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

[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 :-)

[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

[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...

[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.

[MAGPIE]

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

Check your facts Rodge, a Coyote (not Miami) has a Official Hwy fuel economy rating of 9.40 l/100km.

I have personally averaged as low as 8.59 on a trip between Akl and Gisborne, and no I wasn't driving like a granny, just going with the flow of traffic and overtaking when the opportunity arose.

Average over life of vehicle 9.4, very limited city driving though.

[jpd80]

Put it this way,
Someone buys an new Ecoboost Falcon and then promptly has it modified to produce 300 Kw and compared
to other Falcons and Holdens of similar power, the modified 2.0 Turbo should put down similar performance.

But, when asked to drive for economy, you can bet your left nut the little turbo engine
will normally come up trumps against the larger I-6 turbos and V8 of similar power output.

That's the difference..

I wonder who will be the first to criminally modify an Ecoboost 2.0 and go terrorising unsuspecting V8s and Turbo sixed..

[MAGPIE]

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 :-)

Granted, but it is not a small turbocharged engine (well it is compared to a W16 I suppose).

[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..........

[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

[flappist]

Originally Posted by tweeked

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

The power about which I am speaking in that demonstrated at the flywheel. Internal engine losses and quantity of fuel used to create this is for the purposes of the point irrelevent.

The purpose of the point is to highlight and debunk the not uncommon misbelief that a, for example, "335kw V8" engine is demonstrating 335kw regardless of operational state.

[MAGPIE]

Missed the point entirely aye

Originally Posted by flappist

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.

That's not what I asked, simply doesn't interest me.

Originally Posted by flappist

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

You show me any small turbocharged vehicle that gets 9.5l/100km WHEN it is demonstrating more than 90% of it's maximum rated output.

Originally Posted by flappist

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.

Wow, really

Originally Posted by flappist

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..........

Name one Subaru (stock) that you can buy and drive legally on the road today ?

[flappist]

Originally Posted by MAGPIE

Missed the point entirely aye

That's not what I asked, simply doesn't interest me.

You show me any small turbocharged vehicle that gets 9.5l/100km WHEN it is demonstrating more than 90% of it's maximum rated output.

Wow, really

Name one Subaru (stock) that you can buy and drive legally on the road today ?

Yep, I did not underestimate it at all.......

At what rev/torque combination in your Mustang do you get 9.5l/100km while demonstrating 90% of maximum output.

Remember that power = torque * rpm.

300kw = 1432Nm at 2000 RPM
300kw = 955Nm at 3000 RPM
300kw = 478Nm at 6000 RPM

So which of these is the most likely to be true:

1) Your Mustang has a 1000++Nm engine which is Bugatti Veyron territory.
2) You drive around everywhere at 6000 RPM in first and second gear as 6000 RPM as top gear might attract a bit of unwanted attention.
3) You have no idea at all and just fantasise that you are getting 9.5l/100 with 300kw.

[MAGPIE]

Your unbelievable

Of course it can't average 9.5 l/100km while actively producing 300+ kW

My statement (maybe I worded it poorly) was that the Coyote is an engine that can produce 300+ kW (if called upon) and is capable of averaging less than 10 l/100 km during normal real world driving.

If you can't get your head around that it's not my problem

[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 .

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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,...

[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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[greenfoam]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

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

that's not exactly correct. The escaping gas's make considerable extra power in the exhaust system as they leave the engine and exhaust. So much so that even a leaky header gasket shows up on the drag strip on a mild engine. that's more or less totally givin up on a Turbo car, sure you gain in other ways. The function of an exhaust system is first and foremost to pull clean air and fuel into the cylinder. If it wasn't exhaust manifolds would just be a big can.

Its completely normally all the rest of the exhaust aside to pick up 10-20hp from a simple xpipe because of this effect.

[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.