^^^Might want to note that Ford has said the Ecoboost 4 banger will make in excess of 300 hp, looks like about 305 or so.
That's a lot more than the Fusion!
That's a lot more than the Fusion!
Turbo 2.0L 4cylinders - Beat V6s? (Ecoboost, etc.)
- Thread starter FetchFar
- Start date
- Status
The Ecoboost in the new Mustang will be a 2.3L and not the 2.0, right? Always thought that Ford was selling that engine as a step up from the V6. They aren't planning on marketing the "base" Mustang as the model with the 2.3L Ecoboost.
Originally Posted By: 19jacobob93
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Originally Posted By: 19jacobob93
They introduced the 2.0 Eco boost on the latest falcon as a free option alongside the 4.0 I6. The ecoboost only has slightly less power and torque and does 0-62 in 6.something seconds.
Pretty good but they've also turbod the I6 which is hideously powerful now!
Looks like the current Falcon would perform about the same as the U.S.'s Ford Fusion, similar weight, with that same 2.0L ecoboost, 0-60 in about 6.6 seconds. Ford will probably put that engine in the Mustang making it to Australia in about a year and a half.
Yeah it's around 6.8 secs I believe. The falcon is bigger and heavier than the fusion and is RWD, engineered for it's big I6s and V8s so to get that kind of performance out of a little 4 banger is impressive!
Yeah the Eco boost is getting put into the mustang in the base model along side the V6. This will probably rival the Toyota gt86 here so they better price it just as low ($29k) but the Eco boost will be much faster. The higher end getting the v8. I reckon the Stang will do well over here!
That 4.0 I-6 you have over there, is it a; SOHC 12V, DOHC 24V, or a good old tech, OHV 12V (a la our venerable Jeep engine)??
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Originally Posted By: 19jacobob93
They introduced the 2.0 Eco boost on the latest falcon as a free option alongside the 4.0 I6. The ecoboost only has slightly less power and torque and does 0-62 in 6.something seconds.
Pretty good but they've also turbod the I6 which is hideously powerful now!
Looks like the current Falcon would perform about the same as the U.S.'s Ford Fusion, similar weight, with that same 2.0L ecoboost, 0-60 in about 6.6 seconds. Ford will probably put that engine in the Mustang making it to Australia in about a year and a half.
Yeah it's around 6.8 secs I believe. The falcon is bigger and heavier than the fusion and is RWD, engineered for it's big I6s and V8s so to get that kind of performance out of a little 4 banger is impressive!
Yeah the Eco boost is getting put into the mustang in the base model along side the V6. This will probably rival the Toyota gt86 here so they better price it just as low ($29k) but the Eco boost will be much faster. The higher end getting the v8. I reckon the Stang will do well over here!
That 4.0 I-6 you have over there, is it a; SOHC 12V, DOHC 24V, or a good old tech, OHV 12V (a la our venerable Jeep engine)??
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
If you keep a car for a long time a 4-cylinder means one head, one exhaust header and should mean less complication with extended maintenance of say a 10 to 15 year time period. A 4-cylinder might mean easier routine maintenance, as well. . .
Bear in mind there's a lot more going on, and a lot more to go wrong, on a turbo vs. a NA engine. And the former imposes more stress on an engine. I'm not so sure a turbo 4 is less long-term maintenance and repair than a NA six. You can buy a lot of gas for the price of a blown head gasket or cracked cylinder wall.
If you keep a car for a long time a 4-cylinder means one head, one exhaust header and should mean less complication with extended maintenance of say a 10 to 15 year time period. A 4-cylinder might mean easier routine maintenance, as well. . .
Bear in mind there's a lot more going on, and a lot more to go wrong, on a turbo vs. a NA engine. And the former imposes more stress on an engine. I'm not so sure a turbo 4 is less long-term maintenance and repair than a NA six. You can buy a lot of gas for the price of a blown head gasket or cracked cylinder wall.
