First Drive: Falcon Ecoboost

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by chevypower

the shutdown technology minimizes air and fuel intake when it shuts down half of its cylinders, but it does not gain efficiency because all of the parts are still moving. You are right that if the turbos do not spool, the engine will not suck in as much fuel. The smaller turbo engine is more efficient because you do not waste as much energy moving bigger pistons up and down. With the EcoBoost, the if the rpm were equal to a non turbo version of the same engine, the EcoBoost would consume more fuel with the turbos spooling. But to get the same power, less rpm would be needed. On the EcoBoost, the turbos help with low-end torque with minimal throttle input.

Variable displacement is key here,
Ford's research shows that 80% of running is done at less than 50% throttle opening so most of the
timean Ecoboost 2.0 can be run at light throttle on Miller cycle and behave like a Hi Comp 1.4 or 1.6
but it can equally re size itself to become the equivalent of a 3.5 V6 when needed.

Unlike older turbo engines with less sophisticated technology, Ecoboost engines don't need t0
as run rich at part boost for detonation protection, the new software programming does that
by using the VCT, Injection timing/phasing and increased EGR so at part throttle, it's like a diesel..

[prydey]

Originally Posted by chevypower

the shutdown technology minimizes air and fuel intake when it shuts down half of its cylinders, but it does not gain efficiency because all of the parts are still moving.

the engine possibly becomes less efficient, but lets not confuse efficiency with economy. i'm simply talking L/100km. the honda accord dropped a few tenths off its ave l/100km with its cylinder shutdown tech, so it is more economical.

jpd - so when cruising, even if the turbo is spooling, the engine can become like a much smaller capacity. cool stuff.

i wonder how long it will be before camshafts are a thing of the past in everyday cars. i believe in F1 valves are operated via hydraulics and electronics and i thought ferrari or porsche had looked at that sort of thing.

internal combustion engine has a few tricks left up its sleeve yet.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by prydey

the engine possibly becomes less efficient, but lets not confuse efficiency with economy. i'm simply talking L/100km. the honda accord dropped a few tenths off its ave l/100km with its cylinder shutdown tech, so it is more economical.

jpd - so when cruising, even if the turbo is spooling, the engine can become like a much smaller capacity. cool stuff.

i wonder how long it will be before camshafts are a thing of the past in everyday cars. i believe in F1 valves are operated via hydraulics and electronics and i thought ferrari or porsche had looked at that sort of thing.

internal combustion engine has a few tricks left up its sleeve yet.

Think 1.0 I-3 Ecoboost coupled to bigger electric motors and batteries. The ICE will give just enough power
for long range highway driving with A/C and head lights but the plug in rechargeable Electric vehicle is coming.

[prydey]

can't believe KERS systems haven't been more widely developed. porsche went down that road too, but i guess its a fine line between developing the petrol motor further or throwing development dollars behind the electric novelty.

[FPV GTHO]

Originally Posted by prydey

i believe in F1 valves are operated via hydraulics and electronics and i thought ferrari or porsche had looked at that sort of thing.

internal combustion engine has a few tricks left up its sleeve yet.

F1 is just pneumatic valve springs, theres still a physical camshaft and VVT is banned. LMP is probably more likely to drive engine technology as the manufacturers generally spend less money there and thus the regulations are more open.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by prydey

can't believe KERS systems haven't been more widely developed. .

KERS has a very limited application, the energy is easily lost unless the vehicle is in constant motion,
Electrical hybrids are most effective at low speed stop start driving, something KERS isn't good at.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by prydey

the engine possibly becomes less efficient, but lets not confuse efficiency with economy. i'm simply talking L/100km. the honda accord dropped a few tenths off its ave l/100km with its cylinder shutdown tech, so it is more economical.

jpd - so when cruising, even if the turbo is spooling, the engine can become like a much smaller capacity. cool stuff.

i wonder how long it will be before camshafts are a thing of the past in everyday cars. i believe in F1 valves are operated via hydraulics and electronics and i thought ferrari or porsche had looked at that sort of thing.

internal combustion engine has a few tricks left up its sleeve yet.

When at a cruise a turbo engine doesn't need to provide boost, it just vents the boosted air off if it doesn't need it. I'd say sitting on the highway at 100 the Ecoboost 4 would be providing zero boost. Up a steep hill with the cruise control on it might tip in some boost to maintain speed but just because its reached a point of revs where the turbos spool up doesn't necessarily mean the engine is taking the boosted air in.

As for the Honda Accord, even with a smaller 3.5 V6, lighter weight and cylinder shutdown it still uses more fuel than an I6 Falcon. 10.1 Vs 9.9 in the Falcon. Its a pretty poor engine really if after all those factors it still uses more juice than a bigger Falcon "dinosaur".

