http://www.autonews.com/article/20140714/OEM01/307149926/toyotas-massive-engine-overhaul (http://www.autonews.com/article/20140714/OEM01/307149926/toyotas-massive-engine-overhaul)
QuoteTurbo Camry
The next Camry will be the first vehicle getting Toyota's full TNGA treatment, complete with a new platform and an engine built on a TNGA-tailored line. Other TNGA cars arriving before then, including the Prius, will get TNGA engines made on existing lines.
One possible "hair accessory" for the Camry: Toyota is considering a downsized inline-four turbo as an alternative to the V-6, Saga said.
"It might be able to replace a six-cylinder with a four-cylinder plus turbo plus direct injection," he said. "Compared to a V-6, we think this solution will be less costly."
But marketers are evaluating whether Americans will accept the idea.
"Eventually we think this is where the technology is going, but right now we don't know what the reaction of U.S. customers will be," he said. "So probably right up until the last moment, we will have to be ready with both and watch customer feedback."
Toyota's caution comes as rivals plunge into downsized turbocharging, especially Ford Motor Co. with its EcoBoost line of small, fuel-efficient turbocharged engines.
Makes sense, and if anyone can actually make good on the promises of turbocharging it's Toyota. V6 take rate is so low (take rate over the last 10 years is about 10% by my analysis) I don't think their customer base will care. I bet most of the V6s out there were holdovers people essentially bought by accident. Plus now the backwards cap contingent can chip their mommy's cars without mommy's knowledge and torque steer themseves out of the gene pool :evildude:
There's a difference between "will" and "might."
And 10 percent of Camrys is still a *lot* of cars -- it would be more than 40,000 last year, the equivalent of *total* Mazda6 sales.
I can't actually see them doing this, the 2.0T in the NX seems like a token effort to appeal to Europe rather than a legit effort.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 19, 2014, 08:05:49 AM
http://www.autonews.com/article/20140714/OEM01/307149926/toyotas-massive-engine-overhaul (http://www.autonews.com/article/20140714/OEM01/307149926/toyotas-massive-engine-overhaul)
Makes sense, and if anyone can actually make good on the promises of turbocharging it's Toyota. V6 take rate is so low (take rate over the last 10 years is about 10% by my analysis) I don't think their customer base will care. I bet most of the V6s out there were holdovers people essentially bought by accident. Plus now the backwards cap contingent can chip their mommy's cars without mommy's knowledge and torque steer themseves out of the gene pool :evildude:
I can't imagine most Camry buyers really worrying about what's under the hood as long as the car has a certain amount of pep and doesn't require a lot of care.
Quote from: CLKid on July 19, 2014, 08:38:45 AM
I can't imagine most Camry buyers really worrying about what's under the hood as long as the car has a certain amount of pep and doesn't require a lot of care.
Me too. I think the average Camry buyer wouldn't notice if it had a 83hp 3cyl in the thing so long as it rode smooth.
Keep in mind there are still people out there who once test drove a four cylinder Chevette back in 1976 so therefore they still believe all four cylinder engines are slow pieces of crap. But if they really want a V6 that badly, there's always the geezermobile Avalon which is ideally suited to the tastes of the typical Geritol addict, anyway.
Personally, I've driven both I4 and V6 Honda Accords and I preferred the way the four-pot drove. The V6 felt too nose-heavy and understeered through fast corners. I value good handling over outright power and found the four cylinder car to be much nicer to drive and not lacking for oomph, either. Still hopelessly boring, mind you.
Fusion, Optima, Sonata and Mazda 6 all prove you don't need a V6 in 2014.
I'll always take a V6 over any 4 banger ever made. But I'm not like most people so I can see this happeneing.
Quote from: Madman on July 20, 2014, 05:45:08 PM
Fusion, Optima, Sonata and Mazda 6 all prove you don't need a V6 in 2014.
Mazda6 is debatable. I want to drive one. But the Fusion and Sonata/Optima are a good second or so slower to 60 and through the 1/4, despite weighing the same, having the same number of gears, and making "more horsepower" than the Camry and Accord V6. So there is clearly something missing with the 2.0Ts. They don't get much better gas mileage, if any at all, either.
My beef with the V6 mainstreamers is that they don't beef up the rest of the car to deal with the power. My brother has an Altima V6, and it would be OK if the brakes and suspension didn't totally suck. My friends I grew up with all had Altima V6s and Maximas, and they updated the brakes and suspensions.... those cars were flat out fun and fast without being dangerous. I remember my buddy's Altima blowing my mind in a panic stop like it was yesterday. But there's next to no market for beefed up Camrys.
Nah, the Camry V6 ain't going nowhere. Its V6 take rate is big - like ~25%. It's integral to the line, esp. the vastly improved NVH vs. a 4 banger, and this is independent of the fact that pretty much all recent mainstream turbo implementations have been mediocre to poor; in the class and otherwise. I wouldn't be surprised to see turbo engines disappear once again (as they did after the experiment of the '80s).
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 20, 2014, 06:24:13 PM
Mazda6 is debatable. I want to drive one. But the Fusion and Sonata/Optima are a good second or so slower to 60 and through the 1/4, despite weighing the same, having the same number of gears, and making "more horsepower" than the Camry and Accord V6. So there is clearly something missing with the 2.0Ts. They don't get much better gas mileage, if any at all, either.
The fusion/sonata are down 30 hp to the camcord v6s, that is why they are slower.
They do get better EPA mileage, that is all they are after, fooling the govt., real world doesn't matter.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 20, 2014, 08:20:52 PM
Nah, the Camry V6 ain't going nowhere. Its V6 take rate is big - like ~25%. It's integral to the line, esp. the vastly improved NVH vs. a 4 banger, and this is independent of the fact that pretty much all recent mainstream turbo implementations have been mediocre to poor; in the class and otherwise. I wouldn't be surprised to see turbo engines disappear once again (as they did after the experiment of the '80s).
With cafe mandates going through the roof the small turbo engines are here to stay as long as they have an advantage in EPA testing.
Govt. incentives are a hard thing to get around.
VW and Ford are ahead of the curve with high comp turbo engines for the mainstream, the rest will play catchup.
Quote from: SVT32V on July 20, 2014, 09:34:41 PM
With cafe mandates going through the roof the small turbo engines are here to stay as long as they have an advantage in EPA testing.
Govt. incentives are a hard thing to get around.
VW and Ford are ahead of the curve with high comp turbo engines for the mainstream, the rest will play catchup.
True, but the EPA/government doesn't like getting gamed unless it's benefitting, and be sure that they're watching the recent class action suits regarding turbo MPG falling short.
Ford Ecoboost has gone poorly - the 2.0T in the Edge, Explorer and Taurus is :facepalm: and not only has Ford had issues with EB V6 reliability and class action suits, the new (more reliable/durable) GM 6.2L performs as good or better in all regards, including EPA MPG ratings (both rated 17 mpg combined). The 2.0T in the Fusion isn't a disaster but it falls notably short of the Camcord V6s.
VW turbo charging is only playing catch up with the rest of the N/A class (GTI, GLI, Tiguan) or only available in very expensive performance cars (S6, S7, A8 etc.) that have little relevance to mainstream cars.
N/A mills are the future for cheap, reliable and high mpg vehicles. Turbocharging simply has too many compromises. Without the broken EPA rating system they'd likely never would have seen the light of day in a mainstream family sedan.
Cougs, for a relatively young guy with a lot of technical knowledge, you sure are perpetually anti-change.
Not that I necessarily disagree with you in this particular case, but I kinda knew what you were going to say before you said it, you know?
Quote from: GoCougs on July 20, 2014, 10:22:38 PM
VW turbo charging is only playing catch up with the rest of the N/A class (GTI, GLI, Tiguan)
No way, the VWAG 2.0Ts have been and always will be world class. They had some teething issues with DI at the beginning, but even then, there's nothing in the N/A class that comes close as far as torque and fuel economy.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 20, 2014, 10:22:38 PMN/A mills are the future for cheap, reliable and high mpg vehicles. Turbocharging simply has too many compromises. Without the broken EPA rating system they'd likely never would have seen the light of day in a mainstream family sedan.
Again, bzzzt, wrong. You can deny the validity of EPA testing, but these figures are right in line with real world data... if not better looking for NA
(http://i.imgur.com/9Gksmta.png?1)
There's two things that make turbo engines work well... they need enough base displacement to not need to be in boost all the time to get the car moving (which is why Ford's 1.6 is a fail in the Fusion but a gem in the Fiesta ST), and the company making them has to have a strong engineering dept (which is why Hyundai's turbo engines are so terrible). Toyota knows what it's doing- this is why it's waited so long to jump into the mix.
Lololololol @ this though:
Quote from: GoCougs on July 20, 2014, 10:22:38 PMWithout the broken EPA rating system they'd likely never would have seen the light of day in a mainstream family sedan.
There have been turbo mainstreamers for quite some time Cougs. 626, Galant VR-4, Passat, etc. etc. And even without the EPA, manufacturers are looking for ways to get a competitive edge, which includes fuel economy, which a well configured/designed turbo engine will always have over an N/A engine. Stop cherrypicking the worst (Ford and Hyundai) when there are so many examples that work (BMW, Mercedes, VWAG, and I'm sure Toyota/Lexus with the NX and in time the Camry). Like Soup said it's weird that a mechanical engineer would be such an automotive luddite
Quote from: Soup DeVille on July 20, 2014, 10:57:02 PM
Cougs, for a relatively young guy with a lot of technical knowledge, you sure are perpetually anti-change.
Not that I necessarily disagree with you in this particular case, but I kinda knew what you were going to say before you said it, you know?
