Wards does not like the Eco-Boost

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

We Cant Wait wrote:
We all knew that ALL auto mfrgs. have been padding their MPG figures all along. They get their #'s while running on a Dyno thus no wind resistance, and only 2 tires for rolling resistance. There's no way real world MPG can come close to Dyno MPG.

1950 called and they want their post back. :B

1980 called and they want their post back. :B


I have stated over and over on this site that turbo's were a double edge sword. Sure, they can vary CID with air but they also are the worst for BSFC figures.

And yet people on this site state over and over that they want a 5.0 turbo engine to tow with. LOL, good luck with that. As dockmasterdave stated above, "horsepower= burning gas." You take a little ol turbo engine and make it a 7.0 CID with the turbo's air flow and it will burn 7.0 worth of fuel. It really is that simple.

A turbo increases an engines efficiency. That means it puts out more power for the fuel used.
Some people don't understand that engines are only around 20% efficient. That is only 20% (up from around 12% of years ago) of the energy used (fuel) is used to propel the vehicle. The rest is lost in heat and emissions.
Turbo'd engines are a few percentage points more efficient.
The more a manufacturer can tap into that wasted 80%, the better fuel economy.
So yes, more power can be had with the same or better economy.
In my own case I wen't from a Cummins that put out 125 HO to one that is more than double that (stock) and weighs 1500# more and got the exact same MPG. That's because the newer engine is that much more efficient.