Ecoboost minus the turbo?

[colinl]

Interesting.

it's not that interesting, really. the point he clumsily attempted to make is that Ford doesn't care about the Maverick, and yet obviously they do.

customers moving down-market, shrinking their budget for a new vehicle, will happen regardless of what they choose. if they don't want to spend >$60k and they intend to move from F150 to Ranger, or F150 to Maverick, they're going to make that same move down in price into some other manufacturer.

it's been said MANY times since 2021 that Ford doesn't care about the Maverick because it's a lot less profit per vehicle than an F150. but obviously, it isn't just cost that differentiates these trucks it's capabilities. a Maverick cannot do all the things a Ranger can do (mainly towing and off-road), which itself can't do things a F150 can do (mainly towing and rear-seat size/comfort). it's ridiculous to assert that Ford intentionally tries to undersell the Maverick in the hopes a customer will buy some other Ford that costs (a lot) more money.

the reason the Maverick has had little advertising is because it was selling fine - more than fine in 21-23 when the order backlog was massive and they couldn't even fulfill orders they had.

Sponsored

 

[ejouie]

FIXED POWER TARGET: Turbo is more efficient at making power. It has less compression but offsets this loss by using the exhaust to stuff in air.

FIXED ENGINE: If you want to keep the same engine, but are willing to sacrifice power, then you can ditch the turbo and up the compression. The additional efficiency savings would come from the weight reduction.

TRANSMISSION VARIABLE: I look at the 3800 series 2 as an example of forced induction compared to naturally aspirated. The MPG on the L36 and the L67 aren't very different. That's because the rest of the powertrain was setup for that. The L67 required 91 octane fuel and also has a 2.93 final drive ratio. The L36 ran on 87 and had a 3.29. With direct injection and some other tech, we have been able to mitigate the octane issue, so let's look at the transmission/final drive ratios. The 2.93 is lower in rpm for the same gear as the 3.29. The lower rpm means more efficiency, but less available power. This made the L67 seem similar in efficiency as the L36 but also reduced the power gap between them. If you put 2.93s with the L36, you would definitly see a difference in MPG. It would accelerate very slowly though. The 3.29 L67 combo is a frequent mod done to make those cars accelerate faster.

 

[Solaryellow]

the reason the Maverick has had little advertising is because it was selling fine - more than fine in 21-23 when the order backlog was massive and they couldn't even fulfill orders they had.

I have this weird hobby, you understand, about watching old commercial blocks that focus on a particular day, network and year and you see a great deal of things you now realize were interesting but back then were a waste of time. Now I don't give a hoot in hell which specific vehicle people want to focus on in this discussion as that's up to them, but I can confidently say with certainty, plenty of commercials (and advertising) were aired for vehicles that were selling very well during said time.

Really though, it was a different time when manufacturers placed significant emphasis on television advertising. Now as it stands, I cannot remember one single solitary memorable car commercial from the last 15 or so years but from the 80's and 90's I can name a bunch.

When you run an auto commercial and advertise, the end goal is to get you on the lot rather than focusing on one vehicle and those folks would prefer a high $$$$ sale.

 

[Blue_Max]

Ford hasn't advertised nearly as much as other manufacturers since at least the '80s. They rarely even bother to make Mustang commercials. They typically advertise a little when a new generation shows up, but that's it.

 

[Glen Baker LLC]

Ecoboost minus the turbo?

I suppose the 2.0 engine without turbos. Would be like beer without alcohol.
It looks the same, but as doesn't act the same.

 

[Timothyd]

I’d not drive a 4 banger without an eight speed and a turbo.
It would be a dog, like the 4 cylinders of the 80’s all dogs getting 23 mpg’s at best.
Put some cargo in it or try and pull a trailer it would suck.
The Mavbrid motor is aided by the electric motors.

I worked a 2.7 Ltr normally aspirated 4 cylinder Tacoma to death, loads and all. I couldn’t use fifth gear unless I was on level ground and doing 70 mph
My trailer only weighed a ton loaded.

Turbo’s help mpg’s in a big way. Faster spool ups and more low end grunt.

Things are a lot different from the 80's.

 

[Timothyd]

Well, it depends on how they're set up. I've had a few turbos now and there's a difference in performance depending if top end or bottom end. Max power or economy.

 

[colinl]

Well, it depends on how they're set up. I've had a few turbos now and there's a difference in performance depending if top end or bottom end. Max power or economy.

while this is technically true, every production turbocharged vehicle made by Ford, and probably 99% of new turbocharged vehicles in general, are tuned for low end torque and they hit a usable amount of boost just about instantly so there really is not any turbo lag. this is made possible by (relatively) modern features such twin scroll turbos, variable vane turbos, electronic wastegates and more.

the days of a laggy turbo like a Buick Grand National, or 1st gen Mitsubishi Eclipse, or Mustang 2.3 SVO are lonnnnng gone. when Maverick owners talk about 'turbo lag' they are wrong, and they are actually just feeling the affects of the transmission being optimized for fuel economy.

 

[Timothyd]

while this is technically true, every production turbocharged vehicle made by Ford, and probably 99% of new vehicles in general, are tuned for low end torque and they hit a usable amount of boost just about instantly so there really is not any turbo lag. this is made possible by (relatively) modern features such twin scroll turbos, variable vane turbos, electronic wastegates and more.

the days of a laggy turbo like a Buick Grand National, or 1st gen Mitsubishi Eclipse, or Mustang 2.3 SVO are lonnnnng gone. when Maverick owners talk about 'turbo lag' they are wrong, and they are actually just feeling the affects of the transmission being optimized for fuel economy.

Right. And I prefer the way it is now. If I want to race and cheat death I'll drive the Miata or hop on the bike.

 

[Cherokee]

Post #38
TRUTH !

Sponsored