Originally Posted By: volk06
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: volk06
Originally Posted By: FL_Rob
I wish everyone would stop calling it "ECO"boost .It's just a turbo charger folks.But I know the greenies are loving the term.
Since the name of this engine family is the ECOboost, I highly doubt thats not going to happen. It was originally gonna be call "Twin Force" but they thought ecoboost would capture more sales.... looks like their plan is working too.
considering that the ecoboost explorer is 28 mpg and ecoboost edge is 30, Id say it is fairly eco-friendly, at least in terms of gasoline consumption given vehicle size.
You get that economy, IF and only if you stay out of the throttle and off the turbos.
And?????!?!?!? What else is new? No different with a non-turbo engine, other than some aspects of the slew rate possibly making it easier to do in some ways on the turbo plant.
More power always = more fuel. But obviously the SFCs are superior on the ecoboost.
As someone who owns:
-2004 Saab turbo
-2011 BMW 135i twin turbo
-1982 MB 300CD turbodiesel
I am well accustomed to turbos, and their presence does not in any way impede me from handily beating the EPA numbers on all vehicles.
It is an appreciation of physics that does it, not having a turbo or not.
But a plant with a better SFC will yield superior mileage, as we are seeing here.