Ford expands EcoBoost offerings, cars to lose weight

[SVT666]

Ford expands EcoBoost offerings, ups goal to 1.5 million vehicles by 2013
04/12/2010, 4:48 AM
BY MARK KLEIS


Today Ford announced that it will be adding three new EcoBoost applications before the end of 2010, including the first ever rear-wheel drive application of EcoBoost. Ford has also upped its previous target of 1.3 million vehicles to 1.5 million vehicles equipped with EcoBoost in North America by 2013.
Ford says that it plans to offer an EcoBoost engine in 90 percent of its North American vehicles, and the newly introduced 1.6-liter, 2.0-liter and 3.5-liter EcoBoost offerings will help Ford to make that possible.

3.5-liter EcoBoost with rear-wheel drive
Ford currently has a single EcoBoost offering in the form of a 3.5-liter V6 used in front-wheel drive or all-wheel applications. Starting with the 2011 model year F-150, Ford plans to take EcoBoost to the rear wheels. Ford says this new application of the 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6 will deliver best-in-class fuel economy while retaining what it calls ?V8 power and towing capability.?

1.6-liter EcoBoost
Another new key engine will be the 1.6-liter EcoBoost, set to debut in Ford?s European C-MAX people mover. The 1.6-liter EcoBoost has not been confirmed for other applications, yet, but it is also a strong candidate for more performance minded applications such as a future performance Focus, or possibly even a Fiesta.

2.0-liter EcoBoost
Ford will also be offering the already partially introduced 2.0-liter EcoBoost on its next Explorer and Edge models, both of which will gain crucial fuel economy increases. Ford has yet to comment on fuel economy figures for any 2.0-liter EcoBoost offerings, but has suggested horsepower to be around 230, with torque coming in around 240 lb-ft. These power figures put the output above the outgoing 4.0-liter V6, but promise significantly better fuel economy.
?We are trying to get in front of the pack in leveraging EcoBoost for fuel economy,? Kapp said. ?It?s going to be a trend in the industry, and we can?t rest on our laurels for one minute. We are going to keep wringing more efficiency out of EcoBoost.?

Ford also acknowledged that the automaker ?could develop EcoBoost engines smaller than 1.6-liter,? but did not disclose any current projects.

Losing weight

Ford also says that it is working on reducing vehicle weight by 250 to 750 pounds per vehicle, a change it understands is crucial to better fuel economy. Ford hopes that by shedding weight and combining smaller displacement engines with EcoBoost technology, along with new PowerShift transmissions, they will be able to provide the fuel economy figures necessary to meet strict new standards, without compromising power.
Stop/Start technology ? with or without the EPA

Ford also says that it plans to equip as many as 20 percent of its global nameplates with Stop/Start technology by 2014, a move that would save approximately 5 percent in fuel economy and emissions. Currently, EPA fuel economy ratings fail to register the benefit from Stop/Start systems, despite real world gains.

Ford?s VP of global powertrain development, Barb Samardzich, will be speaking at the Society of Automotive Engineers World Congress on Tuesday in Detroit. Samardzich is expected to deliver more details about the upcoming EcoBoost offerings during his speech.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Cool. I hope Ecoboosts prove to be reliable in the hands of all the neglectful owners.

[AutobahnSHO]

Cool. I hope Ecoboosts prove to be reliable in the hands of all the neglectful owners.

haha
Fords are the ultimate test of that. I'm sure it's why they haven't done turbos in their mainstream cars before....

[GoCougs]

Huh - lose weight? You mean to tell me a ~4,400 lb Taurus SHO is a bit self defeating???

I still remain unconvinced a turbo mill will prove more efficient than its N/A counterpart. I see it as a way to spend less on R&D; not a bad plan just a bit misleading.

Start/stop tech sounds like a nightmare, but probably everyone will have that come the disastrous CAFE standards.

[AutobahnSHO]

I still remain unconvinced a turbo mill will prove more efficient than its N/A counterpart. I see it as a way to spend less on R&D; not a bad plan just a bit misleading.

I keep wanting to ask if you're crazy, but I think I have the answer...

[GoCougs]

I keep wanting to ask if you're crazy, but I think I have the answer...

Not crazy, correct, which to those who are incorrect does look like crazy. Correct?

Theoretical efficiency of the IC engine doesn't change because a turbo is thrown into the mix. The only remotely related component is weight and that is very minor - a turbo 4 won't be more than a couple score pounds lighter than an equivalent-performance V6. Its packaging can be a bit tighter, implying a smaller vehicle, but that too is not really related to the engine itself as if Toyota can shoehorn a 270 - 300+ hp N/A V6 in an IS350 or Rav4, or Nissan and a 330 hp N/A V6 in a 370Z, vehicle size is pretty much a none issue.

[SVT666]

Not crazy, correct, which to those who are incorrect does look like crazy. Correct?

Theoretical efficiency of the IC engine doesn't change because a turbo is thrown into the mix. The only remotely related component is weight and that is very minor - a turbo 4 won't be more than a couple score pounds lighter than an equivalent-performance V6. Its packaging can be a bit tighter, implying a smaller vehicle, but that too is not really related to the engine itself as if Toyota can shoehorn a 270 - 300+ hp N/A V6 in an IS350 or Rav4, or Nissan and a 330 hp N/A V6 in a 370Z, vehicle size is pretty much a none issue.

When you're not on boost, you're running a 4 cylinder engine rather then a 6 cylinder.

[GoCougs]

When you're not on boost, you're running a 4 cylinder engine rather then a 6 cylinder.

True (there is less bearing drag and moving less air per hp) but it's still driving the turbo impeller and operating at a lower compression ratio (= lower efficiency).

[SVT666]

True (there is less bearing drag and moving less air per hp) but it's still driving the turbo impeller and operating at a lower compression ratio (= lower efficiency).

EcoBoost has a 10:1 compression ratio.  That's high for a boosted motor.

[AutobahnSHO]

Theoretical efficiency of the IC engine doesn't change because a turbo is thrown into the mix.

Then equal size/ cylinder n/a motors = the same hp as the same engine w/ a turbo. Got it.

[r0tor]

Theoretical efficiency of the IC engine doesn't change because a turbo is thrown into the mix.

Uhh, no..... some exhaust energy is recovered to reduce intake pumping losses

[Eye of the Tiger]

Then equal size/ cylinder n/a motors = the same hp as the same engine w/ a turbo. Got it.

Cougslogic errs on the side of anti-turbo, no matter what.

[r0tor]

the more i think about this, the more I realise that finally in my lifetime a member of the big 3 is actually on or ahead of the current trends and not behind by a decade....

[GoCougs]

EcoBoost has a 10:1 compression ratio.  That's high for a boosted motor.

True, but it has to be lower than its non-boosted counterpart...

Then equal size/ cylinder n/a motors = the same hp as the same engine w/ a turbo. Got it.

Read this like four times and I'm not getting it...

Uhh, no..... some exhaust energy is recovered to reduce intake pumping losses

Some, yes, but there is still back pressure owing to the impeller...

[the Teuton]

I think Cougs might be right.

Then again, can GM shave about 300 lbs. from the Camaro, please, as well as give the car better visibility?

[GoCougs]

The path to increased MPG (which isn't necessarily efficiency as it is strictly defined) will be through slow arduous incremental improvements to the IC engine (higher CRs, better materials, improved engine management) and more advanced use of materials. In short, pretty much how it has gone the last 30 years or so.

In my other thread regarding wheel size and MPG/performance, we saw how a scant 56 lbs decreased MPG by 10%. This lesson can be applied to ANY of the rotating implements of a car - from axles, to drive shafts to gears. Engineers know this but some of this will take a lot of time to develop.

Of course there can be developments in lowering the weight of the car in general (of note, aerospace has already laid claim to most of the carbon fiber production for the next decade) and better aerodynamics.

[S204STi]

Take a look at the 2.0 DISI Ecotech, which will be at least similar to the Ford Ecoboost, for some idea as to what it's capable of in terms of both power and efficiency.  Ford might be late to the DI/FI game but they seem to be doing a better job of marketing themselves since nobody has pointed out that GM already beat them to it by about 5 years or more.

[Eye of the Tiger]

The path to increased MPG (which isn't necessarily efficiency as it is strictly defined) will be through slow arduous incremental improvements to the IC engine (higher CRs, better materials, improved engine management) and more advanced use of materials. In short, pretty much how it has gone the last 30 years or so.

In my other thread regarding wheel size and MPG/performance, we saw how a scant 56 lbs decreased MPG by 10%. This lesson can be applied to ANY of the rotating implements of a car - from axles, to drive shafts to gears. Engineers know this but some of this will take a lot of time to develop.

Of course there can be developments in lowering the weight of the car in general (of note, aerospace has already laid claim to most of the carbon fiber production for the next decade) and better aerodynamics.

You make it sound like turbo direct injection isn't an improvement. Maybe you should design a Cougsoboost and sell it to GM. You could be a billionaire, instead of a whatever the heck you think you are. 

[S204STi]

I have to disagree with Cougs here as well.  These new DI/FI engines manage to be way more efficient and responsive than any turbo engine in the past, and continue to make power which previously was the domain of Japanese V6 or American V8 engines, with similar or better fuel economy.  To me that hints at the idea that they are most likely living up to their promise of improved performance in all areas.

[the Teuton]

How will a turbo engine under incredibly high pressure hold up over a decade or more? These things aren't diesels.

[sportyaccordy]

Not crazy, correct, which to those who are incorrect does look like crazy. Correct?

Theoretical efficiency of the IC engine doesn't change because a turbo is thrown into the mix. The only remotely related component is weight and that is very minor - a turbo 4 won't be more than a couple score pounds lighter than an equivalent-performance V6. Its packaging can be a bit tighter, implying a smaller vehicle, but that too is not really related to the engine itself as if Toyota can shoehorn a 270 - 300+ hp N/A V6 in an IS350 or Rav4, or Nissan and a 330 hp N/A V6 in a 370Z, vehicle size is pretty much a none issue.

Against my better judgment I do want to make note that bigger engines have significantly more pumping losses, which is a problem that grows inversely with load/throttle opening

A turbo engine effectively gives you double the power with maybe 25% more of the pumping losses of an equivalent N/A motor. The only downside is the loss of smoothness, which is probably of no consequence to a faithful Ford 4.0 V6 devotee

[sportyaccordy]

How will a turbo engine under incredibly high pressure hold up over a decade or more? These things aren't diesels.

Gas engines are under much lower stresses than diesels. Much much much lower.

[S204STi]

How will a turbo engine under incredibly high pressure hold up over a decade or more? These things aren't diesels.

Ask the thousands of owners of WRXs which have their original engines nearly a decade later.

[Eye of the Tiger]

How will a turbo engine under incredibly high pressure hold up over a decade or more? These things aren't diesels.

When you open your mind to the impossible, sometimes you will find the truth.

[S204STi]

Gas engines are under much lower stresses than diesels. Much much much lower.

[MX793]

True, but it has to be lower than its non-boosted counterpart...

You don't tend to see much higher than 10:1 in NA motors that run on regular unleaded.  The current 2.0L Duratec/MZR in the Focus and Mazda3 is 10:1.  The larger 2.3/2.5 versions are 9.7:1.

[AutobahnSHO]

Then equal size/ cylinder n/a motors = the same hp as the same engine w/ a turbo. Got it.

Read this like four times and I'm not getting it...

It's basically what you said.

I still remain unconvinced a turbo mill will prove more efficient than its N/A counterpart.

Theoretical efficiency of the IC engine doesn't change because a turbo is thrown into the mix.

[MX793]

It's basically what you said.

I presume Cougs is talking about BSFC efficiency (fuel consumed per horsepower created), not volumetric efficiency or hp/L efficiency.

[Catman]

Huh - lose weight? You mean to tell me a ~4,400 lb Taurus SHO is a bit self defeating???

I still remain unconvinced a turbo mill will prove more efficient than its N/A counterpart. I see it as a way to spend less on R&D; not a bad plan just a bit misleading.

Start/stop tech sounds like a nightmare, but probably everyone will have that come the disastrous CAFE standards.

Glass is always half empty with you.

[GoCougs]

Okay, some good responses.

Yes, bigger engines do = more pumping losses. But then again smaller engines turning at higher RPM to make the same power also = more pumping losses. Of note, the Ferrari 458 employs some sort of crankcase evacuation system that reduces pumping losses moderately.

Yes, turbos do put much more stress on an engine but if the engine is designed for it, it's not a problem. Big rig diesels last for 500,000+ miles because they're built for it (primarily, super beefy rings and bearings).

Yes, there are limitations with CR and regular grade gas, but with direct injection compression ratios can be higher, and premium's premium isn't all that much.

Yes, I like to pick and poke at "Ecoboost" because it is a ridiculous moniker. As long as Ford tries to sell it under the guise of "eco" and charge an arm and a leg for the vehicles equipped with it (at least the V6 versions) I will mercilessly drink from a glass that perpetually needs a pour.

Yes, I utterly loathe mag racing MPG figures, but the average 225 - 300 hp turbo vehicle (i.e., plebeian, and slanted toward economy) does not in practice get better MPG than its equivalently-powerful V6 competition, and in my anecdotal Googling, it's often times worse and/or the same as larger, more powerful vehicles. In fact, I cannot find one instance where the turbo vehicle has a clear advantage:

Acura TL-SH AWD: 305 hp, 4000 lbs: 17/25
Subaru Legacy GT AWD: 265 hp, 3500 lbs: 18/25
Mazdaspeed3 FWD: 265 hp, 3200 lbs: 18/25
BMW 335ix AWD: 300 hp, 3700 lbs: 17/25

Acura RDX: 240 hp, 3700 lb: 17/22
Toyota Rav4: 269 hp, 3700 lb: 19/26
Chevy Equinox: 264 hp, 3800 lb, 17/24
Ford Edge: 265 hp, 4100 lb: 17/23