate with, and I have nothing but sympathy for them, because they're often incredibly clever individuals reduced to this kind of professional 'pole dance' routine they have to perform towards industry just to make a living that is constantly under threat. Academia is a world I'd only ever consider going back to when I retire, part time, as a consultant, otherwise I'll stick with industry as long as I'm relevant!
I would be absolutely amazed if he doesn't make orders of magnitude more money per "lesson" here in addition to reaching far more people than he would directly teaching. My comment is from the perspective of a high school physics teacher, so my work flow is different than a lecturer at a university. One thing to consider when it comes to standard teaching is volume of teaching output. On RUclips, Jason can take several days to plan and deliver a single, polished 10-20 minute video. When teaching, you are doing several of those every day (in my case it is ~20 per day) in real-time. One other thing to consider is that here, he has an intrinsically motivated audience who knows they don't have to demonstrate that they actually understand what he teaches, don't have to attend every lesson, and he doesn't have to go into nearly as much technical detail (though I do appreciate that he often goes into a fair amount of technical detail). I use a lot of videos from sources like Engineering Explained in my instruction along with elaboration and discussion. In addition to the standard RUclips viewership, I think this is, by far, the better model for Jason to have the greatest educational impact while also probably making much more money.
It is pretty amazing how efficient over the road trucks and trains are in how much weight they can move per unit of fuel.
Trains have a very low rolling coefficient of friction between the wheels and the rails which gives them that efficiency.
@@ninemilliondollars also do not go up steep hills.
@@borysnijinski331 Trains have sand tubes that deposit it on the rails just in front of the wheels to help with traction going up hills.
True, the trucks I drive will do 8.3 mpg (US gal) but weigh 44 tones or 97,000 lbs
@@ninemilliondollars trains don't have steep climbes anymore, 4% max if i recall correctly. The long term fuel savings greatly outweighs the up front cost of reshaping the grades. Out in the western mountains there is old tracks abandoned all over with tree's growing through from when the new low gradient tracks went into service.
*Jason Summons Thermodynamics book*
**The screech of thousands of students suddenly heard in the distance**
our smile vanished
This is great! I always struggle to explain why my boat's two 454 engines aren't as inefficient as they seem at first. More POWAH!
Yes, and you have propellers that have a lot of pitch in them to prevent over-revving those engines. That loads your engines greatly, which helps BSFC.
Airplane designers are greatly concerned with BSFC. Most air-cooled engines in light airplanes have a BSFC of 0.5 lbs/horsepower hour. This is used to size the fuel capacity for the airplane.
That is why air cooled is poor design, they use about 50 percent more fuel than a modern liquid cooled engine.
Correct me if I’m wrong but my takeaway from that is that for daily driving it makes sense to use the engines efficiency to accelerate, say 70% throttle, to a given speed and then maintain that speed. Not to accelerate gently to that speed as its inefficient use of the engine. Driving teachers in the UK tell us that gentle acceleration is best / more fuel efficient. This disproves that logic. Excellent.
They're actually correct, but it's a complicated story. Generally speaking, it's better to accelerate more slowly, because this results in a lower average speed, and a lower average speed will have less losses, and thus use less energy. But it's a balancing act. An engine operating at a more efficient spot doesn't necessarily mean you're getting better MPG. Example: driving at 90 mph, your engine might be in an efficient spot, but your aero losses are massive, so you have to make a lot of power, which means bad fuel economy.
Absolutely accurate, yet almost entirely useless to a consumer.
Channel motto! 😂
We need smarter consumers
@@RaddestDad it’s not about education, this discussion just really isn’t relevant to consumers. They need to know how efficient a CAR overall is vs another CAR as a total. Like he said in the beginning, a Semi can have a hugely efficient engine, but it’s still a Semi getting 20 mpg, when that same person can just drive a moped and get 30... the point of the video is how to measure efficiency of ENGINES for other means, ie research, personal curiosity, etc
I find it pretty useful and I'm a consumer. Nobody's forcing you to watch these videos.
@@EssenceofPureFlavor you seem to think I dislike the content, but I’m also an engineer and I love this stuff. However, thermodynamic efficiency doesn’t matter when you’re buying a vehicle for transportation, but MPG does.
