Ford Has Announced Plans to Add Turbos to Its Engines to Increase Fuel Economy...Will it Work?

If they're advertising "diesel-like" fuel economy, why don't they just develop a small diesel engine? I have a neighbor who has a 1970's diesel rabbit that still gets 45 mpg after 278,000 miles. Diesel offers less expense, less parts and simpler operation than a twin turbo gas engine. Why does the US hate diesel so much?

Because it smells bad!

Second that!

Third that notion. I hate being behind any diesel car due to the smell and smoke. I'll hold out for the Chevy Volt or another full electric though.

that looks a lot like the lexus es models...

New exhaust aftertreatment technologies such as diesel particulate filters and catalysts have greatly cleaned up diesel smoke and odors without ruining efficiency and fuel economy. Todays diesels are a significant leap ahead compared to those manufactured just 10 years ago. If a gas engine were to have similar fuel efficiency to a diesel, direct fuel injection is the biggest promise to diesel-like economy for gas engines. Direct gasoline fuel injection is a tried and true technology in Europe.

New diesels don't smell like the old ones do with the ultra low sulfur diesel fuel now available and all the particulate filters.

Sigh. Too bad Ford still hasn't figured out how to build a plain jane, reliable, fuel efficient, quiet 4 cylinder engine decades after foreign carmakers perfected them.

The ideia is very good. The reason is just a cheap excuse!

Unless ford figures out a new cycle for burning gas, diesel would get better mpg, thats physics...

But turbos are already proven to be reliable (they really were not in the past!) and if they do it right turbo cars are very nice to drive (huge torque!) and you need a smaller displacement to get the same power... soh normally you have lighter engines..
(vide VW 1.4 TSI with 200 bhp)

New Diesel engines are much cleaner than the old ones most people think of. In two years diesels will get even cleaner with a new technology that injects urea into the exhaust.

The fluid does not have to be refilled for 5000 to 15000 miles so it will be handled during regular service times. That Urea system will make diesels as clean and sometimes cleaner than gas engines.

New diesels will start in -40F temperatures they are quiet and fun to drive because they put out a lot of torque. Europe has been using cleaner diesel fuel for several years that allows diesels to run much cleaner, the US started using the cleaner diesel in September of 2001. 50% of new cars built in Europe are now diesels because of the performance and economy. Americans will learn to love the new diesels.

Ford did sell some 4 cylinder diesel cars in the US, if any one remembers. The Ford Tempo diesel. So Ford is experienced in selling diesel powered cars. Fords experience with that might be why they are not too quick to sell diesel powered cars. New someone who had one. I was too young then to remember much about it though.

Diesels or not one you got to remember is what happens about 50k-60k miles down the road with a turbo on your car? it gets bad. Buying a used ford then wouldn't be all to great. Especially when people lease cars, they tend to drive the hell out them. I would if I was I leasing a car.

urea = urine

so pee will make diesel fuel smell better?

if i start saving my pee now i can start a urea business in two years with little more than just a full bladder...$$$

Urea does not exactly mean urine. Yes, urea is found in urine, but thats not the only way you can get it.

Diesels are more efficient because they turn more of the fuels heat into energy. The exhaust temperature of diesels is about 700 degrees F lower than the exhaust temp of a gasoline engine. A turbocharger in a gasoline engine turns some of the wasted heat into energy and allows the use of a smaller engine.

All modern diesels use turbochargers and two stroke diesels also add a supercharger with the turbocharger. Diesel engines can run intake pressures of over 40PSI with no problems. Gasoline intake pressure are usually limited to about 7PSI because of pre ignition problems,

Perhaps under some conditions diesel exhaust gas temps are lower than gas engines. However under load, they get as hot as gas engines. As for boost, my car (shelby csx) came from the factory with 15psi of boots. The mitusubshi evo runs around 20psi of boost. Not as much as some diesels, but not 7psi either.
For egt temperatures, see http://bankspower.com/Tech_whyegt.cfm

Adding two turbochargers, more engine management electronics, an intercooler and exhaust piping will add a lot of money to the price of a vehicle. My own experience with late 80's (American) turbos is that you are almost guaranteed to blow a head gasket in the first 80,000 miles. These disadvantages will surely outweigh the cost savings from a 10 mpg improvement in fuel economy over the life of the vehicle. Is this the best we can do? How about a real innovation? Internal combustion engines aren't the technology that will take passenger vehicles beyond 100 mpg and still be driveable. And that's the kind of economy we need, unless everyone's okay with food prices increasing 10% a year.

you pee ureyic acid (sp) which over time will break down to urea and eventually ammonia. 2 chargers is also going to burn you on insurance. american cars are just worthless. TDI for the win!

cheers,
Bob

"Internal combustion engines aren't the technology that will take passenger vehicles beyond 100 mpg and still be driveable."

If we keep adding more crap (like 15+ airbags) and making vehicles the size of continents, then no we'll never get that kind of mpg - but it's very possible if weight is kept down.

Do not forget that many states have made it virtually impossible to buy a new diesel car. States that have adopted the California's emission standards have virtually band the TDI's and other small trucks or passenger cars. Here in Massachusetts, you can only buy a used diesel card that need to be 2 years or older.

All of you know nothing about cars.

O.k. well maybe not "nothing" but none of these posts have a whole lot of meat, so to speak.

First off, diesel engins get better gas milage, why? Just as Larry said they run pressures of 40 psi and greater. But, NOT INTAKE PRESSURE. All vehicles intake are about the same. The pressure comes from the cylinder compressing the air, and fuel. The better the compression ratio (what he's trying to say) the better the milage.