Originally Posted By: Volvohead
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
If you keep a car for a long time a 4-cylinder means one head, one exhaust header and should mean less complication with extended maintenance of say a 10 to 15 year time period. A 4-cylinder might mean easier routine maintenance, as well. . .
Bear in mind there's a lot more going on, and a lot more to go wrong, on a turbo vs. a NA engine. And the former imposes more stress on an engine. I'm not so sure a turbo 4 is less long-term maintenance and repair than a NA six. You can buy a lot of gas for the price of a blown head gasket or cracked cylinder wall.
Agreed.
A simple 4-cyl is much easier to maintain and costs a lot less than a turbo charged engine, it also cost less to maintain than a 6-cyl too.
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
If you keep a car for a long time a 4-cylinder means one head, one exhaust header and should mean less complication with extended maintenance of say a 10 to 15 year time period. A 4-cylinder might mean easier routine maintenance, as well. . .
Bear in mind there's a lot more going on, and a lot more to go wrong, on a turbo vs. a NA engine. And the former imposes more stress on an engine. I'm not so sure a turbo 4 is less long-term maintenance and repair than a NA six. You can buy a lot of gas for the price of a blown head gasket or cracked cylinder wall.
Agreed.
A simple 4-cyl is much easier to maintain and costs a lot less than a turbo charged engine, it also cost less to maintain than a 6-cyl too.
Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: 19jacobob93
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Originally Posted By: 19jacobob93
They introduced the 2.0 Eco boost on the latest falcon as a free option alongside the 4.0 I6. The ecoboost only has slightly less power and torque and does 0-62 in 6.something seconds.
Pretty good but they've also turbod the I6 which is hideously powerful now!
Looks like the current Falcon would perform about the same as the U.S.'s Ford Fusion, similar weight, with that same 2.0L ecoboost, 0-60 in about 6.6 seconds. Ford will probably put that engine in the Mustang making it to Australia in about a year and a half.
Yeah it's around 6.8 secs I believe. The falcon is bigger and heavier than the fusion and is RWD, engineered for it's big I6s and V8s so to get that kind of performance out of a little 4 banger is impressive!
Yeah the Eco boost is getting put into the mustang in the base model along side the V6. This will probably rival the Toyota gt86 here so they better price it just as low ($29k) but the Eco boost will be much faster. The higher end getting the v8. I reckon the Stang will do well over here!
That 4.0 I-6 you have over there, is it a; SOHC 12V, DOHC 24V, or a good old tech, OHV 12V (a la our venerable Jeep engine)??
The version in mine was the last old school I6s with 12 OHV, spark plugs sticking out the side of the engine and where everything just bolted on haha it's a very solid, simple and old school engine!
The model after mine starting in 2002 they really worked it over and teched it up and named it the 'barra' engine
Originally Posted By: 19jacobob93
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Originally Posted By: 19jacobob93
They introduced the 2.0 Eco boost on the latest falcon as a free option alongside the 4.0 I6. The ecoboost only has slightly less power and torque and does 0-62 in 6.something seconds.
Pretty good but they've also turbod the I6 which is hideously powerful now!
Looks like the current Falcon would perform about the same as the U.S.'s Ford Fusion, similar weight, with that same 2.0L ecoboost, 0-60 in about 6.6 seconds. Ford will probably put that engine in the Mustang making it to Australia in about a year and a half.
Yeah it's around 6.8 secs I believe. The falcon is bigger and heavier than the fusion and is RWD, engineered for it's big I6s and V8s so to get that kind of performance out of a little 4 banger is impressive!
Yeah the Eco boost is getting put into the mustang in the base model along side the V6. This will probably rival the Toyota gt86 here so they better price it just as low ($29k) but the Eco boost will be much faster. The higher end getting the v8. I reckon the Stang will do well over here!
That 4.0 I-6 you have over there, is it a; SOHC 12V, DOHC 24V, or a good old tech, OHV 12V (a la our venerable Jeep engine)??
