I recently came across a brand new Lincoln MKS. I’m a pretty hard core Japanese car fan but I had to admit that this car looks pretty slick. I had heard that it was pretty fast too. I like fast. Upon inspecting the exterior of the car it came to my attention that the MKS is equipped with ‘EcoBoost.’ Not being up on the very latest in automotive tech, the unfamiliar name intrigued me. Was this some hybrid or electric technology? Curious, I started off on a quest to find out what this EcoBoost is and what makes it so… EcoBoost-y.
Thanks to the power of Ford advertising, I soon found that EcoBoost is available both on the Lincoln MKS and on the Ford Taurus and claims up to 20% fuel economy increase, up to 15% lower emissions and increased engine performance. What the Mad Men wouldn’t tell me is how. I delved into the internet to find out more about the technology, and was shocked to discover that this magical device is really a twin turbo set up with direct fuel injection. Wait a minute, adding a turbo charger to an engine increases horsepower, I knew that, but it can only decrease fuel economy, right?
For those of us who are not familiar with turbo chargers, they are basically air compressors powered by the hot exhaust gasses exiting the engine. The inlet side of the turbo spins and compresses incoming air (12psi in the case of EcoBoost) into the engine. There is an ideal air to fuel ratio (14.7) so more air requires more fuel. So if the turbo chargers require more fuel when they are in operation, how can EcoBoost claim 20% greater fuel economy? Time to check some official numbers…
Comparing the Ecoboost MKS with its normally-aspirated sibling is an apples and oranges comparison, since the non-Ecoboost uses a larger engine displacement. I needed to find two identical engines to compare, one with EcoBoost and one without. Lucky for me the Taurus offers such a comparison, since all its variants use a 3.5 liter V6. The FWD version gets fairly good MPG at 18/28 seeing as there is less drive train mass to move verses an AWD setup. The other two trims both have so the only real difference is one has EcoBoost and one does not. Both setups rate at 17/25 MPG.
So wait a minute, EcoBoost doesn’t help at all in fuel economy, although doesn’t seem to hurt it either. This makes a certain amount of sense, considering the nature of the turbo. A turbo will not always be spinning at top speed and therefore compressing air all the time. It’s likely that for the purposes of regular city and highway driving (and most importantly, for EPA testing), you may not see any boost at all. That’s great for fuel economy during normal driving but in spirited driving (when you actually want power) you will surely see a drop in fuel economy.
So where does the EcoBoost’s 20% increase in fuel economy number come from? Here is the trick; Ford is doing the old apple to orange comparison, comparing a V6 with EcoBoost to a naturally aspirated (no turbo or supercharger) V8 engine. It seems Ford is trying to say, “We could have used a bigger engine, but we didn’t, so this way that we’re doing is more fuel efficient.” In fact, both the Lincoln MKS and Ford Taurus are only equipped with V-6 engines. So what’s the point of comparing fuel economy between the EcoBoost V6 engine, to a fantasy engine that is not available in that vehicle anyway? The fact that a turbocharged six cylinder engine is comparable to (and yet more fuel efficient than) a V8 is old news. You could have asked Toyota (Supra) and Nissan (Skyline) about it over a decade ago.
It’s interesting to note that EcoBoost was originally going to be called ”TwinForce” instead. Does calling a turbo system something that sounds eco friendly make it more acceptable to the US public? Is that Ford’s angle with EcoBoost? I drive a turbo charged Toyota and I love the performance. I got it knowing that the turbo would get me more power with less fuel economy (I drive spiritedly) than it would with the same size engine with no turbo. Toyota did not try to sell me the car saying, “Its more fuel efficient and better for the environment.” I’m all for turbo chargers, I think they’re great, (Taurus now makes more horsepower than the Mustang GT) but please, just call them what they are. Don’t sugar coat something by giving it an eco friendly name then make apple to oranges comparisons to make it sounds better so that more people will feel comfortable purchasing it, thinking it’s better for the environment. A turbo by any other name…is still a turbo.
128 Comments on “Editorial: A Turbo By Any Other Name...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
How much credit should we give these 19 genius PhDs Ford showed off yesterday in this site, in the development of this excellent engine?
My wild guess: ZERO.
Any other opinions?
“I recently came across a brand new Lincoln MKS. I’m a pretty hard core Japanese car fan but I had to admit that this car looks pretty slick.”
You must be kidding me.
I appreciate Japanese cars and still own one (an excellent 91 civic hatch with low miles), but the last 15 years at least, their designs are PITIFUL. Maybe they fly in Japan, but they sure do not pass the test here. These cheapskates should do what Hyundai-Kia do and OUTSOURCE their designs to a well-established ITALIAN design Studio. It will only cost them cents per vehicle more than what they already spend on their designs.
Now these pitiful Lincolns. They look TERRIBLE. Bloated, obese and with truly wierd cow-catcher grills whose place is on 19th century trains.
Their NAMES are another HORROR STORY. You COULD have MEANINGFUL alpha-numeric names, BUT MKS, MKZ and MKX are idiotic, wastes of names, that give you NO INFO on the car size or its engine. Compare that with Merc or BMW’s excellent way of naming their cars also with alphanumerics. WHen you see 750iL, you immediately understand the exact shape and size and length of the car, and its engine capacity. Same with S550.
In addition, the stupid names are inconsistent. MKZ means… “Mark Zephyr”, after a specific model, but “MKS” means “Mark Sedan”!!!!
Ford decision makers are REALLY DUMB if they actually paid some company millions of $ (as most automakers do!) to come with these DISASTROUS, STUPID names.
A turbocharger will make your engine effectively into a variable-displacement engine. If you keep your foot out of the engine then your economy will be roughly that of the stated displacement of the engine. But put your foot into it and you will be feeding more gasoline into effectively a larger displacement engine. The economy will be lower.
Joseph, youre not mentioning the main ingredient here–Direct Injection.
The Mazda CX-7, Mazdaspeed6, and Mazdaspeed3 are all use the Ford/Mazda MZR 2.3 Direct Injected Turbocharged engine. Infact, I was told(in the course of my work) that much of the Ecoboost technology is Mazda’s.
Direct injection allows a higher compression ratio, advanced ignition timing, and a fuel ratio strategy that allows for far better efficiency than the conventional injection system. This translates into increased torque and better fuel economy.
The fact that a turbocharged six cylinder engine is comparable to (and yet more fuel efficient than) a V8 is old news.
Ford’s point exactly. I’m not sure I get yours.
I don’t think i see the problem here. If you want a certain level of performance from a given size/weight car you need a certain amount of power. You can use displacement or turbo-charging to do this.
In theory you ought to get better gas mileage with the small displacement/turbo combination (as long as you’re not at WOT all the time).
The way Ford markets this is another story. There are better ways to do this but they chose the warm and fuzzy, eco-friendly approach that will just be part of the background noise.
Here is the trick; Ford is doing the old apple to orange comparison, comparing a V6 with EcoBoost to a naturally aspirated (no turbo or supercharger) V8 engine
But that is the entire point of a turbo — to use a smaller turbo engine as a substitute for a larger naturally aspirated engine. As tced2 noted above, the idea is to create a virtual dual displacement effect, by equipping a more efficient motor with additional power (read: better performance at the expense of lower fuel economy) only when it’s needed.
Sorry, but you missed the mark when you made the comparison based upon displacement. That was exactly the wrong way to do it.
Instead, you should have made the comparison based upon performance and peak power output. If the turbo 6 gets similar 0-60 and quarter mile times to the larger 8, for example, then it is fair to compare them.
Ford will not sell many of these cars if it prices them as high, if not higher, with a 6 cylinder, Ecoboost or not, than their V8 predecessors.
And no, the turbo 6 is not exactly the same as the v8, as the v8 will never be exactly the same as a v12, even a V12 of the same displacement.
You don’t get it, and honestly I’m surprised, considering how much rag Ford gets for having poor branding. This move is extremely well thought out.
Ford is saying that their Ecoboost engines are efficient relative to their power. That is a pretty simple statement. Some of their press release stuff is exaggerated, but it’s a press release – all the big players salt such things with a few white lies.
As far as the Ecoboost brand goes, they’re using this branding because on the majority of Ford’s cars putting a big turbo badge on would just look out of place. Who would want to by a Lincoln MKS turbo? Nobody. So they call it Ecoboost instead.
So, when Ford does something cool, right away everybody is picking on it. But when Honda makes new Insight with barely better fuel economy then their own, much superior, Jazz (Fit) or new upcoming Merc S-Class Hybrid, that is inferior to the very same S-class with diesel engine it’s considered cool because it’s a Hybrid.
Let me ask you: what’s the point in Hybrid if it has no real advantage over gas or diesel version, yet uses rare earth metals that have to be shipped across the Globe to make batteries? I’m pretty sure if you calculate all the emissions produced by making and later recycling all the hybrid components you will be better off by producing and using equivalent gas or diesel engined car.
“You don’t get it, and honestly I’m surprised, considering how much rag Ford gets for having poor branding. This move is extremely well thought out.”
I am not sure if this is addressed to me, and in particular about my pointing out the utter silliness of the ‘new’ Lincoln names. If yes, you can be absolutely sure that I sure as hell “am getting” the little amount that needs to be “gotten” here.
But let me explain further, so YOU can also “get” my points.
I claim the alphanumeric names are moronic because:
They are WASTING letters with no meaning (such as the obligatory “MK” which just means “MARK” and if anything, points to lousy Lincolns of the past, an association the new Lincoln may wish to avoid. Just by this they waste two of the three letters and provide NO INFO or differentiation.
INSTEAD of using letters and numbers WITH meaning. Such as “6″ for cylinders, “E” for Ecoboost, “T” for turbo etc.
2. They
The only Hybrid I am really impressed with is the PRIUS, even the 2nd gen, and especially the new one. It gets 10-30 MPG MORE than any OTHER Hybrid car or truck.
ANd even that Hybrid is NOT for most drivers, but only for those that do a ton of CITY miles and few, if any, highway miles,
which points NOT to private owners but to TAXICAB drivers, pizza delivery fleets, Mail carriers, and above all POLICE CARS and meter maid cars, which IDLE all day long UNnecessarily.
The real question is how many want to buy the Ecoboost? At least in the Taurus at $45k optioned out or even the $38k base I’m guessing not very many. May well be the most overpriced regular production vehicle I’ve seen in my life. Good luck with these vehicles Ford, I’m sure you’ll need it.
you know what the problem really is?
people don’t want to hear the word “turbo” – it has negative connotations… and ‘twin turbo’… isn’t it just offensive japanese and exotics who use them?
why does Mercedes use ‘kompressor’ and not ’supercharged’?
I personally am very cynical about the way Ford came up with this… no doubt they had 19 PhDs tell them they need a catchy name…
And seriously… a 300+ hp 4,200lb AWD car is hardly any kind of ‘economy’ vehicle. All it is is what’s called ‘greenwashing’.
It’s akin to Mazda’s turbo SUVs… they are easily some of the most thirsty vehicles in their class.
“TonyJZX :
October 10th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
you know what the problem really is?
people don’t want to hear the word “turbo” – it has negative connotations… and ‘twin turbo’… isn’t it just offensive japanese and exotics who use them?”
There is an image of unreliability and turbo lag due to the bad old turbos, but I know the new turbos are much better,
But the problem really is that very fewe people will throw $50,000+ out the window to get a fat obese UGLY Lincoln with a SIX cylinder, turbo or not. Even if it was a V8 they would still have sticker shock. Especially since some of these Lincolns are no more than rebadged lowly Ford Fusions.
