Rick Pope wrote:Newer technology makes things possible that failed just a few years ago. Witness the Ford Eco-Boost. And if you doubt that little motor, I'll just say I'm on my second one.
I hope this doesn't get taken as conflict. Just past experiences and real world numbers had gotten me pretty deep into this years ago. Could probably write a paper or two on the subject so will try and keep it short.
I know it is a good little engine, but its fuel economy is no better than a larger engine, and under load, can tend to be worse. It beats the ol large displacements in slow speed city driving, that is about it, and even then is negligible with modern technology.
It really comes down to basic science. A specific volume of fuel contains a specific amount of stored energy for lack of a better term. How much of it is harnessed all comes down to how well it burns. So that is first comparision and is a complex discussion based on intake, cylinder, exhaust, all that stuff. We know it because of how easily CBX carbs can be thrown off by something as simple as a wrong filter.
Second, is how much energy is consumed in the creation of the cycle. Two most prevailing causes are the compression, intake resistance, and friction. Friction is pretty big actually. I am going to make just general assumption here on fords part. Ford likes their modular design, so assuming the Ecoboosts have same bore and stroke as the V8, Ecoboost wins on friction, moreso the smaller the bore. Alas, realworld, turbocharger intake and exhaust systems are inferior plus the nature of the combustion is more explosive essentially causing more of the fuel to be wasted as heat. Hrm... those turbos get real hot. It aint magic energy! Toss in more complexity and cost, the advantages dwindle pretty fast.
But not to say that a turbo engine is bad. Most notably is that in larger vehicles that need power, you can really shrink down a heavy block both by weight and dimensionally. The weight advantage of the ecoboost does a good lots, plus have to really respect it's design and build but hope it works its way into other engines as well. Additionally, a turbo engine can be made more compact. Is why I have one. Two turbo engine, but that is because and equal NA displacement engine just cannot fit. So in case of the Ecoboost, Because they are used in vehicles that have an optional large displacement, they are not making use of potential chassis weight and aerodynamic potentials.
This does not even get into power curves and why I dislike high RPM engines.... Is a reason 400hp LS1 Trans Ams beat a 200hp S2000 of same year in fuel economy...
So it is less it is a turbo engine, but more that it will not offer many real world advantages. Writing this out, the best I can think of is just some insane torque monster at 100lbs less if set for low RPM operation. However on engines this small, the weight to up displacement is probably equal to the turbocharging system. Just look at (the numbers, all I got to go with atm) of Kawi's H2. Weighs more and costs near twice as much to an equal power bike. Thought center of gravity I am interested in. I honestly wonder what advantage really does it have over the fabulous ZX1000.
Edit: Looking at the technical pictures, COG could be one of the big advantages. Much like the NC while weighty is nimble because it is all down low, those tech pictures appears to be a very short engine in terms of height. Getting that cylinder head down low probably will do more than anything in the power department for ridable fun! Large bore, short stroke and turbocharger, a sub 10k rpm beast!
