What's Wrong With This Picture: EcoBoost This Edition

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago

[Thanks to Ron Larsen for the link.]

Join the conversation
4 of 78 comments
  • Cpmanx Cpmanx on Sep 13, 2009
    In reality the Ecoboost V6 gets about the same gas mileage as a modern V8 generating comparable power so what is the Ecoboost advantage? Without question the Ecoboost will be much more expensive to repair when the miles are high. Using the Ford engineer’s logic the Taurus NA V6 should have been an Ecoboost I4 no? The advantage here is that the extra power in the EcoBoost comes with no economy penalty over the non-boosted Ford V6 it's based on. You make a good point--the EcoBoost 3.5 still isn't much more efficient than a well-engineered, nonboosted V8, which is another way of saying that the base 3.5 is not a terribly efficient engine to begin with. But getting a substantial power gain with essentially no loss in economy at least lifts this engine into the top tier, and it bodes well for the other EcoBoost engines. Replacing the conventional V6 with an EcoBoost I4 does in fact seem to be the Ford strategy. VW and GM (and very likely a number of others) seem to be moving the same way, toward smaller-displacement turbocharged engines.
  • Micmig Micmig on Sep 13, 2009

    LOL Audi came out with that in 2005, you're a bit late Ford, nothing new about it. I have it in my A4 and Loving it. http://www.audiworld.com/news/05/060705b/content.shtml

  • Ping Ping on Sep 14, 2009
    The SHO is 600lbs heavier than the Genesis and it has all-wheel drive. where is this (mis)information coming from? Curb weights: Taurus SHO: 4368 lbs. (Source: AutoWeek) Genesis V8: 4012 lbs. (Source: Hyundai USA 4368 - 4012 = 356 pound difference.
  • Monty Monty on Sep 14, 2009
    P71_CrownVic : September 12th, 2009 at 1:41 pm Here you go: Of course, you have to read all the way to the end, and Google a bit, to see that this PR exercise is Ford-subsidized. http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/ford-quality-almost-tied-with-honda-and-toyota-or-not/ As for CR…they are not credible in any way, shape or form. Unlike the Ford cheerleaders…who will trash a publication when they praise Toyota or Honda and then, praise and use that publication to prove something when they say something positive about Ford, I believe that if a publication has nop credibility…they have no credibility. Selective credibility (as used by the Ford cheerleaders) is not a way to prove a point. For instance, there is a Ford site out there that has a bunch of two-face people on it. Why do I say that? Because they trashed Motor Trend up and down when they awarded the Tundra their truck of the year. It was an endless trail of drivel as they cried and whined over that award. Then, for 2009, they praised Motor Trend, talked them up and down for awarding the 2009 F-150 reskin as the truck of the year. It was a Motor Trend love fest. I really didn't want to continue with this; I thought you would answer on the first attempt. However, you responded only to the first question I'll give you this one; even though you referred to plural studies, you were only able to link to one. The cynic in me sees this as a tactic every car company engages in; Ford would not be the only company guilty of skewing data to it's benefit. However, I specifically asked you to elaborate on your claim that Consumer Reports has ZERO credibility (your emphasis), and you responded with a rambling, vague point about a Ford specific fan forum. Was your comment about selective credibility pertaining to Consumer Reports or a "Ford site"? I am not trying to flame you, and in fact I usually find your comments to be informative (with the exception of your transparent hate for all things Ford); I really just want your explanation as to why Consumer Reports has zero credibility. My partner and myself, and also my wife and myself have purchased several Toyota products based on CR ratings, and have found the vehicles to be everything claimed in the magazine, and generally find CR's testing of other brands to be reasonably accurate, so I'm curious as to how you arrived at your conclusion.