Sure. But when the right foot is not planted (it most assuredly is not in the EPA test), the high compression, DI, and smaller displacement allow it to get the same mileage as a non-turbo.

The magic of DI turbos is the much higher compression ratio than previous PI turbos.

I have to admit that on my daily drudge commute, the right foot is very rarely planted with my G8 GT.

 

Yes, I've heard all about the theoretical advantage that turbos have in fuel economy.

Facts are facts though, AFRs for turbos need to be far richer than for NA engines to keep the pistons intact.

For a 4400lb car, the SHO certainly isn't slow but its no fuel miser either, no matter if it is DI. The F-series certainly isn't a lightweight either...

 

I agree.

My Audi A6 with 4.2L V8 (300HP) gets the same mileage (sh!tty) as the same A6 with 2.7L TT V6 (250 HP). The turbo version isn't any better. Both have identical acceleration times due to 2.7L's flat torque curve.

 

Is the SHO really that heavy? That's incredible! I know my A6 is porky at 4050 lbs, and the new ones are at about 4150 lbs, but holy crap, what did they cram into that SHO to make it as heavy?

 

Well, for one thing, the Taurus is bigger than your A6. I'd bet it is closer to an A8 or a BMW 7 series (possibly even bigger in some dimensions). It's a full size car.

Plus, it has twin turbos, AWD, and all sorts of luxury doodads.

 

AFR does not remain static at different throttle levels. At low/part throttle cruise, the AFR can be quite modest and setup for economy (same thing with timing). When the throttle is planted and boost is built, the AFR can easily become much richer.

As stated above....fuel economy can potentially be quite good if one's foot is kept out of it (ie....EPA ratings).

 

Eco-Boost the V8. If it works this good on a V6, shouldn't it work just as good on a V8, or better?

 

If they need a 500+hp/tq V8 that gets the same or better mileage than their 5.4, then you have a great idea.

I think the I3s and I4s will come first....

 

They will....

 

30 minutes later, I read this.

http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-coyote-v8.html

Yep, that's after the smaller engines come out

 

In my experience, this is simply not true. My bone stock S4 with the 2.7TT gets around 21mpg avg and I'm on the gas alot. My buddies S4 with the V8 gets around 17. So, I dunno what the effect of the larger A6's chassis has to do with it, but I seriously doubt it affects it that much.

Also, I got 26mpg on road trips in my Lotus with the 2.2L Turbo, guys in my club with TT V8's and roughly the same power (mine had the upgraded S4s chip, a hybrid turbo and stainless downpipe), were getting mid to high teens. Same chassis and body.

Same story with my Mustang SVO, vs a buddies 5.0L.

So, all three of these stories relate the exact same car with both a smaller engine and a turbo and a V8. That's my personal experience. FWIW.

 

Yes, I know that.

For a turbo pre-combustion engine, AFRs range from 10-11:1 @ WOT, leaner than that at part throttle.

For a NA pre-combustion engine, AFRs range from 12-13:1 @ WOT, leaner than that at part throttle.

Now add DI to the above engines and you have leaner mixtures again for both applications.

I don't understand why you wouldn't run the turbo like you would a V8? Isn't the reason you opt for the turbo in the first place is to use all it's considerable torque.

Otherwise, you don't need a turbo engine at all if you drive like a granny...

 

Ford's future engines won't be lacking for power or appeal, it seems.

Good on Ford for breaking away from the lackluster Modular engines and giving GM something to worry about.

 

It's there when you need it

 

In normal highway driving - not going up big hills, pulling huge loads, or racing down the road, the turbo V6 should be more efficient, and thus produce better mpg than the V8. Same thing applies to normal city driving, though perhaps not as much of a difference.

When you need the power, the turbo V6 has similar power as the V8, and similar efficiency.

If done correctly, you get your cake and can eat it to.

Sorry - but that's kind of a "duh" one to me.