2008 International Engine of the Year awards announced
8 May, 2008
95 Comments 
BMW has wiped the floor with its competitors in the latest engine awards, with the German marque claiming honours for no less than five engines
Judged by a panel of 65 renowned motoring journalists from 32 countries, the IEOTY awards highlight and acknowledge engine engineering excellence.
Using their impressions from driving the latest cars, judges find powerplants that offer the best driveability, performance, economy, and refinement, and reward manufacturers for the successful application of advanced engine technology.
And the winners are… drumroll please:
Sub 1-Liter: Toyota 1.0L three-cylinder
1.0L - 1.4L: VW 1.4L TSI Twincharger
1.4L - 1.8L: BMW-PSA 1.6L Turbo
1.8L - 2.0L: VW/Audi 2.0L Turbo FSI
2.0L - 2.5L: Subaru 2.5L Turbo
2.5L - 3.0L: BMW 3.0L twin-turbo inline-six
3.0L - 4.0L: BMW 4.0L V8
Above 4.0L : BMW 5.0L V10
Best New Engine of 2008 went to BMW’s 2.0L twin-turbo diesel (123d). Green Engine of the Year 2008 was awarded to Toyota 1.5L Hybrid Synergy Drive (Prius). But perhaps the most surprising was Nissan’s absence from the ceremony, with rival Porsche stamping its authority on the awards. The new GT-R’s motor was overlooked, in favour of the Porsche 3.6L Turbo (911 Turbo, 911 GT2), which picked up Best Performance Engine 2008.
Click here to find all the details, including points tallies.
Location: Home / BMW, Car News / ...
Rate Post: 
(3 votes, average: 3.67 out of 5)
Loading ...
-
Print it:
May 8th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Can’t believe the Subaru is in there - isn’t that the engine which was recalled due to problems.
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 10:23 am
The Toyota 1L 3 cyl would be the Daihatsu engine.
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Its a shame that they never get a chance to try the Falcon Turbo Six, I mean thats got to be one of the best engines is the world, I’m not saying it would win the award for the best engine in the category, its up against the M3 V8 so no chance but it would of been interesting what they thought about it.
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 10:28 am
The 3.0 tt inline six from BMW is obviously a great engine, but I would be interested in an honest comparison between it and Ford Au’s new 4.0 inline 6 turbo.
Before anyone gives me hell for asking (typical aussie versus euro comments), they are both turbo’d, inline 6’s, with a very similar use of technology and a similar specific kw/l output.
Alborz I was wondering if Car Advice can provide comments from any real world driving experience?
After all, inline 6’s are sadly a dying breed and these are 2 of the best!!
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Glen,
we share the same opinion mate
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Good point whats your thoughts Alborz ??
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 11:03 am
I would totally agree about the Subaru award, I have a MY07 2.5L Turbo and its a great engine
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Alec. The Ford turbo six is a great engine, but the BMW is a fantastic one. The brilliant twin-turbo technology results in absolutely no lag, and incredible torque from way down at 1500rpm with absolutely linear, smooth and exhilarating delivery all the way to over 7000. It’s a worthy winner, but if ‘bang for the bucks’ came into it the Ford would give it a hard time.
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 11:08 am
The Subaru award is a joke.
The EJ series is fundamentally the same design for 20 years now.
The motor has had well reported issues
Maybe its the exciting new plastic manifolds which won them over?
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 11:51 am
What a croc!
Where is the new Vette BlueDevil supercharged monster donk?
This is run by Euro and Japs?
Cheers
F-0
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Oh, and the new Skyline GT-R V6 engine should be on the list too, look what that vehicle has done to every car its been tested against…
Cheers
F-0
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
F-O have a read of the full listing on the link at the end of the article above. The GT-R engine is featured in the ‘Best new engine’ category as well as the ‘3-4 litre’ category. It didn’t win either and therefore cannot be considered for the overall honour.
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Good work BMW, Toyota and VW. However I’m not sure an engine that has been recalled should be up for such an award. That said I’m sure the Subaru engine is a good one, but it still has that black mark.
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
I can definitely understand why the GT-R engine didn’t win. It needs a an engine-out service at 100,000km - the thing runs on a knifes edge. Tuners are also starting to find out it is very delicate when it comes to adding performance as well.
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Toyota Prius wins the green engine of the year … gee, that’s really gonna hurt the critics of the Prius and certainly completely contradicts critism against the car in the past.
Congrats Toyota for winning the Green Engine Of The Year !!
Will be able to use this bragging right in future debates to come.
cheers
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
just wait for pug to bring out the diesel hybrid.
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
And another, BIGT’s V8 twin-turbo DIEsel, AND i hate the things….But!
Cheers
F-0
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Hey supporter of Toyota Motorsport, read the article about the Prius that proves it’s not better for the enviroment than a H2 Hummer? Mining and getting the materials to build that particular car TOTALLY offset any good it will ever do in it’s lifetime, but I guess you will probably ignore that little truth.