Although, diesel engines are very dirty. Diesel is a byproduct of gasoline (what nearly every car runs off of), meaning that it is less pure (it does not burn as clean). A diesel engine compensates for the dirtyness with a greater compression ratio (25-40:1 what Larry refered to as psi).

Now, diesel does not burn as hot as gasoline does. A diesel engine may have temps. of 700 degrees F, but a gasoline engine can reach temps. of 1500 degrees F. A gas engine does not (although it can) run at the compression ratio of a diesel because the more the compression, the higher the temperatures, which is basic chemestry PV=nRT (pressure*volume=(# of moles)*(ideal gas constant)*Temperature). You don't want your car to missfire (the fule ignites before the piston fully compresses) because it will destroy your engine (that's why gas cars have redlines and most diesel vehicles don't).

A gasoline engine usually runs at about 10-12:1 ratio, with a turbo that goes down to about 5-9:1 (and I mean the engine compression). Now then, a turbo uses exhast to run a turbine which will increase the compression ratio inside the cylinder. The exhast is...well once it exits the engine it doesn't effect the engine much, and by using the turbo you use excess energy (put your hand behind you muffler and you'll feel air pressure) to spin the turbine. The turbine then forces air into the cylinder at a much higher compression ratio 14-17:1(the reason that the engine has to lower the compression ratio).

Now, with all of that out of the way, let's get to the point. A diesel engine has a higher compression ratio, which means it burns the fuel better, which means better mpg. But, diesel fuel is less pure, so even though it burns better, it still has way more crud that it can't burn all the way, so its worse on the environment. Gas engines, though, burn better without the higher compression ratio, meaning less emissions. If you can increase the compression ratio, while keeping the air (not just the engine, again PV=nRT) cool, you burn the gas even better (giving less emissions and more power). So by adding the turbo you do get better mpg than without it.

Ford, and other American car companies, won't make a small diesel engine for one reason, sales. Americas do not want a diesel engine in a car becasue it doesn't go as fast as a gasoline engine (plus, they know all about the emissions thingy). It's the same reason that foreign auto makers don't bring over their diesel cars, there's no market for them. But, the real downside to adding a trubo is the American mindset, "It has a turbo! That means that I can go faster!" Going faster is great, but it burns more fuel. If people drive these cars responsibly, though, they can and will get great milage.

If gas was completly burnt (100% effecient), we would have cars that could get hundreds of miles per gallon, with really good acceleration.

The best thing to do, at this point, would be for Ford to bring back the Turbino. They made a car in the 60s/70s that had a turbine engine (kind of what jets use). A turbine engine has super good milage because it has a really high compression ratio. The downside was really really really slow acceleration, and durring the muscle car era, nobody wanted that; it was a flop (even though it would have a really high top speed). With better transmission technology, bad acceleration wouldn't be that noticeable (although somewhat bad acceleration would help burn less fuel).

To me though, mpg is not the first thing I look at. First, how reliable is the car? Second, how long will it last me? Third, what are the upkeep costs (oils, and fluids...not repairs.)? Fourth really depends; gas milage mostly, but I'd sacrafice a couple mpg (just a couple) for a better package (performance/interior/functions).

American cars (which saddens me) are not that reliable and they won't last that long (vs. foreign vehicles), but they are getting better. With synthetic oils, though, you can get up to 15000 miles between oil changes so upkeep is pretty universal now.

IMUrRx,

Don't get facts out of your a**, try to study a little bit more then come back here and make your comments.

you have some ideas rigth, but oh my God, most of what you said is way to wrong, it will make a hassle to try to correct all of them.

You guys are missing the entire point. Instead of debating why diesel is so much more efficient than petrol and why US hate diesel so much, why don't you guys look @ the bigger picture.

Simply put:
Gasoline is more profitable for consumer grade fuel producers in the US and that relationship is reinforced by powerful interest groups that lobby to keep the status quo.

Quantity Quantity Quantity...

The main reason diesel engines get better mileage is because they burn diesel fuel;
not gasoline.

Diesel fuel has a higher energy density than gasoline. On average, 1 gallon (3.8 L) of diesel fuel contains approximately 155x106 joules (147,000 BTU), while 1 gallon of gasoline contains 132x106 joules (125,000 BTU). This, combined with the improved efficiency of diesel engines, explains why diesel engines get better mileage than equivalent gasoline engines.

Is it possible for you idiots to miss the point even more? Gasoline, diesel, ethanol, hydrogen, methane - it doesn't matter what fuel you use: American cars suck because Americans will settle for less in the name of buying "American". So go right ahead and keep buying garbage from your big unions, you deserve what you get.

Gasoline engines have redlines and diesels don't? I always thought diesels had redlines, but they were lower than gasoline due to the huge stroke and compression ignition...

And the RPM and redline of any engine has nothing to do with detonation and pre-ignition. It has to do with rapid loading and unloading of tensile and compressive stresses that make your rods act like rubber bands, inertia of moving parts rapidly changing directions, valve float and spring response times, and due to the fact that the frictional forces at higher velocities generate more heat than the oiling and cooling system are capable of dissipating in a short period of time resulting in parts expanding beyond their clearance tolerances and seizing, etc......

I could be wrong though.

1. Diesels suck.
2. American cars suck.
3. I'm American,but I will not drive US cars/trucks/crap.
4. If your so worried about gas prices, buy a motorcycle.
5. If you have kids, just buy bikes. Chances are they are fat just like you, so they need the work out from all the fast food you feed them.
6. If you still can't afford gas, just give up and walk your fat a s s to work.

The efficiency of a combustion engine is simplified proportional to the square root of the compression ratio

Diesel engine =20:1
Gasoline engine =11:1

A diesel engine does not have a throttle therby reducing the suction loss of a semi closed trottle.
In a diesel engine the large preassure waves due to the detonation (knocking) (2000 m/s instead of 20 m/s) Thus requiering high performance cranc, conecting rods and pistons. The cylniderhead, streach bolts and headgasget is a science by it self.
In a gasoline engine, prolonged detonation results in engine failure (gasoline engines are weaker built). the reason gasoline engines use a knock sensor.

The reason why diesel engines normaly have lower power than gasoline is du to the limited RPM
Power (W) = Tourqe(Nm)*frequency(radians/s).
combustion process
The diesel combustion process has a more stastic and limited flame front velocity compared to the gasoline combustion.

Just for the curiosity, i opend up a citroen 2.1 L turbo diesel engine with 1 300000 km yes 1 milion + km, never been opened before, original factory seal of the oilpan and cylinderhead, but the turbo and diesel pump had been replaced. The car has been used as a taxi and then later on for horse tranportation. I was amazed of the oversized cranc, connecting rod and bearings, even the pistons were reenforced with a thick steel top.
I dont know any other diesel engins that use steel reenforced pistons, I am not talking of trucks like Scana wich use pistons made in two pieces and of solid steel.

New diesel engines are heavy dangerous to human health. The evil side is the particulate, it seems so small so good, but really it's TOO small, TOO hard and capable to perforate the human's cells membrane, then killing or changing unpredictably the cell nucleus. The results are various human (and animal) diseases, and the death, too.

airrax brags too much, he's no better than some pointless and uneducated comments here.

sticking to the topic, Ford is right about adding turbos to increase efficiency. The car only use the power only when needed and not during idle or cruising speed.

They keep on comparing to diesel technology because it is superior, in efficiency,power, and durability.
The drawback only is, unnecessary cost to american consumers. Diesel tech is much more expensive and has bad reputation to them while their gasoline fuel is cheaper.
You have to use a diesel engine much more often than a gasoline one to appreciate its benefits.

Diesels are for 3rd world countries for people to wait in the bread line.

Just another idea that people like to ram down Americans throats like soccer.

Please don't let your political and personal opinions be inconvenienced by FACTS.

What ? You don't know facts ? Don't tell me !

" Furyoctane:

New diesel engines are heavy dangerous to human health. The evil side is the particulate, it seems so small so good, but really it's TOO small, TOO hard and capable to perforate the human's cells membrane, then killing or changing unpredictably the cell nucleus. The results are various human (and animal) diseases, and the death, too.
"

Gasoline engines release nanoparticles, and they are not regulated in the same way that diesel particulate emissions are.

Turbo charged gasoline engines will not increase fuel economy, unless you downsize the engine as well.
In Europe for instance VW has a 1400cc (TSI) engine with root compressor for the low rpm and a turbo for the high rpm.
Result 170hp (6000rpm) and 225Nm torque at 1750 rpm.
Combined fuel consumption 7lt/100 km (VW Golf). Fuel consumption however depends as on all turbo charged gasoline engines heavy on usage and can be lower than 7 lt/100km but also as high as 12 lt/100 km.
Top speed 219km/h an 0-100km/h in 7.8 sec

I think you Americans live in another age when speeking about diesel engines. The slow and smoking engines are history (in Europe).
I drive a VW Polo 1900TDI. This engine has 100hp and 240nm torque. To get this torque you need a 2400 - 2600 cc gasoline engine.
I respect speed limits (120km/h on the high way) and consume < 5lt/ 100 km.
I drive diesels (all VW) since 1981 and I can tell you that the evolution is steep.
My car complies the Euro 3 norm but all the cars sold now are Euro4 and partial with particle filters. You can expect that the engines that will be released from now on will be Euro 5 with particle filters. For instance the new to release VW / Audi 2000cc with 204hp and 350nm torque.

While editing (my native language is Dutch) something got lost so the correct sentence is:

I respect speed limits (120km/h on the high way) and consume < 5 lt/100km

While editing (my native language is Dutch) something got lost so the correct sentence is:

I respect speed limits (120km/h on the high way) and consume less than 5lt /100km

I think this is a good strategy for Ford at this point. They can let Honda take the risk of a diesel mainstream engine in the U.S., and see how it goes. In the mean time, a twin-turbo V8 with cylinder shutoff and a DSG style transmission sounds pretty much exactly like what I want. Especially if they can get it over 30 MPG on the highway, which really shouldn't be a problem with those specs.

Let's be clear, we're not just talking about "internal combustion engines." These are "Piston Engines." Piston engines are the most efficient breed of internal combustion engines. They are literally 6 times more efficient than turbine engines. Airrax did have some truth hiding in all his garbage, but not on turbine efficiency. Turbines are really only used in aircraft because of high power to weight ratios.

Diesels aren't used in American cars for several reasons. Diesel emissions have been regulated about as strictly as lawnmower emissions in the U.S. The standards have tightened within the last couple years, but are still significantly lower than gasoline road engines. American diesels are bad for the environment and they smell bad. On top of that, for a new truck, a diesel engine is a $7000 option as an up front cost. Most people don't want to pay more to smell bad.