This is super interesting. I think you should do a video on the Liquid Piston rotary engine. Super simple, high power density and efficiency.
Sound interesting!
@Donovan Piko True, but there is some decent info out there.
At 9:34, Jason gets into the ratio of surface-area to volume of a a cube and a cylinder, and the lower the ratio is, the higher the efficiency (and the lower the BSFC)
I had done a similar calculation for a rotary engine and compared it to a Porsche 944. As I recall, the rotary had a much higher area-to-volume ratio vs the 944, suggesting a higher BSFC.
@@kevink2315 yeah the rotary engine does have a pretty large surface area relative to its volume. But the Liquid piston engine supposedly gets close to 70% thermal efficiency. I guess another way would be to use a low thermal resistance coating to reduce heat loss to the cylinder walls
@@RahulPatel-fp3ju I have seen 75% thermal efficiency in one article. Swain has been coating pistons and other engine parts for a decade(s), and would help here.
The LiquidPiston engine is enough like the Wankel to be close to the same area/volume ratio,
Man sometimes i feel like youtube does not do justice for your talent, the way of your explanation and your knowledge is epic love your videos thanks for making these videos so that people like me gain ton of knowledge 😁
I agree. 29,030 views at this moment. not likely a teacher in a university setting would reach this many people in a classroom type setting
@@MrHarr0073 i don't mean that in any way all I was saying is that the amount of hardwork he gives i feel youtube can't to a justice will countering it with the revenue element.
You know what they say: "there's no BSFClacement for displacement"
This is all really neat stuff about engine dynamics! However, MPG is still the most useful way to look at the efficiency of a car. After all, it's MPG to move stuff, which could change between vehicles using the same engine (see Honda accord vs Element).
This message brought to you by the small-car gang.
You're right.
This is more about efficiency of the 'engine' though, not the efficiency of the 'vehicle'.
As a truck driver, I say mpg or l/100km but divide that by the total mass. I'm averaging 36.3l/100km but that's moving 80,000 lbs. I think I'm doing pretty good
@@johnwaterdriver yep, both system compare the engine, but the real question is the useful part, don't really care about the 1 ton of the cars own weight, if it only moves a single person, it will be much worse than the bus with a more fuel using engine and 10 ton or more own weight, but moving 80 person.
@@johnwaterdriver Id rather compare it to the weight requirement of the task, not the weight of the vehicle itself. If you used your unloaded truck to drive your kid to school, thats not very efficient.
I drive a 15 year old Renault Grand Scenic it's a 7 seater with a 1.9 litre diesel engine with a 6 speed manual. This is not an exciting car but I will get 58mpg (US gal) on a run this is with 5 people on board and a full boot (trunk) weighing about 2 ton. So why are Americans happy with cars that return 40mpg or even less?
The theoretical limit for thermal efficiency, if you have unlimited amount of money, is about 60%. F1 engine is at 55%. Pretty amazing . Thanks Jason! It's been a while since I see that Cengel and Boles 🔥🔥
combined cycle engines can crack that 60%.
Actually it would be higher. F1 restricts the use of ceramics for pistons and bores. CSIRO did efficiency testing back in the 80's with ceramics and achieved efficiencies of around 60%. Think of how much higher it would be now with modern electronics and injection.
I'm so glad to have found this channel. Things I learn here are amazing! Thanks for the education!
according to wiki, my 2.0 bimmer nets 198g/kWh, which seems awsome!
And it really shows, under ideal conditions i can crack 60mpg quite easily. And thats a 1.5t boat with rwd and no hybrid nonsense.
This a diesel?
@@AustinPerdue Yep, N47 diesel.
One thing to keep in mind with diesel is that it has at least 15% more energy per unit volume. A comparably efficient gasoline engine would be around 230g/kWh.
This channel is amazing i am a second year mechanical engineering student and your channel is helping me a lot !!!!
Happy to hear it, thanks for watching!
As always thanks for these informative videos. I suggested a few times a video explaining the reason for the different placements of brake calipers between different cars but also between front and back brakes of a same car. Plus the difference between standard calipers and the new 10 piston calipers seen on recent Porsches and whether it really makes a difference. It would be nice if you could explain this. Many thanks
Finally, I can share this video to my family who still believe 1 liter engine is more fuel efficient running at 4000 rpm at 100 kph than 2.5 liter engine running at 1600 rpm at the same speed. Thank you, Sir!
