Ecoboost minus the turbo?

[Connell]

Hey everyone,

Just out of curiosity, is it possible to "turn off" the turbo in the EB engine?

I was playing around with Eco mode (unlocked) and it tends to avoid turbo (< 2k revs).

2 liters is still a decent engine size without the turbo (which I love to use).

Would a "turboless mode" be more fuel efficient? (better MPG, KPL)

Cheers from Chile!

Turbocharging an engine includes engineering for very complex laws of physics. A forced induction engine is very different from a normally aspirated engine. Turbos, in essence, increase the thermal efficiency of an ICE. Much power is lost to heat generation in an ICE. The turbo harnesses that lost heat by using it to generate mechanical energy (the exhaust gas turbine spinning the intake charge turbine) thus raising the thermal efficiency. As stated by others, the parameters of such an ICE are sufficiently different that you can’t just “turn off” the turbo and expect a well running engine.

Sponsored

 

[DrEvil]

An EB engine with the turbo removed would drive like a dog, but if you drove with low revs it would get better mileage because you're going slower. Going slow means better mpg. That said, it will be less efficient than an equivalent engine designed as naturally aspirated, because turbo engines have lower compression ratios, which are less efficient. Turbochargers overcome this by stuffing air into the engine.

Heat is not the enemy of engines, new engines are more thermodynamically efficient because they run hotter. You can't beat cubic inches if all you want is raw power, but if you want power and efficiency and a decent car form factor turbos rule. These Mavericks have more power than 80s Corvettes, with 35% the displacement and thus without the engine bay of an 80s Corvette.

Very nice articulated synopsis. You Obviously have some automotive engineering And some understanding of thermodynamics.

 

[sprubs]

There is so much misinformation out there about turbo engines. People think they get better MPG than the SAME engine without a turbo. Nope. When you pump more air into the combustion chamber you have to inject more fuel too. More fuel = less MPG. The auto manufacturers clearly market small turbo versions of autos "as much power as a V8 with better MPG than the V8". They don't claim it gets better MPG than the same non-turbo engine. Another fact that gets over looked is turbo engines are built with less compression. So they build an engine with less power and then stick a turbo on it to make more power. And little turbo engines are working a lot harder then the V8 normally aspirated engine. So they run hotter. Heat is the worst enemy of an engine. If you get the impression I am not a fan of turbos you are correct. I come from the old school: you can't beat Cubic Inches.

Turbo is more efficient if you are comparing it to a similar HP/torque NA engine that is generally going to have to be higher displacement. true as long as you mostly drive it like a normal person anyway.

 

[Cherokee]

Blasphemy, you sir forgot about the legendary Ford Ranger with the 2.3 good sir.

I know a guy who pulled full size parade floats From Tampa Florida to Key West every year with his Ranger.
So yeah, I forgot !

 

[Snox801]

I know a guy who pulled full size parade floats From Tampa Florida to Key West every year with his Ranger.
So yeah, I forgot !

The things I did with those old rangers would be very frowned upon today. I’m to this day sho led I never really broke one.
Incredibly tough vehicle. Neve understood how tacomas got such a good rep when the ranger was every bit as or more tough. Just the rest of the ford line screwing the perception I bet.

 

[grumpyunk]

The things I did with those old rangers would be very frowned upon today. I’m to this day sho led I never really broke one.
Incredibly tough vehicle. Neve understood how tacomas got such a good rep when the ranger was every bit as or more tough. Just the rest of the ford line screwing the perception I bet.

My bet is the F-150 mafia inside Ford begged that the Ranger, then selling around 250k annually, be discontinued so they could preserve their record of being the best selling model. The threatened to lose the record if Rangers were kept in the lineup.
Even with the minimal money spent for yearly refresh, those in charge decided to ignore all they made on each Ranger. Taco took over with a good product, but likely would have never gotten where they are if Ranger had been kept in production and updated like was done elsewhere in the world. All Ranger buyers could do was look to Thailand and Australia for examples they could not purchase.
Just compare the Falcon & Mustang introductions and annual sales compared to what they did with the Maverick. It was as if they designed a product they did not want to sell. I have yet to see a Maverick advertisement on TV/Cable. I have seen 3 Bronco Sport ads since it was introduced.
They do not want to sell what the public wants. They want to sell $100,000 f-150 Trucks. They have pushed the first-time buyer out the door, and slammed it shut. Kia, Hyundai, Toyota and Honda will still sell lower profit sedans as they know they will get those customers back when they want to spend more later on. Ford won't even get them in the door.
Sell your stock.

 

[rlhdweman]

I'm guessing the OP was asking if the turbo was like the engine blower in a Mad Max Movie.

 

[rlhdweman]

There is so much misinformation out there about turbo engines. People think they get better MPG than the SAME engine without a turbo. Nope. When you pump more air into the combustion chamber you have to inject more fuel too. More fuel = less MPG. The auto manufacturers clearly market small turbo versions of autos "as much power as a V8 with better MPG than the V8". They don't claim it gets better MPG than the same non-turbo engine. Another fact that gets over looked is turbo engines are built with less compression. So they build an engine with less power and then stick a turbo on it to make more power. And little turbo engines are working a lot harder then the V8 normally aspirated engine. So they run hotter. Heat is the worst enemy of an engine. If you get the impression I am not a fan of turbos you are correct. I come from the old school: you can't beat Cubic Inches.

back in the 80's I used to believe in that saying "there's no replacement for displacement", but that's no longer true, 125hp per liter in mild stock form 150hp easily achievable, & while using less than half the fuel!

 

[Propane Burning Man]

Turbo is more efficient if you are comparing it to a similar HP/torque NA engine that is generally going to have to be higher displacement. true as long as you mostly drive it like a normal person anyway.

back in the 80's I used to believe in that saying "there's no replacement for displacement", but that's no longer true, 125hp per liter in mild stock form 150hp easily achievable, & while using less than half the fuel!

Please Explain to me, anyone, why Hybrids don't have turbos since the #1 reason people buy a hybrid is for better MPG. And there seems to be a group of turbo fans arguing turbo IC's engines are more efficient. Ford should have put the 1.0 EcoBoost in the hybrid Mav Right? Educate me.

 

[Tiger Dude]

Please Explain to me, anyone, why Hybrids don't have turbos since the #1 reason people buy a hybrid is for better MPG. And there seems to be a group of turbo fans arguing turbo IC's engines are more efficient. Ford should have put the 1.0 EcoBoost in the hybrid Mav Right? Educate me.

Because turbos are primarily for power, not for efficiency. They let you use a smaller engine that has less losses at lower throttle positions versus the larger engine you would need to get the total power rating at wide open throttle. Plus less weight, smaller engine bay, etc.

Hybrids use crazy tech Atkinson cycle engines, whch actually change the engine stroke geometry to get more efficiency from the engine. 250 HP will always take more fuel, whother it's a smaller turbo or larger naturally aspirated engine. The type of power people tend to like is low end power, which is helped a lot by the electric motor, which provides its highest torque at low rpm. This is what lets the Hybrid be in the same ballpark as the EB in 0-60 times, but the hybrid will lag badly from 50-80 due to lack of higher end power. So... hybrids use very efficient naturally aspirated engines, because the electric motor provide low end torque, and people are more willing to put up with less top end power because it's a high-mpg vehicle. We are all very HP-spoiled these days, which is why Ford offers the EB. I've said it in this thread before, the Maverick EB has more HP than an 80s Corvette.

 

[DrEvil]

Please Explain to me, anyone, why Hybrids don't have turbos since the #1 reason people buy a hybrid is for better MPG. And there seems to be a group of turbo fans arguing turbo IC's engines are more efficient. Ford should have put the 1.0 EcoBoost in the hybrid Mav Right? Educate me.

You seem to have already made up your mind. We have no intention to argue. Some of us just don't want the prius option.

Because turbos are primarily for power, not for efficiency. They let you use a smaller engine that has less losses at lower throttle positions versus the larger engine you would need to get the total power rating at wide open throttle. Plus less weight, smaller engine bay, etc.

Hybrids use crazy tech Atkinson cycle engines, whch actually change the engine stroke geometry to get more efficiency from the engine. 250 HP will always take more fuel, whother it's a smaller turbo or larger naturally aspirated engine. The type of power people tend to like is low end power, which is helped a lot by the electric motor, which provides its highest torque at low rpm. This is what lets the Hybrid be in the same ballpark as the EB in 0-60 times, but the hybrid will lag badly from 50-80 due to lack of higher end power. So... hybrids use very efficient naturally aspirated engines, because the electric motor provide low end torque, and people are more willing to put up with less top end power because it's a high-mpg vehicle. We are all very HP-spoiled these days, which is why Ford offers the EB. I've said it in this thread before, the Maverick EB has more HP than an 80s Corvette.

Thankyou but don't get baited brother. Their mind is.
Made up. And we all know there's no performance Modifications coming to a hybrid. Some of us automobiles are toys. Just like my harleys.

 

[sprubs]

some hybrids do have turbos.

example: https://www.kia.com/us/en/sorento-plug-in-hybrid

now why don't they typically? reasons stated above. I also assume cost is a factor.

 

[Snox801]

My bet is the F-150 mafia inside Ford begged that the Ranger, then selling around 250k annually, be discontinued so they could preserve their record of being the best selling model. The threatened to lose the record if Rangers were kept in the lineup.
Even with the minimal money spent for yearly refresh, those in charge decided to ignore all they made on each Ranger. Taco took over with a good product, but likely would have never gotten where they are if Ranger had been kept in production and updated like was done elsewhere in the world. All Ranger buyers could do was look to Thailand and Australia for examples they could not purchase.
Just compare the Falcon & Mustang introductions and annual sales compared to what they did with the Maverick. It was as if they designed a product they did not want to sell. I have yet to see a Maverick advertisement on TV/Cable. I have seen 3 Bronco Sport ads since it was introduced.
They do not want to sell what the public wants. They want to sell $100,000 f-150 Trucks. They have pushed the first-time buyer out the door, and slammed it shut. Kia, Hyundai, Toyota and Honda will still sell lower profit sedans as they know they will get those customers back when they want to spend more later on. Ford won't even get them in the door.
Sell your stock.

I somewhat agree. Ford also could just focus on what they do best. Trucks and SUV’s. They don’t need to be everything. They they need to abandon the ev loses and focus on what they do well.
Imagine how cheap they could build the maverick if they didn’t have to make up 5billion a year loses in cars nobody wants

 

[Cherokee]

Turbos are very efficient when done right.
My 2.0 Ecoboost has far more useable power than my back in the day 2.7 Ltr 2008 Tacoma.
And far better gas mileage. 28 mpg to the Toyotas 21.
I’m not an engineer but a turbo on the Hybrid would give a proper dose of gitty up boost to the engine that would last and not run out after a minute or two at 60 mph like when the HV battery goes flat.
I read that somewhere, the lower power at higher speeds is what kept me wanting the 2.0 Eco over the Mavbrid.
Most of my driving was in rolling hills and mountains at speeds often above 50 mph.
As for efficiency I don’t know where it would land.

On my hilly main roads, my 4 Lane I get the same mpg’s holding my speeds around 60 as I do around 70 mph.
Seems my Ecoboost works more efficiently at 1800 rpm’s than it does at 1600 rpm’s.
Well it seems that way.
I’ll have to run a ten tank test right !

 

[Solaryellow]

Just compare the Falcon & Mustang introductions and annual sales compared to what they did with the Maverick. It was as if they designed a product they did not want to sell. I have yet to see a Maverick advertisement on TV/Cable. I have seen 3 Bronco Sport ads since it was introduced.
They do not want to sell what the public wants. They want to sell $100,000 f-150 Trucks. They have pushed the first-time buyer out the door, and slammed it shut. Kia, Hyundai, Toyota and Honda will still sell lower profit sedans as they know they will get those customers back when they want to spend more later on. Ford won't even get them in the door.
Sell your stock.

Interesting. I had a discussion with someone about the same thing.

Right off the bat, the commercials we see today are swill. The automotive commercials are nothing like they used to be in which you were pulled in and made you feel as if you had a horse in the race. Iococca was in commercials as were some of the higher-ups from Ford. Who doesn't remember commercials for the 5.0L or the TA WS6 (pulling up behind that Italian was it?), the wide stance GTP or the numerous others.

An ad for my local dealer showed up yesterday and I wanted to see the stock. An F150 in the high 90's? Out of touch?

Sponsored