Make a compressor that allows an engine to consume more fuel

>make a compressor that allows an engine to consume more fuel
>put the word eco on it

Other urls found in this thread:

edmunds.com/ford/focus-st/2013/long-term-road-test/mpg.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_effective_pressure
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>not knowing that turbos are used to improve fuel efficiency besides performance
kys GM shill

doesn't consume more fuel.
increased cylinder pressure increases torque to fuel ratio.

and being able to use smaller displacement out of boost helps highway mileage.

good thread.

i thought the point was to make similar hp with a smaller motor

doesnt really matter will probably be found on the road dead soon anyway

It does use more fuel you fucktard. I literally bought a work van the other day and my three options were the 5 cyl diesel, the standard for 3.7 v6, or the ecoboost 3.5v v6 and the ecoboost had the worst fuel economy of them all

Jesus christ this is some stupid bait

Exhaust restrictions are great for MPG, am I right or are you fucking retarded, son?

It uses more fuel compared to what?
An N/A motor of the same power, no.

>the ecoboost had worse mpg
No shit, but the ecoboost makes probably twice as much torque.

it uses less fuel to make the same horsepower as a much higher displacement engine.
plus the benefit of being able to use it off boost.

Alright, I guess fuel to power ratios are too complex for the average dipshit video gamer on this board.

For the last fucking time, 'ecoboost' does not mean it includes a charger.
It's an efficient design of piston and cylinder head that uses way less fuel when the engine isn't loaded, and squeezes more energy out of the fuel with some sort of magic.
They developed it for naturally-aspirated engines for use in smaller cars. This is why they can use a 3 cylinder

3.7 ecoboost pulls real nice, I like it.

Turbo gasoline engines have abysmal fuel economy under boost, ignoramus.

>EcoBoost is a family of turbocharged, direct-injection gasoline engines produced by the Ford Motor Company

bruh the power to fuel ratio is a useless metric to use. just because on paper the ecoboost makes 300 lb/ft of torque with the same amount of fuel as the 3.7L doesn't mean it translates flawlessly to the real world. what matters is the practical highway and city mileage and it is measurably worse in the ecoboost models (according to Ford)

Not compared to a N/A motor of equal power.
Can you read or..?

Please learn something about cars before you pretend to be smart again.

>some sort of magic.
It's low friction,dipshit

>implying you are in boost 25/8/367

Not if the turbo is used to barely overcome intake vacuum under light load

>bruh the power to fuel ratio is a useless metric to use

Uh no it isn't. Not for towing and hauling.
It uses less fuel than a higher displacement n/a motor of the same power rating and gearing.

It's just a fact, accept it or forever be a retard.

Yes, compared to an N/A motor of equal power. The boost is created by a restriction in the exhaust, which is a waste of energy. As opposed to airflow created by a vaccuum and a free flow of gases.

The only thing that makes them have high advertised MPG is because government tests only require 0-60 acceleration of 30 seconds. During MPG testing, they are not making boost AT ALL.

God, you're a retarded shitstain.

yeah because straight pipes give you the best fuel economy
kys retard

Congratulations, you know nothing about cars.

>doesn't consume more fuel.

>2.0L Ecoboost
edmunds.com/ford/focus-st/2013/long-term-road-test/mpg.html

>2.0L Duratec - pic related


That is the point, but a larger motor under less stress can manage the same economy.

>plus the benefit of being able to use it off boost.
Ecoboost turbos are so tiny they're basically making boost off idle.

Someone better tell all the semi makers in the world that they could be saving a lot of gas if they just took those dang turbos off!

Actually, they do, if the engine is tuned for them. Just because you read a lot of ads, doesn't make you smart, kid.

>gets btfo
>immediately starts arguing semantics

Turbodiesels are different, you actually get more efficiency with a leaner mix. With gasoline, you can't use a lean mix.

>The boost is created by a restriction in the exhaust, which is a waste of energy
>which is a waste of energy
how can anyone be this retarded and still think they arent talking complete shit

>what is exhaust scavenging
kek, stay retarded
also enjoy your premature wear, cuck

You're comparing two engines of the same displacement you absolute retard.

>arguing semantics
??? do you even know what the word means

Jesus, why do I even come to this board.
Yeah you sure blew me the fuck out. Back to your video games, bud.

It's the same thing as a clogged catalytic converter of air filter. Check if those give you worse MPG.

>HUUR THIS ENGINE THAT MAKES LESS POWER USES WAAY LES FUEL
retard

OH YEAH TOTALLY THE SAME

Turbos recycle exhaust gas retard.

>thinks people buy cargo vans to tow
>taking damage control this far

cargo vans HAUL

>taking damage control this far
literally projecting roflmao

nacucks btfo this hard

From the viewpoint of efficiency, for a gasoline engine, which can't burn lean, yes. It's the same.

Shoving more air into the intake, which you HAVE to inject more fuel for, does not make up for the restriction losses in any way.

Yes, it is a turbine. It harvests velocity and turns it into power. That's what turbines do. Turbines also cause drag. There's nothing perfect in engineering.

>Shoving more air into the intake
recycled air from the exhaust :^)

>which you HAVE to inject more fuel for
what, na engines dont need fuel mixed with air?

>does not make up for the restriction losses in any way
there is no restriction. turbo increases volumetric efficiency by a significant amount over an na engine, that means turbo is more efficient,

stay btfo :^))

N/a engines that make same power with same displacement are practically low end racing engines you retarded amerifat

>Develop an actual cool technology that actually improves fuel efficiency without sacrificing clean emissions.
>Put the shittiest name you can think of.

I bet the average normie thinks ferd ecogarbage actually helps the environment while ignoring that Skactiv is the one that actually does something.

You are literally brain dead.

t. mazda fangirl

>Now an example of a corporation Green Washing is Ford's recent Ecoboost engine and ecoboost ad campaign. I'm sure if you have watched TV lately you have seen Fords new commercial for the new Taurus SHO with "ECOBOOST". This engine is a V6 365 horse that gets 17 city and 25 highway miles to the gallon. And everyone knows that the government estimated MPG is never accurate. So really this engine gets about 15 city and 20 highway. Now does that sound like a car that should have the words "ECOBOOST" put on the trunk! Ford should be ashamed of this green washing. The worst thing is that the American people are so stupid that this green washing is actually working.

>17/25 for a high performance car
sounds pretty good tbqh

>exhaust scavenging
>on a turbocharged engine on boost

...

>Turbos recycle exhaust gas retard.
You're thinking of DEIā„¢ by WAT Automotive Techologies

Yes user I'm sure that book proves there's negative back pressure in the exhaust line on a turbocharged engine under boost.

The person I was replying to was saying that adding the compressor didn't lower fuel economy and that "being out of boost helps highway mpg". Why would I not compare two engines of the same size you fucking moron?

Where was power mentioned in ?

The 2.0L ecoboost has literally the exact same bore, stroke, deck height etc.. as a 2.0L Duratec. It's essentially just a TI-VCT Duratec with a turbo. And it's less fuel efficient than the non turbo version. So explain to me how I'm wrong in correcting him when his claim isn't true.

actually kys you stupid coon

You pretty much are when you got a 140hp 1.4l dragging along 3500lbs.

>i don't know how valves work

what did she mean by this?

You're 100% retarded. Just give up.

>It's essentially just a TI-VCT Duratec with a turbo.
and a lot more power

lol, Ecoboost is literally a line of GTDI engines. Ford doesn't use the buzzword for any of their direct injected motors that don't have a turbo.

Ecoboost is a corporate buzzword for gas turbo direct injeccted motors.

>he didn't get the memo that forced induction is cheating

Are you kids retarded or what? The purpose of a turbo is to add more air. The air is a catalyst for the fuel. You can't make more power without more fuel.

The difference is.. For a given horsepower, the boosted engine will use less fuel due to increased cylinder pressure. Despite the added exhaust pressure.

They also have the added benefit of being able to use similar fuel as a non-turbo when out of boost on the highway.

For example a 2 liter boosted engine can get 20% better average mpg than an LT1 while making the same horsepower.

>lolpushrods
I don't think it's the turbo, user

>For a given horsepower, the boosted engine will use less fuel due to increased cylinder pressure.
wat? this is completely wrong

>For example a 2 liter boosted engine can get 20% better average mpg than an LT1 while making the same horsepower.

Only when you're not on boost..... Shits different when it comes to real world mpg's, not the marketing wank manufacturers want you to believe. It'll only achieve those MPG's if you stay out of boost which kind of defeats the purpose of a turbo. You might as get the bigger engine and not be a retard on the throttle.

>Only when you're not on boost
combined you idiot.. an LT1 at WOT probably gets 5mpg same as the turbo.

If you were out of boost the whole time you'd get the same MPG as a 2 liter. Way above 20% more.

Jesus christ.

No it's not..

why the fuck do you think people are using turbos now? just to meme? why do you think every endurance race car is turbo'd? is it just a meme?

The whole point of getting the NA V8 is so you CAN be a retard on the throttle.
As a bonus you get to listen to a better soundtrack and have proper throttle response.

Do you have a single fact to back that up?

>why the fuck do you think people are using turbos now? just to meme?
because the tests favour them
why do you think every endurance race car is turbo'd? is it just a meme?
because the racing rules favour them

You're fucking stupid lmao

It's common sense. At least I thought till reading this thread.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_effective_pressure

The only thing making power is the fuel. Nothing else. More fuel, more power. The turbo will ALWAYS have way more torque per unit of fuel burned due to pressure provided it's tuned properly. A turbo increases VE over 100%.

It doesn't matter if it's a 2L or a 20L, if it's making 500hp it's burning 500hp worth of fuel.
But, a turbo can do it way more efficiently.

>a 500hp engine can only do it by burning 500hp worth of fuel, efficiency isn't a thing
>oh wait, it is a thing and my favourite engine is better at it because I said so
>it's becuase of cylinder pressure you see :DDD

I can tell you're out of your depth and grasping. Anyway what do you do for a living?

So you're saying adding the compressor helped fuel economy? Or that the 2.0L Ecoboost is more efficient than the 2.0L Duratec? Because neither of these statements are true. But you resort to ad hominem instead of actually defending any sort of point. Stop being an idiot.

Again, I understand that a turbo engine of the same displacement will have more power. My point is that it's not more efficient.

There are people with a lot more qualification, and are paid a lot more than you that decided to make it. They know what they are doing better then some carless fuck on Veeky Forums.

Why are semi trucks, heavy machinery and ships still using such huge engines? You don't see them constantly downsizing their engines... They've pretty much been the same displacement for 30+ years. Small engines are a meme.

Mechanic for a BMW independent and in school for mechanical engineering.

They all have turbos though.

Because they're Diesel. NA diesels suck dick.

But comparing the same displacement is irrelevant, what makes engines equivalent is the power and torque.

Ecoboost is absolutely more efficient. The duratec will never be over 100% VE. A turbo is by definition. Plus more effective pressure. If you build an NA car to make the same power as a turbo car it will be way less efficient. Turbo is essentially MPG on demand.

NA diesels suck dick for a reason user
protip: it's efficiency

>making a direct injected engine that fucks up your valves by design

Kekarooni

believing GM or Ford are at the fore front of the engine efficiency race

pls reevaluate your life

Well it's nice that you're into cars but you have a lot to learn.

Durability is way more heavily weighted in the design process compared to car engines.

The Duratec at peak torque will be around 110-120% VE. But more VE on a turbo engine basically means more boost, and this means more fuel, and it usually doesn't mean more fuel efficiency.

kek

No.. you have a lot to learn.. In fact it seems like you've learned nothing and you should stop shilling blatantly wrong information on Veeky Forums.

Where do you get this BS from? moron
Even the German premiums are using turbos, look at how BMW' and Mercedes-Benz's nomenclature has changed. A 323i isn't a 2.3L anymore.
Turbos have become so widespread because of emissions regulations.

It's been a while since a grease monkey tried to tell me what time it is but it still amuses.

nice larping
the only grease monkey you've ever met is your mother when she goes to the basement to hand you some hotpockets

You're so obviously wrong it's painful to read.
The entire reason every race car is turbo now is fuel efficiency.

waaw ebin burn user
sure showed me

yes it must be all about efficiency with f1 rules that say "1.5 litres, na or fi, you choose"

The new F1 cars are 30% more efficient at the same power level as the N/A v8's despite making more horsepower.

Every endurance car has a turbo, even when hp is limited by the rules. There's a reason for that. Hint: It's fuel efficiency.

This

I got 17/33 in a 2011 Dodge Charger rt/Max over three years. Exceeded the ratings. You don't actually own a car

>The new F1 cars are 30% more efficient at the same power level as the N/A v8's despite making more horsepower.
Yes it's nothing to do with the change in hybrid rules. Also, saying F1 does it so it must be apply to road cars too is pretty dumb.

>There's a reason for that. Hint: It's fuel efficiency.
And yet you can't explain or show the science behind it.

Nigger, the driving force behind turbos and 3 cyl engines in yurop is literally emissions regulations

The only reason why small turbo engines excel in emission and mpg tests is because they test them off boost. Drive them like a normal person and they do the same as a slightly larger NA engine.

Yes anonI get that, but you seem to have missed the point of this thread.
They build 3 cyl turbo engines to score great results in tests and then they are fucking awful irl.
But they do well according to the emissions regulation in place so it's all good.

>literally recycles waste heat

>eco

>same displacement
>one makes a lot more power
>is not more efficient

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Oh my God, nice trolling m8. Oh, wait, you were serious?
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
This board is fucking retarded, bus riders please leave.

>I understand that a turbo engine of the same displacement will have more power. My point is that it's not more efficient
way to move goal posts

a smaller displacement turbo will make same power and be more efficient
deal with it

>and then they are fucking awful irl
they aren't. They aren't as refined as higher cylinder count engines, but when it comes to fuel economy they do their job very well

dirty air filter has virtually no effect on MPG unless you are in the carbureted stone age.