The Ecoboost is rapidly becoming the Mercedes S-class of engines.
Too many on here don’t want to give Ford credit for a “Smart” idea (with 125 patents, NOT Mazda), forget twin-force, it didn’t fit all the EcoBoost engines, because some are single-turbo… duh!!!
EcoBoost is a “Brand” strategy and it not only fits, but it is working very well in most of the media, especially with anyone who is smart enough to “Drive One” and see the performance and economy for yourself… its for real!
Also, when Ford say “UP TO” 20% better MPG, that includes a range of 0-20%, not that you’ll get 20% better all the time… duh!!!!
Another part of the EcoBoost that is overlooked is that it is “UP TO” 15% lower CO2 emissions and that will be a very big part of CAFE rqmts in the future. Compare that to V8 emissions from any Asian or European car company and they are very high… that’s more Eco in EcoBoost.
Autosavant, are you and P71_CrownVic related or just the same person posting under two different names?
Loser: We are certainly different posters, and I am surprised you ask. I think he or other fans of the Ford V8 RWD platforms were on my case when I tried to explain to them that the S class and the 7 series are far, far better and more comfortable highway cruisers than their precious “Panther” Dinosaur platform.
why does Mercedes use ‘kompressor’ and not ’supercharged’?
Being a German company might have something to do with it…
Turbochargers use exhaust heat, that otherwise would be wasted, to pump air into the engine. On naturally aspirated engines this air pumping has to use shaft power, thus using more fuel than the turbo engine. You also can get more power from a smaller engine, thus reducing the mass you have to accelerate for an equal power engine. So you can use less fuel when accelerating or accelerate at a greater rate. You choose.
The down side is complexity and cost. Plus materials and technology advances makes what was exotic ten years ago, ordinary today. Remember turbos have been around on aircraft, diesel trucks, and autos for decades.
http://green.autoblog.com/2009/05/28/greenlings-why-gasoline-turbocharged-direct-injected-engines?icid=sphere_blogsmith_inpage_autoblog
Petrol engines have the worst fuel economy when they are idle, or near idle, and the best fuel economy when the throttle is open. This is because at idle the chamber pressure is relatively low, and pumping losses against the throttle plate are high, while when open, the chamber pressure is high and pumping losses are low. The shortcoming of atmospheric pressure engines is that the ratio of these two efficiencies is pretty much fixed.
By using a turbo compressor, one can have an engine that has the same power from a lower displacement, which means that when the engine idles its inefficiencies will be that of a smaller engine. For instance, a 2 liter engine will idle using less fuel than a 3 liter engine, but with a turbo the 2 liter engine will have the same peak power. So, the effect is that a turbo engine with the same output usually do have somewhat better fuel efficiency at partial throttle.
The other, unrelated effect is the higher chamber pressure of turbo engines, but it requires knock-resistant fuels. The best knock resistant fuels are methanol and ethanol, (and liquified natural gas), and can operate at compression 14:1 and up. This improves engine efficiency. The problem is that with regular or even premium gasoline, this kind of turbo compression is impossible.
Autosavant:
Don’t sugarcoat this, just tell us how you feel.
Personally I think Ford’s comparison is fair, they are comparing apples to apples in that a V8 would have similar power to the Ecoboost. The later gets better fuel mileage, so it’s fair to compare.
Juniper,
a turbocompressor uses kinetic energy of exhaust, not its heat. The distinction is that this energy is not entirely free, since the turbine increases the back pressure in the engine, forcing it to waste shaft energy. You are correct that turbos are still more efficient than superchargers.
I think it’s interesting to note where other manufacturers have, in one way or another, used turbocharged engines as way to get more power while still being fuel efficient, effectively failing along the way.
