more eco-stupid-boost problems

[DNeinstadt]

a bad one.

[Fast One]

I'm a big fan of boosted engines, but MPG is moot if the truck needs a slow-moving vehicle sign on the way up the hill.

Besides - turbocharging, per se, doesn't appreciably increase gas mileage under high throttle/high load conditions. It takes x amount of energy to move x amount of weight up a hill in x amount of time. Which means that moving the load up the hill at the posted speed limit would require a similar amount of fuel in either case, given that the difference in engine efficiency at high throttle/high load is likely only a few percent, at most.

Joel

[Z28SSMAN]

Yeah Joel, the eco-boost owners try to imply they get over 20 mpg regardless of their driving habits. Anyone who understands physics would realize that it takes a certain amount of energy to do a particular job. You cant get 22 mpg towing 9000 lbs. You also won't get 22 mpg when the engine is operated under moderate to extreme boost conditions. Driveability: The next time you drive in everyday traffic, make note of how much pressure you're actually applying to the gas pedal. You'll realize that owning a truck is more than full throttle acceleration.

[Fast One]

Exactly, Glenn. Take my GN for example. It gets 24-26 MPG on the highway @ 60 MPH in steady-state conditions, while hot-rodding around Uni on a weekend usually netted 15-17 MPG. Still better around town than my old big-blocks with similar power. However - it gets less than 2 MPG at the strip - pretty much the same as any other car of similar weight that runs similar times.

Joel

[Z28SSMAN]

Yeah and Ford sure has confidence in their powertrains. 60,000 miles vs 100,000 on a GM. They spew ads about how durable the engine is with all the 24 hour endurance tests. Why not 1 up GM and put a 150,000 mile warranty on it? I think we all know why. lol

[Quadroflux]

glad to get ford people mad and to stir the pot

[Fast One]

You'll get that around here sometimes...:smile tease: