• 19
According to the folks at BorgWarner, the number of turbocharged, direct-injection engines will increase four-fold by 2011. In 2006, approximately 500,000 vehicles were equipped with the technological duo, and based on their market projections, over two million such engines will be on the road in the next four years. A good chunk of this expansion will occur in Europe, however, Japan, China and those of us in North America stand to benefit from the highly efficient, power-producing setup.

The report also goes on to say that the variable turbine geometry employed in the new Porsche 911 Turbo, and developed by BorgWarner, will come down in cost, allowing the cash-strapped among us to ditch our wastegate, all the while gaining power throughout the RPM range.

[Source: SEMA/BorgWarner via Jalopnik]


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 19 Comments
      • 8 Years Ago
      "Why is the US always the last to reap the benefits of new, efficient automotive technology?"

      who cares? i just bought two 2.0T FSI equipped cars from VAG, why bother waiting?
      • 8 Years Ago
      During ww2 all major German aero engines (DB 605, DB 603, Jumo 211, Jumo 213, BMW 801) were supercharged, direct fuel injected engines. This while the Allies were struggling with carbureted engines.
      It took the auto industry 50 years to mass produce this technology, it's really something to be celebrate.
      • 8 Years Ago
      'I can't believe that no one has mentioned that direct injection is only practical because of ultra-low sulphur gasoline ('

      Only if you want to operate with lean burn engines.
      That is why BMW will not bring the N53 to the States, as is. Without lean combustion, the mileage would be worse than the Valvetronic models.

      The N54 works just fine.
      • 8 Years Ago
      I can't believe that no one has mentioned that direct injection is only practical because of ultra-low sulphur gasoline (below 30ppm). Something that was introduced to America only in 2004, Canada/EU in 2005.

      #20, Audi did not pioneer direct injection. Not even close. Not even mercedes, although that would be a much closer guess. The distinction has to go to Bosch which had its injectors used in the 1952 Goliath GP700 and Gutbrod Superior 600 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_direct_injection)

      • 8 Years Ago
      Ben... I think it is the "more is better" philosophy that is to blame; "efficiency" just is "manly" enough. American auto buyers would rather have those extra cylinders (and pounds) regaurdless of what the dyno reads!
      • 8 Years Ago
      I think another thing is the dirty little secret that many 4s give about the same mileage as a good V6. When I still drove a sedan, I asked some of my cow-orkers about the mileage they were getting in their various cars like Camrys, Accords, Altimas and some of the four cylinder domestics.

      Most were getting 28 to 30 on over-the-road highway trips in realistic driving situations. Not bad, especially compared to the past.

      Meantime, the 3.3l V6 in my Intrepid was returning about the same mileage. Less noise, smoother, and it worked well with its four-speed automatic. Fine. I had to buy an extra two spark plugs every 50K miles, but aside from that, no difference in operating costs.

      There are some very impressive 4-cylinder engines out there, sure. But, I keep a vehicle for a long time. I'd rather have the relative simplicity of a V6 with an extra few hundred ccs displacement, than all manner of whirly-bits and turbochargers, all of which are cost centers. If the fuel mileage is going to be close, it is, to me at least, a no-brainer.

      As for fuel mileage itself, the progress since I started driving has been nothing short of amazing. That Intrepid I had, as big as it was, yielded fuel mileage far superior to the Volvo I had in college with its 1600cc four.
      • 8 Years Ago
      #12

      Chrysler 300C Hemi
      5.7l V8
      340hp
      525Nm at 4000rpm
      average 12.3l/100km = 18mpg US
      CO2 291g/km
      service all 7,500miles
      0-100km/h(62mph) 6.8s
      Vmax 250km/h (155mph)

      Chrysler 300C 3.0 CRD (only avaible in Europe)
      3.0l V6 Turbo diesel (Mercedes)
      218hp
      510Nm from 1600rpm > 4000rpm
      average 8.1l/100km 30mpg US
      CO2 201g/km
      service all 15,000miles
      0-100km/h(62mph) 7.6s
      topspeed 230km/h (143mph)

      the 300C is popular in Germany (most sold import in that class!)...70% buy it as 300C 3.0 CRD!


      What is the smarter car?
      • 8 Years Ago
      Ben: I actually answered your post first, guess it got lost in the mail.

      On the issue of efficient engine technology, It is not very smart for the domestics to spend what the Europeans spend on 4 cylinder engines. This really is not a 4 cylinder market. Cars at the lower end of the food chain will have 4 cyl engines. The vast majority of Americans don't buy in that segment. In Europe they do.

      That said, GM did bring to market the very first domestic direct injection turbo motor to this market. Solstice GXP. If GM didn't the Opel and Vauxhall brands in Europe to recoup the cost of developing that engine (they share variants of said engine), they would never recover their investment.

      GM will sell ten times more CTSs with the di-inj V6 than Solstice/Sun combined will of the 4 cyl. version.

      In Europe that number will be reversed. More 4s than 6s.
      • 8 Years Ago
      I can't believe that no one has mentioned that direct injection is only practical because of ultra-low sulphur gasoline (
      • 8 Years Ago
      A few months ago Automobile Magazine gave stability control its "Technology of the Year" award. I love ESP, but shouldn't it have received this award five or more years ago? Some cars offered ESP in the late 1990s, and downmarket it was an option on the Ford Focus as early as 2001MY.

      So I suggested that the award ought to have gone to direct injection:

      http://www.truedelta.com/blog/?p=9
      • 8 Years Ago
      I think another big part of it is emissions. We have the strictest in the world by far (which i why we don't get many turbos or diesels), and it will take a few years before these engines are easily able to meet our rules.

      I think the sky redline has a one of these already, though, so I guess that may not be the entire issue.
      • 8 Years Ago
      Michael K. The Technology of the Decade Award should have gone to GPS systens. No innovation in the last 5 years or so, has contributed more to saving fuel (and possibly lives)than GPS systems. Yes I know that GPS does not actually improve the car's fuel economy, but by eliminating millions of unintended (folks getting lost) miles per day.

      People getting lost, missing an exit or a turn adds up to billions of gallons (world wide) of wasted fuel daily.

      Didn't realise how much wasteful driving one does until I bought a GARMIN. Will never own another car without one.
    • Load More Comments