By on October 10, 2009

I recently came across a brand new Lincoln MKS. I’m a pretty hard core Japanese car fan but I had to admit that this car looks pretty slick. I had heard that it was pretty fast too. I like fast. Upon inspecting the exterior of the car it came to my attention that the MKS is equipped with ‘EcoBoost.’  Not being up on the very latest in automotive tech, the unfamiliar name intrigued me. Was this some hybrid or electric technology? Curious, I started off on a quest to find out what this EcoBoost is and what makes it so… EcoBoost-y.

Thanks to the power of Ford advertising, I soon found that EcoBoost is available both on the Lincoln MKS and on the Ford Taurus and claims up to 20% fuel economy increase, up to 15% lower emissions and increased engine performance. What the Mad Men wouldn’t tell me is how. I delved into the internet to find out more about the technology, and was shocked to discover that this magical device is really a twin turbo set up with direct fuel injection. Wait a minute, adding a turbo charger to an engine increases horsepower, I knew that, but it can only decrease fuel economy, right?

For those of us who are not familiar with turbo chargers, they are basically air compressors powered by the hot exhaust gasses exiting the engine. The inlet side of the turbo spins and compresses incoming air (12psi in the case of EcoBoost) into the engine. There is an ideal air to fuel ratio (14.7) so more air requires more fuel. So if the turbo chargers require more fuel when they are in operation, how can EcoBoost claim 20% greater fuel economy? Time to check some official numbers…

Comparing the Ecoboost MKS with its normally-aspirated sibling is an apples and oranges comparison, since the non-Ecoboost uses a larger engine displacement. I needed to find two identical engines to compare, one with EcoBoost and one without. Lucky for me the Taurus offers such a comparison, since all its variants use a 3.5 liter V6. The FWD version gets fairly good MPG at 18/28 seeing as there is less drive train mass to move verses an AWD setup. The other two trims both have so the only real difference is one has EcoBoost and one does not. Both setups rate at 17/25 MPG.

So wait a minute, EcoBoost doesn’t help at all in fuel economy, although doesn’t seem to hurt it either. This makes a certain amount of sense, considering the nature of the turbo. A turbo will not always be spinning at top speed and therefore compressing air all the time. It’s likely that for the purposes of regular city and highway driving (and most importantly, for EPA testing), you may not see any boost at all. That’s great for fuel economy during normal driving but in spirited driving (when you actually want power) you will surely see a drop in fuel economy.

So where does the EcoBoost’s 20% increase in fuel economy number come from? Here is the trick; Ford is doing the old apple to orange comparison, comparing a V6 with EcoBoost to a naturally aspirated (no turbo or supercharger) V8 engine. It seems Ford is trying to say, “We could have used a bigger engine, but we didn’t, so this way that we’re doing is more fuel efficient.” In fact, both the Lincoln MKS and Ford Taurus are only equipped with V-6 engines. So what’s the point of comparing fuel economy between the EcoBoost V6 engine, to a fantasy engine that is not available in that vehicle anyway? The fact that a turbocharged six cylinder engine is comparable to (and yet more fuel efficient than) a V8 is old news. You could have asked Toyota (Supra) and Nissan (Skyline) about it over a decade ago.

It’s interesting to note that EcoBoost was originally going to be called ”TwinForce” instead. Does calling a turbo system something that sounds eco friendly make it more acceptable to the US public? Is that Ford’s angle with EcoBoost? I drive a turbo charged Toyota and I love the performance. I got it knowing that the turbo would get me more power with less fuel economy (I drive spiritedly) than it would with the same size engine with no turbo. Toyota did not try to sell me the car saying, “Its more fuel efficient and better for the environment.” I’m all for turbo chargers, I think they’re great, (Taurus now makes more horsepower than the Mustang GT) but please, just call them what they are. Don’t sugar coat something by giving it an eco friendly name then make apple to oranges comparisons to make it sounds better so that more people will feel comfortable purchasing it, thinking it’s better for the environment. A turbo by any other name…is still a turbo.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

128 Comments on “Editorial: A Turbo By Any Other Name...”


  • avatar
    Autosavant

    How much credit should we give these 19 genius PhDs Ford showed off yesterday in this site, in the development of this excellent engine?

    My wild guess: ZERO.

    Any other opinions?

  • avatar
    Autosavant

    “I recently came across a brand new Lincoln MKS. I’m a pretty hard core Japanese car fan but I had to admit that this car looks pretty slick.”

    You must be kidding me.

    I appreciate Japanese cars and still own one (an excellent 91 civic hatch with low miles), but the last 15 years at least, their designs are PITIFUL. Maybe they fly in Japan, but they sure do not pass the test here. These cheapskates should do what Hyundai-Kia do and OUTSOURCE their designs to a well-established ITALIAN design Studio. It will only cost them cents per vehicle more than what they already spend on their designs.

    Now these pitiful Lincolns. They look TERRIBLE. Bloated, obese and with truly wierd cow-catcher grills whose place is on 19th century trains.

    Their NAMES are another HORROR STORY. You COULD have MEANINGFUL alpha-numeric names, BUT MKS, MKZ and MKX are idiotic, wastes of names, that give you NO INFO on the car size or its engine. Compare that with Merc or BMW’s excellent way of naming their cars also with alphanumerics. WHen you see 750iL, you immediately understand the exact shape and size and length of the car, and its engine capacity. Same with S550.

    In addition, the stupid names are inconsistent. MKZ means… “Mark Zephyr”, after a specific model, but “MKS” means “Mark Sedan”!!!!

    Ford decision makers are REALLY DUMB if they actually paid some company millions of $ (as most automakers do!) to come with these DISASTROUS, STUPID names.

  • avatar
    tced2

    A turbocharger will make your engine effectively into a variable-displacement engine. If you keep your foot out of the engine then your economy will be roughly that of the stated displacement of the engine. But put your foot into it and you will be feeding more gasoline into effectively a larger displacement engine. The economy will be lower.

  • avatar
    Terry

    Joseph, youre not mentioning the main ingredient here–Direct Injection.
    The Mazda CX-7, Mazdaspeed6, and Mazdaspeed3 are all use the Ford/Mazda MZR 2.3 Direct Injected Turbocharged engine. Infact, I was told(in the course of my work) that much of the Ecoboost technology is Mazda’s.
    Direct injection allows a higher compression ratio, advanced ignition timing, and a fuel ratio strategy that allows for far better efficiency than the conventional injection system. This translates into increased torque and better fuel economy.

  • avatar
    Strippo

    The fact that a turbocharged six cylinder engine is comparable to (and yet more fuel efficient than) a V8 is old news.

    Ford’s point exactly. I’m not sure I get yours.

  • avatar
    montgomery burns

    I don’t think i see the problem here. If you want a certain level of performance from a given size/weight car you need a certain amount of power. You can use displacement or turbo-charging to do this.

    In theory you ought to get better gas mileage with the small displacement/turbo combination (as long as you’re not at WOT all the time).

    The way Ford markets this is another story. There are better ways to do this but they chose the warm and fuzzy, eco-friendly approach that will just be part of the background noise.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    Here is the trick; Ford is doing the old apple to orange comparison, comparing a V6 with EcoBoost to a naturally aspirated (no turbo or supercharger) V8 engine

    But that is the entire point of a turbo — to use a smaller turbo engine as a substitute for a larger naturally aspirated engine. As tced2 noted above, the idea is to create a virtual dual displacement effect, by equipping a more efficient motor with additional power (read: better performance at the expense of lower fuel economy) only when it’s needed.

    Sorry, but you missed the mark when you made the comparison based upon displacement. That was exactly the wrong way to do it.

    Instead, you should have made the comparison based upon performance and peak power output. If the turbo 6 gets similar 0-60 and quarter mile times to the larger 8, for example, then it is fair to compare them.

  • avatar
    Autosavant

    Ford will not sell many of these cars if it prices them as high, if not higher, with a 6 cylinder, Ecoboost or not, than their V8 predecessors.

    And no, the turbo 6 is not exactly the same as the v8, as the v8 will never be exactly the same as a v12, even a V12 of the same displacement.

  • avatar
    kol

    You don’t get it, and honestly I’m surprised, considering how much rag Ford gets for having poor branding. This move is extremely well thought out.

    Ford is saying that their Ecoboost engines are efficient relative to their power. That is a pretty simple statement. Some of their press release stuff is exaggerated, but it’s a press release – all the big players salt such things with a few white lies.

    As far as the Ecoboost brand goes, they’re using this branding because on the majority of Ford’s cars putting a big turbo badge on would just look out of place. Who would want to by a Lincoln MKS turbo? Nobody. So they call it Ecoboost instead.

  • avatar
    Bimmer

    So, when Ford does something cool, right away everybody is picking on it. But when Honda makes new Insight with barely better fuel economy then their own, much superior, Jazz (Fit) or new upcoming Merc S-Class Hybrid, that is inferior to the very same S-class with diesel engine it’s considered cool because it’s a Hybrid.

    Let me ask you: what’s the point in Hybrid if it has no real advantage over gas or diesel version, yet uses rare earth metals that have to be shipped across the Globe to make batteries? I’m pretty sure if you calculate all the emissions produced by making and later recycling all the hybrid components you will be better off by producing and using equivalent gas or diesel engined car.

  • avatar
    Autosavant

    “You don’t get it, and honestly I’m surprised, considering how much rag Ford gets for having poor branding. This move is extremely well thought out.”

    I am not sure if this is addressed to me, and in particular about my pointing out the utter silliness of the ‘new’ Lincoln names. If yes, you can be absolutely sure that I sure as hell “am getting” the little amount that needs to be “gotten” here.

    But let me explain further, so YOU can also “get” my points.

    I claim the alphanumeric names are moronic because:

    They are WASTING letters with no meaning (such as the obligatory “MK” which just means “MARK” and if anything, points to lousy Lincolns of the past, an association the new Lincoln may wish to avoid. Just by this they waste two of the three letters and provide NO INFO or differentiation.

    INSTEAD of using letters and numbers WITH meaning. Such as “6″ for cylinders, “E” for Ecoboost, “T” for turbo etc.

    2. They

  • avatar
    Autosavant

    The only Hybrid I am really impressed with is the PRIUS, even the 2nd gen, and especially the new one. It gets 10-30 MPG MORE than any OTHER Hybrid car or truck.

    ANd even that Hybrid is NOT for most drivers, but only for those that do a ton of CITY miles and few, if any, highway miles,

    which points NOT to private owners but to TAXICAB drivers, pizza delivery fleets, Mail carriers, and above all POLICE CARS and meter maid cars, which IDLE all day long UNnecessarily.

  • avatar
    mtymsi

    The real question is how many want to buy the Ecoboost? At least in the Taurus at $45k optioned out or even the $38k base I’m guessing not very many. May well be the most overpriced regular production vehicle I’ve seen in my life. Good luck with these vehicles Ford, I’m sure you’ll need it.

  • avatar
    TonyJZX

    you know what the problem really is?

    people don’t want to hear the word “turbo” – it has negative connotations… and ‘twin turbo’… isn’t it just offensive japanese and exotics who use them?

    why does Mercedes use ‘kompressor’ and not ‘supercharged’?

    I personally am very cynical about the way Ford came up with this… no doubt they had 19 PhDs tell them they need a catchy name…

    And seriously… a 300+ hp 4,200lb AWD car is hardly any kind of ‘economy’ vehicle. All it is is what’s called ‘greenwashing’.

    It’s akin to Mazda’s turbo SUVs… they are easily some of the most thirsty vehicles in their class.

  • avatar
    Autosavant

    “TonyJZX :
    October 10th, 2009 at 12:55 pm

    you know what the problem really is?

    people don’t want to hear the word “turbo” – it has negative connotations… and ‘twin turbo’… isn’t it just offensive japanese and exotics who use them?”

    There is an image of unreliability and turbo lag due to the bad old turbos, but I know the new turbos are much better,

    But the problem really is that very fewe people will throw $50,000+ out the window to get a fat obese UGLY Lincoln with a SIX cylinder, turbo or not. Even if it was a V8 they would still have sticker shock. Especially since some of these Lincolns are no more than rebadged lowly Ford Fusions.

  • avatar
    rochskier

    The Ecoboost is rapidly becoming the Mercedes S-class of engines.

  • avatar
    gregaryous

    Too many on here don’t want to give Ford credit for a “Smart” idea (with 125 patents, NOT Mazda), forget twin-force, it didn’t fit all the EcoBoost engines, because some are single-turbo… duh!!!

    EcoBoost is a “Brand” strategy and it not only fits, but it is working very well in most of the media, especially with anyone who is smart enough to “Drive One” and see the performance and economy for yourself… its for real!

    Also, when Ford say “UP TO” 20% better MPG, that includes a range of 0-20%, not that you’ll get 20% better all the time… duh!!!!

    Another part of the EcoBoost that is overlooked is that it is “UP TO” 15% lower CO2 emissions and that will be a very big part of CAFE rqmts in the future. Compare that to V8 emissions from any Asian or European car company and they are very high… that’s more Eco in EcoBoost.

  • avatar
    Loser

    Autosavant, are you and P71_CrownVic related or just the same person posting under two different names?

  • avatar
    Autosavant

    Loser: We are certainly different posters, and I am surprised you ask. I think he or other fans of the Ford V8 RWD platforms were on my case when I tried to explain to them that the S class and the 7 series are far, far better and more comfortable highway cruisers than their precious “Panther” Dinosaur platform.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    why does Mercedes use ‘kompressor’ and not ’supercharged’?

    Being a German company might have something to do with it…

  • avatar
    Juniper

    Turbochargers use exhaust heat, that otherwise would be wasted, to pump air into the engine. On naturally aspirated engines this air pumping has to use shaft power, thus using more fuel than the turbo engine. You also can get more power from a smaller engine, thus reducing the mass you have to accelerate for an equal power engine. So you can use less fuel when accelerating or accelerate at a greater rate. You choose.
    The down side is complexity and cost. Plus materials and technology advances makes what was exotic ten years ago, ordinary today. Remember turbos have been around on aircraft, diesel trucks, and autos for decades.

    http://green.autoblog.com/2009/05/28/greenlings-why-gasoline-turbocharged-direct-injected-engines?icid=sphere_blogsmith_inpage_autoblog

  • avatar
    Rada

    Petrol engines have the worst fuel economy when they are idle, or near idle, and the best fuel economy when the throttle is open. This is because at idle the chamber pressure is relatively low, and pumping losses against the throttle plate are high, while when open, the chamber pressure is high and pumping losses are low. The shortcoming of atmospheric pressure engines is that the ratio of these two efficiencies is pretty much fixed.

    By using a turbo compressor, one can have an engine that has the same power from a lower displacement, which means that when the engine idles its inefficiencies will be that of a smaller engine. For instance, a 2 liter engine will idle using less fuel than a 3 liter engine, but with a turbo the 2 liter engine will have the same peak power. So, the effect is that a turbo engine with the same output usually do have somewhat better fuel efficiency at partial throttle.

    The other, unrelated effect is the higher chamber pressure of turbo engines, but it requires knock-resistant fuels. The best knock resistant fuels are methanol and ethanol, (and liquified natural gas), and can operate at compression 14:1 and up. This improves engine efficiency. The problem is that with regular or even premium gasoline, this kind of turbo compression is impossible.

  • avatar
    oldguy

    Autosavant:

    Don’t sugarcoat this, just tell us how you feel.

  • avatar
    Gunit

    Personally I think Ford’s comparison is fair, they are comparing apples to apples in that a V8 would have similar power to the Ecoboost. The later gets better fuel mileage, so it’s fair to compare.

  • avatar
    Rada

    Juniper,

    a turbocompressor uses kinetic energy of exhaust, not its heat. The distinction is that this energy is not entirely free, since the turbine increases the back pressure in the engine, forcing it to waste shaft energy. You are correct that turbos are still more efficient than superchargers.

  • avatar
    SupaMan

    I think it’s interesting to note where other manufacturers have, in one way or another, used turbocharged engines as way to get more power while still being fuel efficient, effectively failing along the way.

    The Acura RDX and Madza CX-7 are two such examples of getting dismal fuel economy ratings. So much so that the Acura and Mazda get worse fuel economy than a Toyota RAV4 V6.

    Forced induction doesn’t always work the way it’s supposed to. If Toyota’s V6 can eke out better MPGs than a turbo-4 cylinder, it’s gonna be interesting to see how Ford does with its upcoming EcoBoost $ cylinder engines.

  • avatar
    NulloModo

    GM used to call their 4 cylinder engines Ecotec. They weren’t particulalry fuel efficient compared to 4 cylinders from Honda or Toyota, but the name did give them a certain appeal.

    The Ecoboost engine is more efficient than similarly powered gas V8s in similar cars, so the marketing behind it is hardly a lie. As far as pricing goes, a loaded MKS with ecoboost is $10 – $20 thousand cheaper than comparatively optioned V8 competitors from Mercedes, Lexus, or Infiniti.

    Regarding the Taurus SHO of course it won’t sell in anywhere near the numbers of the regular versions, but that isn’t the point. Shelby mustangs make up a very slim portion of total Mustang sales, but help make all mustangs more appealing, the SHO does this for the Taurus. Also, Chrysler was selling versions of the 300C that tipped past the $40k mark, and the Taurus SHO is a much nicer car than any 300C.

  • avatar

    I don’t think Ford is exactly doing it, but another advantage of turbo engines vs. similarly-powered size-larger NAs could be Weight.

    Aluminum blocks may mitigate this delta, where they are used.

    But for example, the weight difference between the 4 vs. 6 cylinder engines of 2 VW models was 175 lbs., iirc.

    Not very applicable for the particular 4300lb. hunkajunk that is the MKS, but possibly elsewhere.

  • avatar
    Juniper

    Rada :
    Juniper,
    a turbocompressor uses kinetic energy of exhaust, not its heat.

    OK, I should have used “energy”. Are you saying it is all kinetic energy?

  • avatar
    WEGIV

    A better comparison would be to test the fuel economy of a 355hp V8 vs this Turbo V6. Unfortunately, I’m not aware of any vehicle in Ford’s lineup that would allow this comparison, unless they eventually put this engine in the Mustang.

    What I can’t understand is why none of the manufacturers have applied the benefits of ethanol the one place that they actually make SENSE – in a car with forced induction. Saab sells a “Biopower” car outside the US that senses the presence of high blends of Ethanol in the fuel, and raises the turbo boost pressure to take advantage of the higher octane that fuel like E85 has (~100-105 vs 87-93). Saab claim 20% boost in HP and 16% boost in torque on E85. I’ve heard of people using this as a method to boost their octane to prevent knock in cars with aftermarket turbos/superchargers instead of using something like a thicker head gasket to lower the compression ratio, but it seems like a natural fit for all of the Ethanol boosters at the Detroit 3. Properly applied (smaller engine than comparable gas engine), it would at least help to compensate for the loss of fuel economy ethanol’s lower energy output creates without the loss of power.
    I would think that the combination of direct injection, high-boost turbos and ethanol would make for some impressive numbers.

  • avatar
    taxman100

    Will the “Ecoboost” run for 300,000 miles with oil changes every 7,500 miles like the 4.6 liter v-8?

    A turbo is a crutch for when a company doesn’t have the ability, money, or government regulation doesn’t allow, a proper engine to be designed and sold.

    I used to own a 2.2 liter turbo Chrysler – a decent engine, but there is no way it would last as long as a naturally aspirated engine. Fuel economy also goes in the toilet if you actually use the turbo, so the savings there is very suspect.

  • avatar
    James2

    What I can’t understand is why none of the manufacturers have applied the benefits of ethanol the one place that they actually make SENSE – in a car with forced induction.

    Actually, I believe one of those PhDs at Ford is working on it. I saw a YouTube (?) video of a Ford engineer explaining how EcoBoost can be made more EcoBoosty by injecting ethanol during combustion, enabling a higher compression ratio and improving combustion efficiency.

    That might be Phase 2 if Ford is serious about continuing EcoBoost development in the future.

  • avatar
    OldandSlow

    Turbocharging simply enhances the brake mean effective pressure per cc of displacement.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_effective_pressure

    HP = TORQUE x RPM ÷ 5252

    The are two ways to produce more torque at given RPM: either increase the total displacement of the engine or raise the bmep per cc.

    Increasing the displacement is a no brainer, because it effectively increases surface area of the piston or its stroke. Either or both will increase torque for a given RPM and depending on the installed camshaft, torque is increased across the rpm range. More torque per rpm equals more hp.

    Turbos boost the amount of O2 and fuel each cc receives during the intake stroke. In technical terms, you’ve raised the bmep for a given displacement, which produces more torque for a given RPM.

    It doesn’t matter if the engine is a four, six or eight cylinder engine. A turbo or twin turbo set up allows a small displacement engine to produce the hp of a normally aspirated engine with a larger displacement.

    A side benefit is altitude compensation when pulling up a long mountain pass at 10,000, plus feet above sea level. An engine with a turbo boost of only 14 PSI will lose less of its rated hp at high elevations than a normally aspirated engine.

    The main disadvantages are your engine oil must be kept meticulously clean and if you have a lead foot you will run at a lower mpg.

  • avatar
    OldandSlow

    “Will the “Ecoboost” run for 300,000 miles with oil changes every 7,500 miles like the 4.6 liter v-8?”

    Nope. I’ve built several engines in the past three decades and buzz bombs as I refer to them are damn lucky to reach the 100,000 mile mark without a turbo failure. Plus, the engine internals even with beefed up components will wear faster, especially if an aluminum crankcase is used.

  • avatar
    ajla

    Still waiting on an independent dyno test of an Ecoboost car.
    __________
    If ChryslerCo. had any money at all I truly believe they could get 10% better fuel economy out of the 5.7L V8 powered cars and match the numbers the EcoBoost vehicles achieve.

  • avatar
    umterp85

    Loser “Autosavant, are you and P71_CrownVic related or just the same person posting under two different names?”

    Hmmm…I thought it was Farago posting under 2 different names !

    Autosavant ” rebadged lowly Ford Fusions” ?

    Well…I don’t think the Ford Fusion is lowly as it is better than the Camry and arguably better than the Accord. That said, if the Fusion beats the Camry…what does that say about the Lexus ES which is a rebadged Camry ?

  • avatar
    dkulmacz

    Don’t forget that the only versions of EcoBoost we have at the moment are large displacement powerhouses in high-end cars. So of course they are aimed (and tuned) towards high performance. But this is not the only way to apply the technology

    Wait until we have a 2.3L EcoBoost four-cylinder in a CUV or a truck, or a small 1.6L Ecoboost in a small car. Those will be tuned toward economy and show off the efficiency potential of the technology.

  • avatar
    Gardiner Westbound

    There’s a sucker born every minute. – P.T. Barum

    Wonder why Ford stopped at equating the Lincoln MKS V6 EcoBoost to an imaginary V8 for fuel economy purposes. The truly gullible would have bought a fictitious V10, V12 or even a V16 comparison!

  • avatar
    Adub

    Crap, I’m sick of people praising the benefits of turbocharged cars. No boosted V-6 will provide the fuel economy of a large V-8 lugging along at idle while cruising down the highway. The difference in compression ratios generally won’t allow it.

    Right now, Ford is running a higher compression ratio in the SHO because they are using direct injection. The Mustang GT isn’t, and it’s compression ratio is lower (9.8 vs 10.0). The lack of off-idle torque means that you stay in boost longer, thereby killing your in-town fuel economy.

    If Ford wants to claim 100 extra hp over their standard 3.5L V6, good for them, but dressing it up as some Green, Earth Liberation Front car is retarded. Better that they should run ads showing it smoke a BMW 335i in a drag race.

    As for ethanol, its lower ideal AFR means you throw 30% more fuel into the combustion chamber. Your air/fuel mixture is thus cooler, and with ethanol’s resistance to knock, you can run way more timing. It doesn’t do much for peak horsepower, but peak torque goes through the roof.

    Fuel economy sucks, though, and you’re telling peasants in Mexico they can’t eat because you want to avoid buying foreign oil while the Chinese buy regular oil at its new, lower price, and you deplete our aquifers faster.

    Oh well…

  • avatar
    Tosh

    The name ‘EcoBoost’ is the perfect marketing hypocrisy (aka Greenwash): Husband knows he’s getting a turbo-charged brute while wifey likes the suggestion of saving the planet and the little green leaf on the logo. So what’s new?

  • avatar
    rockit

    Armchair CEO’s…..ATTACK!!

  • avatar
    jthorner

    Getting the same job done with a smaller, more fuel efficient engine thanks to advanced technology is not an apples to oranges kind of comparison.

    Ford is rolling out a whole family of smaller displacement, higher technology engines which they say will provide the required power output and yield better fuel economy under normal use conditions. I say Bravo to Ford for doing what they are doing.

    Armchair engineers throwing verbal stink bombs from the bleachers do not really ad much to the mix.

  • avatar
    Aqua225

    It is green washing in my opinion. However, I don’t blame Ford for it. Right now, peer pressure is causing Americans to “think green”. For those who care about their perceived carbon footprint, it helps them justify the SHO.

    Yes, many people here require no justification, but we are not the larger car market, either.

    For us, it’s a V6 with two exhaust driven superchargers and direct fuel injection.

    Honestly, I don’t care what’s powering the wheels on my car, as long as it makes a lot of it at a decent level of reliability, and when it does break, I can get parts. Even if the power plant is a multi-dimensional unspeakable entity confined in a grid array, ala Charles Stross :)

  • avatar
    trk2

    As far as marketing is concerned this really isn’t disingenuous. Ford is trying to communicate with customers in 30 seconds sound bites and in relative terms that the public can understand. They could have said their ecoboost engine “Has the fuel economy of a V6 but gets 20% more power” OR they could say that it “Has the power of a V8 but gets 20% better fuel economy.”

    Please note that both phrases say the same thing but only the first one apparently gets approval from TTAC.

  • avatar

    I just think it’s funny that Ford is making such a fuss over a turbocharged, direct injection engine like it’s cutting edge technology. Maybe I should introduce their engineers and ad agency to my 2006 A4.

  • avatar
    ajla

    @trk2:

    I would prefer it if Ford just said “The Ecoboost is 355hp motor that gets an EPA score of 20MPG or 18MPG depending on the application.”

    Things like “fuel economy of a V6″ and “power of a V8″ don’t have easily agreed upon metrics.

  • avatar

    @FrankWilliams: The only problem is that Audi is just now introducing a V-6 with DI and forced induction, and it’s no match for the EcoBoost.

    As for the “imaginary V8 in a Taurus” statement, Ford has one they could use: the 4.4V8 found in the Volvo XC90. Would drop right into a Taurus, MKS, or Flex.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    taxman100 :
    October 10th, 2009 at 2:45 pm

    A turbo is a crutch for when a company doesn’t have the ability, money, or government regulation doesn’t allow, a proper engine to be designed and sold.

    Tell that those bunch of losers at BMW. We all know those guys can’t design an engine to save their lives.

  • avatar
    jpcavanaugh

    I am guessing that EPA mileage figures are calculated by tests that do not employ boost on a turbo engine. Thus, as always, there is likely a CAFE component here. Which I still wish they would just repeal.

  • avatar
    zerofoo

    Turbo charging is hardly a new technology. Turbo charging does take advantage of waste heat and expanding exhaust gasses to do more work (compressing intake air).

    This additional charge of air is equivalent to increasing the displacement of the engine. If you think of an internal combustion engine as nothing more than an air pump, a turbo charger allows the engine to move more air per rotational cycle, increasing its volumetric efficiency.

    There is an upper limit to how much compressed air you can shove into an engine before excess cylinder heat becomes a problem (premature detonation). Compressing air increases its temperature, and this has traditionally been dealt with intercoolers. Intercoolers cool the charge of air before shoving that air into the cylinders.

    Direct injection helps with this excess heat problem. Injecting the fuel at high pressure directly into the cylinder has a cooling effect on the charge, allowing higher boost pressures without detonation.

    All of this added together gives you a more powerful, but smaller displacement engine than you would normally need.

    VW/Audi is also doing this in their most recent line of turbo-charged engines – like the 2.0T in my GTI.

    -ted

  • avatar
    trk2

    I would prefer it if Ford just said “The Ecoboost is 355hp motor that gets an EPA score of 20MPG or 18MPG depending on the application.”

    Things like “fuel economy of a V6″ and “power of a V8″ don’t have easily agreed upon metrics.

    That’s great assuming your audience understands that 355hp is alot, and that 20mpg combined score is pretty good considering the size of the vehicle. But, because of years of advertising, people only talk about highway mileage, so 20mpg would seem terrible to most people. For advertising to be effective and reach a wide audience, it has to be something that can be relative to everyone. Thus V8 power, V6 economy.

  • avatar
    P71_CrownVic

    Ford is doing the old apple to orange comparison, comparing a V6 with EcoBoost to a naturally aspirated (no turbo or supercharger) V8 engine.

    We already know that the “ECO” part of Ecoboost is a lie.

    There is simply NOTHING eco about a 3.5 V6 getting the same mileage as a 4.6L/6.0L/6.2L V8.

    And all of those engines are MORE POWERFUL than the “Eco”boost gimmick.

  • avatar

    Uh…newsflash! Saab has been selling, in some MYs, nothing but turbocharged cars for THIRTY years. And even a 2 liter 4 pot and 210hp is still way more than necessary to easily move a 1500kg car well beyond posted limits. V6s and esp. V8s are dino-juice sucking, over-complicated wastes of time and space that have NO place in todays or tomorrows world of $4 fuel. “Ecoboost” is just so much marketing CRAP.

  • avatar
    P71_CrownVic

    (such as the obligatory “MK” which just means “MARK”

    Actually…Lincoln made it very clear when they started switching to the “look what letters just floated next to each other in my milk” naming scam, that “MK” did NOT stand for “mark”.

    it has to be something that can be relative to everyone. Thus V8 power, V6 economy.

    But that’s a lie…It’s a V6 with V8 power and V8 economy.

  • avatar
    T2

    - OldandSlow :
    October 10th, 2009 at 3:11 pm

    Turbocharging simply enhances the brake mean effective pressure per cc of displacement.

    Close but no cigar, a better answer is

    Turbocharging simply enhances the brake mean effective pressure.

    tced2 wrote :

    A turbocharger will make your engine effectively into a variable-displacement engine.

    Sorry, but that is a misleading statement.

    If you were to take any engine and increase its stroke by three times, you may have tripled its displacement but the engine will make the same power as before. The reason being that for the same mean piston speed, say 20m/sec, the max rpm will have to be lowered to one third of what it was previously. All you will have accomplished is to triple the torque available.

    Two things increase engine power if the engine metallurgy is to remain at the same level.

    Increasing the BMEP with forced induction as previously mentioned.
    Increasing the cylinder diameter i.e. the cylinder bore area.

    Displacement on the other hand correlates to torque. More displacement means more torque but with the same power.

    You can get the same power from an engine by shortening its stroke by half and doubling its rpm. Note the average piston speed is the same as before. The engine will now have but half the displacement but still make the same power !

    Citation needed ? OK the average 600cc sportbike makes the same power as a 1.5L auto engine.
    One delivers it at 15000rpm the other at 6000rpm
    But there is no free lunch, if you take a close look you will find the two engines are about the same size and weight.

