Ford expands EcoBoost offerings, cars to lose weight

[hotrodalex]

EPA numbers are not out for the turbo car however.

If true it's the first ever of its kind - not one in a long line of examples of turbo cars with appreciable better economy.

Americans by and large haven't been warm to turbos.  I suspect a result of spotty reliability from those mainstream turbos that were offered in the 70s and 80s.  I know my father has sworn never to own a turbocharged car after a bad experience he had with a turbo T-bird 25+ years ago.

MX793 got it right. We haven't had efficiency-minded turbocharged engines yet. So far they have only been used for HP gains, not MPG. Now that CAFE regulations are coming and fuel economy is a bigger deal to consumers, companies are starting to downsize the engines. But the consumers don't want less power. They want more MPG with the same (or more) HP. So companies are going the route of turbocharging the smaller engines, to hopefully get similar power numbers and still benefit from the higher MPG of the smaller engine (when not running full boost).

[SVT666]

Ford: Next-gen EcoBoost offerings to share technology with diesel engines
04/14/2010, 5:15 AM
BY MARK KLEIS


Ford recently announced three new applications of EcoBoost engines for 2010, and now the automaker has announced upcoming improvements to its EcoBoost technology. Ford says the next generation EcoBoost offerings will share even more technology with modern diesel engines, going beyond sharing turbocharging and direct injection.

Today, Ford?s director of powertrain research and advanced engineering, Bob Fascetti, is expected to make announcements at the 2010 SAE World Congress regarding the future of its powertrain technologies, particularly with EcoBoost.

?The first generation of EcoBoost applied some of the key technologies found in powerful diesel engines ? such as direct injection and turbocharging ? and optimized them for the gasoline engine,? said Fascetti. ?The next generation of EcoBoost engines will continue that path to deliver more power and even better fuel economy with lower emissions, which are key customer benefits of EcoBoost technology.?

Ford says that it plans on achieving those improvements with technologies typically associated with diesels, such as cooled exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) and more advanced turbocharging methods. Ford explains that the use of cooled EGR can be applied to existing EcoBoost engines for fuel economy improvements of as much as 5 percent. Ford says the gains come as a result of a lower combustion temperature and reduced engine knock.

Ford also pointed out the need for special materials and high pressure fuel injection systems for both diesels and EcoBoost applications, explaining that the similarities, among many others, allows Ford to continue to develop shared technologies.

?We?re introducing about 30 powertrains over the next couple of years to power everything from small cars to large pickup trucks,? said Fascetti. ?Our experience with a wide range of engines allows us to take the best solutions and apply them to many platforms to benefit the customer.?

[hotrodalex]

They mentioned at least a 200 pound weight loss in all cars; does this include the Mustang?

[Eye of the Tiger]

Blah blah blah cooled EGR blah blah blah.

I can see the next big ricer fad: EGR scoops and intercoolers... I'm putting one on the Swift!

[GoCougs]

MX793 got it right. We haven't had efficiency-minded turbocharged engines yet. So far they have only been used for HP gains, not MPG. Now that CAFE regulations are coming and fuel economy is a bigger deal to consumers, companies are starting to downsize the engines. But the consumers don't want less power. They want more MPG with the same (or more) HP. So companies are going the route of turbocharging the smaller engines, to hopefully get similar power numbers and still benefit from the higher MPG of the smaller engine (when not running full boost).

We haven't had them because there is no such thing. Various "turbo" technologies like the gossip piece posted by SVT666 can be applied to non-turbo engines for MPG improvements as well; DI, EGR cooling, more advanced materials, etc., in addition to other non-engine related MPG-improving strategies such as start/stop, DoD, CVTs, lighter materials, better aerodynamics, etc.

Consumers really don't care about power - no one is pining for a 365 hp, 4400 Taurus, and in similar manner few are pining for a 270 hp Camcord or Legacy either. The government "cares" a lot more about MPG than the market does. CAFE will be a factor but automakers at large aren't thinking, "OMG lets turbo charge everything!" to meet the requirement.

Turbo engines may become vogue but it won't be because of a fairy tale of innate efficiency. It will be ancillary, such as avoiding engine displacement taxes or automakers saving R&D and production costs (sidestepping the need to develop multiple engine platforms and/or chassis capable of accommodating multiple engine configurations).

That pretty much no other automaker is pushing its version of "Ecoboost" should tell a person something in great measure ? Toyota, Honda, Nissan, GM, have no such widespread turbo initiatives. No, Ecoboost is Ford?s way to cut on R&D and production costs in staving off development of disparate engines and chassis requirements. Not a bad strategy, but to pawn it off as ?eco? and otherwise a path to material better MPG is a marketing ploy.

[SVT666]

We haven't had them because there is no such thing. Various "turbo" technologies like the gossip piece posted by SVT666 can be applied to non-turbo engines for MPG improvements as well; DI, EGR cooling, more advanced materials, etc., in addition to other non-engine related MPG-improving strategies such as start/stop, DoD, CVTs, lighter materials, better aerodynamics, etc.

Consumers really don't care about power - no one is pining for a 365 hp, 4400 Taurus, and in similar manner few are pining for a 270 hp Camcord or Legacy either. The government "cares" a lot more about MPG than the market does. CAFE will be a factor but automakers at large aren't thinking, "OMG lets turbo charge everything!" to meet the requirement.

Turbo engines may become vogue but it won't be because of a fairy tale of innate efficiency. It will be ancillary, such as avoiding engine displacement taxes or automakers saving R&D and production costs (sidestepping the need to develop multiple engine platforms and/or chassis capable of accommodating multiple engine configurations).

That pretty much no other automaker is pushing its version of "Ecoboost" should tell a person something in great measure ? Toyota, Honda, Nissan, GM, have no such widespread turbo initiatives. No, Ecoboost is Ford?s way to cut on R&D and production costs in staving off development of disparate engines and chassis requirements. Not a bad strategy, but to pawn it off as ?eco? and otherwise a path to material better MPG is a marketing ploy.

That's why the Taurus SHO gets the same power as other performance sedans but much better fuel economy?

[r0tor]

That pretty much no other automaker is pushing its version of "Ecoboost" should tell a person something in great measure ? Toyota, Honda, Nissan, GM, have no such widespread turbo initiatives.

.

Something tells me that I'd rather be following the steps of VAG and BMW then GM for future success. 

If GM would have been able to get their heads out of their asses, they could have marketed the turbo Ecotec with great success as it literally provided great power with the same or better mpg then its NA cousin.  They completely let it die though and I guess are now trying to revive it with Buick for whatever reason 

[GoCougs]

That's why the Taurus SHO gets the same power as other performance sedans but much better fuel economy?

False and false, and already addressed.

[SVT666]

False and false, and already addressed.

True and True, and no it hasn't.

Just because you said, "SHO doesn't make it clear at all to me." doesn't mean you addressed anything.

[hotrodalex]

Consumers really don't care about power - no one is pining for a 365 hp, 4400 Taurus, and in similar manner few are pining for a 270 hp Camcord or Legacy either. The government "cares" a lot more about MPG than the market does. CAFE will be a factor but automakers at large aren't thinking, "OMG lets turbo charge everything!" to meet the requirement.

Are you serious? Any consumer will take a more powerful car if it offers the same MPG (assuming other factors like interior and options are similar, of course)

Not all automakers are saying "let's turbocharge everything" because they are researching other ways as well. Ford decided to go with turbocharging. I don't see what's wrong with it. If it works, then good for Ford.

[GoCougs]

.

Something tells me that I'd rather be following the steps of VAG and BMW then GM for future success. 

If GM would have been able to get their heads out of their asses, they could have marketed the turbo Ecotec with great success as it literally provided great power with the same or better mpg then its NA cousin.  They completely let it die though and I guess are now trying to revive it with Buick for whatever reason 

There is virtually zero overlap in the US market segments GM and BMW/VWAG target. I don't think either would benefit from blindly emulating the other.

If "Ecotech" truly did provide equivalent MPG for more power GM wouldn't have abandoned it.

[GoCougs]

Are you serious? Any consumer will take a more powerful car if it offers the same MPG (assuming other factors like interior and options are similar, of course)

Not all automakers are saying "let's turbocharge everything" because they are researching other ways as well. Ford decided to go with turbocharging. I don't see what's wrong with it. If it works, then good for Ford.

Correct, most consumers don't care about power at least in the context of a 270 hp Camcord vs. a 180 hp Camcord.

