Archives

EcoBoost combines direct injection with turbocharging delivering the performance of a larger engine with up to a 20% increase in fuel economy. (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hyVOI0xu-CpL5MqBDJDPoE97V-lQD8U063600)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/Ford_EcoBoost_02.jpgDee-Ann Durbin – AP – Jan. 6, 2007

With a fuel economy boosting technology at its fingertips, it is time for Ford to show their cards because the bluffing is over. -- Ed.

DEARBORN, Mich.- Soon after Jim Farley became Ford Motor Co.'s marketing chief after a 17-year career at Toyota, he took a spin in a subcompact with Ford's new direct-injection, turbocharged engine.

"I couldn't wipe the smile off my face," Farley said. "I've never driven a Toyota like that, ever. The torque, out of that kind of displacement — in this case a 4-cylinder — was shocking."

It's a good thing he feels that way, because one of Farley's first and most critical assignments as vice president of global marketing will be to sell Ford's engine — dubbed EcoBoost — to buyers bewildered by the ever-growing options in vehicle technology.

Ford sees the EcoBoost four-cylinder and six-cylinder engines — which will be unveiled at this month's North American International Auto Show in Detroit — as a key part of its strategy to improve fuel economy in the near term, along with improved aerodynamics and lighter materials.

The 2009 Lincoln MKS sedan, out later this year, will be the first Ford vehicle with EcoBoost as an option. Ford said EcoBoost will give the MKS's 3.5-liter, twin-turbocharged V6 the power and torque of a V8.

Ford says EcoBoost can deliver up to 20 percent better fuel economy and a 15 percent improvement in emissions without compromising driving performance. It's also promoting the engine as a less expensive alternative to hybrids and direct-injection diesels. Ford didn't reveal how much EcoBoost will cost, but said customers can expect to recoup their initial investment through fuel savings in two-and-a-half years, versus seven-and-a-half years for a diesel or nearly 12 years for a hybrid. EcoBoost is also ethanol compatible.

With direct injection, fuel is injected into each cylinder of the engine in small, precise amounts, which improves fuel economy and power. The turbocharger uses waste energy from the exhaust gas to drive the turbine… http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hyVOI0xu-CpL5MqBDJDPoE97V-lQD8U063600

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/Ford_TwinForce_Graphic.jpg
Ford’s EcoBoost formally known as TwinForce consists of a downsized engine with gasoline Direct-Injection and Turbocharging – the key to higher FE, better performance and lower emissions.

http://www.youtube.com/v/jgilKUwMl2A
“EcoBoost” explained.

This is old school. They did this in the mid 90's with the T-bird. I really don't believe this will do anything too improve there FE, if anything FE will drop. All they are trying to do is replace the V-8.H

The cool thing about turbo-charging is that its capturing waste energy and using it. Turbos do in fact increase an engines volumetric efficiency. The key is to tune the engine for FE instead of increased power. If the engines are scaled down appropriately they most definitely will see an increase in FE... it just takes the right mind set to increase the FE.

Its not uncommon to see forced induction engines seeing volumetric efficiencies well over 140%... It takes some extreme (read $$$) engineering for a naturally aspirated engine to see anything over 100%

While direct injection seems to be an up-and-coming hot ticket, I doubt this particular implementation while wow the econo-crowd. The overall tone of the article is totally performance-driven, something people REALLY interested in economy could care less about (so long as it's sufficient!). I'd never know or care if my Insight could go 0-60 in less than 10 seconds because I'll never try it.

Granted, for the typical consumer, performance + marginally better economy is a win-win.

So take any Ford, increase it's economy by 20%, and it's roughly the same economy as its Honda / Toyota counterpart, amirite? :)

while it is true this article is slightly skewered towards performance, the tech is there... all it takes is people demanding a FE minded auto from Ford and with careful tuning this thing quite possibly could lead to some interesting numbers. It will increase FE to some extent, but it remains to be seen which direction Ford is going to take with this.

Personally I'd rather have the general public driving small turbo 4 or 6 bangers that have the potential to get better FE than the big V-8's driving around.

Hi All:

___Let us just see what Ford does with the upcoming B-class sized sub-compact Verve/Fiesta/Mazda2/Demio. Apply the above to a 1.3 or 1.5 and tune it for FE (Ford had better this time around) and we will see what happens. Ford cannot afford to put out their best efforts only to match the current yet standard induction Civic/Fit/Corolla/Yaris contingents let alone the next generations. Ford has to go beyond with the tech they have. If they are not willing to bring over the sure thing 1.6 – 2.0L Euro diesels (that 7+ year non-sense was out there), then they had better accomplish something because 28 mpg combined from their most fuel efficient non-hybrid (Focus) is not going to even come close.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

Let's see, I get more than adequate performance from the 1.6 liter I-4 in my Civic, which features nothing more than 4-valves per cylinder.

Why couldn't Ford out-Civic the Civic with the above technology. Only use a 1.2 liter I-4 to start with, instead of a V-6? The 1.2 liter would match the Civic in performance, and out-do it in fuel economy.

Ford, you listening?

Harry

The V-6 described in this article is just one of the engines supposedly in development from Ford. I feel quite confident that they will release a I4 using the same tech... as to its displacement, that has yet to be seen. Lets all hope that its sized appropriately for high FE driving instead of spirited performance driving.

As with all engine techs, there is a flip side to everything. Just like the "performance" hybrids being produced, forced induction has a good and bad side. It just so happens that the majority of the forced induction systems produced in the past have been geared towards the "bad" side. We can hope that Ford is seeing the light and chooses sides appropriately ;)

It seems many manufacturers have gotten into the habit of introducing new technology in their top of the line, large, performance and luxury oriented vehicles. I believe (sadly) we are going to see the same thing now. Hopefully in the very near future one of them will "get it" and throw everything they've got at the lower end of the cost spectrum and just take the market by storm with the correct combination of existing tech.

Once one of them takes the plunge, I'm confident the rest will follow. The question is, just how bad does it have to get before one of them does it? How much longer will they remain set in their old ways of slow release at high price points? Surely SOMEONE will see that the way to hit it big right now is with a high quality, extreme FE oriented, decent performance, and mid-teens affordable vehicle??

This is nothing new. Mazda/Ford is already doing it in the 3 and 6. Fords just trying to get there $7 a share stock price back up.

http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/displayPage.action?pageParameter=modelsMain&vehicleCode=MS3
http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/displayPage.action?pageParameter=modelsMain&vehicleCode=MS6

V8 grunt in a I4 with V6 mpg. Not a mpg junkies dream.... But they are fast. :)

This is all white wash on Fords part. There just going to use variants of the engine in the above mentioned cars. No new tech!

Isn't this just turbocharging?

Isn't this just turbocharging?

Well...

Ford’s EcoBoost ... consists of a downsized engine with gasoline Direct-Injection and Turbocharging

Pretty much.

Direct injection with turbocharging is a big deal, especially if Ford uses it for smaller, fuel-efficient cars, with smaller engines.

We'll have to see if they have the will to do it.

Harry

VW/Audi has good experience with direct injection - the 2.0T FSI is a (relative) fuel miser. Yesterday I got 38.6MPG in over a 40 mile HWY trip, not bad for a 200HP engine

It would consume even less if VW could tune the fuel injection for 'ultra-lean' in the US market (65:1 fuel air mixture instead of 14:1) - trouble is our gasoline qulaity isn't consistent enough to allow VW engines in the US to have the 'ultra lean' mode.

Vooch, fixed your signature for you. ;)

His sig picture is hyperlinked to a the picture itself. Just an FYI.

As for the turbocharging and direct injection, it can be put to very good use if the engine is designed properly. As with all things, they can be used for good or evil. :)

whoops, that it is. I'm on my iPhone atm. I'll fix it when I get to a computer.

If ford chooses to use dual scroll turbos along with variable vane technology we could see some quite impressive numbers in terms of FE from really small motors.

Let's see, I get more than adequate performance from the 1.6 liter I-4 in my Civic, which features nothing more than 4-valves per cylinder.

Why couldn't Ford out-Civic the Civic with the above technology. Only use a 1.2 liter I-4 to start with, instead of a V-6? The 1.2 liter would match the Civic in performance, and out-do it in fuel economy.

Ford, you listening?

Harry

Nope, Harry, they do not want to listen. They want to tell you all about what they are going to do for you in 2013 ( "The company hopes to put EcoBoost engines on 500,000 vehicles annually by 2013") and see how many more F-150's they can sell.

They would be shooting themselves in the foot if they brought out a high MPG vehicle now. They have regulations in place keeping the Euro high MPG direct injection turbo vehicles out. California (and other states) have been blocked by EPA from setting their own standards. Hey, it's "business as usual".

I think America is in for a lot more "milking" before they finally give us energy efficiency.

@Robert_Lastick
I agree with california and the other carb states being blocked. Those states should not dictate the regulations and requirements for the rest of the states, but that is what would end up happening by proxy, because the manufactures will not make 2 difference versions of the same car.

If california wants to change regulations for all the states, than their representitives need to stepup, and get support from the other carb states to get real regulations passed.

Hi Koreberg:

___That was recently tried and we received the Energy Bill :rolleyes:

___Let CA and the other state that want to follow their lead make the CO2 reg’s and then we have some teeth. This 26 mpg by 2020 garbage is not going to do anything other then keep us hooked to the junkie. All the while Europe and Asia laugh their @$$es off and we pay the price.

___And of course the Big 2.5 disappear because the regs they strive to achieve are so far below what the Europeans and Asians will offer, they will not have enough profit to cover the executive bathrooms janitorial service let alone keep their corporation(s) alive.

___Good Luck

___Wayne

One of the "good" things about $3.50 gasoline is it is forcing us to smaller vehicles.It isn't the headlong rush of 1979-1980, but it is getting there.The "oil bidness" folks are clever.They preach "Free Market" BS while taking advantage of the absolutely unfree market-Cartel-that sets the price of oil.
We will certainly have some grim Middle East event. or a Gulf Coast storm in the next year or two.This will spike oil to $150,and gasoline to $5-$6.We will then have the headlong rush to FE that we had in 1979.A "normal" 6 cyl 3500 lb car will cost almost $125 to fill then(20+ gallon tank).
On the Ford direct injection-will they be able to sell it in a Prius sized car for well under the $22000 you could buy a faily well equipped Prius for? It won't match Prius economy,so it better sell for $4000 less.
I wonder how close to TDI efficiency it gets?The Diesel folks usually claim 40% chemical energy to mechanical energy,and spark engines claim ~30%.I think Toyota claims 35% with the different expansion/compression ratio motors?
I'm pulling for Ford-and GM-and Dodge.I don't have much hope for Dodge, but the other two...
Charlie