Google it, it’s all there in black a white.
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
An excellent for the world’s premier engine builder. Certainly bragging rights galore for BMW owners.
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
GhisGT - that study is flawed. For example, the Prius only lasting 175,000km, whereas the Hummer lasts over 500,000km?
There’s too many unknown variables in that study.
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Karl, if the study is flawed, it means you can’t believe the result.
So if the Hummer isn’t proved to be cleaner, by your logic, neither is the Prius.
Given the amount of Toyota money that has backed the Prius myth, you’d have to say it stands up only on rhetoric, as all facts have been buried and blurred by the mighty Toyota feed the bullshit machine. If Toyota says the study is flawed, it must be - right?
Only gullible people will swallow all of what they see on TV ads and read in the motoring press. 90% of what is written in the press is unaltered press release from the manufacturer, and very few motoring writers dare to question the material therein, let alone have their editor pass anything contrary for publication.
It’s pretty easy for bad press to tarnish or enhance an image - just look at the recent example on this site about the 2 door Mazda 2. Price was reported here as being $750 more than the 4 door, when in fact it’s $750 less.
Purely a clerical error - yes, but so are the articles that promote the Prius as the greenest thing singe lettuce. It isn’t - it’s an average effort at a very high consumer price rammed down the throats of the do-gooders by a very powerful force.
Do you own one? - I don’t and wouldn’t, and I don’t own the cheaper and better Honda Civic either.
If I was looking for a green 4cyl, I’d get the I30 and be saving the planet far more than a Prius owner.
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Supporter Of Toyota Motorsport : Who cares?
Its like winning the “im the best at being boring award”
Yeah, awesome.
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
GT - i did and the distances covered by the Hummer were considerably more then the Prius which means the Toyota was given a much less chance to prove it’s extended term green creditentials … am i wrong - NO!!
oh yeah … better still - i believe Ford, GM, Nissan, BMW, Mercedez Benz and Audi to name a few are all switching to hybrid technology. Again … am i wrong - NO !!
Better still, the third generation Prius will be released in January 2009 with will not only feature a more powerful 1.8 engine then the current 1.5 but with better efficency and CO2 emmissions because of the latest advancements in Toyota’s hybrid technology.
Karl - your claim the Prius is good for 175 000km’s is rot. Fact is, the Toyota Prius has infact proven to be extremely reliable, dependable and durable beyond original expectations with many examples known in the US to have travelled beyond 300 000km’s with little more attention then standard maintenace.
I request you supply a link (or links) that support your claim otherwise.
Oh yeah - go to the top and tell me what/who just won the Green Engine Of The Year Award … let me help you - it wasn’t the Hummer.
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Reckless, I agree with you. Claiming to be greener is merely that - a claim. Can it be comprehensively proven either way? Who knows. BTW, I’d be buying a diesel too. In this case it was the ENGINE that was awarded the green status, not the whole car, or the manufacturing process.
SOTM, I never claimed that the Prius only lasts for 175,000km but merely questioned why those figures were quoted. The study contained in the link below quoted those figures (but in miles). I agree that the Prius would last a lot longer.
Here’s the study for all who are interested:
http://www.thecarconnection.co.....12220.html
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
To Supporter of Toyota Motorsport - Its true that BMW and all those other brands are switching to Hybrid but their not all Petrol Electric hybrids. And also did you know how many emissions Toyotas Battery disposal plant put out? Because its alot! And also the amount that you can fit on a cargo ship doesnt make up for the amount of emissions that the ship will put out on the journey. I still think that Hydrogens the answer. Theres an unlimited amount, the service stations wont have to shut down and it only emits water! How is it not the answer?
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
To Supporter of Toyota Motorsport - Its true that BMW and all those other brands are switching to Hybrid but their not all Petrol Electric hybrids. And also did you know how many emissions Toyotas Battery disposal plant put out? Because its alot! And also the amount that you can fit on a cargo ship doesnt make up for the amount of emissions that the ship will put out on the journey. I still think that Hydrogens the answer. Theres an unlimited amount, the service stations wont have to shut down and it only emits water! How is it not the answer? The other thing is that I think that if Toyota was really devoted to Priuses being green they wouldn’t have made it more powerful they would keep it at 1.5L and made it significantly greener. That would acually be the sensible thing to do. After all, people buy priuses because they want to feel like their being nice to the environment not for driving quality.
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
PS - didnt realise I already posted the first part.
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Alex, Hydrogen is not the answer at least not with current technology. You are correct on two counts. Firstly yes there certainly are large amounts of Hydrogen available on Earth in the form of water. And secondly the by product of Hydrogen combustion is water. To obtain Hydrogen from water requires more energy then the energy given off by the combustion of Hydrogen. Source for this energy will be predominantly fossil fuels or nuclear and there is nothing environmentally friendly about those. Then there is the question of storing Hydrogen. Due to the size of the Hydrogen atom it is very difficult to store for long periods without it simply escaping from its container. Not only that but to power a car would require large quantity of Hydrogen, which would have to be pressurised. This is fine except that Hydrogen can cause metals to become brittle. This means that the tanks holding the high pressure Hydrogen would become weak over time, not a very good combination unless you’re creating a bomb. The solution to this is replace the tanks frequently but this expensive and requires energy (created by fossil fuels etc.). These are only a few of the challenges. Once we solve these problems then it might be a solution, until then it’s not.
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Alex,
hydrogen is a great answer when it comes to solving resource and environmental issues,
but dont expect it to solve the problem that sees holes in our pockets where money pours into running our vehicles.
dont expect to pay under $2.50L for hydrogen
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
3 Awards for Toyota (Subaru is Toyota)… where is Ford? Holden? Ford fairies must be fuming. Toyota up with the likes of BMW… Ford down with the likes of Hyundai and Daewoo
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Correct Karl Peskett RE that study… I highlighted this in an article on this site. Reckless if you dont realise the study is floored when one car is presumed to travel 500,000kms while the other 175,000kms, then you need your head examined. This isnt Toyota saying anything, its common sense speaking
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Alex - so all the battery plants that will be operated or independantly supply batteries to BMW, Mercedez Benz, Nissan, Ford, Honda, Audi and General Motors will not emmit (spelling) emmissions but infact be greener then Toyota operations… i hope that is not what you are trying to suggest !!
Also, Toyota will be launching a full electric car in due time themselves so not all of thier examples will be petrol-electric either.
Infact, i believe Toyota’s subsidary - Hino - is the first vehicle manufactuer to release a hybrid diesel.
With regards to te next generation Prius utilising a larger engine, it is because of market demand for more power from the Prius so Toyota has answered both calls by suppling a larger engine generating greater output while improving efficency and CO2 emmisions at the same time.
The 3rd gen Prius will be more powerful yet more frugal with less co2 emmissions.
Seriuosly … what exactly is your critism.
With regards to Hydrogen - i 100% completely agree it is the best option but fact is, the development of hydrogen powered cars has proven far more expensive and complex then originally anticipated so development will be longer and more expensive but even when it does come to market - eventually - it will be far to expensive for many years before the average Joe motorist will be able to afford such technology themselves.
Hybrid technology is not the extended term solution but it is availbale now and will begin heading motorsist into the right direction of lowering fuel consumption and green house gases (CO2) until even greener alternatives become viable.
That’s why a greater amount of automotive manufactuers are coming online with hybrid technology because it is available and relatively cheap now compared most other alternatives such as Hydrogen but that will not be the case in the future as greener alternatives continue to be developed but it all takes time.
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Hydrogen is the short term answer prior to full electric. H2O contains it in vast quantities and I suggest you look at generators or other methods like Joe Cell. Ford is evaluating Hydrogen whilst others go down road of electric or hybrid.
……Now is the time to switch to natures fuel ‘WATER’ - What’s that you ask - Can a car really run on water?
What the motor can run on is a combination of Hydrogen and regular fuel (Gas / Petrol / Diesel). Basically water is made up of Hydrogen and Oxygen, the Hydrogen Unit runs a small electrical charge through the water to separate the 2 and creates a gas known as HHO (also referred to as Browns Gas), this gas is directed by a fuel line into your existing carburetor or fuel Injection. The hydrogen then combines with the regular fuel to run the motor while at the same time reducing the reliance on the regular fuel
What is the benefit of Hydrogen?
Apart from saving you money because of reduce fuel consumption there are also other important benefits. When hydrogen is used as a fuel in your motor the byproduct is oxygen, compare this with the harmful gas your car currently emits. (The very same gasses that are harming our health and damaging our environment!) Your car engine will love it as the hydrogen will help reduce carbon build up and your engine oil will stay cleaner
How much hydrogen can the unit produce?
The cell holds 2 litres (1/2 Gallon US) but will convert to a massive 4,120 litres of HHO gas. The 2 litres will last the average motorist approximately 1,600km (1000 miles). The cell itself will produce between 60 – 90 litres of HHO per hour
How is the cell powered?
The alternator / generator (the unit that powers your car and recharges the battery) in most vehicles is rated at between 80amps & 130amps. Most vehicles only use at a maximum ½ of this amp production, so the left over amperage goes unused or is wasted. The hydrogen cell is also powered by the alternator and draws between 12-16amps. The cell is connected via the ignition and only operates when the vehicles motor is running. The kit includes a small gauge and on/off switch that is installed inside the cabin so the driver can operate and monitor the HHO production
Is Hydrogen fuel safe?
Very – Mainly because there is no store fuel, the hydrogen unit produces the HHO on demand so all HHO produced is used. Various containers to store hydrogen can be used from plastic to stainless steel
If it’s so great why don’t car manufacturers make it or more importantly why doesn’t my ‘environment conscious’ government legislate that it becomes a requirement on cars?
…..There is anecdotal evidence that supports the theory that car manufacturers have developed and perfected a hydrogen product a long time ago; however you need to be aware that ALL car manufacturers are financially supported by oil companies (just look at any motor racing event). In other words why bite the hand that feeds you! Governments are no different, each and every time you fill your car with gasoline or diesel you are contributing between 30 & 50 cents in each dollar spent to government coffers. Recently in the USA many states passed laws that make it illegal not to run a car on fossil fuel – How did they do this? – Simple, in their minds it’s a form of tax avoidance.
Can I build my own unit?
You most certainly can! Expect an fuel economy increase of around 45%
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
I have installed a kit on my BF LPG ute and gone from around 550kms a tankful to around 750kms. No decrease in power, cleaner for environment with less greenhouse gas emissions. Hell only cost me $299 plus $200 to fit and am stoked as. I mounted unit in front of radiator and behind Smartbar (plastic bullbar).
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
LOL……………..really expensive system….not. It is similar to hybrid in sense that massive advantages and very minimal cost increase. Certainly a hybrid costs much much more then my immediate $499 conversion kit that works a treat!
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
You should tell Ford about that NM… despite their millions of dollars they cant engineer an LPG Falcon that loses less than 40kw of power. Your on to something!!!
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
I bet I know how you do it! You made a flux capacity!? Ingenius
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
TP….mate can see your point. There is a system loss with LPG unit in Falcon. Shyte happens!
I credit you TP as your quick and onto it! Well done!
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Karl - the report holds no value as far as i am concerned because of the huge differances travelled by each car. Seriuosly, how can that hold value when it is not even balanced. that said - 175 000 miles equals 280 000 km’s which is ball park figure to my 300 000 km claim earlier of relative hassle free motoring from the Prius.
And while i am at it - i will take the opportunity to highlight how this site (aca) published an article a couple of months ago but didn’t devulge the entire story until i found the link where it originated from.
You may recall when a comparison between a BMW Diesel returned better fuel consumption then a Toyora Prius over a 800km journey.
Well … after learning the full and true story that this site did not publish - AUTOBLOG admitted that the conditions were in favour of the BMW because a greater percentage of the journey involved was highway travelled (Prius is primarily designed for urban duties) and against a headwind.
As i stated, the original author - AUTOBLOG - if my memory serves me correct stated themselves that if the comparison involved a greater percentage of urban driving ofwhich the Prius is suited to then the results certainly would have been different.
But haa … Australian Car Advice didn’t publish the full story but only part off.
I guess what i am trying to say is be sceptical about many claims unless you are confident that a fair and equal comparsion has been satisfied and not jigged on purpose to suit one over the other.
cheers
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
My unit is a 10 plate Hydrogen (HHO) generating cell constructed with 316 grade Stainless Steel enclosed in a high impact PVC casing. The unit measures 150mm wide X 200mm high (custom sizes are available too). Side mounted is a flash / spark arrestor, this prevents any possibility of sparks entering the HHO cell. Easy to operate control unit designed to be installed inside the vehicle, this allows unit to be turned on/off and the monitoring of amperage to the HHO cell. All wiring, connectors, fuse, relay & fuel line.
What will it fit????
This HHOI cell will fit all cars, SUV’s and trucks including Gasoline/Petrol, LPG, Biofuel & Diesel. It will suit both carburetor and fuel injected (EFI) Motors. Larger trucks and diesel machinery can run 2 - 3 units, this will also suit 24 Volt systems
The unit can be mounted under the hood or in the rear boot/trunk
Unlike many of the other kits available, each unit is a workshop assembled & tested. I am currently getting much better mileage – This number will differ depending on how what vehicle the unit is fitted to, the size of the engine & how the vehicle is driven.
If you change vehicles, the “distinct advantage” is the kit can simply be removed and reinstalled.
Fitting is simple and can be undertaken by anyone who has a basic mechanical knowledge. The kit includes everything required to install as well as a comprehensive instruction & operational manual written in plain English. There are also diagrams and detailed images. Installation will take around 30-60 minutes.
BINGO……..HUGE GIANT BANG FOR YOUR BUCKS = QUICK FIX AND VERY CLEVER!
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
thats right Bret,
both you and I have tried to put things into perspective before with no luck, but perhaps we are the true silly pair for not realising how thick he is earlier.
dont go there with LPG TP, you’ve got nothing but a “Floored” argument yet again
NM,
sounds interesting mate.
unfortunately some seem to think its toyotas way or no way. they arent open minded to accept that something that isnt developep by toyota may actually be great or at least worth while investing in.
just curious, is there a link to some site where you purchased it from?
just would be interested to read a little more about it.
make sure to attention the link to me as i dont think TP’s closed mind would be able to comprehend such information as being possile if he were to click on the link by mistake
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Bret….LOL you wanna get your facts right about straight LPG only motor V’s dual fuel as your out to sea! This has been spoken of b4 and tiresome on your side!
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Andrew M……send me EMAIL and will show you system I installed.
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
NM,
where does it mount?
around the air box somewhere?
how does the hydrogen get into the motor? i assume the inlet manifold like the old school LPG systems?
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
NM.
ive sent you a line.
just check you got it. it was asking funny questions when i was sending it so i just clicked what sounded good ha ha ha ha
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
I installed behind front bullbar. The system I have described and there are numerous systems similar available right now. I do agree that people are sheep and few think outside Toyota mentality. This tech improves my car significant. My work mate put one on his Ford 4WD dual fuel….homemade system and inferior to mine. He got from 350kms a tank to 420kms a tank and only cost him $60 as he made.
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Immediate results, minimal fuss with being hynotised by BS and Toyota and others own PR……….easy, quick and affordable! LOL 99% of you are sheep and led willy nilly by the 1% herders. Iam not on treadmill…..I got “IMMEDIATE” results!
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
have you seen proper dyno figures on it to prove no power loss?
one would even think that if it increases economy that general efficiency would be increased and hence power too
sounds very very interesting
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
To Supporter Of Toyota Motorsport Im not really suggesting that the German manufacturers will have greener plants but theres really no reason why they couldnt. I wish Volkswagen would put out a twin charge 1 litre diesel hybrid. That would be economical, green and probably powerful. And also, if toyota has the capacity to do diesel hybrids than thats what they should do for the next Prius. Also - I would be willing to pay plenty extra for Hydrogen.
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Alex - you may be willing to pay considerable extra but how many others around the world are willing to follow suit. Numbers make viability not just a few !!
Hydrogen will be the extended term solution - nodout about it - but as we debate today, it far from ready for mass production and when it does like most new technology at first - will be bloody expensive just like Hybrids were but have gradually decreased as numbers mass.
Also, i am sure Toyota is forever working towards greener operations with it’s battery factory aswell.
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Maximus and Andrew - here is a little sheep story for ‘yas !!
Over the years, General Motors has been one of the most out-spoken critics towards Toyota’s investment into hybrid technology and were often public about it.
But - haaa … General Motors today is quite public about it’s own advancements in hybrid technology.
Gee … first they critise Toyota and but today they follow suit.
Seriusoly - who are the clowns here… !!
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Great news for BMW, without doubt the best production car engine producer in the world. From Petrol to diesel Number 1.
As for the prius’s green claim. I commented the other day about the UK ASA (Advertising Standards Agency) had to make Toyota withdrawn their Prius advert for claiming untrue Green credentials. There claim was it would save a tonne of CO2 output compared to other cars. It was deemed simply not true as all similar performing diesels produce less CO2 than the prius.
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Also the sensible engineers are aware that the current technonolgy batteries in Hybrids only perform their peak performance for a period of two years. Then its all down hill.
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
DINGO….you are in the 99% sheep category. Led by others as no major status aside from Toyota. Mr Dumbo…..what increase have you got to compete right here right now. Zilch zippo and nil…..kinda like another Toyota Geek who cant spell and cruises the superhighway thinking Toyota is numero uno forever. Shock me and show me some depth to you without Toyota running thru your veins. I give you a valid example which is nothing to do with Ford or Toyota….and where does freak show go with it. Off on a tangent! Obtusely.
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Like really leave Toyota out of it and show me some depth to your car beliefs and not Toyotophilia.
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Also shock me and read my comments earlier….beats reading Dr Zeuss. LOL. And comment on it and dont attack with Toyotophilia style.
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Hahha Floored argument AndrewM… so the LPG doesnt have 150kw and the regular 190kw. You better tell Ford they got their figures wrong! Btw the upgrade thing is a BS excuse, just as the engines have upped power the LPG would have benefited, clearly it loses power from petrol, this is common knowledge
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Supporter Of Toyota Motorsport Says:
May 8th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Alex - you may be willing to pay considerable extra but how many others around the world are willing to follow suit. Numbers make viability not just a few !!
Hydrogen will be the extended term solution - nodout about it - but as we debate today, it far from ready for mass production and when it does like most new technology at first - will be bloody expensive just like Hybrids were but have gradually decreased as numbers mass.
Also, i am sure Toyota is forever working towards greener operations with it’s battery factory aswell.
NM RESPONSE…….LOL you obviously cannot read what I wrote. Expensive - where? I have produced A through to Z on system and costs and advantages. And the little cost of this SHEEP BOY states its expensive…..LOL. Iam obviously thinking you are at a few rungs down on ladder on my comments - like struggling first rung to get to! And you weakly and meekly fumble with your battery comments in true SHEEP BOY form. Your comments are very 2 dimensional!
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
gee dont you love this sentence……
“Also, i am sure Toyota is forever working towards greener operations with it’s battery factory aswell.”
it proves what i have said before.
too much faith in the Big T and believing that what ever they do will be better and the way to go.
im not a sheep because i have never supported hybrids even in the case of GM.
stop clutching at straws for an argument
look/think outside the bland square on wheels they call toyotas.
the system NM mentioned holds merit. just because toyota didnt invent it, dont get your knickers in a knot and simply diss it
ive already found 1 video NM, and it looks pretty basic and effective
ps. check your email again
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
TP…..until you can compare a straight LPG non-Ford motor against Falcon’s and talk fuel consumption, power loss…well ummmm your comparing apples and oranges. Least you “now” know that the Falcon LPG motor is made straight on production line hey!
