GM Developing Twin Turbo V6 Eco-Boost Fighter

[BluLightning]

Re: GM Developing Twin Turbo V6 Eco-Boost Fighter

Now that was funny! ;D

Besides, we all know what happens when a Ford Fiesta matches up with a "Baddie Corvette" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLhnLJl4TZA

I would take either of those.

[38P]

Re: GM Developing Twin Turbo V6 Eco-Boost Fighter

I drove a Fiesta at SEMA. Unfortunately MT is sitting on my video of it.

On the tight course Ford set up out back of the Convention Center, it wasn't bad for an inexpensive FWD with "mainstream" tires. The course wasn't long enough to need much power. Ford's euro-tuned small FWDs are the best handling FWDs around. That's one of the reasons that BBC "Top Gear" viewers voted Ford #1.

g.m. had one that kicked it's eco @$$ 25 years ago , installed in an all black tux

None of the 1980s GM production turbo V6s had nearly the "power density" or horsepower-per-cube of even the first EcoBoost mill. In emissions-legal trim, the EcoBoost has ~ 100 h.p. over the antique pushrod turbo V6s. DOHC 4-valve heads, variable valve timing, and direct injection help make the difference.

[dieselgeek]

Re: GM Developing Twin Turbo V6 Eco-Boost Fighter

None of the 1980s GM production turbo V6s had nearly the "power density" or horsepower-per-cube of even the first EcoBoost mill. In emissions-legal trim, the EcoBoost has ~ 100 h.p. over the antique pushrod turbo V6s. DOHC 4-valve heads, variable valve timing, and direct injection help make the difference.

True, but the EcoBoost doesn't have anywhere near the potential on "stock parts" that the Buick turbo v6's had. The ecoboost v6's guts are already max'd out - whereas a few simple mods to the old Buick v6 turbo - which cost about as much as a screwdriver - would quickly surpass the potential of said Ecoboost.

And remember this is bangshift.com - not autoblog - so which do you think that most peopl here care about more - stock power, or power potential-per-dollar?

[IRONHEAD]

Re: GM Developing Twin Turbo V6 Eco-Boost Fighter

I drove a Fiesta at SEMA. Unfortunately MT is sitting on my video of it.

On the tight course Ford set up out back of the Convention Center, it wasn't bad for an inexpensive FWD with "mainstream" tires. The course wasn't long enough to need much power. Ford's euro-tuned small FWDs are the best handling FWDs around. That's one of the reasons that BBC "Top Gear" viewers voted Ford #1.

g.m. had one that kicked it's eco @$$ 25 years ago , installed in an all black tux

None of the 1980s GM production turbo V6s had nearly the "power density" or horsepower-per-cube of even the first EcoBoost mill. In emissions-legal trim, the EcoBoost has ~ 100 h.p. over the antique pushrod turbo V6s. DOHC 4-valve heads, variable valve timing, and direct injection help make the difference.

gnx
bye bye

[38P]

Re: GM Developing Twin Turbo V6 Eco-Boost Fighter

None of the 1980s GM production turbo V6s had nearly the "power density" or horsepower-per-cube of even the first EcoBoost mill. In emissions-legal trim, the EcoBoost has ~ 100 h.p. over the antique pushrod turbo V6s. DOHC 4-valve heads, variable valve timing, and direct injection help make the difference.

True, but the EcoBoost doesn't have anywhere near the potential on "stock parts" that the Buick turbo v6's had. The ecoboost v6's guts are already max'd out - whereas a few simple mods to the old Buick v6 turbo - which cost about as much as a screwdriver - would quickly surpass the potential of said Ecoboost.

I disagree. The stock turbo on the Buick V6s was a major limiting factor. Moreover, the Buicks had fairly lousy factory heads, small valves, a marginal production block, and cast pistons. To reliably get serious power out of one required replacing virtually all of the turbo set-up, ported or aftermarket heads, and at least forged pistons (or very careful fuel management). Most of the big power Buicks used a pricy "Stage II" block, and not a two-bolt main production block.

The EcoBoost engine is also turbo-limited. But the Detroit Street Rods EcoBoost '34 Fort shown at 2009 SEMA was reportedly making over 400 h.p. on almost entirely stock parts (the exhaust manifolds were fabricated for packaging and the air filter and post-turbine exhaust were less restrictive). The EcoBoost block is much more robust than any GM production block from the 1980s. While the GDI system is new ground for the aftermarket (just like SEFI was back in '86-'87), the path to big power is going to be running the direct injectors as secondary injectors on alcohol and adding a gasoline port injection system as a primary system. Of course this will require some aftermarket controllers and tuning. Just like the Buick, serious engines will need to upgrade the pistons and rods.

The one obvious advantage for the Buick was that it was installed in RWD vehicles. As of yet, the first EcoBoost V6 has not been factory-installed in anything very attractive to grassroots hotrodders.

[IRONHEAD]

Re: GM Developing Twin Turbo V6 Eco-Boost Fighter

face it, your a bais ford guy..
it's alright.. we know it, and are cool with it..
but g body buicks.. where fly'n with stock short and long blocks for years,untill the aftermarket and buick , started offering up parts..
if ford offered it in that car without the allwheel drive...
it be cool..
but they will not, anytime soon..
sorry.. loose is fast.. and all wheel drive sucks in this reguard...

[dieselgeek]

Re: GM Developing Twin Turbo V6 Eco-Boost Fighter

I disagree. The stock turbo on the Buick V6s was a major limiting factor. Moreover, the Buicks had fairly lousy factory heads, small valves, a marginal production block, and cast pistons. To reliably get serious power out of one required replacing virtually all of the turbo set-up, ported or aftermarket heads, and at least forged pistons (or very careful fuel management). Most of the big power Buicks used a pricy "Stage II" block, and not a two-bolt main production block.

Stock turbo GN engines were capable of far more than 400hp with nothing more than a boost increase. Factory tuning *included* fuel mapping up to nearly double the"OEM' airflow. The stock internals were also capable of far more than 400hp. I believe there are 700-800hp stock guts GN engines out there (someone else here surely can give us exact numbers, as this is well known information). I am sorry to disagree, but until you show us a stock internals EcoBoost engine making a LOT more than the referenced 400hp, your claim is questionable.

The EcoBoost engine is also turbo-limited. But the Detroit Street Rods EcoBoost '34 Fort shown at 2009 SEMA was reportedly making over 400 h.p. on almost entirely stock parts

400hp: not impressive in turboville. Also, I don't consider the "reports" that are tossed around on the SEMA floor - which I've also attended, and LOL'd at - valid. You're using a "show car" that will likely only be driven on and off a trailer, and not pushed to the limit. It's *far* too early to claim superiority over the GN engines even for the most blue-blooded Ford Fanboys.

The EcoBoost block is much more robust than any GM production block from the 1980s.

This particular claim is the most entertaining. Please link me to the youtube videos or dyno charts of stock block Ecoboost engines supporting 800-1100hp?

While the GDI system is new ground for the aftermarket (just like SEFI was back in '86-'87), the path to big power is going to be running the direct injectors as secondary injectors on alcohol and adding a gasoline port injection system as a primary system.

Not so easy. Direct injection "seems" like the end-all in EFI technology, and it's pretty cool, but there's a reason that even the most advanced EFI engines are still feeding their alcohol UPSTREAM of the intake valve. The reason is, because there's a HUGE fuel quantity limitation on Direct, in-chamber injectors. Why? because they're limited to a max duty cycle of somewhere around 15%. Finding an in-chamber injector that's going to support any more than 200-300hp and still be able to idle the engine, means a LARGE jump in technology that's not been made yet. Not to mention, when they can do this, the cost is going to be huge. Who is making enhanced DI units that can do this? The problem only gets WORSE when you start talking about running fuels with lower BTU content; an engine that supports 300hp on gasoline with DI, will only support a supplemental 180-190HP with those same injectors. That's not exactly a lot, for all that complexity... Thus, you are citing "as yet undeveloped" technology in your response. Sorry, but I think we should wait until on of these magical engines hits the track before we pat Ford (or GM) on the back... Trust me when I say, taking complex EFI engines to stratospheric power outputs is FAR from being a walk in the park. Reference the blue turbo truck...

Of course this will require some aftermarket controllers and tuning.

And development of injectors that do not exist yet. Thus, the GN engine still takes the win until these mythical ecoboost engines hit the track. Don't get me wrong, as a high tech hotrodder, I can't WAIT to get my hands on one. I just know that it's not as easy as we make it look. For every second of kickass Yutube dyno/track video, there are HUNDREDS of hours of hard labor that has to happen.

[38P]

Re: GM Developing Twin Turbo V6 Eco-Boost Fighter

I disagree. The stock turbo on the Buick V6s was a major limiting factor. Moreover, the Buicks had fairly lousy factory heads, small valves, a marginal production block, and cast pistons. To reliably get serious power out of one required replacing virtually all of the turbo set-up, ported or aftermarket heads, and at least forged pistons (or very careful fuel management). Most of the big power Buicks used a pricy "Stage II" block, and not a two-bolt main production block.

Stock turbo GN engines were capable of far more than 400hp with nothing more than a boost increase.

It wouldn't be "far more" on the stock turbo because the compressor map shows it would be into the choke zone.

Factory tuning *included* fuel mapping up to nearly double the"OEM' airflow. The stock internals were also capable of far more than 400hp. I believe there are 700-800hp stock guts GN engines out there (someone else here surely can give us exact numbers, as this is well known information).

The dyno data I've compiled reports that outputs in excess of 150 hp/l were most often on built short blocks. And there were plenty of blown up engines back in the day. So 800 on stock internals with any reliability is a suspect claim. Many Stage II-based engines ran in the 1200 h.p. range, although reliability would be enhanced by limiting power to ~ 900.

The EcoBoost engine is also turbo-limited. But the Detroit Street Rods EcoBoost '34 Fort shown at 2009 SEMA was reportedly making over 400 h.p. on almost entirely stock parts

400hp: not impressive in turboville. Also, I don't consider the "reports" that are tossed around on the SEMA floor - which I've also attended, and LOL'd at - valid. You're using a "show car" that will likely only be driven on and off a trailer, and not pushed to the limit. It's *far* too early to claim superiority over the GN engines even for the most blue-blooded Ford Fanboys.

The Detroit Street Rods guys claimed the mill had been dynoed. Considering that it was a collaboration with Ford Engineering, it's unlikely the engine was installed without being first dynoed. And remember the Detroit Street Rod engine ran the tiny stock turbos.

Most certainly, the stock EcoBoost engine is tuned for reliable mid-range torque production and emissions compliance, not maximum power. That doesn't mean we should just ignore its attributes and assume that it has no potential or less potential than a 40+ year old engine with 3/4th as many camshafts, half the valves, and two-bolt mains.

The EcoBoost block is much more robust than any GM production block from the 1980s.

This particular claim is the most entertaining. Please link me to the youtube videos or dyno charts of stock block Ecoboost engines supporting 800-1100hp?

If the production Buick block will support 1100 h.p. (280+ hp/l) then a lot of racers wasted their money on aftermarket "Stage II" blocks.

While the GDI system is new ground for the aftermarket (just like SEFI was back in '86-'87), the path to big power is going to be running the direct injectors as secondary injectors on alcohol and adding a gasoline port injection system as a primary system.

Not so easy. Direct injection "seems" like the end-all in EFI technology, and it's pretty cool, but there's a reason that even the most advanced EFI engines are still feeding their alcohol UPSTREAM of the intake valve. The reason is, because there's a HUGE fuel quantity limitation on Direct, in-chamber injectors. Why? because they're limited to a max duty cycle of somewhere around 15%. Finding an in-chamber injector that's going to support any more than 200-300hp and still be able to idle the engine, means a LARGE jump in technology that's not been made yet.

The engine doesn't have to idle on a secondary system (idle is on the port-injection primary). Bosch seems to think they can do E85 with direct injection (http://www.bosch-automotivetechnolog...nspritzung.asp) So does Ricardo (http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/2009-01-0238 ) and Delphi ( http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006..._developi.html)

Not to mention, when they can do this, the cost is going to be huge.

that's the same argument that they made 25 years ago when EFI came out.

Who is making enhanced DI units that can do this? The problem only gets WORSE when you start talking about running fuels with lower BTU content; an engine that supports 300hp on gasoline with DI, will only support a supplemental 180-190HP with those same injectors.

Certainly if the engine was going to run exclusively on the DI, injector sizing would be critical. But with a DI/PI dual system, the DIs are for reducing in-cylinder temps through vaporization, not primary fueling. Thus fuel trim under boost could be added at whatever necessary level through the PI system. Of course, if the DI system had enough capacity to support 100% of the anticipated power, the manifold pressure could be dramatically increased. But the limits of production blocks would likely be exceeded. Thus, it makes a lot of sense to inject as much alcohol as possible through the DI for vaporization purposes and fill in the rest of the fuel demand with PI on E85 or gasoline.

Sorry, but I think we should wait until on of these magical engines hits the track before we pat Ford (or GM) on the back... Trust me when I say, taking complex EFI engines to stratospheric power outputs is FAR from being a walk in the park.

Nobody said being a pioneer was easy. But to be fair, much of the Buick V6 development was undertaken by professionals such as Ken Duttweiler. And to summarily dismiss a promising new engine merely because it hasn't been fully developed yet is hardly reasonable.

The bottom line is that the EcoBoost V6 architecture has a lot more apparent potential than a 1961 pushrod V6 that was retrofitted with port fuel injection and intercooled turbocharging.

Don't get me wrong, as a high tech hotrodder, I can't WAIT to get my hands on one. I just know that it's not as easy as we make it look. For every second of kickass Yutube dyno/track video, there are HUNDREDS of hours of hard labor that has to happen.

On that point we can mostly agree. But once the pioneering work is done, there will be plenty of copycats who follow "the recipe." In the '80s, I heard plenty of folks say "EFI is the end of hot rodding." Now we have Megasquirt and scores of bolt-on aftermarket EFI systems. I don't have any doubt that somebody will do the R&D necessary. The development may not happen as quickly as it has with common-rail turbo diesels, or maybe even the '86-'87 GN engine (remember, Buick turbocharged the V6 in '78 and went EFI in '84, and the factory had a full Indianapolis development program for the better part of a decade, but the street/strip turbo engine development didn't really catch on until '87-'90 . . . and even now some guys pitch the whole thing for a low-tech SBC/LS)

But development will happen and it will surpass the old production Buick V6. Of couse the thing that limit development more than anything else is that Ford builds such attractive DOHC V8s, such as the 2011 Coyote and GT500.

[dieselgeek]

Re: GM Developing Twin Turbo V6 Eco-Boost Fighter

Bottom line:

Show us an Ecoboost engine making more than 400hp on stock guts (NO PROBLEM FOR STOCK GUTS BUICK 3.8 ).

Show us an alky DI injector that can support more than OEM power levels. Gonna need more than 200hp worth of alky to meet your claims, and Ricardo doesn't have one yet.

Show us an ecoboost that's NOT running stock internals, but stock block, making 800-1100hp (it's been done on turbo buicks, many times).

Also, the reference to the "compressor map" means zilch to me. There are all kinds of ways to make power right past the "choke point" - Ive done it, have you? (hint: meth injection, big intercooler)

Look, I'm OK with the concept that your Ford engine might be awesome, but to claim that it "will" do better than the GN engine is all fine and dandy - for a ricer. You have a habit of skipping over large and difficult details, and claiming "possibilities" as if they're valid arguments. There are no fast ecoboost engines, and there are definitley absolutely not any that are demonstrating capabilities anywhere remotely near what the 20+ year old GN engine did. I don't care about what some dorks at SEMA claim, because I know that's 90% bullshit - SHOW ME.

[SpiderGearsMan]

Re: GM Developing Twin Turbo V6 Eco-Boost Fighter

the grand national and gnx were the results of smokey yunick working on the motor for five years
running at indy helped too


regular 3.8A/3 was pretty sucky , but the 88 3800 took care of that

[TheSilverBuick]

Re: GM Developing Twin Turbo V6 Eco-Boost Fighter

You have a habit of skipping over large and difficult details, and claiming "possibilities" as if they're valid arguments.

BINGO! On a side note I'll believe the Coyote engine hype when I see and hear it kicking ass. The mod motor looks good on paper too :

As far as I'm concerned the GM DI3.0 already has a leg up with 300 n/a Hp, the boost is only going to kick it higher. Ford can keep building their displacement limited "possibility" engines as long as GM keeps us Horsepower and Displacement (and more MPG) folks happy.

[SpiderGearsMan]

Re: GM Developing Twin Turbo V6 Eco-Boost Fighter

the ecotec turbo is quite a sweet lil engine

I would imagine the six will be the same

[Super Sport]

Re: GM Developing Twin Turbo V6 Eco-Boost Fighter

The Coyote motor will do fine in Mustangs, and whatever other auto applications it finds it's way into. They'll tune the factory pipes so that it has that now almost trademarked Mustang burble that we've heard since the 80's, and people that love Mustangs will rejoice that after all this time, they finally got something in a Mustang that can get out of it's own way for less than 50k or a supercharger.

What it will NOT do, and what either does not concern Ford, or they figure they are so far behind on as to not compete, is find it's way into the garages and engine bays of the aftermarket and hot rod community. At this point, I think they've punted on that market.

It's too bad. Even though I was a Chevy guy, it was cool to help my buddies with 5.0s go to the dealership, hit up the Motorsport catalog for go-fast parts, and waste a saturday making them work.

[38P]

Re: GM Developing Twin Turbo V6 Eco-Boost Fighter

face it, your a bais ford guy..

And remember this is bangshift.com - not autoblog . . . .

your claim is questionable. . . . It's *far* too early to claim superiority over the GN engines even for the most blue-blooded Ford Fanboys.

. . ..but to claim that it "will" do better than the GN engine is all fine and dandy - for a ricer.

You have a habit of skipping over large and difficult details, and claiming "possibilities" as if they're valid arguments.

BINGO!

The tribe has spoken.

[IRONHEAD]

Re: GM Developing Twin Turbo V6 Eco-Boost Fighter

face it, your a bais ford guy..

And remember this is bangshift.com - not autoblog . . . .

your claim is questionable. . . . It's *far* too early to claim superiority over the GN engines even for the most blue-blooded Ford Fanboys.

. . ..but to claim that it "will" do better than the GN engine is all fine and dandy - for a ricer.

You have a habit of skipping over large and difficult details, and claiming "possibilities" as if they're valid arguments.

BINGO!

The tribe has spoken.

hay motoryuts
d/g never agrees with me, the fact that he did here, and (he likes imports) is your DATA is crapola