VWVortex.com - Turbos don't save fuel (Jason Camissa video)
Username or Email Address
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up

    VWVortex


    The Car Lounge
    Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
    Results 101 to 125 of 130

    Thread: Turbos don't save fuel (Jason Camissa video)

    1. Member
      Join Date
      Oct 22nd, 2007
      Location
      Syracuse, NY
      Posts
      2,710
      Vehicles
      982, F22, E88, etc.
      11-21-2019 11:26 AM #101
      Quote Originally Posted by CTK View Post
      Most engines these days have integrated exhaust manifolds. Pistons/con-rods are dirt cheap. I really think it's a wash. And the upgrade price for F-150 engines are not necessarily representative of their cost. They might make the 2.7TT cheaper to steer more people to that (and help their CAFE fleet averages). There's enough profit baked in that $1K here or there almost doesn't even matter.
      Yup, prices are set to maximize revenue; often that reflects production costs but it definitely doesn't need to be the case...just ask a software company or a hotel chain about that.

    2. Remove Advertisements

      Advertisements
       

    3. Don't be me. Don't be a 'Rick' Cabin Pics's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 20th, 2008
      Location
      In The Woods
      Posts
      12,473
      Vehicles
      2004 E46, 2019 Q7
      11-21-2019 01:39 PM #102
      Quote Originally Posted by BRealistic View Post
      Doesn't Ford integrate the turbo housing in the Exhaust manifolds?
      I believe the cat is also part of that manifold, and it's incredibly expensive to replace.

      Oh, and the cats fail all the time.
      Instagram - efrie004

    4. Junior Member
      Join Date
      Nov 8th, 2017
      Posts
      61
      Vehicles
      2011 Nissan Versa Hatch
      11-21-2019 01:42 PM #103
      I can say that my new 2001 Passat GLS manual shift with the 1.8T got absolutely staggeringly goof gas mileage....

    5. Senior Member
      Join Date
      Feb 23rd, 2000
      Location
      Shepherdstown, WV
      Posts
      23,398
      11-21-2019 01:53 PM #104
      Quote Originally Posted by BRealistic View Post
      Doesn't Ford integrate the turbo housing in the Exhaust manifolds?
      Quote Originally Posted by Cabin Pics View Post
      I believe the cat is also part of that manifold, and it's incredibly expensive to replace.

      Oh, and the cats fail all the time.
      Many applications have used a turbo/exhaust manifold integrated into one or now as noted moving to no manifold with the turbo bolted to the head directly. I"m not sure there are any integrated manifold/Catalytic converter setups on turbo applications. NA sure, turbo not that I can think of.

    6. Don't be me. Don't be a 'Rick' Cabin Pics's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 20th, 2008
      Location
      In The Woods
      Posts
      12,473
      Vehicles
      2004 E46, 2019 Q7
      11-21-2019 01:57 PM #105
      Quote Originally Posted by chris86vw View Post
      Many applications have used a turbo/exhaust manifold integrated into one or now as noted moving to no manifold with the turbo bolted to the head directly. I"m not sure there are any integrated manifold/Catalytic converter setups on turbo applications. NA sure, turbo not that I can think of.
      Ah, yes. So this is for the 3.5 EB Explorer.

      They're still expensive https://www.autozone.com/emission-co...?checkfit=true

      $787 for one side. Labor sold separate.
      Instagram - efrie004

    7. Senior Member
      Join Date
      Feb 23rd, 2000
      Location
      Shepherdstown, WV
      Posts
      23,398
      11-21-2019 02:00 PM #106
      Quote Originally Posted by Cabin Pics View Post
      Ah, yes. So this is for the 3.5 EB Explorer.

      They're still expensive https://www.autozone.com/emission-co...?checkfit=true

      $787 for one side. Labor sold separate.
      That doesn't even seem that expensive considering it has a manifold... even if it is quite expensive!


      Speaking of labor though it could actually make the cost not so bad.

