There's only ONE reason why my turbocharged 4 cylinder gets bad gas mileage.... REASON: It's because my foot's in it so far that the fan is clipping my toenails..
Don't had that problem with v6 or v8..... it is fine if you try to cruise on high way but yet again a Bugatti can cruise on the highway.... less power mean more rev and breaking and more rev.... while I just shipped down a few gear..
Yes you are correct. HOWEVER... let’s look at the 718 Boxster for example. The previous gen was a 6 cylinder and the new one is a turbo 4. They promise the same power from the new one with better economy. Perfect right? The problem is however that power is when the car is on boost however the fuel economy numbers are when the car has not hit boost. So you either have better economy or more power but not both. Therefore a turbo 4 is not a replacement for a na 6
Exactly. No point buying a highly fuel efficient car and then driving it for performance. Unless we want to drive impossibly slowly then it makes more sense to buy a car that suits your needs and preferred driving style.
@druss999 true. i am trying to drive as efficient as i can and most people find that laughable... when i calculate savings its a different story, though im not really sacraficing driving pleasure, efficient driving is my thing lol
No, problem is that EU won't allow to make different motors so now you have 1 liter in cars where was 1.6-2.0 liter. Except some rare 2.0, biggest engines is 1.5 3cylinder.
Some people buy cars, especially performance models to floor them. These type of people never cared about the fuel economy. Bureaucrats told the car manufacturers to lower fuel economy across the fleet. They decided to cheat. They created these small turbo engines to trick the test and lied to us about their fuel economy. We ended up with inferior product in terms of fuel economy (for the way we drive), decreased reliability, and worse dynamic characteristics (in a way or lag). Environment loses out too. My 2l turbo from 2020 in a smaller car has about the same fuel consumption as my 2003 3.5l V6 in a larger car. Go figure.
@@dmytrosednev9867 Agree with you...Now some manufacturers want to put a 4 cylinder turbo in a full size pickup truck...It will very hard not to bury your foot pedal when loaded...I guarantee turbo replacement will be very common before 120K miles in these over taxed vehicles...The fuel savings money if any, will be negated by the expensive repair...
Why wouldn't you floor it? When manufacturers like Honda put small engines like 1.5L turbo you need to floor it to get the power and passing power you need on the highways.......
@ True, but there are plenty of FI vehicles, from Saabs to Volvos, petrol and diesel alike, that have achieved long odometer readings. By mileage however, I believe they meant consumption, not longevity. Cheers 👍
I always looked at turbo'd engines as having the smaller displacement when driven softly and a larger displacement when driven hard. Therefore, you will only get good fuel economy when you drive very easily, but you have the option of way more power when you want it. You just have to sacrifice that fuel economy when you want power. Kind of like cylinder deactivation, only more reliable.
Apart from that smaller displacement being tied to lower compression or retarded ignition. Basically you have no power until it's on boost. It would make more sense to have the larger engine and turbo that to the same power level so it can run higher static compression and less boost.
I had (2) 2.0 Direct injection turbo engines, one in a Forester XT the other in a Sky redline. Both rated at about 250-260 HP. My 13' Accord with a 3.5L V6 (rated at 278 HP) and variable displacement was faster and got better fuel economy. The Accord ran on 3cyl when that is all you needed. Problem with a turbo is you are always into the turbo and asking more air and fuel to get moving and stay at highway speeds. If you paid attention to the whole video they reason for these turbo engines is not really fuel efficiency but to get the EPA numbers higher. That does not translate to real world fuel economy. Ask anyone with an eco boost Ford Pickup. The Accord with cylinder deactivation is 100% reliable. before 13' there were issues, especially on vehicles where people didn't step on it so much. Even in the older ones people easily got 200K if the changed the oil regularly.
@Si Raff small turbo engines start boosting at like 1300/1400 revs... there is no safe "no boost" range cause if you drive it below boost you are going to damage your engine
not necessarily, compression ratios play a pretty big part. two engines can be using the same air fuel ratio at the same displacement, and provided the fuel can handle it, the engine with higher compression will make more power while using the same amount of fuel.
Its efficiency what we are talking about. If you accelerate little with a smaller turbocharged engine it is going to consume less than a naturally aspirated engine. If you accelerate more, it is going to consume more. Consumption tests are done when accelerating little, while in the real world, you may accelerate more, so consumption is higher than its rating, or higher than the former N/A engine.
Not always, but if the extra power comes from forcing more air at once, then yes... because more air always requires more fuel to keep the same A/F ratio. You can make more power and gain efficiency by adding compression or reducing friction. You can also improve breathing, which while not cramming more air per stroke, does shift the powerband into higher revs... since you have to rev higher to make the power afforded by the airflow, you have more strokes.... so you still use more air (and fuel) overall if you want to take advantage of the power gains.
This makes perfect sense. My 2017 GT Mustang gets 26 mpg on road trips. My Kia Optima gets 28 mpg on the same trip. You can guess which vehicle I prefer when I go!🏎
Not everyone drives at sea level. Turbocharging makes a huge difference when driving at higher altitudes. For the vast majority of the time, the engine is operating at only a limited throttle opening. Sure, if you smash down on the gas pedal all the time, your fuel mileage will decrease. The advantage of the turbo is that the extra power is there when you need it; entering onto a freeway or climbing steep grades or over-taking slower vehicles. You must factor in the effect of the intercooler in any discussion on engine efficiency.