Smaller engine isn't mean more efficient, so many car manufacturers only focus on weight reduction.
I know you're not getting the Toyota GR Yaris in North America but it'd be awesome if you could do an analysis of the G16E-GTS
Edit:- I think you're getting a GR Corolla with the G16E-GTS in North America
I hope so, with AWD like the Yaris. If it’s FWD I will be so disappointed 🤦♂️
I want that GR Yaris 6 speed so bad!
He already did a video about the three cylinder yaris engine
@@ghoulbuster1 I've seen a video on the Koenigsegg 3 cylinder but nothing on the G16E-GTS. Do you have a link?
I'm always impressed with how much I learn from your videos. Keep being smart.
I'm glad you said this. Everyone that drives a f150 wants to compare fuel efficiency (mpg) between the 3.5L twin turbo vs the 5.0L naturally aspirated V8. The 5.0 gets the same fuel mileage as the 3.5L V6 but produces almost 100ft/tq less.
If the V8 produced the same power numbers the fuel efficiency would be less than what it is.
So the lesson I got out of it: Get a massive four-banger!
Hence the 2.7L turbo 4 in the Silverado.
Or get a Lanz Bulldog or something of that kind. 6.2l 1 cylinder Diesel engine. Can't get more efficient than that!
@@Shapparaal EE did a video on why that engine is ineficent asf and a fuel hog
@Marco Krueger I'm driving at peak BSFC but my Speedometer is going 100, 110, 120, 130, 140, 150. How do I get BSFC at a reasonable speed? That's when you go back to smaller engines. That is unless you just tie 10 cars to each other, turn 9 of them off and have one pull the group. Then swap the lead car so everyone uses fuel equally.
That Thermo book looked familiar, so I go mine out and turned to page 79 to read the heat value definition as well.
If your 20mpg tractor trailer is just moving one person from point a to point b, the 30mpg moped is still more efficient for the job.
Or if the 30 mpg moped is pulling a trailer, it's also doing a great job! ;)
he did specify "ENGINE" efficiency. The reason MPG is used when purchasing a vehicle is because the overall product efficiency is what's important to end consumers. You can achieve better MPG by optimising the chassis and the suspension.
@@RaphYkun and parasitic losses (accessories), aero, etc..
Fellow Miata ND aficionado here. So the 1.5 liter engine will in general have higher heat losses than the 2.0 liter, but it is a more efficient car you'll generally be able to drive it at a higher load. If you need to drive both cars at a high equal speed around a track, the 2.0 may be more efficient because you can generally use a higher gear or less than max load to produce the power needed. Larger engine is more efficient the crazier one drives, to a point.
This reminds me of some old software I used to play with as a kid called Engine Analyzer back in the early 90s. It was great fun to play with all the combinations of port sizes, cams, etc. to come up with the best combinations. That's where I first learned of BSFC. Wish I still had it (it was on floppy disks)
I don't understand the " Chinese" on the board lol, but as a consumer i find this much more important than mpg. After all, a 30mpg vehicle doesn't necessarily have a more "efficient" engine than a 20mpg vehicle. Thanks Jason.👊🏾
So you could say the most fuel efficient moment when I'm driving is when I nearly flatten the accelerator pedal at low RPM?
Not too low of course
Lowest BSFC is on the lean side. The reason is, if we put some additional air into the cylinder, we reduce pumping losses (because higher pressure in intake manifold is needed to pass additional air) and heat losses (because of lower peak temperature). Also dissociation of triatomic molecules like H2O, CO2 is less pronounced and dissociation is endothermic process.
We're limited in leaning out mixture by emission (three-way catalyst works best in stoichiometric AF ratio) and limit of ignition (the leaner the mixture the harder it is to ignite it), otherwise all cars would run lean for economy.
Sad that this isnt getting more views...
Now I understand Volvo Penta’s design philosophy behind their marine diesel engines. I thought 3.7litre diesel was big for 4 cylinders (D4-270), but it now makes sense.
