Cylinder Deactivation vs Turbocharger

Status
Not open for further replies.
My issue with the small turbo engines is that in rear world driving they aren't really any better in regards to fuel mileage. Boost requires fuel, and the smaller the engine the more boost it needs to make a given amount of power.

Look at all the F150 Ecoboost guys. Those trucks aren't getting anywhere near the mileage Ford claims. The 5.0 will get the same mileage in real world driving.

Same with the 1.4 turbo in small GM cars. My friends little Sonic barely gets 28mpg average. My girlfriend's 2.5 Altima with the CVT gets 30.

I'll take cylinder deactivation any day.
 
Originally Posted By: Dorian
I would not prefer one over the other. Personally, I feel that using a system such as VVT-iW which allows for Atkinson's cycle as needed is a better design. It does not allow certain cylinders or the cats to cool down too much, and does not have the issues with vibration like VCM and the like do. Turbos are nice for a flat torque curve and highway mileage, but they really suffer in city mileage and maintenance costs. At this point in time, I personally would like to see more research going into producing lighter vehicles. The new full size trucks are doing exactly what they should be doing. The Ford Fusion with the EcoBoost engines would get significantly better mileage if the vehicle was not as heavy as it is.


More aluminum and a break through in light weight car battery technology.
 
Originally Posted By: Char Baby
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: Char Baby
How about, small displacement 1.5L 4 cylinder w/direct injection & turbocharger as well as engine shut off at complete stops? 2018 Equinox!


Now you're talking, with stop/start and no way to disable it.


I know, right?
I'd like to have the option of disabling it.


I bet you'd like to be able to shut it off! Is there a dongle to plug into the OBDII port yet to shut it off? If not my guess is it's coming soon......
 
Originally Posted By: 14Accent
My issue with the small turbo engines is that in rear world driving they aren't really any better in regards to fuel mileage. Boost requires fuel, and the smaller the engine the more boost it needs to make a given amount of power.

Look at all the F150 Ecoboost guys. Those trucks aren't getting anywhere near the mileage Ford claims. The 5.0 will get the same mileage in real world driving.

Same with the 1.4 turbo in small GM cars. My friends little Sonic barely gets 28mpg average. My girlfriend's 2.5 Altima with the CVT gets 30.

I'll take cylinder deactivation any day.


Just like the Acura RDX. The first gen was a 2.0L turbo. For the second gen, they switched to a V6 and it now gets better FE.
 
We own a 2.3 EB in a "heavish" Explorer and it's surprisingly quick when needed and real world fuel efficient for a heavier vehicle. Unless you really nail the throttle or drive at 40% or more throttle the turbo is not in use. I could tell by monitoring the vacuum/boost level with Torque Pro. Even then the use of the turbo is low boost unless you really get on it, not normal driving, at least the way my wife and I drive, and were not grandma and grandpa drivers by any means
grin.gif
. Ironically my wife owned a 1974 Mustang ll with the 2.3 4 cylinder OHC engine and it made a stunning 88 HP compared to the 2.3 EB which makes 280 HP. And the Explorer gets much better MPG than the Mustang ll ever got. I feel the technology for both cylinder deactivation and turbocharging has improved over the years but I'll take the turbo, it's been around longer and it's less complicated. Plus it can add power under all driving conditions where as the cylinder deactivation only takes power away usually on the highway.

Whimsey
 
I've only ever driven one car with cylinder deactivation and that was a Chysler 300c V8. It did improve potential MPG if you took it easy.

Forced induction engines are the same really. My Kompressor Mercedes will produce astounding MPG figures provide the supercharger isn't engaged. Show it a hill or use a lot of acceleration and MPG goes down the pan. I like the low rev torque that forced induction produces in a relatively low cost engine so this gets my vote. If I could afford a V8 I'd want the cylinder deactivation.
 
[/quote: demarpaint] I bet you'd like to be able to shut it off! Is there a dongle to plug into the OBDII port yet to shut it off? If not my guess is it's coming soon......[/quote]

Oh IDK, this is my buddy's Equinox and he's not complaining. I should have said that if it were mine, I'd like to be able to shut it off if I so chose. I have driven the NOX and it does work quite quickly & smoothly. I am looking for another car for my daughter within the next year. It could be any number of vehicles however, I looked at the Chevy Cruze and it too has Start/Stop and no way to disable it.

I was watching a video review of another car with Start/Stop feature and a DCT tranny. And when pulling out into traffic, there was quite a delay which could have been disastrous. I think it was higher end German car(Audi comes to mind). This got me thinking about the disable feature.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Char Baby
[/quote: demarpaint] I bet you'd like to be able to shut it off! Is there a dongle to plug into the OBDII port yet to shut it off? If not my guess is it's coming soon......


Originally Posted By: Char Baby
Oh IDK, this is my buddy's Equinox and he's not complaining. I should have said that if it were mine, I'd like to be able to shut it off if I so chose. I have driven the NOX and it does work quite quickly & smoothly. I am looking for another car for my daughter within the next year. It could be any number of vehicles however, I looked at the Chevy Cruze and it too has Start/Stop and no way to disable it.

I was watching a video review of another car with Start/Stop feature and a DCT tranny. And when pulling out into traffic, there was quite a delay which could have been disastrous. I think it was higher end German car(Audi comes to mind). This got me thinking about the disable feature.


I can live with the option of being able to shut it off. Not being able to shut it off would be enough to move me to another brand that could be turned off.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: 14Accent
My issue with the small turbo engines is that in rear world driving they aren't really any better in regards to fuel mileage. Boost requires fuel, and the smaller the engine the more boost it needs to make a given amount of power.