@@user-zv8qg1co4z I never had a time where my lancer es n/a 120hp engine had me wishing to have more hp to get on a freeway ramp lmao. And on my 18 wrx if I go above 10% foot pedal then rip fuel economy
Not quite so simple as richer fuel mixture and retarding ignition timing to prevent pre-ignition (aka Detonation). Combustion chamber shape and piston top shape, detonation sensing, intake air temperatures and LOTs more factor into how good any turbocharged engine could be. To overly simplify turbo engines are less fuel efficient due to the need to enrich intake mixture does not factor in or account for how some manufactures have addressed these innate problems with turbo engines. Example: Saab-Scania's B234 & B204 turbo engines have a static compression rating of 9.2 to 1 and they achieve good fuel economy with balanced shafts (which consume power increasing fuel consumption). This is done by using a well designed pent roof cylinder head combustion chamber and a domed down piston top and intake/exhaust gas flow pattern control. These basic designed in factors work to prevent detonation with and without turbo boost. The more complete burn due to the afore mentioned design elements in the engine work to help the intake charge burn more complete which extracts more energy per intake charge, lowering emissions and resisting the potential for pre-ignition aka Detonation. To monitor pre-ignition at each cylinder burn cycle, Saab uses in cylinder ionic sensing of the burn in process via the spark plugs. Before and after the intake charge is ignited by the spark plug, the spark plug becomes a sensor to detect pre-ignition and alters when the spark plug is fired as needed, per intake cycle, per cylinder. To address intake charge temperature rise due to air compression by the turbo an intercooler is used to reduce the heat of the intake air. Intake air to the intake manifold is monitored for air temperature and air density. Both are figured and LOTs more factors are figured into the amount of fuel to be injected per cylinder. These factors work in conjunction with the ionic pre-ignition system using the spark plugs. The Saab-Scania turbo engine management system IS one of the most sophisticated out into production with with many technical features that are not recognized, appreciated or understood. Beyond Saab-Scania's turbo engine management system, the B234 & B204 engines are built really tough, durable and very strong to withstand the increase in torque of a turbo engine. It is also why a stock B234/B204 can be up boosted to 450 lb/ft of torque as delivered. Forged chrome-moly steel cranks with nitrided bearing surfaces, Forged chrome-moly steel con-rods, forged aluminum alloy pistons specifically designed for turbo engine duty made by Mahle with oil jets and additional oil cooling features. Stout main bearing and bottom end design, good coolant flow design to move the larger amount of heat produce by a turbo charged engine, oil cooler with thermostat to reduce the oil's operating temperature.... These are just a few technical reasons why Saab-Scania was able to produce a reliable-very durable turbo engine with good fuel efficiency for a given power requirement. These same turbo engines also features low emissions. Turbocharged engines are essentially a two stage pump system that recovers some of the heat energy that would have been lost via the exhaust to increase overall engine efficiency. The added plus of a turbocharge, lower exhaust noise due to conversion of that pulsed energy into rotational forces to drive the turbine.
I have a small (1.4 liter) turbocharged engine in my car. I have never gotten the mileage that I thought I should be getting, and this video helps a bit to understand why this is. The real blow that I got was when my car was in the body shop for a month (let's just say that it was the busy season, and that's all I have to say about that). I had a rental car that was a larger sedan with a V6, and it got better mileage than my smaller car. I still miss that rental car...
When my Firefly Turbo kicks in around 3000 rpm, it feels like an extra cylinder just started firing. My 3 cylinder, 1 litre suddenly becomes a fire breathing 1300. Hold onto your hats....!!!
It's too slow and fun to drive it recklessly. No airbags in 1991..... Easy to work on....but a death trap any way you look at it. Just incredibly cheap to drive to work.
i see these engines being used in the new fiestas etc in the UK and really wanting to know are they really as effective and powerful as a 4 cyl engine with near enough same HP or even less, there is a fiesta ST model not sure on exact name of model, but its sports a 140hp 3 cyl turbo engine and im just amazed that old 6's didnt make that much more before.
panther105 i had a non turbo Geo Metro, and every two weeks was a massive $35 fill up lol, i now have a 2005 Chevrolet Colorado and $40 is only half a tank now
Hook up an OBD to it (if you don't have a gauge) and monitor. Even in cruise there will be some boost - and that's okay - just means you're getting energy out of the exhaust flow to make the small displacement engine behave bigger. Lighter engine=fuel savings.
@@AlanTheBeast100 Well I know OBD2 stats suck. The O2 sensor just sucks at its job(to freaking slow). Plus on some vehicles they have the o2 sensor behind the cat ALSO. SO WHAT IS THE SECOND CAT TELLING THE FIRST O2 SENSOR TO DO? DON'T SAY IT JUST TELLS THE ECU THAT THE CAT IS WORKING! When Pee my brain tells me that i'm peeing (1st o2 sensor) , If when i'm peeing my pee is black (2nd o2 sensor) brain says WTF!!! WHAT DO I DO! It freaking does something.
@@yourbabyboyfriendonlyme2485 I'm not saying it's a substitute for a proper boost gauge, but it does indicate the MP albeit with a slight lag. (I have Bluedriver with an iPhone and it's quite good in this regard - other readers may be better or worse). The important thing here of course is not the OBD-II - it's that turbo on a small engine means more energy extracted for the fuel burned. That's the main point.
I've got a 2017 Honda Civic Hatchback. For life of that car so far, I have averaged 41-42mpg according to the in car mileage tracking computer. So probably a little less than that, but I would put it at about 40mpg based on when I actually did the math of mileage/gallons at fill-up. I drive 40 miles per day and mostly on the highway going to work & back. Even when I've been driving around town (stop & go) and sitting in fast food drive through lines a lot, my mileage hasn't shown below 36mpg. I don't remember filling up where the computer showed less than 40mpg. Basically if you aren't getting 35+mpg in the current model turbocharged Civics, then it is your driving to blame. Most perceived gas mileage problems in vehicles are the fault of the driver.
Could gasoline with a high octane number minimize knock and also minimize the injection of fuel to cool the cylinder temperature? It sounds like fuel consumption could also be significantly reduced at full load at downsized turbocharged engines. What are your experiences?
I recently saw a video made by Jason Camissa on this subject that left me with more questions than answers. You just clarified everything. Beautiful explanation. Thanks!!
Also keep in mind how people drive turbocharged vehicles. When you're driving a big V8 you have to drive slow to get any decent kind of mileage. Where most people who drive turbo cars always have their foot down... Who remembers the old days when you could literally watch the gas needle move in a V8 truck?
DonnaSean this is exactly the problem. These smaller turbocharged engines are usually dramatically more powerful than the naturally aspirated motors the owner was previously driving. Thus the driver accelerates significantly faster than their old car ( horsepower requires fuel either way) and then complains about the economy.
see the gas needle move? that remember my first car, i kind fixed it... but the ECU was think the engine needed more gas. in fact the poor thing barely moved.
