Quote:
Originally Posted by gwyllion
You are missing GasperG's point. The torque will be restricted by the maximum fuel flow.
|
In a sense *everything* will be restricted by the max fuel flows allowed... simply you have to be more efficient, which for an ICE is not that difficult with figures below the 30%.
Efficiency is not only about consuming less fuel in the sense of restricting the fuel entering engine (blind downsizing). Combustion in ICE has 2 real separated events, how much fuel you put inside a cylinder each time( and how efficient complete combustion it is with the pressures resulting of it taken advantage of to the max), and how many times per a unit of time you can repeat the same process(RPM). So you can put the same or more fuel each time deriving a much more efficient combustion which usually *must* mean higher torque ( otherwise there is something very friction or drag about your engine), and you can do that less times per minute, yet derive more power (rogue power = torque x rpm) and consume less fuel in the process.
So for torque is specially not truth... reason why Toyota also went for a "torque" approach with more displacement ( meaning less revs).
[ higher displacement also has an interesting property, specially if playing also with larger bores and redesigned engine heads, specially if your engine is "direct injection" (which is nor the case of Toyota) ... keep the fuel droplets out of the cylinder walls as much as possible, because they tend to go unburned, which is hard to avoid in a narrower engine, even if the injected fuel quantity is much less... so balancing under limits, higher displacement can have advantages for efficiency ]