TP….google HYDROGEN and JOE CELL and HHO
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
ANDREW M….thanks, truly this is not single car related and you do really show your style by contributing with one car makers colours. Your a car enthusiast and great hey…unlike some!
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
typo………without one car makers colours. Dingo and TP…. just leave personal car makers comments out of it and google it and comment. No arguments and thats all dudes!
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Ha Ha TP - you’re weellie wuthless. Flawed mate flawed. Ha Ha
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
TP,
the no upgrade thing isnt BS.
please explain why it is.
the engine upgrades revolve around the method of injecting the unleaded fuel.
LPG is done by the use of a different system and that is what has not been upgraded.
so you are saying ford has changed pistons or something to can the extra 40kw over the years and hence LPG should benefit too? ha ha ha ha ha ha
do you know how funny that sounds?
please stop, you sound much smarter when you say nothing
perhaps it is common knowledge to those like you that have no knowledge, that LPG fuel produces less power, but us that actually know what we are talking about understand that the LPG fuel actually holds greater energy.
its the duel fuel compromise that sees your engine less efficiently on LPG, not the fault of the fuel
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Naughtyius Maximus… are you claiming to have installed your own Joe Cell on your own car, or have I read one of your above posts incorrectly.
I hope you realise that the Joe Cell is no more than a hoax and the way that it supposedly works breaks the laws of thermodynamics. To claim that you have installed one on your car is a blatant lie.
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
hahha what a crock… ive just done a little googling
“Based on old “forgotten” US Patents we have developed devices that use a little electricity out of your car/truck battery, to separate water into a gas called “HHO” (2 parts Hydrogen + 1 Oxygen). HHO, also called Brown’s Gas or Hydroxy, burns beautifully and provides TONS of energy”
So this thing works by taking energy from your car, to make water into hydrogen and oxygen gas, which is then burnt again to produce water, and then you have a net increase in energy?
Conservation of energy states that the energy of the whole system has to remain the same… so this cannot work in practise.
In fact if you seriously have been conned into buying one of these you are more than likely going to see a decrease in fuel economy as the chemical reactions to make the “HHO” and convert it back to water are not going to be perfect and energy is going to be lost as heat.
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
If the system really worked why aren’t the auto manufacturers implementing it?
It’s clearly not a patented system, if the numerous online websites claiming to sell the products are any indication.
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Should now do “2008 Worst International Engine Of The Year Awards” (but maybe without the award part).
CarAdvice i remember Webwombat doing top 10 worst cars of the year for america, you should do it for Australia. Just a thought. (sorry im off topic).
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
This were it………
1: Chrysler Sebring
2: Dodge Nitro
3: Jeep Liberty
4: Dodge Caliber R/T AWD
5: Dodge Magnum
6: Ford Crown Victoria
7: Chevrolet Aveo
8: Nissan Quest
9: Hyundai Entourage
10: Pontiac Grand Prix
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
I’m curious NM, what volumetric flowrate do you get of “HHO” do you when its up and running?
All due you respect to you mate but RoFlmaTiC is spot on.
(Report)
May 8th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
^ forgive the retarded grammar… its been a long day.
(Report)
May 9th, 2008 at 12:48 am
No Name…don’t make me laugh.
(Apologies to Catherine Tate)
(Report)
May 9th, 2008 at 1:30 am
Hang on Toyotaphiles - Go look at the link, Its nothing new the Prius has won the award year on year. So its actually no big shakes. Given that few others make Hybrids to this standard its no surprises it wins all the time. Why doesn’t a lexus win, cos they do not have the same technology in a Lexus as they do in a Prius. So whats the point of the award if only the Toyota will win at this time.
(Report)
May 9th, 2008 at 2:14 am
i think the gtr engine is inferior to the porsche turbo mainly coz they need to keep costs down. but i think the gtr nuked everyone else because of the car itself rather than the engine. less torque and power than the porsche turbo and being 300kgs heavier but manage to beat almost any car except 2 superlightwieght exotics with stratospheric engines.
(Report)
May 9th, 2008 at 7:57 am
Take the results with a grain of salt. This award is a gee up. Any engines that has been recalled, should be immediately disqualified. Therefore the 2.5L Subaru engine does not deserve it’s gong. I also agree that the falcon engine should rate a mention, although it is punching against some uber-tech euro engines that cost 10 times as much, and deliver half the thrill. Another thing i found was that most of the engines feature forced induction.
(Report)
May 9th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Pirus! certainly casts a shadow over the credibility of this judging panel!