I'm perpetually "proof is in the puddin" type. Change is good if it matters, and a lot of times; in virtually all aspects of life not just automotive tech; the answer is to do nothing/or nothing different.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 20, 2014, 10:22:38 PM
True, but the EPA/government doesn't like getting gamed unless it's benefitting, and be sure that they're watching the recent class action suits regarding turbo MPG falling short.
Ford Ecoboost has gone poorly - the 2.0T in the Edge, Explorer and Taurus is :facepalm: and not only has Ford had issues with EB V6 reliability and class action suits, the new (more reliable/durable) GM 6.2L performs as good or better in all regards, including EPA MPG ratings (both rated 17 mpg combined). The 2.0T in the Fusion isn't a disaster but it falls notably short of the Camcord V6s.
VW turbo charging is only playing catch up with the rest of the N/A class (GTI, GLI, Tiguan) or only available in very expensive performance cars (S6, S7, A8 etc.) that have little relevance to mainstream cars.
N/A mills are the future for cheap, reliable and high mpg vehicles. Turbocharging simply has too many compromises. Without the broken EPA rating system they'd likely never would have seen the light of day in a mainstream family sedan.
The govt. doesn't care about the real world (see housing crisis among many others), you of all people must have a hard time arguing against the unintended consequences of govt incentives.
The EB F-150 is a big success with a large % of uptake, in the next generation of F-150 it will best all other trucks in mpg, just like it did previously. The EB v6 does not have reliability issues anymore than the 6.2.
The EB V6 in cars and SUVs has worked quite well, as does the EB 4 in fiesta, focus, etc. No doubt the EB 2.0 in large cars was not a great.
No matter how you feel about it, most major manufacturers are going in this direction (smaller high comp turbo engines) including GM, BMW, Mercedes, Audi/VW always was in this camp.
Honda, toyota and nissan are following. You are an intelligent man, strange it is hard for you to see this. I don't think it is a step in the right direction but it is the trend for many reasons.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 21, 2014, 05:07:12 AM
No way, the VWAG 2.0Ts have been and always will be world class. They had some teething issues with DI at the beginning, but even then, there's nothing in the N/A class that comes close as far as torque and fuel economy.
Again, bzzzt, wrong. You can deny the validity of EPA testing, but these figures are right in line with real world data... if not better looking for NA
(http://i.imgur.com/9Gksmta.png?1)
There's two things that make turbo engines work well... they need enough base displacement to not need to be in boost all the time to get the car moving (which is why Ford's 1.6 is a fail in the Fusion but a gem in the Fiesta ST), and the company making them has to have a strong engineering dept (which is why Hyundai's turbo engines are so terrible). Toyota knows what it's doing- this is why it's waited so long to jump into the mix.
Lololololol @ this though:
There have been turbo mainstreamers for quite some time Cougs. 626, Galant VR-4, Passat, etc. etc. And even without the EPA, manufacturers are looking for ways to get a competitive edge, which includes fuel economy, which a well configured/designed turbo engine will always have over an N/A engine. Stop cherrypicking the worst (Ford and Hyundai) when there are so many examples that work (BMW, Mercedes, VWAG, and I'm sure Toyota/Lexus with the NX and in time the Camry). Like Soup said it's weird that a mechanical engineer would be such an automotive luddite
"World class" yet the VWAG 2.0T is easily outdone an every level by the 10-year-old Camcord V6.
Your OP was gossip that said Toyota is investigating is as a possibility. Still not one turbo in their stable that matters. Looking at stats they'd be nuts to swap out a V6 for a turbo-4 in the Camry (remember, the Camry V6 is ~10 years old and still outdoes the new crop of turbos in the class).
And where are those "turbo mainstreamers" today?
Turbos only count when automakers get cheap (BMW 2.0T lol) or want to put a lot of power in a dainty package (STi) or want huge levels of power but can't afford the development of an N/A mill (GT-R, RS7, M5, etc.) or for a diesel (and that's being generous) or to game the EPA test system. Other than that, turbos simply can't deliver as well as a good N/A mill.
Quote from: SVT32V on July 21, 2014, 07:34:12 AM
The govt. doesn't care about the real world (see housing crisis among many others), you of all people must have a hard time arguing against the unintended consequences of govt incentives.
The EB F-150 is a big success with a large % of uptake, in the next generation of F-150 it will best all other trucks in mpg, just like it did previously. The EB v6 does not have reliability issues anymore than the 6.2.
The EB V6 in cars and SUVs has worked quite well, as does the EB 4 in fiesta, focus, etc. No doubt the EB 2.0 in large cars was not a great.
No matter how you feel about it, most major manufacturers are going in this direction (smaller high comp turbo engines) including GM, BMW, Mercedes, Audi/VW always was in this camp.
Honda, toyota and nissan are following. You are an intelligent man, strange it is hard for you to see this. I don't think it is a step in the right direction but it is the trend for many reasons.
The EPA revised its testing procedure ~10 years ago after it found automakers were able to game the test. It is most certainly liable to do it again now that there is still plenty of gaming going on.
Lots of people buy the EB V6 F-150 but it's not gone entirely well - class action suits and now it is outdone by GM's ancient pooprod 6.2L V8 in power and performance, and is equal in EPA mpg rating.
I'll get on the turbo train once they're proven to be better than a good N/A mill in mainstream applications. They never have been and they are currently not.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 21, 2014, 07:39:28 AM
"World class" yet the VWAG 2.0T is easily outdone an every level by the 10-year-old Camcord V6.
Besides low end torque and real world fuel economy. But those are minor considerations for the average driver
Quote from: GoCougs on July 21, 2014, 07:39:28 AMYour OP was gossip that said Toyota is investigating is as a possibility. Still not one turbo in their stable that matters. Looking at stats they'd be nuts to swap out a V6 for a turbo-4 in the Camry (remember, the Camry V6 is ~10 years old and still outdoes the new crop of turbos in the class).
And who gets to decide what "matters"? Not you I hope, lol!
And why would they be nuts? They will be the first to make an Atkinson cycle turbo, which will supposedly boost fuel economy above and beyond the run of the mill 2.0Ts from other companies.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 21, 2014, 07:39:28 AMAnd where are those "turbo mainstreamers" today?
Umm, VWAG & Ford's lineups.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 21, 2014, 07:39:28 AMTurbos only count when automakers get cheap (BMW 2.0T lol) or want to put a lot of power in a dainty package (STi) or want huge levels of power but can't afford the development of an N/A mill (GT-R, RS7, M5, etc.) or for a diesel (and that's being generous) or to game the EPA test system. Other than that, turbos simply can't deliver as well as a good N/A mill.
Lol, lol, and lol. BMW 2.0T is way more complicated and most likely more expensive than the N52 NA 6 it replaced. Direct injection + a twin scrool turbocharger + intercooler on top of the double VANOS and Valvetronic systems. Yea, BMW def cheaped out on that one. We are in agreement that turbocharging can net a high output out of a small engine size. And lol @ a turbo engine being cheaper to develop than an N/A one. Maybe something like the V10 out of the old M5, but on average, no. When the GR V6 came out in ~05, it brought no new tech to the table over the engine it replaced. Are you really going to sit here and say such an engine was more expensive/harder to develop than a manufacturer's first foray back into turbocharging? Lmao.
I'm going to say something which every CarSpinner wants to hear:
The Camry should be offered with a transverse V8!!! :wtf:
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 19, 2014, 08:05:49 AM
Makes sense, and if anyone can actually make good on the promises of turbocharging it's Toyota. V6 take rate is so low (take rate over the last 10 years is about 10% by my analysis) I don't think their customer base will care. I bet most of the V6s out there were holdovers people essentially bought by accident. Plus now the backwards cap contingent can chip their mommy's cars without mommy's knowledge and torque steer themseves out of the gene pool :evildude:
Hopefully, they can sort out all their spaghetti code before they try and build a T4. I suspect the coding a bit more complicated than in the run-of-the-mill V6 :evildude:.
Wait I thought Sporty hated turbos.
Or is that the hatred for Cougs is so strong that it overcomes the turbo hate?
I like to go fast. Turbo make you go fast. I like turbo.
Quote from: hotrodalex on July 21, 2014, 09:35:14 AM
Wait I thought Sporty hated turbos.
Or is that the hatred for Cougs is so strong that it overcomes the turbo hate?
I still prefer NA if I can have it. But it's hard to deny the advantages of turbos, when they are well applied/designed. A 335i is like 1 second faster through the 1/4 than a G37 but it gets the same gas mileage. And that's not even getting into mods. Hard to argue.
Quote from: hotrodalex on July 21, 2014, 09:35:14 AM
Wait I thought Sporty hated turbos.
Or is that the hatred for Cougs is so strong that it overcomes the turbo hate?
Sporty ain't a hater he just gets unhinged and makes stuff up, which includes putting stock into bogus EPA mpg rating.s
The G37 has always had launch issues, and isn't as quick 0-60 but traps the same in 1/4 mile yet being down 0.3 sec and catches the 335i by 150 mph (http://www.myg37.com/forums/other-cars/206349-r-and-t-comparison-s4-vs-335i-vs-g37s-vs-tl-sh-awd.html).
Turbos have proven to be sucky - I am awaiting cogent argument to the contrary (that is, other than gaming non-real world EPA mpg testing).
F40 > F50
The F50 is such a better car there is almost no comparison.
The piss-your-pants-o-meter disagrees.
I honestly prefer the F50
Former Autocar homie/current /drive homie Chris Harris. Who is this Chris Harris guy?
Ferrari F40 v Ferrari F50. Like You've Never Seen Them Before /CHRIS HARRIS ON CARS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MDTcXGsjuo#ws)
Quote from: GoCougs on July 21, 2014, 07:39:28 AM
"World class" yet the VWAG 2.0T is easily outdone an every level by the 10-year-old Camcord V6.