Diesels can use high compression ratios because they rely on autoignition. Airrax's comments on the compression ratios of turbocharged engines start out accurate, and like most of his comments spiral off into misinformation. The compression ratio is based on mechanical dimensions of the engine, and does not change when a turbo is in use vs. idling. That's most commentaries on turbo engines trade compression ratio for psi.

The most important thing to remember here, however, is don't get your automotive theory from a computer forum. Even Wikipedia is more accurate than this, and that's saying something.

I lived in Europe for the last 4 years and more than half of their cars are diesels. They do not smell bad, they do not smoke. In fact, they purr like a cat, have plenty of power, and get outstanding fuel mileage. It's a shame that we can't get the same automobiles over here. But as far as twin-turbod Fords getting diesel-like gas mileage, I seriously doubt it but I did have a 1997 Ford Escort with a 1.9 engine that got 40 mpg on a good day.

"So go right ahead and keep buying garbage from your big unions, you deserve what you get." [ dknight.]

So I guess your saying the unions are designing the cars and deciding what cars to manufacture. If that's the case what is management doing? What is the engineering staff doing? I guess I should start writing to the unions to design better cars.

You know, after this, I think I am just going to AVOID the Torque Report comments section. Airrax was the closest we've had to a decent, well thought out post, but it degraded into thrashing almost immediately. Clayton was also very good.

Its been 30 years since the Oldmobile diesels that smoked, smelled, and generally sucked. Thats because GM built that diesel from a gasoline engine, which you really just cannot do with good results. New Diesel engines accept low sulfur fuels, which do not smell. I work at a loading dock sometimes, unloading big diesel trucks. I've never had this "bad smell" problem, not in the last 5 years.

Brent: you are full of shit. I hate to say it, but if you think its going to "smell bad," your full of shit. Just go to a Chevy dealership and ask to test drive a Duramax Silverado 3500. My guess: you have not been around a diesel and known it for thirty years.

So to everyone who says "they smell bad," try this: next time you are next to a big rig, listen to it. If its engine is really loud, its a diesel. In fact, all big rigs are diesels with the exception of a few corporate show-rigs that go to shows and such. Notice the lack of smell?

As to wikipedia: most of the people there that write the articles are professionals in whatever field the topic covers, and in a study by Nature Magazine, Wikipedia had just 1 more error per 100 articles than Encyclopedia Britannica, whose editors were shocked that they had errors at all.

Just want to dispell much of the misinformation, I will not specify who I respond to as there is too many mistakes.

Turbos on gas - rarely have high torque (unless designed specifically for it. At low RPM when you need torque the turbos don't have enough exhaust pressure to add compression to to motor. This is why small turbo cars can have 200hp, but at 7500 RPM.

Horspower is based on torque multiplied by engine RPM. A honda can have the same horsepower as a camaro, but the camaro produces the power at a lower RPM, and will always win a drag race (torque rules performance). High HP numbers sell cars but only matters if you run your car at 7500+ RPMs normally, the camaro only needs 5000 RPMs for the HP and will drive nicely lower due to it's torque. Small cars don't brag about their torque numbers.

Compression ratios - Diesel is 25:1 or higher, Gas is limited to about 12:1 unless you run race gas. The Octane number of gasoline is an indicator on how susceptible it is to pre-ignition and therefore the compression ratio. Diesel doesn't care too much because the compression causes the ignition not the spark.

The higher compression ratio the higher the efficiency, period. Turbos increase the "effective" compression ratio by forcing more air into the cylinder, but you're still limited to about 12:1 by the gas you use. Diesels can run at higher intake preassures (accepted to mean intake into the engine not intake into the turbo which would always be 1 ATM) because they are built for a higher compression.

Saab made a tubo car that could run on gas or E85 (105 octane). Ethanol has less BTU's than gas which is why it gives less gas milage in most cars. The Saab would increase the turbo boost if it sensed E85, increasing the effective compression ratio due to the better gas. This meant that it actually got significantly better gas milage using ethanol because the engine was more efficient.

Turbines - While turbines can be more efficient than gas or even turbo diesels, they have major problems in a auto application. First there is the exhaust temperatures and pressures. The temps are much higher than gasoline and while the jet blast would be helpful as thrust, it would be bad for the person tailgating. More importantly turbines don't like changing speed. The have alot of rotational inertia and the efficiency drops when they need to accelerate (in a jet you have to plan ahead your speed changes). This principle applies to gas and diesel piston engines too but they can change RPM quicker (for gear shifts and idleing). Turbos work similar to jet turbines and this is what causes "turbo lag."

Red lines - are mechanical limitations not fuel. Diesels in race vehicles can get up to 6000+ RPMs and Coates (www.coatesengine.com) eliminates the traditional valvetrain and has gas engines that can run at 14,000 RPM indefinitely.

Reliability - Diesels are more reliable because they are built stronger to handle the compression and run at lower RPM. Turbos have gotten more reliable lately but they still spin at 40,000+ RPM and dirty the engine oil.

Emmisions - Diesels have always had lower total emmisions than gasoline. Gasoline engines produce many harmful chemicals and require different catalytic converters and other expensive tech to make them relatively clean. Diesels are thought to have more emmisions because you can see it and smell it (they've fixed this now), but as far as total harmful chemicals diesels have less becuase it burns the fuel more completely.

