The engine thread.

[r0tor]

Race cars also don't have to pass emissions stuff too correct? I sometimes think that trying to make it run clean can be a problem. Seems many people have converter problems.

My high flow cat threw a cel... I dropped the midpipe to look at it and discovered it.wasn't there anymore.... so I just bolted it back up and killed the cel with my accessport... lolz

[GoCougs]

I would argue that full size trucks are different from those other segments. My dad picks up a new F-150 tomorrow. He has not test driven one. I am not sure if he has even sat in one.

That said, I don't think the younger generation will exhibit this kind of irrational brand loyalty (he hasn't even had particularly good luck with Ford trucks). I do think that the availability of 6ATs and the new engines has given Ford an edge in the power train department, but it isn't the radical leap forward like the Ram Hemi, the Titan, and the 2nd gen Tundra were. If I am wrong about Ecoboost, it could be that step forward.

The market is not spending money on a new truck without having been in it.

Ford does indeed have the edge for the first time in generations.

I don't hold much hope for the Ecoboost - indeed no one else is doing such a thing but it won't get appreciably better MPG than a modern direct-injected V8 of the same approximate power. Such an engine has attributes (a hedge against engine displacement taxes, more compact size) not likely applicable.

[68_427]

The market is not spending money on a new truck without having been in it.

Ford does indeed have the edge for the first time in generations.

I don't hold much hope for the Ecoboost - indeed no one else is doing such a thing but it won't get appreciably better MPG than a modern direct-injected V8 of the same approximate power. Such an engine has attributes (a hedge against engine displacement taxes, more compact size) not likely applicable.

It also has a flatter torque curve than the other engines.

[GoCougs]

It also has a flatter torque curve than the other engines.

Upon closer inspection you are correct - not only MUCH flatter but peak power is at a lower RPM too:

3.7L V6:    
302 hp @ 6500 RPM
276 lb-ft @ 4000 RPM

3.5L TT V6:
365 hp @ 5000 RPM
420 lb-ft @ 2500 RPM

5.0L V8:
360 hp @ 5500 RPM
380 lb-ft @ 4250 RPM

6.2L V8:
411 hp @ 5500 RPM
434 lb-ft @ 4500 RPM

All in all they look like good engines.

[Onslaught]

Don't let Mazda see this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tj_75qhHbpE&feature=related

[r0tor]

Novel engine design... not sure if it really improves upon some of the rotary engines design weaknesses - a combustion chamber that large in area and moving, and sealing issues at the apex and over the spark plugs

[GoCougs]

Just not a fan of rotary engines - they're interesting but overall they just aren't as good. 

The IC piston engine is going to be mighty tough to beat.

[cawimmer430]

Oldsmobile 350cid Diesel = PURE AWESOMENESS

Discuss!

[sportyaccordy]

Just not a fan of rotary engines - they're interesting but overall they just aren't as good. 

The IC piston engine is going to be mighty tough to beat.

Yep... size, power density, efficiency, cleanliness, and of course, 100 years of continuous development & application...

Rotaries would have to really throw + catch a crazy hail mary to catch up

Oldsmobile 350cid Diesel = PURE AWESOMENESS

Discuss!

If you had to spend a day w/that motor, you'd probably hate it, all American cars, and all American people for being associated with it.

Seriously, one of the worst engines of all time, and a huge part of why Americans are still to this day turned off from diesel.

[GoCougs]

I'm also not a fan of diesels for passenger car use. They too lag the gasoline engine in all factors.

[sportyaccordy]

I'm also not a fan of diesels for passenger car use. They too lag the gasoline engine in all factors.

Diesels are not that bad. They definitely make more sense than hybrids if you want to have a lower carbon footprint over the life of your car, and they are more fuel efficient + cheaper to operate.

[r0tor]

Yep... size, power density, efficiency, cleanliness, and of course, 100 years of continuous development & application...