It's an interesting discussion, but it's missing real-world data. The lower displacement turbo engines are less efficient in specific conditions, but you haven't presented any data about how often those conditions are actually encountered, in average driving situations for average drivers. For example, do most people spend most time driving in stop-go traffic (inner cities or congested roads) and constant speed (highway), with low throttle percentage?
amp888 look at this guy critical thinking! Just like the "mpg" is based off a specific test, and if you aren't driving that test at the same altitude/temperature why should you get the same results?
I think his point is more towards the performance oriented driver, who may be considering a lower volume engine as a way of having their cake and eating it too. In normal day to day driving you don't usually floor the throttle very often.
I think so, too. The video is not wrong but as always you can't speak generally. I'm sure Jason knows exactly what is going on and he also didn't say that the shown scenario is the case in every situation. But yeah, your video title would be a bit better for sure. I think he could have mentioned the words "downsizing" and "right sizing" since that is the topic here.
I see this a bit on the 2018 wrx. I have to downshift going up hill to keep it out of boost to see any decent MPG . Gearing in that car always keeps boost at the ready. Good for hooning in the twisties not for road trips lol
Got a 2017 GTI. If I drive it conservatively, it gets fantastic fuel economy, around 30/36. However, if you even begin to open it up, that drops dramatically - even routinely getting into boost range a bit cuts the fuel economy in half or more. Overall though, it’s a fantastic engine: The power is there when you want it, and for the 90% of the time you don’t, it’s as economical as a Civic.
John Ferguson I’m under 2k rpm 85% of the time! I don’t even use more than half pedal often bc I’ll be far over the speed limit at that point, even stock!
"25-27 max driving normally" You're not driving it "normally", trust me. Those engines are so eager to rev it's easy to overdo it. I love my 1.8T but I know I could be getting better MPG if only I could bring myself to ease off on the gas pedal a little bit. It's pretty much impossible for me, though lol
I'm a proud owner of a 2018 Civic Si with the 1.5 L turbo that's pushing 20.6 psi from the factory. I get well over 30mpg under normal circumstances because I don't rev the crap out of it like some people do. They complain the mileage is bad; yeah it's gonna be bad when you're hammering the throttle all the time. These cars were built for the instances where you need power, but most of the time you want to save fuel. They're not supposed to be efficient when you're hammering on them
18 Civic Hatch, hammer the throttle when taking off, slowly decelerate after getting about 5 over, barely hold speed with very light pressure on the gas pedal : 34-37 mpg city Same car, eco mode on, give as much throttle as I can while keeping a full green eco bar, 5 over to decelerate the maintain same as before : 42-43 mpg city 43-47 highway I only use Shell Premium
I'm going to buy one after the refresh. I'm going to hammer the throttle all the time. Who cares about mileage... Good thing I can afford all of the fuel I will be burning! ;) Great car.
I’m surprised you didn’t mention the option of higher octane fuels to help reduce knock. Typically the factory turbo cars use a specific type of programming or ecu tuning called “adaptive octane logic” so the computer can tell how high of octane the fuel it’s using is. Most of the factory turbo cars tend to “recommend 91/93 octane” for this reason. Basically it allows you to use 87 if you want but once the adaptive octane logic sees the fuel is crap it can set a lower cap on the engine timing. So let’s say you use 87 octane. The adaptive octane logic may set the limit of the timing to 12 degrees(advanced) well once you throw 93 in the tank and the sensors sample that fuel it will increase the limit of the timing from 12 degrees to lets say 20 degrees (advanced) resulting in more power out of the same calibration all while keeping the engine safe.
True and a lot depends on how heavy your foot is applied. With a light foot the tranny can shift before the turbo kicks in. This eleminates knocking and the need for high octane fuel. In this scenario, lower octane fuels can get the same MPG w/o spending that extra 10% per gallon. Regular gas ignites easier and burns quicker than premium which can improve MPG in some scenarios. For the lead foot driver, premium offers more power and better MPG but offset by the fuel's expense.
That's because higher octane gasoline doesn't actually affect fuel economy. That sales point is a scam. If that were true, all car manufacturers would design engines for that type of gas, and all gas stations would serve only that type of high octane gas.
@@thresh-idk if I’d use that as a blanket statement for all cases. Especially since if your engine is knocking and the fuel system has to retard the timing to compensate for it. Then in that situation the higher octane would result in better fuel economy. It’s not as cut and dry as most people think who haven’t studied the modern fuel systems in the past 10-15 years honestly. No disrespect intended. People just assume cause they knew long ago it’s the same as it was. And fuel systems and the methods engineers use to control the fuel systems have drastically changed over the past few years.
@@thresh- for someone like me a master tech of over 15 years to hear someone say higher octane dosnt affect fuel economy it just shows people like me you don’t understand Timing, long and short term fuel trims, what octane actually does and how it affects an engine, or how modern fuel system works. Again no disrespect. But when people say blanket statements like that it really shows the uneducated ignorance unfortunately
@@thresh-Domestic car companies are lobbying for a unified 95 octane fuel. Makes sense since we have so much corn ethanol. Lower octane fuel has a little more enthalpy, but not being able to compress it as much is costly.
Great video! It'd be interesting also to see how say an LS motor stacks up against a DOHC V8. It's interesting to compare how the E92 M3s compare to the Corvettes of the same era in terms of mileage, for example.
Wow so basically when you are driving under normal highway conditions turbo 4 cylinders get great fuel milage but when you floor it to make boost/horsepower they make bad fuel mileage.... Surprise!
Interesting video. I have a 2017 Jetta with the 1.4 turbo. EPA Highway estimates are 40MPG; doing 65 mph I'll get 48+. I've been delighted with the gas mileage so far, however I'm not doing autocross or anything.
What's funny is my 30 year old Mercedes gets better than "Highway EPA" while doing burnouts... I laugh at those ratings, so innacurate, I've never made that bad of fuel economy as they say.The diesel Merc makes 35-40 mpg driving wild, rated 27 from EPA My Mazda on the other hand is impossible to hit its rating (best was 19.2 MPG drafting a Semi for 150 mile run at 65mph in 6th, the EPA rating is not realistic). Normal in town is single digit, but who cares, its a rotary, drive it like you stole it!
epa rating could be not so realistic but still much more realistic than current (soon replaced) european test... the worst one was a extremly small 850cc 2 cylinder car, official numbers said 56 mpg, real world town+countryside+highway is only 35 mpg...
Knock is not from two flame fronts, multi-plug engines have mult fronts. Knock is from the hotspots you mentioned igniting the fuel charge before the piston reaches top dead center so the explosion force is applied to the piston while it is still travelling up.
It is more efficient to go with a turbo 4 over a V6 but the problem is the power, especially the very low RPM power of the Ford EcoBoost, is addicting and people have a hard time not putting their foot down from a dead stop. LOL
@@ericverster4069 I miss my 1.6 Fiesta ST. Always had power whenever you needed it, regardless of what gear you were in. Too bad the seats killed my back, otherwise I'd still have it.
I was very impressed with ford focus and its 1L 3cyl turbo, easily got 45mpg. It has a very low torque range so you could run it below 2k rpm and it still pulled nicely. I didnt get it for performance though, wasnt as peppy as a normal 2L.
I owned a Suzuki with a Fiat sourced 1248 cc 4-cyl diesel. Really small engine. 75 horsepower and 143 ft lb torque. I used to joke that my fuel economy numbers were directly related to my mood. During my 3 yrs of ownership, I recorded anywhere between 30 mpg and 62 mpg which almost entirely depended on how I was feeling and how calm I was driving. That engine was stunningly efficient at, say, 2000 rpm cruising in 5th gear. Push a little to overtake someone and it would be the exact opposite. I think that means that a good/sensitive driver will be able to get good gas mileage if he/she is paying attention but the average joe may struggle to replicate EPA.
3:46 They could also inject water into the engine to reduce temps. Saves fuel because it doesn't have to run rich and the steam generated during combustion would give even more boost. IIRC some race cars do this.
Idk about all of that, but in my experience, keeping at a lower speed seems to do pretty well. I have a 2013 Ford escape with the 1.6 EcoBoost engine. Epa estimates it at 33 hwy mpg. I can achieve it if I keep it at 65-70. However in Texas most of our speed limits are 75 or hwy. If I run 75, it gets about 28. Well under the advertised amount.
Keep in mind that the highway fuel efficiency ratings are due to the way cars are tested using a dynamometer and the the Highway schedule which is run at 60 mph, not 75 mph. Higher speeds means more drag (proportional to the square of the speed) resulting in lower mpg.
Two things: 1) This is not only linked to "small" displacement engines with turbo. It is the same for any *gas* powered engine using a turbo. 2) This is only relevant for gas powered engine. Diesel-turbos is another discussion.
@@electrictroy2010 More air is more diesel burned, but more work is done so efficiency of the engine is the same or even better. Of course fuel consumption is NOT the same thing as efficiency. Exampe: drive at 70km/h, engine load and efficiency is lower, but the car itself is more efficient since there is less power wasted to overcome air resistance. Double the speed to 140km/h, the power required to overcome wind resistance increases 8 times!! (since air drag power increases with the cube of the speed). Far more energy is needed to travel the same distance so the car is less efficient BUT the engine is more heavily loaded and runs more efficiently. Fuel consumption increases even if the engine is more efficient. IE fuel consumption doubles, but the work done quadruples, so the efficiency increses. Another simple experiment, try pulling up a hill in 5th gear and then try the same hill at same speed, so the power required is the same, but in 3rd gear. In 3rd gear load is lower, there is less boost but it will burn more fuel to do the same work as the efficiency is lower. There is no efficiency penalty for high boost on diesels because diesels don't require full load enrichment. In a gasser full load enrichment helps prevent knock but also causes decreased fuel efficiency, so a gasser might even burn less fuel when you downshift for less boost uphill, which is practically never the case in a diesel
In all the turbo builds I've done I consistently run an air fuel of 14. 7 to 15. 2 long as you can avoid high egts you're okay one thing not considered during the video which I understand why, is the timing of the ignition curve. Pre detonation can occur but if you set your timing more retarded as you advance RPM you can stay relatively safe depending on application. Also there are other remedies such as water meth injection that are great for keeping cylinders cool and adding power. Great video and very knowledgeable and if you guys want a main drift off what he's saying, the companies lie about their numbers lmfao!
This comment makes no sense. Same exact problem happens in any turbo fed engine, whether sequential or twin or single turbo v12 or v6. Problem is manufacturers are pushing engines to do more with less volume.
This tutorial is 100% correct. With a small turbo engine let’s say a 1.5 liter, you’re constantly in a boost situation (even during light acceleration) and you will burn more fuel. I went from a 2.4 liter Honda Accord to a 1.5 liter turbo Accord and the average on the 1.5 is about 3 mpg worse than the older naturally aspirated 2.4. However, during steady cruise on the highway, the 1.5 is about 3-4 mpg BETTER.
In the case of extremely high boost pressures, I remember seeing twin-fuel systems being implemented. Check out the Ronin Exige, which uses a separate methanol system that is injected into the engine after reaching a certain boost threshold. The methanol increases the octane rating of the gas being burned, at the expense and complexity of two fuel systems in a single car.
Finally someone talks about this! Here in europe all we got the last decade were tiny 1.0l - 1.5l (mostly 1.0) turbo engines, because the official fuel economy numbers were measured by a method called NEFZ, which was pure protectionism of the europeans thanks to lobbying. In that test only 5 hp were used on average. So turbo engines did not use their turbo at all in the fuel economy testing and the official fuel economy mostly depended on how small the engine was, the smaller the better. In real driving these cars depend completely on the turbocharger to make power and use at least 30% and up to 50 % more fuel than the official numbers say and their emissions became much more toxic than 20 years ago (and they were allowed to emit 10 times more and a much more dangerous kind of particles than diesels, extremely harmful to the human body). You americans don't know how lucky you are that you have EPA, best fuel economy testing on the world.
Mgoblagulkablong sorry, but I want to see your sources. I highly doubt that the stated numbers in your comment are true. It is true that the recharging of the battery, applying duct tape to the gaps, changing camber and toe, having higher pressure in the tire, lowering weight by removing additional stuff, and tuning the ECU to maximise efficiency is allowed within the NEFZ, but with an additional error of 4% the difference of the date isn't that high. The cycle is a standardised on with 66% of city driving and 33% of highway. It includes the coldstart and even fuel and temperature and air pressure are standardised. The resistance (rolling and air) is mesured and applied to the dyno on the forehand. The thing is that every vehicle runs through that cycle to be able to compared. But in the real wold the variables do change more. And especially the position of your right foot, if you know what I mean. The thing is that speed and throttle position do matter more in the real world through air resistance at high speeds and the lamda value and thus the enrichment of the mixture. And it is obvious that if it's floored that it's neither efficient nor clean, because what you are doing is solely asking for acceleration. If you want to achieve the bumbers stated you need to shift early, slightly touch the accelerator pedal and use the same things the manufacturers do. But it is possible to achieve good numbers close to the ones mesured in the real wolrd. F.E. the Honda Jazz is stated with 5.3 l/100km. I achieved 5.5 myself. And this while the battery was charging and haven't used duct tape. Nobody said that it is easy to achieve the numbers, but nor impossible. In the USA the cycle is not that efficiency focused. This results in numbers closer to the ones achieved by most of the users. Both cycles are there for a reason and NEFZ gives the manufacturer the ability to let the engine mork in it's most efficient way. This is not the most realistic but it shows what the engine can do. But when asking for power the car has to deliver. It's the same thing with BMW and the "Deutsche Umwelthilfe" who tried to sue them for manipulation of the diesel because when the car was floored or reached high rpm (so there was asked for power) the EGR valve closed. That's becaue they we're asking for power and therefore fuel needs to be burned with fresh air. It's obvious that EGR needs to be closed in this scenario. And it's obvious that if you use the accelerator pedal and ask for some power that fuel needs to be burned. The emissions do mostly are clead out by the cat. But they depend on how you get the fuel in the car. Having a look on the emission classes I belive that most new cars are much cleaner than before.
agree... european test is totaly fake, 0-50 km/h in 27 seconds... WTF that's why smaller is the engine, higher is the difference between official and real world consumption... my car has a small 4 cylinder naturaly aspirated engine and despite claiming worst consumption than tiny 3 cylinder turbo, in real world has better consumption, yes it lacks of torque but who cares, just drop a gear.
@@philipph3421 'herzig' nice jew name. Don't believe him, this jew was born with a snake's tongue like all of them are and never stops spitting outr lies and confsion to the gentile slaves....
I had 1.4tsi and it did 45mpg average. The worst I ever got was 40mpg and best 52. Gave it back at end of finance deal. Only Kept our other car a 1.6 naturally aspirated does 35mpg in same conditions. The turbo is a lot faster yet more economical. Not as economical as promised but still very decent for a mid sized petrol car. Before that had 1.2tsi and that did 43 with 38 worst and 60 best. So that could do more in right conditions but on average did less. Makes me wonder if 1.4 is about the sweet spot. I test drove a 1.0 turbo and most of the time was only in mid 30s economy.
you can have engines that use two spark plugs per cylinder so two colliding flame fronts, that’s not a problem, but the problem I see is the mixture will burn faster (not faster traveling but lower travel distance like half) so you risk getting the peak pressure before tdc just like in the case of pre ignition the flame fronts travel very slowly at only 20-50cm/s so as they travel very fast pressure (sound) waves at the speed of sound collide but each wave is small because it’s caused by a smaller extra quantity of fuel burned
If you buy it for power then buy the V8. The most reliable engine in the f150. Then you do not need to worry about the turbocharged headache of an engine in the future when it wears out
I don't know why, but in the game Automation I find it very addicting to make a turbocharged 1.1L i3 engine that revs up to 9100 and has peak power and torque at 7100 rpm. It has approx. 240+ hp.
I changed from a 1,4 litre four cylinder 90 PS to an 1 litre threezylindet engine with a turbocharger and 95 PS and i am down from 6,5 litre per 100 km to 5,5 litre per 100 km. For me thats a huge Deal because i save around 250 Euros a year.
The biggest advantage of the smaller turbocharged engine is the low end torque, so that your new turbocharged car (might even be a Volkswagen) has more low end torque and can sustain lower revs at high speeds
I've had a Honda Accord 1.5L (turbo) for about 2 months. The mileage is phenomenal for this size car (which also delivers up to 192 hp / 192 ft-Lbs over a ridiculously flat "curve" if needed). Using the OBD port and monitoring the wastegate position and manifold pressure, it's easy to see when the turbo is active. And that is when needed to get performance. Thus the small displacement engine consumes as little fuel as needed when cruising and more when power is really needed. That said, at higher cruising speeds the wastegate does close, but only enough to get the power needed. In effect, that exhaust energy is being recycled to help the engine breathe enough for the power demand. So, the small engine will use as much air and fuel as a larger displacement engine _when needed_. Lighter engine= less mass = less fuel to accelerate. And the consumption numbers v. my previous Accord prove beyond a doubt that a small turbo engine is a happy and efficient engine. And, BTW, no knock with 87 octane as recommended by Honda.
I now live in Costa Rica and I have big ol' American Suburban where most Ticos have small 4 cyl engines. This region has tons of hills and mountains. My big V8 gets about the same MPGs as their cars but I can carry 8 people plus a horse and a dead cat. I rev about 1,500 going up mountains while my in-laws small 4cyl is at about 3-4k with four people.
Turbo is nice to have when the vehicle is still under factory warranty. But once the expense of engine repairs becomes out-of-pocket for the owner/driver, watch out!
Well the turbo itself is a wear part... But besides that not really. The pistons, rods cams etc are fine, unless those fail" your all good. Ive seen volvo turbo with 300k+ miles that never had an issue.
My car (with a turbocharged, downsized petrol engine) is out of warranty since about 32 years. The car has tons of problems - the electrical wiring is disintegrating, the body is rusting badly, and there have been issues with the drivetrain. For example, after half a million kilometres I needed a new alternator, and shortly after that the gearbox had to be rebuilt. But the engine itself is bulletproof. Small turbocharged engines CAN and DO last. All it takes is an owner with a minimum degree of mechanical sympathy and who does not neglect maintenance.