The version in mine was the last old school I6s with 12 OHV, spark plugs sticking out the side of the engine and where everything just bolted on haha it's a very solid, simple and old school engine!
The model after mine starting in 2002 they really worked it over and teched it up and named it the 'barra' engine
Don't forget that turbocharged engines don't lose performance at altitude. They can even be tuned and configured to maintain HP during modest temperature increases. These are things a normally aspirated engine cannot do.
Every "ecoboost" vehicle I drive, I love.
Every "ecoboost" vehicle I drive, I love.
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Don't forget that turbocharged engines don't lose performance at altitude. They can even be tuned and configured to maintain HP during modest temperature increases. These are things a normally aspirated engine cannot do.
Every "ecoboost" vehicle I drive, I love.
They do lose power with elevation. Just not nearly as much as an NA. And they really do suffer far more in elevated temps than an NA. But in low elevation cold climates, they are tigers. That's why the Swedes in particular love using them.
Add in the higher octane fuels and temperature rated oils, and they typically require more careful daily maintenance habits, too.
Don't get me wrong, as I drive a HP turbo (tuned Volvo 2.5L @ 365hp/360ft lbs). They are an intelligent way to create the power of a higher displacement engine, without the weight of actual hardware. The lighter engine weight improves economy and handling and reduces the stress on chassis and braking systems. But they are not a bulletproof panacea, especially as they age.
Turbos have been around for a long time and are very refined at this point. I'm not sure what's so ground breaking about Ford's Ecoboost, other than Ford has finally discovered turbos.
Don't forget that turbocharged engines don't lose performance at altitude. They can even be tuned and configured to maintain HP during modest temperature increases. These are things a normally aspirated engine cannot do.
Every "ecoboost" vehicle I drive, I love.
They do lose power with elevation. Just not nearly as much as an NA. And they really do suffer far more in elevated temps than an NA. But in low elevation cold climates, they are tigers. That's why the Swedes in particular love using them.
Add in the higher octane fuels and temperature rated oils, and they typically require more careful daily maintenance habits, too.
Don't get me wrong, as I drive a HP turbo (tuned Volvo 2.5L @ 365hp/360ft lbs). They are an intelligent way to create the power of a higher displacement engine, without the weight of actual hardware. The lighter engine weight improves economy and handling and reduces the stress on chassis and braking systems. But they are not a bulletproof panacea, especially as they age.
Turbos have been around for a long time and are very refined at this point. I'm not sure what's so ground breaking about Ford's Ecoboost, other than Ford has finally discovered turbos.
Originally Posted By: Volvohead
Turbos have been around for a long time and are very refined at this point. I'm not sure what's so ground breaking about Ford's Ecoboost, other than Ford has finally discovered turbos.
Ford has had turbocharged gasoline engines long before the Ecoboost went on sale. During the 1980s, there was the Mustang SVO, Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, and Merkur XR4TI, and possibly a few others. I don't know why you said "Ford recently discovered turbos."
As for the guy talking about turbo 4 cylinders being more likely to have an internal failure than a V6, which turbo 4 engine are you mentioning that is such a problem? There are many VW 1.8T engines on our roads, as well as VAG NA 2.7/2.8/3.0 30V V6 engines, and neither one seems any more or less problematic than the other if both cars are well maintained.
Turbos have been around for a long time and are very refined at this point. I'm not sure what's so ground breaking about Ford's Ecoboost, other than Ford has finally discovered turbos.
Ford has had turbocharged gasoline engines long before the Ecoboost went on sale. During the 1980s, there was the Mustang SVO, Thunderbird Turbo Coupe, and Merkur XR4TI, and possibly a few others. I don't know why you said "Ford recently discovered turbos."
As for the guy talking about turbo 4 cylinders being more likely to have an internal failure than a V6, which turbo 4 engine are you mentioning that is such a problem? There are many VW 1.8T engines on our roads, as well as VAG NA 2.7/2.8/3.0 30V V6 engines, and neither one seems any more or less problematic than the other if both cars are well maintained.
Almost thirty years ago.
Ok, I'll bite. What makes the "ecoboost" different from every other turbo engine?
Unless it's something revolutionary, I'll stick with my Volvo turbo 5.
More problems with increased use of turbo 4s is already starting, if JDP's most recent vehicle dependability study is to be believed. Unfortunately, they're not all built like MB turbodiesels.
Ok, I'll bite. What makes the "ecoboost" different from every other turbo engine?
Unless it's something revolutionary, I'll stick with my Volvo turbo 5.
More problems with increased use of turbo 4s is already starting, if JDP's most recent vehicle dependability study is to be believed. Unfortunately, they're not all built like MB turbodiesels.
Originally Posted By: Volvohead
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Don't forget that turbocharged engines don't lose performance at altitude. They can even be tuned and configured to maintain HP during modest temperature increases. These are things a normally aspirated engine cannot do.
Every "ecoboost" vehicle I drive, I love.
They do lose power with elevation. Just not nearly as much as an NA.
Not true anymore. We use electronic sensors to manage the engine, and can manage intake manifold pressure to any level we desire. Including levels that overcome temperature and altitude losses.
What happens to turbo'd engines at altitude is that the turbine needs to spin faster and work harder to maintain desired intake manifold pressure. So, there is a minor loss of efficiency. Turbocharged engines with mechanical control will show a "lapse rate" of about 0.03% power loss per 1000 feet. This is due to the "absolutes" of spring, lever and wastegate control. These same issues don't apply to the Ford family of Ecoboost engines (and many other modern turbocharged engines) . In fact, Ford specifically engineered the Ecoboost to maintain full rated power at any North American altitude.
In essence, there is no loss of power.
A more complex discussion can involve the following subjects: Temperature at altitude is lower. The reduced ambient pressure results in better exhaust scavenging, the thinner air reduces vehicle aerodynamic drag. Turbocharged engines can be tuned for a range of outputs, and power can increase or decrease depending on what the engineers want. They can do this by varying the manifold pressure. Something you cannot do with a normally aspirated engine at full throttle.
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Don't forget that turbocharged engines don't lose performance at altitude. They can even be tuned and configured to maintain HP during modest temperature increases. These are things a normally aspirated engine cannot do.
Every "ecoboost" vehicle I drive, I love.
They do lose power with elevation. Just not nearly as much as an NA.
Not true anymore. We use electronic sensors to manage the engine, and can manage intake manifold pressure to any level we desire. Including levels that overcome temperature and altitude losses.
What happens to turbo'd engines at altitude is that the turbine needs to spin faster and work harder to maintain desired intake manifold pressure. So, there is a minor loss of efficiency. Turbocharged engines with mechanical control will show a "lapse rate" of about 0.03% power loss per 1000 feet. This is due to the "absolutes" of spring, lever and wastegate control. These same issues don't apply to the Ford family of Ecoboost engines (and many other modern turbocharged engines) . In fact, Ford specifically engineered the Ecoboost to maintain full rated power at any North American altitude.
In essence, there is no loss of power.
A more complex discussion can involve the following subjects: Temperature at altitude is lower. The reduced ambient pressure results in better exhaust scavenging, the thinner air reduces vehicle aerodynamic drag. Turbocharged engines can be tuned for a range of outputs, and power can increase or decrease depending on what the engineers want. They can do this by varying the manifold pressure. Something you cannot do with a normally aspirated engine at full throttle.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Cujet
These same issues don't apply to the Ford family of Ecoboost engines . . . . In fact, Ford specifically engineered the Ecoboost to maintain full rated power at any North American altitude.
In essence, there is no loss of power.
Please show other than in marketing materials where Ford proves absolutely zero power loss at higher altitudes compared to other modern turbos, which frankly defies the laws of physics.
How does Ecoboost eliminate increased spool up times to build increased boost levels at higher altitudes? Because Ford says so?
