Originally Posted by Kenferg1

You know, I did a search with multiple terms. Nothing about this came up, or there were more than 100 threads to search. So, I posted a simple question to hopefully gain a little more knowledge about how much the technology has improved this little engine. I am not an engineer, just someone who is interested in performance and the changes that technology brings to this vehicle.

So I looked at the numbers, posted what I found and posed the question. Now, this may have been discussed several hundred threads ago, earlier this summer, or last year when the engine came out. I didn't find anything. So I posted the question.

There are more than 500,000 EB owners. Some of them are new owners with questions. I know that multiple threads discussing the identical issues can be annoying. But, like I said, I didn't find anything.

If I write like I'm annoyed, it's because I am. Sometimes I think this forum is dominated by self-annoited know-it-alls who simply endure the rest of us even though it annoys the crap out of them. If you fit this profile, get over it. If not then don't post if you do not wish to add something of substance. Simply hit the back button and read something else.

There... I fell better!

Originally Posted by truckerdude

Ford just sold their 100,000th Ecoboost for the F150 or are you referring to eco in other vehicles? Some know it alls actually do know something.... LOL

Originally Posted by Kenferg1

....While it was designed from the ground up to use twin turbos, it would not be impossible to test the engine as designed without turbos. Ford had a 1.3L GDI engine in Europe in 2001 that did not utilize turbos. It seems to me that having baseline power figures without turbos would be part of the development of the engine.
....

Originally Posted by gimmie11s

Sure it would be possible but it would also be pointless and a waste of time. As you put in your first sentence, this engine was designed to use foced induction.

Forced induction motors generate their own atmospheric pressure so there is no need to focus on precise cylinder head design or to design the most efficient intake manifold because the motor DOES NOT need to work to pull in air.

With that said--the cams, valve timing and ignition timing, exhaust design (size and routing), compression ratio, and many other components that are critical in their design in making horseopwer in NA applications are built/desinged to work together and around turbo useage on the EB.

If you were to simply pull the turbos and dyno the motor it would be a complete dog and be lucky make 200hp.


To be fair, you'd have to outfit the motor with more aggressive cams (3.7?), higher compression, lighter rods and pistons for a higher rev range, free flowing exhaust, and a slew of other NA parts to get it to perform without turbos.

Originally Posted by Kenferg1

You know, I did a search with multiple terms. Nothing about this came up, or there were more than 100 threads to search. So, I posted a simple question to hopefully gain a little more knowledge about how much the technology has improved this little engine. I am not an engineer, just someone who is interested in performance and the changes that technology brings to this vehicle.

So I looked at the numbers, posted what I found and posed the question. Now, this may have been discussed several hundred threads ago, earlier this summer, or last year when the engine came out. I didn't find anything. So I posted the question.

There are more than 500,000 EB owners. Some of them are new owners with questions. I know that multiple threads discussing the identical issues can be annoying. But, like I said, I didn't find anything.

If I write like I'm annoyed, it's because I am. Sometimes I think this forum is dominated by self-annoited know-it-alls who simply endure the rest of us even though it annoys the crap out of them. If you fit this profile, get over it. If not then don't post if you do not wish to add something of substance. Simply hit the back button and read something else.

There... I fell better!

Originally Posted by Kenferg1

You know, I did a search with multiple terms. Nothing about this came up, or there were more than 100 threads to search. So, I posted a simple question to hopefully gain a little more knowledge about how much the technology has improved this little engine. I am not an engineer, just someone who is interested in performance and the changes that technology brings to this vehicle.

So I looked at the numbers, posted what I found and posed the question. Now, this may have been discussed several hundred threads ago, earlier this summer, or last year when the engine came out. I didn't find anything. So I posted the question.

There are more than 500,000 EB owners. Some of them are new owners with questions. I know that multiple threads discussing the identical issues can be annoying. But, like I said, I didn't find anything.

If I write like I'm annoyed, it's because I am. Sometimes I think this forum is dominated by self-annoited know-it-alls who simply endure the rest of us even though it annoys the crap out of them. If you fit this profile, get over it. If not then don't post if you do not wish to add something of substance. Simply hit the back button and read something else.

There... I fell better!

Originally Posted by Kenferg1

Good points. I guess I was thinking in terms of the way turbo systems have been added to NA engines in the past. With modern materials, design, and computer technology a gas engine can be purpose built from day 1 to be a turbo engine. This, I suppose, is the change that makes Ford's turbo program so different. They are not simply adapting turbos to existing designs; they are designing mass production engines based on old and new technology.

I guess I have to change my mindset when thinking about these things.