The Acura RDX and Madza CX-7 are two such examples of getting dismal fuel economy ratings. So much so that the Acura and Mazda get worse fuel economy than a Toyota RAV4 V6.
Forced induction doesn’t always work the way it’s supposed to. If Toyota’s V6 can eke out better MPGs than a turbo-4 cylinder, it’s gonna be interesting to see how Ford does with its upcoming EcoBoost $ cylinder engines.
GM used to call their 4 cylinder engines Ecotec. They weren’t particulalry fuel efficient compared to 4 cylinders from Honda or Toyota, but the name did give them a certain appeal.
The Ecoboost engine is more efficient than similarly powered gas V8s in similar cars, so the marketing behind it is hardly a lie. As far as pricing goes, a loaded MKS with ecoboost is $10 – $20 thousand cheaper than comparatively optioned V8 competitors from Mercedes, Lexus, or Infiniti.
Regarding the Taurus SHO of course it won’t sell in anywhere near the numbers of the regular versions, but that isn’t the point. Shelby mustangs make up a very slim portion of total Mustang sales, but help make all mustangs more appealing, the SHO does this for the Taurus. Also, Chrysler was selling versions of the 300C that tipped past the $40k mark, and the Taurus SHO is a much nicer car than any 300C.
I don’t think Ford is exactly doing it, but another advantage of turbo engines vs. similarly-powered size-larger NAs could be Weight.
Aluminum blocks may mitigate this delta, where they are used.
But for example, the weight difference between the 4 vs. 6 cylinder engines of 2 VW models was 175 lbs., iirc.
Not very applicable for the particular 4300lb. hunkajunk that is the MKS, but possibly elsewhere.
Rada :
Juniper,
a turbocompressor uses kinetic energy of exhaust, not its heat.
OK, I should have used “energy”. Are you saying it is all kinetic energy?
A better comparison would be to test the fuel economy of a 355hp V8 vs this Turbo V6. Unfortunately, I’m not aware of any vehicle in Ford’s lineup that would allow this comparison, unless they eventually put this engine in the Mustang.
What I can’t understand is why none of the manufacturers have applied the benefits of ethanol the one place that they actually make SENSE – in a car with forced induction. Saab sells a “Biopower” car outside the US that senses the presence of high blends of Ethanol in the fuel, and raises the turbo boost pressure to take advantage of the higher octane that fuel like E85 has (~100-105 vs 87-93). Saab claim 20% boost in HP and 16% boost in torque on E85. I’ve heard of people using this as a method to boost their octane to prevent knock in cars with aftermarket turbos/superchargers instead of using something like a thicker head gasket to lower the compression ratio, but it seems like a natural fit for all of the Ethanol boosters at the Detroit 3. Properly applied (smaller engine than comparable gas engine), it would at least help to compensate for the loss of fuel economy ethanol’s lower energy output creates without the loss of power.
I would think that the combination of direct injection, high-boost turbos and ethanol would make for some impressive numbers.
Will the “Ecoboost” run for 300,000 miles with oil changes every 7,500 miles like the 4.6 liter v-8?
A turbo is a crutch for when a company doesn’t have the ability, money, or government regulation doesn’t allow, a proper engine to be designed and sold.
I used to own a 2.2 liter turbo Chrysler – a decent engine, but there is no way it would last as long as a naturally aspirated engine. Fuel economy also goes in the toilet if you actually use the turbo, so the savings there is very suspect.
What I can’t understand is why none of the manufacturers have applied the benefits of ethanol the one place that they actually make SENSE – in a car with forced induction.
Actually, I believe one of those PhDs at Ford is working on it. I saw a YouTube (?) video of a Ford engineer explaining how EcoBoost can be made more EcoBoosty by injecting ethanol during combustion, enabling a higher compression ratio and improving combustion efficiency.
That might be Phase 2 if Ford is serious about continuing EcoBoost development in the future.
Turbocharging simply enhances the brake mean effective pressure per cc of displacement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_effective_pressure
HP = TORQUE x RPM ÷ 5252
The are two ways to produce more torque at given RPM: either increase the total displacement of the engine or raise the bmep per cc.
Increasing the displacement is a no brainer, because it effectively increases surface area of the piston or its stroke. Either or both will increase torque for a given RPM and depending on the installed camshaft, torque is increased across the rpm range. More torque per rpm equals more hp.
Turbos boost the amount of O2 and fuel each cc receives during the intake stroke. In technical terms, you’ve raised the bmep for a given displacement, which produces more torque for a given RPM.
It doesn’t matter if the engine is a four, six or eight cylinder engine. A turbo or twin turbo set up allows a small displacement engine to produce the hp of a normally aspirated engine with a larger displacement.
A side benefit is altitude compensation when pulling up a long mountain pass at 10,000, plus feet above sea level. An engine with a turbo boost of only 14 PSI will lose less of its rated hp at high elevations than a normally aspirated engine.
The main disadvantages are your engine oil must be kept meticulously clean and if you have a lead foot you will run at a lower mpg.
“Will the “Ecoboost” run for 300,000 miles with oil changes every 7,500 miles like the 4.6 liter v-8?”
Nope. I’ve built several engines in the past three decades and buzz bombs as I refer to them are damn lucky to reach the 100,000 mile mark without a turbo failure. Plus, the engine internals even with beefed up components will wear faster, especially if an aluminum crankcase is used.
Still waiting on an independent dyno test of an Ecoboost car.
__________
If ChryslerCo. had any money at all I truly believe they could get 10% better fuel economy out of the 5.7L V8 powered cars and match the numbers the EcoBoost vehicles achieve.
Loser “Autosavant, are you and P71_CrownVic related or just the same person posting under two different names?”
Hmmm…I thought it was Farago posting under 2 different names !
Autosavant ” rebadged lowly Ford Fusions” ?
Well…I don’t think the Ford Fusion is lowly as it is better than the Camry and arguably better than the Accord. That said, if the Fusion beats the Camry…what does that say about the Lexus ES which is a rebadged Camry ?
Don’t forget that the only versions of EcoBoost we have at the moment are large displacement powerhouses in high-end cars. So of course they are aimed (and tuned) towards high performance. But this is not the only way to apply the technology
Wait until we have a 2.3L EcoBoost four-cylinder in a CUV or a truck, or a small 1.6L Ecoboost in a small car. Those will be tuned toward economy and show off the efficiency potential of the technology.
There’s a sucker born every minute. – P.T. Barum
Wonder why Ford stopped at equating the Lincoln MKS V6 EcoBoost to an imaginary V8 for fuel economy purposes. The truly gullible would have bought a fictitious V10, V12 or even a V16 comparison!
Crap, I’m sick of people praising the benefits of turbocharged cars. No boosted V-6 will provide the fuel economy of a large V-8 lugging along at idle while cruising down the highway. The difference in compression ratios generally won’t allow it.
Right now, Ford is running a higher compression ratio in the SHO because they are using direct injection. The Mustang GT isn’t, and it’s compression ratio is lower (9.8 vs 10.0). The lack of off-idle torque means that you stay in boost longer, thereby killing your in-town fuel economy.
If Ford wants to claim 100 extra hp over their standard 3.5L V6, good for them, but dressing it up as some Green, Earth Liberation Front car is retarded. Better that they should run ads showing it smoke a BMW 335i in a drag race.
As for ethanol, its lower ideal AFR means you throw 30% more fuel into the combustion chamber. Your air/fuel mixture is thus cooler, and with ethanol’s resistance to knock, you can run way more timing. It doesn’t do much for peak horsepower, but peak torque goes through the roof.
Fuel economy sucks, though, and you’re telling peasants in Mexico they can’t eat because you want to avoid buying foreign oil while the Chinese buy regular oil at its new, lower price, and you deplete our aquifers faster.
Oh well…
The name ‘EcoBoost’ is the perfect marketing hypocrisy (aka Greenwash): Husband knows he’s getting a turbo-charged brute while wifey likes the suggestion of saving the planet and the little green leaf on the logo. So what’s new?
Armchair CEO’s…..ATTACK!!
Getting the same job done with a smaller, more fuel efficient engine thanks to advanced technology is not an apples to oranges kind of comparison.
Ford is rolling out a whole family of smaller displacement, higher technology engines which they say will provide the required power output and yield better fuel economy under normal use conditions. I say Bravo to Ford for doing what they are doing.
Armchair engineers throwing verbal stink bombs from the bleachers do not really ad much to the mix.
It is green washing in my opinion. However, I don’t blame Ford for it. Right now, peer pressure is causing Americans to “think green”. For those who care about their perceived carbon footprint, it helps them justify the SHO.
Yes, many people here require no justification, but we are not the larger car market, either.
For us, it’s a V6 with two exhaust driven superchargers and direct fuel injection.
Honestly, I don’t care what’s powering the wheels on my car, as long as it makes a lot of it at a decent level of reliability, and when it does break, I can get parts. Even if the power plant is a multi-dimensional unspeakable entity confined in a grid array, ala Charles Stross :)
As far as marketing is concerned this really isn’t disingenuous. Ford is trying to communicate with customers in 30 seconds sound bites and in relative terms that the public can understand. They could have said their ecoboost engine “Has the fuel economy of a V6 but gets 20% more power” OR they could say that it “Has the power of a V8 but gets 20% better fuel economy.”
Please note that both phrases say the same thing but only the first one apparently gets approval from TTAC.
I just think it’s funny that Ford is making such a fuss over a turbocharged, direct injection engine like it’s cutting edge technology. Maybe I should introduce their engineers and ad agency to my 2006 A4.
@trk2:
I would prefer it if Ford just said “The Ecoboost is 355hp motor that gets an EPA score of 20MPG or 18MPG depending on the application.”
Things like “fuel economy of a V6″ and “power of a V8″ don’t have easily agreed upon metrics.
@FrankWilliams: The only problem is that Audi is just now introducing a V-6 with DI and forced induction, and it’s no match for the EcoBoost.
As for the “imaginary V8 in a Taurus” statement, Ford has one they could use: the 4.4V8 found in the Volvo XC90. Would drop right into a Taurus, MKS, or Flex.
taxman100 :
October 10th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
A turbo is a crutch for when a company doesn’t have the ability, money, or government regulation doesn’t allow, a proper engine to be designed and sold.
Tell that those bunch of losers at BMW. We all know those guys can’t design an engine to save their lives.
I am guessing that EPA mileage figures are calculated by tests that do not employ boost on a turbo engine. Thus, as always, there is likely a CAFE component here. Which I still wish they would just repeal.
Turbo charging is hardly a new technology. Turbo charging does take advantage of waste heat and expanding exhaust gasses to do more work (compressing intake air).
This additional charge of air is equivalent to increasing the displacement of the engine. If you think of an internal combustion engine as nothing more than an air pump, a turbo charger allows the engine to move more air per rotational cycle, increasing its volumetric efficiency.
There is an upper limit to how much compressed air you can shove into an engine before excess cylinder heat becomes a problem (premature detonation). Compressing air increases its temperature, and this has traditionally been dealt with intercoolers. Intercoolers cool the charge of air before shoving that air into the cylinders.
Direct injection helps with this excess heat problem. Injecting the fuel at high pressure directly into the cylinder has a cooling effect on the charge, allowing higher boost pressures without detonation.
All of this added together gives you a more powerful, but smaller displacement engine than you would normally need.
VW/Audi is also doing this in their most recent line of turbo-charged engines – like the 2.0T in my GTI.
-ted