Turbochargers: Am I missing something?

[avboiler11]

Which EcoBoost did you drive, the 2.7L or 3.5L?

Here's a rear wheel dyno chart from SCT for a bone-stock 5.3L L83 GM engine on 87 octane:


Rear wheel dyno chart from SCT for a bone-stock 3.5L EcoBoost on 87 octane:


Gear ratio plays a *significant* factor - if you're used to 4.10s or even 3.73s with the 5.3L then 3.31s with the 3.5L are gonna feel comparatively anemic - but the powerplants themselves don't really compare.

I test drove a 2019 F150 with 3.5L EB, 10-speed automatic and 3.55s and the butt dyno DEFINITELY felt a difference to my 2017 Silverado...due in no small part I'm sure to GM's gawd-awful torque management tuning.

 

[KLB]

I had a 2013 SHO with the 3.5L Ecoboost. It would move.

 

[churchmouse]

Which EcoBoost did you drive, the 2.7L or 3.5L?

Here's a rear wheel dyno chart from SCT for a bone-stock 5.3L L83 GM engine on 87 octane:
View attachment 77052

Rear wheel dyno chart from SCT for a bone-stock 3.5L EcoBoost on 87 octane:
View attachment 77051

Gear ratio plays a *significant* factor - if you're used to 4.10s or even 3.73s with the 5.3L then 3.31s with the 3.5L are gonna feel comparatively anemic - but the powerplants themselves don't really compare.

I test drove a 2019 F150 with 3.5L EB, 10-speed automatic and 3.55s and the butt dyno DEFINITELY felt a difference to my 2017 Silverado...due in no small part I'm sure to GM's gawd-awful torque management tuning.

3.5 but it is a couple years old. Ran OK no load but did not set me hair back. Hooked up to the enclosed trailer with a load and it went turd city. It pulled it but worked to do it.

I understand ratios. More than most. I also understand dyno sheets. Truck had a tow package. I assumed () it was set up to tow.
Like you said, you can not have it all.

 

[rvb]

Exactly. When being used a a single person or mom + a kid or 2 grocery getter, they work adequately. For the (now rare) person that uses a truck as a truck, the ecoboost does not work as well as the v8.

You're probably the only person in the world that thinks that, given the 3.5L EcoBoost's torque curve & peak relative to modern naturally aspirated V8s including the 5.0L Coyote.

For the record, I own a 5.3L Silverado, but the 3.5L EcoBoost is a heckuva engine for doing 'truck stuff'. Yes, it gets thirsty when towing or hauling - you can have Eco OR Boost, but not both at the same time....

I agree w/ russc2542....
I've even been looking at used trucks as I need a bigger back seat for kids/dog.... I'm only looking at 5.0s. I've known too many people who had major problems w/ EcoBoost motors.... major enough that a couple of them found it cheaper to trade the truck in vs repair. One of those people was towing a boat through a neighboring state when it quit on him. My truck doesn't get too abused, but it does tow our camper a couple thousand miles per year, incl into hills of WV, plus some other occasional towing, so it does get used.

I like the "idea" of the EcoBoost motors... the torque curves are better, and forcing air into the motor when towing over hills/mountains w/ some altitude is always better. But I don't yet trust them. I thought by now I would...

2c

-rvb

 

[KJQ6945]

I had two turbo cars in the eighties, a carbureted TA, and injected Buick. Worlds of difference, as has been stated earlier. I've also had two turbo diesel trucks. Loved them, but I have no desire to screw around with DEF, so not likely I'll be buying anymore diesels.

I still believe the old adage, there's no replacement, for displacement. I wasn't thrilled with the power of my 5.3 while towing, so I made the only sensible decision and bought a 6.2L. Problem solved.

Turbos are for diesels, and to make anemic 4 cyl's, not so anemic. No more turbos for me.


Lots of great, well educated posts in this thread. This was not one of them.

 

[churchmouse]

I had two turbo cars in the eighties, a carbureted TA, and injected Buick. Worlds of difference, as has been stated earlier. I've also had two turbo diesel trucks. Loved them, but I have no desire to screw around with DEF, so not likely I'll be buying anymore diesels.

I still believe the old adage, there's no replacement, for displacement. I wasn't thrilled with the power of my 5.3 while towing, so I made the only sensible decision and bought a 6.2L. Problem solved.

Turbos are for diesels, and to make anemic 4 cyl's, not so anemic. No more turbos for me.


