>Eco >Boost Pick only one http://www.fueleconomy.gov

File: rosa_parks_questions_your_post.jpg (23KB, 393x440px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 393x440px

Never. Turbos are better for performance.

>old gt has 550 HP
>New gt has 630 HP
>New gt has same hp as old gt

Wow you really showed us OP

>>16439777
>Same mpg

Derp

>>16439777
>>New gt has 630 HP
It will have 700+

File: image.jpg (14KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 225x225px

>supercharged and almost twice the displacement
>still makes less power

>>16439785
>It will have 700+

says who.

>>16439809
V6 > v8
EcoBoost > supercharger
Ford > all

File: IMG_0148.jpg (274KB, 1620x1080px) Image search: [Google]

274KB, 1620x1080px

>forced induction

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=38507&id=20475&id=36636

File: 1476077353468.jpg (1MB, 2048x1901px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1901px

>>16439736
>Power from displacement is more efficient than power from tu...

Turbos give better economy when you keep the RPM low enough to avoid engaging the turbo. This shit isn't rocket science.

>>16439736

Forced induction is great for making more power from less engine. It is "efficient" as a means of generating power.

However, it's retarded to advertise turbos as a means of getting higher MPGs. Eco and Boost are mutually exclusive. Powerful cars that get good MPG are a result of that power barely being used (eg Corvettes getting 30mpg highway) but a smaller, higher-strung engine that needs to tap into boost constantly just to cruise the highway will get worse MPG because boost = more air and more fuel.

>>16439926

And you choose GM of all companies as a reliable source of a demonstration?

Turbocharging improves thermal efficiency, improving emissions.You can argue that for pure mpg high compression displacement > low compression boost(assuming both are at the same RPM, burning the same air mass and same fuel mass) but the N/A will probably have worse emissions. This is why you wont find an N/A diesel, the emissions were fucking awful despite the mpg being favourable. All types of FI increase efficiency, turbocharging simply takes less to run and is cheaper than supercharging. When electric superchargers and turbochargers come about that are fit for the job, They'll likely take over from conventional turbos. I cant tell you the chemistry behind why but that's it afaik.

If manufacturers were held to mpg instead of emissions you'd find that they would go for high compression engines.

Take this with considerable salt as I'm no expert at all and could be entirely wrong on everything, so someone tell me if I am.

>>16440905
And before someone pulls out a comparison involving engines with extremely high compression ratings, it's the alcohols they mix with the fuel reducing the energy density of the fuel.

>>16439736
>Power from displacement is more efficient than power from turbos. When will the turbo meme die?
When naturally aspirated diesel truck engines kill off turbo diesels... Which will be never. Because turbo has vastly superior power AND efficiency AND reliability to nashit.

Stay delusional, nacucks.

>>16440905
>This is why you wont find an N/A diesel

No, its because they are complete and utter dogs to drive. Diesels need forced induction or else they are road hazards.

Ever driven an old VW eco diesel or a military Hummer? You will pray for death.