
Turbochargers Will Keep Getting Better - dmmalam
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a18260/future-turbochargers-will-be-more-powerful-and-efficient/
======
fulafel
> While smaller turbocharged engines have improved EPA scores, in many of our
> road tests, we haven't seen such radical mileage swings compared with
> naturally aspirated engines. Ford's EcoBoost 2.7-liter and 3.5-liter V-6
> engines, for example, return mileage on par with Chevy's larger 6.2-liter
> V-8.

Are these really standard fare in the US? In Europe the norm is more like
1.0-1.6 liter turbo engines in new cars.

~~~
bluedino
>> In Europe the norm is more like 1.0-1.6 liter turbo engines in new cars.

The Ford Focus and Ford Fiesta are the smallest cars that Ford sells in the
US, and they are available with the 1.0 and 1.6 liter turbo engines.

Ford's mid-size car and crossover Ecoboost engines are the 1.5, 1.6, and 2.0
liter turbo engines.

The Ford Fusion sedan isn't a small vehicle, however. It's curb weight is
3,431 to 3,681 lbs.

The Ford Taurus full-size sedan is available with the 2.0 and 3.5 liter turbo
engines, it's curb weight is 3,917 to 4,327 lbs.

The 2.3, 2.7 and 3.5 liter turbo engines are found in Ford's full size SUVs
like the Explorer and Expedition, and full size 1/2 ton trucks like the F150.

~~~
ollie87
You can buy the Mondeo in the UK with the 1.0 Ecoboost (yes, even the Estate
version), which you'll know as the Ford Fusion.

------
peterwwillis
Wouldn't the development of turbochargers naturally direct itself toward
special industry/heavy duty applications, as climate change and new technology
spurs more investment in electric & autonomous vehicles? In five years, once
one in four (i'm pulling that number out of my ass) of every new car is a
hybrid, will the efficiency of turbos matter?

~~~
maxerickson
Those applications don't have the huge volumes that the vehicle market does.
Ford is going to sell 1 million turbos this year, what industrial market for
engines approaches that?

As to the relevance of turbos in the future, they increase peak power more
than anything else, so I would expect them to continue to be useful in
parallel hybrid configurations (if it enables a smaller ICE, it's probably a
win).

------
acd
You can possibily prespool turbo chargers so that the turbo pressure is
already there from start RPMs. Techniques to do that is either electric or
compressed air.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_turbocharger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_turbocharger)
[http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1094807_volvo-
reveals-450...](http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1094807_volvo-
reveals-450-hp-four-cylinder-with-electrically-driven-turbo-video)

------
iaw
We're heading in a good direction with turbochargers. I suspect we're getting
close to the Carnot limits for gasoline engines [1].

Next steps would be adapting the regenerative braking technology, like that on
the Porsche 918, into regular vehicles. There's a lot of kinetic energy wasted
in brakes and we're soon going to be able to recapture it.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle#Efficiency_of_rea...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle#Efficiency_of_real_heat_engines)

~~~
maxerickson
Is there something notable about the brakes in the Porsche? Regenerative
brakes are a big win in many of the hybrids that have been brought to market.

~~~
drcross
It's a significant car because it currently holds the lap record in
Nürburgring for a supercar.

~~~
Grazester
There is nothing notable about the regenerative brakes in the Porsche 918.
Other hybrids have been using regenerative brakes for years and years now. As
for a Nürburgring "record" I dont see the relevance in this conversation

