Fuel Economy, Tank Size, Range?

[stickshifter]

As much as a GM v8 would be a cool proposition for the NA market, I think it would be exclusively for the NA market. 

Here in Europe we're paying $8-9 dollars a gallon for fuel, and are taxed to high heaven on big displacement powerful engines. The only reason the 3.0 I6 is able to go in the grenadier is because they're keeping under the sales cap. They're classed as a small manufacturer. 

The idea of a petrol v8 in a working vehicle over here is pretty much non existent, with them being reserved for luxury Suvs that are 100k and over. 

The big seller over here will be the diesel. It will tow well with plenty of low down torque, be far more efficient whilst doing so, and be what us Europeans (and aussies) are used to. The b57 and b58 are so similar, there was probably very little trouble in using both of them from a packaging standpoint, so they made sense I guess. 

Totally agree - I was just pipe-dreaming, because the petrol V8 isn't coming to North America either! And it certainly would never be considered for Europe. I understand that, and wasn't actually suggesting that Ineos consider a GM V8. For a whole host of reasons, I doubt they considered a GM V8 - even for a second. I just think that, when you consider the mission statement for the Grenadier (simple, strong, reliable), a pushrod petrol V8 is the ideal choice for the North American market, because (a) naturally aspirated V8 engines tend to be more reliable than forced induction 6-cylinder engines (less heat, less moving parts, etc.), and (b) the emissions systems for new diesel engines create all kinds of problems. And I was just saying that - personally - I would be more comfortable driving across Africa with a GM V8, as opposed to the B58. I think under hard work, rough conditions, and extended use, the 6.2 will be easier to keep running than the B58. I'd be even more comfortable making such a trip with a Toyota engine ?

With regard to the size of the B58: the displacement of the B58 (3.0 liters) is based on the European equivalent of what we call in the U.S. a "gas guzzler tax". Vehicle taxes vary from country to country - there is not presently a standard tax within the EU. But it is my understanding that - in addition to considering a ban on all new sales of internal combustion engines beginning in 2035, the EU is also considering higher taxes on all new engines that are 3.0 liters or larger. This is why many new engines being developed by European car companies, or by any manufacturer planning to sell in the European market, are being capped at 3.0 liters (technically, all these engines are actually just under 3.0 liters, but they are listed as "3.0").

 

[stickshifter]

Distortions in Fuel Economy Ratings by the U.S. EPA

The way that the U.S. EPA arrives at fuel economy estimates is not based on real-world driving, and results in smaller forced induction (FI) engines getting better fuel economy ratings than larger naturally aspirated (NA) engines (with more cylinders). In the testing, they don't push the engines hard, and so they don't really get into the boost in the FI engines; as a result, the engines with fewer cylinders get better fuel economy. In reality, if you are driving a FI engine hard, you will get worse mileage than in a larger NA engine, because you are deep into the boost, which blows more air through the engine, and this also means you blow more fuel through the engine. This is true if you just love to accelerate hard, or if you are working the truck under load. Yes, if you stay out of the boost in a FI engine, you will get better fuel economy than you would in a larger NA engine - so there is always the option of better fuel economy...

The Fast Lane Truck (TFL) tests trucks towing up the Eisenhower Pass (the "Ike"). Whenever they compare a FI six-cylinder to a NA V8, the V8 always gets better fuel economy going uphill. When going up the Ike, towing around 8,000 pounds, TFL gets about 3.5 miles per gallon with the 3.5-liter Ford Ecoboost V6, and between 4.5 and 5.0 miles per gallon with larger NA V8 engines (like the 5.7-liter Hemi V8 in the Ram or the GM 5.3 and 6.2-liter V8s). Hence the well-known aphorism in regard to the Ford Ecoboost engines: "you can get "eco" or you can get "boost" - but you can't get both."

In their most recent test (below), in which they compare the 3.5-liter FI V6 in the new Toyota Tundra to the 5.7-liter NA V8 in the Ram 1500, the Tundra got 4.3 mpg, while the Ram got 4.7 mpg. Both vehicles had the same size tires. The Tundra had a 3.31 rear end, while the Ram was a 3.92 (so the Tundra was geared more toward fuel economy than the Ram). 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmyT4UI0J3E

P.S. I'm not here to disparage forced induction engines. There are many advantages to FI engines, including fuel economy - under moderate driving conditions. Other advantages include great torque, getting peak torque at low rpms, a flatter power curve with peak power at a wider rpm range than in a NA engine, etc.