zipnzap Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 Here are some examples of FSI: http://www.egmcartech.com/2007/08/28/2008-...i-allows-34mpg/ http://jalopnik.com/5128856/audi-r8-52-fsi...e-detroit-debut http://www.audi.ca/audi/com/en2/tools/glos...veline/fsi.html How does Ford's technology stack up against Audi's? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zipnzap Posted January 16, 2009 Author Share Posted January 16, 2009 Here are some examples of FSI: http://www.egmcartech.com/2007/08/28/2008-...i-allows-34mpg/ http://jalopnik.com/5128856/audi-r8-52-fsi...e-detroit-debut http://www.audi.ca/audi/com/en2/tools/glos...veline/fsi.html How does Ford's technology stack up against Audi's? Anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 (edited) The difference lies in the intended application of DI Turbo charging. Audi uses it as a power adder for high performance applications where as Ford has its eyes set on downsizing engine capacity. There is no doubt in my mind Ford could do an Ecoboost 4.6 with about 480 hp and torque to die for. Edited January 16, 2009 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zipnzap Posted January 16, 2009 Author Share Posted January 16, 2009 The difference lies in the intended application of DI Turbo charging.Audi uses it as a power adder for high performance applications where as Ford has its eyes set on downsizing engine capacity. Do you mean that even with the fuel economy, the FSI costs more to produce or sell? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
focus05 Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 (edited) One way to think about it is this: Ford is using DI to make the combustion leaner and pairing it with things like smaller axle ratios to provide much greater fuel economy. There's also some fairly sophisticated valve-timing tech and combustion mangement on there. The goal is to optimize the burn at a range of rpms for a nice power/fuel trade-off. That combined with the rest of the drivetrain can make for a very economical setup that only delivers what you demand and saves gas otherwise. The downside of this system is that if you ALWAYS demand rocket speed, you're not going to get great mileage, just average mileage. But if you don't drive like a knuckle-head all the time, you'll see major benefits. But I think the best way to think about it is this: the Audi 2.0 FSI will return upper-20s on the highway. The Ford 2.0 in the MKZ would probably return low-to-mid 30s. Performance would be similar, but the Audi would run on premium and the Ford on regular. Another example is that Ford's goal is to stick a 1.6 ecoboost in the Fusion that has about 180hp and gets around/over 40mpg on the highway. What other mid-sized sedan is set up like that? They could just turbo the 3.5 and call it a day for the enthusiasts or only use the 2.0 turbo in the mid-sized vehicle, but their goal is to gain efficiencies out of this, not just power. I suppose one could also claim that Ford is looking to keep the manufacturing process less expensive and quality on the engine higher than Audi... but neither of those would be particularly difficult. Edited January 17, 2009 by focus05 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 One way to think about it is this: Ford is using DI to make the combustion leaner ... Care to sight a reference ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 (edited) Do you mean that even with the fuel economy, the FSI costs more to produce or sell? Lots of companies are working with Direct injection and turbo charging, not just Ford and Audi, it will be a major source for needed efficiency and space reduction/weight savings. By 2012 Ford hopes to be producing Ecoboost vehicles at a rate of about 500,000/year, amortising technology costs normally reserved for the elite makes it available to the masses. Edited January 17, 2009 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Care to sight a reference ? I guess the proof would be looking at the emissions numbers: Higher NOx than a comparably sized engine and lower VOC emissions = leaner burn Lower NOx and higher VOC emissions = richer burn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 DI creates more NOX, which is cleaned up by different cat converter that works with ultra low Sulphur gas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 DI creates more NOX, which is cleaned up by different cat converter that works with ultra low Sulphur gas. DI only creates more NOx when it's tuned to run leaner (hotter) than a conventional FI engine. DI can also be tuned to run richer than a FI engine, in which case you'll get less NOx and more unburned HCs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 DI creates more NOX, which is cleaned up by different cat converter that works with ultra low Sulphur gas. Care to site a reference that Ford is using this technology on EcoBoost applications ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Care to site a reference that Ford is using this technology on EcoBoost applications ? Well, as long as the NOx is still within mandated limits, Ford doesn't need to do any additional after treatment. And (IIRC) NOx isn't scrubbed in the cat-cons anyway, it's managed by valve overlap & the EGR apparatus (cooling the charge and reducing the free oxygen in the combustion chamber). I mean, heck, if you could scrub NOx easily with a three-way cat, well, shoot, we'd all be driving diesels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 (edited) Care to site a reference that Ford is using this technology on EcoBoost applications ? I thought Ford was using Bosch's technology...... Are you saying that Ecoboost doesn't need a different cat converter, that could be difference with FSI. Edited January 17, 2009 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.