Think a turbo 4-cyl is the engine of the future? Maybe not.

[AZhitman]

Interesting results from some pretty common testing.

In the race for more performance and higher fuel economy, larger naturally-aspirated engines still hold an advantage.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/ ... 1D20130205

Maybe put all that R & D money into building more efficient V6 engines?

I've been saying this for a long time...Automakers should focus on: Reducing friction, adding direct injection, reducing overall weight, improving aerodynamics.

What do you think this will mean for manufacturers?

[MinisterofDOOM]

Oh, let me see now. What have I been saying for YEARS NOW?

Thank you. Sometimes I really do know WTF I'm talking about. I can smell save-face BS wrapped in marketing horsesh@t from a lightyear away.

Efficient, high-tech V6s and small V8s backed with good transmissions (WITH GEARS) are the future. Not tiny fours with turbos. Are we finally starting to realize that when you're making 260 ft-lb at 2000rpm from your turbo four it means you're NEVER OUT OF BOOST?! Which means you're burning just as much gas as the six you could have under your hood instead.

[LongBeachCoupe]

What does Barclays know about that's coming out 7 years from now, we could be using plasma by that time! I wonder what happens to those numbers when you increase the boost 5psi!

[AZhitman]

There's a good reason that 'vette guys are seeing 40+ mpg on the freeway with just a few minor tweaks and careful driving.

Plenty of torque and HP means the engine isn't working hard at all, and in 6th gear, it's basically just an air pump, since fuel consumption is minimal.

An aerodynamic car with low rolling resistance tires and an efficient, higher-hp engine is the way to go. There's no fuel economy if you have to use wide-open throttle to get up to speed.

[krash]

Oh, let me see now. What have I been saying for YEARS NOW?

I was about to say "INB4 MoD bursts a blood vessel"

[MinisterofDOOM]

Plenty of torque and HP means the engine isn't working hard at all, and in 6th gear, it's basically just an air pump, since fuel consumption is minimal.

Exactly. Lots of gears can achieve low cruise RPM in smaller motors, but it's when you've got the torque on tap that it really becomes beneficial. An example is the Chrysler Pentastar V6 that was in my rental minivan last summer. It spun at a miserly 2000 RPM at 80mph. But the lightest touch of the throttle or the tiniest incline led to a downshift (or, more often, two), because the engine simply doesn't have the torque to DO anything with 2000 RPM. But I can put the LS in 5th gear at 10mph and never think about shifting again. 220 ft-lb from 2000 RPM means I don't even have to downshift to PASS at highway speeds. There's no need to EVER exceed 3k RPM, even when not driving conservatively. And the AJ35 is gutless and inefficient by modern standards.

[Dattebayo]

I think we're kidding ourselves if we think it's all about getting consumers what they want. In the end, it's the cost of the thing that matter to these people.

[sx moneypit]

Acura must be on to it,they dumped the turbo 4 in the RDX in favor of their 3.5 V6.

[RicerX]

Case in point - I have been on long road trips with both my Speed3 and my 370. The Mazda has done 30 at best while the Z did 28. A 3.7L vs. a 2.3T. And the Z isn't even geared with fuel economy in mind (I guess the Mazda isn't really either). No doubt in my mind that if Z had a lower final drive that you could easily top the hwy mileage of the Mazda if you wanted to.

The Vette is a great example. I drove my friend's 40th Anniversary C4 and on the interstate at cruise we were turning roughly 1800 RPM at 70 MPH.

[gwoods]

I think turbo's have a place in the future of cars. A turbo diesel hybrid sounds nice. Imagine it being a plug in where you can use a dash board dial to choose what the gas engine does. When you are crawling through rush hour with a fully charged battery you leave the diesel off. For longer trips you can dial in generator and the diesel will come on to charge the batteries and extend the range. For performace the diesel can drive say the front wheels? Electric motors drive the rear? Giving you AWD in performance mode.

My 448 rwhp supercharged Jag can get 24 mpg cruising at 92 mph from Denver - Phoenix (my moving average was 88 mph ) In town I can get 17-18 mpg. But that is no fun I am averaging 16.2 mpg but I have a lot of 13-14 mpg tanks of gas and it is possible to get 12 mpg.

[Dattebayo]

I think turbo's have a place in the future of cars. A turbo diesel hybrid sounds nice. Imagine it being a plug in where you can use a dash board dial to choose what the gas engine does. When you are crawling through rush hour with a fully charged battery you leave the diesel off. For longer trips you can dial in generator and the diesel will come on to charge the batteries and extend the range. For performace the diesel can drive say the front wheels? Electric motors drive the rear? Giving you AWD in performance mode.

Nobody makes a car that can do optional drive, the mechanics of it are just too expensive, complicated and pointless. Having a turbo on the gas/diesel engine would also be pointless in an electric drive setup unless the vehicle was very very heavy.

