http://blog.caranddriver.com/honda-introduces-turbocharged-direct-injection-three-and-four-cylinder-engines-2013-tokyo-auto-show/ (http://blog.caranddriver.com/honda-introduces-turbocharged-direct-injection-three-and-four-cylinder-engines-2013-tokyo-auto-show/)
QuoteHonda is finally getting on the turbocharged, direct-injection bandwagon with three new engines: a 1.5-liter turbo four, a three-cylinder 1.0-liter turbo, and a 2.0-liter turbo four. The most interesting one, at least to enthusiasts, will be the 2.0-liter unit. Honda was coy about horsepower figures, but did go so far as to say that the engine will be, "10-percent more fun than the current 3.5-liter V-6." If we take that to mean 10-percent more power, then the new 2.0-liter turbo four will have about 300 horses.
On the design front, the engine gets the aforementioned direct injection, it will also get sodium-cooled exhaust valves, an electrically controlled wastegate for the turbocharger, and high-tumble intake ports. The redline in the cars we drove was marked at 7000 rpm.
Honda Civic Type R
We sampled the new 2.0-liter in a European-market Civic Type R with a six-speed manual. Acceleration is seriously quick through first gear; engine noise is loud, but Honda may have played up the exhaust and intake noise to suit the character of the Type R. In addition to the six-speed manual, Honda is preparing an eight-speed dual-clutch automatic with a torque converter that would work with the four-cylinder members of this new engine family.
Our drive was limited to the oval at Honda's Tochigi proving ground, so it was difficult to sniff out turbo lag, but in the Euro Civic, the engine feels mighty strong.
Before you get too excited, this engine is still a few years off in the U.S. At the earliest, we may see this engine in three years. What Honda, or Acura, will put it in is yet to be determined, but it would make sense in the TL replacement, the upcoming TLX, right on down to the Accord or a hot Civic.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 09, 2014, 02:16:06 PM
http://blog.caranddriver.com/honda-introduces-turbocharged-direct-injection-three-and-four-cylinder-engines-2013-tokyo-auto-show/ (http://blog.caranddriver.com/honda-introduces-turbocharged-direct-injection-three-and-four-cylinder-engines-2013-tokyo-auto-show/)
So it is pretty much unanimous, DI Turbo engines are the future.
No way, all these companies will upend billions of dollars invested once the EPA gets wise to turbo tricks
Just kidding, yea, DI-T is the future for better or worse.
Has the DI carbon buildup problem been solved by anybody yet?
I think the Italians solved it with their special tune up.
Quote from: Speed_Racer on August 09, 2014, 06:18:34 PM
Has the DI carbon buildup problem been solved by anybody yet?
Yea, they put on secondary regular injectors. Cheaper than recalls/warranty claims I guess. First car I heard that does this is the Toyobaru Freeze Breeze
Sad. Very sad. Though if someone is gonna make turbo engines a wee bit less awful it's definitely gonna be Honda.
Underneath all the bluster you're just a fanboy at heart, my friend.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on August 09, 2014, 08:34:32 PM
Underneath all the bluster you're just a fanboy at heart, my friend.
Turbos? How can I be? The data just ain't there.
Honda? Meh, so-so. Acura is a borderline embarrassment and Honda is just okay.
Copycats. :lol:
Quote from: GoCougs on August 09, 2014, 08:43:56 PM
Turbos? How can I be? The data just ain't there.
Sure it is, you just ignore it and cherry pick spuriously to arrive at the conclusion you prefer. There are countless examples of cars of similar weight and performance that gained 5-10 MPG switching to turbocharging.
Honda desperately needs new hardware, and cars, but lets start with the hardware.
Their hardware is OK. It's the application, and the cars. They keep waffling back and forth from good to bad. Acura had the Integra/Legend, then fell off when they went to the 1g TL/RL, then came back with the 1G TSX/3G TL, then fell off again with the next iterations and the killing of the RSX. Whoever is handling their product planning needs to be put on trial.
In real world MPG with my driving style I see very little benefit, if any. My 1M and E46 M3 are very close in the mileage I get and comparisons cannot get any closer. Both have 340hp and weigh almost the same. One N/A, one turbo.
The benefit in the 1M is the real-world, everyday fun that you get from the low-end turbo torque. Downside is the lack of good noise and throttle response.
IDK man. 328i gained like 10 MPG going turbo. Hi po turbo motors are different. Plus the 1 is a brick. It gets like 2-3 MPG worse than the 3 on the highway.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on August 11, 2014, 04:59:14 PM
In real world MPG with my driving style I see very little benefit, if any. My 1M and E46 M3 are very close in the mileage I get and comparisons cannot get any closer. Both have 340hp and weigh almost the same. One N/A, one turbo.
The benefit in the 1M is the real-world, everyday fun that you get from the low-end turbo torque. Downside is the lack of good noise and throttle response.
My Jetta Wolfsburg got much better gas mileage than my E320, which was not as quick as my Jetta. 21 fewer horsepower, but quicker and had much better fuel mileage.
Quote from: Raza on August 11, 2014, 08:54:01 PM
My Jetta Wolfsburg got much better gas mileage than my E320, which was not as quick as my Jetta. 21 fewer horsepower, but quicker and had much better fuel mileage.
E320 weighs about a ton more than the Jetta though, so not necessarily turbo magic in action.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 11, 2014, 08:41:38 PM
IDK man. 328i gained like 10 MPG going turbo. Hi po turbo motors are different. Plus the 1 is a brick. It gets like 2-3 MPG worse than the 3 on the highway.
Yes the 1 is a brick and that doesn't help it.
I mean, Turbo engines get better MPG if you stay out of boost. The turbo power adder is really only to add power when you need it. Proper gearing and weight means the car should get around fine without it
Quote from: 2o6 on August 11, 2014, 09:23:35 PM
I mean, Turbo engines get better MPG if you stay out of boost. The turbo power adder is really only to add power when you need it. Proper gearing and weight means the car should get around fine without it
What is this out of boost thing you're talking about? Never heard about such a thing!
:lol:
I think that's what happens when you turn the car off.
Quote from: hotrodalex on August 11, 2014, 09:31:25 PM
I think that's what happens when you turn the car off.
Precisely. I would live in boost.
Quote from: 2o6 on August 11, 2014, 09:23:35 PM
I mean, Turbo engines get better MPG if you stay out of boost. The turbo power adder is really only to add power when you need it. Proper gearing and weight means the car should get around fine without it
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.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on August 11, 2014, 04:59:14 PM
In real world MPG with my driving style I see very little benefit, if any. My 1M and E46 M3 are very close in the mileage I get and comparisons cannot get any closer. Both have 340hp and weigh almost the same. One N/A, one turbo.
The benefit in the 1M is the real-world, everyday fun that you get from the low-end turbo torque. Downside is the lack of good noise and throttle response.
Well, pretty much you and every other person who owns a turbo sees the same thing IRL ;).
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on August 11, 2014, 09:10:06 PM
E320 weighs about a ton more than the Jetta though, so not necessarily turbo magic in action.
And older tech, with slushie AT, and more power...
Quote from: GoCougs on August 11, 2014, 10:49:55 PM
Well, pretty much you and every other person who owns a turbo sees the same thing IRL ;).
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.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 11, 2014, 10:48:56 PM
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.
Lower thermal efficiency != lower fuel efficiency in many cases. The two cannot be directly correlated. Too many other factors.
Quote from: CJ on August 12, 2014, 04:33:30 AM
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.
Yep. GTI VR6 to GTI 1.8T... E90 328i to F30 328i... Sonata 3.3L V6 to 2.0T... etc... Cougs is purposely making the wrong comparisons to arrive at a predetermined conclusion, contrary to mountains of real world evidence.
I am still an NA guy. NA is best. NA is ideal. But with $4 gas and limited funds.... I put it like this, boost is like a buffet to NA's fine cuisine. I would love every meal to be fine French food but at the end of the day I have $x and daddy gotta eat :lol:
Quote from: GoCougs on August 11, 2014, 10:48:56 PM
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.
Mainstream NA and turbo engines are all about the same CR. Toyota/Honda/Nissan mainstream V6s are all in the mid 10s, Fusion/Sonata 2.0T are 10.0:1. Half a pt of compression is not a huge difference. It's not the 70s where turbo engines had like a 3 pt difference in compression.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 11, 2014, 10:48:56 PM
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.
EcoBoost engines are 10.0:1 compression.
Quote from: MX793 on August 12, 2014, 04:56:03 AM
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).
Quote from: CJ on August 12, 2014, 04:33:30 AM
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).
Quote from: FoMoJo on August 12, 2014, 06:31:05 AM
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).
Quote from: GoCougs on August 12, 2014, 08:26:45 AM
Not a good example IMO since EB hasn't gone well for Ford.
Please elaborate.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 12, 2014, 08:17:59 AM
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.
Quote from: SVT666 on August 12, 2014, 08:43:14 AM
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.
Quote from: MX793 on August 12, 2014, 09:01:05 AM
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.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 12, 2014, 08:26:45 AM
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.
Quote from: FoMoJo on August 12, 2014, 09:17:32 AM
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.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 12, 2014, 09:12:56 AM
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.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 12, 2014, 09:12:56 AM
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
Quote from: GoCougs on August 12, 2014, 09:36:45 AM
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.
Quote from: FoMoJo on August 12, 2014, 09:37:04 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 12, 2014, 08:26:45 AM
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.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on August 12, 2014, 10:07:44 AM
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.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 12, 2014, 09:14:27 AM
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.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 12, 2014, 10:39:55 AM
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.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on August 12, 2014, 10:07:44 AM
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).
Quote from: MX793 on August 12, 2014, 11:09:25 AM
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.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 12, 2014, 07:16:16 PM
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.
QuoteWell, 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.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on August 11, 2014, 09:10:06 PM
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.
Quote from: Speed_Racer on August 09, 2014, 06:18:34 PM
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.
Quote from: Char on August 17, 2014, 06:36:22 PM
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"
Char's right though - Germans have some issues building engines.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 17, 2014, 08:41:48 PM
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.
And Mazda is Japanese and their 2.3T has carbon buildup problems. So Toyota was the first to avoid the issue, not the Japanese.
Quote from: hotrodalex on August 18, 2014, 02:19:57 PM
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.
Quote from: Char on August 18, 2014, 02:22:25 PM
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.
Quote from: Char on August 18, 2014, 02:22:25 PM
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 (http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2698)
Quote from: hotrodalex on August 18, 2014, 02:33:00 PM
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 (http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2698)
Well aware of it.
Quote from: Char on August 18, 2014, 02:10:17 PM
And the Japanese are the first ones to figure out how to avoid the issue
No, actually it was the Koreans with Hyundai's GDI system.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 19, 2014, 06:09:39 AM
No, actually it was the Koreans with Hyundai's GDI system.
What's their solution at this point?
Quote from: MrH on August 19, 2014, 07:47:20 AM
What's their solution at this point?
From what I understand a much less aggressive use of EGR, and a different crankcase ventilation method.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 19, 2014, 06:09:39 AM
No, actually it was the Koreans with Hyundai's GDI system.
I don't think that's true at all.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 09, 2014, 08:17:08 PM
Yea, they put on secondary regular injectors. Cheaper than recalls/warranty claims I guess. First car I heard that does this is the Toyobaru Freeze Breeze
The 3.5L V6 in the IS350 has had the secondary injectors since it was introduced in 2005 as a 2006 model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_GR_engine#2GR-FSE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_GR_engine#2GR-FSE)
Quote from: Char on August 19, 2014, 08:44:24 AM
I don't think that's true at all.
"It's about what you know, so fuck what you think" - The RZA
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on August 21, 2014, 05:49:58 AM
"It's about what you know, so fuck what you think" - The RZA
Ok, so I KNOW you're wrong.
Quote from: afty on August 20, 2014, 11:19:52 PM
The 3.5L V6 in the IS350 has had the secondary injectors since it was introduced in 2005 as a 2006 model. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_GR_engine#2GR-FSE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_GR_engine#2GR-FSE)
That's exactly what I was going to post.