Wayne et al I saw the cold weather -20mpg- 60 mph mpg for the 2.7 Ford pickup which apparently is rated at "just" 18/23?? I say "just" because I certainly expected it to BEAT -on paper the Larger motored -and certainly less expensive(real life) 18/25 Dodge?? So Wayne do you have actual warm CA MPG and WEIGHT numbers for the Ford?? Now I am a Dodge and GM fan- but I certainly expected Ford to produce Better EPA numbers than Dodge and 18/23?? barely better than the GM 5.3 right?? a 360 hp V-8 which certainly would be cheaper to build The Turbo spark ignition engines-are not producing Does this strike ANYONE ELSE as SIMILAR to the early 1980's When Turbo 4's were supposed to produce 4 cylinder MPG But 8 cylinder acceleration?? But what actually happened is they didn't do EITHER- and coked up their Turbo bearings- meaning they were more expensive-less reliable- and didn't produce the MPG or the acceleration they were supposed to produce Of course the normally aspirated 4 valve 4 cylinders became better-pretty much DID do both-good mpg and decent acceleration- Dodge is beating Fords Turbo engines with MUCH simpler normally aspirated engines and GM is matching them with a PRIMITIVE 60 year old pushrod 2 valve V-8 Once again-turbos work GREAT on diesels-but not so great on spark ignition motors Seems it STILL makes NO SENSE- to try to make a small motor function " like" a larger motor 1) turbo engines are not lighter 2)inherent friction isn't less less 3) they aren't producing the better mpg-or the "same acceleration" of the simpler larger normally aspirated spark motors- - Just MAKE a LIGHT WEIGHT higher displacement BIGGER motor-and turn it SLOW-not too many RPMs you don't have the problems with DETONATION( using extra fuel to cool mixture) or the fancy "controls" and plumbing and the COST Yeah I don't see any turbo advantage with SPARK IGNITION motors The GM 5.3 matches the fancy expensive Ford Turbos The Dodge 3.6 HAMMERS them?? Where is the BEEF?? Charlie PS Obviously TDs-completely different story- 1)they run lean with no problem 2)they don't "detonate" when pressure temps are "too high" 3) no throttle plate plugging intake 4)can run 17/1 compression PLUS 15 psi boost!! Explains the 30% MPG advantage(and diesel contains more energy also per unit of volume)
Re: 60MPH mpg for 2.7 Ford pickup-and Turbos dodn't beat normally aspirated spark mot If you look at actual highway fuel economy from a number of Cruze Eco owners , you will see that a small turbo gasser CAN give good highway results. At low load , 55 MPH or so. The jury is still out ( for me anyway) on whether or not people ( average or us ) can get excellent fuel economy in city/suburban environments. I'd love to drive a car like a Fiesta 1.0 Ecoboost ,just for a week or two , to see what I could get.
Re: 60MPH mpg for 2.7 Ford pickup-and Turbos dodn't beat normally aspirated spark mot To be truthful, Ford should have named the engine line "Eco/boost". You get eco if you're gentle with it, you get boost if you mash the pedal. You don't ever get both. Most people out there fall on the boost side and then complain about missing the eco. The old YMMV is even more applicable to these vehicles than a traditional non-turbo.
Re: 60MPH mpg for 2.7 Ford pickup-and Turbos dodn't beat normally aspirated spark mot Edwin Andrew We sorta agree- If you SUBTRACTED the turbo on for EXAMPLE the 1.4 turbo cruze- and PERHAPS-upped the compression which usually is lowered a bit on turbo cars-usually by 1-1.5 points from a non turbo version and Drove conservatively- would you get better with the turbo or the normally aspirated?? Say at 60 mph-with tall gearing-and perhaps heavier flywheel effect to really allow tall gearing with no lugging I kinda doubt that the turbo will beat the non turbo-at say 65 mph?? As you say-the turbos are used to allow/encourage more brisk acceleration not to allow you to get better FE Perhaps we should try-I am sure it has been tried -and failed to put tiny tiny turbo driven generators in the exhaust stream- these tiny turbos could supply energy to recharge a Hybrid BP This is sooo obvious-it must have have been tried-but failed-maybe because of a heat problem-hot turbo shaft "cooking" the generator- heat and electricity-don't "mix" well but you would think that a ceramic shaft would not conduct the heat?? Anyway spark engined turbos- In REAL LIFE-don't seem to have any advantage over good normally aspirated spark ignition motors The PROOF is 1)THE DODGE 3.6 and the 8 speed AT- beats the FORD turbos-in mpg and in cost 2)The PRIMITIVE GM 5.3-which must be CHEAP to build-MATCHES the Ford turbos- and must be cheaper to build-and it