Ford Twin-Turbos Target Fuel Economy

Ford introduced a twin-turbo V-6 engine for the upcoming Lincoln MKS sedan as a concept in January in a totally different car. Now the company is saying not only is this new engine — called TwinForce — on the way, but it will come in the form of four-, six- and even eight-cylinder gasoline engines in the future.

Ford is saying the twin-turbo will deliver diesel-like fuel economy, upward of 25% better than non-turbo engines of the same size. 

We’ll reserve final judgment on the plan until we hear more about the actual engines, not just the concept and plans. However, a highly efficient engine that doesn’t sacrifice power for mileage could be just the thing to help Ford come out of its current lull.

Ford Claims Twin-Force Will Save Fuel (AutoWeek)

Related
MKS to Get 3.7-liter V-6 (KickingTires)
2007 Detroit Auto Show: Lincoln MKR (Cars.com)

Comments

I think it's a great idea. I'd buy a little twin turbo four banger from Ford if the styling was right. Even if it is a Ford and I promised myself I never would. Bring on the whine and sneeze!

How would a engine of the same size produce better fuel efficiency and more power just because it has a turbo? Or is there some other feature that makes it more efficient in spite of the twin turbos?

Look's awesome.
And to Dan, Turbo’s can help save fuel by adding power to help the engine do less work to move the car. But most turbo’s take up more fuel.

Most turbos use more fuel because they're tuned for optimum performance.

I remeber BMW talked about how turbo engines actualy gain about 10% efficent. I assume a twin turbo could gain 20%, and if ford says 25 percent I assume its been tweaked some. I would expect if aiming for fuel efficent you might have a modest hp gain of about 20. But thats me speaking out of my ass too since I don't know how engine size will affect gain in milleage. Garrett who makes turbos explains it best so visit there site. My understand is that a turbo recaptures the exhaust from the combustion of gas. The exhaust recapture goes through the turbo turning a turbine which can result in increased gas milleage or power or both.

Just my 2 cents:

Like Dave T has said, turbos CAN be used for fuel efficiency, but most manufacturers don't go that route - they would have it for power (hence really such fuel efficiency) instead. Why? Well, which one do u wanna hear:

#1 - My twin turbo gives me 300+ hp!
#2 - My twin turbo gives me 150 hp, but I can get 40 mpg!

Most will pick #1. If you want fuel economy (hence saving ur own $$$), DON'T BUY A TURBO CAR!!! Present days 4 cyl engines from imports give excellent fuel efficiency already (not domestics, unfortunately), so go with those NA (Natural Aspiration). Turbos will give u nitemare once u hit the 100K miles mark (or sooner). Replacing a turbo is an very expensive job (could reach thousands $ depends on complexity and turbo made, and at many times, when the turbo is "blown," some part of the engine can be damaged too!). Thus, you definitely don't want a turbo engine in a family/economy sedan. The replacement cost of turbos can >>>> value of car in 5 yr., esp if it's a Ford.

That's 1 reason why the Japanese brands have used much fewer turbo vehicles nowadays when compared to the 80's/90's.

I've now warned you...

Sorry...typos:

Hence really SUCK fuel efficiency...

Present days' 4 cyl engines...

Another thing - if you live in states with tight emission law, such as CA...forget 'bou turbos. Once they get old, good luck passing smog test or emissions test - unless you are very good in having regular maintenance to ur turbo vehicle. Moreover, due to the fact that turbo engines work harder compare to NA (turbo engines recapture exhaust gas and use it again), the engines will go down faster if you are always "zoom zoom"ing your engine :)

Also, you can tow using turbo engines...not that anyone tow anythg with their cars anymore nowadays...

For the most part, I agree with Amuro Ray. I believe Turbos also increase car insurance as well right?

What the heck is wrong with me today?

You CAN'T tow using turbo engines...

First of all, turbos do not "recapture exhaust and use it again". They simply use the exhaust to spin an impeller that is attached via a shaft to another impeller to provide boost. Turbo engines do not need to have as high of a compression ratio than NA engines. The turbo does need to be properly taken care of, however. That is why I like how Audi had (has?) coolant afterrun pumps that run the coolant and cooling fan after the car is shut off to provide proper cool down. Turbo cars can require more maintenance, but if they are taken care of, they can last even longer than a naturally aspirated engine. I had great mileage in all my turbo cars, all with well over 100,000 miles. And none had any engine problems. Turbos rule, if taken care of properly.

The "domestics are bad, imports are our salvation" lines are getting pretty tired... Domestics return good fuel economy too.

Panic, I believe he meant they recapture the energy from the exiting exhaust that's otherwise wasted, which is true.