Look at all the F150 Ecoboost guys. Those trucks aren't getting anywhere near the mileage Ford claims. The 5.0 will get the same mileage in real world driving.

Same with the 1.4 turbo in small GM cars. My friends little Sonic barely gets 28mpg average. My girlfriend's 2.5 Altima with the CVT gets 30.

I'll take cylinder deactivation any day.


In "normal" daily driving, you aren't in boost most of the time with a turbo charged engine so you are not using any extra fuel.
 
Had one each back to back and probably would not let that be an only factor …
 
Originally Posted By: WhizkidTN


In "normal" daily driving, you aren't in boost most of the time with a turbo charged engine so you are not using any extra fuel.


I beg to differ on that one. My 1er with the twin scroll N55 engine can hit full boost at only 1800 RPM. It is in boost at even very low acceleration, and it shows with my terrible city fuel consumption. Usually around 13-16 L/100km.
 
Originally Posted By: mightymousetech
Originally Posted By: WhizkidTN


In "normal" daily driving, you aren't in boost most of the time with a turbo charged engine so you are not using any extra fuel.


I beg to differ on that one. My 1er with the twin scroll N55 engine can hit full boost at only 1800 RPM. It is in boost at even very low acceleration, and it shows with my terrible city fuel consumption. Usually around 13-16 L/100km.


I think so… how would one explain this curve:
 
FWIW: In my mixed driving mode, I monitor my boost/vacuum and spend most of my time in vacuum, not boost. Of course there are times when I accelerate from a stop and am in a very light boost condition (BTW: max is ~23 PSI with my ECU tune). I get about 24MPG as a result. Then there are the "fun days" when I like to hog it a bit (as driving/traffic conditions allow).
wink.gif
 
If we take a small capacity forced induction engine then in "normal" daily driving I think it's fairly obvious when forced induction boost kicks in. If the car performs better than it's basic engine size would dictate then there must be some boost. I regularly drive a naturally aspirated car and my own Kompressor Mercedes, both cars have the same engine size and are a similar weight. Show the naturally aspirated car a hill and it's hopeless because peak torque is way up at 4000 RPM while the forced induction car flies up the hill by comparison. That can only be because of boost and therefore higher fuel consumption.

If you drive at all briskly then I think forced induction kicks in much of the time in stop and start driving while at a steady cruise it doesn't. The difference in MPG for those two scenarios bear that out.
 
Originally Posted By: Char Baby
Here is a new video review of the VW Golf GTI with start/stop system and a DSG tranny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fnywh0ZR2t4

I know this post is about cylinder deactivation however, there are several reviews about the auto start/stop systems not doing anything for mpg...at all!


Sadly, that guy doesn't know what he is talking about concerning the system. NONE of the auto start/stop systems are properly reflected in the EPA mileage numbers as they don't really test the system in true stop/start city traffic conditions. I wish they would update their tests to show with/without for city traffic driving where it would function.

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/02/f8/idle-stop_light_duty_passenger_vehicles.pdf

That being said, driver education on how the system best would work for them is important as well as a way to TURN IF OFF if the driver wants it off (and change the default condition as well).
 
Originally Posted By: WhizkidTN
In "normal" daily driving, you aren't in boost most of the time with a turbo charged engine so you are not using any extra fuel.


My friends 2.7 Egoboost Ford PU starts to boost at well under 1500 rpm, and at normal highway cruising speed of 70 mph is always in boost. Say what you want about longevity, the smaller engine is more highly stressed. Many 3.5 users will admit to single digit fuel economy when towing, so there's no magic involved. Make more power = burn more fuel.

Our 14 Ram 5.7 has absolutely imperceptible transitions from 8 to 4 cylinders. It regularly delivers just shy of 20 mpg in a 5400 pound truck with 3.91 gearing!

Our fleet vans have 6.0 gas engines with VCT and variable displacement, also virtually imperceptible while driving. It is notable that we routinely run our fleet vans well beyond 200k miles with zero engine issues. Our best one was an 04 sold with over 500k miles on her, and she ran well and was driven from Fl to MI with zero oil usage by her new owner!

I'll take simple larger displacement any day, I'm no fan of small high output engines for longevity...
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8


I'll take simple larger displacement any day, I'm no fan of small high output engines for longevity...

I'm with you.
 
Originally Posted By: WhizkidTN
Originally Posted By: Char Baby
Here is a new video review of the VW Golf GTI with start/stop system and a DSG tranny.

I know this post is about cylinder deactivation however, there are several reviews about the auto start/stop systems not doing anything for mpg...at all!


Sadly, that guy doesn't know what he is talking about concerning the system. NONE of the auto start/stop systems are properly reflected in the EPA mileage numbers as they don't really test the system in true stop/start city traffic conditions. I wish they would update their tests to show with/without for city traffic driving where it would function.


I don't think many customers myself included, who are buying new vehicles are aware that the auto start/stop has no/little reflection on their mpg, nor that it is tested as you mentioned.

John Cadogan of autoexpert.com.au also mentions that the auto start/stop system has no reflection on fuel economy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k159M8QhCIE
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
Modern Turbo Engine Reliability and Durability
3 4 5
Replies
88
Views
5K
wtd
kschauweker
Victa model 500 twin cylinder lawnmower.
Replies
5
Views
419
kschauweker
S
Which Vehicles Have Simple Engines?
4 5 6
Replies
105
Views
15K
dnewton3
A
Exhaust and Turbo Spooling - Effect on Part-Throttle Performance???
Replies
7
Views
3K
dumkid
B
Toyota 4 Cylinder Turbo Low Compression
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
LineArrayNut
Back
Top