There's nothing wrong with "Ecoboost" it's just not "eco" (meaning it is not a path to improved MPG). It's a path to less R&D and production costs.

[Onslaught]

There is virtually zero overlap in the US market segments GM and BMW/VWAG target. I don't think either would benefit from blindly emulating the other.

If "Ecotech" truly did provide equivalent MPG for more power GM wouldn't have abandoned it.

I think you give GM way more credit for intelligence then you should.

[r0tor]

There is virtually zero overlap in the US market segments GM and BMW/VWAG target. I don't think either would benefit from blindly emulating the other.

If "Ecotech" truly did provide equivalent MPG for more power GM wouldn't have abandoned it.

The GXP solstice made 87 more hp and had better highway mileage (28 vs 25) then the base engine... Great example as to why GM went bankrupt - even when they have a frikkin brilliant piece of engineering, they have zero clue as to what to do with it

[GoCougs]

I think you give GM way more credit for intelligence then you should.

Technically speaking, GM like any automaker is very intelligent. But no automaker can do what it wants to without minding the accountants.

The GXP solstice made 87 more hp and had better highway mileage (28 vs 25) then the base engine... Great example as to why GM went bankrupt - even when they have a frikkin brilliant piece of engineering, they have zero clue as to what to do with it

And yet the more powerful, and much larger and heavier V6 Accord with AT is better yet at 19/29 MPG...

As to the difference between those two engines my strong hunch is the reason would be fairly easy to decipher (guessing, don't know for sure): gearing, DI, etc.

Q: What exactly would GM do with a 260 hp I4? A: Nothing. It has no application, primarily owing to NVH, in anything beyond low-volume exercises such as the hi-po Kappa twins or Cobalt SS.

[r0tor]

Technically speaking, GM like any automaker is very intelligent. But no automaker can do what it wants to without minding the accountants.

And yet the more powerful, and much larger and heavier V6 Accord with AT is better yet at 19/29 MPG...

As to the difference between those two engines my strong hunch is the reason would be fairly easy to decipher (guessing, don't know for sure): gearing, DI, etc.

Q: What exactly would GM do with a 260 hp I4? A: Nothing. It has no application, primarily owing to NVH, in anything beyond low-volume exercises such as the hi-po Kappa twins or Cobalt SS.

G6, Malibu, CTS, small SUv's, ect ect

[GoCougs]

G6, Malibu, CTS, small SUv's, ect ect

GM's 3.6L DOHC V6 is a better power plant in all practical technical regards; at least as efficient, more powerful, more durable, and most importantly, FAR better NVH.

[r0tor]

There is nothing remarkable about the 3.6 in the G6 and Malibu... sorry

[AutobahnSHO]

There's nothing wrong with "Ecoboost" it's just not "eco" (meaning it is not a path to improved MPG). It's a path to less R&D and production costs.

OF COURSE it's not eco. But Green is "in".

R&D for mass-produced turbos from a company not dealing with them hardly at all is "cheaper"?????    

[MX793]

And yet the more powerful, and much larger and heavier V6 Accord with AT is better yet at 19/29 MPG...

An Accord that no doubt has vastly better aerodynamic properties, was running significantly smaller/lower-inertia wheels/tires (w/ a low rolling resistance compound instead of a tacky summer-only compound) and had taller gearing that was optimized for the car rather than using a gearbox that came, completely unchanged, from a pickup truck.  I don't think you could get more apples-to-oranges.

Why don't we instead try comparing it to a vehicle at least more comparable in body shape, like the S2000, which had an EPA rating of 18/24 vs the GXP Roadster's 19/28.  And the GXP was a bit heavier, only had a 5-speed gearbox, and made about 20 more hp.

[GoCougs]

There is nothing remarkable about the 3.6 in the G6 and Malibu... sorry

Correct, it's average at best, which is to say amongst its V6 contemporaries is very good. A Ecotec 2.4L-equipped Malibu would get blown out of the water by an Accord or Camry V6.

[GoCougs]

An Accord that no doubt has vastly better aerodynamic properties, was running significantly smaller/lower-inertia wheels/tires (w/ a low rolling resistance compound instead of a tacky summer-only compound) and had taller gearing that was optimized for the car rather than using a gearbox that came, completely unchanged, from a pickup truck.  I don't think you could get more apples-to-oranges.

