GM Inside News Forum banner
1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,014 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I just spent a day at Ford's proving grounds driving a number of vehicles that use Eco-boost technology, which is the centerpiece of the company's strategy to improve fuel economy. I wish I could tell you more about my driving impressions of these Fords, but all that information is embargoed for now. What I can say is that the Eco-boost technology works impressively well.

However, while the technology works well, I wonder how well Ford's strategy will work. That's because this technology does not really improve the fuel economy of an engine. It merely allows the company to use a smaller engine in place a bigger one. And sure enough, across almost the entire rev-range, an Eco-boost engine produces more torque than naturally aspirated engines that are at least one liter larger.
continue at the link
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
528 Posts
I wonder what the weight savings will be with these new smaller engines? Weight reduction seems to a reasonable trend in auto design.
There isn't any weight savings,

You gain back what you save when you start adding all the turbo equipment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,337 Posts
There isn't any weight savings,

You gain back what you save when you start adding all the turbo equipment.
I guess I am at a loss unless I missed something in the article....no weight savings, no mileage increase, same power in a smaller engine....am I not seeing the forest for the trees?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,986 Posts
^^ not a very good article imho - not sure John 'gets' it
&
imho the mpg savings will come in how much/little the EB's get floored

tho if vehicles are no longer built to hold any larger engine, and the whole front part can be made smaller/lighter, then the full benefit will appear
ie
a 1.6/1.8 L. size vehicle
a 2.5 L. size vehicle
a 3.5 L. size vehicle
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,436 Posts
If a 2.0L I4 with DI and boost can make 250 HP and is offered in a Fusion sized vehicle, then I would guess about 34mpg, which is plenty more than the current 220HP V6.

Scaled up to about a 2.5L, I don't see why they can't get near 300HP, since the 2.3L currently is good for 280. Now add that to a Taurus that is 400lbs lighter, and I would say Ford has a solid plan. But remember, this is only one part of their plan.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,637 Posts
he probably got to drive the same white MKS that i saw several months ago at ford proving ground AKA MPG. However his article seemed to not be informative but keep in mind since the ecoboost is still under media embargo he really can't go into too much detail about this engine until ford gives the ok
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,284 Posts
As has been said, again and again............. the fuel savings comes in off-boost application. In other words, when you are not tipping the happy pedal too hard. Or, the way that most people actually drive.

You can drive a Prius like an idiot.............. and get crappy mileage (and believe me, I see plenty of people doing just that. I would be surprised if their Prius's ever run on electric alone). That is not reserved for higher hp engines.

If you are testing a car, you are testing its limits. You want to see what it can do. Somehow I don't see optimum fuel economy in that situation. LOL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,818 Posts
As has been said, again and again............. the fuel savings comes in off-boost application. In other words, when you are not tipping the happy pedal too hard. Or, the way that most people actually drive.

You can drive a Prius like an idiot.............. and get crappy mileage (and believe me, I see plenty of people doing just that. I would be surprised if their Prius's ever run on electric alone). That is not reserved for higher hp engines.

If you are testing a car, you are testing its limits. You want to see what it can do. Somehow I don't see optimum fuel economy in that situation. LOL
The same can be said of all cars. My Cobalt SS/SC get's 34 mpg on the highway but is only rated for 30 under 2007 guidelines, probably would be 28 under 2008 guidelines.

If the EPA does not rate these 4-cylinder ecoboost engine's more efficient then the V6 engines that they replace, the customer will not care and Ford will have a huge flop on their hand.

In my judgment, it seems as thought (with the exception of certain engines like OHV V8's) the more power an engine has the lower the EPA rating it get's no matter if it is turbo, NA, or whatever.

I don't think that under the new EPA testing procedures that they feather the throttle or else the Malibu would not be rated 26 mpg highway, the Cobalt would not be rated 31 (2.2), etc etc.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,033 Posts
I think we shouldn't react to the preliminary detail. These engines will probably satisfy our thirst for quick acceleration and, hopefully, not be too thirsty.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,943 Posts
I guess I am at a loss unless I missed something in the article....no weight savings, no mileage increase, same power in a smaller engine....am I not seeing the forest for the trees?
What it does is give a small displacement I-4 the power of a large I-4, a large I-4 the power of a v6, and a V-6 the power of a v8. Meaning you're able to build a Fusion or Taurus with an I-4 with I-4 fuel economy while having the same power you did with a v6. It doesn't improve economy in the engine, it allows you to use a more economical engine. I would also assume you would have more room for a hybrid system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,636 Posts
I still question how much money these engines will save. The Eco-Boost engines are probably going to cost more than a normal engine, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear if you need to run high octane fuel to get the full benefits of this engine. If I am wrong please tell me why.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,818 Posts
What it does is give a small displacement I-4 the power of a large I-4, a large I-4 the power of a v6, and a V-6 the power of a v8. Meaning you're able to build a Fusion or Taurus with an I-4 with I-4 fuel economy while having the same power you did with a v6. It doesn't improve economy in the engine, it allows you to use a more economical engine. I would also assume you would have more room for a hybrid system.
So who exactly benifit's???

I don't see turbo's being the answer for fuel economy except in sub 2.0L 4 cylinder engines like GM is doing.

