Next most fuel efficient diesel vs 3b?? (2 Viewers)

[haryv]

I like my fuel efficent engine but, wonder what is the next more powerfull one to use/buy ?? it can be anything other then a toyota.

BTW, I have thought about putting a turbo on my 3b. But want to know if a engine has to low of compression or to many kms when its pointless? I do not burn any oil. I can go for months without putting any in.

Was also thinking of chopping off the back end of my truck, and putting on a aluminum box for my biz, then use it as a camper if I move on into another industry.

Thanks

 

[Dougal]

A 13BT will be more efficient, if you don't use the extra go.

 

[cody c]

I dont think the 3B is really really efficient engine. I wouldnt say it is a non efficient engine, but it doesnt get the mileage a VW can get.

Any of the newer B motors should have more power and better mileage at the same highway output.

Actually even the 12HT, 1HDT ot 1HZ may have better mileage, more so when hauling a heavy load.

I would speculate that one of the main inhibitors of great mileage out of the 3B is that it is underpowered for a 60 series to maintain highway speeds.

 

[Tapage]

turbo make more effient any diesel engine ( not sure if works same way in a gasser ) but I'm pretty sure none of those old engines can beat new 1KD-FTV or 1VD etc new era electronic controlled engines ..

 

[canucksafari]

I would speculate that one of the main inhibitors of great mileage out of the 3B is that it is underpowered for a 60 series to maintain highway speeds.

How about in a 40 series or a 70 series?

 

[BreckenridgeCruiser]

My 2B is Way more efficient than my old FJ40 ever was... and i'm hauling around more weight!

I think one major concern is the use of the truck... A 3B will be much more efficient while driving at lower RPMs and therefore moderate speeds. it also reaches the power wall abruptly and needs a lot more fuel to overcome. IF I was hauling a lot of weight at highway speeds and some hills, a 1HZ or 1HDT could be more efficient than a 3B could ever be...

So in what use are you trying to get the most efficiency? Heck, a 2B is more efficient than a 3B if used the right way purely due to lower displacement and higher compression.

 

[Dougal]

Does anyone have the stock injection volumes for a 3B? A workshop manual may have them and these can be used to see just how efficient or inefficient the 3B is.

I have these figures for 1HZ and 1HDT. The 1HDT is 20% more efficient than the 1HZ.

Here's a rough run-down in order of best to worst of the engines I have hard figures for. I expect the 3B to fit between the 1HZ and OM617.

VW 2.0 TDi
VW 1.9 TDi
Isuzu 4BD1T
1HD-FTE
Cummins 4BT
merc OM612
1HD-T
Merc OM617
1HZ
Chev 6.5 V8

 

[lostmarbles]

Does anyone have the stock injection volumes for a 3B? A workshop manual may have them and these can be used to see just how efficient or inefficient the 3B is.

I have these figures for 1HZ and 1HDT. The 1HDT is 20% more efficient than the 1HZ.

Here's a rough run-down in order of best to worst of the engines I have hard figures for. I expect the 3B to fit between the 1HZ and OM617.

VW 2.0 TDi
VW 1.9 TDi
Isuzu 4BD1T
1HD-FTE
Cummins 4BT
merc OM612
1HD-T
Merc OM617
1HZ
Chev 6.5 V8

Not all 3B engines are the same of course.

I believe these figures are for one in a BJ60 with a rotary pump:



Is that what you want Dougal?

 

[Radd Cruisers]

The 1HZ is smooth, reasonably quiet, has decent power and very usable torque, but it does NOT get good fuel economy. I do have to spend a little time working on tuning mine up, but the fuel economy is nothing like the 12HT, for example.

The 3B is not too bad on fuel, but is quite gutless in the real world of 100 kph highway driving. Off-road and for slower driving it is a very good little engine, that produces some decent fuel economy numbers.

The 13B and 13BT should be quite a bit better in the fuel consumption department than the 3B for similar output.

~John

 

[Dougal]

Not all 3B engines are the same of course.

I believe these figures are for one in a BJ60 with a rotary pump:

View attachment 540945

Is that what you want Dougal?

Thanks Tom, that's exactly what I wanted.

Using 90hp at 3500rpm from 50cc/1000 shots and, 217Nm at 2200rpm from 52.5cc I get:
235g/kwh at max torque.
268g/kwh at max power.

This puts them slightly better than an OM617. Does the same manual give power and torque figures? I took those of Wikipedia.

 

[BEE-JAY42]

This one could get out of control, it all depends on what each individual considers fuel efficiency. In my book the measure of how effiecent an engine is, is the amount of power produced per litre of fuel burnt (or what ever measure your more comffortable with). So while the 3B might not use alot of fuel it also isn't producing much power, so it isn't really that efficient.

People fall into the trap of thinking the modern engines aren't as efficent as the older ones because they use more fuel, but when you consider how much power they are producing and how much weight they are now pushing it's just not the case. If you were to install a 1KD-FTV into a 40 series and test it side by side with a BJ40, traveling at the same speeds you would see a massive difference, I would not be surprised if the fuel usage difference was in excess of 30-40%.

You gotta compare apples to apples.

 

[Dougal]

The best measure of an engine's efficiency (without crunching a lot of numbers) is to look at how much torque it produces for it's size.

If you have two 3 litre non turbo diesels, the one with higher torque will be the more efficient one. When they are turbocharged you've got to look at how much boost they are running, which is a lot more difficult to nail down.

 

[BEE-JAY42]

What if one produces 10% more torque but uses 200% more fuel? which is the most efficent?

 

[iceycruiser]

Efficiency is only relevant to what you, if want more power as opposed to better fuel efficiency. In the end to me reliability wins the race, especially when you consider 300k km just broken in for an engine.

 

[Dougal]

What if one produces 10% more torque but uses 200% more fuel? which is the most efficent?

That doesn't happen.

Production engines are tuned for the most torque they can reliably produce within emissions limits. These limit the richest air/fuel ratio. With two engines having to run the same max air/fuel ratio the one producing the most torque is the most efficient. It is the one getting the most from it's fuel.

 

[Snailtrail]

Heres a few more from the post '95 FSM.

View attachment 15B RM464E EG206.pdf

View attachment 15B RM464E EG207.pdf

View attachment 15B RM464E EG208.pdf

 

[Dougal]

Heres a few more from the post '95 FSM.

View attachment 541001

View attachment 541002

View attachment 541003

Thanks, that's really interesting. It shows a greater injection volume, which means they are less efficient.

What we really need to nail it down is a known engine torque and injection volume. Using the injection volume from one region with the torque from another distorts the result.

 

[lostmarbles]

Thanks Tom, that's exactly what I wanted.

Using 90hp at 3500rpm from 50cc/1000 shots and, 217Nm at 2200rpm from 52.5cc I get:
235g/kwh at max torque.
268g/kwh at max power.

This puts them slightly better than an OM617. Does the same manual give power and torque figures? I took those of Wikipedia.

I kinda figured you may want power and torque figures too but the FSM is only concerned with service specifications so it doesn't have those.

Wikipedia is probably as good a source as any.

 

[Snailtrail]

Last page...

View attachment 15B RM464E EG209.pdf

And lastly, just for reference, heres the tag of a manual 14B-T injection pump - because theres squat in the way of information out there for this engine. Maybe it means something to someone?

 

[keving]

Like iceycruiser, I also think reliability takes the cake. I would much rather sacrifice a couple MPG and gain simplicity and reliability...