Econoboost vs Saab

[mlhm5]

Saabs have had turbos for over 20 years and currently market a 1.98L turbo that has a Cd of .28 and achieves an EPA of 19/26.

 

I don't consider those number very fuel efficient.

 

How much better with the Ecoboost be?

Edited April 2, 2008 by mlhm5

[NickF1011]

You really think that Saab tunes their SPORT SEDANS to be as fuel stingy as possible, or could they possibly, just maybe, be going for a more performance-oriented tune?

 

I swear, you start some of the dumbest threads I've EVER seen.

 

[range]

agreed, he starts pathetic threads.

 

His arguments about diesels have cetainly come back to bite him.

 

Truckers are now blocking traffic in NJ because of the high cost of diesel. Now that's a great commercial for diesel huh?

 

And mlhm5 wants to add MORE demand for diesel? When no more SUPPLY of diesel fuel is being added ?

[mlhm5]

You really think that Saab tunes their SPORT SEDANS to be as fuel stingy as possible, or could they possibly, just maybe, be going for a more performance-oriented tune?

 

I swear, you start some of the dumbest threads I've EVER seen.

 

 

First, will Ford cars have a Cd of .28? Wind resistance is very important at highway speeds because at 70 mph, you've got four times the force working against your car than you had at 35 mph, which means if you increase or lower the Cd in a car by 0.1 you increase or lower the mpg by 0.2.

 

Secondly, Saab has been putting 2.0L turbos in 3500 lb cars for 20 years and could have easily tweaked this engine over the past couple of years to deliver better mpg, however IMO, they have located the sweet spot for mpg/performance with a 2.0L engine.

 

Will Ford be able to better Saab's EPA numbers in a 3500 lb car with their 275hp, 280 lb.-ft. of torque 2.0 L Ecoboost engine.

 

PS: The drawback to turbo technology is that the onus is placed on the driver to exercise extreme restraint on the gas pedal, unless it is a diesel.

 

One is capable of good mpg in a gas turbo, provided you drive like those snowbirds leaving Florida going back up North in April.

 

Also the largest gage in the car should be the boost gage.

Edited April 2, 2008 by mlhm5

[atomaro]

First, will Ford cars have a Cd of .28?

 

Yeah, the 2009 F-450 will be the first to debut with the improved Cd.

[NickF1011]

First, will Ford cars have a Cd of .28? Wind resistance is very important at highway speeds because at 70 mph, you've got four times the force working against your car than you had at 35 mph, which means if you increase or lower the Cd in a car by 0.1 you increase or lower the mpg by 0.2.

 

Secondly, Saab has been putting 2.0L turbos in 3500 lb cars for 20 years and could have easily tweaked this engine over the past couple of years to deliver better mpg, however IMO, they have located the sweet spot for mpg/performance with a 2.0L engine.

 

Will Ford be able to better Saab's EPA numbers in a 3500 lb car with their 275hp, 280 lb.-ft. of torque 2.0 L Ecoboost engine.

 

Does Saab's 2.0 use direct injection and twin scroll turbos? I think that's a negative in both cases, so comparing the engines on any level is downright silly. And once again, you're talking about a SPORT SEDAN, not a midsize people-mover tuned to deliver fuel economy.

 

As for the drag co-efficient, I'm sure the Fusion is not far off the .28. Heck, the LAST generation Taurus was managing around .30. It's not like Ford's cars are bricks on wheels.

 

Again, this entire thread is pointless.

[silvrsvt]

Not to mention that .cd numbers don't mean jack shit till you hit over 70-80MPH...your avg driving speeds are well below that..even if you do nothing but highway driving at 75-80 MPH

[mlhm5]

Does Saab's 2.0 use direct injection and twin scroll turbos? I think that's a negative in both cases, so comparing the engines on any level is downright silly. And once again, you're talking about a SPORT SEDAN, not a midsize people-mover tuned to deliver fuel economy.

 

As for the drag co-efficient, I'm sure the Fusion is not far off the .28. Heck, the LAST generation Taurus was managing around .30. It's not like Ford's cars are bricks on wheels.

 

Again, this entire thread is pointless.

 

The EcoBoost is not an original idea, the technology already exists in the Mazda DISI engine, which is found in the Mazdaspeed 6, Mazdaspeed 3, and the Mazda CX-7 and we already know what the mpg are from those engines and cars.

 

Ford is stating that the 2.0L EcoBoost engine will deliver 275 HP. That is a performance based 4 cyl engine and not a fuel economy based engine.

 

Ford's claim for around a 20% improvement equates to around 2mpg, if and only if the driver is delicate with the foot on the gas pedal.

[SVT_MAN]

I saw a new Saab the other day. One of the oddest, ugliest styling expressions I've ever seen in my life. If you want to talk about abortive use of chrome, don't look at Ford, look at this:

 

 

At least Ford's chrome WORKS as bright-work. This chrome is used as trim EVERYWHERE for no apparent reason. It looks like tinfoil stuck on the corners of the lights and grille.

[NickF1011]

The EcoBoost is not an original idea, the technology already exists in the Mazda DISI engine, which is found in the Mazdaspeed 6, Mazdaspeed 3, and the Mazda CX-7 and we already know what the mpg are from those engines and cars.

 

Ford is stating that the 2.0L EcoBoost engine will deliver 275 HP. That is a performance based 4 cyl engine and not a fuel economy based engine.

 

Ford's claim for around a 20% improvement equates to around 2mpg, if and only if the driver is delicate with the foot on the gas pedal.

 

Actually Ford hasn't released ANY power ratings for the EcoBoost 2.0 yet. And several people here have already pointed out several differences between the Mazda DISI engine and the Ford EcoBoost. Sorry if you're too damn blind or stubborn to read it.

 

20% improvement in fuel economy is 2 mpg? Only if the engine originally only got 10 miles per gallon.

[twintornados]

The EcoBoost is not an original idea, the technology already exists in the Mazda DISI engine, which is found in the Mazdaspeed 6, Mazdaspeed 3, and the Mazda CX-7 and we already know what the mpg are from those engines and cars.

 

Ford is stating that the 2.0L EcoBoost engine will deliver 275 HP. That is a performance based 4 cyl engine and not a fuel economy based engine.

 

Ford's claim for around a 20% improvement equates to around 2mpg, if and only if the driver is delicate with the foot on the gas pedal.

 

But Mazda is not Saab, and the question was simple....does the Saab 2.0L turbo use the technology of EcoBoost? And how do you know that an economy based engine cannot produce 275HP??

[jpd80]

The EcoBoost is not an original idea, the technology already exists in the Mazda DISI engine, which is found in the Mazdaspeed 6, Mazdaspeed 3, and the Mazda CX-7 and we already know what the mpg are from those engines and cars.

 

Ford is stating that the 2.0L EcoBoost engine will deliver 275 HP. That is a performance based 4 cyl engine and not a fuel economy based engine.

 

Ford's claim for around a 20% improvement equates to around 2mpg, if and only if the driver is delicate with the foot on the gas pedal.

I emailed Derrick Kuzak a couple of months ago here is his response:

 

John:

 

Thanks for your note and interest in Ford.

 

Given our close working partnership with Mazda, the Ford team is very familiar with the Mazda 2.3L DI Turbo application in the CX-7. 2 important pieces of information:

 

- The EcoBoost concept is flexible and can be tuned for an emphasis on fuel economy or performance.

- We have continued to progress the technology to improve its fuel economy potential.

 

Given the above, we are confident in Ecoboost's ability to deliver 10-20% fuel economy improvement, 7-15% emissions reduction, and equal or better performance than a larger displacement, naturally aspirated engine in the same vehicle.

 

Derrick Kuzak

Ford Product Development

[battyr]

The EcoBoost is not an original idea, the technology already exists in the Mazda DISI engine, which is found in the Mazdaspeed 6, Mazdaspeed 3, and the Mazda CX-7 and we already know what the mpg are from those engines and cars.

 

Ford is stating that the 2.0L EcoBoost engine will deliver 275 HP. That is a performance based 4 cyl engine and not a fuel economy based engine.

 

Ford's claim for around a 20% improvement equates to around 2mpg, if and only if the driver is delicate with the foot on the gas pedal.

 

Sorry I posted this too late.

 

20% impovement equales 2 mpg??? That means you are starting with a fuel consumption of 10 mpg. A semi can get 7 or 8 mpg. The math does not work.

Edited April 2, 2008 by battyr

[jpd80]

Sorry I posted this too late.

 

20% impovement equales 2 mpg??? That means you are starting with a fuel consumption of 10 mpg. A semi can get 7 or 8 mpg. The math does not work.

Precisely.

Were not told what vehicle is the Ecoboost in.

[battyr]

I emailed Derrick Kuzak a couple of months ago here is his response:

 

If EB only has 10% improvement over a much larger engine, then it is no big deal. Could be just retuning of the Mazda engine. I thinks Kuzak is under estimating. On the other hand the 30% improvement promised else where could be from other things like EPS, Tires, etc.

[mlhm5]

Precisely.

Were not told what vehicle is the Ecoboost in.

 

 

If it is in Ford's Explorer America concept, then 2mpg is correct.

[mlhm5]

Sorry I posted this too late.

 

20% impovement equales 2 mpg??? That means you are starting with a fuel consumption of 10 mpg. A semi can get 7 or 8 mpg. The math does not work.

 

"Given the above, we are confident in Ecoboost's ability to deliver 10-20% fuel economy improvement, 7-15% emissions reduction, and equal or better performance than a larger displacement, naturally aspirated engine in the same vehicle." - Derrick Kuzak, Ford's group vice president of Global Product Development

 

So it's 10 to 20% depending on how delicate the driver is with their right foot. Then 2 mpg is correct.

[Michael Reynolds]

If it is in Ford's Explorer America concept, then 2mpg is correct.

 

It's a concept. How can you gauge any performance/fuel economy gains on a concept. That makes no sense whatsoever.

[Michael Reynolds]

"Given the above, we are confident in Ecoboost's ability to deliver 10-20% fuel economy improvement, 7-15% emissions reduction, and equal or better performance than a larger displacement, naturally aspirated engine in the same vehicle." - Derrick Kuzak, Ford's group vice president of Global Product Development

 

So it's 10 to 20% depending on how delicate the driver is with their right foot. Then 2 mpg is correct.

 

How can you derive that from that sentence? You make some of the MOST absurd assumptions, to support your half baked ideas.

 

The fuel economy improvements will depend upon the tune. What part of that is so hard to understand?

Edited April 2, 2008 by Michael Reynolds

[mlhm5]

Does Saab's 2.0 use direct injection and twin scroll turbos? I think that's a negative in both cases, so comparing the engines on any level is downright silly. And once again, you're talking about a SPORT SEDAN, not a midsize people-mover tuned to deliver fuel economy.

 

As for the drag co-efficient, I'm sure the Fusion is not far off the .28. Heck, the LAST generation Taurus was managing around .30. It's not like Ford's cars are bricks on wheels.

 

Again, this entire thread is pointless.

 

If Saab thought that that technology would be efficient in a gasoline engine, it isn't like they don't have it on the shelf. Now, I see that Ford is now saying 10 to 20% mpg improvement and that is highly dependent on the driver's right foot.

 

Link

 

I am going to refer you back to 2.3-liter DISI engine which produces 274 horsepower at 5,500 rpm and 280 lb-ft of torque at just 3,000 rpm. That sounds a whole lot like the EcoBoost engine so the mpg will be similar.

Edited April 2, 2008 by mlhm5

[NickF1011]

If Saab thought that that technology would be efficient in a gasoline engine, it isn't like they don't have it on the shelf. Now, I see that Ford is now saying 10 to 20% mpg improvement and that is highly dependent on the driver's right foot.

 

The EPA rating will be the EPA rating. Cars don't have two stickers on them that say "If you have a heavy right foot, use this number." and one that says "If you drive like mlhm5's grandmother, use this number."

 

I am going to refer you back to 2.3-liter DISI engine which produces 274 horsepower at 5,500 rpm and 280 lb-ft of torque at just 3,000 rpm. That sounds a whole lot like the EcoBoost engine so the mpg will be similar.

 

And I'll refer you again to the several people who have stated the systems on the Ford EcoBoost and Mazda DISI engine are completely different. Stop using it as a reference already you retard.

[Michael Reynolds]

If Saab thought that that technology would be efficient in a gasoline engine, it isn't like they don't have it on the shelf. Now, I see that Ford is now saying 10 to 20% mpg improvement and that is highly dependent on the driver's right foot.

 

Link

 

I am going to refer you back to 2.3-liter DISI engine which produces 274 horsepower at 5,500 rpm and 280 lb-ft of torque at just 3,000 rpm. That sounds a whole lot like the EcoBoost engine so the mpg will be similar.

 

Quit acting as if Saab is off on some little island by itself. If GM decides Saab should have it then we would see it. The Saab 20 of years ago is not even remotely close to what it is today.

 

Again where did you get the idea that those fuel economy figures are based on how someone drives?

 

The 2.3 DISI engine is tune for PERFORMANCE for the last time. I would expect that if Ford were to go with a 2.0 Ecobost engine in say a Focus and the Fusion it won't have anywhere near that sort of performance. You apparently don't understand the core fundamentals of this program. While it may not be the most original idea, it is being rolled out on a much larger scale than any other manufacturer has dreamed of.

[Edstock]

Engine idle is around 8-900 rpm. EcoBoost is designed to give almost 100% of torque with an additional 6-700 rpm, at 1,500 rpm. With a 6-speed transmission, the fuel economy should be considerably enhanced.

[mlhm5]

The EPA rating will be the EPA rating. Cars don't have two stickers on them that say "If you have a heavy right foot, use this number." and one that says "If you drive like mlhm5's grandmother, use this number."

 

 

 

And I'll refer you again to the several people who have stated the systems on the Ford EcoBoost and Mazda DISI engine are completely different. Stop using it as a reference already you retard.

 

 

Oh, please we all know there are professional drivers used for EPA course and the Ford 2.0L EcoBoost will closely track the 2.3L Mazda in fuel economy (both have same HP and torque). If there are any improvements in fuel economy, it will come from using lightweight components aerodynamic shape and a few other tricks .

 

A 10-20% improvement over existing engines may just get lost in the way people drive.

[Michael Reynolds]

Oh, please we all know there are professional drivers used for EPA course and the Ford 2.0L EcoBoost will closely track the 2.3L Mazda in fuel economy (both have same HP and torque). If there are any improvements in fuel economy, it will come from using lightweight components aerodynamic shape and a few other tricks .

 

A 10-20% improvement over existing engines may just get lost in the way people drive.

 

You are making a lot of assumptions on specs and information that hasn't been released. Do you like eating rubber, or are you just that ignorant?

 

You don't know how the 2.0 turbo will perform compared to the 2.3 in fuel economy, especially those that have been de-tuned specifically for the purpose of fuel economy.