Sign In Join 



Crossover SUV Comparison

7126 messages,  Last post on Nov 18, 2009 at 1:27 PM

You are in the SUVs Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester

What is this discussion about? GMC Acadia, Mitsubishi Outlander, Subaru Forester, Hyundai Santa Fe, Ford Taurus X, Toyota RAV4, Nissan Rogue, Honda Accord Crosstour, Dodge Journey, Car Buying, Car Comparisons, SUV


Messages Page 682 of 713
1
...
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
...
713
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#6808 of 7126
Re: RDX TECH vs. RAV4 V6 4x4 [larryqw] by coldcranker
Dec 14, 2008 (10:08 am)
Reply

Replying to: larryqw (Dec 13, 2008 10:07 pm)

Here's a comparison of power and fuel economy between an Ecoboost-like 4-cylinder direct injected turbo vs. a non-turbo V6 crossover:
 
'09 Mazda CX-7 I4, 244 HP, 17city/23hiway MPG, 3700 lbs, 4 cylinder
'09 Ford Escape V6, 240 HP, 18city/26hiway MPG, 3600 lbs, V6
'05 Ford Freestyle V6, 205 HP, 18city/25hiway MPG, 3900 lbs, V6
(all front-wheel drive 2WD only here)
 
So where is the big advantage from direct injection combined with a turbo in a smaller 4-cylinder engine, vs. a good solid smoothe V6?
#6809 of 7126
Re: RDX TECH vs. RAV4 V6 4x4 [coldcranker] by larryqw
Dec 14, 2008 (12:04 pm)
Reply

Replying to: coldcranker (Dec 14, 2008 10:08 am)

If you read through the fine details, you'll see EcoBoost is a bit different from either the VW or Mazda approach, although it's similar in the base concept. Most of the radical improvement simply involves much better engineering for way better results. The better engineering includes designing an even better Turbo boost curve versus RPM, where and how the fuel is injected for maximum cooling and efficiency, much better use of modern computer control, among many other items.
 
Ford is putting the EcoBoost on the Flex next year, a car similar to my Taurus X and your Freestyle. The Flex, my T-X and your Freestyle get mileage of 17/24, 17/24 and 18/25 respectively. (The T-X has 260 HP versus 205 HP of the Freestyle, but only looses 1 MPG). In practice, I do much better than the standards with my T-X if I do slow starts and stops, and stay below 65 MPH, with Freeway at 26 MPG and combined 22-23 MPG.
 
When the new EcoBoost comes out on the Flex next year. I suspect you'll see amazing numbers like 21/30 MPG for the same power and better performance. This will be a major breakthrough as Ford applies this low cost technology across the line. EcoBoost helps everywhere - Crossovers, economy cars, trucks, and even Hybrids get more than a 20% mileage improvement across the fleet, while keeping the same power and better performance (via a flatter torque curve).
 
It's true that a V-6 is smoother and quieter. There's now an effort to add weights and muffler tuning to make the smaller I-4 (with the power of a V-6 now) feel and sound more like a V-6. We'll see how this works in the next few years.
 
Combining their new EcoBoost with their new totally redesigned modern fleet coming out in the next year or two, Ford could easily start to dominate the market. They're already starting to regain market share with their new improvements that now put Ford at the top of the market in safety, fuel effiency, reliabilty, and use of modern electronics (like SYNC for one).
#6810 of 7126
Re: RDX TECH vs. RAV4 V6 4x4 [larryqw] by coldcranker
Dec 14, 2008 (1:03 pm)
Reply

Replying to: larryqw (Dec 14, 2008 12:04 pm)

You're assuming Ford can do something with direct injection (DI) and turbo in a gas engine that GM, VW, and Mazda have been unable to do. Not likely. In fact, MIT engineers have been saying you need ethanol boosting to get a 20% gain in efficiency from a DI/turbo (aka, Ecoboost) engine. Ethanol Boosting -- click here. Basically, ethanol boosting is Ecoboost with added alcohol injection to eliminate engine knock at mid-to-high engine loads, requiring about a 3 gallon separate ethanol tank to go with a regular 20 gallon gas tank. As far as I've heard, Ford says you can get a 20% gain in fuel economy without ethanol injection. Yeah, right.
 
