Consumer Reports says turbos don't live up to the hype
02-10-2013, 12:30 PM
#91
I think this is directed at me since I mentioned compression ratio in my post?
If it is, I wrote from the standpoint that the people who would read it automatically knew what upping the compression ratio will do, and also the result of raising it on a turbo motor in relation to the point of the article. I obviously wasn't clear enough.
Anyway, upping the compression ratio doesn't directly improve fuel mileage. When I spoke about Direct Injection allowing for higher compression, I was talking about how upping the compression on say the F150 Ecoboost would allow the motor to do things like pull away from stop lights, and travel along an undulating road WITHOUT having to rely on boost to do so(increasing its mileage).
Simply raising the compression ratio gives more bottom end power-it doesn't necessarily raise mileage. How you do it obviously opens the door to other 'benefits' as well(one of which is raising mileage indirectly), but I was ONLY speaking to the article's point about using N/A motors that can propel a given vehicle down the road at 'acceptable' speeds, as the base power-plant for turbo-charged engines.
Makes you wonder why Ford didn't start with say the 3.7L...
As far as 8-speed transmissions are concerned, they're a band-aid(FREEWAY mileage) manufacturers use to meet current CAFE standards until they(hopefully) come up with better long-term solutions.
The 8-speed in this capacity actually started out as a 5-speed automatic, then 6-speed(both auto and manual), then 7-speed(Mercedes and Porsche, and maybe others I'm not aware of), now 8-speed.
Chrysler/Dodge actually did a pretty good job of 'maximizing' the 6-speed in the Grand Cherokee. Along with cylinder deactivation, they've taken the usually 'thirsty' 5.7 'Hemi', and turned a ***** into a respectable woman. Mercedes left behind some good technology as well as better/newer skill-sets with Chrysler's engineers. Unfortunately Mercedes took with it some Chrysler 'skill-sets' as well,mainly in the form of shoddy build quality. I can't remember if it was M/T or C&D who recently reported that Mercedes build quality is JUST NOW starting to show improvement from its Chrysler days...
But I digress...
I test drove a Cheap Turkey(Grand Cherokee) before I bought my F150, and the damn thing BLEW the Ecoboost out of the water on both the freeway AND the street mileage-wise.
With both motors being new and therefore 'tight', the G.C. hovered between 23 and 24mpg while on the freeway, and when I got off and drove several miles on the street, it went down to, but didn't dip below 19mpg.
If it is, I wrote from the standpoint that the people who would read it automatically knew what upping the compression ratio will do, and also the result of raising it on a turbo motor in relation to the point of the article. I obviously wasn't clear enough.
Anyway, upping the compression ratio doesn't directly improve fuel mileage. When I spoke about Direct Injection allowing for higher compression, I was talking about how upping the compression on say the F150 Ecoboost would allow the motor to do things like pull away from stop lights, and travel along an undulating road WITHOUT having to rely on boost to do so(increasing its mileage).
Simply raising the compression ratio gives more bottom end power-it doesn't necessarily raise mileage. How you do it obviously opens the door to other 'benefits' as well(one of which is raising mileage indirectly), but I was ONLY speaking to the article's point about using N/A motors that can propel a given vehicle down the road at 'acceptable' speeds, as the base power-plant for turbo-charged engines.
Makes you wonder why Ford didn't start with say the 3.7L...
As far as 8-speed transmissions are concerned, they're a band-aid(FREEWAY mileage) manufacturers use to meet current CAFE standards until they(hopefully) come up with better long-term solutions.
The 8-speed in this capacity actually started out as a 5-speed automatic, then 6-speed(both auto and manual), then 7-speed(Mercedes and Porsche, and maybe others I'm not aware of), now 8-speed.
Chrysler/Dodge actually did a pretty good job of 'maximizing' the 6-speed in the Grand Cherokee. Along with cylinder deactivation, they've taken the usually 'thirsty' 5.7 'Hemi', and turned a ***** into a respectable woman. Mercedes left behind some good technology as well as better/newer skill-sets with Chrysler's engineers. Unfortunately Mercedes took with it some Chrysler 'skill-sets' as well,mainly in the form of shoddy build quality. I can't remember if it was M/T or C&D who recently reported that Mercedes build quality is JUST NOW starting to show improvement from its Chrysler days...
But I digress...
I test drove a Cheap Turkey(Grand Cherokee) before I bought my F150, and the damn thing BLEW the Ecoboost out of the water on both the freeway AND the street mileage-wise.
With both motors being new and therefore 'tight', the G.C. hovered between 23 and 24mpg while on the freeway, and when I got off and drove several miles on the street, it went down to, but didn't dip below 19mpg.
I don't think that transmissions are a band-aid. And I don't necessarily think 'more gears are better' in all applications.
However, on 5600-6000lb vehicles like pickups, keeping the rpms low plays an even greater role in economical driving than it does in smaller vehicles.
With the exception of comparing gas to diesel, the biggest gains in FE have been at least as much in the transmissions as the engines.
The 4-speed to 6-speed conversion in the 4.6L 4WD raised the FE by 15%, with gains to city and highway mileage. The spacing of the gears allowed them to stay in lower rpms in 'normal' accelerating and driving situations.
That band-aid was a solution 2-decades overdue when Ford finally did it. Sure a 5-speed would have helped in the interim (90's, early 00's) but the 4-speeds were clearly the root cause of a lot of wasted fuel over the years.
Last edited by BigMcLargeHuge; 02-10-2013 at 12:37 PM.
02-10-2013, 12:33 PM
#92
Inebriated 4 ur safety
Absolutely, in terms of fuel economy. As so many have noted, it comes down to the driver, terrain, gas, etc. Not so much for torque. The EB has the torque trophy, no question. But that doesn't make the 5.0 a slouch. It's almost like comparing a Ferrari to a Lamborghini. Both are stellar performance cars but each is also distinctive in its own way. (I'd rather have a 'vette anyway. 
) I'll give up horsepower and torque all day long for reliability and drivability. (To a point... if it starts with a "1" in the HP/Torque number I'm not that interested.)
) I'll give up horsepower and torque all day long for reliability and drivability. (To a point... if it starts with a "1" in the HP/Torque number I'm not that interested.) Did you just say that torque does not matter in a truck? Are you also saying that the EB is not as reliable as the 5.0L? You might want to check the forums again bud, because both are having issues which are just a part of the new engine process. The EB has one major shudder issue and the 5.0L is having it's knock and oil consumption issues. I am not calling the 5.0 bad, just saying that it takes a special kind of stupid (or bias) to think that either one will not have problems right off the line and call one more reliable than the other. Also, if you are going by fuel alone then why not have the 3.7L in the mix since it gets way better mpg than the 3 other engines in this segment and since most " 1/2 ton" pick up buyers do not even tow more than 6,000 lbs to warrant needing the 5.0L or EB?
But..... If you want to do fuel mileage comparisons then lets quit being biased and also compare their ability as well. Here are the truck engine and ratios that compare to each other by their ability in a 2wd Supercrew short bed which is the most bought cab configuration. (BTW, just because a truck tows less than another does not make it inferior. It just means the owner speced out their truck to fit their towing needs and how much fuel mileage that want to achieve. It depends on what's the right engine/ratio to fit your needs/wants.)
In the 6,000lbs segment
3.7L - 3.73 / 6,300lbs towing
In the 8,000lbs segment
5.0L - 3.31 / 8,000lbs towing(only can be had in 2wd)
5.0L - 3.55 / 8,000lbs towing
VS.
EB - 3.15 / 8,500lbs towing(only can be had in 2wd)
In the 9,000lbs segment
5.0L - 3.73 / 9,400lbs towing
VS
EB - 3.31 / 9,400lbs towing
EB - 3.55 / 9,800lbs towing
VS
6.2L - 3.55 / 9,800lbs towing
In the 10,000 and 11,000lbs segment
5.0L - N/A
VS
EB - 3.73 / 11,300lbs towing
VS
6.2L - 3.73 / 11,300lbs towing
Notice that the 6.2L and the EB have the same towing ability with the same ratios vs the less towing ability on the 5.0L with the same ratio. That might give a clue right there that the EB is more comparable to the 6.2L and NOT the 5.0L.
Why can't you just be happy in the fact that you bought your 5.0L because you like V8's and their exhaust note. I wouldn't argue with that since that is your preference. But to try to justify your choice by downing others in the process with non factual information like saying one is less reliable is just bringing this upon yourself. Just go out, drive your truck, and be happy in the fact that the 5.0L was the best engine for YOU, and not anyone else.
Last edited by Al Kohalic; 02-10-2013 at 04:29 PM.
The following users liked this post:
engineermike (02-10-2013)
02-10-2013, 01:01 PM
#93
Not disputing Engineermike's reasoning (as he is usually right
). But another reason they may have went with the 3.5 is timing. The 3.5 has been out quite a while and the Ecoboost technology has been in the works for several years. The 3.5 was a proven durable platform and the 3.7 was just getting started. Ford has a history of taking the safe route in r&d.Would love to see a 3.7 Eco!
The following users liked this post:
engineermike (02-10-2013)
02-10-2013, 03:50 PM
#94
Senior Member
...Not disputing Engineermike's reasoning (as he is usually right). But another reason they may have went with the 3.5 is timing. The 3.5 has been out quite a while and the Ecoboost technology has been in the works for several years. The 3.5 was a proven durable platform and the 3.7 was just getting started. Ford has a history of taking the safe route in r&d...
). But another reason they may have went with the 3.5 is timing. The 3.5 has been out quite a while and the Ecoboost technology has been in the works for several years. The 3.5 was a proven durable platform and the 3.7 was just getting started. Ford has a history of taking the safe route in r&d...
02-10-2013, 03:58 PM
#95
Senior Member
Yep, if fuel economy is your goal, you might want to skip the turbo and go for something simpler.
http://news.consumerreports.org/cars...my-claims.html...
http://news.consumerreports.org/cars...my-claims.html...
I would also like to point out that CR did not make an attempt to duplicate driving conditions for each car, along with the fact that they tried to draw conclusions across makes and models. Turbo cars tend to "taunt" you into driving more aggressively due to the aforementioned part-throttle acceleration surge. This, of course, uses more fuel.
It would be great if someone were to test all these cars in the exact same conditions and acceleration rates. Oh wait..."some body" did and the results showed the smaller turbo engines consistently demonstrated higher mileage.
The more I think about it, I'm really surprised that CR even published such obvious rubbish.
The following 2 users liked this post by engineermike:
BigMcLargeHuge (02-11-2013),
crockett56 (02-11-2013)
02-10-2013, 04:28 PM
#96
Senior Member
I would also like to point out that CR did not make an attempt to duplicate driving conditions for each car, along with the fact that they tried to draw conclusions across makes and models. Turbo cars tend to "taunt" you into driving more aggressively due to the aforementioned part-throttle acceleration surge. This, of course, uses more fuel.
It would be great if someone were to test all these cars in the exact same conditions and acceleration rates. Oh wait..."some body" did and the results showed the smaller turbo engines consistently demonstrated higher mileage.
The more I think about it, I'm really surprised that CR even published such obvious rubbish.
02-11-2013, 05:09 PM
#97
Wouldn't you think the ecoboost is more comparable to the 6.2 liter rather than the 5.0? If so, the ecoboost is a large improvement to mileage. Look at the chart I posted earlier. That is just the point, the ecoboost does compare in fuel economy to the 5.0 but compares to the 6.2 in power.
02-23-2013, 10:22 AM
#98
Well Corvettedreamin created a new thread about the ecoboost and looks like he has abandoned this one. Now he is mentioning a class action lawsuit for ecoboost owners. His interest in the ecoboost is pretty amazing considering he doesn't own one.
The following users liked this post:
geno51 (02-23-2013)