Ford's Ecoboost V-6

[shp4man]

My point is if the benefit of Ecoboost is good gas mileage if you don't use the power, what's the point of paying for that power?

You have a valid point. The general public would be better off with a regular 3.5L

[the Teuton]

A better option for Americans would probably be a sub-2.0 I4 Ecoboost with the power of a V6. That would be less of a gimmick and more of a real economical engine.

[TBR]

16.9l/100km urban and 8.8l/100km extra-urban = 13.9/26.7mpg US = 16.7/32.1mpg imperial

In defense of Ecoboost, the SHO is hauling around a lot more weight than the Falcon, and it has the power drain of AWD.

Nonetheless, I agree that Ecoboost isn't all that impressive.

[93JC]

Yes, I know it's an in-line six and it's not suitable for transverse FWD applications, but I can walk into my Ford dealer right now and get a single-turbo non-DI six with lineage directly traceable back to 1960 producing at least 362hp/393lb-ft (and up to 416hp/417lb-ft) whilst achieving 14/27mpg economy (compared to 15/25 for a Taurus SHO). If this EcoBoost malarkey is apparently the next generation of Ford sixes, I......was expecting a little more?

You can't compare Australian fuel economy figures to U.S. EPA figures directly. The Australian test cycle is more generous. The Falcon would almost certainly be rated by the EPA as something nearer 12/24, if not worse.

[omicron]

You can't compare Australian fuel economy figures to U.S. EPA figures directly. The Australian test cycle is more generous. The Falcon would almost certainly be rated by the EPA as something nearer 12/24, if not worse.

I was waiting for some knowledgeable chap to tell me that, because I hadn't the faintest clue.

[93JC]

I bet Australian fuel economy testing is more like Canada's, which is fairly generous (and frankly more accurate in my experience) compared to the US. It's pretty safe to assume the US figures are a good 20% or more worse than the Canadian ones.

[ifcar]

I bet Australian fuel economy testing is more like Canada's, which is fairly generous (and frankly more accurate in my experience) compared to the US. It's pretty safe to assume the US figures are a good 20% or more worse than the Canadian ones.

Canada has a different test cycle? I didn't realize that.

[shp4man]

Yikes- I would hate to work on it!

That drawing is missing the air piping, turbos, waterpump? etc....
What's up with that crazy looking oil cap?

It's more complicated that a regular engine. The direct injection fuel rail runs a pressure of up to 3500 PSI and requires special tools to service. Oil cap?

[shp4man]

3.5L/355 HP + production engine=impressive engineering.

[93JC]

Canada has a different test cycle? I didn't realize that.

... which is particularly funny, considering:

After throwing them all into a spreadsheet:
(city/hwy, in L/100 km - city/hwy, in mpusg)

