2018 - year of the 2.0 Liter Turbo

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

  1. bigx5murf

    bigx5murf Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    682
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Wankel rumors been going on forever, I just don't see it ever happening with the inherent inefficiencies of the design. There's an argument to be made that it would be perfect as a range extender for a hybrid due to packaging benefits. But constant starting and stopping has always been a flooding risk with wankels.

    I think the otto/miller/atkinson cycle has a much better probability of making a comeback, especially with the proliferation of this thread's topic.

    By mustang engine, are you referring to the mzr 2.3 turbo?

    Also, I think the ultimate goal of skyactiv tech is to go hybrid. That would explain the toyota partnership
     
  2. Johnno_Oz

    Johnno_Oz AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,937
    Location:
    Sydney Australia
    when they first came out, a friend of mine had a pretty smokin' ten year old BMW M3 six and could not keep up with an AMG a45 with a 2 litre turbo.

    He found out later it puts out 365 horsepower.

    I've a Merc 5.0 ltr that puts out 300hp, so one of these A45's may be the next buy.
     
  3. 851 SP3

    851 SP3 Active Member

    Messages:
    143
    Location:
    Canton, Ohio

    A perfect example of NOT saving fuel with a smaller engine is my (now gone) '99 Ram 1500 with the V6. The stupid thing weighed 5,ooo empty and the engine was absolutely gutless. So, in order to move along at something resembling a normal pace you basically had to give it full throttle and wind it out in every gear. Any slight (and I mean slight) upgrade usually required a downshift to maintain highway speed. Result = I never once recorded more than 17 mpg over a tankful no matter how gingerly I drove it or how many miles of that tank was on the highway.
     
    KentTeffeteller likes this.
  4. 851 SP3

    851 SP3 Active Member

    Messages:
    143
    Location:
    Canton, Ohio
    1.5 liter, actually. (BMW's) qualifying engines were near 1500 hp.
     
    ben_ and bigx5murf like this.
  5. beat_truck

    beat_truck Super Member

    Messages:
    1,140
    Location:
    SW PA
    My '91 4 banger 4x4 Ford Ranger was the same way, even more so after I put slightly larger tires on it. The best it could muster in the summer was 19-20mpg, and winter was more like 15-17mpg. It was MISERABLE to drive. It was actually slightly WORSE on fuel on the highway because you had to run the nuts off of it to keep it up to speed. Fifth gear was nearly useless, and living in the mountains, there were times it couldn't keep up with traffic no matter what gear you were in. The only thing it had going for it was it went like a tank in the snow because it didn't have enough power to spin.:rolleyes:
     
    KentTeffeteller and John James like this.
  6. Shadowdog

    Shadowdog Super Member

    Messages:
    2,484
    Location:
    Flin Flon, Manitoba
    I had a 1965 International Scout 4 cyl. that sucked gas too! Thought it was the carb!
    Old Diesel's with low HP were great on fuel even at 2.2L to 2.4L in fairly heavy MB 220D & 240D cars of the late 60's to early 80's (3200-3500 lbs) my brother & I discovered.

    These were non turbo std. trans models with 60 & 65 HP. You had to drive them hard to keep up with traffic . but MPG was as at the worst 40 MPG imperial & they didn't have OD and ran at 3200 rpm @ 60 MPH according to the specs.

    I guess that's why they were a favorite with Taxi drivers overseas & could rack up 2 million miles on the original engine! They only smoked with too much throttle and so you could keep tailgaters at bay!
     
  7. nj pheonix

    nj pheonix AK Subscriber Subscriber

    Messages:
    8,361
    Location:
    New Jersey
    I was just thinking. Caddy had that cylinder disable system in the early 80s 8-6-4 (?) A big bust. I kind of think there were/ are a few that followed (much more recently).
    There certainly is an appeal to have as much engine as you need and to be able to not use more engine than you need.
    You still have to carry the extra weight, though aluminum blocks and heads makes that much less a penalty.
    Maybe my understanding is wrong. A buddy (years ago ,15-20?) Was expaining to me how a turbo diesel was more efficient than a normally aspirated diesel. I have to admit I never looked into it.
    It seems most big truck diesels are turbocharged. There must be something inherently right about that for that application.
     
  8. KentTeffeteller

    KentTeffeteller Gimpus Stereophilus!

    Messages:
    24,171
    Location:
    Athens, TN
    That system has recently been reimplemented successfully (Chrysler's MDS on RAM trucks being one a few years back)
     
  9. leesonic

    leesonic Hold on, here comes the bass. Subscriber

    Messages:
    5,655
    Location:
    Southern NJ
    My 2.3 litre Merkur XR4Ti has been turbocharged since 1988, they were making them back in 1985.
     
  10. whoaru99

    whoaru99 Epic Member

    Messages:
    39,365
    Location:
    LoTL
    I've been looking, but not exceptionally seriously, at a new Malibu 2.0T. It's materially quicker 0-60 and quicker and faster in 1/4 mile than my '91 5.7L Camaro Z-28. The Z likely is still faster on the top end but how often does one go there (for me, just small handful of times since '92 when I bought it).
     
  11. TPettenati

    TPettenati Active Member

    Messages:
    368
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    I had the earlier version, a 1979 Mercury Capri RS Turbo. At that time the 2.3L Turbo and the V8 had the same HP, of course the V8 had more torque. The Turbo was more of a sportscar, lighter, better handling, higher reving. I think this was Fords' first use of a turbo in a production vehicle. It was kind of low tech at the time, no fuel injection or intercooler. Ford did quite a few improvements over the next several years (FI & intercooler) with the ultimate being the 85-86 SVO Mustang, 200HP / 240 Ft/Lb Torque.

    Is that the same as the Merkur engine?
     
  12. MannyE

    MannyE Exterminate! Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,552
    Location:
    Miami Beach
    Oh man YES. I am already searching for the car that will replace the 2006 LS430 I drive now. It's going to be the nicest 1978 Lincoln Town Car I can find. 225 HP out of an engine that's almost 500 cubic inches? Sure. Wallowing down the street on a cloud? Yes please. Classic Car insurance? Sign me up! I drive less and less now that we have Uber anyway.

    I can't wait until the twins start driving and take that Lexus off my hands.
     
  13. MannyE

    MannyE Exterminate! Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,552
    Location:
    Miami Beach
    I believe a lot of cars are doing this now as well. Cars that you wouldn't think like the C7 Corvette! I would say the technology has matured enough if the 'Vette does it.

    https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/...corvette-engineers-pulled-off-the-impossible/
     
  14. leesonic

    leesonic Hold on, here comes the bass. Subscriber

    Messages:
    5,655
    Location:
    Southern NJ
    The engine used in the Mustang SVO and the Turbocoupe both had intercooling, with the intercooler sitting right over the turbo and exhaust manifold. Why they didn't intercooler the Merkur is beyond me. They were already getting into the Sierra Cosworth over in Europe, they could have used that setup. The SVO and Merkur both ran an 8-bit ECU, with the SVO set up for more power. The turbocoupe had a 16-bit computer which can be retrofitted into the Merkur by changing some of the pin-outs. Turbocoupe ran a serpentine belt, Merkur used a pair of belts for the water pump, PS, alternator, with the AC driven off the water pump pulley with a single belt.
     
  15. Wildcat

    Wildcat Spring ain't here... Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,078
    Location:
    SCS, MI (near a lake)
    Some of the hybrids on the market are using Atkinson cycle engines, and Mazda has had a couple of non-hybrids that supposedly use it as well.

    I cannot remember many of the details, but back in the late 70s or early 80s, I remember a camshaft manufacturer (Cragar?) coming up with this intake cam design that would leave the intake valve open during a small portion of the compression cycle, thereby expelling a small amount of the air/fuel vapor. It resulted in improved mileage, and a slight supercharger effect as the forced air/fuel vapor pushed itself back into the intake manifold. I don't think it went anywhere.

    Honda has had VCM (Variable Cylinder Management) for several years now in some of the 3.5L J-series V6 engines. I am pretty sure they first used it in the Odyssey minivan a couple of generations ago. It can disable two or three cylinders during highway cruising to assist in gas mileage. Others have done this also, so it finally is a viable idea. Caddy's failing wasn't so much the concept (it was a great idea IMHO), but the technology to make it happen was not advanced enough, and therefore too troublesome to be reliable.

    There was an aftermarket intercooler for the XR4Ti, but it required running a lot of ductwork out to the front of the car, which increased turbo lag even more. I suppose a better alternative might have been to hack a hole into the hood and add some sort of scoop to cool it, but that took the modifications beyond the abilities of the typical garage handyman.

    I thought the Sierras used the Cosworth V6, and not a turbo...or did that come later on? That was one complaint I had read about the Sierra/XR4Ti when it was first imported--they left the nice Cosworth V6 in Europe and stuck us with the 2.3L turbo when they decided to import it to the US.

    It's just a shame it was the least reliable car I had ever owned--it was a blast to drive...when it ran. Had there been lemon laws, I would have won big-time, as the manual transmission was never right in it. Why they didn't use the Turbo Coupe's Borg Warner T5 is still a mystery--that made no sense to me. I felt it had the better ratios (better suited to the turbo's ideal RPM operating range), it had shorter throws, and I'm sure it had to be a lot more reliable than the original Merkur 5-speed. At one point there was an aftermarket kit to swap in the T5, but it was pricey (as it included a new T5 transmission).
     
    KentTeffeteller and bigx5murf like this.
  16. 851 SP3

    851 SP3 Active Member

    Messages:
    143
    Location:
    Canton, Ohio
    You SHOULD expect it with those types of cars/engines as they benefit the mfrs the most when it comes time to calculate their CAFE rating. Most of GM's trucks of at least the last half decade have it. My '08 Durango 5.7 SEMI has it. The vehicles that do the most damage to their CAFE rating are the first to get any/all tech to improve their mpg.


    that. exactly.
     
  17. beat_truck

    beat_truck Super Member

    Messages:
    1,140
    Location:
    SW PA
    Speaking of the Merkur XR4TI, I bought one as a parts car (it also had a somewhat screwed up 5 speed transmission) and swapped the engine into a 2wd short bed '84 Ford Ranger. It wasn't hard to do considering the 2.3 the Ranger had was pretty much the same as the 2.3 T out of the Merkur. Just had some added wiring to do for the computer and adding the electric fuel pumps as the Ranger was originally carbureted. The Ranger was an automatic so I swapped in a Mazda M5OD 5 speed out of a newer 4 banger Ranger.

    It sure made the little truck a hell of a lot more fun to drive, considering it just about doubled the HP and got rid of the power robbing non OD slush box. It also was a decent amount better on gas, unless you were in the boost all the time.:D I should have kept it longer, but a few problems popped up with it, and I got pissed off and got rid of it.:rolleyes:
     
  18. Wildcat

    Wildcat Spring ain't here... Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,078
    Location:
    SCS, MI (near a lake)
    "Somewhat" was an understatement with that turd. :D The big problem is that there was apparently no way to seal that transmission. It leaked constantly. I had it in the dealer multiple times to be resealed, and without fail it always leaked. At one point, the leak was bad enough that the transmission was damaged internally, and it sat for weeks at the dealer waiting for a new input gear, as none were available in the US. Ford had a recall to reseal the trans properly on their dime, but nothing ever worked. (IMHO they should have just offered to replace the transmission with a T5.) The transmission fluid was something really weird that had to be purchased at the dealer--it was rumored to be Castrol SMX, but nobody I knew had ever heard of it. Towards the end when I was just running it into the ground and waiting to dump it as a lost cause, I was throwing Mobil synthetic manual transmission fluid into it.

    I was also continually changing the safety switches (the starter lockout switch, and reverse light switch). Easy job but still...like I want to spend my time underneath a dirty car with a leaking transmission every couple of months?

    I would really be surprised if many of the remaining XR4Tis out there have the original 5-speed manual.
     
  19. beat_truck

    beat_truck Super Member

    Messages:
    1,140
    Location:
    SW PA
    I only drove the one I got the engine out of a few times. I don't know what was going wrong with the transmission, but it just wouldn't go into certain gears at certain times. Like if you wound it out in third, sometimes it would be completely blocked from going into fourth. It went to the crusher with the rest of the car. My friend said he had an XR4TI before I met him, and his also had transmission problems when he owned it. I think he said it was something related to the input shaft, too.
     
  20. RamblinE

    RamblinE (╯°□°)╯彡┻━┻ Subscriber

    Ford Fusion Sport is a midsize sedan that you can still get a V6 in. Twin turbo, 350hp and 380lb/ft. It's not without some fucking caveats though. Like a dated interior and fake engine noise.
     
    Wildcat likes this.

Share This Page