------
hencq
With the direction this seems to be moving in with ever bigger turbos on
smaller engines, I wonder how long it will take before we simply remove the
piston engine altogether and just switch to (turbine) generators. It seems
this would work quite well as part of a hybrid setup.

~~~
Gravityloss
Large industrial processes can be analyzed by looking at flows of hot, warm
and cold fluids etc. They can then be optimized mathematically so you lose the
least energy while producing the same useful output.

Often people with already basic knowledge of thermodynamics can spot the large
inefficiency sources in many of the currently common processes. This stuff has
been known since the 1800s.

It's just that the implementation has been too expensive (payoff is too slow),
or politically inconvenient (the technology is in another department/company).
There might be some reliability or emissions or noise issues etc...

The world is full of massive technical inefficiencies and thus, great business
opportunities.

You can look at the car as an industrial process as well. Intercoolers,
capacitor energy recovery, heat pumps for heating (and not just for air
conditioning). Most of the mechanical technology is 100+ years old. The
turbocharger was patented in 1905. With batteries and capacitors and control
electronics there's some fairly new stuff.

You could for example skip the piston engine and instead have just a turbine
and then a bottoming engine with CO2 cycle recovering the waste heat. Ships
run with turbocharged diesel engines, but GE is championing precisely this
turbine + bottoming for them. So why not cars? There are some big operational
differences of course (heating the working fluid in an external combustion
engine takes a while). But there could be some big benefits too, like if you
don't have reciprocating machinery at all, the noise is different and there's
no vibration.

------
mtgx
This is like trying to improve the buggy whips when the cars first appeared.
Make them faster, cheaper, lighter - and ultimately pointless.

EVs will dominate new car sales within 10-15 years. And that's the more
pessimistic view.

~~~
ssmoot
I think that's a very optimistic view.

Full EVs are a drop in the bucket right now. The Model 3 isn't even released,
probably won't be widely available for another couple years, will likely cost
around $50K comparably equipped, and even then Tesla likely couldn't make
enough to make a dent in the overall market.

The Leaf is a great car (IMO), but even in a major metro (DFW) spot-charging
is really impractical. There are NO DC quick-chargers in North or North East
Dallas last I looked, and you at minimum have to have a subscription just to
have the option to pay to use them. There's a reasonable number of Blink
Network chargers around, but no one who's actually used those would suggest
they're a viable way to maintain a charge without major compromises. Using a
Leaf to commute to the suburbs is an experience fraught with stress as well.

Maybe in a couple years the Leaf will have kicked the range-anxiety issue to
the curb. And the Chevy Beat looks very promising. 2 cars in the range of the
average new car purchase price does not make for domination though.

My prediction is that it's realistically going to be _at least_ 3 car
generations before that has a chance of happening, and most manufacturers
haven't even released a full EV yet. That's a good 15 to 20 years as a best
case scenario. That doesn't address the Truck and family SUV market either.
These things are made for hauling. They're going to suck down a lot more
power. "Work Trucks" aren't going to convert for much longer Though I think
there's a good chance many will go hybrid in ~10 years. There's got to be a
ton of utility in a series-hybrid truck for towing, site power, etc.

Just my 2c. I've actually owned a Leaf. I think EVs are great. A lot more so
than people even realize. Instant torque and acceleration response makes them
really fun to drive. That doesn't mean I think they'll somehow become dominant
in the same timespan that it took Nissan to come out with a massively
compromised diesel truck nobody is going to buy. That's beyond optimistic IMO.

------
donkeyd
I keep seeing more cars with tiny engines and turbos, which have decent
performance and very good fuel economy.

~~~
arethuza
Yeah - we have a 1.2 turbo ŠKODA Yeti which is a great wee car. Had a couple
of VW's before that had the 1.4 twin charged engine (turbo and a supercharger
as well) which I liked as well.

[NB I have had cars with much bigger engines in the past (e.g. 4.4 BMW) and I
honestly don't miss them].

~~~
ollie87
I have the same engine in the SEAT Ibiza. 1.2 8v only a single overhead cam,
but direct injection and a turbo. Makes 105 PS and 175Nm in the model I have,
but in the larger cars they tune it to 110 PS.

Most of the time it feels alright, about on par with a 1.6 16v engine but
sometimes I miss the power of my old RenaultSport Clio.

~~~
arethuza
I certainly don't miss the speeding tickets! I used to speed regularly - the
last time I got a ticket I decided to stop speeding completely (I literally
_never_ go above the marked speed limits).

So no worries about speeding tickets, use much less fuel, I find driving less
stressful and it turns out that it doesn't seem to make a huge difference to
how long it takes to get anywhere.

Edit: I find it amusing that when I look into the engine bay of our Yeti that
I can actually see the road in the gap behind the engine - probably makes it
much easier to service!

~~~
ollie87
The funniest thing about the 1.2 TSI is the oil filter pointing straight at
you.

Looks like you could change it in seconds.