Maybe you're not aware of it, but most of our trains have been using the current system of hybrid operation for many many years now...

[MinisterofDOOM]

Nobody makes a car that can do optional drive, the mechanics of it are just too expensive, complicated and pointless. Having a turbo on the gas/diesel engine would also be pointless in an electric drive setup unless the vehicle was very very heavy.

Maybe you're not aware of it, but most of our trains have been using the current system of hybrid operation for many many years now...

Actually, Nissan and Honda have both done this. Nissan with an older Cube model and Honda with the new RLX. Both cars use a traditional FWD setup but add electric motors to drive the rear wheels. As I understand it, the Cube used this format specifically because our is LESS expensive than a "traditional" hybrid setup, since you're not changing anything with the primary powertrain.

*EDIT*:
Now that I think of it, the Cube might have gone this way because it was cheaper and simpler (in terms of mechanics and implementation to an existing vehicle) than a traditional AWD setup. But, either way, the reason for going that way was reduced cost and complexity.

As for diesel locomotives, the Volt uses a poorly implemented (designed around hippie green numbers rather than real efficient functionality) version of the same system. Diesel locomotives have huge, high-torque, low-RPM engines that are designed to run within a single fixed, highly-tuned, efficient RPM range rather than simply varying RPM on-demand and laundering the energy through batteries like the stupid Volt. You can't claim to be PZEV that way, but it sure does work better in the real world.

[Dattebayo]

Really? Is that actually so? Can anyone post up about the dual drive?

[Razi]

Cube stuff.


http://www.nissan-global.com/EN/DOCUMEN ... h_e4wd.pdf

You guys reminded me of the Honda Dualnote concept from 2001. It had a V6 in the back, and 2 electric motors in the front. Pretty cool.
Looked funny though.

[krash]

http://wot.motortrend.com/new-2014-acur ... z2KB8kQ3Qj

http://www.motortrend.com/future/future ... acura_nsx/

http://world.honda.com/news/2012/412111 ... index.html

You guys reminded me of the Honda Dualnote concept from 2001. It had a V6 in the back, and 2 electric motors in the front. Pretty cool.
Looked funny though.

Actually thats what they're doing with the NSX now

[Dattebayo]

Well, that's pretty damn cool. But I still don't see it being practical, cheap or even really useful for anything real-world... Maybe for racing or some other kind of specific application?

I understand that this is more of an opinion than anything, but it just seems overly complicated to me. There had to be more than one reason they stopped making it, right?

[krash]

Well Honda is moving forward with it. Nissan probably axe'd it because there was a possibility of making a cheap car that is fun.

[Dattebayo]

That's okay. We don't need any luggage in our hybrids anyway.

[Jesda]

When I had my Volvo S60 T5 I'd leave it in fifth gear then hit the throttle and wait a moment for boost. Didn't need to downshift to pass unless I was in heavy traffic and had to jump into an opening.

I don't know if I saved any fuel doing that, but the electric-like pull of the turbo was fun.

[float_6969]

If you really want fuel effiency, and you want it RIGHT NOW, they need to build plug in hybrids with range extenders (like the Volt). Only they need to stop being dumbasses about it and design the ICE to run VERY efficiently at a single speed. My personal preference would be a small displacement, high boost, 4 cylinder running on Natural Gas. The infrastructure is already in place for NG, and it's an AWESOME fuel for high boost engines and would drastically reduce our demand for foreign oil for quite some time.

[asoomal]

Except you get no range out of a natural gas vehicle -_-.

Not to mention a giant cylinder you need to carry around, sometimes two.

[MinisterofDOOM]

I'm not suggesting that turbo 4s can't be fun and have a purpose. But I AM fervently arguing that they're not the MPG godsend so many of their proponents claim them to be.

Only they need to stop being dumbasses about it and design the ICE to run VERY efficiently at a single speed.

THIS.

[alphapig]

Meh

Big inline 4s are great, and would power cars just fine if they weren't so pig fat now.

I was so confused when manufacturers started sticking underpowered 4s into flagship sedans and boosting the poor things.

[Impul]

Interesting results from some pretty common testing.

In the race for more performance and higher fuel economy, larger naturally-aspirated engines still hold an advantage.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/ ... 1D20130205

Maybe put all that R & D money into building more efficient V6 engines?

I've been saying this for a long time...Automakers should focus on: Reducing friction, adding direct injection, reducing overall weight, improving aerodynamics.

What do you think this will mean for manufacturers?

Would rather see in-line 6 engines.... V layout is just okay.

[AZhitman]

I don't disagree, but packaging impacts so many other things - Design, weight, safety, even fuel economy.

V6 just makes the engineers' (and designers') jobs so much easier.

[float_6969]

Except you get no range out of a natural gas vehicle -_-.

Not to mention a giant cylinder you need to carry around, sometimes two.