A turbo V6 is going to suck gas on the EPA testing loop even if it gets good mileage by going easy on the pedal in real life.

That's why, like I said, we have to wait on the EPA numbers before we go heaping praise on Ford.

300 hp is 300 hp, 4 6 or 8 cylinders, it only make a differece of 1-2 mpg.

See Evo X, Subaru STi, RX-8, any exotic with a 4.0L V8 that get's crappier mileage then GM's 7.0L V8.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,106 Posts
So who exactly benifit's???

I don't see turbo's being the answer for fuel economy except in sub 2.0L 4 cylinder engines like GM is doing.

A turbo V6 is going to suck gas on the EPA testing loop even if it gets good mileage by going easy on the pedal in real life.

That's why, like I said, we have to wait on the EPA numbers before we go heaping praise on Ford.

300 hp is 300 hp, 4 6 or 8 cylinders, it only make a differece of 1-2 mpg.

See Evo X, Subaru STi, RX-8, any exotic with a 4.0L V8 that get's crappier mileage then GM's 7.0L V8.
2 mpg is a ~10% improvement for the most cars out there. I don't think any company can come up with a miracle and find ~5-6 mpg improvement out of nowhere. We are talking about steady 1-2 mpg improvements.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,818 Posts
2 mpg is a ~10% improvement for the most cars out there. I don't think any company can come up with a miracle and find ~5-6 mpg improvement out of nowhere. We are talking about steady 1-2 mpg improvements.
Yes but like I said I can see that on the 4 cylinder side but not on the 6 and 8 cylinder side.

A 300 hp V6 is going to suck just as much gas as a small displacement V8 there is just no getting around that.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,284 Posts
As has been stated time and again, the ecoboost engines are designed to run on regular fuel.

Lets wait and see, please. Believe it or not, there are advances in technology, as time goes by. These advances can lead to better fuel economy. These engines are supposed to have an extremely advanced tune/ECM.

As member17739 said, a 1-2mpg improvement is huge. No one thing is going to meet the upcoming CAFE standard. It will require a bunch of small improvements.

The question I have is this................if it was GM who had announced this, and proclaimed that the engines would have improved fuel economy over an equivelant powered larger engine................ would all of this doubt as to the validity of the statement still exist???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,818 Posts
As has been stated time and again, the ecoboost engines are designed to run on regular fuel.

Lets wait and see, please. Believe it or not, there are advances in technology, as time goes by. These advances can lead to better fuel economy. These engines are supposed to have an extremely advanced tune/ECM.

As member17739 said, a 1-2mpg improvement is huge. No one thing is going to meet the upcoming CAFE standard. It will require a bunch of small improvements.

The question I have is this................if it was GM who had announced this, and proclaimed that the engines would have improved fuel economy over an equivelant powered larger engine................ would all of this doubt as to the validity of the statement still exist???
Yes it would.

I am excited to see the upcoming 1.4L turbo for the Cobalt but that is an engine that is going into a relatively light car and will have a good weight/torque ratio and it is a VERY SMALL displacement.

If GM was throwing a twin-turbo 3.6HF into the Silverado I would question judgement there as well.

But, GM doesn't have to do that. Unlike Ford, GM has a hybrid system for their full-size trucks. GM also has E-Flex, BAS+, and 2 mode's planned for the Lambda's and Theta's as well.

GM is well positioned for CAFE. I have a feeling they will be switching on lower-displacement turbo engines to pick up last last MPG or two on the smaller cars but I still do not see them putting turbo V6 engines in their full size trucks to replace low-output V8 engines like ford is doing.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,436 Posts
Yes it would.

I am excited to see the upcoming 1.4L turbo for the Cobalt but that is an engine that is going into a relatively light car and will have a good weight/torque ratio and it is a VERY SMALL displacement.

If GM was throwing a twin-turbo 3.6HF into the Silverado I would question judgement there as well.

But, GM doesn't have to do that. Unlike Ford, GM has a hybrid system for their full-size trucks. GM also has E-Flex, BAS+, and 2 mode's planned for the Lambda's and Theta's as well.

GM is well positioned for CAFE. I have a feeling they will be switching on lower-displacement turbo engines to pick up last last MPG or two on the smaller cars but I still do not see them putting turbo V6 engines in their full size trucks to replace low-output V8 engines like ford is doing.

GM may offer lots of technology in their fullsized trucks, but is anyone buying it? It costs a fortune. Sales of their hybrid trucks is proof of that.

EcoBoost stands a chance because it is relatively cheap.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,971 Posts
The same can be said of all cars. My Cobalt SS/SC get's 34 mpg on the highway but is only rated for 30 under 2007 guidelines, probably would be 28 under 2008 guidelines.

If the EPA does not rate these 4-cylinder ecoboost engine's more efficient then the V6 engines that they replace, the customer will not care and Ford will have a huge flop on their hand.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/dearmfr/gasmgdc.pdf

Keep in mind that the fuel economy guidelines the government uses for CAFE compliance are not the same ones it uses to list the EPA stickers. So we can be pretty confident your Cobalt SS Supercharged counts at better than its 2008 EPA fuel economy rating against GM's CAFE requirement.
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top