Rotaries would have to really throw + catch a crazy hail mary to catch up

Size and power density?  Are you serious???

[afty]

Oldsmobile 350cid Diesel = PURE AWESOMENESS

Discuss!

My parents had a 1980-ish Buick LeSabre with that engine.  It was horrible, slow and unreliable.  That car left us stranded so many times.  They ended up selling it because no one could get it to run.

[Onslaught]

Yep... size, power density, efficiency, cleanliness, and of course, 100 years of continuous development & application...

[omicron]

Upon closer inspection you are correct - not only MUCH flatter but peak power is at a lower RPM too:

3.7L V6:    
302 hp @ 6500 RPM
276 lb-ft @ 4000 RPM

3.5L TT V6:
365 hp @ 5000 RPM
420 lb-ft @ 2500 RPM

5.0L V8:
360 hp @ 5500 RPM
380 lb-ft @ 4250 RPM

6.2L V8:
411 hp @ 5500 RPM
434 lb-ft @ 4500 RPM

All in all they look like good engines.

For interest's sake, the supercharged 5.0:
449 hp @ 5750 RPM
420 lb-ft @ 2200-5500 RPM

[MrH]

Size and power density?  Are you serious???

[Nethead]

There's BlowCougs tripe on the one hand, and the stated opinions of people who actually drive vehicles on the other:
.
.
.
Leftlane?s bottom line

The turbocharging gospel is here and Ford has proven to us that it has an entire lineup ready to replace naturally-aspirated six and eight cylinder units with direct injected turbo units.

Direct injection, high compression ratios and sophisticated turbochargers make smooth, accessible torque a reality. Let the turbo revolution begin!

Words and photos by Andrew Ganz.

Let's see, who's got the cred here, The Braying Ass or those who drive vehicles???     I'm so confused  

[sportyaccordy]

Torque is cool but razor sharp throttle response is cooler. For something like a Focus w/an auto box, Ecoboost makes sense. For something like Mustang, I will pay the penalty for the big all motor V8

My fear is that sports car makers will have to succumb to the meaningless CAFE regs... so it will get to the point that if you want a naturally aspirated Porsche, your only option for a new one will be some limited edition model like the GT3. On the flip side though many of these manufacturers have dabbled in turbocharging, and there's the F40... so I'm guessing by now with all the tech + experience they can make turbo motors that feel & sound like N/A ones. Still though....

[GoCougs]

   Leftlane is a terrible publication, but then again most all are.

We'll see how reliable a SHO or EcoBoost F-150 is after 100k miles...

LOL.

[sportyaccordy]

  Leftlane is a terrible publication, but then again most all are.

We'll see how reliable a SHO or EcoBoost F-150 is after 100k miles...

LOL.

Right, because no turbocharged motor has ever lasted beyond that mileage

I too think their bias is largely unwarranted and a bit hyperbolic, but then again I think the same of yours

Diesel engines have had DI & turbocharging for some time now without incident... I don't see how the gas translation would prompt widespread catastrophic failure (especially considering the gambles taken and the potential costs/reputations at stake)

[GoCougs]

Right, because no turbocharged motor has ever lasted beyond that mileage

I too think their bias is largely unwarranted and a bit hyperbolic, but then again I think the same of yours

Diesel engines have had DI & turbocharging for some time now without incident... I don't see how the gas translation would prompt widespread catastrophic failure (especially considering the gambles taken and the potential costs/reputations at stake)

Again, if turbo motors are the schnitz where are they (in the US)? They're hardly available. One of the most prominent purveyor of recent times, Audi, has backed off a bit by replacing its absolute disaster 2.7TT with a 3.0 S/C (but that was Audi's fault for making the turbos so difficult to replace).

The issue isn't necessarily with the engine itself but with turbo and related hardware replacement. These components don't last as long as the engine itself and they are expensive to replace. Mucking with a Ford EcoBoost V6 will bring back nightmares of the Audi 2.7TT.

