2018 - year of the 2.0 Liter Turbo

Discussion in 'Wheels, Wings, Mud, and Water' started by TPettenati, Oct 22, 2017.

  1. whoaru99

    whoaru99 Epic Member

    Messages:
    39,364
    Location:
    LoTL
    Yes, that is the gain, +7 mpg, give or take, when not towing. +7 relative to my last recollection of Suburban fuel use.

    An Ecoboost owner I know reports 11-12 towing a trailer and 21 not towing.

    Best I can muster in a 2010 Ram 1500 4wd 4.7L V8 is roughly 18mpg highway in what I consider normal driving. Maybe I could pussyfoot a bit more but I can't stand being passed by every vehicle on the road. I shoot for about 50/50 in that regard; I pass some, some pass me.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2017
  2. rjw1678

    rjw1678 AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    277
    Location:
    Delaware
    A 2 liter intercooled turbo works great in a Subaru WRX. But for a pickup truck I would rather have a decent size V8 for long term durability.

    By the way I drive a Stage 1 2016 Subaru WRX
     
    nyhifihead likes this.
  3. matteos

    matteos Stereotype

    Messages:
    3,430
    Yeah. Not sure what was gained with the 2.3 ecoboost. My 3.7 has basically the same power except it gets that power on 87. You have to put 93 in the ecoboost to get its top power (93 is not available in CA where I live). From user reports mileage is basically the same between the two.

    What troubles me about turbo boosted engines is the longevity. Lots of reports of eco boost engines throwing a rod. Considering the environmental impact of actually building a car and an engine. I'm not at all clear as to the advantages of going turbo charged.
     
  4. grillebilly

    grillebilly Empty Head Subscriber

    Messages:
    14,555
    Location:
    Fairfax VA
    It makes perfect sense for the average commuter car. Where I live a lot of time is spent at lights or jammed up in traffic. The only time you need a lot of power is the occasional merge on the interstate. Small engines that can handle moderate boost levels when needed.
    It reminds me of the "Moody Mobile" in 1979. 84 MPG with cave man technology. Who knows what would be possible today. Little engine, gobs of boost, water injection...
    http://people.com/archive/ralph-moo...r-that-gets-84-miles-per-gallon-vol-11-no-20/
     
    John James and nj pheonix like this.
  5. Markoneswift

    Markoneswift Quartz locked n ready to rock Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,398
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    Interesting thread this one. I currently own a (relatively) small displacement Mazda 2.3 litre MZR engine in my Jap-spec MPV. It's the same motor as in the Mazdaspeed range. It's DOHC, 16 valve, has VVT, has direct injection AND has a decent turbo on it. That's mated to a six speed auto trans with manual shift - those six gears really do make a difference when talking about keeping on boost. The engine feels like it is a fair bit bigger - great torque on it from 2000 rpm up - but I get MUCH better gas mileage than in the older (lighter) Mitsubishi wagon I had with an NA 2.3 motor in it (and 4 speed auto).

    I had small displacement turbo cars back in the day - right down to 1 and 1.3 litres - and they really were just bolt-ons to already flawed engine designs (like the Bristish Leyland A series !). The modern iteration of small turbo motors are way ahead of those - I see VW and others using turbos AND superchargers together to get crazy power from 1.4 / 1.6 litres.
     
    bigx5murf and grillebilly like this.
  6. nj pheonix

    nj pheonix AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    8,361
    Location:
    New Jersey
    Post #24 quote

    It makes perfect sense for the average commuter car. Where I live a lot of time is spent at lights or jammed up in traffic. The only time you need a lot of power is the occasional merge on the interstate. Small engines that can handle moderate boost levels when needed.
    It reminds me of the "Moody Mobile" in 1979. 84 MPG with cave man technology. Who knows what would be possible today. Little engine, gobs of boost, water injection...
    http://people.com/archive/ralph-moo...r-that-gets-84-miles-per-gallon-vol-11-no-20/

    So who bought and buried it?
    He did that without direct injection, variable valve timing, and computer control in '79.
    I'm thinking it could be 150-200 mpg today.
     
  7. grillebilly

    grillebilly Empty Head Subscriber

    Messages:
    14,555
    Location:
    Fairfax VA
    IIRC it was Texaco
     
  8. Wildcat

    Wildcat Spring ain't here... Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,076
    Location:
    SCS, MI (near a lake)
    Back when I unfortunately owned a Merkur XR4Ti for seven trouble-filled years, the standard thing was to sit in your car and let it idle for a minute or two, to circulate somewhat cooler oil through the turbo so the bearings wouldn't "coke" up. That was also early on in the days of synthetic oil, and I used Mobil 1 almost exclusively. The turbo was one of the few things on that car that didn't give me trouble. It did have a little lag, and I held back on adding an intercooler since that would have added even more lag to it. But when that sucker pulled...it pulled. Sometimes boost would register near 16psi on the gauge.

    Back in early August this year, I drove a brand new Civic EX-T for a day--this is the 1.5L turbo with the CVT transmission. I know most everyone hates CVTs, but I'll tell ya what--that computer knew exactly which ratios to hit when I would bury the throttle, and that thing took off like a rocket, shifting only when it needed to. Even punching it on I-25 when at freeway speed, it leaped up to 90+ MPH way too quickly. I found out how to change the dash to display the boost gauge so of course I had a little fun with that. ;) But out on Antelope Island and some of the hills out there, it had no trouble whatsoever climbing any of them. I wouldn't hesitate to own one of the newer turbo/CVT models.
     
  9. nj pheonix

    nj pheonix AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    8,361
    Location:
    New Jersey
    Thanks
    Douches!
     
  10. restorer-john

    restorer-john Super Member

    Messages:
    4,239
    Location:
    Australia
    Is that on a actual independent tests, or is that VW telling the 'truth' again...

    :)
     
    beat_truck and bigx5murf like this.
  11. 2011etec

    2011etec Super Member

    Infinity is coming out with vc this or next year.vc is variable compression.Should make turbos even more reliable and motor friendly.Bet you in a few you will see vc everywhere.The days of going outside with a 1/2 and 9/16 wrench and fixing the car are long gone,lol.
     
    nj pheonix likes this.
  12. nj pheonix

    nj pheonix AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    8,361
    Location:
    New Jersey
    I was just thinking.
    The patent likely expired or will expire soon '79, that'd be 40 years in '19.
    Maybe someone should look into this.
     
  13. Tom Brennan

    Tom Brennan AK Member

    Messages:
    15,220
    Location:
    San Antonio
    I had a 2013 F-150 3.5 Ecoboost that I used as a general drive around truck and to tow a 24' KZ travel trailer. Towing was effortless and I got about 10 mpg. But then in talking to other RV towers it seemed everybody got about 10 mpg. When not towing the truck was a gas to drive but mileage was only around 18 because I always had my foot in it, I loved getting on it. You know, my older 6 cylinder F-150s got no better mileage and they were slow.

    I now drive a 1 liter 3 cylinder turbo Fiesta, a toad for my motorhome. I like the car--spirited pick up with excellent low rpm power. Averaging about 42 mpg and I get on it all the time. Comfort and ride are reasonable. Very pleasing car.
     
  14. whoaru99

    whoaru99 Epic Member

    Messages:
    39,364
    Location:
    LoTL
    The problem here is that most people probably are not going to want to go back to 30hp cars and 0-60 times stretching into next week... LOL.
     
  15. nj pheonix

    nj pheonix AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    8,361
    Location:
    New Jersey
    My thought was with modern technology that wouldn't be the outcome.
    I was hoping 0-60 under 8.
    Mpg s maybe 60-70 highway, 50+ city
    A lot of technology has come through since '79. I'd think they could better #s than I suggested.
    IIRC, internal combustion engines are less than 30% efficient. I think they average around 20%
     
  16. nj pheonix

    nj pheonix AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    8,361
    Location:
    New Jersey
    To be fair, when i was a kid , i thought if you could run a 13 second quarter and get 13mpg you were a mechanical god.
    Now that'd be an embarrassment to many new cars
     
  17. matteos

    matteos Stereotype

    Messages:
    3,430
  18. SaSi

    SaSi Seriously Illogical Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,040
    Location:
    Athens, Greece
    I still drive a '00 Audi S3 with an 1.8 turbo engine giving out 210 HP. The new, current model is 2.0T giving out 300HP. Plenty of power for cruising but of course it's not a pickup truck. Priorities there are different, more torque the better.
     
  19. bigx5murf

    bigx5murf Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    682
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    matteos likes this.
  20. matteos

    matteos Stereotype

    Messages:
    3,430
    They might be coming back with the Wankel engine.

    But the Skyactiv tech could keep regular gasoline engines relevant in the future. It gets more power from less fuel. More power, more MPG. I do love Mazda as a car company. The engine in my Mustang was developed and built by them and it's a gem.
     

Share This Page