Keep in mind that having more potential energy in the fuel doesn't necessarily translate to more kinetic energy generated by the engine. Do diesel engines and gas engines have similar thermodynamic efficiency (% of potential energy in the fuel transformed into kinetic energy)? I think that a modern turbocharged gasoline engine is somewhere in the 75%-efficient range. Not sure what effect DI has on that figure; I figure it might get us as high as 78-80%. I have no idea what the thermodynamic efficiency of a diesel is. Anyone?

 

Sure sure. But what does it cost to make diesel from crude vs gasoline?

I agree. The small block V8, for example, is pretty freakin reliable. I dont know the long term results (200k-400k) but I'd bet the lightweight alloys used today just dont hold up that long. OTOH though, if the whole car starts falling apart by 150,000 miles, why should the engine still be running strong to 200,000 miles or more?

 

ACtually if I'm not mistaken in the original literature about twinforce it was specifically stated it refered to the twin being turbo AND Direct Injection not a reference to a two turbo setup and direct injection. I'll see if I can look it up tonight when I get off work. Honestly though I don't think "Ecoboost" will get more feet into the dealership. The engine is not bland or boring but the name sure as hell is and is almost like burying the lead. Maybe the marketing campaign will throw out more sizzle and will emphasize the power AND the fuel economy. The video that was posted up was like 6 mintues of yammering about a 2 mpg increase and 15 seconds of showing the actual power increase.

 

According to igor on BON and GMI, there will be two versions of the ecoboost engines. The first one, that is being mentioned here, is the economical engine. It is lower in power, but higher in efficiency, and tuned to work with regular fuel. The second will be the performance version. You could probably expect the performance version to use premium.

Rumor is also that the engines are making significantly more power than stated.

Fact, is that they are slated to maintain almost flat torque curves, from 2000rpm, to 5000+rpm (a little less flat on the 4cyl). This was stated in the press release.

Ford is anticipating building 375,000 of these engines, per year. Thus, the cost will not be much more than a naturally aspirated engine (economies of scale). These engines will appear in many existing, and upcoming models. There will even be a version in the F150.

 

Who cares about all that garbage, this is what caught MY eye....

 

Good to know. I'll cease my bitching now. That is until they decide to throw the turbo 4 in the Fusion instead of the Turbo 6 and then the bitching will begin anew.

 

The You tube presentation I posted above said that the 3.5L Ecoboost will get 2 mpg more than the 4.6L, which gets 15 mpg in the city in the Mustang and Panthers. It said that the 2.0L Ecoboost will get 5 mpg more than the 3.0L, which gets around 18 mpg in the city. That's how I came up with my estimated numbers.

 

The MKZ or Zephyr, was the replacement for the Continental.

The MKS is the replacement for the LS

 

Diesels are indeed better - they're more efficient than gasoline motors (the combustion temperature is higher and the exhaust temperature is typically lower, which improves efficiency per the Carnot theorem). This combines with the increased energy density of the fuel to give an even larger apparent advantage when we calculate fuel economy in terms of distance per unit volume.

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers; most naturally-aspirated spark-ignition engines have an efficiency of 25-30%, with turbodiesels typically around 40% (really big diesels like ship engines can operate near 50% efficiency, but the power-per-unit-mass density of an engine like this is rather poor).

The above numbers assume operation at maximum efficiency, which is typically when operating at or near peak torque; at power levels below this point - like where we operate our cars most of the time - the efficiency is even lower!

Thermodynamics is a mean SOB. If it weren't for the wonderful energy density of fossil fuels, we'd look at internal combustion engines as obscenely inefficient.

 

Current rumors on the net:

1) All Zeta is dead (Not just GMX-551)
2) Pontiac will be phased out
3) Cadillac will develop Alpha now (Thus making it too expensive and fat)
4) The rumored demise of GM performance cars, RWD and the V8 in general.
5) GME in one form or another takes control of the corporation.

Confirmations: (Which, of course you know)
1) GMX-551 appears to be dead.
2) North* replacement is dead.

Of course, who's to say any of that is true OR affected by CAFE in the first place. But I think it is vital that the automakers innovate instead of "giving up" and taking an ax to their (excellent so far) product plans.

 

Something I saw when reading up on the new four-lobe supercharger on the LS9. Maybe those efficiency numbers were for the supercharger itself? I was under the impression they were for the engine. Thanks for filling me in.

Just because projects have been canceled doesn't mean there aren't other projects underway, or that similar projects couldn't start soon.

I actually didn't even know what GMX-551 was, let alone that Impala/Lucerne had been canceled. I did hear something about the NorthStar replacement being canceled, but I thought that was just a rumor at this point. That said, has it occurred to you that maybe they just scrapped one particular approach, and that there is some other NorthStar replacement candidate?

Basing your predictions of the future around rumors you heard on the internet isn't exactly reliable (and yes, that means you shouldn't listen to me either).

 

That'd be nice on the Mustang, a 250 lbs reduction in weight would help out a bunch if they are gonna be using the mod motor for a bit more, but yeah wonder how they are gonna do it???

 

 

I'm reading this as in power produced vs. size? I guess in relation to a nuke, steam or gas turbine powered ship?

 

The really big ship turbodiesels weigh about 4-5lbs per horsepower, which doesn't scale down to passenger cars all that well.

If I'm not mistaken, the most efficient users of fossil fuels are large powerplants, some of which manage efficiency north of 60%. To accomplish this requires extraction of every last little bit of waste heat from the exhaust (which is then used for purposes such as intake air pre-heating), and of course running the plant at peak output. As this relates to passenger cars, techniques such as turbocharging help to accomplish the first goal, and the second is now being approached with hybrid technology.