Corolla (man) - 7.1/5.3 - 33/44
Civic (man) - 7.4/5.4 - 32/44
Versa (CVT) - 7.5/6.0 - 31/39
Corolla (auto) - 7.8/5.6 - 30/42
Matrix/Vibe (man) - 7.9/5.9 - 30/40
Civic (auto) - 8.2/5.7 - 29/41
Versa (man) - 7.9/6.3 - 30/37
Elantra (auto) - 8.2/6.0 - 29/39
Sentra 2.0 (CVT) - 8.2/6.0 - 29/39
Focus (man) - 8.5/5.7 - 28/41
Focus (auto) - 8.4/5.9 - 28/40
Matrix/Vibe (auto) - 8.2/6.3 - 29/37
Elantra (man) - 8.4/6.0 - 28/39
3 2.0 (man) - 8.4/6.1 - 28/39
Astra (auto) - 8.5/6.1 - 28/39
Sentra 2.0 (man) - 8.3/6.4 - 28/37
Versa (auto) - 8.5/6.2 - 28/38
Spectra (auto) - 8.6/6.2 - 27/38
Astra (man) - 8.4/6.6 - 28/36 AVERAGE NOT INCL. RABBIT & IMPREZA
CSX (man) - 8.7/6.4 - 27/37
Cobalt/G5 2.2 (man) - 9.2/5.9 - 26/40
Caliber 1.8 - 8.5/6.8 - 28/35
AVERAGE
Spectra (man) - 8.9/6.5 - 26/36
3 2.0 (auto) - 9.1/6.4 - 26/37
Cobalt/G5 2.2 (auto) - 9.2/6.4 - 26/37
B200 (man) - 9.2/6.7 - 26/35
CSX (auto) - 9.5/6.5 - 25/36
Caliber 2.0 - 9.0/7.3 - 26/32
B200 (CVT) - 9.2/7.2 - 36/33
Lancer (CVT) - 9.6/6.9 - 25/34
Lancer (man) - 9.7/7.0 - 24/34
City Golf/Jetta (man) - 9.8/7.0 - 24/34
City Golf/Jetta (auto) - 9.9/6.9 - 24/34
Rabbit (auto) - 10.6/7.0 - 22/34
Impreza (auto) - 10.4/7.5 - 22/34
Rabbit (man) - 10.8/6.9 - 23/31
Impreza (man) - 10.6/7.3 - 22/32

The average came out the same as the Astra with a manual, if you don't include the Impreza and Rabbit which are much worse than the rest.

[FoMoJo]

My point is if the benefit of Ecoboost is good gas mileage if you don't use the power, what's the point of paying for that power?

Bragging rights.  Not much different than other innovations such as VTEC.

[565]

My point is if the benefit of Ecoboost is good gas mileage if you don't use the power, what's the point of paying for that power?

So that when you do want the power, you don't have to drive home and get your powerful car to get it.  Likewise when you are stuck behind slow moving traffic, you don't have to go home and get your economy car to save gas.

Just like my Z06 only gets around 30mpg hwy if you are in 6th gear just cruising along with everyone else.  But if I feel like pushing it, the option to do so is there.

It's like asking why buy a car with airbags when you don't use them 99.99% of the time.  Having the option is always good.

[sportyaccordy]

So that when you do want the power, you don't have to drive home and get your powerful car to get it.  Likewise when you are stuck behind slow moving traffic, you don't have to go home and get your economy car to save gas.

Just like my Z06 only gets around 30mpg hwy if you are in 6th gear just cruising along with everyone else.  But if I feel like pushing it, the option to do so is there.

It's like asking why buy a car with airbags when you don't use them 99.99% of the time.  Having the option is always good.

W/the additional pumping losses and weight you will never get the gas mileage of a normal 3.5

The turbo four makes sense. Especially considering they already have it made (in the Mazdaspeed 3).

Let's not talk about the Taurus SHO. It makes no sense. And the Ecoboost V6 in the Fusion with a stickshift would probably be too extreme for Ford to release. It would have still been a better idea than the Taurus SHO though. A turbo 4 Fusion replacing the V6 makes a ton of sense though. With enough sound insulation people wouldn't notice the sound anyway.

[S204STi]

i swear i see a terbow

I see two in fact.

[TBR]

Also, let's not pretend that the idea of replacing a large engine with a smaller turbo one is some kind of new or novel idea. Audi has more or less been doing it for over a decade.

[SVT666]

W/the additional pumping losses and weight you will never get the gas mileage of a normal 3.5

The turbo four makes sense. Especially considering they already have it made (in the Mazdaspeed 3).

Not the same engine.

Let's not talk about the Taurus SHO. It makes no sense.

Since when does a performance car of any kind have to make sense?

And the Ecoboost V6 in the Fusion with a stickshift would probably be too extreme for Ford to release.

How so?  Have you not seen the Terminator Cobras?  The GT500?  The Raptor?  The Euro Focus RS?

[sportyaccordy]

Not the same engine.
Since when does a performance car of any kind have to make sense?
How so?  Have you not seen the Terminator Cobras?  The GT500?  The Raptor?  The Euro Focus RS?

1. The Fusion + Mazda 3/6 use the same engines
2. The Taurus (and Ecoboost Flex for that matter) is not the best chassis to showcase the potential of the Ecoboost motor. Plus as I illustrated in another thread it doesn't outperform, get better gas mileage than or have any more interior room than comparably sized & powered traditional V8 cars.
3. The Fusion being too extreme is the only way I can make sense of them not putting the SHO drivetrain into it. Even at the Taurus SHO's price point an Ecoboost Fusion just makes more sense to the market this kind of car would appeal to.

[r0tor]

1) Ford does not have the turbo MZR 4 banger in the MS3
2) The Taurus sho romps an Audi A6 with their 4.2L V8
3) If you do any research the release of the SVT Fusion you'd find it was delayed due to not enough supply of the ecoboost engines

[Nethead]

So that when you do want the power, you don't have to drive home and get your powerful car to get it.  Likewise when you are stuck behind slow moving traffic, you don't have to go home and get your economy car to save gas.

Just like my Z06 only gets around 30mpg hwy if you are in 6th gear just cruising along with everyone else.  But if I feel like pushing it, the option to do so is there.

It's like asking why buy a car with airbags when you don't use them 99.99% of the time.  Having the option is always good.

565:  Great posting, 565Dude!  

[Nethead]

i swear i see a terbow

Two of them, in fact--the one in the left of the pic is visible near the front of the engine and the one in the right of the pic is visible near the back of the engine--assymetric positioning, which probably means this is a pic of the transversely-mounted version of the EcoBoost V6.  Whether the longitudinally-mounted version of this engine has a different configuration of the tew terbows the Nethead here does not know--likely it would.  Or else it wouldn't...

[SVT666]

1. The Fusion + Mazda 3/6 use the same engines
2. The Taurus (and Ecoboost Flex for that matter) is not the best chassis to showcase the potential of the Ecoboost motor. Plus as I illustrated in another thread it doesn't outperform, get better gas mileage than or have any more interior room than comparably sized & powered traditional V8 cars.
3. The Fusion being too extreme is the only way I can make sense of them not putting the SHO drivetrain into it. Even at the Taurus SHO's price point an Ecoboost Fusion just makes more sense to the market this kind of car would appeal to.

1. The EcoBoost 4 banger is not in any Mazda at this point.
2. The Taurus is in fact very fast.  In it's class there are few cars if any that are as fast.
3. The SVT Fusion was delayed, not cancelled.

[RomanChariot]

Two of them, in fact--the one in the left of the pic is visible near the front of the engine and the one in the right of the pic is visible near the back of the engine--assymetric positioning, which probably means this is a pic of the transversely-mounted version of the EcoBoost V6.  Whether the longitudinally-mounted version of this engine has a different configuration of the tew terbows the Nethead here does not know--likely it would.  Or else it wouldn't...

It looks to me like they are using the same exhaust manifold on both sides of the engine.  This puts the turbo mount toward the rear on one side and toward the front on the other side.  Nice trick to avoid making left and right manifolds.

[Nethead]

1. The Fusion + Mazda 3/6 use the same engines
2. The Taurus (and Ecoboost Flex for that matter) is not the best chassis to showcase the potential of the Ecoboost motor. Plus as I illustrated in another thread it doesn't outperform, get better gas mileage than or have any more interior room than comparably sized & powered traditional V8 cars.
3. The Fusion being too extreme is the only way I can make sense of them not putting the SHO drivetrain into it. Even at the Taurus SHO's price point an Ecoboost Fusion just makes more sense to the market this kind of car would appeal to.

sportyaccordy:  More than a year ago, I think it was Motor Trend that first ran an article that said a sporty Fusion using the EcoBoost V6 (whether or not identical to the Taurus SHO engine) was shelved because the proposed sporty Fusion would be in production only one year before the Fusion line is due to be replaced by a "Euro-Fusion" (my euphemism, not Ford's), and all the work to produce a sporty Fusion would have to be done all over again to the "Euro-Fusion".  Supposedly, the plan to produce a sporty Fusion using the EcoBoost V6 will be resurrected after the "Euro-Fusion" enters US production, and it will be based upon that newer Fusion.

This info was on the MT website before the automotive sector collapse in the Fall of '08, so those plans may have been shot to Hell by now...

[Nethead]

And from the Ford media website, comes this EcoBoost sales item for the month of September, '09:

"EcoBoost engine launch continues; September sales were nearly triple August, customer demand outstripping projections."

[FoMoJo]

You have a valid point. The general public would be better off with a regular 3.5L

A regular 3.5L with direct injection, but I don't think that option is available.

[Eye of the Tiger]

A better option for Americans would probably be a sub-2.0 I4 Ecoboost with the power of a V6. That would be less of a gimmick and more of a real economical engine.

[Nethead]

A regular 3.5L with direct injection, but I don't think that option is available.

FoMoJo:  I'm not sold on direct injection for "standard" sixes, where port injection costs less on the window sticker and likely less to have serviced over the life of the vehicle.  Direct Injection is the hot set-up for performance engines, but those who aren't shopping for the performance version of a given model probably will be quite content with the performance offered by the "standard" port-injected engine.  I think it's one of Ford's EcoBoost blogs that says that Direct Injection alone doesn't add much without boost--DI cools the fuel-air mix of hotter-running boosted engines to the point that more aggressive timing can be called upon to up the boosted engine's performance significantly.  Non-boosted engines supposedly run sufficiently cooler than boosted engines that aggressive timing is already in use on the naturally-aspirated versions.  I'm sure there are engines that are exceptions to this generalization, but that's Ford's reckoning on the subject.

[Nethead]

"It's truly a dark cloud that the delivery driver was killed, but the silver lining is that he got me the portable sewing machine in plenty of time to alter this tux before I havta pick up Tiffany for the prom.  Tiffany's HOT!  All's well that ends well!"

[FoMoJo]

FoMoJo:  I'm not sold on direct injection for "standard" sixes, where port injection costs less on the window sticker and likely less to have serviced over the life of the vehicle.  Direct Injection is the hot set-up for performance engines, but those who aren't shopping for the performance version of a given model probably will be quite content with the performance offered by the "standard" port-injected engine.  I think it's one of Ford's EcoBoost blogs that says that Direct Injection alone doesn't add much without boost--DI cools the fuel-air mix of hotter-running boosted engines to the point that more aggressive timing can be called upon to up the boosted engine's performance significantly.  Non-boosted engines supposedly run sufficiently cooler than boosted engines that aggressive timing is already in use on the naturally-aspirated versions.  I'm sure there are engines that are exceptions to this generalization, but that's Ford's reckoning on the subject.

I mention that only in terms of fuel efficiency.  I expect that direct injection could be more appropriately metered than port injection and the engine could be made to run more efficiently.  As well, with direct injection and a smart computer process, you could start the engine without other than squirting a bit of fuel in the cylinder which is best situated and then firing it off.  Stopping the engine when the car is stopped and refiring it would be simplified.  I'm not too sure why there hasn't been more development of this feature.  I believe Mazda had experimented with something like this. 

[SVT666]

I mention that only in terms of fuel efficiency.  I expect that direct injection could be more appropriately metered than port injection and the engine could be made to run more efficiently.  As well, with direct injection and a smart computer process, you could start the engine without other than squirting a bit of fuel in the cylinder which is best situated and then firing it off.  Stopping the engine when the car is stopped and refiring it would be simplified.  I'm not too sure why there hasn't been more development of this feature.  I believe Mazda had experimented with something like this. 

I imagine reaction time for the engine is quite slow and it's probably really hard on the engine to start/stop constantly in heavy rush hour traffic.