Why isn't there an ecoboost V8?

either way i don't see how Ford's rivals tuned for horsepower and still got better gas mileage.

I think its the v6 displacement

ez solution for v8 ecoboost
buy 5.0 coyote vehicle
go to junk yard and install a 100 dollar turbo in a afternoon

For the same reason there isn't a v24. It's too big and too wasteful. The point of a turbo v6 is to have the same power in a more efficient package.

We've been over this.

You cannot tune a turbo for fuel economy. You cannot add a turbo and gain fuel economy.

You can design a system so that it uses a smaller, more fuel efficient, engine with a turbo to make up the difference in power instead of a larger, naturally aspirated engine. However, you only get the fuel efficiency when you avoid boost and you only get the power when you're in boost. You can never get both at the same time.

A turbo pushes more air into the cylinders during the intake phase of the cylinder. This, by itself, does nothing for the power or fuel efficiency of the engine. It only does something when the engine takes advantage of the greater amount of oxygen by adding more fuel. More fuel means stronger bangs, which creates more torque, which increases power. More fuel also means worse fuel economy.

All noted thank you

You know, nothing stops you from turbo charging your own v8. It isn't that hard. There is a whole science behind them, but the basics are easy to grasp.

Your probably want to do it on your track car though. Daily driving a boosted v8 would be such a waste of money.

Ecoboost = turbo + direct injection + marketing.

Since Ford can't figure out how direct injection on a V8 works (unlike FCA and GM), they can't put an Ecoboost badge on their V8's. Also, they can't seem to make a turbo V8 given that the next gen GT500 will be supercharged.

A V8 can get 30MPG if you use direct injection and tall gears. Given that GM has already given Ford a good 10 speed, we're just waiting for the DI part.

>Well correct me if im wrong but couldent you tune a turbo for economy or tune it just to make boost/power?
You can tune a turbo engine to do both, actually. Take a high compression base engine (10:1 for example), and put on a turbo that increases midrange. Now, for the economy testing you make sure that it never, ever gets into boost which means you can run a really lean mixture, burn fuel efficiently, and end up with good MPG. Then, for the horsepower testing, you make sure it does get into boost ( it always does, you're on a dyno) and then you get good power numbers. This is how manufacturers get good EPA ratings and good hp ratings. However, this means that in daily driving a turbo engine that DOES hit boost will consume a lot more fuel because you need to richen up the mixture in order to avoid knock.

The GT is a completely different story. I can assure you that not a single GT buyer looked at the fuel economy specs before they bought one. Hell, they didn't even need horsepower numbers.

>You cannot add a turbo and gain fuel economy.
You can gain power at the same fuel economy level though, by keeping the engine out of boost during fuel economy testing. Even if what you say is true, you could consider an Ecoboost V8 as the replacement for the old V10.

Fabulous, now I have to buy premium fuel for an economy car

All you said were means to get better fuel economy RATINGS not actual fuel economy; nothing you said actually decreases the amount of fuel needed to produce power.

Fuel economy ratings are much more important than fuel economy though. Gas guzzler tax is ubiquitous around the world, and you can save a lot of money by getting an optimistically rated car, moreso than you would by actually getting good fuel economy.

Problem is mosy manufacturers are far from 10:1 compression, and are constantly in boost as a result

my 3UZ gets 25-29 mpg highway if i go ~70 mph which is pretty fucking good considering it's pushing almost 4,000 pounds

>turbo on a smaller engine to make up for fuel costs of switching from big engine
>but the fuel costs more
lol this is kraut level overengineering

>ITT: people confused by the fact that boosted engines will always have worse brake specific fuel consumption than NA engines.

Boost increases propensity for detonation so measures need to be taken to reduce that risk. This is done by reducing compression ratio in order to reduce cylinder pressures but this also reduces the expansion ratio which is what turns pressure into power. Additionally, a richer air-fuel ratio is used during boost to cool down the intake charge that has been heated due to compression (intercoolers will never cool it back down to ambient temperature, and that is before heat-soak sets in and the engine has to be tuned for the worst case). This in and of itself means that more fuel is injected than is required for efficient combustion.

So off-boost you have a shit compression ratio and your volumetric efficiency is down the drain while in-boost you increase volumetric efficiency by orders of magnitude while taking a significant hit in BSFC which, at the already increased power output, is going to completely ruin your mileage so far as you had any to begin with.

Boost is a fucking meme. The whole discussion between superchargers versus turbochargers is fucking stupid. If you wanna go faster, a bigger engine gets you there more efficiently. The only advantage of any sort of charger unit is its cheaper to install than swapping a bigger engine. Manufacturers have no such excuse.

C5 Corvettes with the 6 speed regularly can do 30mpg, considering almost 500hp that is remarkable even by today's standards and they did it with 1950's era pushrod design

I think you mean pushGOD.

That's a shiny alternator.

They need to sell lots of V6 truck engines. That was the whole point to begin with.