      If this takes 1 hour to replace vs 4 hours when on the 2 part system you have to remove the manifold to replace the seized studs that snapped off.. or end up buying a manifold. It could end up being cheaper.


      EDIT (since you clarified the was a 3.5 EB).. ok yes a manifold with a cat that then leads to some sort of "up" pipe/connecting pipe is a thing. I thought you were saying that there was an application that was manifold-cat-turbo or manifold-turbo-cat all one piece. That I have not seen.
      Last edited by chris86vw; 11-21-2019 at 02:04 PM.

    8. Don't be me. Don't be a 'Rick' Cabin Pics's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 20th, 2008
      Location
      In The Woods
      Posts
      12,473
      Vehicles
      2004 E46, 2019 Q7
      11-21-2019 02:09 PM #107
      Quote Originally Posted by chris86vw View Post
      That doesn't even seem that expensive considering it has a manifold... even if it is quite expensive!


      Speaking of labor though it could actually make the cost not so bad.

      If this takes 1 hour to replace vs 4 hours when on the 2 part system you have to remove the manifold to replace the seized studs that snapped off.. or end up buying a manifold. It could end up being cheaper.


      EDIT (since you clarified the was a 3.5 EB).. ok yes a manifold with a cat that then leads to some sort of "up" pipe/connecting pipe is a thing. I thought you were saying that there was an application that was manifold-cat-turbo or manifold-turbo-cat all one piece. That I have not seen.
      I was wrong. The one I posted above is for the standard V6.

      This is the one for the 3.5 ecoboost https://www.autozone.com/emission-co...74_540298_5196

      It's only $385.

      Worth noting, mechanic friend said both the regular v6 and ecoboost motors are a royal pain in the ass to work on, specifically in the CUV's.

      Per alldata it's a 3.5-3.9 hour job depending on year (14 vs 16). So $787 manifold, plus 3.5 labor at $100... $1,137 before taxes, for one side. Plus you don't get the "while I was there I did the other one", since taking one off does not make the other any easier to get to.

      If you have two clogged cats that's a $2,500 job after taxes.
      Last edited by Cabin Pics; 11-21-2019 at 02:26 PM.
      Instagram - efrie004

    9. Senior Member
      Join Date
      Feb 23rd, 2000
      Location
      Shepherdstown, WV
      Posts
      23,398
      11-21-2019 02:35 PM #108
      Quote Originally Posted by Cabin Pics View Post
      I was wrong. The one I posted above is for the standard V6.
      ah did wonder, as doing a cat before a turbo, does exist but is not necessarily common. Subaru has done it.


      Worth noting, mechanic friend said both the regular v6 and ecoboost motors are a royal pain in the ass to work on, specifically in the CUV's.

      Per alldata it's a 3.5-3.9 hour job depending on year (14 vs 16). So $787 manifold, plus 3.5 labor at $100... $1,137 before taxes, for one side. Plus you don't get the "while I was there I did the other one", since taking one off does not make the other any easier to get to.

      If you have two clogged cats that's a $2,500 job after taxes.
      Ouch!

    10. 11-21-2019 08:04 PM #109
      Quote Originally Posted by ghost03 View Post
      He means high RPM/high load. A motor could be running lean/stoich all day at 2K RPM, but if it goes WOT at 6k RPM with 15lbs of boost, the ECU will drop the the AFR from stoichiometric down to say, 12:1, so as to keep the exhaust cool enough that it won't fry anything. Whereas a N/A motor doesn't concentrate the heat quite as much and so can stay relatively leaner burning in WOT/high-RPM situations.

      That said, I'm definitely on team-turbo and you're right that cruising at 2K the turbo isn't hurting much if anything.
      The fuel mapping... yes I agree, but the NA engine does exactly same as to fuel, but does it with less power, less acceleration to keep it from going too rich...

      Same track, same cubic inches, same conditions, the turbo version burning more fuel simply means its a quarter mile farther down the track in the same time period.

      Both will run the about the same distance on a gallon of gas, with the turbo maybe a hair further.