should be more reliable-probably LIGHTER too probably more compact-all that PLUMBING A small-1400cc 3 or 4 cylinder spark motor-can easily make 100 hp-at 6000 RPMS- so 33 hp at perhaps 2000 rpms(enough for a small aero car to do 60-63 mph) why bother with a turbo?? Our 1980 Chevette made a claimed 60 hp(very small horses-just ask wayne how malnourished those horses were)- It was ADEQUATE- about 2300 lbs I think?? Certainly 1000 hp 1400 cc with a 6 speed at -could easily drive a 3000 lb much more aero car I am disappointed with spark ignition turbos-this feels like 1985 or so- Turbos not living up to hype-AGAIN Find another way to use that wasted exhaust energy!! Oh-what is the ACTUAL weight of the Ford pickup?? Actual weight of a comparable Dodge GM and WHO CARES if it is LIGHTER- The MPG- 18/23-isn't better than the Dodge or GM?? So what is the POINT of the weight loss(and i have my doubts on the 700 lb claim-sets off my BS-O-METER) Heck ALL the body work fenders etc-doesn't weigh 700 lbs?? so NO WAY does a switch to aluminum body panels drop 650 lbs The actual frame-is still STEEL- steel is a very good material-got my doubts about the 650 lb claim Bet dollars to donuts that the LIGHTEST FORD isn't 650 lbs less that the lightest GM or Dodge Yes Ford never made that claim-but it is implied-since they are competing against GM and Dodge-not FORD
Re: 60MPH mpg for 2.7 Ford pickup-and Turbos dodn't beat normally aspirated spark mot The whole problem with comparing normally aspirated motors to a turbo motor is the compression ratio. The turbo motor is at a distinct disadvantage due to the lower hp and torque numbers it generates at lower rpms off boost. Thus you're running with the butterfly open slightly wider off boost to compensate for the lower compression ratio, HP and torque numbers This was true with the old turbo Volvo's. Fuel mileage with the last year of the 940's was very telling. Turbo's (160hp) on the highway were lucky to see 26 mpg's yet the non turbo versions (127hp) would easily pull 32 to 33 mpg at normal highway speeds. The only way to match numbers is to Hypermile the life out of a Turbo motor. Want a 40 mpg highway Camaro or TA? Pull the 5.0 - 5.7L V8 out and slide in a Buick 3.8L, a six speed with a .50 top gear and 3.23 rear gears. When they were doing Ford motor swaps in the old 700 and 900 series Volvo's the 302 HO's and T6 six speed transmissions were all pulling 33 plus mpgs on the highway.
Re: 60MPH mpg for 2.7 Ford pickup-and Turbos dodn't beat normally aspirated spark mot Exactly!! Like you-and I say-they always drop the CR about 1-1.5 points on the Turbo motors so at LOW LOADS 60 mph takes maybe 1/5 peak power of most vehicles- Geez I bet I don't need 50 or 255hp hp to drive my suburban at 60 mph Lower compression LOWERS inherent efficiency- For low load driving-which is most driving- they are duds-expensive overly complicated duds Oh-huge aside-I had NO IDEA that S&W has engendered lots of ill will because of a mechanism to safety lock their revolvers I just mail ordered a 638-shrouded hammer J-frame -$355+$15 =$370 Just $370 for a plus P 15 ounce 38- less than what I sold my old not plus P 638 for several years ago Apparently they-S&W revolvers) aren't selling well because of the internal lock- some folks think S&W sold out-and some complaints of heavier recoiling versions locking up-357 etc Heck many years ago there was an anti Ruger movement because Ruger wouldn't sell factory 20 and 30 rd mags for the mini 14- they sold them to LEOS but not to citizens despite it being completely legal to sell to citizens- annoyed me at the time-I had to pay a cop-a premium-to get factory 20 rd mags anyway Ruger survived that just fine Anyway hooray for "mail order" this is much better than 1965 when I mail ordered my model 190 winchester 22 rifle($42 delivered)-guessing a lied about my age or had my dad sign the magazine order blank-but it arrived-USPS- 7 weeks after I sent the MO Now they arrive 3 days after the order is placed-
Re: 60MPH mpg for 2.7 Ford pickup-and Turbos dodn't beat normally aspirated spark mot 100 HP in a car like the Yaris or Fiat 500 is acceptable , mostly because the folks who buy them don't expect them to "perform". If the Fiat buyer wants more performance ( or cachet) he gets the Abarth turbo motor. But a 1.4 non-turbo in a heavy car like a Cruze ? Americans won't be lining up at their Chevy dealers to buy that. They NEED a certain level of performance to feel good about themselves and their crappy jobs/marriages/etc. Perhaps turbocharging is just a good way to do an end-run on the EPA. Ford has bet the farm on it. Do it work ? Long-term, we shall see.
