Has Ford been wise in investing so heavily in researching turbochargers?

>>13830354
turbos generally do better in tests for sure

Low boost turbos are a good way to go for efficiency because the are basically scavenging waste energy from the exhaust stream.

>>13830374
This. My 2015 Fusion with 2.0L ecoboost is supposed to average 22 mpg city, 31 highway. I'm lucky to average 20 city and 26-27 mpg highway.

>>13830354
>Have they made any real strides in terms of fuel efficiency
I think part of the idea is that you have small power off boost so you can get better mpg in the city
at lest that was the case in the 80s

>>13830422
Better then my 03 SVT, I get as low as 15 city but about 30 highway.

>>13830433
Yeah the point nowadays is that the tarbo don't spool up during normal operation so they act like a 1.0 liter NA engine. And in normal operation, when the user decides to go fast, it does and acts like a 2.5l engine on compression, but decompresses like a 1.0 still, meaning you get more torque, but also much more waste in the form of exhaust heat and noise

Will GM or Chrysler ever get as deep as Ford in turbos?

>>13830354
>researching turbochargers?
lmao 'researching turbochargers' what is it 1918?

File: 1445900844988.jpg (293KB, 910x1200px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 910x1200px

>>13831909
Chrysler will never stoop so low

File: ms3_tarbo.jpg (160KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1024x768px

>>13830354
>heavily in researching turbochargers
You mean investing in Mazda to have them develop all the tech used in EcoBoost motors? I think they got a pretty good deal out of it considering they sold Mazda later (whether at a profit or loss I don't know).

>>13831980
This.
Mazda did everything for ford.
Ford then shit on them like they do all their partners.

Nah turbos are just a meme in the auto industry to deal with emissions. You use much more fuel than with a na engine in real life testing

>>13831980
Ford didn't sell Mazda. They just stopped being partners because Mazda was tired of being held back and getting a bad name because of ford

>>13832000
I thought Ford sold Mazda to stay afloat while the rest of the Amerifats were busy holding their hands out to the government for freebies.

>>13831989
>Mazda did everything for ford.
You make it sound way too personal.
Ford's done okay by it's partners generally.

>>13831909
Supercharging is cheaper.

Yes this allows them to use smaller engines cutting fuel cost to consumers while still making enough power to make large vehicles feel responsive.

>>13831962
I'll take literally every fucking k platform vehicle chrysler ever made for 500, Alex.

>>13832581
Turbo commuter cars has been a thing since the 80's, the Dart has a turbo engine. But to go as far as Ford and claim there's replacement for displacement? No.

most F150 owners trade in the TT v6 for the 5.0 and get similar fuel economy.
the issue is the engine is so detuned, that it's complete shit off boost.
so you have to hit boost to do anything
the minute a V6 hits boost u are consuming as much gas as a V8,
not to mention the turbos going out at 50K miles.

>>13831989
>Ford then shit on them like they do all their partners.

By "shit on them" you mean "save them from bankruptcy and return them to profitability", right?

im still not sold on direct injection so these modern turbos all having that are still a big nogo for me. just look on the f150 forums threads about people bitching about the ecoboost issues. shit from intercoolers clogging to turbos just straight up taking a dump. ford still has a lot to improve before i would ever consider buying a factory one from them.

>>13835199
Not at all. Go read faggot

File: WP_20140809_002.jpg (2MB, 3552x2000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3552x2000px

>>13835212
A lot of the issue I find in DI motors is the lack of valve cleaning because there's no gas flowing over them (unless you own a based 'yota). I have to say, ripping off my intake headers and cleaning my valves every 50k isn't very fun.

Small turbos that don't spool up till high rpms, combined with small engines that make low power until the turbo spools up. Equals fuel efficiency if you keep the RPMs low, and power if you punch it.

File: turbo_baby.png (424KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

424KB, 640x480px

>>13836377
>Small turbos that don't spool up till high rpms
Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of a small turbo though? You'd think they'd just slap a big one on there then.

File: 1443159274149.jpg (32KB, 300x310px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 300x310px

>>13836377
This is bait, right?

>>13832331
Aren't they worse on gas?

>>13832778

No... no they haven't.

Turbo commuter cars are a new thing.

>>13836702
Meh, turbos are worse on gas too.

>>13836377

My kia optima turbo is at full boost at 2500 rpm.

>>13836716
You're an idiot. My sister drove her family around in a turbo mini Chrysler minivan 2 decades ago.

File: wow_.jpg (28KB, 245x252px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 245x252px

>>13836739

The Turbo Dodge caravan was sold for literally 1 year.

>>13836768
literally 26 years ago

>>13836788

One example that ran for 1 year doesn't make it a thing. It makes it a random experiment by dodge.

Turbo commuter cars are a new and recent thing, the minivan decided to use their srt engine in doesn't make it common enough to be even a footnote.

>>13836805
They aren't new in slightest. Go use your mum's internet connection to learn things since you obviously aren't old enough to have been around 30 years ago.

