Ford Oz to produce turbo 4-cyl engine for Falcon

[rj_astra]

E85 is a distraction...it takes a huge amount of water to produce ethanol and it's not like we have a lot spare in Aust.
Biodiesel might be a good future fuel.

Depends what you grow (and where) to produce the ethanol.

Diesel = dead end. Ever tightening emission rules will eventually kill diesel.

[Bozz]

Don't forget that you have to spool the turbo up to get the down-low torque; about the only time you can ever achieve the lowest-rpm torque-figures turbo car manufacturers claim is on highways going up long hills in high-gear. Lag always stops you from getting boost that low in the rev-range 'round town.

So it might be capable of going OK, but I suspect it's just ab out has to feel a bit doggy.

My 2 litre petrol turbo can make it up steeper hills at 60km/h in sixth gear than my 4 litre non turbo car can do in fifth.

I also believed your faulty logic until I drove a modern car.

[MartyHusseinXF]

My 2 litre petrol turbo has more RPM on board at 60km/h in sixth gear than my 4 litre non turbo has in fifth, thus indicating that its all about gearing vs torque.

Fixed.

[Road_Terrorist]

i think that if you want to move people to LPG you have to provide more incentives... EU govts. provide much more attractive incentives

and i think manufacturers have a fair way to go to make it easier on buyers... the EU has kits for most cars... even Corollas and that shit

That's because they know fuckall people in Europe actually use LPG, with the exception of the Italians. Everyone else in Europe uses diesel for economical cars. But then the EU loves to subsidising pointless stuff that pure competition would have killed off ages ago.

[itsnotagsr]

LPG has been cheap(ish) in Australia for years, yet the uptake is relatively small.

[Captiva Fan]

My 2 litre petrol turbo can make it up steeper hills at 60km/h in sixth gear than my 4 litre non turbo car can do in fifth.
I also believed your faulty logic until I drove a modern car.

My "faulty" logic describes the experience you have described.
Long, slow, steady uphill grades - no problem, the turbo has time to spool-up. From a standstill, it will never spool by 2500rpm let alone the 1500rpm or whatever VW tells you it will. So there will be lots of throttle in stop-start driving & hence lots of fuel.

[2JZR31]

Turbocharged cars have a dynamic power curve. The taller the gear, the better the curve looks as the turbo has time to spool. It shorter gears the engine can out accelerate the turbo causing a loss in power in the lower RPM ranges compared to the taller gears. You can guarantee the "11tybillion NM at 1500 RPM" sales pitch is achieved on an infinitely long ramp rate which might barely be achieved it top gear let alone first.

[RB30-POWER]

i was reading today power for the 2l ecoboost engine is from 171kw 325nm - 205kw 380nm.

not sure what option ford will go, however they are claiming same specs as the 3.6l holden so most likely the lower spec engine output.

fuel usage meant to be 8.0l/100.

i personally doubt it will be close to that anywhere but the freeway, but if you can get a 2 tonne coon doing 8l/100 around town, i'm in.

[Bozz]

My "faulty" logic describes the experience you have described.
Long, slow, steady uphill grades - no problem, the turbo has time to spool-up. From a standstill, it will never spool by 2500rpm let alone the 1500rpm or whatever VW tells you it will. So there will be lots of throttle in stop-start driving & hence lots of fuel.

whatever..... you clearly know all about modern cars you've never even sat in, let alone driven. What would I know about the car in my driveway, using lots of throttle and fuel in stop start driving... So ball breaking with the 7,000km on it averaging under 8L/100km.

MartyXF - 1400rpm in sixth with 2 litres vs 1200rpm in fifth with 4 litres doesn't make up for the 100% difference in capacity. My point wasn't to critisize but to credit what modern technology delivers.

I may not like what Ford currently has for sale but I'm eagerly awaiting what is coming in the future.

[floody]

Cannot see the most modern 2 litre turbo four doing a realistic 8l/100kms in a 1600+ kg car. Barely manage that in a 1350kg one with current tech, just how advanced is this thing?

[MartyHusseinXF]

My "faulty" logic describes the experience you have described.
Long, slow, steady uphill grades - no problem, the turbo has time to spool-up. From a standstill, it will never spool by 2500rpm let alone the 1500rpm or whatever VW tells you it will. So there will be lots of throttle in stop-start driving & hence lots of fuel.

Not sure about the VW but the Focus has the Variable Geometry Turbo which spools _really_ quick even from a standstill.

I don't see why they couldn't have put this on a Petrol motor to get rid of the performance characteristic you are describing.

There has been a lot of change in the current models, even compared to the turbo cars of mid 2000's.

[Captiva Fan]

whatever..... you clearly know all about modern cars you've never even sat in, let alone driven. What would I know about the car in my driveway, using lots of throttle and fuel in stop start driving...

Exactly, this is what I've been saying all along!
:p

Cannot see the most modern 2 litre turbo four doing a realistic 8l/100kms in a 1600+ kg car. Barely manage that in a 1350kg one with current tech, just how advanced is this thing?

Being an old fart I can't recall what Booz's car is, but I'm guessing from what he's said it's an A4 or Passat or similar ... and they're as heavy as you've said.
8L/100km I have my doubts too, I must admit, 1200kg Corollas don't manage that at the mo'. But 9L/100km real fuel economy is going to be better than any current Falcodore, and I reckon (without any actual knowledge about it yet) it'd beat the 3L Commode comfortably.

Not sure about the VW but the Focus has the Variable Geometry Turbo which spools _really_ quick even from a standstill.
I don't see why they couldn't have put this on a Petrol motor to get rid of the performance characteristic you are describing.

Diesel exhaust gases aren't as hot, so diesel variable-geometry turbos are cheaper to make; they've been fairly common for probably decades now.
It must still be expensive to make them for petrol cars though, I remember when the 911T first came out with the variable-geometry turbo & Garrett were playing with 'em & there was lots of discussion about how "in a couple of years" they'd be dirt cheap. That was ... gee, it'd be at least 7 years ago, wouldn't it? I know GM played with them on some US shitheap in the mid 80's, but the turbos fell apart.

[da9jeff]

8-9L/100km isnt that amazing, my 16yo peugeot gets that easily and so did my 18yo (fuck they're old) integra and i dont baby either car. They really have made fuck all progress in the last 20 odd years, the only reason they made such progress back then was the introduction of cats and unleaded fuel (ie EFI), since then they've sat on thier hands.

[Captiva Fan]

8-9L/100km isnt that amazing, my 16yo peugeot gets that easily and so did my 18yo (fuck they're old) integra and i dont baby either car. They really have made fuck all progress in the last 20 odd years, the only reason they made such progress back then was the introduction of cats and unleaded fuel (ie EFI), since then they've sat on thier hands.

I reckon they've made fairly good progress; but it's mostly been negated by the increased weight that sells cars.
Think of a 1500kg Focus, which is in the Corolla class, and then think of a KE10 Corolla back when full-sized cars like Falcons and Kingswoods were 1200kg (what's a GTHO Phase III, 1350kg or so?). The weight's just skyrocketed.

[da9jeff]

focus' are more like 1300, i know cause i was looking at em but was disapointed when i found they were both heavier and less powerful than my Mi16