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

When at a cruise a turbo engine doesn't need to provide boost, it just vents the boosted air off if it doesn't need it. I'd say sitting on the highway at 100 the Ecoboost 4 would be providing zero boost. Up a steep hill with the cruise control on it might tip in some boost to maintain speed but just because its reached a point of revs where the turbos spool up doesn't necessarily mean the engine is taking the boosted air in.

As for the Honda Accord, even with a smaller 3.5 V6, lighter weight and cylinder shutdown it still uses more fuel than an I6 Falcon. 10.1 Vs 9.9 in the Falcon. Its a pretty poor engine really if after all those factors it still uses more juice than a bigger Falcon "dinosaur".

Honda V6 is nothing to write home about, the only engines they do good with are 4 cylinders.

[outback_ute]

We will just have to wait & see. The Ecoboost Edge has had good reviews from what I have seen, but in the heavier Explorer not so good.. More locally a similar scenario is the Mazda CX-7 with the 2.3 DI turbo. They have reasonable official fuel economy ratings but can be pretty horrible in the real world, 14l/100 is pretty common or should I say easy to achieve.

I don't see why the Falcon won't be able to cruise without boost, and I am optimistic that the acceleration figures indicate that under 'normal' throttle applications it will be only under light boost in normal driving. Ironically I think that eco-tuning can be counter-productive because if the car is not responsive enough, people just apply more throttle which negates any economy benefit and more.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

When at a cruise a turbo engine doesn't need to provide boost, it just vents the boosted air off if it doesn't need it. I'd say sitting on the highway at 100 the Ecoboost 4 would be providing zero boost. Up a steep hill with the cruise control on it might tip in some boost to maintain speed but just because its reached a point of revs where the turbos spool up doesn't necessarily mean the engine is taking the boosted air in.

They actually boost at cruise these days and vary the inlet vale to close late,
reducing capacity to around 70% and with it compression but adding boost
to this reduced capacity actually increases torque on light throttle meaning
a 2.0 Ecoboost actually behaves like a 1.4 or 1.6 litre engine that's lightly boosted
making it seem like a good 2.5 DI engine while giving outstanding economy.

Confused?

As for the Honda Accord, even with a smaller 3.5 V6, lighter weight and cylinder shutdown it still uses more fuel than an I6 Falcon. 10.1 Vs 9.9 in the Falcon. Its a pretty poor engine really if after all those factors it still uses more juice than a bigger Falcon "dinosaur".

Ford looked at cylinder deactivation but ruled it out due to excessive NVH.
IMO, using the 12:1 compression package with petrol and accessing more Atkinson cycle
would give the 4.0 I-6 much more variable capacity, enabling it to ape a 2.8 litre I-6 on cruise...

[jpd80]

Everyone that's experienced turbos on the past is afraid of part throttle boost and the associated enrichment
needed to avoid detonation, well I'm here to tell you that Ecoboost actually achieves a state of lean boost due to
sophisticated control of detonation through use of VCT, multiple firing of direct injection and healthy amount of EGR.
Precise control of all functions is the key to Ecoboost's success, it's way more than just a Bosch DI Turbo system,
that's why Ford has taken out so many patents on the software especially, protocols and control strategies

[roberts]

will a t67 high mount fit
will the internals hold 30psi
will sct have a tuner
will pwr make a water to air kit

[jpd80]

Good link to Ford paper on advanced Ecoboost studies here


Engineer a comprehensive suite of gasoline engine systems technologies to achieve the project objectives, including 25% Total Fuel Economy Improvement

•Aggressive engine downsizing in a mid-sized sedan from a large V6 to a small I4 (18% Fuel Economy Improvement)

Mid & long term EcoBoost technologies
•Advanced dilute combustion w/ cooled exhaust gas recycling & advanced ignition
•Advanced lean combustion w/ direct fuel injection & advanced ignition
•Advanced boosting systems w/ active & compounding components
•Advanced cooling & after treatment systems5% Fuel Economy Improvement

Additional technologies
•Advanced friction reduction technologies
•Advanced engine control strategies
•Advanced NVH countermeasures3% Fuel EconomyImprovement

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by jpd80

They actually boost at cruise these days and vary the inlet vale to close late,
reducing capacity to around 70% and with it compression but adding boost
to this reduced capacity actually increases torque on light throttle meaning
a 2.0 Ecoboost actually behaves like a 1.4 or 1.6 litre engine that's lightly boosted
making it seem like a good 2.5 DI engine while giving outstanding economy.

Confused?

Not at all. Allowing the cam timing to be continually changed via VCT opens up so many different parameters for engine tuning it can basically make an engine good at everything, whereas back in the day with single cams and no VCT everything the engine was tuned for was a compromise. Idle, economy, emissions, power and torque down low and up high, if you wanted one of them over the others then the others had to suffer in some way. Not anymore.

[JPFS1]

some info for you..

Falcon EcoBoost specs

179kW @ 5,500
353Nm @ 2,000

8.1L/100km for XT (192g/km CO2)
8.5L/100km for G6 and G6E (201g/km CO2)

No price premium.

Also a minor change to EcoLPi which has further improved economy and emissions.

Available Q2.

[Smoke Pursuit]

Wow thats impressive...

Whats the 0 - 100.. It should nearly outdo the 3.6 Omega.

[XR Martin]

So about the same economy as Camry, but a hell of alot more power and torque.

[Brazen]

That torque figure is insane for a 2 litre.

The real clincher though is the no price premium!

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by JPFS1

some info for you..

Falcon EcoBoost specs

179kW @ 5,500
353Nm @ 2,000

8.1L/100km for XT (192g/km CO2)
8.5L/100km for G6 and G6E (201g/km CO2)

No price premium.

Also a minor change to EcoLPi which has further improved economy and emissions.

Available Q2.

Hot damn.

Those L/100 figures combined cycle?

I'm struggling to understand why there is such a difference between the XT and G series.

[prydey]

surely this makes the 6cyl redundant to all but a small minority of buyers!!

only 3kw less than BA. not quite as much peak torque but being available at just off idle, you wouldn't notice.

i can't see a reason why you would tick the 6cyl petrol box.

[Smoke Pursuit]

Cheaper fuel, cheaper rego.... its all a win...

I think ill trade my GT in on a G6.... comfy suspension / tyre combo, cheap to run..... sounds like the car to own!

[Joe5619]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

I'm struggling to understand why there is such a difference between the XT and G series.

My too!!

[Martyvan]

So when does left hand drive production begin??? That would eat the base model 5 series and e class for breakfast........ maybe thas all part of the plan. Impressive specs indeed.

[Joe5619]

Originally Posted by prydey

surely this makes the 6cyl redundant to all but a small minority of buyers!!

only 3kw less than BA. not quite as much peak torque but being available at just off idle, you wouldn't notice.

i can't see a reason why you would tick the 6cyl petrol box.

Only problem with that, no Ecoboost XR (I'm still not convinced this is a good move). So I still personally see a need for the I6 for this reason only. Hopefully this move might mean the XR will again become something special??

[Rodge]

8.1 litres v 8.5 litres per 100 km's on the face of it doesn't appear logical ??

[Rodge]

Originally Posted by prydey

surely this makes the 6cyl redundant to all but a small minority of buyers!!

only 3kw less than BA. not quite as much peak torque but being available at just off idle, you wouldn't notice.

i can't see a reason why you would tick the 6cyl petrol box.

198 Kw's and 409 nm's on 95 Octane Fuel, its proven 50 year history of good reliability and legendary longevity, simple design that's easily maintained, effortless power delivery, Ecoboost not available in XR6, potentially higher maintenance costs with the ecoboost especially over the long run.

I still think there's a good case for the I6 but agree the Ecoboost stat's look impressive.

[Smoke Pursuit]

Originally Posted by Rodge

8.1 litres v 8.5 litres per 100 km's on the face of it doesn't appear logical ??

Those bigger alloys must be heavier hey rodge... Gotta remember the G6 / G6E have the heavier colour screen too!! Lol.

Might be a sign of things though, the 6 handles more weight easier... I would hate to think what the economy of the 4 pot towing would be!!

[dimka100]

The G6 is 30KG heavier than the XT, and the G6E is another 20kg heavier than the G6, however even an extra 50kg would not suddenly make an already very heavy car 5% less fuel efficient. With the I6 the economy difference is only 0.1 ltr/100km between the XT and G6E, I would expect the weight differential to be the same (as its due to luxury equipment levels) and the wheel/tyre difference is well known.

That seems to suggest the XT has undergone some additional changes to further reduce the economy, possibly lighter smaller wheels, and low resistance tyres, further demonstrating Ford’s focus on the Fleet market for the EcoBoost. Not having an XR6 Ecoboost further suggest private buyers are not the targeted audience.

Originally Posted by Rodge

8.1 litres v 8.5 litres per 100 km's on the face of it doesn't appear logical ??

[Smoke Pursuit]

Originally Posted by dimka100

The G6 is 30KG heavier than the XT, and the G6E is another 20kg heavier than the G6, however even an extra 50kg would not suddenly make an already very heavy car 5% less fuel efficient. With the I6 the economy difference is only 0.1 ltr/100km between the XT and G6E, I would expect the weight differential to be the same (as its due to luxury equipment levels) and the wheel/tyre difference is well known.

That seems to suggest the XT has undergone some additional changes to further reduce the economy, possibly lighter smaller wheels, and low resistance tyres, further demonstrating Ford’s focus on the Fleet market for the EcoBoost. Not having an XR6 Ecoboost further suggest private buyers are not the targeted audience.

This further proves my thought... the I4 doesnt like extra weight (like most 4 cylinders)....

[Rodge]

Dunno guys its hard to figure. The new eco tyres are pretty trick but they're not cheap so if they're putting them on an XT is beggars belief they wouldn't go on the more expensive G6 and G6E.

Maybe the G6 and G6E rims and that super new touchscreen are all made of lead