Quote:
Originally Posted by DGthe3
Isn't the ecoboost about being able to 'deliver the power of a V6, with the fuel economy of an I4' (or V8 power, V6 economy as the case may be) through the use of turbo charging, VVT, and direct injection? If so, the 2.0L Turbo from the Cobalt SS (and others) certainly fits the bill. It's output was the comparable to most V6's, delivered 22/30 mpg which is comparable to a lot I4's out there (and significantly better than most V6's and T4's). And, it only needed regular unleaded gas to do all this. You can argue about the 1's and 0's in the computer, but compare the tech and compare the results and they're nearly the same thing.
|
+1
"Ecoboost" is a name. And if I recall correctly, it was supposed to be called something else before a genius (and I mean that sincerely) had the idea to give it a catchy name and hype up something that's not a new concept at all: SIDI + turbocharger + 4 cylinders equals one potent can of whoop-a$$.
The fact that Ford and GM "controls" their engines differently shouldn't.....really.....come as a shock. Plug an SSs ECM into a GT and see what happens. **DUH!!**
To say that one is 'laughable' and the other is not because of this...is, to be brutally honestly, laughable in itself. It's like arguing a MS Word for Apple is superior to MS Word for Windows because of the way its written.