Bottom line is that Ford's claims are hyper-inflated. Doing clever things in the engine control software to an Ecoboost (DI/turbo) 4-cylinder engine might get you 5 or 10% greater fuel economy at the same power levels as a decent V6 you're replacing, but nobody yet knows how to get a 20% gain.
 
All I've heard about the Flex is that it will eventually go to direct injection on its 3.5L V6, adding a turbo, calling it Ecoboost, and then marketing it as getting better MPG than a 4.6L V8 if it existed in that application. What I'd like to see them do is put a 1.5L 4-cylinder Ecoboost in the Flex and get at least 215 HP out of it, with a fuel economy gain. Granted, 215 HP is not as much as a non-turbo 3.5L V6, but they would at least get a significant fuel economy gain.
#6811 of 7126
Re: RDX TECH vs. RAV4 V6 4x4 [coldcranker] by larryqw
Dec 14, 2008 (1:40 pm)
Reply

Replying to: coldcranker (Dec 14, 2008 1:03 pm)

coldcranker, you say "You're assuming Ford can do something with direct injection (DI) and turbo in a gas engine that GM, VW, and Mazda [and MIT] have been unable to do. ... As far as I've heard, Ford says you can get a 20% gain in fuel economy without ethanol injection. Yeah, right."
 
Yes, that is indeed what Ford has done. Took years of hard work and engineering. Yes, it's amazing and unbelievable. Among many awards surely to come, EcoBoost already won the Popular Science "Best of What's New" award this year. See here.
 
Ford has scaled back their projections from 25% MPG improvement to instead 15-20% now, just to be conservative across the fleet average and account for some use instead towards increased power. But it could be up to 25% MPG improvement in many cars, if desired.
 
For example, Ford is replacing the Freestyle/Taurus X by the Explorer America next year (2010 model). This new Explorer America will have a similar but improved appearance to the Taurus X and Explorer (rather than Flex appearance) and is based on the same unibody chasis as the F/S, T-X, and Flex. The capabilty will be the same or improved - more ground clearance and towing capability for instance.
 
Ford states here about the Explorer America engine options:
A powertrain lineup that includes a 4-cylinder 2-liter engine with EcoBoost technology delivering 275 hp and 280 lb.-ft. of torque or, as a premium engine, a 3.5-liter V-6 delivering about 340 hp. Depending on engine selection, fuel-efficiency will improve by 20 to 30 percent versus today’s V-6 Explorer
 
There's also a nice diagram in the same link above showing how EcoBoost works. This isn't hype. It's working, and it's coming to market soon. Yep, truly amazing.
#6812 of 7126
Re: RDX TECH vs. RAV4 V6 4x4 [larryqw] by coldcranker
Dec 14, 2008 (6:48 pm)
Reply

Replying to: larryqw (Dec 14, 2008 1:40 pm)

Sounds good, but there is some marketing hype in there crediting the Ecoboost tech when it doesn't deserve 20% credit. Don't get me wrong, I do think Ecoboost alone should get around a 5% up to 10% fuel economy gain if done right. And thats optimistic, since there might be some innovation in doing VVT with direct injection + turbo. Not big gains. DI alone might give up to 5%, and maybe another 3% or so from downsizing the engine and adding a turbo to make up for the loss in displacement.
 
For example:
larrygw says: "Depending on engine selection, fuel-efficiency will improve by 20 to 30 percent versus today’s V-6 Explorer " In reality, half (10%) of the gain in fuel economy of the Explorer America over the current Explorer is due to the new Explorer America being a unit-body, front wheel drive based, lower friction drivetrain (D3 platform based), with a newer 6-speed tranny over the old Explorer's body-on-frame, 4-speed tranny, rear wheel drive, and heavier platform. All that has nothing to do with Ecoboost. In fact, we might see 5% to 10% gain in fuel economy from going to Ecoboost, which is direct injection + turbo. I believe MIT, GM, Mazda, VW, and my own mechanical engineering experience over Ford's claims.
 
I recommend not swallowing the marketing hype. Ford's real accomplishment appears to be in the Fusion Hybrid, out in 2 months, as its already getting 40 MPG in real-world, 3rd party tests recently.
#6813 of 7126
Re: RDX TECH vs. RAV4 V6 4x4 [coldcranker] by larryqw
Dec 14, 2008 (9:13 pm)
Reply

Replying to: coldcranker (Dec 14, 2008 6:48 pm)

coldcranker, I agree with you, that for sure other factors help the Ford Explorer get up to 30% better fuel efficiency. It's becoming more of a car than a truck, which is how people really use it. I don't know either how much of that mileage improvement is EcoBoost, but they're repeatedly claiming 15-20% mileage improvment and I'm sure they have a LOT of test data to back that up, opposed to random speculation by us, who are not in their engineering team.
 
 Ford has been conservative in their projections more recently. So I tend to believe them. They also claim the EcoBoost is of much greater value than Hybrid technology as it helps the gas mileage of ALL cars and trucks of all types (including Hybrid) across the board, which also makes sense to me.
 
As for Ford hype and claim versus reality, we'll all know in a few months when the EcoBoost vehicles come out and get properly rated for fuel economy by an independent firm. Till then, we just got opinions.
#6814 of 7126
Re: RDX TECH vs. RAV4 V6 4x4 [coldcranker] by tourguide
Dec 15, 2008 (4:01 pm)
Reply

Replying to: coldcranker (Dec 14, 2008 6:48 pm)

Sounds good, but there is some marketing hype in there crediting the Ecoboost tech when it doesn't deserve 20% credit.
 
I think you are EXACLTLY right in this cc. 5-10% is a good estimate. The boys and girls over on Blue Oval News who are working on the project and have some knowledge about it personally I've read saying that the 20% figures that Ford put out early on were best case scenarios as compared to V8 technology!
 
WELL NO WONDER!! I completely understand how it would compare that favorably in that light. Makes sense, huh?!
 
I personally can't wait to see what the real 'boost' ends up being. I decided after I heard where they pulled that 20% figure from that it wasn't worth waiting for. It's just more of the same kids. Soon enough we will see. Personally, I've gotta believe that if it was a true 20% boost, they'd have rolled it out sooner that this.
#6815 of 7126
Re: RDX TECH vs. RAV4 V6 4x4 [tourguide] by baggs32
Dec 16, 2008 (9:31 am)
Reply

Replying to: tourguide (Dec 15, 2008 4:01 pm)

I decided after I heard where they pulled that 20% figure from that it wasn't worth waiting for.
 
All of the Ford Media literature I've read on EcoBoost claimed UP TO A 20% increase in FE. Never have I read that 20% was guaranteed across the board.
#6816 of 7126
Re: RDX TECH vs. RAV4 V6 4x4 [baggs32] by coldcranker
Dec 16, 2008 (1:35 pm)
Reply

Replying to: baggs32 (Dec 16, 2008 9:31 am)

baggs32, It depends on what is compared to what. For example, my '05 Freestyle has 205 HP in a 3.0L V6, so a meaningful comparison would be to an Ecoboost 1.5L 4 cylinder, since you could get the same power out of that engine. Doing that, it is possible I could see better fuel economy. Its doubtful if the gain would be 20% based on all the evidence I've seen so far, without using alcohol injection of some kind to keep the compression ratio high and knock absent. Alcohol injection was used in WWII on the P-38's Allison V12 engines to get rid of knock while being supercharged at a high compression ratio for efficiency. Allison Engine Link -- click here MIT's Sloan labs are now investigating new twists on this old idea, needed to get 20% efficiency gains.
#6817 of 7126
Re: RDX TECH vs. RAV4 V6 4x4 [coldcranker] by baggs32
Dec 17, 2008 (10:43 am)
Reply

Replying to: coldcranker (Dec 16, 2008 1:35 pm)

It depends on what is compared to what.
 
Exactly, and that's why they never guaranteed 20% across the board. They did a blanket statement for the tech as a whole stating that 20% gains were possible but when you actually read the literature they tell you that the gains will be a good bit less in some applications. I'm guessing that going from a 5.4L V8 to an EB 3.5L V6 will net larger gains than going from the 4.6L V8 to the EB 3.5L V6 for the F150 for example.

Messages Page 682 of 713
1
...
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
...
713
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement