Don't know if it's supposed to be like that. This happens on low powered engines:
The numbers of a concepted fuel saving engine and the actual numbers of it in the car have always been somewhat lower yet never that large:
Picture 1
Concept : 10km/l (25mpg)
In Car: 2km/l (5mpg)
It's always around 5-6 times lower.
Engine and gearbox had been all "fuel optimized".
Regards
I think there is supposed to be a difference between those two yes. Eric explained it somewhere on the forum, but I didn't find it. The numbers for the engine alone is only when the engine is running on idle, and so will always be far better than when in a car where you both have weight and aerodynamics to add to the mix. How large that difference should be however, I do not know.
As I couldn't find the ealier post to verify, my comment should so far be counted as guesswork.
Sorry for the late reply, I was out of my office for the holiday weekend.
Tridon is correct, the fuel rating for the engine you see is the brake specific fuel consumption.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_spec...onsumption
Or in a nut shell the best fuel mileage you can get out of the engine without it being attached to anything (we convert this to distance measurements for simplistic sake)
If you take a 1.6L Honda Civic motor which gets 60mpg brake specific fuel consumption and put it in a Peterbuilt Semitruck. You will be using that motor at fuel throttle ALL the time in order to move that truck. Thus your fuel consumption is going to be more around 10-15mpg.
So yes, your engines are too weak to move your vehicles, as such you're having to operate your engine at full throttle just to move. Thus lowering your fuel consumption.
Ahhhhh, thanks for the enlightenment.