Lots of great, well educated posts in this thread. This was not one of them.

Reported......

 

[KLB]

I had two turbo cars in the eighties, a carbureted TA, and injected Buick. Worlds of difference, as has been stated earlier. I've also had two turbo diesel trucks. Loved them, but I have no desire to screw around with DEF, so not likely I'll be buying anymore diesels.

I still believe the old adage, there's no replacement, for displacement. I wasn't thrilled with the power of my 5.3 while towing, so I made the only sensible decision and bought a 6.2L. Problem solved.

Turbos are for diesels, and to make anemic 4 cyl's, not so anemic. No more turbos for me.


Lots of great, well educated posts in this thread. This was not one of them.

There are a some very much not anemic 4 bangers today. My Golf R, the Subaru WTX, the Ford RS, and the Honda Type R to begin with. Then you can look at Mercedes and their A45.

 

[schmart]

I should have said this before. My car is stock turbo, and the hate I see comes for STOCK turbo engines over naturally aspirated. I can actually totally understand hate for aftermarket stuff.

The biggest example is people saying to get a V8 F150 over the twin turbo V6

So I'm one of those people. I've had a 2012 F150 ecoboost since new. I bought it mainly because of the promised increased fuel economy. The extra power and towing capabilities seemed to make it a no brainer. My general use is back and forth to my office job and on road trips back to my folks in western KS. I have towed a car hauler out there several times, but never anywhere close to max weight. My only problem I've had is the aftercooler over cools and on cold wet days (i.e <40deg and raining or misting), it would condense water that would settle to the bottom and then when you go WOT, it would suck a slug of water into the engine, causing massive misfire and then the emissions nannies cut that cylinder(s) for 30 seconds, leaving you with a VERY anemic powerplant, just when you need the most power. That has been solved by drilling a very small (<1/16") hole in the bottom of the aftercooler so it continually spits out any condensation.

So.. Why am I suggesting the 5.0 instead? First, the promised fuel mileage isn't there. Oh sure, if I'm driving on a highway between 55 and 60 MPH, I get phenomenal mileage. However, driving across KS with a 75 MPH speed limit, into a head wind, the engine inlet manifold is continually at about 7PSI boost. Towing the situation is even worse! I've had trips where I averaged under 14MPH highway. Following F150 forums, it seems that the 5.0 actually gets better mileage under these conditions.

Secondly, I very much dislike the throttle lag and throttle response this engine has. You can't "blip" the throttle for 1/2 second to cross a road. I can fully floor the pedal and let off of it, with no engine response. Secondly, due to the lag, when pulling out in front of traffic, you get no power so you give throttle, nothing happens, so you give more, nothing happens, so you give more and finally the engine wakes up and ROARS, squealing tires and everything. I just wanted some nice even acceleration.

Due to these items, if I had to do it over again, I certainly wouldn't have spent the extra $$ for the EcoBoost on my pickup.

Now, just to show I'm not totally against turbos... I also have a Fusion Sport which has the smaller 2.7L EcoBoost. This engine is tuned like it is named...for sport. I can blip the throttle and move... I can get nice controlled acceleration pulling out and have LOTS of go if I want. However, it also gets relatively poor fuel mileage e.g. 21 MPG interstate.

--Rick

 

[KJQ6945]

There are a some very much not anemic 4 bangers today. My Golf R, the Subaru WTX, the Ford RS, and the Honda Type R to begin with. Then you can look at Mercedes and their A45.

My post was meant to be pretty much tongue in cheek. Your Golf R is a quick little car. It's a little quicker than my truck, but pull the turbo, and it would be an anemic little 4 cyl. The turbo works for that little car.

If you have a trailer hitch, we can hook up my boat and compare time slips.

 

[rhino]

All this talk reminds me of the Dodge 600 turbo my parents had in the mid 1980s. It was puny by today's standards, but compared to other things on the road then, it was downright peppy. It was fun to drive, but when you had fun, it sucked gas a lot faster than you expected.

 

[churchmouse]

I have never owned a car/truck with a turbo but I have spent hundreds of hours working on Turbocharged cars. From Indy to the SCCA.
This on only had six holes but was capable of making 1000+ HP. It was the test platform for the Gen II/Gen III ECU's for GM.
And it holds several records that under the current rules will likely never be broken.
Rick Hendricks Motorsports GTP Corvette.

The fella on the right of the pic with the beard is a much younger version of the mouse.....

Not a lot f experience with street cars sporting hair dryers but 55"s to 110"s boost and yeah, I get it.

 

[A 7.62 Exodus]

So I'm one of those people. I've had a 2012 F150 ecoboost since new. I bought it mainly because of the promised increased fuel economy. The extra power and towing capabilities seemed to make it a no brainer. My general use is back and forth to my office job and on road trips back to my folks in western KS. I have towed a car hauler out there several times, but never anywhere close to max weight. My only problem I've had is the aftercooler over cools and on cold wet days (i.e <40deg and raining or misting), it would condense water that would settle to the bottom and then when you go WOT, it would suck a slug of water into the engine, causing massive misfire and then the emissions nannies cut that cylinder(s) for 30 seconds, leaving you with a VERY anemic powerplant, just when you need the most power. That has been solved by drilling a very small (<1/16") hole in the bottom of the aftercooler so it continually spits out any condensation.

So.. Why am I suggesting the 5.0 instead? First, the promised fuel mileage isn't there. Oh sure, if I'm driving on a highway between 55 and 60 MPH, I get phenomenal mileage. However, driving across KS with a 75 MPH speed limit, into a head wind, the engine inlet manifold is continually at about 7PSI boost. Towing the situation is even worse! I've had trips where I averaged under 14MPH highway. Following F150 forums, it seems that the 5.0 actually gets better mileage under these conditions.

Secondly, I very much dislike the throttle lag and throttle response this engine has. You can't "blip" the throttle for 1/2 second to cross a road. I can fully floor the pedal and let off of it, with no engine response. Secondly, due to the lag, when pulling out in front of traffic, you get no power so you give throttle, nothing happens, so you give more, nothing happens, so you give more and finally the engine wakes up and ROARS, squealing tires and everything. I just wanted some nice even acceleration.

Due to these items, if I had to do it over again, I certainly wouldn't have spent the extra $$ for the EcoBoost on my pickup.

Now, just to show I'm not totally against turbos... I also have a Fusion Sport which has the smaller 2.7L EcoBoost. This engine is tuned like it is named...for sport. I can blip the throttle and move... I can get nice controlled acceleration pulling out and have LOTS of go if I want. However, it also gets relatively poor fuel mileage e.g. 21 MPG interstate.

--Rick

Rick, this is a great post. You didn't come off as a turbo hater at all. The engine you got isn't exactly what you'd hope it would be. What I find interesting is that I didn't experience any of the lag issues when I was rolling in a family friends 2015 F150. I very nearly lost my payload out of the bed after a hard acceleration at one point. I've heard they've been tweaking the 3.5L over the years, so I wonder if they've made some adjustments on that front. This is something I will be considering when I ultimately start looking for a truck to buy though, so I'm glad you shared.

 

[Brad69]

View attachment 77065

So I drive a Scat Pack Challenger it has a 6.4 liter or 392 Cubic Inch engine rated at 485 hp and 475 lbs its like driving a crackhead car it wants to burnout at every stoplight. But it gets about 25 mpg on the highway and is a blast to drive.

My wife has a Hellcat with a supercharged 6.2 liter rated at 707hp and 650 lbs it’s very docile like really a *****cat you would never know it what it is until you mash on it then your eyes get pushed back into the sockets. Get this it can do about 22 mpg on the highway!

So to me the advantage of the supercharged engine is street-ability the high compression and big cam of the naturally aspirated makes for a twitchy car that wants to scream.

BTW
Who ever drives a Sonic I will let you drive my car you give up like 4 mpg and get a chance to change your underwear on your way to work!

 

[A 7.62 Exodus]

pull the turbo

​Why are you asking strangers on the internet to pull our their turbo's, KJQ?

 

[rhino]

View attachment 77065

So I drive a Scat Pack Challenger it has a 6.4 liter or 392 Cubic Inch engine rated at 485 hp and 475 lbs its like driving a crackhead car it wants to burnout at every stoplight. But it gets about 25 mpg on the highway and is a blast to drive.

My wife has a Hellcat with a supercharged 6.2 liter rated at 707hp and 650 lbs it’s very docile like really a *****cat you would never know it what it is until you mash on it then your eyes get pushed back into the sockets. Get this it can do about 22 mpg on the highway!

So to me the advantage of the supercharged engine is street-ability the high compression and big cam of the naturally aspirated makes for a twitchy car that wants to scream.

BTW
Who ever drives a Sonic I will let you drive my car you give up like 4 mpg and get a chance to change your underwear on your way to work!

You do realize that your wife's car makes yours look like a wimpy grocery retrieval device, right?

It's crazy that your cars get that kind of mileage. My Traverse barely gets 20 mpg on the Interstate.

 

[KLB]

My post was meant to be pretty much tongue in cheek. Your Golf R is a quick little car. It's a little quicker than my truck, but pull the turbo, and it would be an anemic little 4 cyl. The turbo works for that little car.

If you have a trailer hitch, we can hook up my boat and compare time slips.

Oh hell no. We have a Dodge 2500 Mega-cab for pulling crap. The engine and cab on that thing are bigger than my Golf.

 

[ghuns]

My 2004 Audi 1.8L turbo is just shy of 200K on it's original Borg Warner K03 turbo. This makes me kinda sad. I really expected it to die by now so I could justify replacing it with a K04 or bigger.

 

[db308]

Engineering Explained on youtube has an explanation for why the ecoboost doesn't get the advertised mpg.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxVOyL4r7Qc

 

[craigkim]

I have had 5 turbo cars now and never any problems. There was a consumer reports article about turbo and if I recall correctly, the main point was turbo achieves performance and increased gas mileage. The other point was that not all manufacturers turbos are equivalent and some are better/more reliable than others with no US makes being in the "better" category or rating.

My current AWD sedan is rated 380 at the wheels, will run to 60 in 4.1, 1/4 mile in 12.5, and I get 27 MPG mixed. I checked my strictly highway mileage on my commute this morning and I got 38.1 MPG for the 50 miles. I get good highway mileage by putting it in eco mode and I assume that basically turns off the turbos and puts it in a really tall 8th gear. In sport mode, well, it runs them, a lot. I only get 27 mixed driving because I drive in sport mode a fair amount around town. I have had a similar sedan, years ago, which didn't offer as much performance, but had a fuel injected 4.2 V-8 and got half the gas mileage.

Point is, performance when you want it, fuel economy when you don't.

This will be my last gasser though I feel.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Engineering Explained on youtube has an explanation for why the ecoboost doesn't get the advertised mpg.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxVOyL4r7Qc

He's about 90% right.

The EPA test that measures fuel economy and emissions is mixed stop and go driving and some cruising at 55 mph. So, that is what automakers calibrate and design for.

If the ecoboost doesn't have EGR I'll fall out of my chair with shock. Nearly all engines need EGR to keep the NOx numbers down. Ford just turns off EGR at higher loads, because it kills performance and increases HC emissions. I suppose if they spent more time calibrating EGR at higher loads maybe they could do the same thing, but what's the point. That's a lot of spend for some perceived good will from the customer.

Additionally, cooled EGR tends to fail valves quite frequently. Not as bad as diesel engines, but it still happens. The temperatures are very high, and cooled exhaust gases tend to build up soot, which jams up the valve. Then you also need EGR flow sensors which also tend to fail for the same reasons. Also, there is nothing "cool" about cooled egr. It's still several hundred degrees F.

EGR in forced induction engines has an additional problem in that exhaust pressures nearly always need to be higher than inlet pressures, so you sacrifice more efficiency there. You end up running high pressures in both manifolds, which increases pumping losses, for no gain in performance or efficiency.

Remember, pressure is a measure of restriction to flow. More pressures doesn't not always mean more power.

The two parameters engineers look at when tuning mid range and lug curve torque is firing pressure and exhaust gas temperature. There are 2 or 3 ways to reduce those numbers while maintaining performance. 1) Add more fuel. The fuel doesn't burn, it just vaporizes and this change in state cools the combustion event. 2) Retard spark timing. This makes the combustion event less efficient. 3) Add EGR. This starves the fuel of available oxygen and slows the combustion event. All 3 of these tools work against performance though, so it's a balancing act.

The easiest knobs to turn are timing and fuel. Since the automotive industry moves so fast, engineers don't have the luxury of spending years and years calibrating for operating conditions that don't get measured. The EPA is also constantly moving the goal posts, so even if you did have unlimited time to calibrate, it would be out of date by the time you wanted to sell your product.

So Mazda spends truck loads of money on calibration to make their mid rage fuel economy 5%-10% better. That's good for them, but that kind of business plan just doesn't fly in our culture. In their culture it absolutely does, because making the best product is more important than making the least expensive product. Our culture says make the least expensive product that hits all the design targets.