The natural gas doesn't power the vehicle. Because of this, you can design an engine to run at a single speed. This allows you to design a lighter, compact engine with high output and better fuel economy. In theory, this would negate the drawbacks of natural gas fuel.

[Jesda]

The Volvo got me 32mpg at 68mph from a turbo I-5. The turbo-4 is very much a part of the future; electronic boost management will only improve as the years go on.

Comparing S60s with manual transmissions:
The turbo 2.3L gets 19/26 and produces 247hp.
The naturally aspirated S60 2.4L gets 18/25 and produces 168hp.

The same goes for naturally aspirated I-4 and V6 engines from Saab compared to their turbo charged counterparts:
The 2001 9-3 convertible gets 19/26 with a naturally aspirated 185hp I4 and manual transmission.
The 2001 9-3 viggen convertible with a turbo I4 gets 18/28 and delivers an additional 45hp.

This is a no-brainer advantage to me.


I do believe the fuel economy gains have been exaggerated greatly, but the power gains are undeniable.

Here's an excellent article from Popular Mechanics:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/how-to/4306310

[AZhitman]

Jesda - I think using Volvo and Saab as the benchmark, however, skews the results.

We're not talking about over-engineered works of art - We're talking about pedestrian vehicles with Hank Hill pricing.

Using the Juke as an example, consider the additional cost of forced induction on the MR16 - now, replace that with the venerated N/A V6. It's my estimation that FE would be similar, if not better, and production costs lessened - with no decrease in horsepower.

Hmmmm... VQ-powered Juke. Wait - First thing I'd do is supercharge it.

[Jesda]

Jesda - I think using Volvo and Saab as the benchmark, however, skews the results.

We're not talking about over-engineered works of art - We're talking about pedestrian vehicles with Hank Hill pricing.

They're fairly common upper-mid-tier cars in the EU, like Buicks here in the US. I'd reserve the description of "over-engineered works of art" for six-figure AMG cars.

Saab's turbo refinements found their way into GM's global powertrains and Ford likely gained some of its Ecoboost expertise from a decade of Volvo ownership.

Additionally, typical Saab and Volvo hatchbacks, wagons, and sedans are quite a bit lighter than Ford's half-ton pickups, so the fuel economy benefits of small-displacement, forced-induction engines diminish further. I'm not entirely sold on Ecoboost in a big pickup.


If we go back to 1996 (which is really like going back to 1989 in the case of this car) and compare the Z32 to the Z32TT, the TT is only 1mpg short of the naturally aspirated version, but there's also a gain of 78hp. I consider that a huge gain in efficiency even if fuel economy is slightly less. As demonstrated by VH45 swaps in Z32s, fitting a large DOHC V8 isn't very practical or easy. If Nissan had a light and compact OHV V8 available like that in the Corvette, that would change things.


The new Cadillac ATS 2.0T has a 2-3mpg advantage over the 3.6L V6, but the V6 puts out an extra 45hp. In that case, I'd take the V6 (though a manual is currently exclusive to the turbo 4). In situations where an NA and turbo versions of the same engine are offered, I'd prefer the turbo almost every time, but otherwise it depends on the size of the vehicle, the application, and the market it's being sold in.


Ford seems to be overselling the advantages and it's fair to criticize them for it.


Turbo engines have an electric-like pulling quality that can't be duplicated by larger naturally aspirated engines. Also, European markets tend to tax based on displacement, making turbochargers a favorable workaround. There is also, arguably, an advantage in emissions with turbocharged gas engines, but that's a pretty distant concern for me.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Ford likely gained some of its Ecoboost expertise from a decade of Volvo ownership.

I wouldn't call Ecoboost "expertise." In fact, I'd call it embarrassing. 350 hp and torque out of a MODERN V6 with two turbos and 16mpg combined in the real world? That's TERRIBLE. TERRIBLE! If you stuck two turbos on a VQ37VHR or an LFX, you'd be looking at 400+ ft-lb and better than 16mpg with NO effort at all. Hell, out of the box the LFX is making within 20 hp and 20 ft-lb of the Ecoboost V6 at the wheels and it's NATURALLY ASPIRATED. And the VQ37, while being short on torque, embarasses the Ecoboost six where horsepower is concerned, putting the same numbers to the tires as the twin-turbo abomination.

The Duratec V6 was never a particularly noteworth engine even back in 2000 when it was new. Today it's well behind the times despite being a recent design. It needs replacing. Turbos are not the answer to that engine's shortcomings.

Ford might claim ecoboost turbos are a replacement for cylinders. I argue they're barely enough to compete with everyone else's NA V6. Dyno sheets and fuel economy observations from owners show that the horsepower and (particularly) torque and fuel economy claims from Ford are INSANELY exaggerated.

The fours are another story. The 2.0 Ecoboost is pretty good, and torque delivery is great.