Jalopnik 
Enter your username and password.
Detroit, 1:54 AM
Sun Nov 29
8 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
tips@jalopnik.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Ray Wert | Email | AIM
Road Test Editor:
Wes Siler | Email
Weekend Editor:
Murilee Martin | Email
Associate Editor - Houston:
Matt Hardigree
Associate Editor - Detroit:
Ben Wojdyla
Editor-at-Large:
Mike Spinelli
Contributors:
Mark Arnold
John Krewson | Email
Andy Didorosi
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
07/20/09
Pretty hybrid badging?
You've seen the Ford EcoBoost badge, right? Looks a lot like their Hybrid badge.
07/20/09
07/20/09
07/20/09
http://www.not2fast.com/chassis/revoKnuckle.pdf
07/20/09
Unfortunately, the general motoring public is too ignorant to ever understand what a turbo can do for fuel efficiency. People are perplexed when I tell them I have a 320 rwhp 2.0L 4 cyl that (so far) is returning 27 mpg in mixed driving conditions. It's not rocket surgery.
07/20/09
07/20/09
07/20/09
07/20/09
07/20/09
There's also the burble of a big American V8. I don't think a lot of people want to hear that go, unless it's just going down the strip at 100+mph.
07/20/09
07/20/09
Be it better wor worse, a n/a V8 has a character to it that I doubt we'll be seeing go away anytime soon.
However, the second issue then is servicing. I realize we've come a long way in turbo development from the 80s, but failures do occur, and turbo stuff is still expensive. Turbos add a lot of complications, which if done well can be great, but at the same time there is greatness in simplicity. Keep the number of parts down, and reliability improves. Period.
/rambling
07/20/09
07/20/09
I like the new Ecoboost engines, and I think that a forced induction version of the GM's new DI V6 would be entertaining to say the least, I just don't forsee the V8 going away anytime soon. They make and sell fewer of them, but no matter how good the Ecoboost and other similar engines are, there just is no replacement for the beauty that is a proper V8.
Accept no substitutes.
Also, I haven't seen the graphs for the Ecoboost and Ford's own 4.6 side-by-side, but if memory serves, the Ecoboost actually has better power delivery characteristics than the 4.6. Also, since the Ecoboost is already designed for forced induction, my guess is that it wouldn't be hard to build on it. However, if the same treatment is given to a next-gen V8 that was given to the Ecoboost, well, my money is on the V8 having a great deal more potential.
07/20/09
07/20/09
But you are, as whole, correct. Modern turbos are much better and very reliable if left alone. Again, though, when you start trying to tinker with them too much, they start getting unreliable.
Also, he is still right that fewer parts generally equates to less problems and less expensive maintenance. If something does go wrong with a turbo, it can be expensive as hell to fix. Meanwhile, the guy with N/A smallblock next door will be pointing and laughing.
07/20/09
@pauljones: I wasn't necessarily asking whether the power delivery was better because that can be subjective. For example, the linear power delivery of a rotary engine is all well and good, but at the same time some people think that the rolling waves of torque from a big block V8 is better. I was just wondering how the two compared.
@rkwadd: Turbos add parts which adds complications which decreases reliability. And while your two turbocharged cars may not have had issues with the turbos, I know that others have, ranging from Subarus to Mitsubishis, to Volkswagens, to Volvos. I know this is anecdotal, but it's the best I have right now. If something does go wrong, which it may or may not, turbos are expensive items to replace or repair. Tight tolerances and the economics of scale still have turbochargers as a high buck item, and because turbochargers are not super prevalent in today's automobiles, many techs are not necessarily familiar with them.
Again, I realize these are general and anecdotal statements, but it is only how I see the situation.
Don't get me wrong, either, the Ecoboost is a pretty cool engine, I'm just saying that the n/a V8s are not going away any time soon.
07/20/09
The point is, you're not paying $3K more than you were before to get the bigger engine option. You're paying $3K over the base engine. Which is probably on par with what you paid to move up anyway. Now you get the same or better performance of the V-8 and slightly better fuel economy.
