1HZ vs 1HD FTE Economy. (1 Viewer)

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

D

Dougal

Joined
Jun 10, 2007
Threads
24
Messages
5,814
Location
Kiwiland
I have a turbo HZJ80 that weighs in at about 2700kg empty with 35's, and a mate has a HZJ 105 but it is fitted with a 79 series 1HD-FTE, and weighs 2900kg empty, fitted with 35's also. Mine has 3" exhaust, front mount cooler, boost compensater runing about 13psi. His has 3" exhaust, front mount cooler, and a Steinbauer chip, no idea of boost level (no boost gauge)

Mine
- avg. about 13.5L/100km
-105kw @ wheels

His
- avg about 12L/100km
- 142kw @ wheels

Hence the reason i will soon be doing the same thing to my truck, far and away alot better motor, in every respect!
 
A turbo on a diesel motor increases the efficiency of combustion, so with all things equal results in better fuel economy.

Now when I say all things equal that excludes compairing a 1hz to a 1hdt variant.

The best way to look at it is to take a 1hz, and a 1hz with a turbo fitted. The turbo'd 1hz will use less fuel, given equal driving habits.

Some people will disagree that a turbo uses less fuel (after all with a turbo you are turning up the fuel) but you have to consider that when you go to the effort of turboing a motor you are going to use the extra power, and thus more fuel.

Back on the original post for a minute, the 1hz and 1hd-fte are very different motors. apart from the obvious turbo, the 1hdt-fte has more valves per cylinder, and fueling is electronically controlled.
 
rove_mcanus said:
A turbo on a diesel motor increases the efficiency of combustion, so with all things equal results in better fuel economy.
Click to expand...

Of course you only get the economy if you don't use the extra power.
The big difference I see (besides the turbo) is direct injection vs indirect.
 
Dougal said:
They list 11L/100km for the HDJ100 with the 1HD-FTE and auto.
http://www.toyota.com.au/toyota/vehicle/Specification/0,4668,2843_704,00.html

Both done to the same test standard and the 1HD-FTE powered one is about 150kg heavier.
Click to expand...

The troopy uses 12/100 with the 1HD FTE in the troopy.
It must be the difference between intercooler and no intercooler or maybe the wind resistance in the 70 series.
Toyota Australia always maintained they couldnt fit a intercooler into the narrow framed 78/79 series because it inhibits airflow around the block.
 
Not necessarily!... A turbocharged engine will use more fuel if you let it! Otherwise it extracts energy from the exhaust to help the engine breathe and burn fuel more efficiently...

A non turbo engine will burn MORE fuel if it is stressed while the turbocharged engine wil be able to produce poower more efficiently undeerr the same loads. That would explain why the 1HDT doesn't use that much more fuel at higher speeds and or when heavily loaded. In my old BJ60 I would get 10% better fuel economy but only when not heavily loaded or stressed. I measured 16l/100 at 115 kph once. At the same speed the 1HD-T will consume about 13l/100. Of course, that also has to do with engine size.
 
You get right .. but it's human .. when you have more power available you will use it .. and in a turbo engine vs non turbo .. you use the more power ..
 
I have both vehicles, a 105 series wagon with a 1hz motor and a 100 series with 1hd fte motor and the 105 with non turbo definately uses more fuel. DOnt know exact figures but an a long trip to the coast about 750 ks the 105 just makes it on both tanks and the 100s does it easy on both tanks.
 
brett0004, the proof is in the proverbial pudding... Thanks for confirming what I thought all along :)

BTW tntoyota, it IS a comparison of turbo vs non turbo, isn't it? Unless there are large differences mechanically and aerodynamically between the 105 and the 100. Hmmm.... I could be mistaken then!
 
Ok!



I'll go back :)



Turbos compress the air,


Air gets hot with friction,


A Diesel motor is Compression ignition, hot air that takes up more space is great!!..... If your a Diesel.


Blah, blah, blah......I drove a diesel once with a blown charge hose, blah, blah, blah......felt the difference Turbos do it better, forgot what I said, blah, blah,,



Can you restore a deleted post???
 
There is no difference aerodynamically they both are basically the same. 100s has IFS and 105 has live front axle. but to be honest you have to have the 105 flat to the floor when you come to the hills as it is gutless compared to the 100s TD which does it with ease. They are both great vehicles for their purpose, the 100s is my family car and is more refined and car like and the 105 is a work vehicle that spends all day on the mine site.
 
Diesel engine basics by professor 83bj60 ;)

tntoyota said:
Ok!
Turbos compress the air,
Click to expand...

Yes.... by up to 100% for most diesels (when the boost is 14 PSI above standard atmospheric pressure of about 14 PSI)

tntoyota said:
Air gets hot with friction,
Click to expand...

Yes, but the turbo heats it up mostly by compression, and partially by heat conduction from the exhaust gasses through the body of the turbo itself.

tntoyota said:
A Diesel motor is Compression ignition, hot air that takes up more space is great!!
Click to expand...

No, hot air entering the engine is less dense therefore has less oxygen, which reduces its potential for burning fuel, hence its potential for producing power.

One thing to remember is that heat generated by compression reaches about 800C which is more than enough to ignite the fuel when it is injected in the combustion chamber at the end of the compression cycle.

On a sidenote, it is incorrect to assume that air cooled by an intercooler down to let's say 20C from let's say 120C, will, when compressed in the engine, be 'cooler' than if it is not intercooled, because denser air will reach higher pressures when compressed by the same amount, therefore the heat of compression will stay practically the same. In other words, an intercooler is in fact just a device to increase the amount of available oxygen injected in the engine, so that more fuel can be burnt and more power can be produced.

To sum it up, a compression ignition engine works by compressing the air to a temperature where it will spontaneaously promote fuel combustion. The higher the compression and the greater the amount of air available for compression (by the use of a tubocharger and when available, an intercooler), the greater the potential to burn fuel and therefore, the potential for energy output.

tntoyota said:
..... If your a Diesel.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! Gas engines behave differently by design, by the fact that in diesel engines, air is always fully available at the intake, only fuel injection amount varies. One of the best examples is that at idle, a diesel will burn almost no fuel at all (a cup of fuel in 20 minutes for a 3.4 luitre 3B, for example, which is less than a litre per hour), which corresponds to fuel to air ratios on the order of 1/300 (amount of fuel consumed divided by amount of air ingested) whereas a gasoline or ignition engine must maintain a stoïchiometric ratio for proper combustion (proprotion of fuel to air of about 1/14) which will make it burn more fuel at idle which can overheat it. On the other hand, diesels will have a tendency to use so little fuel in that condition that they will tend to cool off too much, especially on extended idling in cold weather, to a point where engine temperature will drop so low as to cause cold engine unburnt fuel conditions (soot), which is in reality just as bad if not worse (soot is an abrasive)as overheating in the gasoline the engine.

tntoyota said:
Blah, blah, blah......I drove a diesel once with a blown charge hose, blah, blah, blah......felt the difference Turbos do it better, forgot what I said, blah, blah,,
Click to expand...

Actually, automotive diesels should all be turbocharged. The reason is, that at higher engine revolutions, the movement of the air intake is so fast there is a vacuum condition created in the intake which can actually starve the motor or air hence less fuel can be burnt. That is the main reason why older diesels smoke under high load: insufficient air.

In stationary application, it is not as important. A stationary engine tends to be very large for its output and is designed to run at its most efficient engine revolution setting, where the air and fuel burns most effeiciently.

One thing to remember is that the higher the engine revolution for a given engine piston stroke (downward motion) and fuel charge, the lesser the energy than can be fully extracted during the downward stroke and the more will escape in the exhaust, hence the lower the fuel efficiency.

Another adavantage, turbocharging allows more air in therefore for a given fuel charge will allow hotter and faster combustion therefore more time for the engine to utilize that power before it is lost in the exhaust, hence greater fuel efficiency. In fact it can be said in other words that some of the otherwise wasted exhaust gas energy is converted into useable power in the engine.

Another apsect of engine desgn which is used in large diesels such as those in large trucks and especially, stationary or marine engines to extract more energy is the use of longer piston strokes: in that design there is more expansion allowed hence the exhaust gas temperature will be lower and more of its energy will be transfered directly to the crankshaft. unfortunately this design makes for much larger parts, which means more weight and more importantly, greater centrifugal forces which can destroy the crankshaft sels, so these engines don't have a very wide usueable engine revolution range, which limits their useful range of application for automotive use (which is why large trucks need so many gears).

Hope I didn't lose you there, hope this helps!!!
 
brett0004 said:
There is no difference aerodynamically they both are basically the same. 100s has IFS and 105 has live front axle. but to be honest you have to have the 105 flat to the floor when you come to the hills as it is gutless compared to the 100s TD which does it with ease. They are both great vehicles for their purpose, the 100s is my family car and is more refined and car like and the 105 is a work vehicle that spends all day on the mine site.
Click to expand...

For your application the best would be of course to have the turbo in the car (better accelartuion and hill climbing) and the NA in the work vehicle (presuming in that use it is not under high engine revolutions or loads)...
 
rove_mcanus said:
A turbo on a diesel motor increases the efficiency of combustion, so with all things equal results in better fuel economy.

Now when I say all things equal that excludes compairing a 1hz to a 1hdt variant.

The best way to look at it is to take a 1hz, and a 1hz with a turbo fitted. The turbo'd 1hz will use less fuel, given equal driving habits.
Click to expand...

I just noticed your post and it's interesting, because it may be due to the fact that the NA 1HZ is designed with higher compression (around 22/1 IIRC?) than the 1HDT (around 17/1 IIRC), although another poster says that his turboed 1HZ uses more fuel than his buddy's 1HD-T powered truck.

However, higher compression with turbo should lead to greater potential fuel charge or greater amount of air for a given fuel charge, hence faster and potentially more complete combustion and energy extraction by the crankshaft.

But won't a turbocharged 1HZ be more exposed to blown head gaskets (because of excessive pressure) and excessive loads on the connecting rod bearings? Any thoughts on that?

To expand a little on this, would'n t one want to make sure the engine is not excessively fueled compared to the 1HD-T (to reduce stresses on the head and head bolts) and possibly, be provided with higher oil pressure at lower RPMs (to better cushion the presumably much sharper ignition and much faster combustion under lower loads)?
 
a diesel fuel pump injects more per shot at idle than at max no load speed (full revs in neutral), it is a governed engine, load equals fuel delivered per shot.
 
Where did you get that and can you give figures? It doesn't seem to make much sense...
 
83BJ60

One thing to remember regarding the power capability of the 1hz/1hd family of engines, is the fact that Yanmar uses the 1HD as their 6LP series of marine engines, and rates the various configurations between 260 and 315 hp peak.
http://www.yanmarmarine.com/products/product_lp.php

I'm not aware of the internal modifications, if any, that are made to the engines, but they are inter-cooled.

I sure would like to have 315 hp available in my 73.:D

Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SlowBuild
1HD-FTE V belt part number
Replies
3
Views
609
David*BJ70
David*BJ70
dudwire
1HD-FTE Ticking Noise
2
Replies
20
Views
4K
swamprunner
S
gnarlynick2072
1HD-FTE Into 80 Series - 6mm or 8mm Return Fuel Line??
Replies
3
Views
740
Jorgito
Jorgito
Well Sorted
1HD-FTE fuel pump prime/bleed
Replies
5
Views
3K
lelandEOD
lelandEOD

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom