I don't have a problem with Ford branding their latest iteration of turbocharging. They think their new sliced bread is better than everyone else's sliced bread. All makers do that to some degree. Some of their crowing is downright funny, such as highlighting their water-cooled bearings as some kind of major new development.
I honestly don't think Ford is doing it any better or worse than the others. They've just given theirs a great name.
But their claim of "zero-loss" at higher altitude is exactly that, a claim, and defies the physics involved. Simply parroting it as so, or relying on a bunch of paid road test reviewers using butt dynos, without meaningful physical test data, doesn't overcome the reality. Turbos overcome atmospheric pressure loss by accelerating turbines to extra high speeds to reach elevated boost levels. And that always takes more time. Always. And time is power.
But butt dyno observations aside, it is presently possible to have higher altitude outputs reach over 90% of sea level rpm reference with some of the latest turbocharging tricks being used, such as dual stage turbines and more complex wastegate management maps. And it is easier still to reduce spool up delay with smaller displacement engines and smaller turbines. But as long as turbines have mass and boost must be developed (it cannot be stored), the reality of spool up delay can never be entirely fully overcome. There will always be a power loss at higher altitudes compared to sea level reference, as building up the extra boost always takes extra time. You can't change the physics of inertia and acceleration of mass.
And bear in mind that using some of these latest tricks, such as dual stage turbines and advanced wastegate management, and all of their associated plumbing and electronics, on top of all the usual added plumbing and electronics involved with modern turbocharging, only makes for a much more complex engine compartment and a less reliable power plant. A flaked out TCV can neuter an engine, and it can also blow one up. Deckless blocks running elevated boost at high altitudes do not always hold up as well as they should. That's the trade off for all of the wonderful benefits of turbocharging. It's an important owner consideration.
For someone not used to turbos, I'd carefully consider the maintenance and repair element before buying these new turbos. Turbo engines do not tolerate subpar maintenance like a NA engine can. But all the majors are now jumping on the turbo bandwagon, and they're going to be harder to ignore in future.
Saying "normally encountered" altitudes, doesn't say anything. But if Ford can reduce the spool lag to achieve over 90% of sea-level power at 8k feet, that's great. Is it essentially "equal" power? Perhaps so to the average driver. But it's not zero loss. And no one else, including BMW, Mercedes and Volvo, can pull off zero loss at higher altitudes. Boost takes time. Running to higher boost to overcome reduced barometric pressure always takes longer.
The good news is that all the new turbos handle altitude a heck of a lot better than a NA engine. That these engines also weigh significantly less than a comparable power NA engine certainly adds to the butt dyno effect. The best news is that it's even a better rush at cooler sea level temps.
This is coming from someone who's had a lot of European turbos over the years and whose favorite track car happens to be a high output turbo. So I like them very much, follow them, and know them intimately as much as anyone. But they're NOT a free lunch.
I honestly don't think Ford is doing it any better or worse than the others. They've just given theirs a great name.
But their claim of "zero-loss" at higher altitude is exactly that, a claim, and defies the physics involved. Simply parroting it as so, or relying on a bunch of paid road test reviewers using butt dynos, without meaningful physical test data, doesn't overcome the reality. Turbos overcome atmospheric pressure loss by accelerating turbines to extra high speeds to reach elevated boost levels. And that always takes more time. Always. And time is power.
But butt dyno observations aside, it is presently possible to have higher altitude outputs reach over 90% of sea level rpm reference with some of the latest turbocharging tricks being used, such as dual stage turbines and more complex wastegate management maps. And it is easier still to reduce spool up delay with smaller displacement engines and smaller turbines. But as long as turbines have mass and boost must be developed (it cannot be stored), the reality of spool up delay can never be entirely fully overcome. There will always be a power loss at higher altitudes compared to sea level reference, as building up the extra boost always takes extra time. You can't change the physics of inertia and acceleration of mass.
And bear in mind that using some of these latest tricks, such as dual stage turbines and advanced wastegate management, and all of their associated plumbing and electronics, on top of all the usual added plumbing and electronics involved with modern turbocharging, only makes for a much more complex engine compartment and a less reliable power plant. A flaked out TCV can neuter an engine, and it can also blow one up. Deckless blocks running elevated boost at high altitudes do not always hold up as well as they should. That's the trade off for all of the wonderful benefits of turbocharging. It's an important owner consideration.
For someone not used to turbos, I'd carefully consider the maintenance and repair element before buying these new turbos. Turbo engines do not tolerate subpar maintenance like a NA engine can. But all the majors are now jumping on the turbo bandwagon, and they're going to be harder to ignore in future.
Saying "normally encountered" altitudes, doesn't say anything. But if Ford can reduce the spool lag to achieve over 90% of sea-level power at 8k feet, that's great. Is it essentially "equal" power? Perhaps so to the average driver. But it's not zero loss. And no one else, including BMW, Mercedes and Volvo, can pull off zero loss at higher altitudes. Boost takes time. Running to higher boost to overcome reduced barometric pressure always takes longer.
The good news is that all the new turbos handle altitude a heck of a lot better than a NA engine. That these engines also weigh significantly less than a comparable power NA engine certainly adds to the butt dyno effect. The best news is that it's even a better rush at cooler sea level temps.
This is coming from someone who's had a lot of European turbos over the years and whose favorite track car happens to be a high output turbo. So I like them very much, follow them, and know them intimately as much as anyone. But they're NOT a free lunch.