Re: 60MPH mpg for 2.7 Ford pickup-and Turbos dodn't beat normally aspirated spark mot I somewhat agree. I don't have any experience with EcoBoost engines, but when I had access to Cruzes, they delivered top notch mileage, with a kick in the pants should the go pedal be applied. But as much as I find it to e a fun car to drive as well as efficient, I wonder about turbo replacement down the road, and no EOC kinda kills it for me. Turn a "regular" motor slow, it works, and is simple. We all do this simply by keeping our speed down (aero reasons not withstanding). For all the reticence towards pushrod engines, they are prime candidates for being turned slow, and are light and compact for a given displacement.
Re: 60MPH mpg for 2.7 Ford pickup-and Turbos dodn't beat normally aspirated spark mot MetroMPG results: 36.5 mpg 37 mph 6th gear 820 rpm 7.0L V8
Re: 60MPH mpg for 2.7 Ford pickup-and Turbos dodn't beat normally aspirated spark mot JCP The PRIMITIVE 5.7 in my 1998 Suburban delivered 21.2 mpg on 2 3000 mile round trips-all highway-from NOLA to Flagstaff Considering it is a LARGE motor pushing a 5200 brick(guessing .45 cd)(actual trip weight at least 6200 lbs-2 adults big dog-3 ice chests bike queen sized futon -bike rear hitch carrier lotta tools) and it had 210,000 miles on it Yeah big pushrod motors do OK- And it isn't geared tall-it does 1720 RPMS at 60 mph Yeah 2 valves pushrods-delivers decent FE- probably would get 26mpg with current 5.3 same same currently the FE of the GM 5.3 is as good-as the tiny 2.7 turbo Ford and the 3.5 turbo ford- Good meaning FE and HP/torque Ford hasn't produced better FE with its turbo pickups-no more power either Where is the beef!! And I still have my doubts about that implausible 650 lbs!!-15% loss-one model year?? Hmmmm
Re: 60MPH mpg for 2.7 Ford pickup-and Turbos dodn't beat normally aspirated spark mot Yeah that matches my ZO6 numbers I haven't ever mentioned it because I didn't want to get any flak from you "haters" Yeah I am kidding. The Dodge 3.6 still impresses me more- 18/25 EPA in a 5200 lb brick-with a plain jane V-6 motor- the 7 liter GM is a pricey motor despite the 2 valves and pushrods 7 liter 427 right-?? Cool!
Re: 60MPH mpg for 2.7 Ford pickup-and Turbos dodn't beat normally aspirated spark mot Hi Charlie: No warm weather numbers yet but the 15 F-150 4X4 with the 2.7L EB steady states were disappointing. The graph was generated in below freezing temps however. I just have not ever seen a vehicle pull less than its EPA highway below 50 mph. Ever! The second worst vehicle we have tested was the 1.6L EcoBoost in the Fusion at 54 mph IIRC. The Steady States are not generated with any boost either. Wayne
Re: 60MPH mpg for 2.7 Ford pickup-and Turbos dodn't beat normally aspirated spark mot Oh wow. That's terrible. I seem to recall the old 3.5 EB F150 running something like 33 mpg at 50.
Re: 60MPH mpg for 2.7 Ford pickup-and Turbos dodn't beat normally aspirated spark mot Warmer weather too , Andrew. Right ? I drive the same commute , the same way , the same speeds for almost a full year now. Cold alone ( no snow or ice ) can take a 12 MPG hit. (zero F to 90 F )
Re: 60MPH mpg for 2.7 Ford pickup-and Turbos dodn't beat normally aspirated spark mot Yeah cold is a killer. Highway runs are off 10-12% for me when it's cold but dry. That still wouldn't give great numbers on that two-seven.
Re: 60MPH mpg for 2.7 Ford pickup-and Turbos dodn't beat normally aspirated spark mot Warmer weather (it was probably in the 70's), and it was 2wd, but it was loaded down.
Hi All: Edmunds tweeted an interesting anecdote about their long term 18/23 mpgUS city/highway rated 2015 2.7L EcoBoost equipped Ford F-150. During the 2,340 miles of driving last month, the F-150 averaged 17.9 mpg - marginally less than its 18.0 mpg performance in October, but still good enough to move overall fuel economy in the right direction. Even so, we're still well below the EPA's 20 mpg combined estimate. Worst Fill MPG: 13.3 Best Fill MPG: 23.1 Average Lifetime MPG: 17.0 EPA MPG Rating: 20 Combined (18 City/ 23 Highway) That lmpg is after 28,000 miles of driving. Wayne
17 mpg average- nothing to brag about- and less than city EPA-when some of the driving(the 23mpg tank) was obviously hy I wonder what Edmunds got with whichever GM 5.3 they have long term tested?? or the Ram 3.0 TD? or Fords twin turbo 3.5?
Hi Charlie: Not sure but there is a problem in Blue country with regard to the EcoBoost. Remember the poor results we received from the 1.5L in the Fusion a few years back along with the cold temp 2.7L in the F-150? Not good. Wayne