I disagree. Having owned both an older 2.0T and the same engine as the 10 year old Camry V6, I'll say the 10 year old Camry V6 is a fine engine, and actually does get very similar gas mileage to the 2.0T, but is not "easily outdone" by any means. A couple examples:
-Overall gas mileage ratings are similar, but from experience the highway on the 2.0T is better. They seem to do about the same in city driving, maybe a mile or so advantage to the Passat but not much.
-The 2.0T Passat was faster than the 10 year old Camry V6 by about half a second. Motor Trend tested both, 05 Camry was 7.2 seconds, 08 Passat (same engine as 06) was 6.7 seconds. Will most people notice? No. But the V6 was not faster and I do notice it because sometimes I'm in a "bat out of hell" mood.
-Both had little issues if you don't take care of them. Camry- oil sludge. 2.0T- carbon build up. Both issues were primarily fixed later on.
Downsides to the 2.0T over the V6:
-It takes premium to achieve those numbers. That eliminates the minor gas mileage advantage cost wise.
-More expensive/irritating to work on, but that probably doesn't matter much to the average person.
They're totally different personalities and I could agree the V6 is the more sensible choice of the 2 in the midsizer application (at the time), but it's not as clear cut as you're saying. I'll refrain on commenting on the current Passat vs. 10 year old Camry engine because the more I interact with them the more annoyed I am by what VW has done to it on pretty much every level, and the newer Camry V6 engine is ridiculous (and pretty impressive, honestly) but for the comparable cars at the time my comments stand.
TL,DR: I disagree that the 2.0T at the time compared to the 10 year old Camry V6 was an inferior engine, just a different approach for similar overall results. Current 2.0T vs. current Camry V6... Yeah, I'd definitely have to side with Cougs that right now the NA option is better, but disagree overall on the validity of turbos.
Biggest thing I like about the F50 is the Niki Lauda connection, but other than that F40 all the way.
Actually I was referring to the 3.5L V6 that debuted in summer 2006 on the MY2007 Camry and the 3.0L V6 that debuted in summer 2002 on the MY2003 Accord (for an average of 10 years old).
Quote from: GoCougs on July 21, 2014, 05:22:18 PM
Actually I was referring to the 3.5L V6 that debuted in summer 2006 on the MY2007 Camry and the 3.0L V6 that debuted in summer 2002 on the MY2003 Accord (for an average of 10 years old).
Well see, specifics matter :lol:. Yeah, the 3.5L is a very nice engine and the Accord V6 was definitely a nice balance of power without sacrificing much efficiency... Yeah, I'd have to agree both of those are better overall than the 2.0T.
What about the 3.6 V6, the 300HP version on the European models B6 R36, the B7 (0-62 mph in 5.5sec) and the CC?
Quote from: AltinD on July 22, 2014, 07:43:12 AM
What about the 3.6 V6, the 300HP version on the European models B6 R36, the B7 (0-62 mph in 5.5sec) and the CC?
Those aren't turbocharged, and unfortunately speak to Cougs point.
The 2.0T can make Camry HP and then some while sacrificing nothing in gas mileage, but that's a pointless discussion as the only evidence Cougs accepts is the engineering theory he makes up.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 22, 2014, 11:25:44 AM
Those aren't turbocharged, and unfortunately speak to Cougs point.
The 2.0T can make Camry HP and then some while sacrificing nothing in gas mileage, but that's a pointless discussion as the only evidence Cougs accepts is the engineering theory he makes up.
Not to hijack this thread but Ford has released the engine lineup for the 2015 F150 The below discusses the 2.7 Ecoboost. In my opinion it's just more evidence of the advantages of turbocharging.
2.7-liter EcoBoost power
The high-output, twin-turbo 2.7-liter EcoBoost V6 features an entirely new design that delivers power and performance in a strong, smart package. The engine produces 325 horsepower and 375 lb.-ft. of torque – improving the power-to-weight ratio of the 2015 truck by 15 percent over the 2014 5.0-liter V8-equipped F-150 with similar torque output, thanks to vehicle light-weighting.
The 2.7-liter EcoBoost 4x2 has a maximum payload rating of 2,250 pounds and maximum tow rating of 8,500 pounds, ideal for meeting mid-range capability needs.
Boosting 2.7-liter EcoBoost fuel efficiency is the debut of standard Auto Start-Stop technology for F-150. This technology, specially tuned for truck customers, shuts off the engine when the vehicle is at a stop. When the brake is released, the engine restarts quickly. Auto Start-Stop helps reduce fuel consumption and emissions when the truck is stopped and the engine is off. The technology is off when towing or in four-wheel-drive mode.
The 2.7-liter EcoBoost engine also features Ford's first use of a compacted graphite iron cylinder block in a gasoline engine, the same material used in Ford's 6.7-liter Power Stroke® turbo diesel V8 in Super Duty trucks. The composite CGI/aluminum cylinder block saves weight while providing strength where it's needed most for durability.
Advanced technology, power and efficiency combine to create an engine for F-150 that boasts more than twice the horsepower, torque and towing capability of the Toyota Tacoma midsize pickup truck with identical displacement 2.7-liter four-cylinder engine.
Ford testing shows the 2.7-liter EcoBoost also outperforming Ram 1500 3.0-liter V6 EcoDiesel and Chevrolet Silverado 1500 5.3-liter V8 while towing a 7,000-pound enclosed trailer up Davis Dam in Arizona. This is the same grade the Society of Automotive Engineers
Quote from: AltinD on July 22, 2014, 07:43:12 AM
What about the 3.6 V6, the 300HP version on the European models B6 R36, the B7 (0-62 mph in 5.5sec) and the CC?
Yes, that's exactly my point ;). As a companion point however, VW charged an arm and a leg for cars with the 3.6 V6 whereas Toyota stuffed its 3.5L V6 in anything from a $25k Rav 4 to a $25k Camry.
Wow, surprising (sad) seeing Ford still chasing Ecoboost, given that the new 6.2L V8 trumps the 3.5L (and that's even without the upcoming 8 sp. AT).
Quote from: GoCougs on July 22, 2014, 12:14:56 PM
Wow, surprising (sad) seeing Ford still chasing Ecoboost, given that the new 6.2L V8 trumps the 3.5L (and that's even without the upcoming 8 sp. AT).
That's all you got?
Quote from: GoCougs on July 22, 2014, 12:14:56 PM
Wow, surprising (sad) seeing Ford still chasing Ecoboost, given that the new 6.2L V8 trumps the 3.5L (and that's even without the upcoming 8 sp. AT).
6.2 beats the 3.5L? Based on what metrics?
Re: 2.7L.... I think it might be another fiasco. Sounds overloaded.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 22, 2014, 12:28:39 PM
6.2 beats the 3.5L? Based on what metrics?
It's a bigger number. Duh.
Quote from: CLKid on July 22, 2014, 12:25:31 PM
That's all you got?
To state an ancient pooprod motor bests this new fangled stuff? Says quite a bit ;).
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 22, 2014, 12:28:39 PM
6.2 beats the 3.5L? Based on what metrics?
All of them.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 22, 2014, 12:37:25 PM
Re: 2.7L.... I think it might be another fiasco. Sounds overloaded.
There's been a number of industry articles on the block - it's actually iron with some sort of AL cradle. Pretty interesting. The short block will be plenty durable it's just that all the turbo stuff is gonna not be so good after 5-7 years.
The turbos will be fine, just as they have been for the past 40 or so years. Most turbo engine problems are issues with components that have nothing to do with the turbos themselves (and are issues that non-turbo engines have too).
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 22, 2014, 01:17:09 PM
The turbos will be fine, just as they have been for the past 40 or so years. Most turbo engine problems are issues with components that have nothing to do with the turbos themselves (and are issues that non-turbo engines have too).
Turbos have always been huge maintenance and repair liabilities esp. compared to N/A motors and by design will break before the motor does - Ford was trying to tout 150,000 mile turbo life on the Ecoboost V6 lol...
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 22, 2014, 12:53:52 PM
:wanker:
More power, better acceleration, same mpg, cheaper, and vastly simpler (= more reliable/durable/longer lived).
A rebuilt turbo + install is like $1500-2000. If u are buying a car new and driving it into the ground, fuel economy savings will pay for that a few times over compared to a similarly powerful NA engine from the same manufacturer.
You keep pointing to the Camry/Accord V6 vs other manufacturers' 2,0Ts. But that's not an apples to apples comparison. Fords never got great gas mileage. Neither did Hyundais. Both of their respective mainstreamers saw real world gas mileage increases in the 15-25% range going turbo over V6s, with either the same or better performance. :huh: I can cite Cougs approved sources if you like. Toyota's not stupid... I'm sure their 2.0T will do even better than the V6 as well, while retaining Toyota levels of reliability. You might not know this, but they make turbo engines too.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 22, 2014, 01:53:59 PM
More power, better acceleration, same mpg, cheaper, and vastly simpler (= more reliable/durable/longer lived).
Same mpg? Measured by whom?
C'mon, this is just getting :facepalm:. Turbos at best get the same (and usually worse) mpg on top of worse reliability and durability and higher repair/maintenance bills. The lawsuits re: Ecoboost and Hyundai and the EPA are just the beginning. Just as hybrid market share is now on the decline same will happen with turbos too (and had happened in the past, after the turbo experiment of the '80s) after a bit of time.
I am thinking GoCougs simply has a bit of FI envy. You guys should take it easy on him. :frown:
Quote from: GoCougs on July 22, 2014, 02:11:57 PM
C'mon, this is just getting :facepalm:. Turbos at best get the same (and usually worse) mpg on top of worse reliability and durability and higher repair/maintenance bills. The lawsuits re: Ecoboost and Hyundai and the EPA are just the beginning. Just as hybrid market share is now on the decline same will happen with turbos too (and had happened in the past, after the turbo experiment of the '80s) after a bit of time.
IIRC, the Hyundai lawsuit stems from them not following the EPA test procedure. They were outright cheating, not just exploiting a loophole in the system. And many (most if not all) of the affected vehicles were naturally aspirated.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 22, 2014, 01:35:22 PM
Turbos have always been huge maintenance and repair liabilities esp. compared to N/A motors and by design will break before the motor does - Ford was trying to tout 150,000 mile turbo life on the Ecoboost V6 lol...
Absolutely true.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 22, 2014, 01:35:22 PM
Turbos have always been huge maintenance and repair liabilities esp. compared to N/A motors and by design will break before the motor does - Ford was trying to tout 150,000 mile turbo life on the Ecoboost V6 lol...
Motors have
always been huge maintenance and repair liabilities...until they improved them.
Quote from: FoMoJo on July 24, 2014, 12:04:24 PM
Motors have always been huge maintenance and repair liabilities...until they improved them.
Turbos have been around pretty much as long as motors have...
Superchargers, the roots/screw style (not the quasi turbo centrifugal type), are a much better bet than turbos - much more durable/reliable, more drivable (i.e., throttle response). Audi has done great work with their 3.0T, as have GM and Ford with their hi-po cars. N/A is still better but supercharging I can live with.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 24, 2014, 12:43:54 PM
Turbos have been around pretty much as long as motors have...
So have batteries, but there has been no great effort at improving them until hybrid and electric vehicles became popular.
Quote from: FoMoJo on July 24, 2014, 01:51:07 PM
So have batteries, but there has been no great effort at improving them until hybrid and electric vehicles became popular.
Batteries really haven't been improved tons either - they're still chemistry based, they still take a long time to charge, they still don't last all that long, and they are still heavy and bulky.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 24, 2014, 12:58:30 PM
Superchargers, the roots/screw style (not the quasi turbo centrifugal type), are a much better bet than turbos - much more durable/reliable, more drivable (i.e., throttle response). Audi has done great work with their 3.0T, as have GM and Ford with their hi-po cars. N/A is still better but supercharging I can live with.
You give me the choice and I'll take SC over turbo too.
Depends on altitude for me...
Turbos are way more efficient than superchargers. For the street, it's really hard to argue against turbos, though of course NA is best for the heart.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 24, 2014, 08:39:09 PM
Turbos are way more efficient than superchargers. For the street, it's really hard to argue against turbos, though of course NA is best for the heart.
Turbos are not more efficient. Their practical downfall is their less predictable boost profile which necessitates an even lower CR and wonky engine controls such as sporadic spikes in A/F mixture.
Easy to argue against turbos as shown ;) (or at least for mainstream cars where huge power/small package or very high altitude are not a factor).
Quote from: GoCougs on July 24, 2014, 09:34:05 PM
Turbos are not more efficient. Their practical downfall is their less predictable boost profile which necessitates an even lower CR and wonky engine controls such as sporadic spikes in A/F mixture.
Easy to argue against turbos as shown ;) (or at least for mainstream cars where huge power/small package or very high altitude are not a factor).
Turbos are mos def more efficient. And lol. Sporadic A/F spikes are not unique to turbo engines, I've seen them on N/A OEMs. And yea, turbos dont have torque curves as flat as N/A engines.... but again, lol. You were exhalting the fact that the G37 was faster to 150 than the 335i. Dude. You will
never see 150 MPH. In the stoplight drags where you try to assert your manhood the turbo 335i has the edge, easily. Turbos don't deliver a full RPM powerband, but here's the bigger point.... most street driving, even enthusiastic driving, doesn't really require it. Better to maximize performance and efficiency in the RPMs where folks spend 99% of their time. Which, by the way, Toyota and Honda do with their V6s. What % of Camcord V6 drivers do you think will ever even SEE redline? Why do the same engines in the IS350 and TL make ~40 more Cougs approved manufacturer/SAE verified HP? Lol. Dude. Pls.
Your attempt at strawmanning is admirable if a bit confusing with all the acronyms/Netspeak, but alas, it is not successful.
Once the EPA readjusts their testing procedure turbos will be out once again; too expensive, too complicated, to fragile (esp. the BMW), no mpg advantage.
And easy bro, the point was it's the car that enables the 335i to be slightly quicker than the G37, not this magical turbo hp; the 335i is much smaller and launches a bit better (a bit more rearward weight balance, a bit larger rear tire stock).
Lol, so now the EPA's ratings count? And what about EU's ratings? People's real world data on Fuelly? Edmunds road testing? All of these sources have the 335i 2-3 MPG better than the G37. And the new 535i, which is about 200lb heavier than the Q70 3.7, still gets better gas mileage and matches it in performance. So much for it "being the car".
So just to recap, BMW's 3.0 bests Nissan's 3.7 in pretty much any measure of fuel economy, be it controlled testing by govt agencies or a large sample of actual driver's real world consumption. Hyundai/Ford lost no performance and gained real MPGs going from V6s to turbo 4s (i.e. whatever Honda/Toyota are doing is irrelevant- their engines have always been better than Hyundai's/Ford's). Anything else? Mind you, I'm on my 3rd VQ and I'm sad about the slow death of NA. But thermo is thermo....
Oh, Sporty, two strawmen in row = auto loss. You're trying too hard. Turbos are defensible but not in the way you wish them to be.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 25, 2014, 11:46:32 AM
Your attempt at strawmanning is admirable if a bit confusing with all the acronyms/Netspeak, but alas, it is not successful.
Once the EPA readjusts their testing procedure turbos will be out once again; too expensive, too complicated, to fragile (esp. the BMW), no mpg advantage.
And easy bro, the point was it's the car that enables the 335i to be slightly quicker than the G37, not this magical turbo hp; the 335i is much smaller and launches a bit better (a bit more rearward weight balance, a bit larger rear tire stock).
You do know that turbos are replacing NA because they make possible that a smaller displacement engine can produce more power, while consuming less fuel ... right?
Quote from: AltinD on July 26, 2014, 01:35:09 PM
You do know that turbos are replacing NA because they make possible that a smaller displacement engine can produce more power, while consuming less fuel ... right?
No, no mpg advantage, as practically and theoretically explained ITT. They are smaller engines sure (which games displacement taxes in countries with such things), and sometimes they make more power sure, but at the expense of reliability/durability.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 26, 2014, 01:43:15 PM
No, no mpg advantage, as practically and theoretically explained ITT. They are smaller engines sure (which games displacement taxes in countries with such things), and sometimes they make more power sure, but at the expense of reliability/durability.
LOL, how's there no MPG advantage? Have you checked the figures for the new cars that got their N/A replaced for smaller turbo engines that produce even more power .... or you only follow what's happen to a couple of car models?
PS: I hope you are not reading as if we are saying that sticking turbos to the same engine would make it consume less :violin:
No, no mpg advantage. 'Tis why Ford and Hyundai are getting sued like crazy and in general why turbo cars' mpg suck. The data and engineering are ITT.
Consumer Reports had a pretty big test, and their conclusion was the same: smaller turbo engines were lucky to match their larger N/A counterparts in mpg (and usually didn't): Consumer Reports finds small turbo engines don't deliver on fuel economy claims (http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/02/consumer-reports-finds-small-turbo-engines-don-t-deliver-on-fuel-economy-claims/index.htm).
Turbos are good at gaming the current EPA test but suck otherwise.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 26, 2014, 01:53:52 PM
No, no mpg advantage. 'Tis why Ford and Hyundai are getting sued like crazy and in general why turbo cars' mpg suck. The data and engineering are ITT.
Those are HYBRIDS :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
I seem to recall the fact (this is fact) that my father's Sonata 2.0T gets superb fuel economy. The indicated average right now is 26.2 (I drove it 5 minutes ago), with 90% of that being around the City of Plano. On the highway, it pulls 34-35 regularly. Yes, it'll do 31-32 if you drive well above the speed limit, but it generally tends to do between 34-35. Tell me I'm wrong.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 26, 2014, 01:53:52 PM
No, no mpg advantage. 'Tis why Ford and Hyundai are getting sued like crazy and in general why turbo cars' mpg suck. The data and engineering are ITT.
Ford's lawsuits were for hybrids, and Hyundai's lawsuits were for NA engines. Ford and Hyundai's turbo MPGs are improvements over their own NA MPGs. You keep recalling Honda and Toyota's V6s, but the fact that Toyota 1. has decades of extensive reliable turbo engine experience (with their HiLux and Land Cruiser turbodiesels) and 2. is even considering going turbo on a mainstreamer kind of throws all that shit out the window. Honda is confirmed to be going turbo as well :huh:
Quote from: CJ on July 26, 2014, 05:28:44 PM
I seem to recall the fact (this is fact) that my father's Sonata 2.0T gets superb fuel economy. The indicated average right now is 26.2 (I drove it 5 minutes ago), with 90% of that being around the City of Plano. On the highway, it pulls 34-35 regularly. Yes, it'll do 31-32 if you drive well above the speed limit, but it generally tends to do between 34-35. Tell me I'm wrong.
Telling you the V6 Camcord will do as good or better on mpg and yet be quicker, smoother and more robust/reliable isn't saying you're wrong ;). I challenge you to find a real test that proves otherwise. For MY2014:
EPA:
Sonata 2.0T: 21/32/25 (lowered from 22/34 after lawsuits and getting slapped)
Camry V6: 21/31/25
Consumer Reports (http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/02/consumer-reports-finds-small-turbo-engines-don-t-deliver-on-fuel-economy-claims/index.htm):
Sonata 2.0T: 25 mpg
Camry V6: 26 mpg
So don't take turbocharged engines' eco-boasts at face value. There are better ways to save fuel, including hybrids, diesels, and other advanced technologies. - Consumer Reports
Quote from: GoCougs on July 26, 2014, 07:42:22 PM
Telling you the V6 Camcord will do as good or better on mpg and yet be quicker, smoother and more robust/reliable isn't saying you're wrong ;). I challenge you to find a real test that proves otherwise.
What test? The replacement turbo 4 engine isn't out yet.
Quote from: AltinD on July 27, 2014, 08:25:55 AM
What test? The replacement turbo 4 engine isn't out yet.
Or even confirmed to exist.
Quote from: ifcar on July 27, 2014, 08:50:31 AM
Or even confirmed to exist.
Its in the Lexus NX.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 26, 2014, 07:42:22 PM
Telling you the V6 Camcord will do as good or better on mpg and yet be quicker, smoother and more robust/reliable isn't saying you're wrong ;). I challenge you to find a real test that proves otherwise.
We didn't look at the Camry when we bought the Sonata for good reasons. The interior isn't that great (it's not great on the Sonata, but it's better), and the dull styling was a buzzkill. That and my dad just didn't want a Camry.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 26, 2014, 07:42:22 PM
So don't take turbocharged engines' eco-boasts at face value. There are better ways to save fuel, including hybrids, diesels, and other advanced technologies.
- Consumer Reports
LOL @ your quoting which supports other subjects you rant about
Quote from: ifcar on July 27, 2014, 08:50:31 AM
Or even confirmed to exist.
The NX is small ala 1st gen RDX. Well, we know how that went (2nd gen RDX dumped turbo for V6, although given how small it is proportions worsened a bit to fit it).
But Toyota isn't immune to the pressures of caving to EPA mpg testing hegemony...
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on July 27, 2014, 02:52:36 PM
LOL @ your quoting which supports other subjects you rant about
How? My Internetry has rock-solid consistency.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 27, 2014, 04:12:12 PM
The NX is small ala 1st gen RDX. Well, we know how that went (2nd gen RDX dumped turbo for V6, although given how small it is proportions worsened a bit to fit it).
So 1 SUV/engine = every and all SUVs/engines?
Quote from: GoCougs on July 27, 2014, 04:12:12 PMBut Toyota isn't immune to the pressures of caving to EPA mpg testing hegemony...
Which you just claimed will be "corrected" to expose such chicanery........
Quote from: GoCougs on July 27, 2014, 04:12:12 PM
The NX is small ala 1st gen RDX. Well, we know how that went (2nd gen RDX dumped turbo for V6, although given how small it is proportions worsened a bit to fit it).
But Toyota isn't immune to the pressures of caving to EPA mpg testing hegemony...
The RDX was the only Honda powered by a turbo motor. Economies of scale worked to their favor when switching to the V6, which is used in every other Acura and most of the Honda lineup.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 26, 2014, 02:02:15 PM
Consumer Reports had a pretty big test, and their conclusion was the same: smaller turbo engines were lucky to match their larger N/A counterparts in mpg (and usually didn't): Consumer Reports finds small turbo engines don't deliver on fuel economy claims (http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/02/consumer-reports-finds-small-turbo-engines-don-t-deliver-on-fuel-economy-claims/index.htm).
Turbos are good at gaming the current EPA test but suck otherwise.
Don't believe everything you read.
Quote from: FoMoJo on July 27, 2014, 06:21:53 PM
Don't believe everything you read.
I don't. Turbo motors don't do as well w/MPG, and pretty much any sort of reputable test shows it, including that CR test.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 27, 2014, 06:42:20 PM
I don't. Turbo motors don't do as well w/MPG, and pretty much any sort of reputable test shows it, including that CR test.
But they can.
Quote from: MX793 on July 27, 2014, 06:16:49 PM
The RDX was the only Honda powered by a turbo motor. Economies of scale worked to their favor when switching to the V6, which is used in every other Acura and most of the Honda lineup.
Economies of scale (or lack thereof) were known when the 1st gen RDX was being developed...
Just as with pretty much all such examples, what probably killed that turbo 4 was that it was much less refined vs. a V6, esp. important for Honda/Acura buyers accustomed to the J-series.
Quote from: FoMoJo on July 27, 2014, 06:46:27 PM
But they can.
At best some of them can be a match in mpg, but then again they aren't as refined and aren't nearly as reliable/durable/long lived.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 27, 2014, 06:59:10 PM
At best some of them can be a match in mpg, but then again they aren't as refined and aren't nearly as reliable/durable/long lived.
Nonsense.
Quote from: FoMoJo on July 27, 2014, 07:00:56 PM
Nonsense.
I've already explained why this is and pretty much any reputable test validates the explanations.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 27, 2014, 07:05:04 PM
I've already explained why this is and pretty much any reputable test validates the explanations.
This sums it up best...
"This turbo V6 is an impressively versatile engine, delivering huge supplies of power when asked yet achieving above-average fuel economy when driven gently." Any remarks about reliability are of no consequence.
Quote from: FoMoJo on July 27, 2014, 07:18:09 PM
This sums it up best..."This turbo V6 is an impressively versatile engine, delivering huge supplies of power when asked yet achieving above-average fuel economy when driven gently."
Any remarks about reliability are of no consequence.
Nah, pretty much everybody knows a turbo is by design not as durable/reliable/long lived as the engine itself - you're lucky to get 150k out of a turbo (more like 100k) - leaving one with a huge repair long before the service life of the car is up. Gonna be brutal when all these plebeian cars - esp. the F-150 EBV6 - are gonna need new $2-3,000+ in new turbos in 5-10 years.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 27, 2014, 07:48:00 PM
Nah, pretty much everybody knows a turbo is by design not as durable/reliable/long lived as the engine itself - you're lucky to get 150k out of a turbo (more like 100k) - leaving one with a huge repair long before the service life of the car is up. Gonna be brutal when all these plebeian cars - esp. the F-150 EBV6 - are gonna need new $2-3,000+ in new turbos in 5-10 years.
Am I gonna believe you or these guys?
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/01/what-the-inside-of-a-torture-tested-ecoboost-v-6-looks-like/comments/page/2/ (http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/01/what-the-inside-of-a-torture-tested-ecoboost-v-6-looks-like/comments/page/2/)
Quote from: GoCougs on July 27, 2014, 07:48:00 PM
Nah, pretty much everybody knows a turbo is by design not as durable/reliable/long lived as the engine itself - you're lucky to get 150k out of a turbo (more like 100k) - leaving one with a huge repair long before the service life of the car is up. Gonna be brutal when all these plebeian cars - esp. the F-150 EBV6 - are gonna need new $2-3,000+ in new turbos in 5-10 years.
I'm calling bullshit on this this one.
I've owned four turbocharged cars and I've NEVER replaced a turbo. My Volvo 740 had almost 300,000 miles on it with the ORIGINAL turbo.
Quote from: Madman on July 27, 2014, 08:20:05 PM
I'm calling bullshit on this this one.
I've owned four turbocharged cars and I've NEVER replaced a turbo. My Volvo 740 had almost 300,000 miles on it with the ORIGINAL turbo.
This.
My 850 was on the original turbo when I changed it over to a very low mileage 16T I happened to find.
Quote from: FoMoJo on July 27, 2014, 08:08:50 PM
Am I gonna believe you or these guys?
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/01/what-the-inside-of-a-torture-tested-ecoboost-v-6-looks-like/comments/page/2/ (http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/01/what-the-inside-of-a-torture-tested-ecoboost-v-6-looks-like/comments/page/2/)
You're gonna have to believe Ford. From Ford's corporate media site on the release of the 3.5L Ecoboost V6 (http://corporate.ford.com/news-center/press-releases-detail/pr-introduction-of-35liter-ecoboost-29648):
"The turbochargers are designed for a life cycle of 150,000 miles or 10 years."
Quote from: Madman on July 27, 2014, 08:20:05 PM
I'm calling bullshit on this this one.
I've owned four turbocharged cars and I've NEVER replaced a turbo. My Volvo 740 had almost 300,000 miles on it with the ORIGINAL turbo.
Nah, even big rig turbos (far more robust) only last ~250-300k miles. Just because it is ORIGINAL doesn't mean it isn't blown, and yours most certainly was.
As demonstrated
ad naseum - through basic technical knowledge as well as manufacturer admission - turbos generally don't last as long as the motor itself.
150,000 miles though is beyond the lifespan that most new car buyers are going to plan on keeping their cars anyways; and certainly at the point where the longevity of lots of other expensive to replace items are becoming questionable.
And as you've just pointed out: you can blow a turbo and the car will keep running.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 27, 2014, 10:38:34 PM
You're gonna have to believe Ford. From Ford's corporate media site on the release of the 3.5L Ecoboost V6 (http://corporate.ford.com/news-center/press-releases-detail/pr-introduction-of-35liter-ecoboost-29648):
"The turbochargers are designed for a life cycle of 150,000 miles or 10 years."
Lol. That was some serious :internetry: :golfclap:
Quote from: GoCougs on July 27, 2014, 10:41:17 PM
Nah, even big rig turbos (far more robust) only last ~250-300k miles. Just because it is ORIGINAL doesn't mean it isn't blown, and yours most certainly was.
As demonstrated ad naseum - through basic technical knowledge as well as manufacturer admission - turbos generally don't last as long as the motor itself.
Explain my brother's 200k mile 850R on the original turbo. No oil consumption, boosted wonderfully. Best friend's 2001 S60 T5. You know the drill...150k, turbo is in great condition.
Well, my point is that the reliability difference: if it proves to be there (likely will), will be marginal, and unlikely to affect many purchase decisions.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on July 27, 2014, 10:45:56 PM
150,000 miles though is beyond the lifespan that most new car buyers are going to plan on keeping their cars anyways; and certainly at the point where the longevity of lots of other expensive to replace items are becoming questionable.
And as you've just pointed out: you can blow a turbo and the car will keep running.
