Wards does not like the Eco-Boost

Turtle n Peeps wrote:


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.

The problem with turbos on a gas engine is the fact that they still have to try and maintain a specific fuel/air ratio (In fact, they go richer when they are in the boost, just less so with direct injection), while on a diesel, ratio doesn't matter so much for the most part. That's why the BSFC is worse for turbo-charged gasoline engines and on a diesel they are just a pure benefit.

That's why I also questioned if some sort metric or careful balance is shattered when you spec a 2.7 on a 4x4 vs 2x4, as the fuel economy ratings vary widely (22 hwy vs. 26 hwy). Typically, adding 4x4 on most powertrains just results in a 1 mpg loss in fuel economy, typically not a big deal. Still, I think waiting for at least half a year on fuelly will tell the full story of the combination of a lighter chassis and the ecoboost motors.