As usual, the early adopters should be thanked for paying for the R & D!
Cylinder Deactivation vs Turbocharger
- Thread starter Snagglefoot
- Start date
- Status
We think of the start stop function as kicking in at a stop light, but I’m thinking it was designed for long traffic jams. As much as I don’t like it, it might lower emissions on jammed up freeways.
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
As usual, the early adopters should be thanked for paying for the R & D!
Yes we should thank them, and I'm glad I'm not a participant.
As usual, the early adopters should be thanked for paying for the R & D!
Yes we should thank them, and I'm glad I'm not a participant.
FWIW, on my mom's Buick(2014) turning on the A/C disables start/stop. It's also disabled if you bump it over into "manumatic" mode or put it in neutral at a stop light.
Originally Posted By: rooflessVW
I wouldn't mind having both.
Yup. VAG 4.0 TFSI uses both technologies. They also use some fancy active noise cancellation in the cabin to eliminate unpleasant sounds when that V8 runs on 4 cylinders.
I wouldn't mind having both.
Yup. VAG 4.0 TFSI uses both technologies. They also use some fancy active noise cancellation in the cabin to eliminate unpleasant sounds when that V8 runs on 4 cylinders.
I placed my vote with my checkbook and went to the 2.7EB. I don't worry about stressing it; engineers have been designing higher-stressed diesels for years so it's not too hard to think that in a purpose-designed block, using the same material as a diesel, that it can handle towing with boost. I can't isolate boost/throttle-trans tuning/trans to say which one does the most, but the overall impact is impressive to me. Most of my commute is 45-50 mph with stops, and it's averaging 20-21 mpg. I leave it in eco mode and the engine sits at 1600 rpm and basically just chooses different gears. I like lower-revving drivelines and this works for me. Plenty of power below 2,000.
It is, unnatural, however, to start your truck and it sound like a honda 4 banger. It's a small, small engine and sounds that way. But when you step on it, it does what it claims.
At 45 mph, it gets above 30mpg. The limitations seem to be aero drag.
I will say this - there is no intuitive "feel" at the gas pedal. The DBW is very apparent. There is a constant ballet between the throttle body, trans, and presumably engine timing all happening at once.
-m
It is, unnatural, however, to start your truck and it sound like a honda 4 banger. It's a small, small engine and sounds that way. But when you step on it, it does what it claims.
At 45 mph, it gets above 30mpg. The limitations seem to be aero drag.
I will say this - there is no intuitive "feel" at the gas pedal. The DBW is very apparent. There is a constant ballet between the throttle body, trans, and presumably engine timing all happening at once.
-m
Originally Posted By: meep
At 45 mph, it gets above 30mpg. The limitations seem to be aero drag.
I think a lot of folks forget how significant this part of the equation is.
I had a '91 Ranger. It was about as bare bones as you could get-inline 4(the oddball one with two plugs per cylinder) a standard cab, 2 wheel drive, and power nothing. It did have A/C(until the compressor died) and an auto transmission.
A friend had a '94 with virtually the same configuration. I did well to get about ~22mpg on the highway. My friend could reliably get ~25.
Sometime around '94, the Rangers got a "facelift" but there were few if any mechanical changes. One of the big cosmetic changes, though, was they got rid of the sealed beams like were on mine and used lights with flush plastic lenses. The whole rest of the front end became a lot more "rounded" as well. I suspect that the bulk of the fuel efficiency gains came from that change.
Top up vs. top down makes a noticeable difference in fuel economy on my MG, although I don't drive it for fuel economy. In addition, having the top up makes a ~5mph difference in the top speed. Despite being heavier, the GT(hatchback) gains a bit of top speed over a top-up roadster thanks to the better aerodynamics.
At 45 mph, it gets above 30mpg. The limitations seem to be aero drag.
I think a lot of folks forget how significant this part of the equation is.
I had a '91 Ranger. It was about as bare bones as you could get-inline 4(the oddball one with two plugs per cylinder) a standard cab, 2 wheel drive, and power nothing. It did have A/C(until the compressor died) and an auto transmission.
A friend had a '94 with virtually the same configuration. I did well to get about ~22mpg on the highway. My friend could reliably get ~25.
Sometime around '94, the Rangers got a "facelift" but there were few if any mechanical changes. One of the big cosmetic changes, though, was they got rid of the sealed beams like were on mine and used lights with flush plastic lenses. The whole rest of the front end became a lot more "rounded" as well. I suspect that the bulk of the fuel efficiency gains came from that change.
Top up vs. top down makes a noticeable difference in fuel economy on my MG, although I don't drive it for fuel economy. In addition, having the top up makes a ~5mph difference in the top speed. Despite being heavier, the GT(hatchback) gains a bit of top speed over a top-up roadster thanks to the better aerodynamics.
I'll take the boost and also put my money there with a 2.7 Ecoboost in my F150. It delivers a solid 19 MPG in the exact same driving and configuration as the 2004 F150 it replaced that was delivering 14.25 MPG. And it does everything better and is much more pleasureable to drive - including towing.
It is Eco or boost. Drive it hard with the turbos, and it will guzzle gas. Keep your foot out of it, and delivers excellent fuel mileage.