I just don't think anyone gives a crap about performance in these cars and crossovers anymore and when they see $40K MSRPs on a Ford they'll shit their pants.
07/20/09
Early reputation of turbos sit poorly in the public's eye. What I was trying to get across (and I hope I did below) is that while modern turbos are fairly reliable, there are still problems. There are always problems. And when problems arise, it is expensive as hell to fix them.
@Rabbi Dave: There was no mention of where the engines would be used, simply whether or not they would replace V8s in the 300+HP range. That's why I spoke so generally.
07/20/09
*is mad at his own 4.6L for its lack of both power AND fuel economy*
07/20/09
07/20/09
Since you like graphs and charts, you should look at the torque curve (plateau really) for this motor.
I also believe you're off base by saying that this motor is already at its peak because it is using forced induction. If you look at every modern turbocharged (and even some supercharged ones) engine over the past 15 years, you'll find that they're all over engineered. For most of these engines, more power is easy to obtain with a boost controller and more fuel.
07/20/09
As for over-engineering, everything is over-engineered. Safety factors and whatnot.
07/20/09
A motor that is designed for boost from the get-go is far superior to one that was designed to be N/A any day. Sure, one can just "put" a snail on any old motor but how long will it handle it? Do a bit of research on how the following motors are designed: Terminator 4.6 v8, 4G63, SR20det, 2JZGTE and get back to me. Most N/A motors aren't going to have forged bottom ends, piston oil squirters or deep skirted blocks with thick webbing and heavy duty mains because they simply don't need them. Most turbocharged applications have this stuff and rods that aren't made out of paper mache (*cough* B-series *cough*) because over designing and over building the motor will cut costs on warranty claims.
And yes Virginia, I have split a 302 at the rocker valley because I simply just "put" a blower on it thinking it could handle it.
07/20/09
07/20/09
07/20/09
07/20/09
07/20/09
But, for the very reasons that you point out, most of those real power upgrades on turbos are done aftermarket, not from the factory. This means that those upgrades focus on power, not necessarily on overall engine efficiency and durability like most factory setups do. And when you start tinkering with a factory turbo setup, you lose the reliability and durability, vastly increasing the odds that something goes wrong.
And when something does go wrong, repairs can be very, very expensive. Meanwhile, the guy with the N/A V8 may not be any faster than you, but he sure is hell laughing at how much thinner your wallet is.
07/20/09
@Parramore: The 4.6L is fuel injected too, is it not? I'm not necessarily commenting on Ford's engines, specifically, just in terms of general ability to up power output without much effort.
@Turboner: Peaky V8? I know they exist, but there are plenty of V8s that are stump pulling torque monsters.
@Turboner: You're also comparing a Euro V8, which typically have a much different character than their American counterparts. American V8s are usually big and lazy, with torque curves as flat as West Texas. And yes, of course modifying it will make it faster. That is typically why people modify their vehicles.
@CorporateFelon: You're right in that designing a system can be challenging, and that turning up the boost is easier. However, as a consumer, the technical stuff is usually taken care of by the supplier.
As an example, an acquaintence of mine put a twin turbo setup on his '05 GTO, and with a quick tune netted 650HP on pump gas, all in a daily drivable package. Turning up the boost on the Ecoboost could never get near that without seriously risking the life of the internal components. In short, there is no replacement for displacement. With forced induction. Heh.
07/20/09
One, innovations in the turbo hardware and introduction of much better software have led to turbos no longer being as delicate. Your standard VAG turbo now comes water jacketed and tied into the cooling system so even when you shut your car off it can continue to cycle and cool it down (no coking). Air pumps and diverter valves recycle air for better efficiency and less pressure shocks on the snail. Better bearings have been designed to last the life of the car and beyond. True, you should probably ignore the Evos that come super boosted from the factory, and pay attention to ze germanz who are more restrained, but the proper tech exists to make reliability issues a thing of the past.
Two, machining, forging and casting technology has come leaps and bounds, so that designing more complex parts isn't as expensive as it once was. There was a time when a hemispherical head was a daunting enough idea, but now some idiots on the Discovery Channel can drop a block of metal in a chamber and a computer will cut them any motorcycle wheel imaginable while they go off and yell at each other.
This is no more evident than in VAG's decision to switch almost entirely to the 2.0t engine and let the old N/A V6 sit on the shelf. It also means means Ford can do a turbo system for only 3 grand more than a n/a V6, or the equivalent price of a V8. Even if it is more expensive to buy the car, you will make it back on the gas you save, so your V8 neighbor's wallet probably won't be any thicker.
/I like poking bears with sticks
07/20/09
07/20/09
07/20/09
You said that a turbocharged car is not necessarily going to be more expensive to maintain than an n/a car, and yet you contradict yourself in the following statements.
Note how many parts you list to make sure that the turbos stay operational. Should any one of those fail, repairs can be costly. When you increase the number of parts, you increase the number of points to fail, and therefore you decrease the reliability.
And whether you believe it or not, trying to repair a turbo system is more expensive than replacing components in a n/a engine. Factor in the unreliability, which is inherent in a system with more parts, and n/a engines are still perfectly viable choices. I never said that turbos weren't good, just that there are natural complications and consequences to designing for forced induction.
And you of all people should know that turbos can suck down fuel faster than a lot of things. Turbos, especially after you modify them, can be extremely thirsty.
07/20/09
I should also quantify (qualify?) the 'not necessarily.' That would be without overcranking the boost and keeping it at factory spec. I was trying to say that those refinements have lowered the rate of failure of factory cars to the point where its difference from n/a cars was insignificant. In general the reliability of all cars has been improving as manufacturing has improved, such that companies can offer 100k and lifetime warranties on cars, meaning that on the whole (defects and mistreatment aside) it becomes a moot difference. When both types of engines run fine for the life of the car, its hard to argue which car is less not broken.
I definitely agree that trying to fix a turbo system is always more expensive than a n/a counterpart. As you said, more parts does mean more to go wrong. The difference is in the initial construction. A smaller engine can use less materials (even with the extra peripherals), and as automated assembly and complex machining technologies are appearing, the associated labor cost counts for less and less, and the materials cost becomes a bigger factor. I.e. it was cheaper for VAG to make a four banger turbo than a bigger n/a V6.
In terms of efficiency, yes the turbo can suck down gas, but only does so at boost, when you are flooring it. You can then cruise at partial throttle and stay out of the boost, at which point it is only using as much air/gas as fits in the engine in N/A V6 form (actually it runs in a slight vacuum, so theoretically less than the N/A V6). The N/A V8 engine always uses the same volume of air/gas, even at idle (where we spend far too much time). The cylinder deactivation system helps a little, but the active four still have to pull the dead weight of the othres. So you are always using the power in the V8 even when you don't want to, whereas the turbo allows you the option (well that also depends on how you drive).
I should also add that I don't think good old 'merican V8s are bad, I just think their lack of efficiency catches up with them cost wise to make either approach even. As in, 'you can only get so much juice from an orange, no matter how you squeeze it.' Or you could say they are kind of like a hammer and a scalpel. Properly used, the scalpel can be quite devastating, but sometimes you just want a big f'ing hammer!
EDIT: Dammit, how do i do italics now? That totally didn't work.
07/09/09
--
Oh, and as an aside question - does anyone else think that the Gran Turismo series of games for the Playstation probably has done more to hurt NASCAR than anything else?
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
I'll beat the Koni Challenge drum a bit more. That NASCAR owns the damned thing now is all the more ironic.
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
Hmmn....anybody wanna nominate me for US Touring Car Czar? I'll even fix the Rally America/USRC/NASA Rally Sport schism, if you ask me nice.
07/09/09
07/09/09
Speed World Challenge used to be a big fave of mine, but SCCA being SCCA, it looks to be on its last legs.
But yes, I'm all for someone new to take a crack at things. If you tell me you'll get rid of tube-frame "GT" cars on the professional level, I'll send over some scotch and a pre-dead hooker.
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09