    11. 11-21-2019 08:52 PM #110
      Ok didnt like this guy even though he has a scirocco but may have to change my mind about him.

      I get people telling me how theyre turbo 4 in a luxury car is so great, no it isnt sounds like s*** and why isnt it cheaper than the old V6s.

      I like a turbo 4 , buttt in an econo car or hot hatch not a mid-full size luxury car.

    12. Member
      Join Date
      Jul 7th, 2016
      Posts
      1,787
      Vehicles
      ‘77 Ford Bronco ‘85 Toyota 4x4 ‘87 930 ‘07 BMW e91 ‘08 Xterra
      11-21-2019 11:19 PM #111
      Quote Originally Posted by Cabin Pics View Post
      If you have two clogged cats that's a $2,500 job after taxes.
      I hope your e46 doesn't ever need cats. They are integrated into the exhaust manifold and are about $725-$1200 each for aftermarket parts.

    13. Don't be me. Don't be a 'Rick' Cabin Pics's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 20th, 2008
      Location
      In The Woods
      Posts
      12,473
      Vehicles
      2004 E46, 2019 Q7
      11-21-2019 11:39 PM #112
      Quote Originally Posted by Sonderwunsch View Post
      I hope your e46 doesn't ever need cats. They are integrated into the exhaust manifold and are about $725-$1200 each for aftermarket parts.
      I'd probably just get aftermarket manifolds/headers.

      We don't have annual inspections here, so I could just code them out.

      But yet, expensive is expensive. At least it's not a V6, so once you get to the manifolds they're both in the same spot.
      Instagram - efrie004

    14. 11-23-2019 02:16 PM #113
      Quote Originally Posted by ImpeccableNEW View Post
      Ok didnt like this guy even though he has a scirocco but may have to change my mind about him.

      I get people telling me how theyre turbo 4 in a luxury car is so great, no it isnt sounds like s*** and why isnt it cheaper than the old V6s.

      I like a turbo 4 , buttt in an econo car or hot hatch not a mid-full size luxury car.
      The new Mercedes C300 with the 2.0 turbo breaks into the 13 second quarter miles, and gets 30mpg...

      These motors are fantastic, the civic with the 1.5T is much faster than the 2.0 N/A.. AND it gets better gas mileage.

      My friend’s lifted F150 2.7 ecoboost is considerably faster than another friend’s lifted Silverado 5.3, same size tires.
      The F150 gets 22mpg, the Silverado gets 16mpg.

    15. Member HI SPEED's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 3rd, 2004
      Location
      Honolulu
      Posts
      5,872
      11-23-2019 02:58 PM #114
      I sometimes drive a company Ecoboost transit connect.

      Granted anytime I am in it, it is fully loaded with equipment, and I drive it in sport mode, through nothing but city traffic.

      It gets about the same fuel mileage that is my Toyota Sequoia. 10-12 mpg in city driving.

      I thought the gauge was broken, until I did the math between fill ups. If anything it was being optimistic.

    16. Geriatric Member BRealistic's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 16th, 2005
      Location
      East-10EC
      Posts
      79,654
      Vehicles
      '18 RCSB EB F150
      11-23-2019 03:00 PM #115
      Turbos don't save fuel.
      But turbos do allow smaller displacement engines to have more power when needed.
      And smaller displacement engines can be more efficient when driven at lighter throttle (and idling).
      TL;DR:
      Turbos don't save fuel, but they allow use of smaller displacement engines which can save fuel when driven appropriately.
      Last edited by BRealistic; 11-23-2019 at 04:37 PM.

    17. Global Moderator MylesPH1's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 6th, 2000
      Location
      Los Angeles
      Posts
      6,661
      Vehicles
      S60, Z/28
      11-23-2019 03:47 PM #116
      Warning - incoming anecdotal data. Take it or leave it, but it shapes my opinion.

      I had a 2005.5 Audi 2.0T Quattro, manual six speed. Direct injection turbo 4. Curb weight roughly 3600 pounds.