@Martin Rudolph . . . I'm impressed with the durability of your vehicle's engine, turbo, and alternator. The half-million kilometers for an alternator is astounding, as here in the US, the average life expectancy I've had was around 161,000 kilometers when it needs replacing.
@@bloqk16 Simply stop buying American cars then. Here in Finland, we judge them as having roughly Soviet style build quality. Get Japanese or German instead, but avoid the Chrysler era Mercedes-Benz.
Modern turbos are very reliable. It’s old turbo designs that were not as reliable. Keep in mind semi trucks are turbo diesels with 300,000 miles or more
This is in part true, but since we reduce throttle losses during coasting and los power scenarios the engine is still much more efficient… also injecting too rich is not really an option since you are not allowed to spill carbons unburned… VWs 1.0 3 cylinder TSI is a good example it is crazy good, uses water to air inter cooling to keep the volume from turbo to inlet below 3000 cc of air and gets great real world milage while still offering ~110-120 HP the reduction of throttling needed during most of the time simply is so much better than the thermal losses during hard acceleration (the engine already makes 75 HP without forced air).
If you drive like a street racer and punch the throttle all the time, the boost is always on = bad fuel economy. I manage to get 6.5L/100km average on a 200hp 2.0T engine all the time on a small hatchback, so not impossible.
Knock is not the only reason for having to use a rich mixture, exhaust gas temperature is also really important. Water cooled integrated exhaust manifolds really help increasing the lambda = 1 operating range. Current Miller Cycle engines like the EA888 Gen 3b can even run stochiometric in their whole operating range. Also, this video really should have had a bsfc diagram in it to show why smaller engines (higher internal pressure) are more efficient at partial load.
VW has a compact car for the Brazilian market, called UP TSI. It produces an amazing 110HP with only 3 cylinders and 1000CC of displacement. The turbo works with some 28PSI and it is considered the most fuel efficient car in production. Hard to determine efficiency when the driver's foot is what makes the difference at the end of the day (or when the light turns green!).
they're efficient enough as long as you stay off boost. my girlfriend has a veloster turbo and averages 8.0l/100km(30mpg) and that's with pretty much only city driving through the east end of toronto. Shes scared of the loud noises of revving the car out so she almost never goes into boost. ya a 1.8l n/a 4 banger would be more efficient, but it would also be ungodly slow when she wanted more power. the idea of the turbo is that you sacrifice a little bit of fuel economy to just have it there driving normally, but it's there if you want more power, at the trade-off of a bit of extra gas. but if you don't need the power it will still be better on gas on average than a bigger n/a engine making the same hp/tq edit: someone else said eco/boost. that's exactly what i'm talking about, if you drive it normally, you get eco. you want more power you have that option at the tradeoff of more gas. Maybe i'm just baffled by this, but does anyone actually think that adding a turbo makes it more efficient on gas?
dos Santos precisely, the key to high fuel economy in a boosted engine is to use boost as little as possible lmao. Lots of highway cruising geared for low rpms and you’ll easily have 30 mpg in a 2.0l turbo
My Evo X is more efficient when I'm in the boost range, but it's admittedly a bit heavy for a 2.0L without the boost... I Best MPGs are in the lower range of boost (3000-3500ish RPMs), adding power without revving the crap out of it.
The spool up time required to build speed makes these engines frustrating in local stop and go driving - however on the open road, you get fantastic mileage and the engine is great. Bottom line for around town the mileage and speed isn’t so great - but on the hwy it’s great. So what kind of driving do you do more of? That’s what you need to decide.
I appreciate your video but I feel that after owning over 30 different cars, I have a valid opinion. Golden rule: You can put a V8 in a small car but you cant put a forced-induction 4cyl in a family sedan. I had a heavy Chrysler with a 360 in it. Extractors, large exhaust and an aftermarket 4bbl. Perfect engine to shift this car. Was no traffic light weapon but heaps of fun doing burnouts and it did 125mph I also had a Nissan 97 200SX (same as your 240SX) with the legendary SRDET 2.0lt turbo engine. I did not crack this engine open. Just a new fuel pump, 3.0" exhaust, Chinese eBay intercooler, pod filter and a dyno tune remapping the factory ECU. ABOUT 1300 USD in total. I got close to DOUBLE the factory power atw, same with the torque. No crazy boost, pump gas and easy drivability with the a/c on during a hot Aussie summer. Both engines were suited to the vehicles they were put in. Although the Mopar suffered from heat sink thus high running temperatures and really needed after market cooling. But I challenge anyone to coax 50% more HP out of a V8 for around 1300 USD? The surprising thing was that the turbo engine was still easy to get around 350 miles out of 14.5 Gallon tank. On a pure HWY run I would easily get 385 miles out of a tank. I love all engines as long as they go quick or sound great or both. Oh and our 'government milage' stickers on new car windscreens ain't worth sqwat.
Just to say, Saabs never suffered from knock. Or at least they prevented Knock. They Developed APC in 1986. (Automatic Performance Control). They used the spark plugs as a sensor and detected the onset of knock from the ionisation within the combustion chamber. If knock was about to occur, then timing would be adjusted. And/Or, boost levels reduced. This meant it effectively detected the Octane of the fuel. Better quality of fuel = more power. A Saab 9000 Aero has standard compression ratio. And yet with 98 Octane RON fuel, it can run 1.4 BAR (24 PSI) boost pressure with no knock. Giving a max of 310bhp from its 2.3L 4cyl. Ford are only just getting to that now with the Focus ST and RS.
Most OBD1 and Every OBD2 car i've ever worked on had a knock sensor which is basically just a microphone on the engine block, you can pop the hood while the engine is running and give the engine a light tap with a wrench and you will hear the idle drop because the ECU will pull timing, All ECU's do is advance timing until it senses knock then retards timing back down until it stops thus getting the best ignition timing possible. Nothing special or new.
Yes @ 310bhp the B234R is at Stage3. My point is, a stock engine will run at 1.4 Bar boost with no Knock when using higher quality fuel. FYI: The above is a just a remap. A B234R can be taken to 500bhp on a completely stock engine. They are fully forged from the factory so dont need to be touched. ALL Stock hardware goes to 310bhp. Then you just change the turbo and injectors and head for 500.