The new trend in Europe is follow the VW turbo diesel TDI.
You can get 40 mpg in a sedan with it.

I still don't get it.
Twin turbo and better fuel economy shouldn't have an equal sign between them...Right?

Cody, u misunderstood me. What I meant what, in terms of fuel efficiency and 4 cyl engine, the imports are way ahead of the domestics, not domestics cars (in general) are bad overall. That's due to the fault of domestics spending so much effort and resources on v6 & V8 in the past 20+ years, whereas both Asians & Eurpoeans still heavily on 4 cyl (or even 3cyl) due to straight emission and fuel consumption tax issue. Look, you have seen domestics using imports (Ford Aspire, GM''s Aveo, & Chrylser's new deal with Cheryl on small 4 cyl cars) to complete with the J & E on fuel efficient vehicles, but not the other way around. Look, even GM & Chrylsers have admitted that they can't produce economy, 4 cyl cars as good and efficient as the imports in various news reports.

J: Twin Turbo SHOULD & CAN = Fuel Efficient, but != what the consumers or manufacturers are expecting. Funny thg here - I wonder what's gonna be like if Bimmer's 1-series with the Twin Turbo, instead of having the 300+ hp as reported in many auto websites, have only 100hp but can go 50 mpg? :)

Did someone say that you can't tow with a turbo? They must not have seen any of the heavy duty pick ups? Almost all of them have TURBO diesel engines and produce excellent fuel economy compared to a NA gas engine of equivalent specs.

Since we are talking 'bou CAR engines here, that's why I stated you can't tow using turbos - whether it's gasoline or diesel. Truck's diesel engine is another issue. If you wanna know why, visit cartalk.com (can go thru's cars.com > Advice, and select cartalk, then type turbo and tow). Reason in short answer is 'coz you'll, very quickly, burn the turbo due to the extra demand for power on the turbos when towing. Turbos (for cars) are designed for that short spurt of power when you need to, NOT for continuous needs of power (as in the case of towing). Continuous use of turbo = continuous spinning of the turbos = blown turbos.

I've done a lot of research when I purchased my Twin Turbo Z...which was gearred for performance, not for gas efficiency (though it's ok, now getting 28 mpg @ 130K...but boy, I can't really race it all the time like I wanna 'coz the age of the turbos.) BTW, if you wanna know why turbo cars last much SHORTER than an NA cars due to blown turbo, or cost of replacing turbos, also visit cartalk.com.

Thus, my recommendation is NOT buy a turbo car as a family/economy (or a supercharged one) commuter. Buy one with NA engine.

You can argue with me all u want, as that won't cost you anything; you never wanna argue with your own wallet though...

Okay, so turbos CAN increase fuel efficiency. I'll buy that, but I'd really like to know HOW. I.E. What is done differently than when you are using a turbo for performance? What is going on inside the engine (explaining via the laws of thermodynamics or other physics is fine if need be) differently? Are they running a leaner mixture, just more of it? Maybe this is too long to explain here, but if anyone has a good link, would they mind posting it?

I don't believe that adding a turbo or two will increase fuel efficiency over an otherwise identical engine. Turbochargers essentially give an engine an infinitely variable displacement. A two liter engine running at 7 psi of boost is combusting the same amount of air/fuel as a three liter normally aspirated engine; but of course the physical dimensions don't change so there is less internal friction than a three liter engine therefore less fuel is needed.

Well, to be honest, the reason why turbo = fuel efficiency needs to twist the truth a little bit. Basically, what you can have now is a smaller engine size, but with more hp. So think of it this way:

Car A & B are of the same model, but different engine.

Car A: 1500cc turbo engine gives ~180 hp.
Car B: 2500cc NA engine gives ~180 hp.

Using this as an example, if you buy car A, it will uses less fuel, yet giving u the same "zoom zoom" as car B. Thus, in terms of power and car size, the turbo engine will give u "better" fuel efficiency since engine displacement is smaller.

OTOH, if there is Car C of the same model, but only has a 1500cc NA engine, it will probably have ~120 hp, but uses just a little bit less fuel than car A. So, in terms of fuel efficiency, Car A with turbo engine wins.

Remember, this is fuel efficiency, so it's being calculated in the fashion of sthg like amount of fuel/vehicle size. This fuel efficiency doesn't really give you better MILES PER GALLON per se.

This makes even less sense.
Similar amount of fuel is still needed for the same output from a smaller engine. It should have a relationship between power and fuel economy.
The same gallon of gasoline can provide the same amount of energy no matter how it is being used.
So that's why I don't see why it can improve mileage.