One thing you touched on was the efficiency gauge that gives you immediate MPG numbers. Mine is between the tach and the speedo. 40 is at the top, what you aim for, and even on a freeway at 70 MPH, using that gauge as a guide to where the throttle (or cruise control) application keeps the vehicle at a steady speed and yes do climb as I've seen them go over 40 MPG. Doing that really helps the "average" number for MPG at the gas pump. Course it's a (light vehicle) 2020 RAV4, on a fairly flat road, with the wind at your back. Driving back with the wind in front of you, MPG does drop some. It only takes one variable to change that.
My driving school course book (Austria) even tells you to accelerate like this. Not very indepth but it says you should give it about 3/4 throttle at medium rpm. Then be in the tallest gear possible, except if on an incline.
I think there's a mistake around 7:50, when discussing the lean mixture. I'd expect a lean mixture means that not all the oxigen is burnt, not fuel.
Same thought
When you go to high over stoichiometric you start getting misfires and unburnt fuel. The spark needs fuel around it to ignite the mixture and if there are gaps in the path of the flame not all fuel will be ignited. More of an issue on larger cylinders and the faster the piston speed. there is a limit though on how lean you can run for petrol.
Good timing, we were introduced to BSFC in uni yesterday, great video.
What was the class called?
That's right. Don't use MPG, use L/km like normal people
you mean km/L
@@lucasvanhamburg4937 No, I mean l/100km my bad
Nicely done.
The maximum burn temperature is when all the fuel is consumed, and there is no oxygen left over. That provide the highest cylinder pressure (primarily from heat, 28% is from converting gasoline to water and CO2).
Too rich, you are evaporating and heating fuel that isn't burned. Too lean and you are heating oxygen (and 4 times as much nitrogen) that isn't used for combustion. Lower cylinder temp, less pressure, less torque.
Adding fuel at high power is to avoid detonation by cooling.
Finally a video I’ve been waiting for years. Do you have any link in order to find any specific car engine BSFC? They rarely disclose that information.
RX-8 : Has entered the chat
RX-8 : Has left the chat
@Craig Henley 7MPG = 33L/100km btw if you live in EU like me. and if you live in france, like me 1L=1.65€ do the math. S2000 cost half of that by driving, and has more real whp.
I find it intriguing that with different fuels, you get different efficiency and based on the fuel quality, you get engines tuned to run on those fuels. One such fuel that intrigues me is what Porsche and Audi are developing: *Synthetic fuel*. We can't move forward with every single mode of transport hooked up to the grid and the only solution to it being adding more power cables and increasing power output from the stations... basically put all eggs in one basket approach. A video about how these fuels would compare to EV batteries would be a worth watch from me. A lot of people I'm seeing are dismissing it to be some kind of farce. But I think the future could also be synthetic fuel :)
Edit: Nice! My timing of me posting this comment made it the 100th comment on this video :D
Biodiesel has been around a while, you can even get usable biofuel from a strand of algae. I forget the details as I had learned about it back in 2000-2001 at tech school.
I drive a 2016 Toyota Prius v and with the specs I've found on my engine, with my Atkinson cycle (which is really a Miller cycle) my engine is about 38% thermal efficiency. Yay for me!
One thing that is worth mentioning too, is if you have a scan gauge ii or a simular device, you an actually see how RPM can effect your litres per hour. If im driving down the road and getting say 4.5L/100km but my rpms are say 1800, once my CVT changes ratios and drops it to 1200, I may still get 4.5 but im using less fuel to get that number.
You are right, larger does not mean is better. But I want to point at my personal experience using a 5.0L 2018 Mustang, and I am impressed with the fuel efficiency, it has a 11:1 compression ratio (I think), and it averages 11 km/L [26 mpg]. In my mind one of the best engines I have tried. Without entering that it revs 7500 like crazy for a V8. It's like a 90's Honda hahahaha. Great content!
This doesn’t just help with efficiency, it also goes a great way to figuring out how powerful your engine actually is by literally calculating how much power you are making with a single unit of fuel. Which is great because one thing that I don’t like about horsepower and torque is that it doesn’t actually tell you much of anything. Some of the fastest hypercars around can breach 300 mph with only a couple hundred horsepower, whilst there are custom cars that go way over a 1000 horsepower and they only get to about mid 200 mph. BSFC allows us to know how much power that engine is actually making, and how much of it is actually be used.