Please confirm this on the topic of cooling with AFR: Adding fuel beyond the stoichiometric ratio 14.7:1 does not add any more heat because there is no more oxygen to burn the fuel with. It extracts heat from the engine when changes phase from liquid to gas (as described in the video), and exits the engine unburnt with thermal energy that leaves the engine cooler. Diesel engines also use this technique, the side effect of this can clearly be seen as soot exiting the exhaust as black smoke. So rolling coal = blowing raw fuel out the exhaust. Not very efficient.
Diesel engines don't use this technique. They are compression ignition and direct injection (in modern diesels) and therefore do not need to overfuel to avoid knock. Sometimes they will smoke a bit before the boost kicks in and cleans up.
I meant that they use over-fueling technique to keep EGT down, among other things. Not knock. Thanks for catching that. Can't have pre-detonation when there's nothing to detonate!
Overfuelling cools the air and makes it more dense. This is why water injection is used in the same way even though it adds nothing for combustion-even on (especially on) turbine engines where there are also no knock considerations.
Turbines have extremely high exhaust temperatures and often use fresh air to cool perforated turbine blades. Excess fuel in a diesel is burned during the scavenging cycle causing high exhaust temps and burned valves.
Why would anyone buy a turbocharged car and expect high fuel efficiency? I bought a turbocharged vehicle for its high reserve power from a small lightweight engine and drivetrain. That to me is efficient! I still enjoy reasonable fuel mileage by keeping my foot out of it. When I need a boost of power, it's there. I previously owned a naturally aspirated 1.6 L Ford Fiesta and I routinely enjoyed 40+ miles per gallon at 70 to 75 miles per hour but Ford was punished for inefficient drivers claiming that 40 miles per gallon was not obtainable and Ford had to lower the claim to 38. Why buy a Toyota Prius, drive it at 80 mph and complain about efficiency? The technology does not compensate for idiocy!
I get 33.8 mpg over three years on my 2018 Civic EX-T. I never “floor it”, rarely going above 4,500 rpm. I drive about 60% highway. I only use the highest detergent fuel with Shell 93 Octane (to mitigate carbon deposits). I change my oil/filter early (between 3,800-4,200 mile intervals) using synthetic 0W-20 oil. I currently have 83,400 miles with no issues to date. I hope to get over 250,000 miles.
So short version: you get a small Turbocharged car to drive it sensibly for economy, and to have some power reserved for when you need it. I own a 2006 Land Rover Discovery 3 with a 2.7 litre diesel V6. On the Motorway doing 70 it happily gets above 37 Mpg, whereas in the city, it drops to around 27. The key is just how much you put your foot down; that thing pulls away hard once the turbo spools up, but then the Mpg goes out the window. Its all down to driver input and how you drive it. A good example of this is the race that Top Gear did with a BMW M3 and a Toyota Prius.
My 85 Kawi 750 turbo motorcycle can get 45+ mpg steady state cruising at 75+ mph. Around town and under high boost that drops to about 7 mpg! Small price to pay for the fun though.
My 1.8T Golf has just over 100,000km on it. I live in Calgary, Canada, so we’re at a pretty high altitude. My car has gotten 7.8L/100km combined since I bought it. On long highway cruises, it gets between 5-6L/100km, and in rare occasions can touch 4.9. Is it efficient during city driving? Not really. But there isn’t a non-hybrid vehicle available that is. Turbos are awesome.
A 2.0L @ 14.7psi boost is now a 4.0L. Its really just displacement on demand, going down the highway its a 2.0L again, but when you pass its back to a 4.0L.
I had (2) 2.0 Direct injection turbo engines, one in a Forester XT the other in a Sky redline. Both rated at about 250-260 HP. My 13' Accord with a 3.5L V6 (rated at 278 HP) and variable displacement was faster and got better fuel economy. The Accord ran on 3cyl when that is all you needed. Problem with a turbo is you are always into the turbo and asking more air and fuel to get moving and stay at highway speeds. If you paid attention to the whole video they reason for these turbo engines is not really fuel efficiency but to get the EPA numbers higher. That does not translate to real world fuel economy. Ask anyone with an eco boost Ford Pickup.
My friend and I have the same exact cars the only difference is the engine. He has 2016 Ford Escape with the normal 2.0 4 engine and I have 2016 Ford Escape se with 1.6 4 turbo engine. I not only get better hp and torque especially at lower rpms and better fuel efficiency than his engine with more displacement but no turbo. I have seen it the other way where they still get more hp and torque but worse efficiency a lot worse
TheeJoeyLee yea it is and there a ton of plastic covering the engine like most cars. I don’t know why companies do that. I always like the look of an engine. I never liked all the plastic they put all over. I know it protects from dirt and stuff getting on the engine but more often than not they are a huge pain getting off to do work
Turbo, no turbo, gas, diesel... If you drive it like a sports car you get sports car fuel mileage. If you drive it like an economy car you get economy car fuel mileage. Power takes fuel, use more power and you use more fuel. I have a 335i with a tune that makes 23 psi boost. But if I drive economically it gets 19 mpg city 29 mpg highway, when it's making 500+ hp (440 at the wheels) the fuel mileage is considerably lower :)
The problem is, I think you can go too far the other way. On the lowest end of the range you sometimes don't really get an "economy car" anymore, probably because compromises are made to make the base engine as cheap as possible and keep insurance down for young drivers who get fucked if they have anything over 1.2L, I drive a 1.2L ford fiesta at the moment and while I get higher MPG than people I see on forums who claim to be driving economically I still get less MPG than people driving the 1.6L engine seem to achieve, while i could probably equal/beat them i'd have to start impeding traffic to do it as accelerating with the flow of traffic *almost* takes "driving it like a sports car", only now its 1.0L T vs 1.4L N/A with more modern cars than my 12 year old fiesta :/
I had a Holden (Opel) 2 litre 4 cylinder diesel intercooled, manual hatchback (like a golf) and THE WORST fuel efficiency was 10 liters per hundred driving very hard around town. That is very very good economy.