Amuro,

Okay, I'll buy that argument. Domestics focused on V6 and V8 development vs. 4-cyl due to consumer tastes over the years. I wouldn't lump all Asian countries in the fuel efficient group though. Many of the Korean 4-cyl engines came from older European and American (GM Australia) designs since their auto industry started up fairly recently (within the last 30 or so years) under the Pakchun-hi administration. Rather than try to start from scratch, they leased or stole technology from European and American manufactures (kind of like the Chinese are doing now). None of those engines were really fuel efficient or powerful (look at the 2L engine in the Suzuki Forenza as an example). Since the Koreans started adding VVT technologies to those older designs (which they've copied from the Japanese), they started getting better power/economy from the old blocks, but not to the level of the Japanese. I'm still not certain the Koreans can design four-cylinder engines to the level of the Japanese (look at the new Chrysler "world engines" which was designed primarily by Hyundai as an example, fuel economy is not so good although power is up).

I wouldn't group the Germans in either. To get a good German four cylinder, it almost has to be turbo charged. Look at the old VW 2L they used to put in the base Jetta (OLD, SOHC, 8-valves) and then compare that to the upgrade (1.8, DOHC, Turbo, 20-valves).

Hmm, not sure why I bothered to type all that...I guess I agree with you that the U.S. only recently started putting an honest effort into 4-cyl design and are a little behind the Japanese, but the current domestic fours offered (Ecotec and Duratech) offer decent power and economy, even if they are not as refined as the Honda and Toyota fours.

It's true that a specific amount of gasoline has a fixed amount of energy, but not all that (potential) energy is converted into mechanical energy. Most of the energy is dissipated as heat i.e. frictional losses. If you can minimize those losses you'll get better mileage.

J-
It's not about how many joules of energy exist in a gallon of gasoline. You're right, that doesn't change. But, when you're cruising, and need little power, your turbo isn't engaging and you're spinning a small motor (like 1.5L) so there's less internal friction and less internal moment of inertia. Therefore you use less energy turning over the motor. If you had a larger, naturally aspirated motor that produced the same amount of peak horsepower, there'd be more losses when cruising due to the larger, heavier motor.

Amuro-
This article talks about getting 25% better fuel efficiency than an engine of the SAME SIZE. That's what confuses me. How can slapping a turbo on something reduce it's fuel consumption for the same power?

Has anyone looked at the fuel mileage and power numbers for the Saturn Sky and the Redline? The redline uses a smaller turbocharged engine and produces more power and better mileage than the base model.
Base 2.4litre 172hp 166tq 19/25mpg
Redline 2.0litre 260hp 260tq 19/28mpg - engine has direct injection as well.

Just a side not: The ecotech (which is believed by many, a great engine) was actually designed by Honda, so GM might actually have a good engine on their hands.

So fuel efficiency...turbos
In theory, turbos are supposed to increase mileage because they are getting 100 percent(sometimes more) volumetric efficiency. This in turn, is making a better burn, less fuel in burnt and viola: more power.
In a modern day EFI engine we have our PCM and computer. Our PCM will dump more fuel into our cylinders when we have a cold block. Just as so, it will dump more into the cylinders at 25 MPH/4500 rpms then say 50MPH/4500rpms. Or, if you are towing something. Just like drafting. Because you move into a low pressure area(drafting itself), and maintain the same speed and same rpms, your engine is not working as hard, or using as much fuel.

The problem with fuel eco and turbo's is that, well, they arn't built for fuel eco. Its for speed and power. If an automotive co. can get 110 percent volumetric effecency, then they are going to design it to dump even more gas in too. That just equals even more power.
If driven and set up right, a turbo can be a gas saver. Is it econmically beyond the maintantece and price???? Thats another question.
People, people. When are we going to learn? Cars arn't meant to be fuel efficent. Its a shame, I know.

S-Man-
Sorry if I'm still a bit confused, perhaps you can help.
My understanding is this: Using a turbo will increase the volumetric efficiency. That's what it's designed to do. All that means though is that there are more air molecules inside the cylinder than there would be if it were normally aspirated. That's good, because we don't have any problem getting enough fuel into the engine, it's the air that's the limiting factor. However, that air doesn't do anything unless it's being reacted with a hyrdocarbon (or other fuel) such as gasoline or diesel, so if we have too much air, we just let it pass right through, no harm done. If the normally aspirated engine had an overly rich mixture, and you couldn't reduce the fuel content of the mix, the only solution would be to add more air via a turbo or supercharger, or pass uncombusted fuel right out the exhaust (very bad for fuel efficiency and emissions). However, with modern fuel injection we're quite good at controlling the fuel-air ratio in the cylinders. As you mentioned, the cars computer will adjust the ratio of fuel and air it dumps into the engine depending depending on load, but there is a limit as to how much fuel it can add because of the finite quantity of air available. A turbo or supercharger allows you to add more air, and therefore fuel, into each combustion stage of the cycle causing more power.
This makes it clear how one could develop more power from the same engine (or the same power from a smaller engine), but how would one then turn this around to use less fuel? I don't understand how being able to shove more stuff into the combustion chamber will result in less stuff being used. Having less fuel in each explosion would not produce the same power no matter how much air you have.
Again, if it's too long to explain here, please post a link.

Sorry, first line of last paragraph should have read:
"This makes it clear how one could develop more power from the same engine (or the same power from a smaller engine), but how would one then turn this around to use less fuel from the SAME SIZE engine?"

Dan, its kinda like buying generic peas instead of name brand peas; getting the same thing, but using less resources.
It waste less (key words here) POTENTIAL POWER. By increasing volumetric eff., we are getting more bang for our buck right? Same amount of gas+ 100 percent vol. eff.= better burn off and less waste. Now, corelate this to the idea of driving like there is an egg underneath your foot to save gas. Same concept.
However as I said, before that cars aren't made to be efficient, its the truth. Say we have a car pre turbo. The computer thinks that 75 percent is good, and 60 percent is acceptable and normal at high rpm's (which is true). The fuel/air ratio is calibrated for those standards by the pcm. Now a car post turbo:When it is are putting more air into the cylinder, the computer gets a bit confused and dumps more gas into the engine because it wants to use the same calibration standards. This is why we have more HP, not gas milage. I hope this explains Dan.

So let me see if I have this right.
The way you use a turbo to increase fuel efficiency is that you put more air into the cylinder, thereby keeping the volumetric efficiency at 100% at all times. This means that the same amount of air is in the cylinder regardless of how many RPM you are running. Normally the volumetric efficiency drops at high RPM because the intake valve is open for a smaller amount of time, allowing less air to enter and therefore less fuel can be burnt, so power drops off at high RPM. But, the difference when tuning for fuel efficiency rather than power comes in when deciding how much fuel to put into the cylinders. When tuning for power, you keep the air-fuel ratio the same, and therefore maintain the bang per cycle, but ofcourse uses more fuel because cycles are clicking by faster. When tuning for fuel efficiency, you lean out the air-fuel ratio in each cylinder as RPM rises.
I think this is where my confusion arises. Is either of these ideas correct?
1) Having a leaner ratio allows for a more complete burn, and therefore uses the gasoline more efficiently?
2) We can get away with less fuel at high RPM if we have a reliable air supply. Is this true? Does the shorter throw time mean that less fuel can burn in a cycle anyway? So, by keeping the ratio constant, we're just throwing some unused gasoline out the exhaust valves (probably to continue burning down the exhaust pipes)?

Thanks for putting up with my continued confusion. I'm learning alot here, and am quite excited!

Wait, I think I may have it!
After re-reading your post, I think there's one fact that I'm not aware of that may solve my confusion:
Does a leaner mixture cause the fuel to burn more completely and thereby allow more energy to come from the same gasoline? (this is the result of "better burn off and less waste")
If so, then in the same size engine, running at the same RPM, we can use a leaner mixture and still develop the same amount of power if we're using more of the combustion chamber by raising the volumetric efficiency via forced aspiration. But that leaner mixture is burning more efficiently than before, so we can lean it even a bit more than we otherwise could, so in the end we use less fuel.

S-man,

GM's ecotec engine was not designed by Honda. I'm not sure where you got that from. The first line of ecotec engines was designed by Opel with help from Cosworth on the DOHC cylinder head. The second "global" family that we see today in so many GM cars was designed by a team led by Opel that included the major automotive players within GM. If you want to read about it in more detail, check out the link below.

http://www.answers.com/topic/gm-family-ii-engine

Cody, you are indeed right. My mistake. It is the 3.5 V6 that was designed by honda. Althought, I am not sure what vehicles they went in to. I know GM also purchased tannys from Honda too.

S-man, the only vehicle the Honda 3.5SOHC engine went into was the Saturn VUE. The VUE's that were equipped with the Honda V-6 also had the Honda 5-speed auto tranny. These are the only GM vehicles with Honda powertrain. This was done because Honda bought some other engines from GM so this was their trade-off.

I'm not sure if the facts are right in this post. I've read other articles about Ford's "twin-force" engine in which Ford claims to achieve better fuel economy than a larger engine that would achieve the same power. For example, a turbo-six that performs like a V-8 with V-6 fuel economy or a turbo-four that performs like a large V-6. That would definitely make more since. I guess we'll see as more information becomes available.

seeeing how id get on puttin twin turbo on a 1997 vs coomodore any suggestions