      It was replaced with a 2008 Audi A6 3.2 Quattro, automatic six speed. Direct injection NA V6. Curb weight, roughly 4200 pounds.

      Both cars were used on specific regular highway trips. Usually done late at night, to allow cruise control with light traffic, set at 74mph. Engine speeds for both cars in sixth were remarkably similar, IIRC.

      From my home in LA down to Laguna Beach, 405 to the 5, mostly flat highway, the A4 would get roughly 33 mpg, while the bigger, heavier A6 would get a hair above 30 mpg.

      But.

      From my home in LA up to Ojai, you have one steady, steep uphill section right around the LA/Ventura County border on the 101. Neither car needed to shift out of sixth, they’d easily climb. Plus, you also have a steep descent after the crest. You have to brake, even in gear, to keep from exceeding 74, where both DI cars used no gas to coast downhill.

      On that drive, the turbo A4 would average 27.5 mpg. The A6 average would barely change, maybe .2 or .3 mpg by the trip computer calculation. The A4 had a much steeper dip in fuel economy up the hill that it would recover somewhat on the downhill, while the A6 was less affected.

      Long story short - I agree with Camissa. The bigger, heavier car actually got bettter mileage in any situation where there was elevation or using a heavy throttle.
      One Swedish sedan
      One ‘murrican coupe

    18. Member dr_spock's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 16th, 1999
      Posts
      6,430
      Vehicles
      1998 New Beetle
      11-23-2019 03:49 PM #117
      I get better gas mileage driving conservatively a 3062 lbs car with a 1.4T than a 2646 lbs car with a 1.7 NA. When I mash the pedal, the turbo seems more fun than the NA.

    19. 11-23-2019 04:35 PM #118
      Quote Originally Posted by Ilikewaffles View Post
      The new Mercedes C300 with the 2.0 turbo breaks into the 13 second quarter miles, and gets 30mpg...

      These motors are fantastic, the civic with the 1.5T is much faster than the 2.0 N/A.. AND it gets better gas mileage.

      My friend’s lifted F150 2.7 ecoboost is considerably faster than another friend’s lifted Silverado 5.3, same size tires.
      The F150 gets 22mpg, the Silverado gets 16mpg.
      Cousins fusion 2.0 ecoboost gets 16mpg(what a pos) accord v6 last gen gets 21

    20. Don't be me. Don't be a 'Rick' Cabin Pics's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 20th, 2008
      Location
      In The Woods
      Posts
      12,473
      Vehicles
      2004 E46, 2019 Q7
      11-23-2019 11:00 PM #119
      Quote Originally Posted by Ilikewaffles View Post
      My friend’s lifted F150 2.7 ecoboost is considerably faster than another friend’s lifted Silverado 5.3, same size tires.
      The F150 gets 22mpg, the Silverado gets 16mpg.
      Put a trailer behind the trucks.

      I bet the V8 still gets 12-14MPG and the 2.7 Ecoboost drops to 10MPG.
      Instagram - efrie004

    21. Geriatric Member BRealistic's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 16th, 2005
      Location
      East-10EC
      Posts
      79,654
      Vehicles
      '18 RCSB EB F150
      11-23-2019 11:55 PM #120
      Quote Originally Posted by Ilikewaffles View Post
      The new Mercedes C300 with the 2.0 turbo breaks into the 13 second quarter miles, and gets 30mpg...

      These motors are fantastic, the civic with the 1.5T is much faster than the 2.0 N/A.. AND it gets better gas mileage.

      My friend’s lifted F150 2.7 ecoboost is considerably faster than another friend’s lifted Silverado 5.3, same size tires.
      The F150 gets 22mpg, the Silverado gets 16mpg.
      To be fair, the 5.0 F150s do quite well (apples to apples).

