The engine thread.

[Nethead]

Wow, an engine built by Ford lasted 163,000 miles. Big Wow!

The engine in your vehicle has never pulled logs uphill in Oregon or anywhere else, never towed a trailer load of stockcars for 24 hours at over 80 MPH, and never run the Baja 1000.  And probably can't pull a 9,000 pound trailer on a long uphill run in the Nevada heat.  Or have you actually done all these things but are just too modest to publicize your effort?

[Nethead]

"EcoBoost" (turbo charging) has been around almost as long as the I/C engine itself.

The only "win" for Ford is no other automaker dared try marketing an expensive high-performance twin-turbo engine as "eco."

Ahhh, The Braying Ass adds his wit and wisdom to the discussion of things mechanical!
Actually, EcoBoost as trademarked is a lot more than a pair of turbos.  But you've made it evident to us all that this is as much as you can comprehend about the concept--and electronic engine management is waaay over your head.  We noticed your eyes glazing over shortly after you said "Mommy, are those pinwheels on that engine?"

[Nethead]

They may not have outright called the new turbo motors "eco", but much of the press releases for BMW, MB and Audi's various boosted new engines talk a lot about the improvements in fuel economy & CO2 emissions over their older NA counterparts...

Why you are so almost compulsively anti-turbo anti-intelligence escapes me

sportyaccordy:  There!  Fixed!

[GoCougs]

They may not have outright called the new turbo motors "eco", but much of the press releases for BMW, MB and Audi's various boosted new engines talk a lot about the improvements in fuel economy & CO2 emissions over their older NA counterparts...

Why you are so almost compulsively anti-turbo escapes me

If turbochargers weren't effective at making engines more efficient, manufacturers like BMW etc would NOT be resorting to using them to deliver competitive power and remain complaint with increasingly stringent emissions & fuel economy standards

Something tells me they know more about fuel efficiency than GoCougs of CarSpin fame

In the context of my post your slight is out of place. I merely only criticized the notion that "EcoBoost" was technically special/different/advantageous. It's a twin turbo V6. It's expensive. It's rare. What else is new?

In the context of turbos in general, prove to me in basic thermodynamic and engineering terms the MPG advantage. I throw down this gauntlet periodically yet no one EVER has any come back with anything but EPA ratings.

[GoCougs]

But if you must...

All are MY2011, and 380 - 420 hp):

Twin turbo V8:
E550 4Matic: 15/23
550ix: 16/24

N/A V8:
LS460 AWD: 16/23
M56x: 16/23

[sportyaccordy]

Cougs complex thermo knowledge is not necessary to understand why turbo engines can be and are more efficient than equally powerful bigger N/A engines

For all ur talk of scientific prowess I'm surprised such simple concepts as

- utilizing energy that would have been thrown away in the exhaust to aid induction
- having lower rotational mass, internal friction & pumping losses at idle + low load conditions

elude u in the context of how turbocharging might aid in efficiency

Couple those pretty rudimentary concepts w/variable vane technology, intercooling, direct injection, it's a no brainer

Unless u have something that cancels out the two basic underlying advantages of turbocharging....

[GoCougs]

Turbos use some energy that would be "thrown away" (expansion) but there is also efficiency loss (back pressure).

How much less "rotational mass" and internal friction and pumping losses is there between BMW's or M-B's previous V8s and the current slightly smaller TTV8s?

I'm not saying there aren't advantages per se (i.e., more advantageous torque curve, less displacement (for taxes), lighter/smaller engine), just not in fuel economy. And overall there are detriments - more complicated fuel/combustion management, more cost, less durability and reliability.

[sportyaccordy]

Turbos use some energy that would be "thrown away" (expansion) but there is also efficiency loss (back pressure).

This basically amounts to the difference between throwing away all the energy in the exhaust vs just some of it.

How much less "rotational mass" and internal friction and pumping losses is there between BMW's or M-B's previous V8s and the current slightly smaller TTV8s?

IDK, enough that they're able to have made significant gains in the mandated efficiency tests. Bear in mind pressurizing the intake charge also helps tremendously with killing induction losses; that is why BMW's TT engines ditched Valvetronic.

I'm not saying there aren't advantages per se (i.e., more advantageous torque curve, less displacement (for taxes), lighter/smaller engine), just not in fuel economy. And overall there are detriments - more complicated fuel/combustion management, more cost, less durability and reliability.

To hit the same HP, NA motors either get very complex (VVL, VVT, yadda yadda) or very big + heavy. As I mentioned, BMW ditched Valvetronic on at least some of their TT engines, as "the principal advantage of Valvetronic is the reduction of intake vacuum, which is not an issue in the pressurized intake found in a turbo-charged engine." So the complexity of controlling Valvetronic is replaced with controlling a throttle + blow off valve + wastegate; the latter two merely being pressure valves. Cost is also debatable again as making power costs $$$, esp w/size or displacement constraints. Durability is not a big issue as these engines are over-engineered, and turbo failure tends to occur well outside the timeline of the first owner's tenure. Plus as I said before, it's not like turbocharging is new. If these same companies can make turbo engines for freightliners it shouldn't be hard to make reliable ones for passenger cars.

[VTEC_Inside]

Turbos use some energy that would be "thrown away" (expansion) but there is also efficiency loss (back pressure).

Not necessarily as manufactures often use less muffling/restrictive exhausts after the turbos since the turbos themselves tend to quiet things down a little.

For example the SRT-4 which didn't even have a muffler, making do with a simple resonator.

So the net back pressure probably isn't much different.

[sportyaccordy]

Yea you'd be surprised how much backpressure a stock exhaust has. For something like a 3.0L, a 2.5"-3" exhaust w/a resonator + muffler can make for appreciable gains over the stock straws, even in the low end.

[GoCougs]

This basically amounts to the difference between throwing away all the energy in the exhaust vs just some of it.
IDK, enough that they're able to have made significant gains in the mandated efficiency tests. Bear in mind pressurizing the intake charge also helps tremendously with killing induction losses; that is why BMW's TT engines ditched Valvetronic.

To hit the same HP, NA motors either get very complex (VVL, VVT, yadda yadda) or very big + heavy. As I mentioned, BMW ditched Valvetronic on at least some of their TT engines, as "the principal advantage of Valvetronic is the reduction of intake vacuum, which is not an issue in the pressurized intake found in a turbo-charged engine." So the complexity of controlling Valvetronic is replaced with controlling a throttle + blow off valve + wastegate; the latter two merely being pressure valves. Cost is also debatable again as making power costs $$$, esp w/size or displacement constraints. Durability is not a big issue as these engines are over-engineered, and turbo failure tends to occur well outside the timeline of the first owner's tenure. Plus as I said before, it's not like turbocharging is new. If these same companies can make turbo engines for freightliners it shouldn't be hard to make reliable ones for passenger cars.

Much of that is true. Again, the advantages are not in MPG though.