Why was Ford the first one to discover Ecoboost technology?

Alphonse thread or an imitator, anyone who replies past this post is beyond stupid.

I can't answer your question OP, but one thing I do know is then moment Ford discovered this technology, GM we're finished.

>>17840431
No one else can compete

>>17840431
they lead the pack in innovation

Ford has given the economy the boost it needed.

Am I missing something? Isn't ecoboost literally just using a turbo? Or is that the entire meme: the fact that it's not special or innovative at all? What's the point? I don't get it.

American shitbarges depended on forced induction to make one HP per engine cubic inch, as it was retarded to have an engine called "da tree oh fa" and it barely made 200hp. Yuropoors used forced induction to make their sub 2L shitboxes make more than 100HP while also staying at a small displacement because they have communist tier regulations.

>>17840469
Anyone specifically that can't?

>>17840804
Turbo + direct injection. Ford uses stolen Mazda SkyActiv prototype tech, refined it slightly, and made high-strung, unreliable shitbox engines more available to the slobbering masses.

Dual injection is coming to non-shit engines soon, so this Ecoboost craze will die fairly soon.

>>17840804
Instead of a 2.0 NA engine you get a 1.6 turbo. Less displacement but the turbo compensates for the power loss so it saves fuel but doesn't compromise performance.

Any retard could have done it and I'm sure some companies have, Ford just found a way to market it.

File: 1075 - 4yR7aHB.jpg (67KB, 653x590px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 653x590px

>>17840431
>more air = bigger bang

>>17840834
>stolen

Mazda and Ford have worked together for decades. Who do you think designed their best selling car of all time (explorer)? It wasn't Ford.

>>17840835
>so it saves fuel

except it doesnt

ecoboost, aka engine with a turbo.

Like, you know, cars that had those back in the 1980's.

But I digress. This bait is delicious.

>>17840834
>Turbo + direct injection
Oh just like VW and Mitsubishi have been doing for over a decade.

>muscle

Meh, it's more like BRAP than muscle.

The fact that ford calls its turbocharged cars "EcoBoost™" is the reason I'm never buying a ford again.

As for the debate of whether turboing a small engine is fuel efficient or not:
The golf R utilizes the IS30 on a 2L 4 banger and puts out 290hp. That's a really decent amount for a 2.0L. It may not be a Prius in terms of fuel efficiency, but I'd wager that a NA v6 running 290 would come in at a few mpg lower. It also cuts a lot of engine weigh if you can add power with a small turbine instead of more block and cylinders.

But to the original meme, no ford is maybe the American brand that most utilizes turbochargers, but almost any G*rman brand will offer turbos standard because the culture grew up looking for a leaner auto

File: th_1b4062c25dec863f126b8249c166b9ea_micro-turbin.jpg (10KB, 216x166px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 216x166px

>>17840834
Dual injection is comming. But expect to see MORE turbochargers in the future, not less.

t. Mother of 5 beautiful turbocharger infants

>>2017
>>not using compound turbocharging in small petrol engines to achieve all the boost


Fuck manufacturers

>>17841147
it does, when you aren't on boost

it gives you power when you want it, and fuel economy when you want it

File: 1484434300391.gif (496KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

496KB, 500x375px

>>17842194

wait a minute

doesnt this mean that it is the perfect engine??

>>17842228
not perfect since you can't have both power and fuel economy at the same time

>>17840835
Isn't that the point of every turbocharged car ever?

>>17842240

They should ditch the V8 in the mustang and just go with a V6 ecoboost

>>17842251
V8 "eco"boost

it would kill so many retards

>>17842253

V8s are for old dinosaur shitboxes like the corvette and the camaro

>>17842256
>make less power
no

>>17842259
>>17842264

inb4 turboV6MakesMorePowerThanNAV8.jpg
a turbo coyote v8 will make more power than fords v6 with a turbo

>>17842271
nice meme my dude

File: Honda_Insight_5mt.jpg (45KB, 620x482px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 620x482px

>>17840431
And they still can´t beat a N/A SOHC car from 1999 in therms of fuel economy or engine efficiency...

>>17842282
The 3.5L engine is running a turbo with substantial boost whilst the LT4 is not running any forced injection. It is actually kind of sad the EcoBoost is only 100 hp more.

there is your argument, how do you respond?

>>17842292
>forced injection
N E W M E M E

The thing about turbocharged small engine is that they are either fuel efficient or they are powerful. They cannot be both at the same time.

The engine only gets the power that is advertised to your when the turbo is spooled and providing boost. The engine only gets the fuel economy advertised to you when the turbo isn't providing any boost.

The reason for this is that more air, alone, will not increase the power of an engine. What you need is air/fuel mixture. So, if the turbocharger throws more air into the engine, the fuel injectors must inject more fuel into the engine to actually make use of the air to produce power. More fuel injected means worse fuel economy.