Diesel as a byproduct - Diesel is not a byproduct of gasoline! Crude oil is refined in a process call partial distilation. If you knew this you would know that gas and diesel are produced at the same time from raw crude. If you want to get picky, diesel is actually produced first because it has a lower condensation point than gas so you could say gas is left over after diesel is produced.

Thank you all for reading this far, I know it was long. I don't like to put down anyone for thier opinions, but I get angry when people post grossly inaccurate "facts" just to support their views. If you don't know something for sure, either research it or don't bother posting.

The turbo idea is good, think about it. You could have a large car with a small 4 cylinder engine that gets great fuel economy then when you step on the pedal the computer could allow boost into the engine to get V8 power. It would have to be computer controlled otherwise it wouldn't work. Remember boosting an engine doesn't get more fuel economy, more air requires more fuel to burn to get the proper air to fuel ratio but if the boost can be controled in relation to the wide open throttle (flooring the gas pedal) then you could get the best of both worlds. Mind you, it would only work if people didn't drive around like crazies flooring it all the time. Trying to get america to switch to diesel isn't very smart. We should be using our gasoline until the electric and/or hydrogen technology and infrastructure is ready. Ideas like computer controlled turbos, continuasly variable transmission, fast shifting 6+ speed transmissions, V8s that can have some cylinders turned off, etc these are all good ideas to help limit the amount of gasoline burned per car while keeping with the in your face american needs. And for the record with the exception of VW most european cars have worse reliablity than american cars, asian ones being the best of course. And VW, well 4 of the top 10 homosexual cars were VWs, golf, cabriot, beetle, jetta. No offence to homosexuals but my straight tastes are different. Americans and lots of Canadians don't want some euro trash smart car that can't hold many people or things, we love large cars with lots of power and we don't want our car rumbling or smelling like a transport truck just so we can save some money.

BTW a V8 rumble is cool a diesel rumble is not. ; ) and if you can't tell the difference, you don't deserve to comment on anything to do with cars.

Lets just hope the governments and car companies get off thier bums and start putting more effort into truely clean cars so then we don't have to feel guilty about wasting energy.

Nick, that may have been true years ago, but modern turbos (especially variable geometry turbos) don't need crazy high rpm's. Take VW/Audi's 2 liter turbo 4 - 200 hp at 5,100 rpm and 207 lb/ft of torque from 1,800 rpm to 5,000 rpm. Then there's the Evo IX's 2 liter turbo 4 - 286 hp at 6,500 rpm (far from crazy high as a lot of naturally aspirated engines these days hit max hp between 5,500 and 6,500 rpm) and 289 lb/ft of torque at 3,500 rpm. How about the new 911 Turbo? 3.6 liter twin turbo flat six - 480 hp at 6,000 rpm and 460 lb/ft of torque from 1,950 - 5,000 rpms (or if you get the overboost option it's 505 lb/ft from 2,000 - 4,000 rpm while using overboost).

It used to be that turbo's had to either be designed for low rpm torque or high rpm hp - but those days are long gone.

Remy,

You are very correct, and those engines are wonderfull examples of what technologically advanced turbos can do. I guess my response was aimed at the poster bragging about a 1.4L engine with 200HP. Many of these smaller engines brag about big horsepower but rarely specify torque numbers. I would not consider the VW/audi engine you mention in this group (200HP out of 2L is not hugely inflated performance)

The Evo engine is starting to get there though. The numbers are impressive, but I wonder how flat the torque curve is. Basically how would the evo do drag racing an 80's camaro with similiar max horsepower and torque?

And the Porsche is just awsome. I have always been impressed with what they could do with that flat 6. It is a great engine because they get so much low end torque from the opposed design (torque X RPM/ 5252 = HP), but it does come at a price.

I guess was more trying to compare my personal thoughts to the current import modders who only talk about horsepower. I frequently see modders talking about their cars having 400-500 HP then they run an eighth mile in only 10 seconds. I have a boxy 1935 chevy sedan that'll do high 10's in the quarter mile (6 in an eighth) with about 480HP, but I have big block torque. Plus I have overdrive that lets me get 22 MPG at 75mph while the engine purrs at only 1700 RPM. Some performance imports idle at 1400.

There are always good examples from both sides of the fence and I guess I would just like to educate people that real performance and drivability comes from the torque and that max HP numbers don't mean too much. Our business's semi tractor only has 200HP, does that mean the Audi turbo can tow 80,000 pounds also?

Remy,

You are very correct, and those engines are wonderfull examples of what technologically advanced turbos can do. I guess my response was aimed at the poster bragging about a 1.4L engine with 200HP. Many of these smaller engines brag about big horsepower but rarely specify torque numbers. I would not consider the VW/audi engine you mention in this group (200HP out of 2L is not hugely inflated performance)

The Evo engine is starting to get there though. The numbers are impressive, but I wonder how flat the torque curve is. Basically how would the evo do drag racing an 80's camaro with similiar max horsepower and torque?

And the Porsche is just awsome. I have always been impressed with what they could do with that flat 6. It is a great engine because they get so much low end torque from the opposed design (torque X RPM/ 5252 = HP), but it does come at a price.

I guess was more trying to compare my personal thoughts to the current import modders who only talk about horsepower. I frequently see modders talking about their cars having 400-500 HP then they run an eighth mile in only 10 seconds. I have a boxy 1935 chevy sedan that'll do high 10's in the quarter mile (6 in an eighth) with about 480HP, but I have big block torque. Plus I have overdrive that lets me get 22 MPG at 75mph while the engine purrs at only 1700 RPM. Some performance imports idle at 1400.

There are always good examples from both sides of the fence and I guess I would just like to educate people that real performance and drivability comes from the torque and that max HP numbers don't mean too much. Our business's semi tractor only has 200HP, does that mean the Audi turbo can tow 80,000 pounds also?

I see there are some anti-european car people here. These are the people that have probably never been to europe or driven their cars. I am in the Air Force and was stationed in Germany for 4 years. While I was there I had numerous european cars and I will probably never go back to an American car. They go just as fast as american cars, get better fuel mileage, lots more style, just as reliable, and have better handling characteristics since they drive on the autobahn. Case in point, I picked up a Euro spec 1990 BMW 740i for $3000. I drove it for 2 years. In those 2 years I had zero problems. I also had a 1997 Pontiac bonneville that I bought for $25,000 during the same time frame that was constantly in need of being repaired. It ate brakes about every 10000 miles and alternator about every 40000 miles. My BMW even though it was older was a lot more reliable. It also handled like a dream on the autobahn. I could drive 100+ MPH down the highway without even blinking an eye. My pontiac was white-knuckled driving over 80mph. When I left Germany, I traded my Pontiac in for a brand new VW Jetta which is also great to drive. Now that I'm here in Illinois, I picked up a 1989 Volvo 240 that now has 150,000 miles on it with zero problems to date. While I was in Germany I also had a VW Jetta wagon with a diesel. That car was awesome to drive and pulled great fuel mileage. Bring on the diesels to America!

i am seeing again wrong information here and there...
pity those seeking information and absorbing everything.

a turbo don't give higher mpg because of higher compression ratios. it is only because of efficiency of usage. a turbo gives you power of a higher displacement engine only when you need to, during overtaking, driving uphills, and drag racing, also driving through the mountains where the air is thin.
it is having fun with a car with better mpg compared to a
6 liter corvette.

all new engines have already high compressions with them. only lowered slightly to compensate for lower quality fuel and higher RPM's.
what a turbo and supercharger does is just to stuff more air into the cylinders, and the sensors will add more fuel to match the increase in air. consequently, it increases compression ratios, but only in a slight degree, since air is very compressible compared to liquid or solids.
so,in average, you could set a turbo in a boost of 7 psi to any engine and still avoid the chance of knocking/detonation without the need of changing compression ratios.

a turbine engine is only efficient due to the turbo like function, power to weight ratio, diesel operation, and almost constant rpm operation.
what makes it very popular to aircraft is the ability to fly at higher and thinner air where air resistance is low so the plane could travel faster easily.
airplane propellers, could not fly higher than that.
the turbine blades compensate for the thinner air and compress the air to make it hot enough, so it can ignite fuel without the need of a spark. (similar to diesel)
it could have high power but it is low in torque, a reason why it is used only as a Generator to military tanks and locomotives, but still, it guzzles a lot of fuel for operation in land.

Life's too short to hate an entire continent of cars. Prefer less frequently, sure, but hate? That's just silly.

Everyone has thier loyaties and stereotypical ideas. I don't like european cars because they are expensive here except maybe VW and I don't like VW because they look ugly to me. My opinion and nobody can tell me they don't look ugly to me though they can say they absolutly love them. Also acording to magazines I've read european cars with the exception of VW have had a bad streak the last decade of unreliability. Lets also not forget where your money goes when you buy a forign car, sure some of them are made in America but really a large % is still going to another country, whatever happened to your patriotism, or does it not extend to the economy. I don't know I'm not a patriot but I am picky on looks and most forign cars don't look good in my opinion.

I judge a car based on the merits of the car itself. Not based on brand prestige, arbitrary high price, or where it's made.

I'm just sick of the bias against anything that isn't some overhyped overrated overprice BMW or Mercedes.

All these do good hippies and lefties like to moan about gas guzzling American V8s when the truth is we make naturally aspirated V8s that have 3 times the displacement, and twice the torque and horsepower with flat torque curves, that get the same or better mileage than turbo 4 cyl cars.

Just compare the power curve and mileage of say, the V8 Corvette or V8 Mustang GT to the STI and Evo 4 cyls.

Evo and Sti with their small turbo engines get 18-25 mpg, while the heavier American cars with V8s and more power and weight gets 18-28 and one of them is your much hated 'dinosaur pushrod engine'

lol

Say Chris, why are you reposting the same old pro-American German-bashing rant on every article? We get the point already - you like American cars and think German cars are overrated. Most of us disagree with you. But the same old posts over and over again get old real quick.

"Lets also not forget where your money goes when you buy a forign car, sure some of them are made in America but really a large % is still going to another country, whatever happened to your patriotism, or does it not extend to the economy."

So, just because I live in the US I should throw my money away on an inferior car? That's the dumbest thing ever (and goes against the ideas this country was founded on too).

Remy LeBeau I'm not a patriot in fact I'm not even American, I just guessed that some Americans might want to keep the money in the country. However are American cars really inferior?? Its easy for people to say that car as a whole is crap but do they really know? or are they just believing what others say? Which part of the car is crap? Are the designs flawed? Are the parts not manufactured properly? Is the assembaly bad? Some people don't even realize thats cars like the Pontiac Vibe and Toytoa Matrix are the same car. Every car is different and even the exact one, hence the term 'lemon'. I knew a person who bought an American minivan and it broke and since then said he says all American cars are crap. Yet I knew a person with a mustang that lasted 17 years with no problems at all. Well I know my solution to all this mess, just buy used cars. Used cars can be a lot of work but at the end of the day I can laugh at my friends while thier cars go down in value and mine go up.