Turbos and commercial rigs are a different ball of wax simply because these rigs HAVE to be turbo diesel. Over the years the entire turbo notion has matured owing to the simple fact that this is the only way its down; so with that comes design for serviceability to the ease of getting repairs and replacements.

Turbos in the average retail vehicle won't make any sense until the government sticks a gun in our collective faces and taxes We The People based on engine displacement. Until then, IMO they only make sense for boutique applications.

[Nethead]

  Leftlane is a terrible publication, but then again most all are.

We'll see how reliable a SHO or EcoBoost F-150 is after 100k miles...

LOL.

BlowCougs:  We already have in the case of the F-150--an EcoBoost V6 spent 157,000 simulated miles on a dyno, then got dropped into an F-150 and driven to the Pacific Northwest to spend a day dragging logs uphill for a lumber company.  Thereafter, it was driven to Miami to pull 11,300 pounds of trailer-loaded-with-stock-cars around Homestead Raceway for 24 hours averaging over 80 MPH for the 24 hours and hitting over 95 MPH on the straights.  Next, it was driven to Davis Dam (California? Nevada) to outpull all the competitor's V8 pickups in an uphill trailer pull before being driven to Mexico, getting swapped into an F-150 racetruck, and wrapping it all up by completing the Tecate SCORE Baja 1000.  A busy schedule for a stock EcoBoost 3.5 V6, don't you think?  

The engine is now to be torn down, inspected for wear, and displayed to the public.  There is a group requesting that it be configured for an Indycar in time for the Indy 500.  That would be a hoot--or a w00t, perhaps...

[VTEC_Inside]

This is trippy...

http://www.roadandtrack.com/auto-news/tech/video-the-real-atkinson-cycle

[sportyaccordy]

Again, if turbo motors are the schnitz where are they (in the US)? They're hardly available. One of the most prominent purveyor of recent times, Audi, has backed off a bit by replacing its absolute disaster 2.7TT with a 3.0 S/C (but that was Audi's fault for making the turbos so difficult to replace).

I don't think turbo gas engines are the primary mode of propulsion for cars anywhere, nor do I think they have to be. And as far as your example, naturally you pick the ONLY turbo engine of recent memory that was plagued by problems stemming from the turbos themselves. In nearly all other turbo motors with problems, the problems stem from issues that could have plagued normal motors too (the oil sludge issue in the VAG 1.8Ts, the HPFP problems in the BMW N54s, etc.). More importantly though, such problematic turbo engines are definitely the minority, not the majority. Your logic is like saying since Honda's auto transmissions sucked in the late 90s/early 00s, it's silly for anyone to try to build them, despite all the other reliable auto boxes out there.

The issue isn't necessarily with the engine itself but with turbo and related hardware replacement. These components don't last as long as the engine itself and they are expensive to replace. Mucking with a Ford EcoBoost V6 will bring back nightmares of the Audi 2.7TT.

Turbos and commercial rigs are a different ball of wax simply because these rigs HAVE to be turbo diesel. Over the years the entire turbo notion has matured owing to the simple fact that this is the only way its down; so with that comes design for serviceability to the ease of getting repairs and replacements.

Any real proof of this? There are plenty of turbo passenger cars from the 90s still trucking along w/o incident. And the turbo system in a Mitsubishi Fuso, MB turbodiesel car or any other turbodiesel vehicle is literally no different from that in a gas car, outside of differences for physical configurations for sizing. Seriously, a Mitsubishi Fuso w/a 115-175HP engine uses the same turbos as many of Mitsubishi's gas cars. So I'm not sure what differences you mean, unless you're comparing a freightliner to a VW Polo.

Turbos in the average retail vehicle won't make any sense until the government sticks a gun in our collective faces and taxes We The People based on engine displacement. Until then, IMO they only make sense for boutique applications.

With a high enough volume, development and parts costs can be spread enough to make the fuel economy payback worthwhile. And there is definitely improved fuel economy; especially in the case of something like your Accord. Still not sure what your beef is.

[GoCougs]

BlowCougs:  We already have in the case of the F-150--an EcoBoost V6 spent 157,000 simulated miles on a dyno, then got dropped into an F-150 and driven to the Pacific Northwest to spend a day dragging logs uphill for a lumber company.  Thereafter, it was driven to Miami to pull 11,300 pounds of trailer-loaded-with-stock-cars around Homestead Raceway for 24 hours averaging over 80 MPH for the 24 hours and hitting over 95 MPH on the straights.  Next, it was driven to Davis Dam (California?) to outpull all the competitor's V8 pickups in an uphill trailer pull before being driven to Mexico, getting swapped into an F-150 racetruck, and wrapping it all up by completing the Tecate SCORE Baja 1000.  A busy schedule for a stock EcoBoost 3.5 V6, don't you think? 

The engine is now to be torn down, inspected for wear, and displayed to the public.  There is a group requesting that it be configured for an Indycar in time for the Indy 500.  That would be a hoot--or a w00t, perhaps...

PR stunts are for trolls, ignoramuses, and otherwise for those that don't know the difference between testing and gimmicks.

ALL automakers put their engines through brutal torture tests.

[sportyaccordy]

This is trippy...

http://www.roadandtrack.com/auto-news/tech/video-the-real-atkinson-cycle

That is fucking cool. Though I wonder how that affects NVH & revvability. Prob a great fit for black box applications like Camcords

[GoCougs]

I don't think turbo gas engines are the primary mode of propulsion for cars anywhere, nor do I think they have to be. And as far as your example, naturally you pick the ONLY turbo engine of recent memory that was plagued by problems stemming from the turbos themselves. In nearly all other turbo motors with problems, the problems stem from issues that could have plagued normal motors too (the oil sludge issue in the VAG 1.8Ts, the HPFP problems in the BMW N54s, etc.). More importantly though, such problematic turbo engines are definitely the minority, not the majority. Your logic is like saying since Honda's auto transmissions sucked in the late 90s/early 00s, it's silly for anyone to try to build them, despite all the other reliable auto boxes out there.

They are much more popular elsewhere; Japan and Europe primarily. I picked that engine because there are so few turbo engines to pick from in the US in recent times.

Any real proof of this? There are plenty of turbo passenger cars from the 90s still trucking along w/o incident. And the turbo system in a Mitsubishi Fuso, MB turbodiesel car or any other turbodiesel vehicle is literally no different from that in a gas car, outside of differences for physical configurations for sizing. Seriously, a Mitsubishi Fuso w/a 115-175HP engine uses the same turbos as many of Mitsubishi's gas cars. So I'm not sure what differences you mean, unless you're comparing a freightliner to a VW Polo.
With a high enough volume, development and parts costs can be spread enough to make the fuel economy payback worthwhile. And there is definitely improved fuel economy; especially in the case of something like your Accord. Still not sure what your beef is.

By my measure there were even fewer turbo retail vehicles in the '90s than now. Sure they'll run plenty long if you repair them. By definition the average turbo will not last as long as the average engine. IIRC, Ford was trumpeting that EcoBoost turbo system was designed for 150,000 miles. Suffice it to say the engine itself; ANY engine nowadays; is designed for a lot more than 150,000 miles.

I thought we put this one to rest - there is no fuel economy advantage with a turbo motor. It has other savings - i.e., it's likely a lot cheaper using the EcoBoost V6 in the Flex and SHO than trying to shoehorn in the transverse 5.0L V8...

[Laconian]

That is fucking cool. Though I wonder how that affects NVH & revvability. Prob a great fit for black box applications like Camcords

How the hell could you create a balance shaft for that?

