Ecoboost question

[battyr]

Probably not with those turbos !

 

If that chart is accurate (it does not come from a Ford site and why is the peak torque listed at 3,500, when it shows a flat line from 1,800 to 5,500 rpm ?), the drop off in torque around 5,500 rpm shows that those turbos can not keep up.

 

Larger turbos will mean the torque won't peak as early, but will keep pumping long past 6,000 rpm.

 

What was the redline on the old Yamaha V6 SHO, something like 8,500 ?

 

I wonder what the torque curve would look like if it was not capped?

[Admiral]

Probably not with those turbos !

 

If that chart is accurate (it does not come from a Ford site and why is the peak torque listed at 3,500, when it shows a flat line from 1,800 to 5,500 rpm ?), the drop off in torque around 5,500 rpm shows that those turbos can not keep up.

 

Larger turbos will mean the torque won't peak as early, but will keep pumping long past 6,000 rpm.

 

What was the redline on the old Yamaha V6 SHO, something like 8,500 ?

 

7,000 RPM on the old Yamaha. From what I've read it could spin well past 8,000, but the accessories couldn't handle those speeds -- hence the lower redline.

[Edstock]

I wonder what the torque curve would look like if it was not capped?

Wait 6-8 months, for the tuner crowd to work on it. The aftermarket for extra heavy-duty trannies will be a growth industry.

[jpd80]

I got $100 that says Ford will never release a production, street and emission legal, 500 horsepower version of the Duratec 35.

Now who's setting boundaries, I never said that and you know it.

 

Well now you have a twin turbo putting out 365 hp.

There is huge potential in that engine, don't be surprised to see lots of 500 hp examples in a few years time once the after market gets going, I predict they will become more popular than small blocks.

 

I think a 135 hp increase out of an EB V6 will be a reasonably straight forward upgrade.

Cold air package, better exhaust and 14 psi boost should get it in the neighborhood.

It's been done time and again in the rest of the world on much smaller capacity engines.

And no, you wont need 9,000 to 10,000 rpm to do it.

 

The electronic wastegates are what's preventing HP increase over about 5,500 rpm.

Edited February 22, 2009 by jpd80

[Ralph Greene]

500 HP will come easy to the aftermarket for the 3.5 TT....even 500 HP to the wheels. Look at 800 HP turbo Buicks at the strip.

 

But I don't see factory needing to do that. They have warranty and emission considerations, fuel economy, Fed requirements for emissions equipment life, Ford's own durability testing requirements, transmission, and AWD system to design around (and warranty). And the more boost you run, the more heat to deal with (hood design and cooling system), etc. Car also needs to be able to use mostly same fluids as other production cars (engine oil, trans fluids), oil change intervals, etc. And....they need to start low with HP, so as to have room to grow it over the years.

 

And the big one....how much HP do you need for a roomy FWD/AWD family hauler? 350 HP or so is fine. I would like to have one, but don't want AWD, and a lot of TQ steer with FWD either, so 350 reliable long life ponies would be fine for me in a car like that.

 

I do bet we get a few more HP in a RWD version in a Mustang though. Eventually....It has a stronger higher TQ capacity drivetrain already developed.

Edited February 23, 2009 by Ralph Greene

[RichardJensen]

If that chart is accurate (it does not come from a Ford site and why is the peak torque listed at 3,500, when it shows a flat line from 1,800 to 5,500 rpm ?)

The chart is from the SHO press pack.

http://jalopnik.com/5151498/2010-ford-taur...us-torque-curve

the graph Ford has provided us is so ridiculous it practically defies reason.

[battyr]

The chart is from the SHO press pack.

http://jalopnik.com/5151498/2010-ford-taur...us-torque-curve

 

When the charts were drawn, Ford would have removed some of the transients as a matter of simplification. Otherwise the charts seems completely reasonable to me. The flatness comes from capping the maximum torque. They have used the most advanced turbo technology to make a turbo act more like a supercharger. Use of an undersized turbo and DI can easily deliver maxium torque a low rpms. The power drop off at about 5500 rpms would also be a result of an undersized turbo. With the emphazises on fuel economy and drivability, that's just fine. DI and the most modern turbo technology and maybe some other tricks, Ford can achieve a broader torque range.

[jpd80]

The power drop off at about 5500 rpms would also be a result of an undersized turbo.

If it was a single turbo set up I'd agree but a twin turbo set up doesn't run out of puff like that.

That sudden clip off at 5,500 rpm is software induced for sure.

[battyr]

If it was a single turbo set up I'd agree but a twin turbo set up doesn't run out of puff like that.

That sudden clip off at 5,500 rpm is software induced for sure.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin-turbo

 

Such an advantage comes from Sequential twin-turbos. From all the photos that I have seen, the EcoBoost is just Parallel twin-turbo. Simply put, it has a single turbo on each side of the engine and only offers a packaging benefit. You get the best performance by putting the turbo as close to the exhaust port as posible, so that is why they need two.

 

On the other hand, it is pretty amazing having that much torque at 1500 rpm from any type of gasoline turbo engine.

[jpd80]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin-turbo

 

On the other hand, it is pretty amazing having that much torque at 1500 rpm from any type of gasoline turbo engine.

Two parallel smaller turbos enable quick on boost at 1500 without any rpm penalty

at the top end, they act like a right sized single turbo but are less restriced at the top.

 

I had a drive of a Falcon with twin turbo set up, huge torque and massive top end power.