I'm haven't bashed any actual cars if you read my posts carefully.

All I am doing is dispelling common myths that tend to stem from some core elitist anti-American sentiment rather than any hard specs or data on the vehicles themselves.

For example in my last post, people are always bashing American 'gas guzzling V8s' yet I just showed that our V8s get just as good mileage as a turbo 4 cylinder in an import that everybody praises.

In the end, buy the car that you like better regardless of who makes it, but don't just bash American cars just because you've heard whatever everybody else (mostly false) says and it's the cute and trendy thing to do.

And the posts with "another American POS" when there is nothing but a damn spy photo about a car nobody knows anything about, isn't getting old?

I will keep dispelling these these trendy myths and showing why they are biased and wrong, as long as everyone who 'disagrees' with me keeps propagating biased nonsense.

About Turbo realiability:

I live in a very small country called BRAZIL, where 70%+ of our cargo is transported by trucks (im not proud of that, but thats how it is).
So, i think i can tell you a little bit about diesels (turbo diesels) because our economy ride on them!

Has turbo engines always been reliable? NO

When did it change? there is no especific date, but here.. somewhere like 10 years ago.

Are the reliable now? Hell yes! If they are not good for at least 200k miles, companys simple dont buy it. and I'm 100% sure that no one would pay nearly 200k for a scania if it breaks on the first year!

What is the percentage of turbo diesel against non turbo now? 90%+turbo.

About diesel production:

As someone said in other post, diesel come from petroleum the same way gas does. Its a fact that you can do some chemical process to get more percentage of gas from pretoleum, but you cant turn it all in gas.. diesel will be there, want you or not! (lots of other subproducts too!)

If diesel is that great, why dont everybody runs on diesel cars? As americans use need more gas than diesel (for transportation, at least) we here need more diesel than gas, so its against the law to run small car on diesel. (biodiesel is already changing it)
Bottom line: balanced use of gas and diesel is the best scenario.

About the post:

Do you want real substancial fuel economy? Change your way of life! drive a car that is big enough only to carry what you need, nothing more, acelerate it very slowly predicting that you will have to stop sign or light. Never go faster than 50 mph.

While general people (im excluding the few ones that really need more power for specific tasks) still buy cars based on how much bhp or cylinders they have nothing is gonna change... Think about it, if your are not willing to give up on the space of an SUV do you really need the 2.5 tons vehicle to do 0-60 in 8 secs? isnt 12 seconds good enough?!

I love turbos and love to drive modern turbo cars, but they are not gonna solve any problem if people keep thinkin "... i have to get to the speed limit as fast as i can.."

Very simple math: in your way to work you get a hwy and stay on it for about 5 miles. Driving at 50 mph avg. it would be 6 minutes. adding 15 or 20 seconds to this time (going from 0-60 slower) is not gonna change your life but will make some diference at the mpg your car gets.. and im not even talking about light to light traffic inside city.

Chris if you want to compare Epa fuel figures it's
Evo 19/25 vs Corvette 18/28, they both have combined figures of 21 mpg. The Evo is AWD however which lowers it's economy by 2~3 mpg, and also with less power than the Vette the Evo has fairly short gear ratios which do not help in this area.

Nick the Evo has a fairly impressive Torque curve, which is why if you really get on one it will peg 60 mph in around 4.5~4.8 seconds, and turn in a 1/4 mile time in the low 13's most reviews I have seen put it between 13.2 and 13.5 for the time with a trap around 107~110 mph. The 400 hp corvette with similar fuel economy runs in the high 12's 12.8~13.0 and gets 60 mph in 4.2~4.5 seconds.

from a rolling start the Vette has an advantage, a lot of the Evo's quickness is off the line where AWD helps a lot, The Evo also has a big trunk, and seats 5 adults in a pinch, and is just about as fast as the Vette around a race track because if it's superb handling.

John Shepherd has an Eagle Talon same car as the Eclipse, with the 4G63T engine still found in Evo's up though the Evo IX, it can put down a 7.7 second 1/4 @191 mph. So the Evo engine can be built up almost as far as you want to go, not many Motown Muscle cars out there can match those times.

Also the 1.4 VW engine is a really sweet little engine, VW calls it a Twincharger, it has a Supercharger for Low RPM grunt, and a Turbo for high RPM boost.

Also turbo engines can run rather lean which helps with fuel economy under the right conditions.

The Evo and Sti are nice cars no doubt, I'm just saying that people are getting a little carried away and not even looking at the specs or facts when they start talking nonsense about how American cars 'only get 4 mpg with their gas guzzling V8s' and so forth. Well here I've just shown that heavier cars with bigger engines get the same mpg and similar or better performance as 4 cyl turbo cars.

For the most part it seems people are just regurgitating some incorrect biased word of mouth from their friends who need to justify and feel better about their purchase by making up incorrect or stretched things about other cars, or from some snobby magazine, etc.

the evo and sti are 4 door sports cars, and shouldn't be compared to any average V8s.
the evo and its turbo is tuned for speed. it has worse mpg to an STI with a 3.5liter engine while an evo has 2.0 liter which also explains why a 2.0 liter evo engine has similar maximum torque and horsepower to the STI.

what makes V8's work in the US is the price of gasoline and the good traffic conditions there. consumers will demand less or something else than a V8 if they feel need to. now, whether they need it or not, government and car manufacturers start doing something like selling prius,diesels, and turbos. what's good about turbos is saving fuel/money but not taking out fun/power in vehicles.