A turbo can substantially alleviate atmospheric pressure drops, but never overcomes them 100%.
While I applaud Ford for rediscovering turbos, I'm just not buying such over-the-top marketing hype.
These same issues don't apply to the Ford family of Ecoboost engines . . . . In fact, Ford specifically engineered the Ecoboost to maintain full rated power at any North American altitude.
In essence, there is no loss of power.
Please show other than in marketing materials where Ford proves absolutely zero power loss at higher altitudes compared to other modern turbos, which frankly defies the laws of physics.
How does Ecoboost eliminate increased spool up times to build increased boost levels at higher altitudes? Because Ford says so?
A turbo can substantially alleviate atmospheric pressure drops, but never overcomes them 100%.
While I applaud Ford for rediscovering turbos, I'm just not buying such over-the-top marketing hype.
Originally Posted By: Volvohead
Originally Posted By: Cujet
These same issues don't apply to the Ford family of Ecoboost engines . . . . In fact, Ford specifically engineered the Ecoboost to maintain full rated power at any North American altitude.
In essence, there is no loss of power.
Please show other than in marketing materials where Ford proves absolutely zero power loss at higher altitudes compared to other modern turbos, which frankly defies the laws of physics.
How does Ecoboost eliminate increased spool up times to build increased boost levels at higher altitudes? Because Ford says so?
A turbo can substantially alleviate atmospheric pressure drops, but never overcomes them 100%.
While I applaud Ford for rediscovering turbos, I'm just not buying such over-the-top marketing hype.
Maybe I'm looking at this in an overly-simplified manner. But, while the absolute theoretical maximum power available out of a given turbocharged engine setup will go down with decreased atmospheric pressure/air density/altitude, that isn't necessarily to say the actual power produced will go down. As Cujet is trying to explain, that depends on the tuning.
If the engine is tuned with some additional headroom (i.e. power left on the table) at lower altitudes, it could increase its output as conditions become less favorable to match that power level. This includes things like wastegate tuning. Maybe spool time will change a bit but even that should be manageable with electronic wastegates and well-matched turbo/engine designs I would think.
It's like all the small turbo engines that advertise torque peaks from 1250-5000 RPM or whatever. If the torque curve is that flat, it probably means there's some output left on the table at higher RPMs, whether it's for reliability, fuel economy/emissions, marketing, or whatever other reasons.
And I highly doubt that the ecoboost 3.5 V6 is close to maxed out at 365 HP at sea level.
Originally Posted By: Cujet
These same issues don't apply to the Ford family of Ecoboost engines . . . . In fact, Ford specifically engineered the Ecoboost to maintain full rated power at any North American altitude.
In essence, there is no loss of power.
Please show other than in marketing materials where Ford proves absolutely zero power loss at higher altitudes compared to other modern turbos, which frankly defies the laws of physics.
How does Ecoboost eliminate increased spool up times to build increased boost levels at higher altitudes? Because Ford says so?
A turbo can substantially alleviate atmospheric pressure drops, but never overcomes them 100%.
While I applaud Ford for rediscovering turbos, I'm just not buying such over-the-top marketing hype.
Maybe I'm looking at this in an overly-simplified manner. But, while the absolute theoretical maximum power available out of a given turbocharged engine setup will go down with decreased atmospheric pressure/air density/altitude, that isn't necessarily to say the actual power produced will go down. As Cujet is trying to explain, that depends on the tuning.
If the engine is tuned with some additional headroom (i.e. power left on the table) at lower altitudes, it could increase its output as conditions become less favorable to match that power level. This includes things like wastegate tuning. Maybe spool time will change a bit but even that should be manageable with electronic wastegates and well-matched turbo/engine designs I would think.
It's like all the small turbo engines that advertise torque peaks from 1250-5000 RPM or whatever. If the torque curve is that flat, it probably means there's some output left on the table at higher RPMs, whether it's for reliability, fuel economy/emissions, marketing, or whatever other reasons.
And I highly doubt that the ecoboost 3.5 V6 is close to maxed out at 365 HP at sea level.
Spool time can be altered by mixture/engine timing and throttle tuning, don't forget variable cam timing, the wastegate is already controlled as well.
The statement is basically truth, there is no appreciable loss at altitudes you normally encounter in North America.
But please remember, the marketing hype is real. This is the same company that ran a full page add that stated "Burn air, not fuel" in my car rag!
The statement is basically truth, there is no appreciable loss at altitudes you normally encounter in North America.
But please remember, the marketing hype is real. This is the same company that ran a full page add that stated "Burn air, not fuel" in my car rag!
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
But please remember, the marketing hype is real. This is the same company that ran a full page add that stated "Burn air, not fuel" in my car rag!
I remember that ad. I scoffed out loud when I first saw it.
It seems like there's a lot of disparaging based simply on the fact that Ford has "branded" the turbo + DI combination in their engines. Sure, it's lame when companies do this, but that doesn't need to reflect badly on the engines themselves. It's got a snappy marketing name, or because Ford wasn't the first to do this -- so what?
(Not targeting your comment with this, Steve!)
But please remember, the marketing hype is real. This is the same company that ran a full page add that stated "Burn air, not fuel" in my car rag!
I remember that ad. I scoffed out loud when I first saw it.
It seems like there's a lot of disparaging based simply on the fact that Ford has "branded" the turbo + DI combination in their engines. Sure, it's lame when companies do this, but that doesn't need to reflect badly on the engines themselves. It's got a snappy marketing name, or because Ford wasn't the first to do this -- so what?
(Not targeting your comment with this, Steve!)
Originally Posted By: rationull
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
But please remember, the marketing hype is real. This is the same company that ran a full page add that stated "Burn air, not fuel" in my car rag!
I remember that ad. I scoffed out loud when I first saw it.
It seems like there's a lot of disparaging based simply on the fact that Ford has "branded" the turbo + DI combination in their engines. Sure, it's lame when companies do this, but that doesn't need to reflect badly on the engines themselves. It's got a snappy marketing name, or because Ford wasn't the first to do this -- so what?
(Not targeting your comment with this, Steve!)
Worry not! All is well here.
We have had 3 Ecoboosters here and I would rate them as good powerplants. But they were incapable of magically producing HP from air alone....
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
But please remember, the marketing hype is real. This is the same company that ran a full page add that stated "Burn air, not fuel" in my car rag!
I remember that ad. I scoffed out loud when I first saw it.
It seems like there's a lot of disparaging based simply on the fact that Ford has "branded" the turbo + DI combination in their engines. Sure, it's lame when companies do this, but that doesn't need to reflect badly on the engines themselves. It's got a snappy marketing name, or because Ford wasn't the first to do this -- so what?
(Not targeting your comment with this, Steve!)
Worry not! All is well here.
We have had 3 Ecoboosters here and I would rate them as good powerplants. But they were incapable of magically producing HP from air alone....
Originally Posted By: rationull
It seems like there's a lot of disparaging based simply on the fact that Ford has "branded" the turbo + DI combination in their engines.
Ford did that with its "Control Blade" rear suspension system as well. It's a long flexible trailing arm (the blade) which takes care of longitudinal and brake torque forces with a number of lateral links for toe and camber control. The key is the "control blade", but it was used in a number of designs before Ford "invented" it in 1998.
It seems like there's a lot of disparaging based simply on the fact that Ford has "branded" the turbo + DI combination in their engines.
Ford did that with its "Control Blade" rear suspension system as well. It's a long flexible trailing arm (the blade) which takes care of longitudinal and brake torque forces with a number of lateral links for toe and camber control. The key is the "control blade", but it was used in a number of designs before Ford "invented" it in 1998.
Like in the original post in this thread, we see that some turbos produce great acceleration and fuel economy. BMW stands out. Yet, I would rather go Mazda's way of 'simply' running higher compression ratios to get more power and efficiency at the same time (engineers remember thermal efficiency and the Otto cycle P-V diagram). Mazda's Skyactiv wins over Turbo+DI.
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
One comparison above, the VW 1.8T and the Mazda non-turbo 2.5L, really stands out as why you might not accept the "u gotta have a turbo" crowd:
2014 VW Passat (1.8T) 24/34 170 hp 7.5 sec
2014 Mazda6 2.5L no-turbo 26/38 185 hp 7.0 sec
Better fuel economy AND power in a normally aspirated 4 over the 1.8T. This tech race is far from over, yet I'd currently take a Mazda6.
Agreed. And when you put that same VW 1.8T in a Jetta, 200 lbs lighter than a Mazda6, MPG goes up to 26/36 and 7.2 sec acceleration, still doesn't beat the Mazda6 combination of MPG and acceleration. Yet, Wards Auto named it to their recent "10Best Engines" http://wardsauto.com/ward039s-10-best-engines/diesels-turbos-dominate-2014-ward-s-10-best-engines
One comparison above, the VW 1.8T and the Mazda non-turbo 2.5L, really stands out as why you might not accept the "u gotta have a turbo" crowd:
2014 VW Passat (1.8T) 24/34 170 hp 7.5 sec
2014 Mazda6 2.5L no-turbo 26/38 185 hp 7.0 sec
Better fuel economy AND power in a normally aspirated 4 over the 1.8T. This tech race is far from over, yet I'd currently take a Mazda6.
Agreed. And when you put that same VW 1.8T in a Jetta, 200 lbs lighter than a Mazda6, MPG goes up to 26/36 and 7.2 sec acceleration, still doesn't beat the Mazda6 combination of MPG and acceleration. Yet, Wards Auto named it to their recent "10Best Engines" http://wardsauto.com/ward039s-10-best-engines/diesels-turbos-dominate-2014-ward-s-10-best-engines
Originally Posted By: Volvohead
A turbo can substantially alleviate atmospheric pressure drops, but never overcomes them 100%.
Really? Because turbo-normalized aircraft produce exactly rated HP up to the specified limit. Often 25,000 feet or more. And, they do so at a set manifold pressure.
There is no question that turbo spool up time is increased at altitude. And the result is an increase in 0-60 times due to a slower launch. That's OK, I'm not drag racing anybody while driving or towing in the mountains. Turbo's still vastly outperform normally aspirated engines at altitude. I think, to rail against spool time is silly.
If you want to discuss a given engine's turbocharged "lapse rate", we can do so. But, remember, it's not as clear as it may at first appear. If we maintain 30PSI absolute intake manifold pressure, a given engine may or may not produce the exact same HP at SL and 10,000 feet. Engines with undersized turbo's will suffer at altitude, as the compressor speed increases beyond capability. This does not describe the Ecoboost line of engines. They have enough turbine and compressor overhead and efficiency to operate effectively at altitude. Unlike many older designs.
A turbo can substantially alleviate atmospheric pressure drops, but never overcomes them 100%.
Really? Because turbo-normalized aircraft produce exactly rated HP up to the specified limit. Often 25,000 feet or more. And, they do so at a set manifold pressure.
There is no question that turbo spool up time is increased at altitude. And the result is an increase in 0-60 times due to a slower launch. That's OK, I'm not drag racing anybody while driving or towing in the mountains. Turbo's still vastly outperform normally aspirated engines at altitude. I think, to rail against spool time is silly.
If you want to discuss a given engine's turbocharged "lapse rate", we can do so. But, remember, it's not as clear as it may at first appear. If we maintain 30PSI absolute intake manifold pressure, a given engine may or may not produce the exact same HP at SL and 10,000 feet. Engines with undersized turbo's will suffer at altitude, as the compressor speed increases beyond capability. This does not describe the Ecoboost line of engines. They have enough turbine and compressor overhead and efficiency to operate effectively at altitude. Unlike many older designs.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