Why don't we instead try comparing it to a vehicle more comparable in body shape, like the S2000, which had an EPA rating of 18/24 vs the GXP Roadster's 19/28.  And the GXP was a bit heavier, only had a 5-speed gearbox, and made about 20 more hp.

Or OMGWTFBBQ Corvette which is plus that plus almost 200 hp at 16/26!!! But you're right the car makes a big difference which if anything implies that MPG can be chased plenty of other places rather than a turbo engine.

As to the example you'll not convince me the difference is as big as you imply it is. The Accord is far larger (better Cd + bigger profile may very well be more drag), saddled with a torque converter, and weighs a lot more.

[hotrodalex]

Or OMGWTFBBQ Corvette which is plus that plus almost 200 hp at 16/26!!! But you're right the car makes a big difference which if anything implies that MPG can be chased plenty of other places rather than a turbo engine.

As to the example you'll not convince me the difference is as big as you imply it is. The Accord is far larger (better Cd + bigger profile may very well be more drag), saddled with a torque converter, and weighs a lot more.

The Accord is tuned for fuel economy, the GXP isn't.

[sportyaccordy]

SHO doesn't make it clear at all to me. We'll see about the Hyundai; 20/30 is right in line with the V6 Camcords - not better by any means.

20/30 is better than the 19/28 the CamCord... and in any case they're estimating 22/33...

SHO makes it very clear. Imagine your car with the gas mileage of the 4 banger. That's basically what they did with the SHO.

[the Teuton]

There is nothing remarkable about the 3.6 in the G6 and Malibu... sorry

The Cadillac DI engine isn't that smooth, either.

[S204STi]

I think you'll find 150,000 mile turbo life is a very long time. Peruse Audi forums for how long 2.7TT and 1.8T turbos are lasting, and how much it is to replace 'em. It's not pretty. Granted, these are older engines but turbos are a very basic device made by relatively few companies; meaning, there haven't been any material improvements in turbos in the last 10 years.

In the world of big rigs, it's not that big a deal as they are designed to have their turbos easily swapped (meaning, it's a given it's basically a maintenance item). But then again a diesel engine is virtually worthless without a turbo so that world acclimated to the issue of turbos not lasting as long as the engine.

Other than variable impeller vane technology this is basically true.  Nevertheless, on light duty diesel applications at least, turbos seem to last as long as the engine in nearly every case.  Maybe that's due to the more robust lubrication and cooling system these engines feature, but it's certainly not due to lack of stress; some of those engines push massive amounts of air at over twice the pressure that my little snail can produce.

As for heavy duty fleet diesels... I have no idea how long those last in normal service.  Maybe someone with experience there can share.

[SVT666]

Cougs is getting owned in this thread.  I love it.

[GoCougs]

The Accord is tuned for fuel economy, the GXP isn't.

Yet the much larger Accord Coupe V6 is just as quick...

[GoCougs]

20/30 is better than the 19/28 the CamCord... and in any case they're estimating 22/33...

SHO makes it very clear. Imagine your car with the gas mileage of the 4 banger. That's basically what they did with the SHO.

Are you seriously MPG racing over 1 MPG? Like I've objectively noted, the SHO doesn't really make anything clear that I can see, save for regular fuel. The Ecoboost V6's lack of use elsewhere in the line, and overall boutique volume, should tell us something.

And I also note that automakers play to the well-known EPA testing methods. When driven at 100% the SHO will get FAR worse MPG than the standard Taurus despite equal EPA ratings.

[GoCougs]

Other than variable impeller vane technology this is basically true.  Nevertheless, on light duty diesel applications at least, turbos seem to last as long as the engine in nearly every case.  Maybe that's due to the more robust lubrication and cooling system these engines feature, but it's certainly not due to lack of stress; some of those engines push massive amounts of air at over twice the pressure that my little snail can produce.

As for heavy duty fleet diesels... I have no idea how long those last in normal service.  Maybe someone with experience there can share.

Interesting, I thought VG turbos were still big rig fare with retail turbo engines utilizing twin turbos (dual stage) instead.

Big rig turbos typically employ independent cooling and lubrication systems; retail turbo cars this is typically not the case; meaning I imagine turbos can be designed to last much longer but at what cost will the customer stop buying them?