Fuel economy of the 2016 tacoma

Not sure, but I know for a fact air is measured by volume. Ask any one who works a in a chemical plant

 

^This.

Nothing personal. Yes, the way the engine takes in air does change the amount of air, as in the mass, that goes into the cylinder, but the volume stays the same. Plus, if you know the pressure of the air once the cylinder is sealed, you know the mass of air and the mass of oxygen, which is how companies come up with their initial tunes without knowing anything else about the engine.

 

Sorry but gasses are measured in moles, liquids are measured in volume. PV = nrT (PressureVolume = MolesGasconstantTemp). If you have two equally sized cylinders and one is a vacuum, the vacuum probably has less moles of gas.

When your cylinders are running, especially as valve efficiency degrades, they are not completely filling with air each stroke. The theory that a 4.0L has more air in the cylinder than a 3.5L is flawed because if the 3.5L has more efficient valves and intake, it can potentially pull in more air each stroke.

The 3.5L has the same bore but shorter stroke, so yes a less friction because less travel, however, if you really want to dissect this, the shorter piston rod means its pushing at a higher angle on the cylinder which "jams" the piston into the cylinder wall harder than a longer stroke engine.

That said, the size of the engine does not necessarily dictate its thermal efficiency. The new engine will be more efficient due to the direct injection and Atkinson cycle, not because its smaller.

 

How about pressure or density? Ideal gas law says these are valid.

 

Any element can be measure in moles

 

Yup... you beat me by a couple min.

 

So?

 

And? That is also correct

 

Yes, but volume is part of the equation... V in PV=nRT.

We don't know enough about the intake or the engine to say what the efficiency will be. It's a stretch to apply any science to the 3.5 L to 4.0 L argument other than to say, in theory, a 3.5 L has less surface area to volume and therefore should be more efficient based of friction and volumetric efficiency alone regardless of how much air the cylinder takes in.

 

Just pointing it out. You said air can't be measured by volume, which is incorrect

 

Not being a dick, let me try to clarify: The amount of gas in a given container is determined by Pressure, Volume, and Temperature. It is not dictated by any one of them.

 

In my field, I measure air by pressure and density before volume. Volume is not necessarily the world-wide go-to parameter.

 

Yes, but if you know temperature and pressure you know volume. Hence why any gas sold or measured in any way is measured to a standard atmosphere and pressure. To say though you can't measure air in volume is just plain WRONG and hilarious.

 

Never said it was. Just said it can be measured by volume

 

Did I accidentally stumble into the chemistry forums again??? Dammit, I hate when I do that

 

I guess the way I read it, it looked like an implication that it was all volume all the time. Carry on.

 

Where did I say that measuring a gas by volume is wrong?

 

EVEN FUNNIER.

Stop please. I went through a lot of chemistry. I used the ideal gas law ALOT. It does work. However, IT IS DICTATED BY EACH OF THE FACTORS EQUALLY AND THAT MEANS IT IS EQUALLY DICTATED BY THEM

For example, if the other two are unknown and you decide to compare unknowns in what is known as an educated guess, you assume that temperature and pressure are equal. Hence why there are so many standards out there for measuring liquids by volume and correcting factors for each case

BTW gases aren't the only thing that change volume with temperature. Liquids do as well.

Your wording and use of punctuation is making this funnier and funnier.

 

There will be a quiz later.

 

An cylinder's pressure does not equalize each stroke. Unless forced induction, it runs at a vacuum and the amount of air able to flow into is not only dictated by its volume but by the efficiency of the intake system.