Honda Introduces New Family of Turbocharged, Direct-Injected Engines

[GoCougs]

Lower thermal efficiency != lower fuel efficiency in many cases.  The two cannot be directly correlated.  Too many other factors.

Yes, it does, if all else is the same; i.e. exact same car (as is the scenario I am describing).

[GoCougs]

You keep saying this and I'm not so sure you know what it means. 


My dad's Sonata does quite well WRT fuel economy, and my mom's Jetta does insanely well.  She's up to an average of 39 MPG for her commute.  The trip computer registers around 38.2-38.4 MPG, but it tends to read a little low.  I filled it up on Saturday and it did 39.3 MPG.  A little under 500 miles on that tank and two weeks of Dallas driving. 

I do know what means, and what all the test data says it is, esp. the recent C&D, Consumer Reports and other testing (= turbos under perform in the real world in mpg).

[GoCougs]

EcoBoost engines are 10.0:1 compression.

Not a good example IMO since EB hasn't gone well for Ford.

By definition a F/I motor has to run at lower CR than its N/A counterpart - that's why you use F/I (to get a higher effective CR).

[SVT666]

Not a good example IMO since EB hasn't gone well for Ford.

Please elaborate.

[MX793]

Yes, it does, if all else is the same; i.e. exact same car (as is the scenario I am describing).

If one car is running a turbo 4 and the other a larger NA 6, all else is not the same other than compression ratio.

[GoCougs]

Please elaborate.

Ford has all sorts of class action suits resulting from EB, esp. in the F150 and in general EB just hasn't delivered anything new or improved.

[GoCougs]

If one car is running a turbo 4 and the other a larger NA 6, all else is not the same other than compression ratio.

The premise in the previous post was same car boost vs. no boost.

[FoMoJo]

Not a good example IMO since EB hasn't gone well for Ford.

By definition a F/I motor has to run at lower CR than its N/A counterpart - that's why you use F/I (to get a higher effective CR).

They've had better than expected success with their EcoBoost products...other than a few leadfoots complaining about fuel efficiency.  They don't seem to understand that you have an option of fuel efficiency or power.  You don't get both at the same time.   As for problems with condensation in the intercooler...happened with some...it was fixed.  Other niggling teething problems with the 1.6 have also been fixed.  Nothing really to complain about.

As for TFSI engines having to use lower compression ratio, not necessarily.  You're just packing more air in.  The injected fuel occurs in stages, initially to cool the cylinder right up to the point of spark.

[GoCougs]

They've had better than expected success with their EcoBoost products...other than a few leadfoots complaining about fuel efficiency.  They don't seem to understand that you have an option of fuel efficiency or power.  You don't get both at the same time.   As for problems with condensation in the intercooler...happened with some...it was fixed.  Other niggling teething problems with the 1.6 have also been fixed.  Nothing really to complain about.

As for TFSI engines having to use lower compression ratio, not necessarily.  You're just packing more air in.  The injected fuel occurs in stages, initially to cool the cylinder right up to the point of spark.

True, depends what you mean by "success." Lots of people have purchased EB products, which is a "success." However, the engines have legions of problems with durability and mpg, ergo, all the class action lawsuits and resulting recalls and government investigations.

Yes, by definition CR has to be lower with a F/I motor of any incarnation.

[FoMoJo]

Ford has all sorts of class action suits resulting from EB, esp. in the F150 and in general EB just hasn't delivered anything new or improved.

Any teething problems are/have being dealt with through TSBs.  As for the design philosophy...small displacement TFSI (type) engines for both efficiency and power (though not at the same time)...imitation is the sincerest form of flattery...GM will be offering their version of EcoBoost in the next rendition of their pick-ups.  I hope to god they don't have push-rods in them.

[SVT666]

Ford has all sorts of class action suits resulting from EB, esp. in the F150 and in general EB just hasn't delivered anything new or improved.

Reliability /= fuel efficiency

[FoMoJo]

True, depends what you mean by "success." Lots of people have purchased EB products, which is a "success." However, the engines have legions of problems with durability and mpg, ergo, all the class action lawsuits and resulting recalls and government investigations.

Yes, by definition CR has to be lower with a F/I motor of any incarnation.

Depends what you mean by "legions".  A handful of litigious opportunists complaining about problems that don't exist, or have already been fixed, hardly counts as a legitimate problem.  As for durability, that's a crock. 

As for compression ration, without direct injection and the gas coming in with a load of hot air, it may well cause pre-ignition.  With adequate inter-cooling to keep the air cooler as well as direct injection to initially spray the cylinder to cool it and give the final shot prior to spark, there really is no need to reduce the compression ration.

[GoCougs]

Any teething problems are/have being dealt with through TSBs.  As for the design philosophy...small displacement TFSI (type) engines for both efficiency and power (though not at the same time)...imitation is the sincerest form of flattery...GM will be offering their version of EcoBoost in the next rendition of their pick-ups.  I hope to god they don't have push-rods in them.

EB problems are endemic to the design. Either way true that will get solved in time but poor real world mpg is endemic to turbo motors, not a design issue.

GM ain't copying Ford. GM isn't immune to wanting to game EPA testing procedure and turbocharging has been around a long time.

[MexicoCityM3]

BMW turbos are notoriously less reliable than the N/A engines. Things are improving but it takes one cursory look at forums to see this.

1M: Four unscheduled visits so far for injector/plugs/whatever problems. Easy and relatively inexpensive to fix, but still. 18,000 miles so far.
E90, E46 M3s: Three visits for engine related problems in 100,000 miles combined. E46: engine cooling (fixed under warranty probably was my own stupid fault), alternator went bad. E90: misfire because of a problem with an electrical grounding.

[MrH]

Not a good example IMO since EB hasn't gone well for Ford.

By definition a F/I motor has to run at lower CR than its N/A counterpart - that's why you use F/I (to get a higher effective CR).

Well, it's not only that.  You're also getting more O2 for a given effective CR.  Effective CR is only telling part of the story.

[GoCougs]

BMW turbos are notoriously less reliable than the N/A engines. Things are improving but it takes one cursory look at forums to see this.

1M: Four unscheduled visits so far for injector/plugs/whatever problems. Easy and relatively inexpensive to fix, but still. 18,000 miles so far.
E90, E46 M3s: Three visits for engine related problems in 100,000 miles combined. E46: engine cooling (fixed under warranty probably was my own stupid fault), alternator went bad. E90: misfire because of a problem with an electrical grounding.

Not just BMW but anyone who makes turbo motors. There's just a lot more going on and the environment (heat, cylinder pressure) is much more stressful. It will probably get better but without light year leaps in tech (esp. materials) they'll never be as durable/reliable as their N/A counterparts.

[MX793]

The premise in the previous post was same car boost vs. no boost.

The premise was for "equivalent" engines, one boosted and one not.  A NA 2-liter is not equivalent to a boosted one in terms of power output.  Yes, an NA 2-liter with a 10.5 CR is going to be more fuel efficient than a turbocharged 2-liter running off (minimal) boosted with a 9:1 CR.  But the turbo 2-liter off boost should be more fuel efficient than a similarly powerful, larger displacement motor (I.e. a 230 HP 3-liter) despite the lower thermal efficiency.

[12,000 RPM]

Not just BMW but anyone who makes turbo motors. There's just a lot more going on and the environment (heat, cylinder pressure) is much more stressful. It will probably get better but without light year leaps in tech (esp. materials) they'll never be as durable/reliable as their N/A counterparts.

Lol. U havent been paying attention. Turbos have made leaps and bounds from even just 20 years ago.

And Ford's Ecoboost lawsuits have nothing to do with fuel economy. It's a problem with water accumulation in the intercooler. Sure, a problem with a turbocharging related component, but its not like this is the first powertrain design flaw ever. Ford has made good on its "6 cylinder fuel economy with 8 banger power" claim, no lawsuits about that.

[MX793]

BMW turbos are notoriously less reliable than the N/A engines. Things are improving but it takes one cursory look at forums to see this.

1M: Four unscheduled visits so far for injector/plugs/whatever problems. Easy and relatively inexpensive to fix, but still. 18,000 miles so far.
E90, E46 M3s: Three visits for engine related problems in 100,000 miles combined. E46: engine cooling (fixed under warranty probably was my own stupid fault), alternator went bad. E90: misfire because of a problem with an electrical grounding.

Most of BMW's turbo motor woes have been unrelated to the turbo itself.  The majority were issues with the fuel injection system (fuel pumps especially were problematic).

[GoCougs]

The premise was for "equivalent" engines, one boosted and one not.  A NA 2-liter is not equivalent to a boosted one in terms of power output.  Yes, an NA 2-liter with a 10.5 CR is going to be more fuel efficient than a turbocharged 2-liter running off (minimal) boosted with a 9:1 CR.  But the turbo 2-liter off boost should be more fuel efficient than a similarly powerful, larger displacement motor (I.e. a 230 HP 3-liter) despite the lower thermal efficiency.

The same engine with a lower CR is going to be by definition less efficient was my point.

[MX793]

The same engine with a lower CR is going to be by definition less efficient was my point.

A true statement, but not what you said.

Well, better for the turbo engine but better not relative to an equivalent N/A engine. When not on boost you're driving the engine at lower compression ratio = by definition lower efficiency.

No one would consider a turbocharged engine and a non-turbocharged version of the same engine to be "equivalent".  "Equivalent" implies similarly performing (power and torque), and that's how it's been used by everyone in the context of this thread to date.

[Raza]

E320 weighs about a ton more than the Jetta though, so not necessarily turbo magic in action.

True, there was about 500 pounds between the cars.

[Char]

Has the DI carbon buildup problem been solved by anybody yet?

Yeah, it's called not being a German car. Though, BMW's N55 doesn't have the carbon buildup.

[12,000 RPM]

Yeah, it's called not being a German car. Though, BMW's N55 doesn't have the carbon buildup.

Mazda's 2.3T has carbon buildup problems. So your posts are what we call "not having a fucking clue"

[GoCougs]

Char's right though - Germans have some issues building engines.

[Char]

Mazda's 2.3T has carbon buildup problems. So your posts are what we call "not having a fucking clue"

And the Japanese are the first ones to figure out how to avoid the issue (which is why Toyota uses 2 sets of injectors)

Typical of you to spout off the hip and have no fucking clue - as usual.

[hotrodalex]

And Mazda is Japanese and their 2.3T has carbon buildup problems. So Toyota was the first to avoid the issue, not the Japanese.

[Char]

And Mazda is Japanese and their 2.3T has carbon buildup problems. So Toyota was the first to avoid the issue, not the Japanese.

Oh and Subaru, who is also Japanese.

[MX793]

Oh and Subaru, who is also Japanese.

Too early to tell on Subaru.  They only have 2 motors running DI, both came out for 2014, and one of them is using Toyota's DI system with the secondary injectors to deal with carbon buildup.  The other (using Subie's own DI system) remains to be seen.

[hotrodalex]

Oh and Subaru, who is also Japanese.

The engine in the BRZ which was built in collaboration with Toyota? The one that uses Toyota DI tech? The one that Subaru apparently didn't even want to put DI on?

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2698