Small turbocharged engines fuel economy

[SumoDog68]

Interesting article by Consumer Report - maybe small turbo charged engines are not all that better than bigger NA engines ?

http://news.consumerreports.org/cars...my-claims.html

[FGII-XR6]

not sure on real world consumption figures but as far as performance is concerned I have driven an ecoboost Falcon. the performance from this 2 litre is spectacular, acceleration on par with the 6 with little or no noticeable lag and far more nimble on the road due to the weight reduction.
When I first heard of the ecoboost 4 cyl I thought it would be a disaster ( think back to the 4 cyl dunnydore) but from the drivers seat it is anything but.

[ryeman]

Yeah about as credible as the twitterverse!

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by SumoDog68

Interesting article by Consumer Report - maybe small turbo charged engines are not all that better than bigger NA engines ?

http://news.consumerreports.org/cars...my-claims.html

Show me a small turbocharged engine that can produce 300+ kW and average 9.5 l/100km like a Coyote can

[dieseltrain79]

Alot comes down to gearing & power required to move kg's .

Yes the smaller engine will use less fuel cruising and light throttle applications , as well as less fuel used when idling .

However , with the turbo engines providing as much hp as their larger na counterpart , the fuel used will be similar . As it takes X amount of fuel to create X amount of power .

Look when Top Gear did the Prius vs M3 comparo on the track . The M3 used less fuel to do the same job ( driving flat out ) than the Prius ....

It comes down to your driving style IMO . Smaller engines give you a more economical range and ability .

[mcnews]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

Show me a small turbocharged engine that can produce 300+ kW and average 9.5 l/100km like a Coyote can

Well an F6 can do that with a litre less and for around 8.5l/100km, while producing a lot more mid-range torque to boot :-)

[DFB FGXR6]

Car Manufacturers seem to be designing engines to get good numbers in official fuel consumption tests, and small turbo engines can give some stunning results. A big part of the consumption test involves stationary idleing and highway speed simulation, so in this case a small ( lets say 1.4T) engine in a Golf sized vehicle is going to naturally consume less fuel at idle than a larger 2.0 or 2.5.

The customer benifits in real world economy are not as spectacular, but the added turbo rich torque (much like a diesel without the clatter) and not having to work the engine as hard.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

Show me a small turbocharged engine that can produce 300+ kW and average 9.5 l/100km like a Coyote can

I can show many many small turbocharged engines that can average 4.5l/100km and go just as fast legally on any road in Australia as a coyote can.

Now you show me a coyote that gets 9.5l/100km WHEN it is demonstrating more than 300kw.

And just in case your lack of understanding of engines is even greater than I suspect, an engine only ever produces enough power to enable it to do the current job.

In simple terms if there were 5 falcons, one with each of the EB4, I6, ecolpi, T6 and SCV8 which were all ballasted to the same weight with the same wheels and tyres doing 100km/h on the same road the power produced by each would be almost identical with the only differences being due to drive train friction.

But if you really do want a small turbo engine that can demonstrate more than 300kw there are lots of them with BMW, Nissan, Toyota, Mitsubishi, Subaru and many other badges..........

[SSD-85]

If you care about fuel economy, you're not enjoying your car enough.....

[pursuit2359]

Thanks, SumoDog68. I think the issue here is that certain manufacturer's are offering turbocharged engines and claiming that they're more efficient than slightly larger naturally aspirated engines when they may not be.

The problem with the mpg figures quoted, however, are that lots of other variables are then thrown into the equation like gear ratios and different weights.

[mcnews]

How about the triple-turbo 3.0-litre BMW Diesel that in a large 5-series sedan makes 375hp and 740Nm of torque, returns AVERAGE 6.3 litres per 100km and propels it to 100km/h in 4.7 seconds,...

[superfly]

Originally Posted by pursuit2359

Thanks, SumoDog68. I think the issue here is that certain manufacturer's are offering turbocharged engines and claiming that they're more efficient than slightly larger naturally aspirated engines when they may not be.

If you look into it, you'll find that they are more fuel efficient.

[ryeman]

A turbocharger give you 3.5L power with 2.0L idle-cruise fuel consumption without even considering emissions.

[max_torq]

Even operating a turbo engine and a larger n/a engine at the same power, the turbo will have less fuel consumption since it is making power from the waste heat in the exhaust, already lost to the N/a engine. Not even considering the larger frictional losses in the larger engine.

[SumoDog68]

Originally Posted by max_torq

Even operating a turbo engine and a larger n/a engine at the same power, the turbo will have less fuel consumption since it is making power from the waste heat in the exhaust, already lost to the N/a engine. Not even considering the larger frictional losses in the larger engine.

Turbo is span by kinetic energy of exhaust gasses - heat is merely a byproduct of combustion.

[FGII-XR6]

yes but once the energy is past the exhaust valves it is normally wasted after all that is the function of the exhaust ( a waste disposal system) by harnessing that energy you increase the overall efficiency of the engine, it should be noted supercharging does not have the same benefit as it is driven by the crankshaft so it is parasitic

Originally Posted by SumoDog68

Turbo is span by kinetic energy of exhaust gasses - heat is merely a byproduct of combustion.

