What are the benefits of downsized engines and direct injection?

None, all they were for was cheating EU emissions regulations. Now that is changing slightly larger engines are returning.
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/future-cars-will-get-bigger-engines-due-real-world-emissions-tests

Displacenent taxes if you live in a shit country

A 1.5L turbo doesn't actually get better economy than a 2.5L naturally aspirated engine though, don't kid yourself

>>16227583
Oh wow 1.2l to 1.5l. Big engines are really making a come back.

>>16227583
But wasn't all the emissions cheating done on diesels

>>16227610
VAG cheats on gasoline too

Audi got caught

>>16227610
Diesels were the biggest cheats because EU regulations on particulates are very strict. Future regs will make a viable diesel engine almost impossible.

>>16227586

>A 1.5L turbo doesn't actually get better economy than a 2.5L naturally aspirated engine though, don't kid yourself

Maybe in modern cars, but I doubt it.

I have a 1.6L direct injected turbo motor and a 2.2L NA conventionally fuel injected motor. The 1.6L car weighs 2700 lbs, the 2.2L car weighs 2600 lbs. Both standard transmission, both econocars.

Based on a 15 week average of fuel consumption, the 1.6L motor is getting 4 MPG better than the 2.2L motor.

Only catch is the 2.2L motor is 12 years old and has 150k miles, which probably affects the fuel economy. In a brand new car with an NA 2.2 and a turbo DI 1.6, the mileage might be closer, but I doubt it. The 1.6 will always win out in low load situations, which is about 90% of driving.

so no one actually knows then?

>>16227569

blahblahblah eco boost pick one etc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E0tajBP8VI

It never made sense to replace 2.0L N/A's with smaller turbo engines with the same output.

In the real world, people drive like idiots and negate the "eco" benefits of a turbo car.

If a highway is 75MPH and you have to push your 1.4L turbo into boost just to maintain that speed, there goes your eco because the turbo, even at just a few PSI of boost, is now generating higher effective compression than a similar N/A engine, which is to say more air and fuel are being used.

Not saying turbos aren't awesome, but this whole shit where automakers tried to pass off poncy-ass turbocharged engines as "more economical" is flawed in reality when it works great on paper and in a controlled lab environment.

>>16228156

It would have made more sense to simply add turbochargers to the existing engines and develop lots more power on lower boost/lower stress while lowering the effective compression while in vacuum.

Fucking GM did it with the 300HP Turbo4 Camaro. There's literally no downside in turboing existing engines. You'll still get good fuel econ out of boost, and you won't need to rely on the turbo as much in regular driving anyway.

And when we finally see Turbo6's become commonplace, it'll only get better because they'll be running even less boost and be considerably less stressed, but will still have enormous potential for anyone who wants to push it further. This is how it worked back in the 90s with the Poopra/300ZX/Skyline/ETC, the engines were simply not boosting hard and still had great output. Unlocking their potential was as simple as upping the boost.

>>16227610
the vw diesel thing is actual illegal cheating.
but downsizing is merely legally gaming the stats.
they do the numbers but the model uses unrealistic driving techniques, 0-60 in 100 seconds or something like that.