>>13836832


Name 5 Turbo commuter cars akin to the dodge dart turbo, Kia optima SX, Forte SX. Chevy cruze. or the many many turbo crossovers.

>teams of mechanical engineers are part of your brand loyalty

Cmon /o/ i knew you were stupid but get fucking educated ok.

>>13836894
Audi 5000 Turbo
Audi A4
Saab 900 Turbo
Volvo 740 Turbo
Ford Thunderbird
For starters..

>>13836929
literally every japanese car ever also.

>>13836929

Luxary car
Luxary car
Luxary car
Luxary car
Sports car

>>13836942

All sports cars or luxary cars


Sports cars and executive cars aren't akin to the turbo commuter cars we have on the road today.

>>13830422
You have a heavy foot

>>13836377
My Focus ST has the smallest turbo known to man and it's at full boost instantly at any RPM as soon as I go WOT. It spools up so damn quick.

>>13837061
They are more than akin to commuter cars as they ARE commuter cars. Also, none of these cars are particularly luxurious. This is also not a comprehensive list. Do your own homework if you're really that interested. However I doubt you are, it sounds more as if you just want to argue.

>>13836894
(This is mostly an exercise for me to see if I can name lower-priced cars with turbos)

Kia Forte Koup
Ford Focus ST
Ford Fiesta ST
Chevy Malibu Turbo
Hyundai Veloster Turbo
2016 Honda Civic

These might also count (under $30,000):
VW Golf GTI
VW Golf TDI
BRZ/FR-S/86
WRX

>>13837112

Try to debate it all you want, but they were considered to be luxary cars.

You made the argument that they were a common thing in the 80s.

Commuter cars are corolla camry accord competitors. These cars were never base level cars that we see coming in turbos like they do now adays.

File: city_turbo_II.jpg (303KB, 1576x1050px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 1576x1050px

>>13836894
Honda City Turbo II
Mazda 323 GTX

Off the top of my head

>>13837123
None those are 80s and 90s cars.

>>13836894
I know a dude with a Chevy Cruze turbo who put Ford RS badges on it. I dunno how to politely tell him to knock that off because his Cruze is just an economy car and not a performance car. He talks to me about tuning it and such and I try to very nicely dissuade him away from that but he seems to believe that having a turbo means it's a sports car. Feels bad, man.

Turbo economy cars only get good MPG if you stay out of boost. Turbo chargers eat the fuck out of gas, they are only there to give them the extra OOMPH needed for highway merging or getting up to speed in a reasonable time without having to resort to high displacement engines that always consume lots of fuel vs a turbo where the driver can decide when they need the extra power via throttle control.

>>13837112
>>13837128
they were considered premium/executive cars.

I know that modern turbos are oil and cooling jacket cooled but should people be letting them cool off after driving hard? It seems like nobody does and no stock vehicles come with a turbo timer.

My mom's co-worker is on her 3rd turbo on her Chevy Cruze. Shitty gas? Not letting the turbo cool down? what gives?

>>13837128
Again asshole, even luxury cars are commuter cars and also...wtf country do you come from where a Audi 5000, a Volvo, or a SAAB are "luxary" cars?

>>13837123

Forte koup
Veloster Turbo
Sonata Turbo
Optima SX
Dodge Dart
Chevy cruze turbo
mailubu turbo
Fiesta ST
Focus ST
Fiat 500 Abarth
Mini Cooper S
Chevy sonic (sc not turbo)

Not including the crossovers and Turbo diesels in the list off the top my head.

>>13837155
depends how they failed

>>13837157

Audi, Volvo and Saab all listed their vehicles as Lux cars.

>>13837155
I heard there was a recent recall on Cruze Turbo's to fix their AFR. From that alone, you can probably gather that they are tuned like shit. Though, if the AFR's are off I feel that the engine would go before the turbo. They probably use those Chinese paper fans in their turbos and that's why they keep breaking.

>>13837172
>shortening luxury to Lux

>>13837172
>it's better than an FSO Polonez so it's luxury

>>13837155

The cruze is just notorious for very shitty turbos that failed constantly.

Turbo timers were used due to coking, but with the new ball bearing and water cooled turbos it not an issue anymore.

>>13837133
OK then.

Dodge Omni Turbo
Dodge Daytona Turbo Z
Ford RS200
Ford Mustang SVO
Ford Thunderbird Turbo
Merkur XR4TI
Buick GNX
Buick Skylark T-Type
Buick Skyhawk T-Type
Buick Century T-Type
Buick LeSabre T-Type
Buick Somerset T-Type
Buick Riviera T-Type
Renault 5 Tubo
Pontiac Grand Prix McLaren
Chrysler Conquest TSi
Peugeot 505 Turbo
Peugeot 205 Turbo

>>13837193

only about 1 of those could be considered a commuter car

>>13837228
People commuted in all of these cars, perhaps except for the Merkur XR4TI, which was a piece of shit.