(Report)
May 9th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Here Here Here. Its obvious and last 2 comments back this up. Maybe chardonanny and ordeuvres with nibblies by upper crust occured like clockwork here! What a joke!
Back to doubters of Hydrogen fuel cell in my ute. Maybe you armchair chardonnay doubters can do just as I did… view one and get direct exact feedback period. Anything else you got to say junior scientists is just that…hot air! Geepers I also cruised internet researching and looked at physics forums. Still I was puzzled how on earth buddy can get increased economy in his dual fuel Ford Maverick…………..hmmmm. Keep nibbling on grass sheep boys and keep getting dished up PR and coping whatever you wanna pay! FOOLS!
(Report)
May 9th, 2008 at 8:42 am
If what NM suggests actually improves the efficency of the combustion process then it is not just a case of quoting conservation of energy or momentum or anything else for that matter. Gee and u guys are engineers?
Internal combustion engines aren’t very efficient in terms of converting petrol into motion as majority of energy is released as heat. Diesel combustion engines are more efficient mainly due to the higher compression ratio used and hence more efficient combustion.
Anything that can result in a more efficient “burn” will result in less heat and more bang!
(Report)
May 9th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Like I quoted………….Iam always a doubter til I see cold hard 100% proof!
(Report)
May 9th, 2008 at 8:45 am
Just slightly off topic. China has expressed interest in buying some NSW power stations when the sell off happens.
Happy days ahead!!!
(Report)
May 9th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Lol at that list of worst cars.. Its apparent web wombat may have something against the dodge/chrysler/jeep group.
Im not going to write a whole list but for me there is one stand out..
The Holden Epica (Epic Fail, crapness of epic proportions)
rage.
(Report)
May 9th, 2008 at 9:46 am
The only reason the Subaru engine was recalled was due to faulty bearings, not the engine design. This only effect MY08 models and not the MY07 model. Why would a GM/Holden engine win an award? Its using push rods still? Also the 4L Turbo Ford engine is a great engine but it is not certainly better than the 4L V8 BMW engine which is an engineering feat. Any backyard mechanic can stick a massive turbo on inline 6 and make it go fast.
(Report)
May 9th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Crouchy, add the AU Falcon to that list. Had to drive around one today on they way to work. Poor fellow, must have been embarrassing for him
And UrbanGTB, what’s wrong with pushrods? LS2 vs BOSS comparison, LS2 made more power, was more fuel efficient and is a durable as anything. Just look at the drag racing circuit. 100’s out there with twin turbo kits running 400+rwkw, stock internals. BOSS does sound better though, so that’s one thing I guess. If you don’t understand how an engine works, don’t comment. There is nothing wrong having a greater simplicity, and less reciprocating mass.
(Report)
May 9th, 2008 at 10:43 am
GhisGT
That is a very uninformed and biased comment about the AU. The styling was before its time and still looks quite contenpory today (look closely at other designs that are only now starting to use design ques that the AU used years ago). And mechanically the AU is far superior and better to drive than Commodores of the same (and later) era. Please make some informed comments, “If you don’t understand .., don’t comment.
(Report)
May 9th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Realcars, yes that would be the case if the combustion process was made more efficient. However if you read carefully what the product claims to do, you will see that it doesn’t increase the efficiency at all.
Again, why aren’t any auto manufacturers implementing this product, there are no patent specifications protecting it! It’s just common sense.
I’ve thought of a possible explanation of why NM gets more km’s per tank of fuel (Other than like a placebo). I’m thinking the cell might store some of the fuel in between petrol refueling. In this way it would be analogous to increasing the overall fuel capacity of the car. Off course you’re going to get more total kilometers per “tank” this way, but your km’s / L is going to stay the same.
(Report)
May 9th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Oh I understand how an engine works but the question is do you actually understand what this award is for?
Quote:
“Using their impressions from driving the latest cars, judges find powerplants that offer the best driveability, performance, economy, and refinement, and reward manufacturers for the successful application of advanced engine technology.”
I would hardly call a push rod engine an advancement in engine technology. I would say the 4L BMW engine is…
(Report)
May 9th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Realcars wrote: “Anything that can result in a more efficient “burn” will result in less heat and more bang!”
With that statement you just showed that you have no idea how IC engines work…
“If what NM suggests actually improves the efficiency of the combustion process then it is not just a case of quoting conservation of energy or momentum or anything else for that matter. Gee and u guys are engineers?”
The inefficiency is not in the combustion process, it is in the energy transfer of the engine itself. Combustion of petrol produces a certain amount of energy (joules) per litre. This figure is well known and does not change. By the way diesel has a higher energy content then petrol and LPG has a lower energy content. NM’s claims of a 36% increase in efficiency are difficult to believe under any circumstance.
(Report)
May 9th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Bret, I had an AU wagon as a company car, it was the car everybody hated. We had many different brands, and by far this thing was a real sh1tter. I wish I could type all the things that fell off that car, but it would just take too long. The most funny and memorable one would have had to have been that plastic cover underneath the front bar getting caught up between the front wheel. Should have heard the noise then it got ripped off… my god.