Hi, Just a tip from a subscriber.
You need to hire an Animator for the channel. As a viewer i would love to watch real time animations with your style of explanation. The drawing board is kind of restricting your capability of teaching.
Even math as an animation is better understanding than different colours on board
BTW, I love your videos.
Love from India 🇮🇳
+1 that would be great
The problem with that is many love the whiteboard, read the comments on the videos he doesn't use it.
Interesting topic. You did a good job explaining a subject that is actually very difficult to understand. How about comparing electric power? Interesting, Thanks!
I think there is more to it... Like the size/body shape of the vehicle. some people think that a 1.3 or 1.4L pulling a heavy SUV chassis is economic but in essence, the engine is burning more fuel with the amount of revs it needs to get the vehicle moving and to keep it moving.
There needs to be a good power to weight balance for good efficiency, Aerodynamics also has a fairly big part to play especially when it comes to highway cruising speeds.
It should be that the less stressed an engine is, the more fuel efficient it is. (i think) so even though a 2.5L is a bigger engine than the 1.4L, its going to be more efficient at pulling a heavy chassis because it can create more power.
This video could be a sequel to your previous video : why small displacement turbo engines are bad for efficiency
So many motor vehicle manufacturers only focus on reduction vehicle weight to gain great mpg
@@yusufkuntoro3141 weight reduction? Most vehicles are getting massively heavier. The lightest subcompact cars these days are Honda civics weighing 2,771 to 3,012 lbs. Everything else in the same class ranges from 2900lbs to 3200lbs approaching mid size. I don’t see any weight reduction going on. If look at each car going up the years, weight gets added most of the time unless you’re looking at a sports car. Then the weight can possibly drop if the engine doesn’t get revised
@@suiton20 Civic isn't subcompact anymore tbh which a Honda Fit is around 2575 lbs
Thanks. You explain this stuff so well. I understand the premise, but I have trouble explaining things to people. The phrase, "use your words" comes to mind.
Engine Efficiency is one part of the equation on a Car. Transmission, engine, weight, tires, axel, etc, are the mpg ..
However like the example said at the beginning of the video a 30 mpg moped is not better than a 20 mpg semi. So I feel like there could definitely be a more nuanced version of mpg, however with that said I definitely do not think this BSFC thing is it.
@@arog7493 for trucks/ semi's they look at fuel consumption relative to load
@@user-yn5sk5ru5g Oh interesting, didn't know that, that does sound like a better system.
MPG estimation equation is the thing they need to improve..
Excellent video!
For 'loose' engines, such as marine and industrial engines the EPA has specific test cycles, typically with 4 to 5 modes with different rpm and torque, and weighting for each mode. The weighted BSFC over these cycles is an excellent way of comparing engine efficiency. It is more realistic than just looking at the best BSFC. I believe the EPA also has a somewhat similar but more complicated fuel economy driving cycle for cars, it would be interesting to see the BSFC over those cycles, but don't think those figures are typically published.
I looked into the 10th generation Honda Civic and its BSFC for its 1.5 L turbocharged engine and found it to be at
Thanks for using metric instead of freedumb units in this video! North American here by the way.
Nice! More math! This video comes timely. I had a discussion last week about engine efficiency. I remember you mentioning, in a previous video, how ICE are more efficient in higher load/lower RPM scenario, so I use that knwoledge and I was talking about that, when Someone told me " it is inaccurate, gasoline are better at higher RPm diesel at lower" . The people in the conversation were confusing Fuel consumption and torque production as efficiency with thermal efficiency. But, I'm just a IT tech, I can't explain those thing well enough, So I wa not able to do it at that time. But now, we have Jason coming to the rescue with more MATH!! ( I love math). na na na na MATHMAN!
Y’know, I’ve watched your stuff off an on for a few years now, but I just can’t handle you giving all of our engineering secrets away to those not trained in the arts!
If I hear you mention exergy every, I think I’ll have to assemble the order of the engineer and deal with you….
