TTAC: How European Fuel Economy Testing Will Kill The Naturally Aspirated Engine

As much as I admire the Prius HSD system, I also admire Fords turbocharged Ecoboost engines. We recently purchased an 11 model Ford F150 supercrew for winter use and trailer pulling. I am very impressed in how this small 3.5 L Ecoboost engine can produce enough power to move a 6500 pound pickup with a loaded 15,000 pound trailer attached with more power avalible than necessary (365 HP and 420 ft /lb torque,), yet make 20+ MPG when unloaded and driven in a maner that encourages good fuel economy.

Turbocharged small engines have been avalible for decades, but it took direct fuel injection to allow them to produce power and economy in the same package.

 

They didn't need direct injection. Just a light foot. Have '13 Sonic now, averaging around 40mpg, and it is port injected. The model might be getting direct injection this year. Most turbos of the past were more performance marketed. Leading to less fuel economy conscious people using them.

The issue the article brings up is that fuel economy testing is done with a light foot. So low displacement turbos do well on them. But in the hands of a typical driver in the real world, they don't return numbers quite as well. The 5-cycle test for the EPA should mandatory for them and hybrids to give a more accurate idea of what they can do. The 2 cycle plus calculations can exaggerate their performance. The NEDC will give an even greater discrepency between test result and real world.