Funny thing was you could drive it like a normal Falcon..... on quarter throttle that is.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Extrapolating the torque curve from the limited and poorly dimensioned chart on RJs post gives a potential peak torque rating of between 450 and 500 lbs. That absolutely straight HP rise (and not the curve you normally see in a N/A engine shows that the HP numbers are being limited by the torque cap. Using the numbers to calculate HP from torque and RPM from an extrapolated curve (from that low detail graph) gives potential HP numbers that could potentially exceed 500. That's a hell of a setup. I wonder, though, if there is enough fuel delivery in the engine as it is currently setup to support those power numbers, or will it take bigger injectors and a higher flow pump to be able to reach those HP potentials.

[Ralph Greene]

Most likely you would be safer with a retune and a fuel system designed to support 500 HP.

 

But I'm sure an enterprising tuner will turn up the injector pulse width, and put a Boost a pump on the stock pump....and try to get by with that.

 

I imagine eventually there will be tuner packages with all the parts needed to make big HP....if that is your goal.

[jon_the_limey]

The V6 "Ecoboost" has one GDI fuel pump driven off the cam, and I know that the fuel delivery capability (of single GDI pumps) will be very close to it's limit for that power. If power is to be increased then someone will have to fashion a means of putting another fuel pump on, perhaps from the other bank which will require some significant changes to the other cam cover and camshaft.

 

The V6 "Ecoboost" also has a compression ratio of 10:1, which is pretty high for turbocharged engine. If the boost is to be winded-up (assuming the stock-turbos can deliver the required air) then this will almost certainly have to be backed off to avoid detonation.

 

Ford's durability targets are notoriously arduous, but the increase in heat rejection from any increased power will stretch things into the unknown. But anyone fooling around with aftermarket stuff should hopefully realise that!

Edited February 24, 2009 by jon_the_limey

[battyr]

The V6 "Ecoboost" has one GDI fuel pump driven off the cam, and I know that the fuel delivery capability (of single GDI pumps) will be very close to it's limit for that power. If power is to be increased then someone will have to fashion a means of putting another fuel pump on, perhaps from the other bank which will require some significant changes to the other cam cover and camshaft.

 

The V6 "Ecoboost" also has a compression ratio of 10:1, which is pretty high for turbocharged engine. If the boost is to be winded-up (assuming the stock-turbos can deliver the required air) then this will almost certainly have to be backed off to avoid detonation.

 

Ford's durability targets are notoriously arduous, but the increase in heat rejection from any increased power will stretch things into the unknown. But anyone fooling around with aftermarket stuff should hopefully realise that!

 

Ya. I was thinking the capped torque may have as much to do with controlling detonation than anything. Tuners could drop the compression and pump up the turbo boost. They would get the hp, but lose the fuel efficiency.

[Edstock]

Then there's the alcohol injection system that is being tested. Wonder how that might work for high-boost applications?

[DUCKRACER]

I wonder where and why all of a sudden these HP numbers have ballooned like they have. I mean 30 years ago, it was basically the same engine. Compression ratio's were 9.5/11 to 1. And published figures for HP would be 160/190. Now the same size engine is 260/280+ HP. That's just a generalization, but I was just trying to show an example. Did they make it easier to allow higher numbers to be printed?

 

Now, the magic bullet is called Ego-Boost. Remember the horror and fear inherent in a Turbo engine? Oil sitting and cooking. Now they have thrown on 2 turbo's for a V6 and one for a 4 cylinder. Taken the fuel injectors from a diesel and gave it a green name. Just changed the name mind you, from Twin-FORCE to ECO-Boost.

 

So a customer walks in a showroom, the salesman sales Ego-Boost, says it has a turbo and the customer says oh cool, nice.

 

What has changed? All Aluminum Block / Heads. 4 Cams now in the heads, No Pushrods. Direct fuel dispersal within the cylinders and atmospheric pressure augmentation. I hope it all works, I don't see a problem with the direct-injection, it's once again with the Turbo's. I also think this is the last step to squeezing out any more fuel usage from the engine's. The next step has to be with downsizing and lightening the vehicle body's.

 

That whine you hear about 2013, might not be from the turbo's spooling up.

 

You are too young to remember but in the late 60's Ford, Chevy and Dodge grossly UNDER RATED their hp due to the fact that kids could maybe afford the cars, but the insurrance rates were so high that they could not affored to insure a car rated @ 400-500 hp.

 

In fact I saw a cable show where they gathered 60's motors form people who restored the motors to stock and dynoed them. It was amazing! I think the stock 426 hemi made 600hp

 

aaah, the good old days when sex was safe and cars were dangerous.

[tommyturbo]

Chrysler had watercooled bearings on their turbos since they introduced them in 1984. I have several turbocharged dodge/ chrysler products. I generally give them 30 secs of idle before shutting them off, and refrain from driving hard when I know I am getting close to where I am going. Whats funny, one of my cars was driven very hard and the motor was worn out when I got it. When I rebuilt the motor, it was a mess, but the turbo was still very nice and tight. GUess those watercooled bearings really did help.

 

As for the yamaha SHO motor, it was only kept to 7500 rpms for the accessory drives. I've heard the engine on a dyno was able to turn 12,500 rpms no problems all day. Being desinged by yamaha whos motorcycle engines can turn much more than that, I believe it.

[battyr]

The French are developing a MCE-5 Variable Compression Engine. With down sizing it can deliver better than 35% improvement in fuel efficiency.

 

The four-cylinder 1.5L VCRi, equipped with a two-stage turbocharger, develops 220 hp (164 kW) of power (comparable to that of a 3.0L V6 engine), and 420 Nm (310 lb-ft) of torque at 1,500 rpm (comparable to a V8 gasoline engine).

 

 

http://www.mce-5.com/mce-5_technology/index.htm

Edited February 24, 2009 by battyr