What a great video. I 100% agree. Pretty sure my 5.4 Ford V8 Expedition has a better BSFC than my Subaru Ascent 2.4 turbo. Both get the same mixed mpg but the V8 is in a 1500 pound heavier vehicle.
That might be true, but if you don't use all that potential energy the smaller Subaru might still be the better car for daily driving.
A container ship might be more efficient but doing groceries with it is pointless.
Maybe so! Or if the 2.4L is working at a high load frequently, putting it into boost, with a rich a/f mixture, then real world mpg can be down.
So, according to your explanations, 1.5 3L ecoboost Ford engine has to be more efficient than 1.5 4L ecoboost Ford engine, that is probably the reason Ford goes through 3 cilinders, every one is bigger with the same displacement. Is this correct? Thanks Jason.
3 cylinders has less friction than 4 cylinders. 4 less valves and springs, 1 less piston, 2 less cam lobes. So yes, it is.
@@SKC56 aaaand also with better balance
@@Pao234_ Not sure about balance tho, I've never seen an straight 3 smoother than straight 4...
@@SKC56 hmm, it was probably inline 6 i was thinking about
@@Pao234_ a 3 is smoother in terms of secondary balance but it has a major front to back rocking. I think we will see more 3 cylinder motors coming soon
Did you just use 3D text for 20 MPG and 30 MPG? Isn’t that what the whiteboard is for? They were so fancy! Keep it up. Always enjoy these videos.
This is good information. I was unaware of some of these factors. New knowledge, new understandings. You have made some big impacts on my idea for a negative carbon engine system!
Someone once told me that, because engines are most efficient at max torque, the most efficient way to drive is to accelerate at high throttle until (you reach cruising speed or) the torque at the wheels of your current gear is less than the torque of the next gear and then shift gears.
That made sense to me then and I think this is the theory that explains it.
It would have been interesting to see how a square bore vs over bore vs under bore would also play into this.
I have a video explaining how bore/stroke impact efficiency if you're curious! ruclips.net/video/UV3RwBPqznU/видео.html
I really like it when the Man incorporates F1 in his videos as the ideal specimen😉💯
Future video topic suggestion: Building on your explanation of BSFC, describe the effects of fuel composition (Octane rating, oxygenates, etc.) on BSFC for a fixed engine type(s). Thanks.
Cool video! We use BSFC for our SAE Clean Snowmobile Challenge my university competes in!
Video idea: Fact-check and discuss possibility of a hovering Tesla Roadster using high velocity air from a bottle.
Awesome video! How would I calculate the most efficient rpm to cruise at in 6th gear? I always burble my Mustang down the highway as low as possible but this video now tells me that that isn't as fuel efficient as it could be!
You should be able to find a BFSC map in the owner's manual.
Generally speaking, lower will be better. The faster you go, the more aerodynamic drag you have, so even if the engine is in a more efficient spot, it has to make more power to overcome drag, and thus worse fuel economy.
Reiterating what Jason said, generally speaking, fuel economy falls away as speed drops. I find my fuel economy is highest at the lowest speed I can shift into the highest gear. Most vehicles would benefit from having an extra gear or two on top.
Assuming this is a modern Mustang, Ford will have already done the work for you by selecting a highest gear that maximizes fuel efficiency for the offical highway fuel economy test. The average speed in that test is 48.3 mph (with no stops), so your Mustang will most likely be most efficient driving at 48.3 mph in its highest gear, give or take a few mph.
@@AustinPerdue This I wholeheartedly agree with. I have an 06 G35 Sedan with a 6MT, and 6th gear at 70mph gives me +/-3000 rpm. A 7th gear would bring it down to at least 2k.
Jason, I saw someone else saying that a particular car had 225 wide tires, and he attributed poorer fuel economy to this compared to 255. I remember you saying one of the factors is the profile the tire presents to the air, so wider would be worse. It seems to me that it is not clear whether a wider or narrower tire would offer more resistance, if you could somehow compensate for other factors.
now, it has to do, at lower speeds, when the high load begins to be inefficient or harmful to the engine ...
I have been watching your videos for YEARS. As always, another well-done video. Have you ever considered teaching automotive, motorsports, or mechanical engineering at college level or higher?