True, but my ultimate point is cars have a design life greater than 150,000 miles/10 years (including engines) and in general most cars are on the road longer than 150,000 miles/10 years. And sure by the point some things will probably need fixing so why risk big $$$ for turbo replacement if the turbo didn't yield any improvment vs. its N/A competitor?
Quote from: Soup DeVille on July 27, 2014, 11:07:17 PM
Well, my point is that the reliability difference: if it proves to be there (likely will), will be marginal, and unlikely to affect many purchase decisions.
Probably, but that doesn't absolve the risk so why risk it, if the N/A competitor motor was as good or better in all regards?
Quote from: MrH on July 27, 2014, 10:46:16 PM
Lol. That was some serious :internetry: :golfclap:
Hmm. I'd already mentioned that Ford had made that claim so I was a bit lost where that was all coming from.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 27, 2014, 11:09:08 PM
Probably, but that doesn't absolve the risk so why risk it, if the N/A competitor motor was as good or better in all regards?
Well, its all about sales, isn't it? If the turbo motors can be sold as an improvement; if the public sees it as an improvement, and doesn't really see the downside...
Quote from: CJ on July 27, 2014, 11:00:57 PM
Explain my brother's 200k mile 850R on the original turbo. No oil consumption, boosted wonderfully. Best friend's 2001 S60 T5. You know the drill...150k, turbo is in great condition.
Quite a few small block Chevy V8s make it to 250,000 miles but even the biggest of Bowtie fanboys will tell you the design (and average) life is a heckuva lot shorter than that. (Read: anecdote is not evidence.)
This shit always goes in circles and leads to absolutely no positive discussion.
I don't fucking get why either side entertains this shit.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on July 27, 2014, 11:15:13 PM
Well, its all about sales, isn't it? If the turbo motors can be sold as an improvement; if the public sees it as an improvement, and doesn't really see the downside...
Agreed, my ultimate point is there is a downside even if people don't see it...
Quote from: GoCougs on July 27, 2014, 11:34:13 PM
Agreed, my ultimate point is there is a downside even if people don't see it...
There may be a downside in most cases, but as far as this particular case (The rumored Camry turbo 4) goes, I'm willing to give it a chance and see how it plays out.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 27, 2014, 10:41:17 PM
Nah, even big rig turbos (far more robust) only last ~250-300k miles. Just because it is ORIGINAL doesn't mean it isn't blown, and yours most certainly was.
My boost gauge and my Volvo mechanic beg to differ. The closest I ever had to come to touching the turbo was replacing the oil seals.
My Peugeot 505 also had a fully functioning original turbo when I sold it at nearly 200,000 miles.
Nice try, anyway. Thanks for playing.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 27, 2014, 10:38:34 PM
You're gonna have to believe Ford. From Ford's corporate media site on the release of the 3.5L Ecoboost V6 (http://corporate.ford.com/news-center/press-releases-detail/pr-introduction-of-35liter-ecoboost-29648):
"The turbochargers are designed for a life cycle of 150,000 miles or 10 years."
Sounds pretty good. No doubt, with proper maintenance most will live a lot longer than that. The majority live beyond 250k miles.
Quote from: 2o6 on July 27, 2014, 11:23:10 PM
This shit always goes in circles and leads to absolutely no positive discussion.
I don't fucking get why either side entertains this shit.
Slow work days
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 28, 2014, 06:36:43 AM
Slow work days
Well, it's raining here today so I've got the day off.
However, a realistic discussion on the merits of a smaller displacement turbo boosted engine, vs. a larger displacement non turbo boosted engine of comparable stats, is in the potential. You can, potentially, get better mpg and you can, potentially, get more power with the Turbo engine. It really depends on for what purpose you are using the vehicle at any given time. If you are cruising, using a light foot, you get better mileage. If you are in lead foot mode, you can make a lot of power, but mpg is impacted. With a NA of larger displacement, you are limited in the mpg you can achieve, less than the smaller displacement turbo, and limited in the power you can make, less than the smaller displacement turbo.
In comparing, for instance, a 2 liter Turbo I4 to a 3.5 liter NA V6, it can be reasonably stated that, when not in boost, the mpg of the Turbo I4 is better than the mpg of the NA V6. However, tap into the power band and you will sacrifice mpg but make more power than the NA V6. While the power band of the turbo I4 is a bit later in coming than the NA V6, it is more sustained and, therefore, more useful. Having it arrive a bit later, as well, provides for better mpg while cruising at normal speeds.
In conclusion, it can be said that the turbo boosted engines of various displacements can be best utilized for mpg and power in the hands of the knowledgeable driver, as opposed to the technically inept lead foot. However, even in the hands, and feet, of the average commuter going from point A to point B in most traffic conditions, there is definite advantage in mpg...unless late for work or a hair appointment and then the turbo spooled to maximum boost will get them there in a hurry with a smile on their face.
A lot of it comes down to design as well. If the engine is too small and in boost all the time it won't reap any benefits. The data seems to show that bigger turbo engines do better. For example, MB E550 4matic gained 3 overall MPG along with 60HP/lbf going from the 5.5L NA to the 4.7L TT V8. Folks who slap aftermarket turbochargers see improvements in highway/cruising mileage when the turbos are sized for street driving. So there are def real world examples of turbos working... if there weren't the technology would have been abandoned long ago, like the rotary etc.
Quote from: FoMoJo on July 28, 2014, 05:43:05 AM
Sounds pretty good. No doubt, with proper maintenance most will live a lot longer than that. The majority live beyond 250k miles.
No, it doesn't sound good; it sounds positively awful. And no, by definition the "majority" will not live beyond 250k miles, or even get close to it - Ford went to so far as to brag about 150k/10 years ;).
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 28, 2014, 08:50:04 AM
A lot of it comes down to design as well. If the engine is too small and in boost all the time it won't reap any benefits. The data seems to show that bigger turbo engines do better. For example, MB E550 4matic gained 3 overall MPG along with 60HP/lbf going from the 5.5L NA to the 4.7L TT V8. Folks who slap aftermarket turbochargers see improvements in highway/cruising mileage when the turbos are sized for street driving. So there are def real world examples of turbos working... if there weren't the technology would have been abandoned long ago, like the rotary etc.
Exactly. Turbos, in a previous era, were thought of, mainly, as a power adder. When used as a potential power supplement for smaller engines designed, primarily, for fuel efficiency, the criteria and result is different. In reference to smaller displacement engines, the 1 liter EcoBoost I3 will be quite interesting to watch as far as real world stats are concerned.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 28, 2014, 08:53:07 AM
No, it doesn't sound good; it sounds positively awful. And no, by definition the "majority" will not live beyond 250k miles, or even get close to it - Ford went to so far as to brag about 150k/10 years ;).
Most cars dont make it anywhere near 250k; why this is your bare minimum of how far a car should get is not really clear.
Plus, your last car had a grenade transmission, yet I don't recall you having any issues with it. Sure, turbos add another failure point, but there's not much proof that turbos will 100% fail at or before 150K miles, and even if they do fail they don't cost much to rebuild/replace, and they won't necessarily grenade the engine when they go. You're overblowing all the negatives.
Quote from: Madman on July 28, 2014, 04:21:19 AM
My boost gauge and my Volvo mechanic beg to differ. The closest I ever had to come to touching the turbo was replacing the oil seals.
My Peugeot 505 also had a fully functioning original turbo when I sold it at nearly 200,000 miles.
Nice try, anyway. Thanks for playing.
How do seals go bad? The seal and bearing surfaces go bad. New seals will make things better for a bit but it'll be back to bad right quick as the seal/bearing surfaces are still bad.
You had a bad turbo, bro.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 28, 2014, 09:12:11 AM
Most cars dont make it anywhere near 250k; why this is your bare minimum of how far a car should get is not really clear.
Plus, your last car had a grenade transmission, yet I don't recall you having any issues with it. Sure, turbos add another failure point, but there's not much proof that turbos will 100% fail at or before 150K miles, and even if they do fail they don't cost much to rebuild/replace, and they won't necessarily grenade the engine when they go. You're overblowing all the negatives.
Watch the strawman (again) - 250k miles was someone else's throw down.
Not sure what you're talking about - the Accord was a rock star. The AT light came on but the dealer said NPF. But even if it weren't a rock star, why purposefully add the pain of turbo replacement to a $3k+ A/T replacement, for no real-world gain?
lol - turbo replacement is a major expense - easily $2k+. F-150 owners are gonna pay a lot more than that obviously.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 28, 2014, 08:50:04 AM
A lot of it comes down to design as well. If the engine is too small and in boost all the time it won't reap any benefits. The data seems to show that bigger turbo engines do better. For example, MB E550 4matic gained 3 overall MPG along with 60HP/lbf going from the 5.5L NA to the 4.7L TT V8. Folks who slap aftermarket turbochargers see improvements in highway/cruising mileage when the turbos are sized for street driving. So there are def real world examples of turbos working... if there weren't the technology would have been abandoned long ago, like the rotary etc.
None of this makes sense, esp. hack job turbo "upgrades."
Turbos "work" at gaming the EPA testing procedure.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 28, 2014, 08:53:07 AM
No, it doesn't sound good; it sounds positively awful. And no, by definition the "majority" will not live beyond 250k miles, or even get close to it - Ford went to so far as to brag about 150k/10 years ;).
You need to do some research.
Quote from: FoMoJo on July 28, 2014, 08:34:26 AM
Well, it's raining here today so I've got the day off.
However, a realistic discussion on the merits of a smaller displacement turbo boosted engine, vs. a larger displacement non turbo boosted engine of comparable stats, is in the potential. You can, potentially, get better mpg and you can, potentially, get more power with the Turbo engine. It really depends on for what purpose you are using the vehicle at any given time. If you are cruising, using a light foot, you get better mileage. If you are in lead foot mode, you can make a lot of power, but mpg is impacted. With a NA of larger displacement, you are limited in the mpg you can achieve, less than the smaller displacement turbo, and limited in the power you can make, less than the smaller displacement turbo.
In comparing, for instance, a 2 liter Turbo I4 to a 3.5 liter NA V6, it can be reasonably stated that, when not in boost, the mpg of the Turbo I4 is better than the mpg of the NA V6. However, tap into the power band and you will sacrifice mpg but make more power than the NA V6. While the power band of the turbo I4 is a bit later in coming than the NA V6, it is more sustained and, therefore, more useful. Having it arrive a bit later, as well, provides for better mpg while cruising at normal speeds.
In conclusion, it can be said that the turbo boosted engines of various displacements can be best utilized for mpg and power in the hands of the knowledgeable driver, as opposed to the technically inept lead foot. However, even in the hands, and feet, of the average commuter going from point A to point B in most traffic conditions, there is definite advantage in mpg...unless late for work or a hair appointment and then the turbo spooled to maximum boost will get them there in a hurry with a smile on their face.
You end up with a crappier powerband.
N/A is better for consistency, reliability, driveability, etc.
Quote from: FoMoJo on July 28, 2014, 09:41:02 AM
You need to do some research.
Oh what exactly? You threw down and Ford itself told you you were wrong :huh:.
Quote from: hotrodalex on July 28, 2014, 09:43:14 AM
You end up with a crappier powerband.
N/A is better for consistency, reliability, driveability, etc.
Please explain.
For discussion, there are some interesting numbers in this site...http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/04/how-we-dyno-tested-fords-3-5-liter-ecoboost-v6-and-5-0-liter-v8-engines.html (http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/04/how-we-dyno-tested-fords-3-5-liter-ecoboost-v6-and-5-0-liter-v8-engines.html)
Quote from: GoCougs on July 28, 2014, 09:45:36 AM
Oh what exactly? You threw down and Ford itself told you you were wrong :huh:.
We're not debating what Ford said. Research shows that a higher percentage of modern water cooled turbos last up to 250k miles. Some last longer. Some fail sooner.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 28, 2014, 09:45:36 AM
Oh what exactly? You threw down and Ford itself told you you were wrong :huh:.
Ford's number is likely a "no sooner than" value at which a statistically significant number of vehicles will need their turbos replaced. It does not indicate that the majority will require replacement at that mileage.
Quote from: FoMoJo on July 28, 2014, 10:11:16 AM
We're not debating what Ford said. Research shows that a higher percentage of modern water cooled turbos last up to 250k miles. Some last longer. Some fail sooner.
Sure we are; you made a statement that was exactly counter to Ford's press release. Peruse the Audi, WRX and GTI forums to get an idea of how long "modern" turbos last (250k miles is a fairy tale).
Quote from: GoCougs on July 28, 2014, 09:26:07 AM
None of this makes sense, esp. hack job turbo "upgrades."
Sure it does. At the minimum, it makes more sense than citing statistically insignificant "data" such as message board gripes and convenient speculation based on "engineering principles". Statistically significant, provable, correlation driven data.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 28, 2014, 09:26:07 AM
Turbos "work" at gaming the EPA testing procedure.
How, exactly?
Quote from: GoCougs on July 28, 2014, 10:51:59 AM
Sure we are; you made a statement that was exactly counter to Ford's press release. Peruse the Audi, WRX and GTI forums to get an idea of how long "modern" turbos last (250k miles is a fairy tale).
I'm rather surprised that you are so captivated by what Ford said. It's pretty clear that the meaning is as follows. As for Audi, WRX and GTI, I expect that the general usage is rather different than someone buying an EcoBoost with fuel efficiency in mind.
Quote from: MX793 on July 28, 2014, 10:28:04 AM
Ford's number is likely a "no sooner than" value at which a statistically significant number of vehicles will need their turbos replaced. It does not indicate that the majority will require replacement at that mileage.
Quote from: MX793 on July 28, 2014, 10:28:04 AM
Ford's number is likely a "no sooner than" value at which a statistically significant number of vehicles will need their turbos replaced. It does not indicate that the majority will require replacement at that mileage.
True, but note Ford did not use any sort of official/statistical language (sigma, B10/B50, etc.), so it's hard to say. As with all statistically process things (such as designing and manufacturing turbos) standard deviation on life is going to be tight - B50 life isn't going to tons more than B10. I'm guessing the 10/150k isn't B10 but then again probably not B50. Either way it's not a lot of life WRT major components on a modern automobile (engine, transmission, differential, t-case, etc.) yet Ford felt it important enough to note it (i.e., that it's quite a bold statement given how frail turbos typically are).
Quote from: FoMoJo on July 28, 2014, 11:03:24 AM
I'm rather surprised that you are so captivated by what Ford said. It's pretty clear that the meaning is as follows. As for Audi, WRX and GTI, I expect that the general usage is rather different than someone buying an EcoBoost with fuel efficiency in mind.
Not captivated, I'm just needling you a bit given you were adamant about EB life, when Ford had an official statement stating otherwise. ;).
True, those cars are not plebeian but that doesn't absolve their participation in the data set.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 28, 2014, 09:14:20 AM
How do seals go bad? The seal and bearing surfaces go bad. New seals will make things better for a bit but it'll be back to bad right quick as the seal/bearing surfaces are still bad.
You had a bad turbo, bro.
You obviously missed the fact I had a very good Volvo mechanic (who knows more about turbos than you ever will) give my turbocharger a clean bill of health.
Oil line seals are made from rubber. Rubber deteriorates over time. Replacement rubber o-ring seals cost literally pennies.
How does a weeping rubber o-ring equate to a blown turbo? You really are full of shit.
Quote from: Madman on July 28, 2014, 11:30:19 AM
You obviously missed the fact I had a very good Volvo mechanic (who knows more about turbos than you ever will) give my turbocharger a clean bill of health.
Oil line seals are made from rubber. Rubber deteriorates over time. Replacement rubber o-ring seals cost literally pennies.
How does a weeping rubber o-ring equate to a blown turbo? You really are full of shit.
So rubber hoses are now "seals"? ;)
Perhaps your turbo did last that long but that but you seemed miff that turbo daintiness is news to you. Not sure what to tell you, other than, well, to tell you.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 28, 2014, 10:54:55 AM
Sure it does. At the minimum, it makes more sense than citing statistically insignificant "data" such as message board gripes and convenient speculation based on "engineering principles". Statistically significant, provable, correlation driven data.
How, exactly?
And I've provided it
ad naseum in this thread.
It's easy to game a test if you know what the test is; ergo, design to the test - EPA mpg testing and otherwise. Automakers have been doing this for quite some time engines and elsewhere (1-3 skip shift, test-specific AT programming, hard-as-rock OEM tires, etc.).
Turbos game the test through soft boost maps. Keep it off boost and it will do well, esp. since turbo equivalent to a N/A motor is much smaller (i.e., ~2.0T vs. Japanese 3.5L V6s). Thing is these boost maps are mostly irrelevant in the real world - they lead to huge lag and poor performance and otherwise no one drives exactly as the EPA test. Once you get into any sort of boost mpg drops relatively dramatically (IMO, a good portion is due to lag, which induces more throttle input than would otherwise be necessary to achieve the desired acceleration (which, yes, isn't exactly a problem with the motor or test itself)) as contrary to popular opinion turbos aren't a free efficiency ride - there is an efficiency drop esp as the turbo spools (i.e., energy needed to accelerate the turbo before boost (CR) builds) and then there are secondary issues with running a slightly rich A/F mixture for safety.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 28, 2014, 12:30:27 PM
And I've provided it ad naseum in this thread.
It's easy to game a test if you know what the test is; ergo, design to the test - EPA mpg testing and otherwise. Automakers have been doing this for quite some time engines and elsewhere (1-3 skip shift, test-specific AT programming, hard-as-rock OEM tires, etc.).
Turbos game the test through soft boost maps. Keep it off boost and it will do well, esp. since turbo equivalent to a N/A motor is much smaller (i.e., ~2.0T vs. Japanese 3.5L V6s). Thing is these boost maps are mostly irrelevant in the real world - they lead to huge lag and poor performance and otherwise no one drives exactly as the EPA test. Once you get into any sort of boost mpg drops relatively dramatically (IMO, a good portion is due to lag, which induces more throttle input than would otherwise be necessary to achieve the desired acceleration (which, yes, isn't exactly a problem with the motor or test itself)) as contrary to popular opinion turbos aren't a free efficiency ride - there is an efficiency drop esp as the turbo spools (i.e., energy needed to accelerate the turbo before boost (CR) builds) and then there are secondary issues with running a slightly rich A/F mixture for safety.
U keep calling the accuracy/relevance of EPA testing into question and claiming manufacturers "game" the system.... however if they actually weren't relevant, lawsuits like the ones you cited would be a lot more prevalent rather than just anomalies. Where are the fuel economy lawsuits from owners of BMWs, VWAGs, Benzes, etc? Again regardless of manufacturer gamesmanship at the end of the day 99% of cars on the road fall in line with their EPA testing mileages, especially after they made those changes a few years ago.
So to that end I'm calling BS on your "soft boost map" theory- and it most def is a theory. I've driven a few modern turbo cars... cars like the GTI and 335i are anything but "laggy", and if they are driven normally they do what the EPA says they will. All of my cars have done about what the EPA says they would.... in the Z I get 17-19 MPG on a stop and go tank and 25-27 MPG on long trips.
All you've posted "ad nauseum" are spurious connections and unsubstantiated theories... like I've said/shown "ad nauseum" reality doesn't jive with you :huh:
Meh, no more use in arguing. Turbos don't get as good mpg and they are not as reliable or as robust as a N/A motor. That's just the way it is and it has been addressed :huh:.
GTI is laggy in first and second
Staying out of boost is an easy way to "simulate" better gas mileage. I like turbo engines too - but let's try to keep the facts straight here.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 28, 2014, 09:12:11 AM
Most cars dont make it anywhere near 250k; why this is your bare minimum of how far a car should get is not really clear.
Plus, your last car had a grenade transmission, yet I don't recall you having any issues with it. Sure, turbos add another failure point, but there's not much proof that turbos will 100% fail at or before 150K miles, and even if they do fail they don't cost much to rebuild/replace, and they won't necessarily grenade the engine when they go. You're overblowing all the negatives.
The US DOT says the average car is scrapped at about 145,000 miles.
IHS Automotive (via the Wall Street Journal) "Vehicles on U.S. roads have never been older, now averaging 11.3 years.
In light of that 10 years and 150,000 sounds like a reasonable target especially since we don't know what the 10 year/150,000 mile data point means. Is it the mean failure point, average failure point, Minimum, what?
Quote from: CALL_911 on July 28, 2014, 02:49:48 PM
GTI is laggy in first and second
I felt it too but not a big deal IMO for that car. VWAG isn't a great N/A motor builder and stuffing in a N/A V6 wouldn't fit the character (and styling) of that car.
Quote from: Char on July 28, 2014, 02:57:01 PM
Staying out of boost is an easy way to "simulate" better gas mileage. I like turbo engines too - but let's try to keep the facts straight here.
It's actually dipping in/out of boost (accelerating the turbo) that is the mpg killer for turbos.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 28, 2014, 12:28:29 PM
So rubber hoses are now "seals"? ;)
No, the oil feed and return lines are not made from rubber, they're metal. The seals in the lines are rubber o-rings that look like this.
(http://assets3.fcpstores.com/public/assets/products/32940/small/1306264.jpg?1295538570)
I replaced all the engine seals on my 740, including the camshaft, crankshaft and oil pump seals at the front of the block when I did the timing belt. I also replaced the two rubber o-rings on the distributor shaft at the back of the cylinder head and the aforementioned o-rings for the turbocharger oil feed and return lines. The turbocharger itself never required any maintenance.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 28, 2014, 12:28:29 PM
Perhaps your turbo did last that long but that but you seemed miff that turbo daintiness is news to you. Not sure what to tell you, other than, well, to tell you.
Every big-rig you see on the highway has a turbocharger. These units have a service life of hundreds of thousands of miles and are not "dainty" by any stretch of the imagination. I'd love to hear you spew your uninformed bullshit about turbochargers to anyone who has ever turned a wrench on a Kenworth, Mack, Peterbilt, Freightliner, International, etc. They'd laugh in your face. Right before punching it!
Quote from: GoCougs on July 28, 2014, 09:19:02 PM
I felt it too but not a big deal IMO for that car. VWAG isn't a great N/A motor builder and stuffing in a N/A V6 wouldn't fit the character (and styling) of that car.
It's fine, I'm not complaining about it
Quote from: Madman on July 28, 2014, 09:37:23 PM
No, the oil feed and return lines are not made from rubber, they're metal. The seals in the lines are rubber o-rings that look like this.
(http://assets3.fcpstores.com/public/assets/products/32940/small/1306264.jpg?1295538570)
I replaced all the engine seals on my 740, including the camshaft, crankshaft and oil pump seals at the front of the block when I did the timing belt. I also replaced the two rubber o-rings on the distributor shaft at the back of the cylinder head and the aforementioned o-rings for the turbocharger oil feed and return lines. The turbocharger itself never required any maintenance.
Every big-rig you see on the highway has a turbocharger. These units have a service life of hundreds of thousands of miles and are not "dainty" by any stretch of the imagination. I'd love to hear you spew your uninformed bullshit about turbochargers to anyone who has ever turned a wrench on a Kenworth, Mack, Peterbilt, Freightliner, International, etc. They'd laugh in your face. Right before punching it!
Nah, I think I had it right - you had a bad turbo, bro.
Thing is with industrial turbos (big rig, marine, etc.) the turbo itself is not only far more robust (and expensive) in design they operate within either a relatively narrow or forgiving process window vs. a typical gasoline engine:
Narrow engine RPM band (i.e., turbo runs mostly at constant RPM = less stress)
Mostly constant load (= constant EGT = less heat stress cycling)
The turbos are much bigger (= spin at a much lower RPM)
Industrial engines are cycled/turned off far less frequently (= less heat stress cycling)
Diesel EGT is cooler than gasoline (= less heat stress in total)
Diesel engines don't use a throttle (= no back pressure which stresses the turbo)
Lower boost pressure (= less stress on the turbo)
With this new found knowledge you plainly can now see how this all helps increase service life vs. a retail gasoline turbocharged passenger vehicle. Even still, an industrial diesel engine will go through a number of turbos over its design life (they are considered maintenance items).
Any more questions?
Quote from: GoCougs on July 28, 2014, 11:16:34 PM
Nah, I think I had it right - you had a bad turbo, bro.
I did? Really? Wow, you must be smarter than my dealer-trained Volvo mechanic. Pretty impressive, considering you've never even seen the car! :rolleyes:
I guess all that boost indicated on my gauge was just my imagination, right?
Quote from: GoCougs on July 28, 2014, 11:16:34 PM
Nah, I think I had it right - you had a bad turbo, bro.
Thing is with industrial turbos (big rig, marine, etc.) the turbo itself is not only far more robust (and expensive) in design they operate within either a relatively narrow or forgiving process window vs. a typical gasoline engine:
Narrow engine RPM band (i.e., turbo runs mostly at constant RPM = less stress)
Mostly constant load (= constant EGT = less heat stress cycling)
The turbos are much bigger (= spin at a much lower RPM)
Industrial engines are cycled/turned off far less frequently (= less heat stress cycling)
Diesel EGT is cooler than gasoline (= less heat stress in total)
Diesel engines don't use a throttle (= no back pressure which stresses the turbo)
Lower boost pressure (= less stress on the turbo)
With this new found knowledge you plainly can now see how this all helps increase service life vs. a retail gasoline turbocharged passenger vehicle. Even still, an industrial diesel engine will go through a number of turbos over its design life (they are considered maintenance items).
Any more questions?
Big rigs shift a ton more than regular cars because of their narrow power bands, which = more spooling up and cycling. They also run boost levels in the 30-40psi range. Higher pressure ratio = faster spinning turbo, regardless of turbo size. So it's kind of a wash.
Lower boost pressure in a diesel? Better check again. Your typical 12-13L big rig motor is running north of 20 psi of boost.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 28, 2014, 01:47:20 PM
Meh, no more use in arguing. Turbos don't get as good mpg and they are not as reliable or as robust as a N/A motor. That's just the way it is and it has been addressed :huh:.
It's still nonsense.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 29, 2014, 06:27:20 AM
Big rigs shift a ton more than regular cars because of their narrow power bands, which = more spooling up and cycling. They also run boost levels in the 30-40psi range. Higher pressure ratio = faster spinning turbo, regardless of turbo size. So it's kind of a wash.
Around town they do, but on the highway they're usually cruising in one gear, aren't they? So it could even out.
Quote from: hotrodalex on July 29, 2014, 09:33:04 AM
Around town they do, but on the highway they're usually cruising in one gear, aren't they? So it could even out.
So are cars.
Quote from: hotrodalex on July 29, 2014, 09:33:04 AM
Around town they do, but on the highway they're usually cruising in one gear, aren't they? So it could even out.
Big rigs will downshift in higher load situations, like climbing a grade, that won't tax an automobile enough to cause it to downshift.
Dont big rigs have like 90 gears
10 to 15 speeds are very common. I'm sure there are some with more. The other factor with semis is that they have an extremely narrow RPM band, so even with all of the shifting the RPM variation is much less than in a car. A CAT C12 redlined at 1800-2000 RPM.
Quote from: FoMoJo on July 29, 2014, 11:30:37 AM
So are cars.
Yeah but big rigs are mostly on the highway.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on July 29, 2014, 06:27:20 AM
Big rigs shift a ton more than regular cars because of their narrow power bands, which = more spooling up and cycling. They also run boost levels in the 30-40psi range. Higher pressure ratio = faster spinning turbo, regardless of turbo size. So it's kind of a wash.
Industrial diesels spend many many many more hours at speed vs. the average retail passenger car.
Boost is not necessarily related to turbo RPM but design of the turbine and compressor; industrial turbos are huge and spin slower.
As to boost I was throwing all industrial diesels (marine, power gen, etc.) into the same mix.
Quote from: FoMoJo on July 29, 2014, 07:44:03 AM
It's still nonsense.
How exactly? I full well understand that that Ford press release regarding EB design life rattled yer cage but c'mon, you're just plain trolling now.
Quote from: GoCougs on July 29, 2014, 01:37:02 PM
How exactly? I full well understand that that Ford press release regarding EB design life rattled yer cage but c'mon, you're just plain trolling now.
Let's see..
Quote
Meh, no more use in arguing. Turbos don't get as good mpg and they are not as reliable or as robust as a N/A motor. That's just the way it is and it has been addressed :huh:.
Simple conjecture with no validation. Nonsense.
As for Ford stating that the turbos they use will last at least 10 years or 150 thousand miles, that's a bold statement. I expect they are quite confident that their Ecoboost engines are exceptionally robust. The link I posted of their torture test gives a good indication of how robust they are.
Has been validated...
Yes, it was very bold for Ford to say that a $3k+ subsystem of the F150 was designed to NOT last as long as the rest of the vehicle.
Not when it's understood that it is a wear and tear part :huh:
Your objection makes about as much sense as complaining about having to replace shocks or brake rotors.