    Now the green thing. As previous authors have mentioned the turbo is thermodynamically an improvement since the turbine part turns some of the waste heat from exhaust gases into work by driving the compressor part. Then there’s the inlet stroke where the fuel air mixture now enters the cylinder at twice atmosphere pressure. That induction stroke then becomes a small power stroke rather than a loss leader as with conventional engines.

    You could say that a supercharger also aids the induction stroke but it needs to be regarded as a parasite since it is either directly belt driven from the engine shaft or electrically driven with power from the vehicle alternator which amounts to the same thing.

    taxman100 wrote :

    A turbo is a crutch for when a company doesn’t have the ability, money, or government regulation doesn’t allow, a proper engine to be designed and sold.

    Taxman aren’t you are being somewhat harsh on engine designers here ? In my opinion they do a great job.

    I think we should be looking at the mechanical transmission group who think that a multi-ratio gear box is still the best way to extract power from a gasoline engine. Surely a completely decoupled engine would, in my view, offer some exciting possibilities …..

  • avatar
    lw

    We trash Ford for bad marketing all the time…

    Then when they get one right, we get all preachy with facts and data.

    Comon guys… Three of the key things that move metal are “green”, MPG and performance.

    Ecoboost! Save gas, save money, save the planet and go 0-60 in 10 milliseconds!!! Sign me UP!

    It’s great marketing! Applaud the blue oval boyz!

  • avatar
    gamper

    I would have to agree that the name “Ecoboost” is simply marketing speak. I would also have to say it is very smart marketing though and also I dont care what you call it, I like the end result.

  • avatar
    Chicago Dude

    OldandSlow :
    October 10th, 2009 at 3:15 pm

    “Will the “Ecoboost” run for 300,000 miles with oil changes every 7,500 miles like the 4.6 liter v-8?”

    Nope. I’ve built several engines in the past three decades and buzz bombs as I refer to them are damn lucky to reach the 100,000 mile mark without a turbo failure. Plus, the engine internals even with beefed up components will wear faster, especially if an aluminum crankcase is used.

    I’m sure you can find plenty of turbo diesels that run a million miles with oil changes every 25,000 miles.

    Ford is charging a pretty hefty premium for these engines and as far as I know they are the only turbo engines on the market where the manufacturer says regular gasoline is perfectly fine. Maybe, just maybe, Ford decided to make them robust and increase the cost to cover the stronger parts.

  • avatar
    NulloModo

    The lie is being told be those who keep posting that the EcoBoost engines get the same fuel economy as V8s –

    EcoBoost MKS (AWD_- 17/25
    Lexus GS450 (2WD) – 17/24
    Mercedes E550 (AWD)- 15/23
    Acura RL (AWD) – 16/22 (with a NA V6)
    Infiniti M45 (AWD) – 14/20
    BMW 550i(2WD) – 15/22
    Audi A6 (AWD) – 16/23
    Cadillac STS (2WD) – 15/24
    Hyundai Genesis (2WD) – 17/25

    The MKS makes more power than all but the BMW and Mercedes (the Hyundai has more HP but less torque, so we’ll go with a wash on that one) and even with AWD still beats a number of RWD competitors.

    How about CUVs –

    Lincoln MKT (AWD) 16/22
    Acura MDX (AWD) 15/20
    Infiniti FX50 (AWD) 14/20
    Mercedes R (AWD) 15/19
    BMW X5 (AWD) 14/19

    The Lincoln makes more power than all but the Infiniti in this case.

    How about the Flex vs Competitors –

    Flex Ecoboost (AWD) 16/22
    Honda Pilot (AWD) 16/22
    Buick Enclave (AWD) 16/22
    Toyota Highlander (AWD) 17/23
    Dodge Journey (AWD) 15/22

    With the exception of the Highlander, the Flex EcoBoost gets the same or better gase mileage than the competitors, and delivers on average about 100 more hp and lb/ft of torque than any of them.

    As far as longevity goes, the trainers from Ford have told us that the turbos and boost pressure are tuned so far below maximum thresholds, and with the liquid cooling in place for the turbos, that the Ecoboost engines shouldn’t require anymore maintenance than a regular NA version of the same block.

  • avatar
    lw

    Check out this free PR for EcoBoost..

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4332412.html?series=88

    The marketing is working! Go Go Blue Oval!

  • avatar
    P71_CrownVic

    The Genesis has a MUCH bigger engine (hurts economy) with MORE power than the Lincoln Taurus Egoboost (again…hurts fuel economy)

    Now, some will say something about the AWD nonsense (which is unnecessary had Ford built the car right)…but even with the nanny-state AWD system the Genesis only weighs 145 less than the Lincoln Taurus…which is close enough to make it a non-issue.

    Ford missed the boat yet again with the ECO-boost nonsense. There is nothing ECO about a 3.5 V6 getting the same mileage as a 4.6/6.0/6.2 V8.

    Maybe, just maybe, Ford decided to make them robust and increase the cost to cover the stronger parts.

    HA! This is Ford NA we are talking about. They went cheap on the number of spark plug threads on the boat anchor modular engines and then denied there was a problem when the plugs would launch themselves out of the head.

    I’ll be surprised if these engines make it to 100K without major work. This will be the second coming of the terrible 3.4 V8 that Ford screwed up in the 1996-1999 SHO (<—– the proper name of the car)

  • avatar
    Chicago Dude

    HA! This is Ford NA we are talking about. They went cheap on the number of spark plug threads on the boat anchor modular engines and then denied there was a problem when the plugs would launch themselves out of the head.

    Question: Will Ford engine A last as long as Ford engine B?

    Answer: NO! Because Ford sucks!

    OK, that makes sense.

  • avatar
    Aqua225

    T2: You have a severe misconception about torque and horsepower.

    hp = (torque * RPM) / 5250

    So in your example where you increase the bore, and claim to boost torque, but not horsepower, would be absolutely impossible.

    I also am a bit confused about your piston speed theory. Piston speed is not really a issue at the RPMs that the family sedan (even a SHO sedan) runs at, unless you reduce stroke to the point that the piston speed is *faster* than the expansion of the working fluid in the cylinder (expanding/burning cloud of fuel/air).

    Additionally, your theory on boring vs. stroking is patently wrong. Hot rodders have built strokers for years, and continue too. They make more horsepower, verified fact. It really depends on the original engine design if it is better to bore or stroke, and what your budget is, since a stroker will require a new crankshaft.

    Also suspect: your theory about the induction cycle under turbo pressure. Sure, the pressurized intake helps the intake cycle (otherwise, what would be the point) but I seriously doubt that if you look at the pressure difference between the intake stroke, and the power stroke, the power “add” has very little to do with increasing the engine’s output.

    Finally, what a turbocharger does is this: it increases volumetric efficiency. Volumetric efficiency is best described as how much of the volume of the cylinder is filled during the intake cycle against the actual volume of the cylinder when the piston is at the bottom of the stroke. This is generally measured at atmospheric pressures. It easily follows that if you can increase the pressure in the intake manifold, you will increase the volume of air that flows the cylinder.

    With increased volume, you now raise the pressure inside the cylinder when the piston is at the top of its stroke, since you are compressing more air into the same space. You have raised the compression ratio of the engine.

    There are limitations to how pressure effects volumetric effiency. Temperature plays a part, since hot air at a given pressure is not as dense and actually contains less air than a cooler charge at the same pressure. Another major one is head airflow. Once the velocity of the incoming gas reaches a certain speed range, aerodynamics will restrict the flow of air into the cylinder no matter how high you raise the manifold pressure.

    Taxman:

    Turbochargers are not crutches. Would you call a 2000hp turbocharged small block a “crutched” engine? Not hardly ;)

    A turbocharger, while inflicting a small penalty on non-boosted driving efficiency due to back pressure during the exhaust stroke, allows much greater horsepower in a smaller space. I have read many of the arguments here, and what many people are missing is also the weight penalty. A v8 will add more inertial effects to the car. A v6 w/two turbos is lighter than a v8 with no turbos (typically speaking, not always the case, but mostly).

    Additionally a higher displacement engine, unless using a throttleless design, has much worse cruising efficiency because much of its displacement is being “throttled”, ie., you are directly keeping the motor from doing its job, which is to pump air.

    The “best” car motor would be sized such that at 55mph on the highway, that the throttle plate would have to be 100% opened, just to keep the car at 55mph while running at a low rpm. It would also have a turbo induction system and super high flow heads, so you could boost its power output to super high levels for passing, etc.

  • avatar
    Aqua225

    fred diesel:

    Huh? Have no place? Complicated? Hmmm.

    One engine that truly is simpler than a V8, V6, I6 or I4, is the Wankel. By your argument, that thing should be bloody efficien.

    However, it is about the worst ICE in existance today (hence why only one maker has one: mazda). It’s a nice motor if you don’t mind feeding it more fuel to do what a 24V V6 can do for much less.

    For my ears: V8′s sound better than the V6 or the I6, or the I4. Arguably, they sound better than than a V10, but not a V12. I’d rather have a small V8 rather than a big V6, or a little V6 rather than a big I4. I’d love a I6, but they don’t sound that great, even though mechanically speaking, it’s the smoothest design, just doesn’t sound as good.

    As long as Algore doesn’t win the climate argument, and the Arabs continue to sell us Fuel, I will always have a V8 in the stable if I can afford it. There simply is no music on the planet like a V8 can play.

  • avatar
    Loser

    Aqua225

    I will always have a V8 in the stable if I can afford it. There simply is no music on the planet like a V8 can play.

    Amen brother!

    Back to the subject,
    I don’t understand all the petty bitching about this engine. If this thing was built by Honda folks here would be jerking off to pictures of it. Like any true motorhead I appreciate the power and torque of this V-6. With that said this engine is not for me. I’m just a neanderthal that would rather have a V-8.

    Man, you got to love the predictability of the usual suspects around here: “Ford sucks cause I think so, My opinions are fact, I don’t need proof to back my assertions, do not question my assertions….yada…yada…yada”.

  • avatar
    ambulancechaser

    anybody consider the fact that last time I checked, turbocharged/supercharged engines required premium (91 octane or better)fuel? Have fun at the pumps pouring premium into your “Ecoboost” car, while my N/A V6 or V8 makes the same (or more) power on much cheaper regular fuel.

  • avatar
    Loser

    P71_CrownVic
    Now, some will say something about the AWD nonsense (which is unnecessary had Ford built the car right)

    Does this mean every car with AWD was not built right or is this just more Ford bashing?

    SHO (<—– the proper name of the car)

    Ford can say SHO how ever the hell they want, it’s their damn car. You bitch about this continuously and have no intention of buying one anyway so why do you even care?

  • avatar
    Loser

    ambulancechaser,

    This engine does not need premium.

  • avatar
    PeteMoran

    If Ford can differentiate themselves against their competitors (“EcoBoost”) and find a way to have US car buyers “accept” a lower displacement engine then that, for me, is a huge achievement.

    With DI, a smaller engine mass and turbo activation calibrated toward a smoother/lower arrival of a power peak, then energy use is lower = fuel use lower. CAFE targets easier to meet.

    Ford are on the right path. More power to them.

    The only sensible argument that can be made is against complexity/durability and ultimately cost.

    I’d love a I6, but they don’t sound that great

    Depends who the engine artist is. BMW S54 sounds fantastic. A worked over Toyota 2JZ-GTE sounds alright too.

    Plenty of V8s sound like phart machines to me.

  • avatar
    dagmeister

    I love the way so many people can have an opinion on turbocharging and know so little.

    Actually, there are massive advantages in turbocharging if you have a very good engine control unit. you can run the engine much leaner, you can vary the compression ratio to an extent to get the best out of the difference in the RON of fuels (like ignition ratios). Also in regards to emissions there are massive gains to be made with the catalytic converter and forced air flow through the cylinder..

    well that is my understanding… I couldn’t find any, of the violently opinionated posts that actually understand emissions enough to realise the emissions reducing potential of a turbocharger. Most of which will not be realised on a Government Fuel economy test.

  • avatar
    alfaromeo

    I don’t think Ford is wrong. Notice that ford claims fuel efficiency rather than MPG. Regarding fuel efficiency, it means how many fuel burned per horsepower hour. So if the new ecoboost engine can provide same horsepower with less fuel, then we can safely say its fuel efficiency is better. On the other hand, if ford claims MPG, then you are right.I have to say, that these two terms connect with each other closely but still are little different.

    Regards

  • avatar
    jomatt

    Is this a paid ad from Ford?

  • avatar
    don1967

    When those fabulous twin turbochargers experience a catastrophic meltdown after the warranty runs out, there will be nothing “economical” about them.

    Selling bread-and-butter cars with twin-turbos is the second dumbest idea I can imagine. The dumbest idea I can imagine is buying one of them.

  • avatar
    Matt51

    Turbcharging makes a f*ucking mess under the hood. Damn plumbing running everywhere. Give me a V8 any day. I would even take supercharging over turbocharging, it makes a much simpler, cleaner installation than a turbo. Twin turbos, what a bunch of stupid bullshit.

  • avatar
    SherbornSean

    I think NulloModo’s evidence settles the score here. Ecoboosted Fords get better mileage for the same performance, at least on paper.

    More interesting would be a look at more subjective performance elements, such as sound and responsiveness, which have historically been issues with turbos.

  • avatar
    Brian P

    Dagmeister, the turbo gas engines that I have dealt with all run really, really rich under load in order to avoid punching holes in the pistons. Direct-injection is supposed to offset that if it’s done correctly … but it’s not an automatic benefit; the Mazda CX7 (and all the other Mazdas using the turbo DI 2.3) is a gas hog, but the BMW 335i (also turbo DI) seems to do reasonably well.

    Turbocharging is only an “eco” benefit if it’s combined with downsizing the engine. The Volkswagen TSI 1.4 litre engine is an example that we don’t get here in North America; it’s more economical and more powerful than the 2.5 litre conventional engine that we get in the same cars here.

  • avatar
    Matt51

    An apples to apples comparison is, DI injected non turbo, to DI injected turbo.

  • avatar
    AdamYYZ

    Wow, I’m surprised how many people hate the engine and hate the marketing.

    I think the ecoboost engines are a nice alternative to large displacement engines. On regular gas and regular motor oil I can cruise around and get acceptable fuel economy, or throw the hammer down and get super-car like acceleration for a low sticker price.

    I’m waiting for my 2011 Mustang V6 Ecoboost to be available, that’s my next ride. I’ll take my chances with turbo failure, or whatever. How expensive could it possibly be to fix or replace a ford engine 6 to 8 years down the road. I usually ditch my cars in that time frame anyway.

    Bottom line, the new ecoboost is faster than the current V8 Mustang GT, and its better on gas. So anybody currently not interested in buying a Ford should probably just relax.

  • avatar
    Maxb49

    Luxury performance shoppers like me will not purchase this new Lincoln because we want a V8. V6s will never and can never be V8s. They sound chinsy, perform worse, and don’t last as long as V8s because they have two less cylinders. To remain truly competitive with world luxury performance cars, Ford should have set aside the new 6.2 litre Boss V8 for the full size Lincoln. Luxury buyers won’t buy this car because there are too many cut corners. Family car buyers won’t buy this car because it’s too expensive. Lincoln failed.

    By the way, forced induction should be done with a supercharger. It’s more reliable. But that’s beside the point. A performance car shouldn’t need forced induction to perform reasonably well. It’s a crutch. Ford will suffer for this decision.

  • avatar
    greenb1ood

    I was glad Ford went with this plan over a full hybrid system. More economical for the consumer and allows the company to market green without spending ridiculous amounts of capital (Volt, anyone?) on a niche segment.

    I’ve owned a Volvo S40 Turbo 5-cylinder for 5 years now and I think many Ford and Lincoln customers will appreciate it as I have.

    Great gas mileage when I want it from the smaller engine, power when I want it from the turbo booster. I’ve only been fortunate enough to have one turbo on board. Two seems like a lot of fun.

    To those who are pointing out that this is not a new concept, you’re right, it isn’t. But semi-sticky adhesive wasn’t new either until 3M put it on the back of small strips of paper. Sometimes innovation is about the application and the marketing.

    Job well don, Ford. Keep it up.

  • avatar
    essen

    So by that logic a BMW 535 twin-turbo 6 is an uber green machine because you could have had a V8 540?

  • avatar
    Maxb49

    I’ve owned a Volvo S40 Turbo 5-cylinder for 5 years now and I think many Ford and Lincoln customers will appreciate it as I have.

    Absolutely not. A lot of long time Ford customers such as myself are pissed that we can’t buy a V8. The only reason Ford is building this engine is to require the use of special tools manufactured by Ford to repair the engine, thus making more money at the dealerships. Ford can take this POS and shove it.

  • avatar
    gregaryous

    Too many posters here can’t relate the new Ford to the old Ford, yes, old Ford made a lot of mistakes, but new Ford under CEO Alan Mullaly is a different story for the better with a global focus on “One Ford”.

    Consider the durability testing that went into the EcoBoost engines (search on EcoBoost boot camp) and you’ll see Ford did over 1-Million miles of testing, thousands of hours cycling the engines at WOT and then rapid cool down with no problems. The settings on these EcoBoost engines are conservative (10:1 compression, 12psi boost) to ensure durability and longevity well past 100,000 miles.

    Ford has filed over 125 patents on these engines and the control system that will certainly delay the competition in developing similar drivetrains and give Ford a significant advantage in the market. Note too that these 3.5L V6 EcoBoost engines are also in “premium” offerings (SHO, MKS, MKT and Flex) not your run of the day “bread-n-butter” cars, to charge a premium $$$ and recover R&D expenses faster to afford developing other EB offerings in 1.6L and 2.0L I4 engines in 2010.

    Bottomline; If you can see where Ford is going in the next few years with (6) new engines in 2010 (1.6EB, 2.0EB, 3.5EB, 5.0, 6.2 and 6.7) putting the “motor” back in Ford Motor Company and 150% product turnover planned in the next 4-5 years, it may be smart to buy Ford (F) and share in the benefits instead of just bitchin n moanin, save that for Gov’t Motors and Crisisler, they deserve it!

  • avatar
    PeteMoran

    …. don’t last as long as V8s because they have two less cylinders.

    A bogus claim popularised by old-GM, Ford, Chrysler as a way of scaring buyers of smaller engines, and usually smaller cars.

    By the way, forced induction should be done with a supercharger. It’s more reliable.

    Turbo-chargers are usually lighter and peak higher.

    Larger working engines; trucks, ships etc are equipped with turbo-, not super- chargers.

    I doubt you could prove the reliability claim. I see an enormous belt and a bearing with an odd force on it. There’s an obvious additional failure point there. The rest of a turbo- or super- charger setup would be about the same.

    A performance car shouldn’t need forced induction to perform reasonably well.

    What an odd thing to say. What about a performance car that you want to perform REALLY well? Might explain why unrestricted turbo-charging has been banned in most motorsports.

  • avatar
    Autosavant

    “Autosavant ” rebadged lowly Ford Fusions” ?

    Well…I don’t think the Ford Fusion is lowly as it is better than the Camry and arguably better than the Accord. That said, if the Fusion beats the Camry…what does that say about the Lexus ES which is a rebadged Camry ?”

    I did not mean to demean the Fusion, and I did not compare it to the Accord or the Camry. I am too bored to test drive the latest versions of these socalled family cars.

    I clearly called it “lowly” compared to the $40k lincoln it is a CLONE of, and the $50k other obese ugly lincolns we were talking about.

    I liked my old Accord ’90 5-sp coupe, I am not impressed with Accord or Camry styling avfter 1992 or so, but I still believe that overall, both are far superior in refinement, materials and reliability and quality than the domestics.

    And I think lexus SUCKS when it underestimates the intelligence of Lexus buyers by selling them a rebadged Camry for $5 more. I was always against their deceptive practice.

    But the worst offender is HYUNDAI, which, after the success of the Genesis Sedan, it calls the utterly UNRELATED and much smaller and no v8 coupe, the “Genesis” Coupe. Give me an effing break, Hyundai clowns. And BTW, will you ever dump the accursed cheapo hard plastics from the otherwise great Elantra?

  • avatar
    MMH

    Perhaps a number of people are missing the point here. I don’t think the intention is to start an engine or engineering debate. I read this article as an example of some of the discovery an comparison shopping experience of a non-gearhead (as it turns out most carbuyers fall into this category) with an intention to be better informed than the average consumer.

    Calling someone out for not getting the difference in mechanics, fuel efficiency under various loads or life expectancy between a V8 and a turbo (or eco) V6 sounds almost the same as GM telling consumers that the perception gap is the fault of…the consumers.

    I’m also pretty sure that autosavant making it to the 5th sentence before succumbing to the irrestable lure of the caps lock key is a new record.

  • avatar
    cvelocity

    For anyone that has mentioned the benefits of a turbocharged engine when you manage to stay off of boost, I have this to add:

    While it’s true that you effectively change the apparent displacement of your engine with the addition of boost, it’s not apples-to-apples to compare an FI engine without boost applied, to the equivalent NA engine.

    This is less of an issue with DI, but compression ratios need to be lower when talking about FI motors. As such, the thermodynamic efficiency of a FI motor off of boost will be lower than the same motor with a higher compression ratio.

    There’s also the issue of packaging… turbos, intercoolers, and all of the plumbing and support equipment come at the price of weight and complexity.

    The last point would be that EcoBoost in this context isn’t really a performance application. You’re getting sub-V8 performance, at sub V-6 economy. The turbos in this application ar small, low-inertia units that are essentially supposed to be transparent in operation. That also means that it’s pretty tough to stay out of boost… it’s not like you have a massive disco potato kicking in at 3500RPM, kicking your car sideways like it was hit with a wrecking ball in the back.

    Ford has managed to take a mediocre V6, and make it class competitive with the best V6s and the worst V8s. I would say that isn’t a bad accomplishment, but I would say that the level of buzz surrounding their “feat” is largely unwarranted. I don’t really understand why VAG, BMW, and Ford are getting so much pub for retreading something in general use in passenger automobiles for decades.

  • avatar
    joe_thousandaire

    The fact that a turbocharged six cylinder engine is comparable to (and yet more fuel efficient than) a V8 is old news. – Yep, just like this article.

    We all know that this was originally called the ‘twinforce’ and was designed for power, not fuel-economy. The name was changed about the time gas hit $4/gallon. I’m sure Ford had an ‘oh shit’ moment realizing that raw power doesn’t really sell anymore, hence the greeenwashing. Like you said “by any other name”. What they call this thing doesn’t really matter. Its like those idiots who got all pissed when the new Hemi came out. Its not a real Hemi! Who gives a crap, its a great engine and a recognizable name. Same thing with this, Ford has managed to create what is by all accounts I’ve read one of the world’s best engines, and all you can do is complain about the damn name? The Supra Turbo was great, the Taurus Turbo is great, turbo’s in general are great and we should be glad for anything that brings more of them to the market, especially with DI. Now if they could only do the same thing with diesel. Torque-boost perhaps?

  • avatar
    wmba

    Car and Driver, September 2009: “Even at a steady 80 mph, our (AWD) Taurus had trouble topping 20 mpg”. They averaged 16 mpg for the test, 1 mpg less than the EPA city rating. But it does run like Jack the Bear, with a 13.7 second quarter mile.

    Perhaps the real fault is the hulking great beast the Taurus is, at 4350 pounds, with a so-so 0.32 coefficient of drag, and massive 29 square feet of frontal area. Don’t know, don’t care. But…

    Economical it ain’t. In this application at least.

  • avatar
    ajla

    @gregaryous:
    Ref. “6versus8″ where MKS EcoBoost beat the new Jaguar XF, Maseratti and MB E550 and did well against the BMW 550…

    The tests were all done at near 12000ft elevation.

    If Ford was looking to impress me, how about they bring it closer to sea level where the super thin air isn’t giving the Ecoboost the advantage?

  • avatar
    ZekeToronto

    Aqua225 wrote:

    I’d love a I6, but they don’t sound that great, even though mechanically speaking, it’s the smoothest design, just doesn’t sound as good.

    Heresy! I love the sound of a straight six … although I’d rather a turbo-4 (or 5) for a daily driver.

  • avatar
    ZekeToronto

    MMH wrote:

    I’m also pretty sure that autosavant making it to the 5th sentence before succumbing to the irrestable lure of the caps lock key is a new record.

    Err, I think if you check, you’ll discover the first four sentences were an unattributed quote ;-)

  • avatar
    P71_CrownVic

    Does this mean every car with AWD was not built right or is this just more Ford bashing?

    It’s just the truth. I know the truth bother some…but it needs to be said.

    A PROPER company would have NOT had a limp-wristed FWD-BASED AWD system…it would have been a RWD-based or RWD-biased system.

    Ford can say SHO how ever the hell they want, it’s their damn car. You bitch about this continuously and have no intention of buying one anyway so why do you even care?

    Well…the ORIGINAL car was called a Ford Taurus S-H-O. That’s what Ford called it in their ads.
    ————–
    @gregaryous:
    “Ref. “6versus8″ where MKS EcoBoost beat the new Jaguar XF, Maseratti and MB E550 and did well against the BMW 550…”

    The tests were all done at near 12000ft elevation.

    If Ford was looking to impress me, how about they bring it closer to sea level where the super thin air isn’t giving the Ecoboost the advantage?
    ———————-
    Turbcharging makes a f*ucking mess under the hood. Damn plumbing running everywhere. Give me a V8 any day. I would even take supercharging over turbocharging, it makes a much simpler, cleaner installation than a turbo. Twin turbos, what a bunch of stupid bullshit.

    See, that’s just it. GM can just build an efficient, reliable V8 while Ford has to rely on expensive and complicated Turbocharging and Di to get the same effect. And the best part, is that at the end of the day…those silly Egoboost engines are NO MORE efficient as the V8s they are trying to replace.

  • avatar

    What the Mad Men wouldn’t tell me is how. I delved into the internet to find out more about the technology, and was shocked to discover that this magical device is really a twin turbo set up with direct fuel injection.

    Shocked? Anybody who’s paid attention to automotive web sites over the past year or two probably knows that EcoBoost=twin turbo DFI.

    Frankly I’m shocked that you’re shocked. Methinks thou dost protest a bit too much.

    Wait a minute, adding a turbo charger to an engine increases horsepower, I knew that, but it can only decrease fuel economy, right?

    It depends what kind of turbocharger it is, at what RPM it has greater than atmospheric pressure, its size, etc. The fact is that turbos recover energy that would normally go out the exhaust pipe.

    For a proper fuel efficiency comparison you’d have to compare the EcoBoost not to a normally aspirated engine of the same displacement but rather a normally aspirated engine that puts out the same level of power as the EcoBoost.

    A turbo by any other name…is still a turbo.

    And only automotive illiterates don’t know that “boost”=turbocharger/supercharger.

    It’s hard to defend TTAC against the charge of anti-Detroit bias when it publishes a contrived nothingburger like this post.

  • avatar

    # mtymsi :
    October 10th, 2009 at 12:55 pm

    The real question is how many want to buy the Ecoboost? At least in the Taurus at $45k optioned out or even the $38k base I’m guessing not very many. May well be the most overpriced regular production vehicle I’ve seen in my life. Good luck with these vehicles Ford, I’m sure you’ll need it.

    Actually, as shown by figures published here on TTAC the other day, the Taurus is selling pretty well. I think it’s the second best selling fullsize sedan behind the Impala and way ahead of the Avalon.

  • avatar

    Will the “Ecoboost” run for 300,000 miles with oil changes every 7,500 miles like the 4.6 liter v-8?

    I’m sure that Steven Lang has handled more than a couple turbo Volvos that have clocked at least 200K miles. Forced induction isn’t nitrous.

  • avatar

    people don’t want to hear the word “turbo” – it has negative connotations… and ‘twin turbo’… isn’t it just offensive japanese and exotics who use them?

    So why do so many marketers of consumer products use the term “turbocharged” or “supercharged” when describing their products’ performance?

    It’d be a hoot watching American drag racing enthusiasts hear your explanation that turbos and superchargers are associated with foreign cars. You know those big shiny belt driven things on top of many drag engines? Those are superchargers, aka “blowers”.

    Also, superchargers were widely used on American combat aircraft during WWII.

  • avatar

    # Frank Williams :
    October 10th, 2009 at 5:46 pm

    I just think it’s funny that Ford is making such a fuss over a turbocharged, direct injection engine like it’s cutting edge technology. Maybe I should introduce their engineers and ad agency to my 2006 A4.

    What about all the marketing over the past 30 years that has hyped double overhead cams and multiple valve heads, both of which were developed before World War II?

    Perhaps it should be seen as Ford taking advantage of a marketing opportunity that Audi fumbled.

  • avatar
    ZekeToronto

    Ronnie Schreiber wrote:

    I’m sure that Steven Lang has handled more than a couple turbo Volvos that have clocked at least 200K miles.

    And if (for some bizarre reason) he hasn’t, I certainly have.

  • avatar

    Actually…Lincoln made it very clear when they started switching to the “look what letters just floated next to each other in my milk” naming scam, that “MK” did NOT stand for “mark”.

    Actually, that’s not true. I can dig out the press kit and show you that when Ford first started with the alphanumeric Lincolns they indeed used the term “Mark”. It was only later that they got cold feet because they think some people associated the name Mark with 1970s vintage land yachts. They forget that the Mark III and Mark IV Lincolns sold very well and were loved by their owners.

    “Mark Ess” is more mellifluous to my ears than “Em Kay Ess”. I think using the alphanumerics but pronouncing them “mark xyz” would have the advantage of using an established automotive brand name that can be badged alphanumerically, as seems to be popular with luxury car buyers. BMW, M-B, Lexus, Audi and Infiniti all use alphanumerics.

    I will say that the Lincoln alphanumerics have no internal sense. At least Mercedes goes alphabetically, with the C Class being less expensive than the E and S classes. Who knows where a MKS, MKT and MKZ are relative to each other in Lincoln’s portfolio?

  • avatar

    I would even take supercharging over turbocharging, it makes a much simpler, cleaner installation than a turbo.

    That’s why the latest trick is to design V engines that breathe backwards, with the intakes on the outside of the head and the exhaust ported out the middle of the engine. The turbo/turbos are nestled into the V. It keeps everything compact and reduces the length of the plumbing, reducing turbo lag.

  • avatar
    Patrickj

    102 posts, the vast majority of them dripping with bitterness because they can’t buy leaded gas or a new car with a solid steel dashboard and no seat belts anymore.

    While I’ll leave some early adopters get these cars to 150K miles before I buy one, I hope Ford does well with them.

  • avatar

    If Ford was looking to impress me, how about they bring it closer to sea level where the super thin air isn’t giving the Ecoboost the advantage?

    I understand that people who live in NYC, DC and LA think they are the center of the universe, but not everyone lives at sea level. Detroit, Chicago and Cleveland are about 700′ above sea level, as are all the cities on the Great Lakes. When I drive from Detroit to New York, I have to traverse real mountains in Pennsylvania.

    As long as Americans sometimes have to drive at altitude, altitude performance is a factor.