>>13836716
ford were selling shitboxes in the 80's with turbos straped to them. but you americuks didn't get the RSTurbos tho

>>13837257

You really don't what makes a commuter car. It's like saying a corvette is a commuter car cause you can drive to work in one.

>>13830354
No because they're still using Mazda engines from ten years ago.

>>13830354
>Have they made any real strides in terms of fuel efficiency?

Yes.

>Researching turbochargers

[Laughing Warehouse Workers]

>>13837324
>Svo
>Turbocoupe

>Shitbox

File: Untitled.png (4MB, 1564x1564px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1564x1564px

I have the 2.0L ecoboost. It's twin turbocharged so you have a smaller one that spools up faster and a larger one to provide consistant acceleration throughout the gear cycle. Or something like that

>>13837158
Also,

2014 + VW Jetta 1.8t and 1.4t.

>>13837130
>your car will never come with a motorcycle

>>13837328
Dodge Dynasty
Plymouth Sundance
Ford SVO
Dodge Rampage
Dodge Omni
Plymouth Scamp
Regal GNX
(really just about any car on the K platform was offered with a turbo 4 (2.5L T1, t2, or T3)

And before you cherry pick, people used 440 six pack Chargers as commuters in the 70s and beyond.

>>13830354

They already did all their ground work in the research in years ago. Primarily in Europe.

>>13836365

>tfw they don't just have one fuel injector upstream to just trickle in a little fuel every now and then.

Won't cost shit and save tonnes.

>>13831909
GM is doing it.

>offers a turbo engine on the sonic, cruze, malibu, ATS, Regal, Trax
>New CTS-V will have a turbo v6 option
>Next gen Cruze will have a 1.5t standard

>>13837152
The best I have seen from people playing with the 1.4t is a bit under 200hp with a tune on 93 octane, exhaust, intake, and intercooler.

>>13839236
Yeah, 200hp at the crank after adding over a thousand dollars worth of parts and labor. That's hilarious.

G-guys I improved my car from 180hp to 200hp after adding all of this. P-please don't ask if that's bhp or whp. ;;

>>13830422
you never get the claimed mpg "out of the box" you need to run the engine in. might take about 10,000 mls.

>>13839236
>New CTS-V will have a turbo v6 option
Are you talking about the V-Sport, which already has a TTV6, or the V?

>>13839170
Right? I just blame early DI design that hadn't really thought about it until it was too late.

>>13837152
Those things are already running a monstrous amount of boost just to get to like 140 horsepower. Let him do it, Ill listen for the sound of a nuclear explosion.

>>13835212
There have been some complaints about excessive carbon buildup on the exhaust valves and on the turbine blades.

>>13837123
Brz/frs/86 don't have turbo even though they should

>researching turbochargers?

Turbo charging a car with regular fuel is a stupid idea since they consume lots of fuel. EPA wont even allow for diesel cars to flood our market

>>13841108
Thats why they make the engines fucking microscopic. Unless you slam your foot down its pretty much an NA 1.nothing, but it still has the same peak power as the old engines. Plus the fact that a 200hp turbo will be more fuel efficient then a 200hp NA four banger at full blast.

>>13836719
Superchargers do too much top end, can fuck with reliability more

>>13841077
Really? That seems like a missed opportunity.

File: image.jpg (283KB, 765x1047px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 765x1047px

>>13837193

>>13837228
do you know how many turbo k cars there are out there

>>13843179
Or Dodge Omnis. But actually not many, the point is there WAS back then.

>>13830354
>turbo + di
>muh ecoboost
Ford is just doing what Misubishi did in the 90s-early 00s

>>13832778
>Turbo commuter cars has been a thing since the 80's
>80's

you mean 60's
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iieDedNEYuI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_keCJUvFrY

>>13843206
>Ford is just doing what Misubishi did in the 90s-early 00s
Making great cars amirite?

>>13843201
my friend had a dodge destiny 15 or so years ago you couldn't walk 10 feet without tripping over a turbo Chrysler product in the 90's shit was everywhere they were junk but they were everywhere

>>13843226
sorry it was a 600

>>13840622
Or just disable EGR.

>>13843218
urite

>>13839147

Almost all those are special models that were worse for fuel then the other versions of it. Nit really commuter. It's like saying the evo or sti is commuter versions still of the lancer or impreza. They aren't they are special models built to be unique version or sport versions

>>13832000
>>13832021
Ford still own 7%

File: asahi_occ.jpg (326KB, 1024x764px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 1024x764px

>>13843479
That'll help with 4th cylinder intake valve build up (which admittedly is the worse) but iirc everything will still have bad build up. Oil Catch Can also helps retard carbon buildup, which is why those are my next two mods.

>>13830354
Wise? Yes
Ford engineers went crazy back in 2013 when they started making engines that in US should be illegal since they us so small amounts of fuel. Just think about the 1 liter Fiesta engine.123 BHP FROM 1 LITER