I have been the auto industry for some time, and the AU is the joke of the recent Australian automotive industry, and it nearly killed Ford, now there us a hard fact. Contemporary? Jeeese… clutching at straws much?
The driveline on the other hand is great, great engine and boxes, near unbreakable. But the rest of the car, don’t try to polish a turd.
UrbanGTB, fair call.
(Report)
May 9th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
GhisGT, “don’t try to polish a turd”….LOL Thats gold, I’m going to use that one.
(Report)
May 9th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
GhisGT, 165000 km and not one single little issue with my AUII - nothing, not a thing. Maybe yours was a very early series 1?
On the other hand the cars we had at work in 2002 were a Commodore, a Magna and a Pulsar hatch, no surprises that the Commodore was the last choice, for everyone, everytime. We had that thing for three years and was THE reason why we have had Falcons at work ever since.
And I still think that the AU looks more contemporty than any commodore other than a VE!
(Report)
May 9th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Well, that’s your opinion and I’m sure Ford Australia wished the that the majority of the population had the same views on the AU as you did.
Also, my fathers AUIII XR8. Diff died in the first 3 weeks. He now owns a VE
Either way, we could go on like this forever, styling is and will always be subjective, let’s just leave it at that hey?
(Report)
May 9th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Titan,
LPG has a lower enery content?
i think you will find it is the other way around
also,
the energy per litre of fuel does change if it is not being burnt efficiently. that is if not all of the fuel is being burnt, you wont get the same amount of energy out of each litre that enters the engine
(Report)
May 9th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Andrew M, yes LPG has a lower energy per litre then Petrol or Diesel (from memory 27 MJ/Litre vs about 35MJ/Litre for Petrol and 38 MJ/Litre for Diesel). So no I will not find it is the other way around.
Your second point however is very valid, that said adding a very small amount of this “HHO” is going do nothing to alter the reactions occurring in the cylinders. And I can guarantee you that NM would only be producing negligible amounts of “HHO” using electrolysis. A 36% increase in efficiency is not realistic. It would be like someone claiming they got a substantial power increase driving through fog.
(Report)
May 9th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Titan,
QUOTE……….
LPG provides about 8% more energy per unit weight (LHV = 19,757 BTU/lbm) than gasoline. Theoretically, vehicle operation with LPG should be more efficient than with gasoline, i.e., the vehicle should attain better specific fuel consumption and improved mileage. However, this will only happen if the engine design is optimized for LPG fuel. If a gasoline engine is converted to operate on LPG this increased efficiency will not be realized due to the lower density of LPG compared to gasoline and also its slightly higher oxygen demand (LPG stoichiometric A/F = 15.8). The lighter density fuel displaces air in the intake manifold, and thus, less air per cycle is induced to the cylinders. This translates to a decreased volumetric efficiency and a loss of power compared to the original gasoline rating of the engine.
also with HHO,
the reaction is claimed from the gases being taken through the airbox.
a cold air kit alters the efficiency of the motor does it not?
the oxygen entering the motor affects the burning efficiency.
blank off half of the air inlet and you will notice it for the worse.
put a bigger air funnel on and you will notice it for the better.
more oxygen = better economy and power.
the fuel still gets fed into the motor at the same rate whether or not the oxygen is there to efficiently burn it.
more oxygen or other beneficial gases into the air box to me sounds logical that there would be less wasted fuel.
sorry but im not going to be one who instantly writes the concept off.
it does hold some merit
(Report)
May 12th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Andrew M, you will notice that the energy figure you quoted is energy per unit mass not energy per unit volume like I have been quoting, Furthermore, as your reference indicates, LPG is less dense then petrol (which is rather obvious) hence validating what I have been saying.
“a cold air kit alters the efficiency of the motor does it not” – at full throttle yes it does. However by definition a throttle is a variable restriction. When you close the throttle you are restricting the pumping efficiency of the engine and hence you cold air intake is not going to help a lot. However with the throttle fully open its provides the least restriction, and as a result other restrictions that occur before it become very important hence we get people fitting cold air intakes.
“fuel still gets fed into the motor at the same rate whether or not the oxygen is there to efficiently burn it.” This statement is incorrect. The fuel air ratio remains nominally constant and is governed by the inlet manifold pressure on engines with a carburettor or electronically on fuel injected engines.
“more oxygen or other beneficial gases into the air box to me sounds logical that there would be less wasted fuel.” Firstly you can “waste” less fuel simply by leaning the mixture. Your engine won’t last very long but feel free to give it a go. Secondly how much of these beneficial gases do you think this joe cell is producing. Electrolysis of water is nothing new and well understood. However the way that is set up and used in this application guarantees that the rate of gas production will insufficient to make one iota of difference.
“sorry but im not going to be one who instantly writes the concept off.
it does hold some merit” That’s your choice and you are most welcome to do that. However the concept has been around for years and has been shown not to work.
(Report)