ITT: popular brand fanboys get butthurt about some no-name little guy making their fave brand look like they're
wasting their revenues on nothing.
Skyactiv vs ecoboost
Ecoboost's "Ti-VCT" What? Titanium VCT? Oh, "Twin Independant" I get it. Of course 'Twin' is capitalized, and 'independent' is not because that's honest and sensical, and not some cheap psychological subconscious reference to "Titanium" which is a pretty cool element. A Titanium something is better than a something made of other, low-brow alloys. LOL WHO WAS TALKING ABOUT HOKEY MARKETING? It's two hydraulic cam phasers.
Skyactiv Dual S-VT - Sequential Valve Timing uses a fast-acting electronic intake cam phaser, which is a more expensive part, but much more accurate and responsive. The exhaust phaser, not being latency-critical, is standard hydraulic.
Direct Injection system - Ford's a generation behind on old BOSCH equipment, Skyactiv DI and combustion metrics are better.
Quote:
skyactiv is marketing hype, nothing new, all old ideas
Sure, that's why everyone else is getting better fuel economy, even under-rating it and yielding a better driving experience at the same time. Wait. No that's not happening at all.
It is what it is, there's no reason to be upset guys. Don't be mad at Mazda because Ford lied to you about their fuel economy. They were totally "inspired" by Mazda's downsized, turbo-DI-4cyl approach, applying it to old engines and a good 5+ extra years of development notwithstanding are still not yielding better economy OR performance than newer aspirated engines with years of development ahead. I think even the older 2.3L DISI is getting better FE than Ecoboasts. What's up with that? Keep hatin'
Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
600 all wheel HP with stock internals, I'm sure those Skyactiv rods and pistons would have done swimmingly at that power.
Yeah, let's see a Turbo, let alone Naturally Aspirated Mazda engine do anything like that on stock internals.
Oh here's one, a 2.0L engine that was never shipped with a turbo producing 500WHP on those same stock internals- and it was designed in the mid 80's.
Perspective of how much of a [censored] engine the 2.3L DISI is- if it was a V8, would displace 4.6L and produce 560ft/lbs of torque at 3000rpm on 15psi in the stock trim. If you know about engine design, you'd know that the higher the ft/lbs and the lower the RPM they occur at means the stronger of an engine one needs to actually produce it. If you disagree, then you simply don't know engine design.
So odd, that *suddenly* now there is an industry-wide move to the downsized DI-turbo approach, because they all think they can do it- seemed so easy to do it reliably and mass-marketed 8 years ago. Now? Not looking so good, guys. I don't think it's the answer you're looking for. Good luck with that real world FE, and long-term longevity. *shakes head*
Haters gonna hate