Unlike with a naturally aspirated engine, the fuel economy and power ratings are misleading. You cannot maintain the fuel economy unless you stay out of boost, and you cannot make the power unless you stay in boost. While it does offer the flexibility to choose when you want the fuel economy of an engine that small or when you want the power of a larger engine, it's still deceptive. The figures given make people believe they get both at the same time.

Car manufacturers should be required to give two figures for power and fuel economy of turbocharged engines. One for each when you avoid boost, and one for each when you maintain boost.

>>17842289
The 1L 3cyl Ecoboost makes more power and is more efficient. If you put it in a car as light as a 90s shitbox you'd get some amazing empeegees

>>17842306
>his car doesn't have forced injection
Must suck to be poor

>>17842271
>comparing a supercharged engine to a turbocharged engine
>not acknowledging the inherent differences in performance due to the different designs and tuning

>>17842307
The thing is, that you need power in the so called "cruising zone"
That is low load, low rpm on the highway.

>>17842312
The 1,0L ecoboost doesn´t get a efficiency of 215 g/kwh.
The best it gets is about 250 g/kwh, and that is not even in cruising zone.

The engine we are taliking about is the infamous Honda ECA1, there is no better gas engine for fuel economy.

>>17842319
xDDDDD sure showed him, upvoted!

>>17842351
woah dude, im not even the same poster! you should check your attitude at the door bro, we dont like rabblerousers around here on 4reddit!

>>17842271
>EcoBoost
>Running 700hp on anything stock

>>17842340
Just to name some features:
>25,8:1 lean burn
>10,8:1 compression
>short valvetiming
>max torque @2000 rpm

It usually gets a fuel economy of about 3L/100km, 2,5L/100km if you are realy into it.
(80-120 mpg)

Do you realy think a rich running memeboost engine with lower compression could do any better?

File: file.png (191KB, 393x246px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 393x246px

>>17842271
>2JZ
>524LBS
>1000HP easily on stock internals

mfw white people tryna make good engines nomsayin

>>17840804
>>17840827
>>17840834
Read >>17840436 dumbasses

>>17842340
>there is no better gas engine for fuel economy.

Honda CRX HF D15b6 here

>>17843317
>D15b6
>more efficient than ECA1
The ECA1 is the 1st gen insight engine operating at 215 g/kwh.
The D15b6 might be efficient, but not that efficient mainly due to the significantly lower compression and more ineficient valvetrain.

>>17843343
honda crx hf gets 118 MPG with aero mods

world record setting fuel economy

>>17843362
The first generation insight doesn´t need aeromods to do that.
118 mpg in insight are a joke for a hypermiler...

File: 1492560311738.jpg (22KB, 480x486px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 480x486px

>>17843353
man look at this whiteboi here, thinkin he know shit

BRUH, inline 6 is BEAST mode, why else BMW be runnin them?

>>17840431
Lifelong Ford guy here

Fuck EcoBoost.

Lifelong Ford guy here

What took them so long?

I welcome the idea of high reeving turbo 3.0 V8s

>>17842289
I think i would rather get hit by a car that only makes 100nm than drive one.

>>17840431
they didn't, turbo'd 4 bangers have been around for decades

File: rip corvette.jpg (129KB, 823x903px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 823x903px

>>17845126

>>17843861
That is just the internal combustion engine, it as a electric one as well.

Also the whole car weights like 800 kg...

>>17841186
Focus RS is better than the Golf R, and cheaper
suck it wheraboo

File: 1448126130643.jpg (189KB, 1462x1462px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1462x1462px

>he deleted it

File: 1391489350101.jpg (7KB, 378x378px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 378x378px

>>17842253
>EcoBoost™ Voodoo in the next Mustang GT
>Ford advertises it as more power and better milage than ever before
>Cherrypicked_milage.xlsx
>Thousands crash on launch day
>Surviving owners too scared to ever go into boost again
>yfw it ends up getting better real world milage than the bullshit EPA numbers

>>17847445
Sounds nice, but the real question is: would it fit into a miata?

File: 0ada3a9d-86e5-4f5e-9078-50fe0cacf474.gif (1MB, 540x260px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 540x260px

>>17848517
wow thank u

>>17842318
Luckily turbo chargers respond to throttle input and apply as they're demanded.

>>17842253
Wouldn't it just kill everyone?

Trollpost but even so it's a good question. The first ecoboost engine as we know them today was probably the mazdaspeed6.

Ford was just the first company to be daring enough to put a complicated high performance engine in non-performance cars. VW probably did it earlier though. Not sure. Doesn't really matter.

Direct injected turbocharged gasoline engines were an eventuality, but Ford got their hands in the game early and did a very effective marketing job.

>>17842253
>V8 Ecoboost

See: 4.0 TFSI, S63TU, M157

>>17842307
Isn't what you describe a good thing because the engine has the power available when you need it yet is still able to eek out great mileage when you stay off the throttle?

File: 280px-2nd_Ford_Probe_GT.jpg (15KB, 279x153px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 279x153px

Is this Ecoboost?

>>17842257
>average 20 mpg city in my 5.0 crew cab f150
My truck is better in every conceivable way than my coworkers tacomas