As far as always being in boost, I can state with logging data that running at 75 mph, my truck runs about 1.5 psi of boost on average (and that excludes everything outside of driving at that speed). If I drop it to 65, its darn near zero on average. We can talk about the engine being "highly stressed" from being in boost all the time, but in my book an average of 1.5 psi when it can run over 17 psi stock isn't constantly pushing it...
It is Eco or boost. Drive it hard with the turbos, and it will guzzle gas. Keep your foot out of it, and delivers excellent fuel mileage.
As far as always being in boost, I can state with logging data that running at 75 mph, my truck runs about 1.5 psi of boost on average (and that excludes everything outside of driving at that speed). If I drop it to 65, its darn near zero on average. We can talk about the engine being "highly stressed" from being in boost all the time, but in my book an average of 1.5 psi when it can run over 17 psi stock isn't constantly pushing it...
I’ll take the turbo. Low end torque = drive ability
Originally Posted By: MNgopher
As far as always being in boost, I can state with logging data that running at 75 mph, my truck runs about 1.5 psi of boost on average (and that excludes everything outside of driving at that speed). If I drop it to 65, its darn near zero on average. We can talk about the engine being "highly stressed" from being in boost all the time, but in my book an average of 1.5 psi when it can run over 17 psi stock isn't constantly pushing it...
I noticed similar results with our 2017 2.3 EB Explorer while monitoring it with TorquePro. Until the throttle position reached about 40% it was not in turbo. Even for most normal driving the turbo psi was real low or not at all unless you really got on the accelerator, as in passing or real high speed driving.
Whimsey
As far as always being in boost, I can state with logging data that running at 75 mph, my truck runs about 1.5 psi of boost on average (and that excludes everything outside of driving at that speed). If I drop it to 65, its darn near zero on average. We can talk about the engine being "highly stressed" from being in boost all the time, but in my book an average of 1.5 psi when it can run over 17 psi stock isn't constantly pushing it...
I noticed similar results with our 2017 2.3 EB Explorer while monitoring it with TorquePro. Until the throttle position reached about 40% it was not in turbo. Even for most normal driving the turbo psi was real low or not at all unless you really got on the accelerator, as in passing or real high speed driving.
Whimsey
I just wonder if you guys are seeing boost above atmospheric or above normal manifold vacuum? Any reading higher than normal N/A vacuum is being provided by the turbocharger compressor.
"Stressed" is strictly a cubic inches versus power output thing, of course it is not applicable unless you use the power.
Evidently judging by the service techs here the Egoboost line up has its issues. I'm sure the guy who soft-pedals it around town with no load is not having many problems...
"Stressed" is strictly a cubic inches versus power output thing, of course it is not applicable unless you use the power.
Evidently judging by the service techs here the Egoboost line up has its issues. I'm sure the guy who soft-pedals it around town with no load is not having many problems...
I'd rather have a small engine with the turbo. That way I can turn off the turbo and that way not have an oversized engine any more.
I'm curious as to what issues the Ecoboost lineup supposedly has? On the current generation of trucks, I have not seen much that is any different than the 5.0? That goes for both the 2.7 and 3.5...
The only common issues I've heard with the ec/goboosts are cam phasers, which aren't directly in the small-things-doing-big-jobs path. Are there others? RV forums are very complimentary of booth the 2.7 and 3.5.
I cast my vote with my pocketbook too and picked up the 2.7. I haven't set up the WDH hitch with it yet since we aren't towing until May at the earliest but around town it's been a joy. After 500 miles I'm averaging about 20.5 mpg. My volvo averages 22-23 mpg using premium; this truck is cheaper to drive per mile for fuel.
It's a little weird to crank something that sounds like a honda, but the low rpm grunt it favors is pleasant to my ear... it's always around 1400-1800 rpm and kinda just growls. I like it.
The other benefit I didn't expect is handling balance. That engine sits 98% behind the front axle. It's itty-bitty. The weight distribution feels extremely sporting; I don't feel a bunch of mass hanging out in front of the front wheels. It *feels* like you could really carve corners with surprising finesse for a truck, something I didn't expect. I'd enjoy knowing what the official F/R distribution is on these things. Front end does not feel heavy, which of course, does require a bit more consideration when pulling a load.
-m
I cast my vote with my pocketbook too and picked up the 2.7. I haven't set up the WDH hitch with it yet since we aren't towing until May at the earliest but around town it's been a joy. After 500 miles I'm averaging about 20.5 mpg. My volvo averages 22-23 mpg using premium; this truck is cheaper to drive per mile for fuel.
It's a little weird to crank something that sounds like a honda, but the low rpm grunt it favors is pleasant to my ear... it's always around 1400-1800 rpm and kinda just growls. I like it.
The other benefit I didn't expect is handling balance. That engine sits 98% behind the front axle. It's itty-bitty. The weight distribution feels extremely sporting; I don't feel a bunch of mass hanging out in front of the front wheels. It *feels* like you could really carve corners with surprising finesse for a truck, something I didn't expect. I'd enjoy knowing what the official F/R distribution is on these things. Front end does not feel heavy, which of course, does require a bit more consideration when pulling a load.
-m
Turbo always. Two is better than one!
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.
My Fiesta gets a genuine 37-38 MPG calculated at fillup, although the MPG gauge says it's getting 41. I don't exactly drive it like a granny, either.
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.
My Fiesta gets a genuine 37-38 MPG calculated at fillup, although the MPG gauge says it's getting 41. I don't exactly drive it like a granny, either.
- Status
