Toyota’s World’s Most Thermal Efficient Engine; 38.5 percent, Turbo Joining!

You probably want to get feel and comparison. The ecoboost 1.6l ford gets 2 more mpg than the 2.5l according to your chart. This gives it the same combined mileage as the camry, while the 2.5 ford is 2mpg behind the camry. There are other reasons the fusion is less efficient with its normally aspirated engine. Remember, when these enginese are tuned for efficiency the bigger gains are on highway mileage. The big boost though is with 2L turbos, like toyota is proposing versus similar hp 6 cyclinder engines.

Turbo charged engines can get higher efficiencies than NA engines, but they really pay off 1.8L and above. When you get down to 1.4L and bellow on 4 cyclinders the gain is much less. Mazda's skyactiv - high compression, direct injection, variable valve lift - may be the most efficient strategy for under 200 hp engines.

 

It is same for Explorer Ecoboost, Insideline has 4x2 Ecoboost and 4x4 V6 as long termers and the difference is less than 1mpg, easily attributed to AWD.

I think only turbo's that got better mileage than comparable larger engines (but modern larger engines, not some old tech engines), is BMW... but even that is comparing their 2.0 Turbo to their 3.o I6 Turbo, so obviously it will get better mpg.

However with BMW's, big plus is that you can chip them easily and get more power... and they are simply better vs smaller V6's, like 2.5l in IS250. So people dig that.

But 1.6l in Fusion is only better against Chevy Malibu, that got horrible results in test... If you cant beat 2.5l Camry, in speed or mileage then what are you doing? Honda new 2.4l with DI is much much better... more power and better fuel consumption.

 

that wont be possible though... 2.0l competes in power with V6, there is no way it can have better consumption than 2.5 AR engine. Similar turbo engines get way less right now.

 

important part with DI is that adds 8% power across the torque and hp curve... Prius would be perfect with 10hp more.

 

For those that don't think a 2L turbo can do as well as a 2.5L atkinson in a hybrid, it should be remembered that a turbo like the dual scroll in the bmw 2L gets boost with high efficiency as low as 1300 rpm. The less efficient ranges will be bellow 1300 rpm, which can be cut off with a hybrid with a high power battery, and at high power. The peak efficiency is higher and friction is lower. 2L turbos are rarely made purely for efficiency though, but you can do this, and cut off the low efficiency high power range with a eco button. What won't happen is a 2L turbo getting more mpg than a much lower power 1.8L atkinson. It also will cost about $1000 more. But if you are putting the beast in a higher power car this may be worth the extra price. Plenty of people pay to upgrade to a turbo or V6. BMW's turbo has variable lift, allowing it to run in the miller cycle most of the time. The other technique that vw has been able to do, is to add cylinder idling on one of their 4cyl turbo charged engine, which lets it run as a 2cylinder. I would expect di, but not turbo in the next prius because of cost of manufacturing.

 

well i have yet to see small displacement turbo having higher efficiency let alone "large" one... 2.0l turbo will not compare with 2.5l, but with V6 in efficiency and power.

If 1.6l Ecoboost cant get real life efficiency of 2.5l AR without DI, how can 2.ol turbo do it? It cant.

 

The tricky part with comparing N/A to turbo power is the fact that turbocharged engines usually have more power under the curve and a much broader torque curve. So peak numbers may be similar but the turbo car would feel faster. Not saying this is the case here but something you have to consider.

 

Note how the torque of the turbo(ecoboost) climbs fast and then plateaus. It reaches max torque at @2000rpm. The 5.0L doesn't reach its peak until after 4000rpm. The 6.2L is actually close to the ecoboost and peaks higher, but guzzles gas. 13mpg city/18 hwy/15 compined to the ecoboost's 16/22/18 (2wd).



For those with the discipline not to make use of the turbo boost, it is possible to get better fuel economy than the larger NA engine it compares to in performance. The Fusion 2.0L does have 2 less cylinders and 1.5L displacement than the Camry V6.

 

One thing to note well is that power = torque x rpm. The turbo needs to be lugged in a higher gear to run at a fuller load. That means it low power efficiency - city - is not much better. A hybrid can cut this off, by doing an electric pulse and glide. When you get 40 mph and higher, as long as you are in a higher gear, you will get better fuel economy. This comes out in the highway figures, and is helped by the 6 to 8 speed transmissions, or a cvt or eCvt.

I think an eco button should be available that cuts off that high end. Turn it off when you want to run it. The camry V6 will get a better 0-60, but a turbo may feel better when your not racing.

The other thing noted is the lower weight of the turbo 4 helps handling, as these cars have a weight balance that is front heavy. I would expect this new toyota ice put in a camry to be as efficient as the 2.5L with the power of the V6. It should also get better mileage over 40mph with the cruze control on, but fun to drive factors may make you drive faster.

 

plenty of mags tested Camry V6 and Sonata 2.0 Turbo and V6 and Sonata was both slower and less economical in real life conditions.


2011 Hyundai Sonata SE 2.0T vs 2012 Toyota Camry SE V-6 vs 2012 Volkswagen Passat VR6 SEL Comparison - Motor Trend


0-60
Sonata: 7s
Camry: 5.8s

Passing 45-65 mph
Sonata: 3.7s
Camry: 2.8s
MPG
Sonata: 23.3 MPG
Camry: 24.7 MPG


This is what I have been harping about... real life does not support these claims.
Now against crappy old series engine first introduced 20 years ago, modern turbo might do well, but against modern NA engine, I dont see the beef. Theory is great but reality is different.
In Europe it is different story - our petrols are usually cheapest versions, so they are there to be cheap only, so turbo's have advantages although then it is better to pay a little bit more to get diesel turbo.

 

The V6 is "actually" faster. The turbo feels better lugging a high gear in efficient mode. The modern V6 uses cylinder idling, to act like a 3 cylinder at low power high speeds (highway cruizing) to reduce its disadvantage.

Perhaps the guys at motortrend got a bad car, these guys get 6.1 0-60, still slower 0-60 than that pasat, but not so much that you would notice.
2011 Hyundai Sonata SE 2.0T Test – Long-Term Review – Car and Driver

If you kick a turbos a$$ its going to gulp fuel, if you drive it for fuel economy, or even just set the cruise control, its going to get better fuel economy than a 6 cylinder. There isn't much doubt about the fact the the problems with the sonata turbo have nothing to do with its engine, other than sound. There are complaints about the transmission and steering, compared to the passat v6. The sonata is much less expensive than those comparison cars. If you occasionally want the acceleration, but are in traffic or cruise control the rest of the time, the turbo 4 wins. If you are always gunning it, not much beats a modern turbo 6 We saw clarkson get better mileage on a bmw M3 than a prius also, so YMMV.

I would expect a toyota 2L turbo to be tuned more for efficiency than this sonata and have less hp. The bmw 328i and fusion 2L both get 240hp from their turbos. As mentioned in other posts, and eco button would be helpful to pick the right transmission gear and cut off the excessively rich mixture at high power levels that causes poor fuel economy. In a hybrid this would naturally happen.

 

there is nothing wrong with the car, it is always the same in any comparo. Hyundai turbo's are "known" to be overated and to get less performance than what they should from their numbers. It is same for Veloster for instance.

turbo's are theoretically good, but so far, someone has to prove it. As they keep adding tech to turbo petrols, their price is also going head to head with TDI's in Europe too.