41
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2026
41 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
55534 readers
660 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
And whatever efficiency increases you get from the friction loss reduction that wet belts offer are minuscule to boot, and probably won't even show up on your fuel bill, I'm pretty sure Ford went this route with the 1.0 EB just to appease bean counters and the EPA.
That said, the idea to use an unbalanced flywheel to functionally replace a balance shaft and reduce engine weight is kinda cool, ngl.
I owned a Citroen with a 1.0TSI engine that was supposedly more efficient than the 1.4TSI in my VW. In reality the VW was and still is far more fuel efficient, even though it's a significantly more powerful engine. Could be that the Citroen was shaped like a brick though. LOL.