  • avatar
    P71_CrownVic

    Who knows where a MKS, MKT and MKZ are relative to each other in Lincoln’s portfolio?

    Easy…

    MKS…Expensive, near luxury Taurus
    MKT…Expensive, near luxury Flex
    MKX…Expensive, near luxury Edge
    MKZ…Expensive, near luxury Fusion

  • avatar

    A PROPER company would have NOT had a limp-wristed FWD-BASED AWD system…it would have been a RWD-based or RWD-biased system.

    Yeah, like Acura and Audi do…. wait, Acura and Audi use FWD based AWD systems.

    I drove an AWD Chrysler minivan for years, in Michigan, where it snows. My ex’s parents used to live at the top of a hill in northern Michigan. When their drive was snow covered, the FWD based AWD minivan could easily make it up the hill when they’d have to park their RWD pickup at the foot of the drive and walk up. The 604 transmission was a piece of shit, but maybe that’s not fair to shit, since it can still be used as fertilizer, but the AWD unit (I believe designed and manufactured by New Process Gear) worked flawlessly. It’d be fun to watch it run in the snow. You’d see the front wheels start to spin and then the back wheels would dig in.

    If you drive in snow, AWD is the way to go.

  • avatar

    I’d love a I6, but they don’t sound that great, even though mechanically speaking, it’s the smoothest design, just doesn’t sound as good.

    You’ve obviously never heard a Jaguar XK6 at full throttle.

    I think what gets people going about V8s, particularly small blocks that are less rackety, is their distinctive firing pattern. V8s sound like V8s just like V-Twins go “potato potato”.

  • avatar
    ZekeToronto

    Ronnie Schreiber wrote:

    … wait, Acura and Audi use FWD based AWD systems.

    It’s a technicality, but the latest Audi systems are rear-biased, which would satisfy P71_CrownVic’s criteria. Of course that’s mostly only relevant to dry road handling. Your point that–in snow–its better to have the power applied at four points instead of two, stands … regardless of whether the vehicle’s layout was originally FWD or RWD.

  • avatar
    ajla

    @Ronnie Schreiber:
    I understand that people who live in NYC, DC and LA think they are the center of the universe, but not everyone lives at sea level. Detroit, Chicago and Cleveland are about 700′ above sea level, as are all the cities on the Great Lakes. When I drive from Detroit to New York, I have to traverse real mountains in Pennsylvania.

    I don’t know where you got the idea that I live in LA, DC, or NYC.

    Anyway, there is a major difference between a 12,000ft elevation (where Ford choose to do the testing) and a 700ft elevation. The highest point in the entire state of Pennsylvania is 3200ft. The highest point in the entire Appalachian Range is around 6600ft.

    I’d love it if Ford did a retest of all the vehicles in places like Detroit or Chicago. It would show how the vehicles perform for people that don’t live in the Rocky Mountains.

  • avatar

    Again, anybodies V6 or 8 is overly complicated and unnecessary for what should only need to be a 1500kg vehicle IMO*. The chains, the belts, the extra set of variable-valve timing sprockets, heads, cams, cats, O2s, and now 2 turbos with all their related crap crammed under a hood? The heat. The bulk. YUK. AWD will add another 150kgs. I see em all and am sick of most. If you need the SOUND of a V8, all you really need is a video game.

    Give me a inline 4 or 5 cylinder any fing day.

    And Wankels suck too. Come to think of it, other than NGKs, so do sparkplugs and ignition systems.

    *Again only my OPINION…you are certainly entitled to yours and to spend as much of your own $ to cart your ass around in anyway you can AFFORD. When the world has to start subsidizing it…

  • avatar
    gregaryous

    Instead of telling Ford to go test the EcoBoost cars at whatever level near the sea, why don’t you go test drive the cars and see for yourself.

    As far as Lincoln naming their cars “MK” something, the problem is MB, Lexus and BMW already have “patented” those naming conventions (numbers/letters for class-3/C, 5/E, 7/S and numbers for displacement-350, 400, 550…)and Lincoln could not use them! Lincoln should have at least come up with alphabetic sequence to designate size…

  • avatar
    law stud

    Article doesn’t take into consideration that eco-boost/turbo smaller engines are coming out later that will allow lighter weight and similar performance and better mileage.

    Comparing a V8 and V6 that makes about the same horsepower is an orange to orange comparison in my mind, Pontiac Gt G8 is 365 hp, while the SHO also has 365 hp. The pontiac is about 200 pounds lighter yet the SHO has better mileage.

    The V8 Pontiac gets about 17-19 combined real world driving, while the V6 turbo SHO gets 20-21 combined mileage. In reality the mileage boost is not worth the extra 10K they want for the SHO. I can still get a GT G8 for 26K+taxes at a local dealer. Otherwise Ford presentations show AWD luxury cars and the SHO mileage comparisons, the FORD beats them all.

    Comparing the Turbo V6 to the regular V6 they have in the Taurus is just stupid. They didn’t downsize the engine so wait till they have an engine option that is a downsized V6 with a turbo. i.e. most likely a I-4 with a turbo getting 260 hp and better or similar mileage + better handling+breaking because its lighter.

  • avatar
    P71_CrownVic

    If you drive in snow, AWD is the way to go.

    I DO drive in snow (1st storm tomorrow actually)…and AWD is the biggest contributor to accidents when it’s slippery out. I was NEVER stuck in my open-diff, no traction control Crown Victoria and I DO NOT use 4WD in my truck I have now. When the road is slippery, I want to know…and not have that fact hidden by an AWD system.

    As I have said before, if you can’t safely drive a modern RWD vehicle in the snow…then you clearly have deficient driving skills and should NOT have a license to drive.

    AWD is simply used as a mask for deficient driving skills.

    ————

    Comparing a V8 and V6 that makes about the same horsepower is an orange to orange comparison in my mind, Pontiac Gt G8 is 365 hp, while the SHO also has 365 hp.

    Ummm…………………no. When filled up with regular (as the Pontiac G8 GT uses) the SHOW only makes 355 HP.

    ———————

    As far as Lincoln naming their cars “MK” something, the problem is MB, Lexus and BMW already have “patented” those naming conventions (numbers/letters for class-3/C, 5/E, 7/S and numbers for displacement-350, 400, 550…)and Lincoln could not use them! Lincoln should have at least come up with alphabetic sequence to designate size…

    What was wrong with Zephyr? Or Aviator? They are a hell of a lot better than MK-xyz. Even “LS”stood for Luxury Sedan (something Lincoln should actually build…a true luxury vehicle).

  • avatar
    ohsnapback

    Ford is starting to really piss me off.

    As far as I’m concerned, the only truly competitive products they have in their segments are the Fusion (NA and Hybrid), Mustang (V8) and F Series trucks, and they have a bunch of lame attempt at marketing dated platforms and dashboards in most other areas.

    This uber hyping of what’s a simple twin turbo 6 by calling it ‘EcoBoost,’ along with the making of all the outlandish claims that go along with this marketing, is plain silly.

  • avatar
    wnoh41

    P71_CrownVic :
    I bet you don’t wear a vest on duty!! And won’t let a doctor give you an anesthetic when you have surgery either!! Because things like that are for wimps and they are just crutches for weak people unlike yourself. I used to love this site and I still do enjoy it, but geez. Many people still have informed opinions which are always interesting to read and learn from and is what the site should be about. I don’t know what happened but lately there’s far more bozos on here trying attempting to sound smart or just flat out being ridiculous. I hope that all the posters who need this to cling to so they feel important will find another outlet because I’m tired of hearing morons with curse laden posts acting like 13 year old boys and the rest just trying to compensate for the many deficiencies in their life. If you feel the need to just go to mtv’s page, I’m sure they have a section where you can vent about the hills or something.

  • avatar
    ZekeToronto

    P71_CrownVic wrote:

    … if you can’t safely drive a modern RWD vehicle in the snow …

    Assuming that your nickname stands for something, what exactly would you know about modern RWD vehicles?

    AWD is simply used as a mask for deficient driving skills.

    Ok, now you’re solidly into Damn kids … get off my lawn! territory.

  • avatar
    Autosavant

    “ZekeToronto :
    October 12th, 2009 at 1:15 am

    P71_CrownVic wrote:

    … if you can’t safely drive a modern RWD vehicle in the snow …

    Assuming that your nickname stands for something, what exactly would you know about modern RWD vehicles?

    AWD is simply used as a mask for deficient driving skills.”

    I can assure you this is true of an old friend and former PhD student of mine (now he is a prof at a nearby U) who has owned several AWD Audis instead of his beloved Mercs or BMWs, just because he is a really poor driver, and/or too much of an old lady. AWD was the key to his decision.

    We live in the same snowbelt town, but I found my RWD 740iL, after driving a series of FWDs, 100% well-behaved on all kinds of snow. It seldom, if ever, felt not 100% sure-footed.

    Few, if any, drivers need AWD.

  • avatar
    CoffeeJones

    FreedMike :
    October 10th, 2009 at 6:19 pm

    taxman100 :
    October 10th, 2009 at 2:45 pm

    A turbo is a crutch for when a company doesn’t have the ability, money, or government regulation doesn’t allow, a proper engine to be designed and sold.

    Tell that those bunch of losers at BMW. We all know those guys can’t design an engine to save their lives.

    We’re talking about the combination of direct injection and turbo charging in an engine.
    The combination leads to engines which have near max torque at low RPMs, increased fuel economy, decreased emissions, and allow for lots of flexibility in tuning. The only downside is cost.

    This combination is used in engines by (off the top of my head) GM (Ecotec), Ford(Ecoboost), Mazda(DISI Turbo, Mazda 3), BMW(new 750i, 335i), VW/Audi(TFSI), Porsche (new Turbo), Mercedes, and I think Mitsubishi.
    The design is THE biggest thing to happen to the petrol engine in this decade.

  • avatar
    Bruce from DC

    I agree with the folks who think that the editorial is just a bit hard on Ford. While the idea that it is possible, although not guaranteed, to get more horsepower and more fuel economy out of a turbo’ed small displacement engine is not new, I think that’s the concept that underlies Ford’s nomenclature; and I don’t see anything wrong with that.

    Although I have other issues with the car, and with the engine for that matter, having lived for 7 years with Saab’s turbocharged 2.3 liter 4-cylinder with a rated 250 hp, I can say pretty confidently that it delivers the promise of both power and economy. With the 5-speed automatic, observed fuel economy (with the a/c running) on highway trips at 70 mph is around 31 mpg. By contrast, the best that my 225 HP normally aspirated 3 liter z3 can do under similar circumstances (with a 5-speed manual) is about 26 mpg. . . and that’s for a vehicle that weighs 700 lbs. less and is carrying a smaller payload. The Saab, of course, does not have direct injection. The autobox has two distinct modes “sport” and “normal.” In the normal mode, the setup is clearly biased to keep engine speed down (never exceeding 4000 rpm) and use lots of boost (at presumably large throttle openings). Sport mode keeps engine speed higher and kicks down to a lower gear more quickly.

    I’m aware that some turbo 4 setups (e.g. the Acura RDX) use quite a lot of fuel, but I suspect that all has to do with how the engine management system is set up. It seems to me that turbocharged engines are capable of good fuel economy and power if they are managed to optimize that. And, obviously, if you regularly call for lots of horsepower to be developed, the turbo engine loses its advantage . . . which may be the problem with the RDX.

  • avatar
    Power6

    As I have said before, if you can’t safely drive a modern RWD vehicle in the snow…then you clearly have deficient driving skills and should NOT have a license to drive.

    Oh get out of here with that $#!+. Shall we say the same about proper tires? or window defrosters and windscreen wipers? those are clearly unneccesary.

    I have been driving in the snow ever since I could get behind the wheel, and I have driven RWD, FWD, AWD with every sort of tire. Just about anything will get you through the snow, with a decent treaded tire and good use of momentum. Not that some aren’t better than others. If you are a true snow driver, you know that any car will make it, but the AWD has the trump card, in that the greatest fear with 2WD is you can get stuck in a good storm, but that it so much less likely with AWD, and some people like that insurance. As a matter of convenience, plow ridges and unshoveled spots or driveways present much less challenge.

    BTW rear biased AWD systems are not the end-all of AWD. From a performance standpoint for dry roads there is a benefit but you don’t seem to be talking about that. From a slippery weather standpoint, FWD biased AWD is just as good or better, as the ability to accelerate in snow is limited, hence weight trasnfer is limited, negating the beenfits of sending a whole lot of power to those rear wheels. Furthermore good AWD systems are usually those that have some torque apportioning ability, so loss of tractive force or wheel slippage is countered with redistribution of power. There aren’t many AWD cars available today with all open diffs. My Mom’s BMW 325xi was like that, but even then it uses the brakes to control power flow to each wheel. Her Audis had torsen center and lockable rear diffs since the 80s.

    This turbo argument stuff is just recycled from 20 years ago. Same was said then as is being said now. Plenty has changed as far as drivability and reliability, but seems like most here think that time has stood still for internal combustion. P71 you have a fine point about 300k mile reliability, the fault in your thinking is that you assume anyone other than a fleet buyer considers such when buying a car.

  • avatar
    bomberpete

    EcoBoost branding = GREENWASHING

  • avatar
    ohsnapback

    The next Ford marketing rubbish will probably state something along the lines of the EcoBoost having less heat soak than a N/A motor.

  • avatar
    Steven02

    They advertise it as the power of a V8 and fuel economy of a V6. Seems like it does that by the HP/TQ ratings and EPA numbers.

  • avatar

    Despite the greenwashing, the author didn’t really delve into the emissions, fuel economy and power benefits of direct injection – which essentially offset the drawbacks of turbocharging.

  • avatar
    onerareviper

    Wow! You REALLY missed the point, Joseph. As are many other ‘haters. It’s not about liter vs liter. It’s about HP/Torque vs HP/Torque, and the fuel efficiency obtained. Now for a car of this weight (4350 lbs) + 365HP/350Tq (at 1500 RPM) + AWD to get 17 City/ 25 Highway, that’s VERY GOOD! VERY, VERY GOOD! That being said, I’m sure these numbers are obtained with a ‘light’ right foot. My real world experience with Turbo vs. N/A shows this:

    1.) Direct injection does improved fuel economy. No news flash here…. Of course this can be accomplished in either type.

    2.) Turbo engines can improve fuel economy with a ‘light’ right foot.

    3.) Spirited driving gives no advantage to turbo engines, and from my experience they can be worse than an equivalent HP/Tq N/A engine. Why? Because most factories tune them extremely rich when running near/full boost. This protects the engine from detonation which is always a concern with high compression (boosted) engines. Especially since most don’t use forged pistons, and go with a weaker cast units. Not to mention warranty claims.

    4.) Most turbo engines are easy to squeeze a bit more HP/Torque. Why? See #3 above. Factories tune them ‘overly’ safe (rich), and a simple tune/chip can increase performance by leaning out the mixture. Toss in another 2 pounds of boost + free up the exhaust and 100HP increase is easy. So we should see some real cool aftermarket stuff with this engine. A nice bonus for turbo engines.

    I say congrats to Ford. That being said, I can’t wait to see what GM has coming to the market concerning a direct injection V8. (ie – C7 Corvette).

  • avatar
    TFC

    @Taxman, P71, Power6 and other longevity-of-turbo detractors:

    There are plenty of Turbo Swedes from the eighties at 300k on their first engine. You can’t slap a turbine on a light-walled, high compression, tuned-for-efficiency four and expect it to go the distance; you’ve got to start with an engine design robust enough. The weight/mass benefits are still there.

  • avatar
    law stud

    “Comparing a V8 and V6 that makes about the same horsepower is an orange to orange comparison in my mind, Pontiac Gt G8 is 365 hp, while the SHO also has 365 hp.

    Ummm…………………no. When filled up with regular (as the Pontiac G8 GT uses) the SHOW only makes 355 HP.”

    —————————–
    Its a lot closer than looking at the non-turbo Taurus with 263 HP and saying its an orange. As I said “about the same horsepower”. The Pontiac’s 385 lb-ft of torque are what are monstrously delicious anyways and its a lot closer to the SHO than the regular Taurus.

    Clearly an apple to look at the non-turbo/naturally aspirated configuration and complaining about fuel economy not being improved. The Pontiac G8 V6 doesn’t exactly improve economy either as it doesn’t have cylinder deactivation and is missing a 6th gear in the transmission, not the mention an aluminum block.

    Whatever, the Ford is beating V8 competition. The downside is the higher price of course. Not exactly a performance bargain and not exactly tight around corners like a RWD GT G8.

  • avatar
    dolorean23

    Uh…newsflash! Saab has been selling, in some MYs, nothing but turbocharged cars for THIRTY years. And even a 2 liter 4 pot and 210hp is still way more than necessary to easily move a 1500kg car well beyond posted limits. V6s and esp. V8s are dino-juice sucking, over-complicated wastes of time and space that have NO place in todays or tomorrows world of $4 fuel. “Ecoboost” is just so much marketing CRAP.

    Actually Ford has too. The 1979 Ford Mustang GT had a 2.3L turbo four in it. Carrol Shelby himself put his name to a 1984 Dodge Omni Charger and for a little while there in the 80s, everything from Escorts to Minivans were turbocharged. They finally broke us from fear of Horsepower by allowing for fun and power when you demanded it and fuel savings if you didn’t.

    @Maxb49: Absolutely not. A lot of long time Ford customers such as myself are pissed that we can’t buy a V8. The only reason Ford is building this engine is to require the use of special tools manufactured by Ford to repair the engine, thus making more money at the dealerships. Ford can take this POS and shove it.

    Dude, retrack some of the impotent rage. I’m a die hard Ford fan and love the small block 5.0 in my Cobra, but even I considered a twin-turboed 300ZX from the same era as worthy competition. Consider this, Ford offered a Yamaha V8 in its 1998 SHO and NO ONE BOUGHT THEM. The automotive press skewered Ford for bringing the V8 into the Taurus. This was probably due to the front wheel drive aspect and lack of a 5 speed, but the learning point was made.

  • avatar
    Power6

    Power6 and other longevity-of-turbo detractors

    Oh I think you got me in the wrong group, I said “a lot has changed” and even then the turbo cars in the 80′s weren’t bad. I drove my MX6 GT Turbo to almost 200k on original turbo and engine.

    But since you had to get in your Volvo love, I will say this: I don’t get it, I think Volvos aren’t particularly reliable, . That four cylinder was strong, and those Dana rear-ends can take a beating, and they have good rust protection, that’s about it. Find me a Turbo 740 and I will show you a sunroof that is stuck, power seats that are broken, windows that won’t go down, but hey that turbo motor is still kicking! great if you like to spend your time with electrics I guess. I have to move the neighbors old 850 Turbo from time to time, and the dash lights up like a Christmas tree when I start it. That thing was loaded back in 1996, and barely any of it works now, but I am sure the engine is still running well. I’d put an 80s turbo Mazda up against that any day.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

  • Re: Town And Country Update: Road Trip

    FormerFF - Most bikes will be both too tall and too wide at the handlebars to fit in a minivan. Quite honestly, they’re too nice inside to put something like a...
  • Re: QOTD: The Economics Of Ownership

    tankinbeans - Makes sense. I know that I’m trying to get an idea about my own car maintenance with my Blazer, which I’ve heard is one of the easiest things to...
  • Re: Piston Slap: The Straw that broke the Hybrid’s Back?

    TheyBeRollin - Trolling. It’s a pattern. Welcome to the Internet.
  • Re: Town And Country Update: Road Trip

    dmchyla - Pretty accurate. I have checked it a couple of times and it’s always within .5 mpg of calculated.
  • Re: Town And Country Update: Road Trip

    davefromcalgary - Eh, my dad bought a bike that is here, and needs to get it there (1400 kms away)… I was going to tow it to him, but apparently the Verano Turbo...
  • Re: Town And Country Update: Road Trip

    dmchyla - I doubt it, you would be short on both height and length, and there really aren’t any tie-downs that would be suitable. I doubt the cargo floor would...
  • Re: QOTD: The Economics Of Ownership

    tankinbeans - Is it possible that a person leasing could come out ahead at the end? They make their lease payments on time and also sock the amount for the lease buyout in...
  • Re: Town And Country Update: Road Trip

    Zackman - A friend back in the 1990′s set up a 12″ TV w/VCR built in. He used that for his family on road trips, and I suppose it worked good for him. Us?...
  • Re: Subaru: No WRX Hatch For U.S. Market

    npaladin2000 - Yeah, and “were” was the way-back days of…2010 through 2013. Face facts, WRX buyers are the exception to the “Americans...
  • Re: Subaru: No WRX Hatch For U.S. Market

    omer333 - You forgot Civic Si Sedan. It may not have the POWAR of the ‘Rex or AWD, but you don’t have to worry abour blowing a gasket and it’s...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • J & J Sutherland, Canada
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India