Real gimmick thread?

It's done it's job as a marketing tool. People have associated turbos with performance for a long time, naming the cars something else drove away that image. Not to mention a turbo car tuned for fuel economy isn't going to be running the same setup as a turbo car tuned for power.

File: _20151030_141404.jpg (25KB, 350x382px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 350x382px

>>14536608
>engine requires more air and fuel
>economic

>>14536616
>smaller engines require less gas idling
>if you granny drive it the turbo hardly spools anyway thus saving fuel
>hooning

>>14536616
When not on boost, the small displacement engine is going to use less fuel. Then boost is there for when people want passing power.

>>14536624
Then why bother with the turbo?

Shit makes zero sense except as a money maker marketed to weak minded fools.
(Normal Ford owners)

>>14536637
>being this retarded

>>14536637
>turbo is there because with no power people will just buy the v8
>power when you hoon
>mileage when you granny

>>14536651
>>14536652
So 1.0 ecoshit makes 125hp and gets an average of 32mpg
The Toyota 1.8 1zz makes 140hp and average 37mpg

Ford a shit
Ecoboost a shitty scam

>>14536651
>>14536652
He's made it abundantly clear he's beyond retarded at this point, no need to further reply.

>>14536671
>comparing engines with different sizes in different vehicles

>>14536688
How else would you compare?
Also if the ecoboost didn't have a turbo it would get better MPG.

>>14536703
>How else would you compare?
kek
4 chan really is lowest common denominator

>>14536703
if it didn't have a tarbo it would make around 65 hp too. nobody would buy it. If you sunday drive it everywhere like it doesn't have a tarbo you will get much better mileage, but most people drive aggressively and accelerate fast, especially in cities.

>>14536717
>being this mad that a larger displacement and much older engine with more HP gets better mpg in a heavier and larger car than a tiny engine with a tiny turbo in a tiny car
Stay mad

>>14536721
Or you could buy a corolla and have more hp, more safety, more room, and better mpg.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (14KB, 530x184px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 530x184px

>>14536602

>>14536729
>being so poorly educated you think this is how you perform rigorous scientific scrutiny

File: 1456381841190.png (33KB, 1020x426px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 1020x426px

>>14536754

>>14536740
>buying a corolla
the ecoboost has much more potential for the aftermarket community seeing as it is already tar-boed, installing a larger tarbo or other modifications are much easier as it is already a forced induction engine. It can also realize much more gains with a simple electronic tuning kit.
>more potential for power for cheaper
>not considering an ecoboost

File: 423289868.jpg (193KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 1280x853px

>>14536602
>Hemi engine

Why are they so proud of this?

>>14536770
Guess what happens when you up the power on an already high strung 4 cylinder not built for making power?

Things go boom.

>>14536616
>arguing with dead moose
Youll get btfo

>>14536942
You give me way too much credit.

>>14536926
depends on compression. can tune for lower compression and add bigger turbo.

>>14536671
Compare the torks and when it comes in. More torque at lower rpm is better.

>>14538731
>More torque at lower rpm is better
For what?
The 16 year old Toyota engine destroys the ecoshit
Why is this even an argument?

>>14538749
>For what?
Get out.

>>14536637
Because its more efficient.

Efficiency losses in engine include, but are not limited to, frictional losses, pumping losses and thermal inefficiency.

The easiest way to reduce frictional losses is to remove cylinders from the engine. Expect to see more 3 cylinder engines in the future. And expect them to become increasingly used as range extenders to electric motors rather than full on propulsion units.

Pumping losses are more tricky.
The engine's valves, ports, cam profile and throttle body have to be sized to allow the engine to flow sufficient air to make the advertised power.
But thats way too big to get the engine to operate at idle or cruse speeds. You have to limit the amount of air engine gets to make it idle.
This is done by throttling the engine with a throttle plate. The result is the engine is operating against a vacuum in the manifold (lower pressure in the manifold than the cylinder) so energy is wasted overcoming a pressure difference.
To overcome this fancy valve trains are being developed with variable lift and duration. This allows the valves to control the air flow into the cylinders so the pressure in the manifold can be atmospheric (or higher with a turbo, but thats more like a miller cycle).

Thermal efficient is easy.
A rough estimate of an engines thermal efficiency is 1/compression ratio(CR)
The higher the CR the better the efficiency. But you can only up the CR so much before you get knock, and no one wants to run their daily on 110 octane race fuel.
This is where turbos come into play.
The reason we can't just keep upping the CR in an NA engine is that too much heat is produced and the fuel is induced to ignite without the spark from the spark plug.
With a turbo, we can compress the air before it enters the engine with a very efficient centrifugal compressor, remove the heat from the compressed air with the intercooler, and then compress it further in the engine without reaching the auto ignition temperature of the fuel.

mazda has proved with skyactiv that downsized turbo engines are stupid and na is best way to go for low displacement econoengines.
ecoboost is a gimmick

>>14538749
If you compared the two engines the ecoboost will have better bsfc, lower emissions, lower frictional and pumping losses and higher power density.
Technology doesn't go backwards.