2L Engine 30MPG VS 1.4L Enginge 30MPG - Difference?

BiGT- · 13 Mar 2012 at 20:57

So yhhh, stupid question was asked, didn't really think!

nothing to see here

[TW]Fox · 13 Mar 2012 at 20:59

The difference is that one engine is 600cc bigger than the other.

This is a bizarre question. You must explain what you mean. Are you comparing engines of similar power? Or price? Or what?

I mean what is a '30mpg' engine?

Two cars both doing 30mpg use exactly the same amount of petrol irrespective of whether one has a 1 litre engine and the other a 5 litre engine. mpg is a measure of fuel used.

Jonny ///M · 13 Mar 2012 at 21:01

They both use the same amount of fuel over a given distance.

The 2.0 will feel easier to drive I'd imagine.

Lashout_UK · 13 Mar 2012 at 21:01

The cost of filling the car has nothing to do with the engine's displacement, it's all to do with the size of the tank

PinkFloyd · 13 Mar 2012 at 21:02

Fuel tank size is also unrelated to engine size. (Although generally it will often correlate)

2 cars with the same size tanks, no matter what the engines are (providing they can both do 30mpg) will use the same fuel and last the same distance.

What I'm guessing you are after, is that it's likely the bigger engine has a bit more poke for when you need it - whilst still being just as ecomomical when you need it to be.

Hagar · 13 Mar 2012 at 21:03

RPM

Assuming a similar fuel mixture, the swept volume of the cylinders may be similar therefore the 1.4 has to spin faster.

Just guessing

nojyug · 13 Mar 2012 at 21:03

Lashout_UK said:
The cost of filling the car has nothing to do with the engine's displacement, it's all to do with the size of the tank

And the driver... potentially

Jono8 · 13 Mar 2012 at 21:08

Assuming they are of similar age and both are naturally aspirated, one would assume that the 2L engine would be more powerful.

BiGT- · 13 Mar 2012 at 21:17

And here

Axeboy · 13 Mar 2012 at 21:18

If you can tell us which cars and engines you are considering we can probably help more?

[TW]Fox · 13 Mar 2012 at 21:19

BiGT- said:
I am just thinking about fuel costs for now, would they both basically cost the same, fuel wise?

Well of course they would, as they are both doing 30mpg.

The reason I ask is because I am looking to buy a car and the only thing I am looking out for is the cost of fuel usage! if they both cost the same in terms of fuel usage then I would go for the 2.0l as its more powerful?

The bit you've missed really is that you've plucked random figures out of thin air. In the realworld there are very few 2 litre engines which exactly as economical as your average 1.4 litre engine.

PinkFloyd · 13 Mar 2012 at 21:20

If both cars do 30mpg they'll both cost the same fuel wise. We're assuming they're both the same fuel type here - ie petrol.

Both cars, should be able to do 30 miles to each gallon of petrol.

BiGT- · 13 Mar 2012 at 21:28

And here

PMKeates · 13 Mar 2012 at 21:32

BiGT- said:
Yes, both petrol.

But does that mean the 2.0l car will last a longer distance than the 1.4l car before refilling? Since it costs about £90 to fill the tank of the 2.0 compared to about £55 for the 1.4l

I can't remember which cars I was looking at, I just remembered now I wanted to ask this question, but the 2.0l car was a 2002 BMW 3 series, can't remember the other

*No personal attacks* Please take the bus.

Disco Boy · 13 Mar 2012 at 21:33

BiGT- said:
Yes, both petrol.

But does that mean the 2.0l car will last a longer distance than the 1.4l car before refilling? Since it costs about £90 to fill the tank of the 2.0 compared to about £55 for the 1.4l

I can't remember which cars I was looking at, I just remembered now I wanted to ask this question, but the 2.0l car was a 2002 BMW 3 series, can't remember the other

You really have no idea what mpg, mph, engine displacement, price per litre, and the size of a fuel tank are do you? Understand these basic things and you'll realise that your questions are very silly.

Janesy B · 13 Mar 2012 at 21:36

Why would a car have a bigger fuel tank just based on engine displacement? It would help if you could remember what cars you are comparing?

Jono8 · 13 Mar 2012 at 21:37

BiGT- said:
Yes, both petrol.

But does that mean the 2.0l car will last a longer distance than the 1.4l car before refilling? Since it costs about £90 to fill the tank of the 2.0 compared to about £55 for the 1.4l

I can't remember which cars I was looking at, I just remembered now I wanted to ask this question, but the 2.0l car was a 2002 BMW 3 series, can't remember the other

Not sure if troll...

[TW]Fox · 13 Mar 2012 at 21:37

Janesy B said:
Why would a car have a bigger fuel tank just based on engine displacement? It would help if you could remember what cars you are comparing?

Generally speaking your average 1.4 litre car has a smaller tank than your avergae 2.0 litre car, which has a smaller tank than your avergae 3.0 litre car.

BiGT- · 13 Mar 2012 at 21:38

PMKeates said:
You are too stupid to have a car. Please take the bus.

I shall buy any car and wait for you to cross the road! I don't need to know how a cars fuel consumption works to be able to drive, *No personal attacks - Don't retaliate*

Disco Boy said:
You really have no idea what mpg, mph, engine displacement, price per litre, and the size of a fuel tank are do you? Understand these basic things and you'll realise that your questions are very silly.

No I don't, thats why I'm asking here!

MacRS4 · 13 Mar 2012 at 21:39

But does that mean the 2.0l car will last a longer distance than the 1.4l car before refilling? Since it costs about £90 to fill the tank of the 2.0 compared to about £55 for the 1.4l

Oh my word.

Ok, let's look at the 55 quid a fill. Assume 1.37/litre that's 40.15 litres or 8.82 Gallons. 30Mpg=264 miles to the tank right? It's cost you 20.8p/mile.

90 quid fill=65.69 litres, or 14.43 Gallons. 30Mpg=432 Miles to the tank. It's cost you .... 20.8p/mile.

So, yes you go further on a single tank with a bigger tank, but at the same consumption rate it'll cost you exactly the same.