Ford: 340 Twin-Turbo Horsepower for an Extra $700

Justin Berkowitz
by Justin Berkowitz
ford 340 twin turbo horsepower for an extra 700

Ford's been talking about Ecoboost since around the time of the Crimean War. And now, finally, we can bring you some definitive information. First, it's going to be a $700 option – which is paltry as automotive options go, to say nothing of engine options that run into the thousands. Second, the first FoMoCo forray in Eco-Boostland will deliver a twin-turbocharged 3.5-liter V6 engine. The blown powerplant should make well over 300 horsepower in vehicles like the Ford Flex and Lincoln MKS. Both could use a serious dose of tire-shredding power. Ford is also planning to Eco-Boost the F-150. Automotive News reports the variant will make more than 340 horsepower, 340 ft lbs of torque. The savings in gas is approximately 20 percent versus a V8 engine – keeping in mind that Ford's V8 engines actually makes less than 340 horsepower. Speaking of which, where does this leave Ford's V8 engine program? I'm not sure, but I can tell you with certainty that (1) a 340 horsepower twin-turbo V6 Mustang would be pretty phenomenal and (2) Ford is still going to need some V8 engines for image if nothing else. Especially in the 'Stang.

Comments
Join the conversation
4 of 25 comments
  • Detroit-Iron Detroit-Iron on Aug 18, 2008

    "Maybe they will drop this Ecoboost into the Crown-Vic, as a parting gift." Like a 4 door Noble M400, without the handling, braking, light weight, killer bod, mid-engine, and down about 100 ponys.

  • Johnster Johnster on Aug 19, 2008
    cleek : Didn’t Ford turbocharge the euo-escort once upon a time? Did those ever make it to the states in one form or another? Ford offered a turbo-charged version of its fuel-injected high-output 1.6 liter “Hemi” 4-cylinder engine as the top-of-the-line engine in its Escort, EXP, and Mercury Lynx for the 1984 and the short-run 1985 model years. The turbo engine produced 120 horsepower@5200 rpm and was basically the same engine as was offered in European Ford Escort XR3s, though detuned to meet U.S. emission standards. Following the mid-year 1985 face-lift for the Escort, EXP, and Lynx the turbo was replaced by a fuel-injected high-output non-turbo version of the engine bored out to 1.9 liters and putting out 108 horsepower@5200 rpm. Later increased to 115 horsepower.

  • JJ JJ on Aug 19, 2008
    though rumor has it that 2010 or 2011 could bring back a 5.0 (boss anyone?) That's what I was thinking. I thought they were developing that engine for Mustangs/Jaguars/Land Rovers and that it was almost finished when they spun-off JagRover to Tata. The 5.0 engine is about to launch in Land Rovers and Jaguars...so one would think Ford has there version about ready for duty too. I also agree with the comment above about a twinturbo V6 not getting much better (if any at all) mileage than a similar output, similarly technologicly advanced normally aspirated V8. Especially in heavy (duty) vehicles like the F150, where the V6 will often need to be at a high level of strain to be able to deliver the torque necessary to move the thing around with some pace, I don't see it get any better mileage. Not to mention that when used in a working environment, oftentimes you might be better of with the low end grunt and linear power delivery of a normally aspirated V8 and also keep in mind practical problems, for instance, the turbos will generate a lot of heat. In a Mustang or another lighter vehicle it might get slightly better mileage overall, but only when you don't use it for what it (fronts to be) for, which is pushing the throttle once in a while.

  • Jplew138 Jplew138 on Aug 21, 2008

    EcoBoost is marketing hype, pure and simple. Turbos are notorious gas drinkers, whether they be 4-cylinder or 6-cylinder, and surely they don't expect the average driver to actually drive in a manner conducive to maximal fuel economy with that much power, do they? This type of engine was what the Five Hundred/Taurus needed at its introduction...too bad Ford dropped the ball on that.

Next