[wrongwaynorris]

Yeah what a disaster the Sierra Cosworth RS 500 was , and the RS 200 . Oh hang on !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mik]

so many factors influencing economy it`s not funny, obviously ford oz has done a pretty good job with the ecoboost falcon, good gearing and a good sized engine for the purpose intended it would seem, the falcon is also fairly decent in the aero department to from memory.

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by SumoDog68

Interesting article by Consumer Report - maybe small turbo charged engines are not all that better than bigger NA engines ?

http://news.consumerreports.org/cars...my-claims.html

The article describes laboratory tests and then pay a subscription!!!

Ford forum feedback from owners would be a better real world result.

[ryeman]

Agree, zero cred!

[In Focus]

I've had the Fabia do high 5's/100km on a regular 80km round-trip I take; my old auto Focus 2L never managed less than low 7's on the same route.

Then again, "using" the Fabia (that is, employing the turbo at mid-range and higher revs, rather than relying on the low-revving super-charger) has put that figure up to high 6's, whilst the Focus would only go up to mid 7's L/100km.

[302 XC]

The reliable longivity formula of a small boosted engine in large car doesnt work
Nissan tried this with firstly the 2.8 turbo diesel and the 3 L turbo diesel patrols
IF the formula was a winning formula,and didnt have the reliabilty issue they wouldnt be stuffin a V8 in the new patrols
300 KW patrols getting mid teens per 100 K
Not bad for something looking like a brick,and weighing what they do ......
Theres no replacement for displacement
People go on about turboed small engines, but the ford turbo six proves a big engine boosted can be scary
Ill have big lazy n/a engine over a smaller boosted engine all day ......
We all know factory power and economy figures arent really relevant in the real world

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by mcnews

Well an F6 can do that with a litre less and for around 8.5l/100km, while producing a lot more mid-range torque to boot :-)

WTF are you and Magpie smoking ????
There's no way a Coyote can average anywhere near 9.5 L/100 km's or an F6 can get anywhere near 8.5 L/100 km's.

Its possible on the open road if you drive like a granny, but that's not on average and who the heck buys there cars to drive them like a granny ???

(A very large dose of realism is called for ).

F6 - real world 13.3 L/100 km's on average
SC GT-P - real world 15.0 L/100 km's on average

[The Monty]

Not quite the same rodge, but stop start in my G6et with 100% acceleration whenever I get a chance = 12.9L/100 average over the last 5 tanks.
On the highway, Brisbane-Dalby-Brisbane, not driving like a nanny either, 8.0l/100km.
Same trip in my BA 6, was 12.4 for the stop start and 7.9 for the highway.

[mcnews]

Originally Posted by Rodge

WTF are you and Magpie smoking ????
There's no way a Coyote can average anywhere near 9.5 L/100 km's or an F6 can get anywhere near 8.5 L/100 km's.

Its possible on the open road if you drive like a granny, but that's not on average and who the heck buys there cars to drive them like a granny ???

(A very large dose of realism is called for ).

F6 - real world 13.3 L/100 km's on average
SC GT-P - real world 15.0 L/100 km's on average

Don't get your knickers in a not, it was obvious to anyone with half a brain that we were talking highway economy. I did Melbourne to Sydney on a tank a few times in the F6 without stopping...

[Rodge]

I suppose almost any economy, within reason, is feasable if you drive on flat open roads at the optimum speed.

[ryeman]

Probably 95% of all cars after 10 years will be 'recycled' via a poor student, never serviced (why?..it keeps starting!) so...off to the scrap heap ...it's too exy to repair and no residual value. That's the brutal reality.....kids are more interested in comp. games.

[Mr Hardware]

Small turbocharged engines can't be lumped into one category.
Obviously different iterations are going to yield different results.
We've already seen what great work an EcoBoost motor can do, and we've seen how damn average a Holden Cruze ITI turbo can be.
Like any motor, it should be assessed on its merits and judged accordingly. Much the same with Turbo-Diesel motors - not all were created equal.

[tweeked]

Originally Posted by flappist

In simple terms if there were 5 falcons, one with each of the EB4, I6, ecolpi, T6 and SCV8 which were all ballasted to the same weight with the same wheels and tyres doing 100km/h on the same road the power produced by each would be almost identical with the only differences being due to drive train friction.

Terms are a bit too simple. The power required would be the same. Efficiency of the engine is a lot more than just drive train friction. Combustion efficiency in the rev and load range would account for more than the friction losses

[superfly]

Originally Posted by 302 XC

The reliable longivity formula of a small boosted engine in large car doesnt work
Nissan tried this with firstly the 2.8 turbo diesel and the 3 L turbo diesel patrols
IF the formula was a winning formula,and didnt have the reliabilty issue they wouldnt be stuffin a V8 in the new patrols

But that's Nissan. Look at BMW, Mercedes etc, they all make it work just fine. Even the engine in my old WRX did just fine. Made it to 225K before I drowned the engine. And that was running about 190kw at the wheels (up from around 120kw atw). Drove it hard when ever I could, mainly did city driving and returned around 11L per 100kms. Even my wife's WRX is just about to hit 200K. Still going just as strong.

Nissan just don't know what they're doing