Fields on EcoBoost: " I Call It the Great Taste, Less Filling School of Powertrain Technology"

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

OK, someone needs to tell Ford's Presidente de las Americas that FoMoCo didn't invent direct-injection turbocharged engine technology. Oh wait, someone did. A comment underneath The Detroit News' article: "Why is Ford getting all this attention just for catching up with the rest of the automotive world? VW, Audi, Subaru, Renault and a number of other manufacturers have had turbocharged direct injection engines for years. While it's nice to see Fords pulled its head out of its corporate ass for once, it isn't like they've done anything original." In fact, The DetN reports that "Ford began working on EcoBoost more than seven years ago"– only to be stymied by the marketing guys. And now it's rush, rush, rush. All that said, it's also worth noting that Fields floored the Eco-Boosted MKS and then claimed "This will put a smile on your face. But you get 20 percent better fuel economy with 15 percent less CO2." Note to Fields: not at WOT you don't.

Want to see how wonderful EcoBoost is? Click here.

Robert Farago
Robert Farago

More by Robert Farago

Join the conversation
4 of 40 comments
  • Mark MacInnis Mark MacInnis on Aug 23, 2008

    Nullomondo: "The problem isn't bad marketing, it's non-existent marketing." Nary a word in any of the comments on this thread about Ford's less-than-stellar quality and reliability. They can make all the plans and dream up all the fancy, high-falutin' sounding technology in the world, but if they don't execute it in such a manner as to show potential buyers that they won't be constantly held hostage in their dealer's service department lounge, they won't sell any better than past Ford's.... Message to Mr. Fields, (captured so fetchingly in the pose made famous by Bill Clinton, BTW....nice touch!): "It's the reliability, stupid!"

  • Joe_thousandaire Joe_thousandaire on Aug 23, 2008

    Addressing the fuel-grade question, I've heard repeatedly that these engines will recommend 87 octane. Isn't that the whole advantage of coupling DI with turbo-charging? The higher compression ratio or a direct inject engine means less noncombusted fuel, increasing efficiency and eliminating the need for the anti-knock properties of premium fuels, right?

  • Cpmanx Cpmanx on Aug 25, 2008
    “It’s the reliability, stupid!” True enough. Ford's quality has been improving sharply recently (based both on the company's warranty costs and on those public-perception Consumer Reports dots), but that trend has to continue even as the company rolls out new vehicles and powertrains at an unprecedented (for Ford!) pace. In the past, Ford has had trouble launching fresh metal and fresh engines at the same time. They absolutely need to get it right this time. Ford has had SIX vehicles fail on this platform. I seriously doubt that buyers avoided the Five Hundred because they didn't like the D3 platform. Who outside of the enthusiast press pays attention to such things? They avoided it because it was underpowered, had a weird name, poor marketing, gawky styling, below-par interior materials, unknown reliability. From a pure engineering point of view, the D3s consistently got (and get) good marks. Or put it the other way around. Does the Corolla's sales success mean that it is built on a fantastic platform?
  • Sint Sint on Oct 11, 2008
    Seems like CGI as a material is ready for use. Click on the link