[Nethead]

Torque is cool but razor sharp throttle response is cooler. For something like a Focus w/an auto box, Ecoboost makes sense. For something like Mustang, I will pay the penalty for the big all motor V8

My fear is that sports car makers will have to succumb to the meaningless CAFE regs... so it will get to the point that if you want a naturally aspirated Porsche, your only option for a new one will be some limited edition model like the GT3. On the flip side though many of these manufacturers have dabbled in turbocharging, and there's the F40... so I'm guessing by now with all the tech + experience they can make turbo motors that feel & sound like N/A ones. Still though....

sportyaccordy:  We all wonder where all this will lead --it may work out that inevitably enthusiasts will have to adapt their driving techniques still further to match the powerplants of the coming decade(s). Note that I say powerplants and not engines, since even in the short-term many engines will include supplemental electric motivation for performance, economy, and/or other demands.  Purely electrical motivation is either too bland, too expensive, or accompanied by too much baggage currently.  And don't think the electric utility companies are gonna let this pot o' gold go unmined for all it's worth.  Electric utility companies didn't get where they are on altruism...

Basically, sportscars still hold the facecards of smallness, lightness, and advanced technology even if someone removes the rings aces of power from the deck.  King-Queen-Jack-Ten-Nine is still a straight flush even if it ain't royal without the ace in the suit.  You can win a lot of hands with a King-high flush...

There was a time when editorials assured us that emissions equipment was ushering in the Apocalypse for performance cars, but it just wasn't true--it may have been a rehearsal for the Apocalypse, but the Four Horsemen aren't relieving themselves on your front lawn quite yet...

There is the gnawing issue of affordability, however, and that's why the Nethead here is justifiably fond of the Mustang GT:  BMW M3 performance for at least the gainfully-employed masses.  And the base Mustang V6 can turn the quarter in under 14 seconds at over 100 MPH with .86 G if you're employed only part-time.  I won't say you can't beat this duo, but no one's doing it for the money.  Note the number of forum members who own Mustangs, and you 'n' me would love to...I think there's a lesson here!  

[sportyaccordy]

They are much more popular elsewhere; Japan and Europe primarily. I picked that engine because there are so few turbo engines to pick from in the US in recent times.

Hmmmm.... so turbocharged cars are more popular in Europe and Japan. I guess it's safe to say they don't have reliability problems with them there....

By my measure there were even fewer turbo retail vehicles in the '90s than now.

Towards the late 90s, yes, but that's primarily because of the rise(?) of the Yen that wiped out much of the profit margins afforded to the Japanese market. From 95 to 98, the RX-7/Supra/3000GT/300ZXTT all got pulled for being too expensive; Toyota embarked on its transition from quality to cost cutting, yadda yadda... the death of the turbo in the 90s was not due to problems with the hardware

Sure they'll run plenty long if you repair them. By definition the average turbo will not last as long as the average engine. IIRC, Ford was trumpeting that EcoBoost turbo system was designed for 150,000 miles. Suffice it to say the engine itself; ANY engine nowadays; is designed for a lot more than 150,000 miles.

If manufacturers avoid the pitfalls Audi fell into with its 2.7TT, turbo replacements are not that big of a deal. Do you plan on owning a car for 150K miles? Would you drive a car with 150K miles on it? Yes, it's a maintenance item; yes, on a car with 150K a turbo replacement can be a sizeable sum; no, a turbo failure/replacement wouldn't be the end of the world. People still bought Audi 2.7TT vehicles long after the woes became public and they still command a decent sum on the used market... and those turbos are significantly more expensive to replace than say, the turbo hanging off the side of a 4 banger or perched on top of a Subaru flat 4....

I thought we put this one to rest - there is no fuel economy advantage with a turbo motor. It has other savings - i.e., it's likely a lot cheaper using the EcoBoost V6 in the Flex and SHO than trying to shoehorn in the transverse 5.0L V8...

Not sure how it was put to bed; no concrete evidence (or even "questionable" evidence such as EPA test results) was brought up to validate said claim