    22. Geriatric Member BRealistic's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 16th, 2005
      Location
      East-10EC
      Posts
      79,654
      Vehicles
      '18 RCSB EB F150
      11-23-2019 11:59 PM #121
      Quote Originally Posted by ImpeccableNEW View Post
      Cousins fusion 2.0 ecoboost gets 16mpg(what a pos) accord v6 last gen gets 21
      That's very low compared to normal results.
      Not a single owners shows less than 21 mpg.
      And most are around epa average.
      Your cousins must drive it around in manual mode in 2nd gear.
      Dumb-ass

      https://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG....rue&details=on
      https://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG....rue&details=on
      https://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG....rue&details=on
      https://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG....rue&details=on
      https://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG....rue&details=on

      And this is common... "Oh _____ is sh*t because I hear about this one guy's cousin that knows somebody and theirs is crap."
      Sound logic.

    23. Member worth_fixing's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 23rd, 2009
      Location
      Montreal, Qc
      Posts
      6,680
      Vehicles
      2014 Mazda3 Sport GS - 1982 Honda CB750K
      11-24-2019 09:05 AM #122
      Quote Originally Posted by Cabin Pics View Post
      Put a trailer behind the trucks.

      I bet the V8 still gets 12-14MPG and the 2.7 Ecoboost drops to 10MPG.
      you're probably right, and how many miles are covered on average towing vs mall crawling?

      turbos definitely save fuel because people could replace them with a Yaris most of the time. The times they want/need the power, the small turbo motor takes more fuel, but depending on your driving habits, it's probably worth it.
      http://badges.fuelly.com/images/sig-metric/286588.png
      Any car which holds together for a whole race is too heavy.

    24. Senior Member 2.0T_Convert's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 23rd, 2009
      Location
      NYC
      Posts
      21,196
      Vehicles
      Two fake rich sedans & one non-Prius hybrid
      11-24-2019 11:26 AM #123
      Quote Originally Posted by HI SPEED View Post
      It gets about the same fuel mileage that is my Toyota Sequoia. 10-12 mpg in city driving.
      There's the answer.

      EPA rating guidelines

      Window sticker rating for city driving assumes a very, very, VERY gentle acceleration curve. About 3.3 MPH per second for a blistering 0-40 of 12.12 seconds, 0-50 in a mind bending 15.15 seconds. I'm throwing myself off a ledge here and assuming you drive that company van with a greater sense of urgency.

      Small turbo engine, city driving, and always on the boost.

    25. Member
      Join Date
      Jan 18th, 2018
      Posts
      4,848
      Vehicles
      '16 TLX SH-AWD- NA is BEST
      11-24-2019 01:54 PM #124
      Quote Originally Posted by Ilikewaffles View Post
      The new Mercedes C300 with the 2.0 turbo breaks into the 13 second quarter miles, and gets 30mpg...

      These motors are fantastic, the civic with the 1.5T is much faster than the 2.0 N/A.. AND it gets better gas mileage.

      My friend’s lifted F150 2.7 ecoboost is considerably faster than another friend’s lifted Silverado 5.3, same size tires.
      The F150 gets 22mpg, the Silverado gets 16mpg.
      You are omitting a key part of the equation out.... transmissions

      My TLX has an ancient NA V6, weighs like 3800lb and is AWD.... but can get 30+ MPG on my commute, damn near entirely down to that ****ty ZF9

      That C300 has a "wideband" 9AT. I'd be curious what transmissions your friends' trucks have as well. Transmissions are the unsung heroes in recent car performance/fuel economy gains

    26. Member BlakeV's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 24th, 2015
      Location
      Original join 1999
      Posts
      1,880
      Vehicles
      2019 Audi S5 Sportback
      11-26-2019 06:23 PM #125
      Quote Originally Posted by CTK View Post
      You are omitting a key part of the equation out.... transmissions

      My TLX has an ancient NA V6, weighs like 3800lb and is AWD.... but can get 30+ MPG on my commute, damn near entirely down to that ****ty ZF9

      That C300 has a "wideband" 9AT. I'd be curious what transmissions your friends' trucks have as well. Transmissions are the unsung heroes in recent car performance/fuel economy gains
      You are omitting a key part of the equation out.... cylinders disactivation.

    Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •