Updated details on Ecoboost 2.0

**Luke Plaizier** · 12-01-2010, 02:06 PM

After the 'End of the Falcon is nigh' tripe for this morning, here is useful info hidden in the wings. But since it's not negative, we don't see it rolled out everywhere (it's hard not to be cynical isn't it)

Key points for me - the 4cyl will use up to 20% less fuel than the current I6 so around 8.0L/100km. Will have 170-185kW of power, and will generate 325Nm of Torque from as low as 1700rpm. Nothing really new.

And if Jez was clever, he'd have mentioned that the Holden 3.0L SIDI has a bit more power (190kW), but has less torque - 290Nm at 2600rpm - and uses more fuel both in the ADR cycle and the real world.

I was OK with the rest of the article, but it's interesting that the very first thing that Jez Spinks focuses on in the article is negative. But I'm not really expecting balanced reporting any more from this guy, he's the new Josh Dowling to me ....

http://news.drive.com.au/drive/motor...0111-m1rc.html

Lukeyson

XWGT · 12-01-2010, 02:13 PM

Wow, this Jez guy is a real winner. Where did they get him from?

flappist · 12-01-2010, 02:23 PM

I suspect that the new T4 will be a huge winner.

A flat torque curve is what makes the XR6T far more versitile and quicker than its larger capacity, higher powered and greater max torque demonstrating naturally aspirated brother.

And really all it has to do is kick Toyota Aurion and SIDI in the nuts to grab a good share of the fleet/ordinary large car markets.

FrogInASock · 12-01-2010, 07:01 PM

I, however, wonder what the insurance companies will think of this turbocharged engine?

Airmon · 12-01-2010, 07:21 PM

Quote:

Ford says the four-cylinder engine will be roughly 20 per cent more fuel efficient than a regular V6

What kind of economy figures are the V6s in the US getting? Will be interested to see the weighbridge ticket of the 4cyl Falcon.

flappist · 12-01-2010, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrogInASock

I, however, wonder what the insurance companies will think of this turbocharged engine?

Probably the same as they used to think about the 253 V8 vs 250 I6, same risk, same cost.

Rodp · 12-01-2010, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrogInASock

I, however, wonder what the insurance companies will think of this turbocharged engine?

I guess it's depending on age (therefore apparently experience...) but traditionally scary vehicles like a new STI or EVO X costs the same for me to insure as a bog standard new XT (which is insured for half that of the STI or EVO) according to a few online comprehensive quotes I've done recently.

I don't think it's a case where a snail doubles the premium straight off the bat like it once did many years ago.

Gobes32 · 12-01-2010, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jez Spinks

The Ford Falcon's new four-cylinder engine will be down on power and torque compared with the current six.

Probably has something to do with with the motor having 2 less cylinders and half the capacity????

phillyc · 12-01-2010, 11:28 PM

Quote:

Ford is still revealing few details of the 2.0-litre 'Ecoboost' engine that was confirmed for the locally built large car last July, though a torque graph was released as a teaser prior to this week's Detroit motor show.

The graph suggests the Falcon's four-cylinder turbo will produce peak torque of about 325Nm as low as 1700rpm, with approximately 320Nm then delivered along a usefully flat torque curve from about 1800-5500rpm.

A still healthy 270Nm would still be generated at 6000rpm, according to Ford's engineering graph.

A power graph wasn't included but the four-cylinder is believed to produce between 230 and 250 horsepower - 170-185kW

Use the power & torque formula... We have all the information required.
Nm * RPM / 9549 = kW

320 * 5500 / 9549 = 184kW
270 * 6000 / 9549 = 170kW

So that target zone seems right.

Swordsman88 · 13-01-2010, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phillyc

Use the power & torque formula... We have all the information required.
Nm * RPM / 9549 = kW

320 * 5500 / 9549 = 184kW
270 * 6000 / 9549 = 170kW

So that target zone seems right.

Yes seems about right. I feel they will rate it at 170kw but it may very well make over 180kw on 95RON. Need to leave some room to the I6 for marketing purposes of course....

As for this new data, is this atcually the Ford Aus version of the engine?? We had the numbers for the S max at 300nm. Is ths version for the explorer? Ford did quote as much as 380nm from ths engine, and while we won't and don't need that much torque i am just trying to work out the final torque figure for the aus application. Even if we use this version out of the box, 325nm at 1700rpm is alot more punchy then the competitors product....