2008 International Engine of the Year awards announced
May 8, 2008 by Karl Peskett
BMW has wiped the floor with its competitors in the latest engine awards, with the German marque claiming honours for no less than five engines
Judged by a panel of 65 renowned motoring journalists from 32 countries, the IEOTY awards highlight and acknowledge engine engineering excellence.
Using their impressions from driving the latest cars, judges find powerplants that offer the best driveability, performance, economy, and refinement, and reward manufacturers for the successful application of advanced engine technology.
And the winners are… drumroll please:
Sub 1-Liter: Toyota 1.0L three-cylinder
1.0L – 1.4L: VW 1.4L TSI Twincharger
1.4L – 1.8L: BMW-PSA 1.6L Turbo
1.8L – 2.0L: VW/Audi 2.0L Turbo FSI
2.0L – 2.5L: Subaru 2.5L Turbo
2.5L – 3.0L: BMW 3.0L twin-turbo inline-six
3.0L – 4.0L: BMW 4.0L V8
Above 4.0L : BMW 5.0L V10
Best New Engine of 2008 went to BMW’s 2.0L twin-turbo diesel (123d). Green Engine of the Year 2008 was awarded to Toyota 1.5L Hybrid Synergy Drive (Prius). But perhaps the most surprising was Nissan’s absence from the ceremony, with rival Porsche stamping its authority on the awards. The new GT-R’s motor was overlooked, in favour of the Porsche 3.6L Turbo (911 Turbo, 911 GT2), which picked up Best Performance Engine 2008.
Click here to find all the details, including points tallies.
Print it: 
Maximus and Andrew – here is a little sheep story for ‘yas !!
Over the years, General Motors has been one of the most out-spoken critics towards Toyota’s investment into hybrid technology and were often public about it.
But – haaa … General Motors today is quite public about it’s own advancements in hybrid technology.
Gee … first they critise Toyota and but today they follow suit.
Seriusoly – who are the clowns here… !!
Great news for BMW, without doubt the best production car engine producer in the world. From Petrol to diesel Number 1.
As for the prius’s green claim. I commented the other day about the UK ASA (Advertising Standards Agency) had to make Toyota withdrawn their Prius advert for claiming untrue Green credentials. There claim was it would save a tonne of CO2 output compared to other cars. It was deemed simply not true as all similar performing diesels produce less CO2 than the prius.
Also the sensible engineers are aware that the current technonolgy batteries in Hybrids only perform their peak performance for a period of two years. Then its all down hill.
DINGO….you are in the 99% sheep category. Led by others as no major status aside from Toyota. Mr Dumbo…..what increase have you got to compete right here right now. Zilch zippo and nil…..kinda like another Toyota Geek who cant spell and cruises the superhighway thinking Toyota is numero uno forever. Shock me and show me some depth to you without Toyota running thru your veins. I give you a valid example which is nothing to do with Ford or Toyota….and where does freak show go with it. Off on a tangent! Obtusely.
Like really leave Toyota out of it and show me some depth to your car beliefs and not Toyotophilia.
Also shock me and read my comments earlier….beats reading Dr Zeuss. LOL. And comment on it and dont attack with Toyotophilia style.
Hahha Floored argument AndrewM… so the LPG doesnt have 150kw and the regular 190kw. You better tell Ford they got their figures wrong! Btw the upgrade thing is a BS excuse, just as the engines have upped power the LPG would have benefited, clearly it loses power from petrol, this is common knowledge
Supporter Of Toyota Motorsport Says:
May 8th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Alex – you may be willing to pay considerable extra but how many others around the world are willing to follow suit. Numbers make viability not just a few !!
Hydrogen will be the extended term solution – nodout about it – but as we debate today, it far from ready for mass production and when it does like most new technology at first – will be bloody expensive just like Hybrids were but have gradually decreased as numbers mass.
Also, i am sure Toyota is forever working towards greener operations with it’s battery factory aswell.
NM RESPONSE…….LOL you obviously cannot read what I wrote. Expensive – where? I have produced A through to Z on system and costs and advantages. And the little cost of this SHEEP BOY states its expensive…..LOL. Iam obviously thinking you are at a few rungs down on ladder on my comments – like struggling first rung to get to! And you weakly and meekly fumble with your battery comments in true SHEEP BOY form. Your comments are very 2 dimensional!
gee dont you love this sentence……
“Also, i am sure Toyota is forever working towards greener operations with it’s battery factory aswell.”
it proves what i have said before.
too much faith in the Big T and believing that what ever they do will be better and the way to go.
im not a sheep because i have never supported hybrids even in the case of GM.
stop clutching at straws for an argument
look/think outside the bland square on wheels they call toyotas.
the system NM mentioned holds merit. just because toyota didnt invent it, dont get your knickers in a knot and simply diss it
ive already found 1 video NM, and it looks pretty basic and effective
ps. check your email again
TP…..until you can compare a straight LPG non-Ford motor against Falcon’s and talk fuel consumption, power loss…well ummmm your comparing apples and oranges. Least you “now” know that the Falcon LPG motor is made straight on production line hey!
TP….google HYDROGEN and JOE CELL and HHO
ANDREW M….thanks, truly this is not single car related and you do really show your style by contributing with one car makers colours. Your a car enthusiast and great hey…unlike some!
typo………without one car makers colours. Dingo and TP…. just leave personal car makers comments out of it and google it and comment. No arguments and thats all dudes!
Ha Ha TP – you’re weellie wuthless. Flawed mate flawed. Ha Ha
TP,
the no upgrade thing isnt BS.
please explain why it is.
the engine upgrades revolve around the method of injecting the unleaded fuel.
LPG is done by the use of a different system and that is what has not been upgraded.
so you are saying ford has changed pistons or something to can the extra 40kw over the years and hence LPG should benefit too? ha ha ha ha ha ha
do you know how funny that sounds?
please stop, you sound much smarter when you say nothing
perhaps it is common knowledge to those like you that have no knowledge, that LPG fuel produces less power, but us that actually know what we are talking about understand that the LPG fuel actually holds greater energy.
its the duel fuel compromise that sees your engine less efficiently on LPG, not the fault of the fuel
Naughtyius Maximus… are you claiming to have installed your own Joe Cell on your own car, or have I read one of your above posts incorrectly.
I hope you realise that the Joe Cell is no more than a hoax and the way that it supposedly works breaks the laws of thermodynamics. To claim that you have installed one on your car is a blatant lie.
hahha what a crock… ive just done a little googling
“Based on old “forgotten” US Patents we have developed devices that use a little electricity out of your car/truck battery, to separate water into a gas called “HHO” (2 parts Hydrogen + 1 Oxygen). HHO, also called Brown’s Gas or Hydroxy, burns beautifully and provides TONS of energy”
So this thing works by taking energy from your car, to make water into hydrogen and oxygen gas, which is then burnt again to produce water, and then you have a net increase in energy?
Conservation of energy states that the energy of the whole system has to remain the same… so this cannot work in practise.
In fact if you seriously have been conned into buying one of these you are more than likely going to see a decrease in fuel economy as the chemical reactions to make the “HHO” and convert it back to water are not going to be perfect and energy is going to be lost as heat.
If the system really worked why aren’t the auto manufacturers implementing it?
It’s clearly not a patented system, if the numerous online websites claiming to sell the products are any indication.
Should now do “2008 Worst International Engine Of The Year Awards” (but maybe without the award part).
CarAdvice i remember Webwombat doing top 10 worst cars of the year for america, you should do it for Australia. Just a thought. (sorry im off topic).
This were it………
1: Chrysler Sebring
2: Dodge Nitro
3: Jeep Liberty
4: Dodge Caliber R/T AWD
5: Dodge Magnum
6: Ford Crown Victoria
7: Chevrolet Aveo
8: Nissan Quest
9: Hyundai Entourage
10: Pontiac Grand Prix
I’m curious NM, what volumetric flowrate do you get of “HHO” do you when its up and running?
All due you respect to you mate but RoFlmaTiC is spot on.
^ forgive the retarded grammar… its been a long day.
No Name…don’t make me laugh.
(Apologies to Catherine Tate)
Hang on Toyotaphiles – Go look at the link, Its nothing new the Prius has won the award year on year. So its actually no big shakes. Given that few others make Hybrids to this standard its no surprises it wins all the time. Why doesn’t a lexus win, cos they do not have the same technology in a Lexus as they do in a Prius. So whats the point of the award if only the Toyota will win at this time.
i think the gtr engine is inferior to the porsche turbo mainly coz they need to keep costs down. but i think the gtr nuked everyone else because of the car itself rather than the engine. less torque and power than the porsche turbo and being 300kgs heavier but manage to beat almost any car except 2 superlightwieght exotics with stratospheric engines.
Take the results with a grain of salt. This award is a gee up. Any engines that has been recalled, should be immediately disqualified. Therefore the 2.5L Subaru engine does not deserve it’s gong. I also agree that the falcon engine should rate a mention, although it is punching against some uber-tech euro engines that cost 10 times as much, and deliver half the thrill. Another thing i found was that most of the engines feature forced induction.
Pirus! certainly casts a shadow over the credibility of this judging panel!
Here Here Here. Its obvious and last 2 comments back this up. Maybe chardonanny and ordeuvres with nibblies by upper crust occured like clockwork here! What a joke!
Back to doubters of Hydrogen fuel cell in my ute. Maybe you armchair chardonnay doubters can do just as I did… view one and get direct exact feedback period. Anything else you got to say junior scientists is just that…hot air! Geepers I also cruised internet researching and looked at physics forums. Still I was puzzled how on earth buddy can get increased economy in his dual fuel Ford Maverick…………..hmmmm. Keep nibbling on grass sheep boys and keep getting dished up PR and coping whatever you wanna pay! FOOLS!
If what NM suggests actually improves the efficency of the combustion process then it is not just a case of quoting conservation of energy or momentum or anything else for that matter. Gee and u guys are engineers?
Internal combustion engines aren’t very efficient in terms of converting petrol into motion as majority of energy is released as heat. Diesel combustion engines are more efficient mainly due to the higher compression ratio used and hence more efficient combustion.
Anything that can result in a more efficient “burn” will result in less heat and more bang!
Like I quoted………….Iam always a doubter til I see cold hard 100% proof!
Just slightly off topic. China has expressed interest in buying some NSW power stations when the sell off happens.
Happy days ahead!!!
Lol at that list of worst cars.. Its apparent web wombat may have something against the dodge/chrysler/jeep group.
Im not going to write a whole list but for me there is one stand out..
The Holden Epica (Epic Fail, crapness of epic proportions)
rage.
The only reason the Subaru engine was recalled was due to faulty bearings, not the engine design. This only effect MY08 models and not the MY07 model. Why would a GM/Holden engine win an award? Its using push rods still? Also the 4L Turbo Ford engine is a great engine but it is not certainly better than the 4L V8 BMW engine which is an engineering feat. Any backyard mechanic can stick a massive turbo on inline 6 and make it go fast.
Crouchy, add the AU Falcon to that list. Had to drive around one today on they way to work. Poor fellow, must have been embarrassing for him :(
And UrbanGTB, what’s wrong with pushrods? LS2 vs BOSS comparison, LS2 made more power, was more fuel efficient and is a durable as anything. Just look at the drag racing circuit. 100’s out there with twin turbo kits running 400+rwkw, stock internals. BOSS does sound better though, so that’s one thing I guess. If you don’t understand how an engine works, don’t comment. There is nothing wrong having a greater simplicity, and less reciprocating mass.
GhisGT
That is a very uninformed and biased comment about the AU. The styling was before its time and still looks quite contenpory today (look closely at other designs that are only now starting to use design ques that the AU used years ago). And mechanically the AU is far superior and better to drive than Commodores of the same (and later) era. Please make some informed comments, “If you don’t understand .., don’t comment.
Realcars, yes that would be the case if the combustion process was made more efficient. However if you read carefully what the product claims to do, you will see that it doesn’t increase the efficiency at all.
Again, why aren’t any auto manufacturers implementing this product, there are no patent specifications protecting it! It’s just common sense.
I’ve thought of a possible explanation of why NM gets more km’s per tank of fuel (Other than like a placebo). I’m thinking the cell might store some of the fuel in between petrol refueling. In this way it would be analogous to increasing the overall fuel capacity of the car. Off course you’re going to get more total kilometers per “tank” this way, but your km’s / L is going to stay the same.
Oh I understand how an engine works but the question is do you actually understand what this award is for?
Quote:
“Using their impressions from driving the latest cars, judges find powerplants that offer the best driveability, performance, economy, and refinement, and reward manufacturers for the successful application of advanced engine technology.”
I would hardly call a push rod engine an advancement in engine technology. I would say the 4L BMW engine is…
Realcars wrote: “Anything that can result in a more efficient “burn” will result in less heat and more bang!”
With that statement you just showed that you have no idea how IC engines work…
“If what NM suggests actually improves the efficiency of the combustion process then it is not just a case of quoting conservation of energy or momentum or anything else for that matter. Gee and u guys are engineers?”
The inefficiency is not in the combustion process, it is in the energy transfer of the engine itself. Combustion of petrol produces a certain amount of energy (joules) per litre. This figure is well known and does not change. By the way diesel has a higher energy content then petrol and LPG has a lower energy content. NM’s claims of a 36% increase in efficiency are difficult to believe under any circumstance.
Bret, I had an AU wagon as a company car, it was the car everybody hated. We had many different brands, and by far this thing was a real sh1tter. I wish I could type all the things that fell off that car, but it would just take too long. The most funny and memorable one would have had to have been that plastic cover underneath the front bar getting caught up between the front wheel. Should have heard the noise then it got ripped off… my god.
I have been the auto industry for some time, and the AU is the joke of the recent Australian automotive industry, and it nearly killed Ford, now there us a hard fact. Contemporary? Jeeese… clutching at straws much?
The driveline on the other hand is great, great engine and boxes, near unbreakable. But the rest of the car, don’t try to polish a turd.
UrbanGTB, fair call.
GhisGT, “don’t try to polish a turd”….LOL Thats gold, I’m going to use that one.
GhisGT, 165000 km and not one single little issue with my AUII – nothing, not a thing. Maybe yours was a very early series 1?
On the other hand the cars we had at work in 2002 were a Commodore, a Magna and a Pulsar hatch, no surprises that the Commodore was the last choice, for everyone, everytime. We had that thing for three years and was THE reason why we have had Falcons at work ever since.
And I still think that the AU looks more contemporty than any commodore other than a VE!
Well, that’s your opinion and I’m sure Ford Australia wished the that the majority of the population had the same views on the AU as you did.
Also, my fathers AUIII XR8. Diff died in the first 3 weeks. He now owns a VE :)
Either way, we could go on like this forever, styling is and will always be subjective, let’s just leave it at that hey?
Titan,
LPG has a lower enery content?
i think you will find it is the other way around
also,
the energy per litre of fuel does change if it is not being burnt efficiently. that is if not all of the fuel is being burnt, you wont get the same amount of energy out of each litre that enters the engine
Andrew M, yes LPG has a lower energy per litre then Petrol or Diesel (from memory 27 MJ/Litre vs about 35MJ/Litre for Petrol and 38 MJ/Litre for Diesel). So no I will not find it is the other way around.
Your second point however is very valid, that said adding a very small amount of this “HHO” is going do nothing to alter the reactions occurring in the cylinders. And I can guarantee you that NM would only be producing negligible amounts of “HHO” using electrolysis. A 36% increase in efficiency is not realistic. It would be like someone claiming they got a substantial power increase driving through fog.
Titan,
QUOTE……….
LPG provides about 8% more energy per unit weight (LHV = 19,757 BTU/lbm) than gasoline. Theoretically, vehicle operation with LPG should be more efficient than with gasoline, i.e., the vehicle should attain better specific fuel consumption and improved mileage. However, this will only happen if the engine design is optimized for LPG fuel. If a gasoline engine is converted to operate on LPG this increased efficiency will not be realized due to the lower density of LPG compared to gasoline and also its slightly higher oxygen demand (LPG stoichiometric A/F = 15.8). The lighter density fuel displaces air in the intake manifold, and thus, less air per cycle is induced to the cylinders. This translates to a decreased volumetric efficiency and a loss of power compared to the original gasoline rating of the engine.
also with HHO,
the reaction is claimed from the gases being taken through the airbox.
a cold air kit alters the efficiency of the motor does it not?
the oxygen entering the motor affects the burning efficiency.
blank off half of the air inlet and you will notice it for the worse.
put a bigger air funnel on and you will notice it for the better.
more oxygen = better economy and power.
the fuel still gets fed into the motor at the same rate whether or not the oxygen is there to efficiently burn it.
more oxygen or other beneficial gases into the air box to me sounds logical that there would be less wasted fuel.
sorry but im not going to be one who instantly writes the concept off.
it does hold some merit
Andrew M, you will notice that the energy figure you quoted is energy per unit mass not energy per unit volume like I have been quoting, Furthermore, as your reference indicates, LPG is less dense then petrol (which is rather obvious) hence validating what I have been saying.
“a cold air kit alters the efficiency of the motor does it not” – at full throttle yes it does. However by definition a throttle is a variable restriction. When you close the throttle you are restricting the pumping efficiency of the engine and hence you cold air intake is not going to help a lot. However with the throttle fully open its provides the least restriction, and as a result other restrictions that occur before it become very important hence we get people fitting cold air intakes.
“fuel still gets fed into the motor at the same rate whether or not the oxygen is there to efficiently burn it.” This statement is incorrect. The fuel air ratio remains nominally constant and is governed by the inlet manifold pressure on engines with a carburettor or electronically on fuel injected engines.
“more oxygen or other beneficial gases into the air box to me sounds logical that there would be less wasted fuel.” Firstly you can “waste” less fuel simply by leaning the mixture. Your engine won’t last very long but feel free to give it a go. Secondly how much of these beneficial gases do you think this joe cell is producing. Electrolysis of water is nothing new and well understood. However the way that is set up and used in this application guarantees that the rate of gas production will insufficient to make one iota of difference.
“sorry but im not going to be one who instantly writes the concept off.
it does hold some merit” That’s your choice and you are most welcome to do that. However the concept has been around for years and has been shown not to work.
Ebay Item number: 140255788665
Build it, try it & then tell us what you know.
It works as I have one on my BF Falcon LPG ute…..get around 700kms to a tank!
Quote \”BMW has wiped the floor with its competitors in the latest engine awards, with the German marque claiming honors for no less than five engines\”
You left out the word \”AGAIN\”,hehehehe
Right there missile. The problem with the crappy Prius getting the award is its the whole car not just the engine.
BMW’s diesels I would suggest are the market leaders for outright performance now, even ahead of the Frogs efforts.
is this one still going???
you spelt “Floor” wrong by the way BM