I want to know about a similar thing for electric motors. What is the most efficient way to extract power from an electric motor? (Assuming simple DC motor connected to a constant voltage) This is complicated because it can also depend on the voltage of the power source, which would change with different throttle. Thus you would have a different BSEC map for every throttle position. (You can stall a motor if the resistive force is too high, but also if the input voltage is too low to supply enough current to turn it.)
If you load a motor too much, then you get a lot of thermal losses in the wires, and less work is being done by the motor. A stalled motor consumes lots of power and does no work (force is maximum, distance is zero). An unloaded motor uses some power and does no work (distance is maximum, force is zero). Motors with high losses in the coil wires should be run at lower load, and motors with high friction losses should be run at higher load, but somewhere in there is a graph of optimum resistance.
I am assuming that something like a Tesla is going to be more sophisticated than this. If the motor would run at 150 mph no load and optimum efficiency is at 120 mph, then accelerating from 30 to 60 mph by stamping on the accelerator, the motor would be "struggling" if you just dump current in at maximum voltage, thus is would be better to raise the power supply voltage (or effective pulse width modulation) as the speed of the car climbs. Also the choice of gear ratios are important if your electric car comes with multiple speeds. I have a 7 speed electric bike and am often wondering "should I drop a gear? Or raise a gear?"
Do you do requests? It would be fascinating for a series on the efficiency impacts of hybridization. I know it's a combination of braking regen, electric assist, capture of excess power/electricity, but (and here's the tie-in to this video) I think there's a component of keeping the engine at its most efficient zone during electric assist (if not shutting it off), or in the case of Honda, keeping it in the most efficient zone for use in a serial hybrid configuration. I'm curious about how each one of these aspects of hybridization effects the overall fuel consumption, i.e. which is the largest contributor? And since BEV also use braking regen, how much of a player is that in BEV range? (I think you may have already covered that last one...)
Keep up the great work.
Even though creating the highest efficiency engine might seem like the best way to have the most efficient car, factors that shorten a car's life, such as highly complex and hard to repair components, contribute to ending the useful life of the car earlier. And since so much energy goes into building a car, the concern for efficiency should include this bigger picture.
Put more simply: I could have the most fuel efficient car as I drive, but if a critical repair costs more than a year's fuel and causes me to consider trading in (or scrapping) the car, then the overall efficiency "foot-print" goes way up.
Very good, glad to see you do a show about something that matters. You should ditch the F in BSFC and move to BSEC with the E standing for Energy. Get rid of the grams of fuel and work with just watt hours instead.
Ditch the cylinders and pistons you are so enamored with, and explain the comparative BSEC of electric vehicles, and stop looking at the world through the lens of the internal combustion engine. Just saying, you might just try it out sometime.
Fantastic explanation. Thank You!
hey man, just letting you know i enjoy your videos and theyre really informing and helpful
Your BSFC is common to up-to-date turbocharged (and usually downsized) engines. For N/A engines lowest BSFC zone usually appears at high load and 500-1000 rpm above maximum torque rpm. Low rpm efficiency zone of modern engines is made for cheating on MPG during certification tests. That's why MPG numbers on paper and in the real world are pretty different except some engines, like Mazda's who don't use downsizing.
Thanks, Jason. Explained and illustrated so very well! Cheers!
I want high BMEP and low BSFC
12:00 This helps explain engines like the new GR Yaris 1.5lt 3 cylinder.
Still a 1500cc engine, but with 500cc per cylinder, high boost, only 3 cylinders to worry about friction losses and big torque at low total rpm. 👍
Please do a review of the McLaren Artura! With the exception of Carfection everyone just reads off the tech sheet, nobody has tried to explain what all the new tech could potential mean for the driving experience.
Janson, I haven't watched your videos for while. It's so good that you stoped using imperial system!
I have a question: how can you have any question when this video has such a simple explanation that is easy to understand?
When hypermiling a vehicle, its better to hit that low/mid rpm high throttle opening while accelerating. I remember discussing this on forums, but not knowing exactly why we can get better mpg when accelerating like this.
Another plus for large volumes and relative stroke lengths is lower friction relative to power, due to the same principle as the volume to surface area ratio (squared instead of cubed though).
Interesting thing I would have liked to see: in the BSFC map, what is the ideal RPM for any power requirement from the engine? As an example, what RPM should a CVT target for any specific throttle input, assuming that we are mapping throttle directly to power.
In that case, assuming the go pedal is completely disconnected from the throttle and being handled through the ECU, you'd hold the torque and vary the RPM. You generally want the engine to be from 60% to 80% engine torque. At lower required power you drop the RPM, and higher requested power, you increase the RPM.
The Prius's engine map basically looks like a slight linear slopped line on the top. Below 1K RPM they cut fuel and run entirely on electric. Above 1K, they ramp torque straight up to like 70%, steadily goes up to hit 90% at around 4K.
Great video, next one should be on BMEP 👍👍
Vehicle manufacturers only want us to believe fuel consumption is the only way to tell engine efficiency. Thanks for this.
Half of me is proud that I have that same textbook in my shelf (Thermodynamics, An Engineering Approach, Çengel & Boles, Sixth Edition) and the other half of me is reminded by my wife that Im a total nerd and that nobody cares. Honestly not seeing a downside to either of these, so thats a win win.
There is only a certain amount of power needed for daily driving. There are engines that could theoretically be very efficient - the ones in a formula one car are finely tuned, but the power range is much greater than needed so you can't use them efficiently. It would be like using them to drive the hands of a clock.
It also looks like if the engine in your car is much larger than you need except for the rapid overtake you do once in a blue moon, then you will be spending most of your time in the "low load" range and more fuel is spent moving the engine parts themselves than the actual car it is connected to. If your gear ratio is lower than you need, this is also the case. If you are using a large engine short gearing sports car as your daily driver, they you are better off giving it a quick spurt and then putting it in neutral to roll along, then repeating - although this might cause more wear on the gear shifting system.
One of the major reasons most automobiles don't have the highest possible gas BSFC is due to variable RPM and torque.
If you get rid of the need for variable engine speeds IE one speed only no need for a transmission you can get pretty decent BSFC.
Side note 1: No one runs stoichiometry combustion
Side note 2: They are called contor lines or contor graphs
Side note 3: Compression exponentially increases complexity.
What people do not understand (even most engineers) you can easily go down efficiency rabbit holes. While you might be able to gain a few percentage here and there it comes at extreme costs in R&R, production, manufacturing, and maintenance. Many times it's cheaper (even for the end user) to have a less efficient but cheaper to buy/maintain product.
Take Telsa for example from the onset it looks like they are making "cheap" electrical cars when in reality their entire business model is based around subsidies. They made twice as much money last year off of grants from states than they did actually producing cars. This is ignoring grants all around the electric auto industry. This was just from states requiring cars manufactures to make x number of electric cars. It was DOUBLE Telsa's net revenue......
Tesla's likely cost 2-4 times their current market price on the backend without all the subsidies. And somehow their stock is worth more than all auto manufacturers combined? When they hold less than 10% of the market share.
It's not that they can't make efficient cars, its that it costs more and they would not be able to sell many so it would not be profitable.
The sight of that thermodynamics textbook made my eye twitch...
I have that same book by Yunus Cengel... Really brings back memories...
@@christianandersen7458 nightmares for me ! :)
I have a question. Suppose we have a hybrid car, so it has two engines that change the power output and thus BSFC. Now, *when we plug in the dyno, doesn't that calculate power by simultaneously measuring torque and rotational speed? So, isn't because electric motor changes the power output, BSFC is NOT the efficiency of the combustion engine, but the efficiency of the powertrain?* As power of the combustion engine can be read differently by changing the electric motor.
Excellent explainer. Concise. Good examples. You must be an excellent engineer! :)
The indicated mean pressure is an even better indicator of efficiency and is better to use when comparing engines.
Literally my favorite channel
Good video, I'll send it to all of my friends just to remind them why it's never a good idea to tune an engine.
BTW, Ford Ecoboost 3.0 at certain speeds almost doesn't discriminate between 5th and 6th gear with marginal MPG difference at 40-50 mph even 4-5-6 gears are marginally different.
Why would this video suggest it's a bad idea to tune an engine?
In aerospace our equivalent metric is Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption or TSFC.
Or PSFC (power specific fuel consumption) for turboshafts! :)