What makes V8s work in the US is that you can make the power without needing high octane gas. Increasing displacement increases airflow without increasing cylinder heat and pressure with a turbo, thus you can add power without requiring higher octane for knock prevention by simply making the engine larger.

So if you want to blame anybody for the lack of high performance small displacement 4 cyl engines in the US, blame the environmentalists and liberals who keep dumping all kinds of additives into our gasoline and regulating it into crap of the grade which is not suitable for high performance small displacement boosted engines.

So when you see a 4 cyl Japanese car making the same power as an American V8, remember that they have 100 octane fuel in Japan while we have to make due with 87-91 octane. Hence in America, we prefer more displacement.

Also the gearing required for peaky high revving 4 cyls with no bottom end torque would make it take forever to accelerate for the people who pretend they need to haul 20,000 lbs every day on their way to work ;-)

HP = Torque X RPM / 5252
Soo the higher the rpm the more horsepower.
Some honda 4 cyls rev to 8000rpm
Lots of american V8s only to 6000rpm
Plus variable valve timing engines always have higher hp numbers by basically having the advantages of race and stock cams. Where stock V8s come with stock smooth idle cams.
If they made 8000rpm redline V8 with variable valve timing, they would have the same HP per Litre as the 4s...or you can get an aftermarket V8 that has a race cam and can rev to 8000rpm.
The only other thing that makes a power difference is compression ratio but the higher it is, the higher the octane required.

With a little thought it is obvious that most respondents answer with their feelings rather than their brains.
What does it matter; smells, power, speed, etc, etc, etc of the 1980's. Like the Buggie whip industry we'll wait forever for it to come back. Technology has gone on. Diesel power, turbo developement. noise, smell, etc. while still factors are way beyond the reasoning abilities of most of these respondents.
Best advise; "Get a life" read and study and you too will move on.
Dont wait for the Buggie Whip business to return; you will be doomed to disappointment.

Dickster, Reading PA

With a little thought it is obvious that most respondents answer with their feelings rather than their brains.
What does it matter; smells, power, speed, etc, etc, etc of the 1980's. Like the Buggie whip industry we'll wait forever for it to come back. Technology has gone on. Diesel power, turbo developement. noise, smell, etc. while still factors are way beyond the reasoning abilities of most of these respondents.
Best advise; "Get a life" read and study and you too will move on.
Dont wait for the Buggie Whip business to return; you will be doomed to disappointment.

Dickster, Reading PA

Here's my facts/experience:

My Cars and mileage / Horsepower:

1997 SS Camaro 5.7L 350 LT1, 6-speed
18 - 24 mpg / 315 HP (24 mpg at 80mph)

1972 GMC 2500 4x4, 5.7L 350, 3-speed automatic
8 - 12 mpg / 350 HP

2006 Chevy Silverado 1500 5.3L 327, 4 speed atomatic
20 - 24 mpg / 295 HP

My families cars:

1998 Toyota Camry, 3.0L 4 speed auto:
18 - 20 mpg / Unknown HP

2005 Toyota Camry, 2.4L, 4 speed auto
20 - 24 mpg / Unknown HP

(All engines are factory stock)

These are the statisics of the cars in my family, this is the experience I use when buying a car. Note: I have things I need to haul / tow so a truck was needed for me. I drive the 1972 on short off-road trips for fun, the Camaro is a pleasure-use only vehilce as well.

I read about how wonderful mileage foreign cars get compared to American, yet the #'s I personally have don't show that, and as for quality, the only vehicle that has a worse maintenance history than the Toyotas is the 35 year old GMC. (Note: the Toyota's are meticously maintained and driven "Softly" and thus are in good running condition when the trans isn't locking itself in park, or the car starts bucking all the way to 50 mph, etc.)

Back on topic, so Ford is putting turbos on its cars, SO? Ford is slowly dying off so this debate kind of moot unless other automakers follow suite. They ripped off Cadilliac for the designs, they have a botcott against them and thier sales #'s are steadily dropping. The only hope Ford has is to fire the execs and get some people who know what they are doing in there, and to get some real designers.

Will it increase mileage, Yes. But as Ford quality aint always the best, I bet alot of the engines pop after 50k miles. Alot of us Americans have lead feet :)

Why don't American's like desiels? Alot do, but as someone mentioned, it adds 5 to 7k onto the purchase price and the fuel is about $0.20 per gallon more here in California. Also, I was driving behind a desiel powered truck the other day (brand new, didn't even have a plate yet). The smell of chlorine was extremely strong, maybe thats the smell people are talking about. I do not hate or dislike them, but can see why some people hate the smell. In fact I would like to get one of the new Duramax's at some point, but right now I can't afford it and don't have a reason to justify try to afford it. My 06 Chevy does great for power and mileage, as for dependability, not sure yet, it only has 21,500 miles and so far there is nothing wrong with it.

Hydrogen run cars are the wave of the future. I don't mean those pussy fuel cells either. I'm talkin' rompin' stompin' fire belching internal combustion engines!
All of you whiners that believe in global warming, carbon footprints and ride little French made scooters to work will be eatin' my dust..hah

Hi all wanted to introduce myself!! I look forward to being part of this comunity.

Todd Cowle Municipal Bond Credit Report synthesizes, analyzes and presents aggregate credit information and trends in the municipal bond market. The report includes municipal bond rating information from the three major rating agencies – Moody’s Investor Services, Standard and Poor’s and Fitch Ratings.