Further evidence for the ecoboost doubters..... - Page 2

castellan · 07-02-2010, 01:07 PM

So the new lincoln MKS on the highway got 25 MPG.
"in USA gallons".
What is that in L/100 about 11?
I think i will stay with my 5.7L V8 thanks.

Dr Smith · 07-02-2010, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by castellan

So the new lincoln MKS on the highway got 25 MPG.
"in USA gallons".
What is that in L/100 about 11?
I think i will stay with my 5.7L V8 thanks.

I'm too jet lagged to work it all out however here's a start:
3.8 L to 1 Gall US
1.6 Km to 1 mile.....

OK does 9.5L/100Km sound right?...

Chilliman · 07-02-2010, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by castellan

So the new lincoln MKS on the highway got 25 MPG.
"in USA gallons".
What is that in L/100 about 11?
I think i will stay with my 5.7L V8 thanks.

Actually 25MPG is about 9.4L/100km which is the highway consumtion, urban consumption is 17MPG or 13.8L/100km - still alot better than many V8's. The MKS is a luxury vehicle that weighs in at over 1900kg with the AWD system. It goes 13.9sec for the 0-400m courtesy of the EcoBoost V6.

Still, what we're talking about here is the 2.0Litre EcoBoost I-4 for Falcon which they are looking at an 8.0L/100km combined cycle consumption.

jpd80 · 07-02-2010, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chilliman

Still, what we're talking about here is the 2.0Litre EcoBoost I-4 for Falcon which they are looking at an 8.0L/100km combined cycle consumption.

That's right and when you look at a I-4 Camry,3.0 Commodore and 4.0 Falcon, there a big change
in combined fuel consumption but the funny thing is live with each of them in the real world
and all would give similar city fuel consumption. Buyers don't seem to pick up on this important point.
This is where Ford will fight fire with fire by using the Ecoboost I-4 to put falcon front and centre
as a large mid sized car alternative - the large car fight back against the interlopers creeping up in size.

Whilst hybrid Camry will use less fuel, the EB I-4 Falcon will be much nicer vehicle to drive,
Holden will need to come up with something for Commodore or switch to a better mid sizer....

qwiksix · 08-02-2010, 09:45 AM

I guess they couldn't put the 4cyl ecoboost motor in the G6 or xr6 series. That would make it a G4et/xr4t?
It's so foolish to put cylinder numbers in model names....

So it must be base falcon only?

qs

Chilliman · 08-02-2010, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qwiksix

I guess they couldn't put the 4cyl ecoboost motor in the G6 or xr6 series. That would make it a G4et/xr4t?
It's so foolish to put cylinder numbers in model names....

So it must be base falcon only?

qs

No reason why they can't have an EcoBoost I-4 Falcon G6. The Mazda6 only has an I-4.

cosmo20btt · 08-02-2010, 10:38 AM

Has anyone found what family of engine the I4t for the Falcon will be, as the only engine I can find that is made is the MZR, which is the Mazda 3 & Focus motor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Du...ine#Duratec_HE

Swordsman88 · 08-02-2010, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

Has anyone found what family of engine the I4t for the Falcon will be, as the only engine I can find that is made is the MZR, which is the Mazda 3 & Focus motor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Du...ine#Duratec_HE

I read somewhere (early us launch info on the engine) that basic architecture of the EB engine is the 2.0 duratec (which is very close to mazda MZR). However, apart from the block (which may also have been tweaked) virtually everything else has been changed in some way.

In reality the EB is closest to the new (ford specific i believe) 2.0 DI engine that will feature in US (and prob some australan models) next gen focus. That is a heavilly modified MZR (heads for DI, different flow etc.). So given the EB would be a modified turbo version of a modified DI engine it getting a bit removed. But in theory yes they are all related, to the exact extent i dont' know.....

cosmo20btt · 08-02-2010, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

I read somewhere (early us launch info on the engine) that basic architecture of the EB engine is the 2.0 duratec (which is very close to mazda MZR). However, apart from the block (which may also have been tweaked) virtually everything else has been changed in some way.

In reality the EB is closest to the new (ford specific i believe) 2.0 DI engine that will feature in US (and prob some australan models) next gen focus. That is a heavilly modified MZR (heads for DI, different flow etc.). So given the EB would be a modified turbo version of a modified DI engine it getting a bit removed. But in theory yes they are all related, to the exact extent i dont' know.....

I see why they would use this motor as it is a girdle style housing for the crank. If it did not have it, it would pull the bolts out of the aluminum engine block when the torque loaded up from the turbo.

Wally · 08-02-2010, 05:19 PM

It's a Mazda L3T block

cosmo20btt · 08-02-2010, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wally

It's a Mazda L3T block

L3T? not sure but I am sure it is an MZR as that is what I pulled it up as.

Wally · 08-02-2010, 06:12 PM

By any other name : MZR L3-VDT

2.3 litre 263 HP/280 lb-ft

2 litre interpolation: 2/2.3 x above = 228 Hp/ 243 lb-ft at same nominal boost

Ecoboost I4T = 230 HP/ 240 lb-ft

Interesting huh.

jpd80 · 08-02-2010, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wally

By any other name : MZR L3-VDT

2.3 litre 263 HP/280 lb-ft

2 litre interpolation: 2/2.3 x above = 228 Hp/ 243 lb-ft at same nominal boost

Ecoboost I4T = 230 HP/ 240 lb-ft

Interesting huh.

I suspect that power figure will only be available when you fuel the engine with 98.
On 91, it will probably give around the 211 hp/200 lb ft being advertised for Europe's FWDs

Wally · 08-02-2010, 06:34 PM

I suspect you would be right, but fiddling the boost can easily mask that. Unless the makers all play ball and provide bench testing figures based on equivalence of boost through the range, we will forever be getting oohs and aahs about one engine being better power plants than others. At least sea level pressure is fairly constant.

We have to understand that the USA were late starters with the whole turbo scene. Even Ford Oz were late arrivals here and Holden whimped out after the VL. The US parent is going to market their domestic stock as leading edge, because their customer culture is by and large so entrenched in bigger is better, american iron, etc. and it will take a real live nephew of Uncle Sam to lead them into a brave new world, not some rice eaters.

cosmo20btt · 08-02-2010, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wally

I suspect you would be right, but fiddling the boost can easily mask that. Unless the makers all play ball and provide bench testing figures based on equivalence of boost through the range, we will forever be getting oohs and aahs about one engine being better power plants than others. At least sea level pressure is fairly constant.

We have to understand that the USA were late starters with the whole turbo scene. Even Ford Oz were late arrivals here and Holden whimped out after the VL. The US parent is going to market their domestic stock as leading edge, because their customer culture is by and large so entrenched in bigger is better, american iron, etc. and it will take a real live nephew of Uncle Sam to lead them into a brave new world, not some rice eaters.

I think it is strange that Holden more or less could of brought Ford to its knees if they continued down the nissan inline six path, but the dramas that Holden had with their short cut radiator system would have put them off the nissan motor, however history shows that it picked the v6 way.

Franco Cozzo · 08-02-2010, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

I think it is strange that Holden more or less could of brought Ford to its knees if they continued down the nissan inline six path, but the dramas that Holden had with their short cut radiator system would have put them off the nissan motor, however history shows that it picked the v6 way.

Holden would have had some weapons if they continued with the Nissan deal, imagine RB26DETT Commodores.

cosmo20btt · 08-02-2010, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Holden would have had some weapons if they continued with the Nissan deal, imagine RB26DETT Commodores.

Them beasts would have been Nasty!!

:

Wally · 08-02-2010, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

I think it is strange that Holden more or less could of brought Ford to its knees if they continued down the nissan inline six path, but the dramas that Holden had with their short cut radiator system would have put them off the nissan motor, however history shows that it picked the v6 way.

Interesting you say that about the radiator. I had a 4 row installed early in the peace when it became apparant the host one was a little suss when on boost. The buick:- well I guess detroit wanted the margins more than the guys at Nissan. I doubt Ford would have succumbed.

cosmo20btt · 08-02-2010, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wally

Interesting you say that about the radiator. I had a 4 row installed early in the peace when it became apparant the host one was a little suss when on boost. The buick:- well I guess detroit wanted the margins more than the guys at Nissan. I doubt Ford would have succumbed.

The problem was Holden when they made the radiator, they just put a baffle half way down the radiator tank, and after a few 1000k's the baffle used to rattle loose and fall to the bottom of the radiator, presto hot water comes in top pipe goes straight out bottom pipe. By the time they did an update radiator, they were already thinking V6.

Bossxr8 · 08-02-2010, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

I think it is strange that Holden more or less could of brought Ford to its knees if they continued down the nissan inline six path, but the dramas that Holden had with their short cut radiator system would have put them off the nissan motor, however history shows that it picked the v6 way.

The yen soared in value after the VL was released. Thats why they ditched it. Too expensive.

Ohio XB · 09-02-2010, 01:39 PM

What Ford says about the I4....

http://media.ford.com/article_displa...ticle_id=30997

Quote:

FORD EXPANDS GLOBAL ECOBOOST LINE; HIGH-VOLUME FOUR-CYLINDER ENGINES TO BE OFFERED IN ALL REGIONS

Ford's current 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 engine will be complemented with new 1.6-, 2.0-liter turbocharged, direct-injected I-4 engines for Europe, North America and Australia

The new high-volume four-cylinder EcoBoost engines will be offered across most of Ford's global product lineup, including midsize and large vehicles.

The new engines will deliver up to a 20 percent improvement in fuel economy on up to 1.3 million vehicles globally by 2013, retaining fun-to-drive characteristics of Ford products

DEARBORN, Mich., Sept. 15, 2009 – Ford's high-performance, fuel-saving four-cylinder EcoBoost engine family is making its global debut early in 2010, marking a major milestone in the company's strategy to deliver greater fuel economy for millions.

The all-new EcoBoost 1.6-liter and 2.0-liter I-4 engines combine turbocharging and direct-injection technology to deliver fuel consumption and CO2 emissions reduced by up to 20 percent versus conventional, larger-displacement gasoline engines with similar power output. At the same time, EcoBoost engines will deliver the off-the-line power and performance characteristics familiar to diesel enthusiasts.

The fun-to-drive nature of EcoBoost engines is leading Ford to introduce these fuel-saving powertrains in large volumes virtually across its lineup. For example, by 2013 more than 90 percent of Ford's North American lineup will be available with EcoBoost technology, and nearly 80 percent of Ford's global nameplates will have an available EcoBoost option.

"Ford engineers looked at every available engine configuration, comparing power, price, economy and emissions, determining the best way to power Ford vehicles in the future," said Derrick Kuzak, group vice president, Ford Global Product Development.

"EcoBoost technology gives us everything: a combination of the performance buyers expect and fuel economy improvements they demand that, until now, only has been achievable with the latest-generation turbo-diesel powertrains," he added.

Going forward, Ford will shift its powertrain allocations. Under the new system:

A 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 would replace naturally aspirated V-8 engines
A 2.0-liter EcoBoost I-4 would replace naturally aspirated V-6 engines
A 1.6-liter EcoBoost I-4 would replace naturally aspirated large I-4 engines
"With this next phase of our plan, we will expand our EcoBoost engine offerings, adding higher-volume, fuel-efficient four-cylinder engines to the premium V-6 engine we currently offer in North America," said Kuzak.

For European markets, the first available I-4 EcoBoost engines will be 1.6-liter units that launch on the all-new Ford C-MAX in late 2010. The 2.0-liter EcoBoost engine will arrive on larger European Ford products and will be launched in North America in 2010. Australia will see the Ford Falcon arrive with an available 2.0-liter EcoBoost I-4 in 2011.

By 2013, global EcoBoost volume throughout the Ford, Lincoln and Mercury vehicle family is expected to be 1.3 million units, with up to 750,000 sales coming from North America alone.

Why EcoBoost?
EcoBoost engines combine direct gasoline injection with turbocharging to lower emissions, improve performance and reduce fuel use. Technological advancements provide driving fun with high power ratings from lower-capacity engines and torque performance similar to that found on turbocharged diesels.

"EcoBoost is an integrated part of Ford's global mid- and long-term sustainability strategy," said Kuzak. "Combined with advanced multi-speed transmissions, electric power steering, weight reductions and aerodynamic improvements, EcoBoost will help Ford address the world's global warming and energy challenges without sacrificing the joy of driving."

The Chicago Auto Show is open to the publuc on February 12. I figure around then we will get the whole scoop on the 2.0 EcoBoost engine as it is to premier in the 2011 Ford Edge that will be on display. I presume Ford will have several engines (whole engine, cut-a-way) on display as well and we can really see what it will be like.

I am sure it is over-engineered for durability like the 3.5L Ecoboost is with the expectation that people will be making more power than factory with these engines.

Steve

Wally · 10-02-2010, 04:30 PM

The European Ford Galaxy is currently being previewed:

150kW 2.0 ecoboost

Wally · 10-02-2010, 05:17 PM

Mondeo S-Max is also ready to show at the Paris Motor Show:

2.0 ecoboost 150kW
1.6 ecoboost 120kW
2.0 deisel TDCi 120kW

mrbaxr6t · 10-02-2010, 06:08 PM

of course they are going to subject it to a torture worse than what hell can dish up but I am still skeptical I know on paper it will work well but the idea just makes my "oh hell no" meter go into overdrive. I still am baffled why they are dropping the duratec 5 cylinder methinks 5 cylinders would be less of an ego crush than 4 why not ecoboost that engine or one like it? at least use it as a stepping stone to a 4 cylinder it is a good motor by all accounts and as mentioned a 5 cylinder dont sound as wimpy and "oh hell no" as a 4 cylinder

ALSO turbo engines fail when the service intervals are not met the oil feed lines block and we all know how some people neglect their cars then kick the car when it stops on the side of the road - how can this be engineered against? I don't think it can

Wretched · 10-02-2010, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrbaxr6t

of course they are going to subject it to a torture worse than what hell can dish up but I am still skeptical I know on paper it will work well but the idea just makes my "oh hell no" meter go into overdrive. I still am baffled why they are dropping the duratec 5 cylinder methinks 5 cylinders would be less of an ego crush than 4 why not ecoboost that engine or one like it? at least use it as a stepping stone to a 4 cylinder it is a good motor by all accounts and as mentioned a 5 cylinder dont sound as wimpy and "oh hell no" as a 4 cylinder

ALSO turbo engines fail when the service intervals are not met the oil feed lines block and we all know how some people neglect their cars then kick the car when it stops on the side of the road - how can this be engineered against? I don't think it can

5 cylinder was a Volvo engine.

Ford are not the first to put small engine into a large car, Europe has been doing it for years and it works.

Chilliman · 10-02-2010, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wretched

5 cylinder was a Volvo engine.

Ford are not the first to put small engine into a large car, Europe has been doing it for years and it works.

Yep, look at S-Max; a 1676kg minivan that goes 0-100km/hr in 8.5 seconds and by all accounts has a meaty torque curve out of its 150kW/300Nm 2.0Litre EcoBoost I-4