Hhmmm.... I expected more info on why turbos beat bigger motors. General rule of thumb going back to Henry Ford was, “There is no REplacement for DISplacement.”
Supercharges and Turbos just being a means of adding “virtual” displacement to the engines cycle.
And yeah, a 4.0l with a 2.0l turbo rig will probably out perform a 5.4l...
At least, from my limited understanding of what they are doing. I’m not up to speed on a lot of the power-tuning they’ve been doing.
At the PRI show last week Ford had a 32 roadster hot rod with that turbo V6 installed. Looked nice but fussy, as most modern engine compartments are.
You keep your foot in that Turbo for any length opf time and the motor is not going to last as long as the Cubic inch displacement engine.
Ford’s greatest towing capacity in their F150 is from a turbo-charged 3.5L V6.
http://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/specifications/towing/
No expert here but this is what I know. Turbo’s only start to spin up at a certain RPM. If you are idling or accelerating normally you will get the fuel economy of the smaller engine. If you get the revs up you get the power of the forced air. Using recirculating valves and other methods car makers have figured out how to limit the lag. Only down side is that turbo’s are expensive to repair/replace and generally more complicated than naturally aspirated engines.
That all said, the V6 in my 08’ Caddy has more power AND better gas mileage than the turbo’d 4 cylinder in an 06’ Mazdaspeed6 I owned before it. And the Caddy is a couple hundred pounds heavier.
3.5L Eccoboost Ford engine 365HP
Turbo is a toy. Yes, it will go fast, and yes, Ford appears to have brought some serious reliability to turbo systems... but they still require more maintenance, and repairs are significantly more expensive.
i suupose it depends on how the turbo’s tuned.
I’m sure it would be weight. One can add a given amount of horses to an engine with a turbo, with a lot less weight than the same amount of horsepower added through displacement.