No matter how carefully you drive a V8 or V10 it's gonna be a gas hog. Will it be slightly less of a gas hog with granny driving? Sure! But then I gotta ask why the hell did you buy a car/truck with a big engine?! With a V4 or V6 turbo the granny driving actually brings a huge efficiency boost. RWood1995 makes a great point about underpowered cars though, if they are too weak they can be inefficient for highway driving. A key element of Scott Gaines example is having the custom tune on his 335i, what about the stock tune? Obviously custom tunes are gonna be better than stock, hell I'm using a Cobb tuner with an OTS map on my WRX and the fuel efficiency, power distribution and power is way better than the stock tune. 32 MPG highway vs the 27 MPG highway I got with the stock tune.
For a little while I drove a '13 VW CC with a manual and a stage 1 93 tune to about 250whp. I was getting 28-30mpg combined and I could squeeze 36mpg on the highway. I think the real advantage to these turbo engines is you get all the fun while on boost and then when you're cruising on the highway off boost, it turns into a fuel sipper.
When I had a fiesta st, it would do fine cruising on the highway and around town as long as it was flat. If I hit even a moderate hill, the engine would dump fuel because the turbo was in its power band.
Small turbo engines are efficient to manufacturers: They can use the same engine in the entire production line and you still paying the same as a bigger engine, more profit. Stonks
StrangeClouds they're not. My wife has a 1.5L EcoBoost powered Fusion SE Nice car, a little bigger than I prefer but I swear on everything that I hold dear, I have watched the Fuel Economy hit 3.5 MPG when burying the throttle. For being a larger "mid-sized" sedan, the 1.5 does pretty well and perhaps in a small application could be a really fun engine but at times I'm certainly reminded that it's not my older Legacy GT. Though it is leaps and bounds more "Luxurious"
I have had a BMW with a 4 cylinder turbo for over 5 years. It has plenty of power and gets above the sticker mileage. Having 8 gears seems to be a big help.
You are intelligent and understand both NA an mostly 4 and 5 cylinders. One vitally important factor you have nor addressed is POWER TO WEIGHT RATIO. My turbo rarely if ever kicks in because I anticipate traffic and use my cruise control, if my turbo ever kicks in BECAUSE I NEED IT AT THE MOMENT, it is for a few seconds. Thus, I get way better MPG than even the manufacturers claim. You have an average understanding of engineering but you are biased to use faulty logic to create clickbait tiles. Small displacement turbo motors are more efficient than larger displacement and greater number of cylinder motors and your facts would only be true if someone was constantly engaging their turbos which is impossible to do. Try again, Maybe you can explain how your perpetual motion machine works.
Diesels and Gasoline use a different thermodynamic cycle the Otto cycle versus Diesel cycle. But for the most part the higher the compression ratio the higher the efficiency and power creation. Thus diesels are so much more powerful and gas efficient because of their high compression cycles. In theory though the Otto cycle has the ability to be more efficient but so far it is not possible to get up to the high compression ratios required to beat diesel. However some care companies are getting pretty impressive with how high they are pushing the gasoline compression ratios and thermal efficiencies.
I don't know a lot about engines, so don't flame me, but would adding an intercooler fix the problem of engine knock in this scenario rather than relying on the rich fuel mixture to cool it down?
AERO BLKHWK32 I think even though ur using an intercooler, the amount of air in the cylinders is much higher and as a result the pressure is much higher. So, as pressure increases, temp increases........even though you are supplying cooler air.......
AERO BLKHWK32 Yes. An intercooler (if there's only one turbo, technically it's called an AFTERcooler) reduces knock. Video explains what happens when boost arrives and the ecu increases richness to protect engine. Premise of video is that we all spend >30% of our driving time with foot on floor. In most countries, this is drivel, as your drivers license will be gone before the contents of your fuel tank. Most driving is done with 0% to 15% throttle. Happy place for turbo economy.
He didn't mention it in this video but there is nearly no point running a turbo or compressor without intercooling the gas before it goes into the engine. Also the rich fuel mixture is there to cool the turbo mmainly at high rpm (we are talking about 800°C instead of 950°C+). We made some tests on the engine-bay and as we excellently forgot to turn on the "rich fuel mixture for cooling" in the software, the Turbo-Temp *quickly* went up to 850°C, 900°C is the absolute maximum that system may reach and that is rather over short times. The knock is a different problem to the overheating turbo that is cooled by rich fuel mixture. Cooling the exhaust gases before the Turbo with a intercooler is not easy and shall not effect the efficeny of the Turbo. VW has a watercooled exhaust connector to the turbo that tries to reduce the need of rich fuel mixture. EE already made a video about that thing.
A small engine moves the efficiency grid’s good part to where you use it, but the turbo decreases total efficiency. This means less efficiency on hard acceleration but better cruising and light accel
How to save fuel: mid 90s sedan 0 to 60...ok at 10s. 2018 f150 4x4 that can tow 9000lb and weighs 4500lb for your whole family...journalists say it's slow unless it can do 60 in like 7 second. Europe saves gas by downsizing on weight and power. We want cake and ice cream and gummy bears
Exactly. In america our vehicles & us need to loose some weight. Ridiculous how we have to carry 3-5000 pounds of metal plastic glass,& rubber with us every where we go. Perhaps we need more Personal Electric vehicles on a smaller separate road network like a bike trail,(or modified bike trails) to avoid collisions with heavier vehicles.
I would love to see Mr. E/E work in car sales and the customers asks: How does that work? It would be funny to watch an actual engineer explain how everything works to a car buying customer.
I still have my 14 Accord V6. On a long trip averaged 45 mpg. Normal driving 30-37 mpg. Regardless of turbo or non it’s the driving habits, correct tire pressure, and unless I need to carry stuff for a trip I keep junk and heavy stuff from my trunk. Maintenance is over looked quite often.
I'm from the UK brought a brand new Ford focus ecoboost 1.0 125ps. My 2009 Citroen c5 estate 2.0 diesel is way better on the fuel even though the car is twice the size and the engine is twice the size lol and more power 138ps.
@@amandahuginkiss4098 Yeah I know it's a petrol but still a 1 liter 3 cylinder engine ! and a brand new. My other car my ten year old diesle is quicker and more efficient.
