Yahoo! Finance reports that Ford's chief engineer for Research and Advanced Engineering will spend part of his day telling the Society of Automotive Engineers that his employer is counting on their EcoBoost technology– not hybrids– to meet and greet federal mpg standards and appeal to buyers. Andreas R. Schamel's speech will tout "volume-based, near-term actions… within the next five years." [In case you hadn't heard, EcoBoost combines direct injection and turbocharging some 20 percent better fuel efficiency, 15 percent lower CO2 emissions and "superior driving performance versus larger displacement engines."] Although Schamel will toss diesel and hybrid powerplants a rhetorical bone– "hybrids, diesels and technologies such as plug-ins and fuel cells have a role"– EcoBoost it is, starting with the cetacean-snouted Lincoln MKS. From there, The Blue Oval Boyz promise "A 4-cylinder EcoBoost engine with the capability of producing more torque than a larger 6-cylinder engine — nearly an entire liter larger in displacement." Sounds like a plan. [thanks to jthorner for the link]
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Let’s hope their right about this. I know a lot of Mustang lovers will be pissed to hear their precious V8 will be replaced by, of all things, a turbocharged V8.
This sounds promising, it sounds very similar to GM’s HCCI technology (I wonder what Toyota/Honda’s equivalent is?).
But to be fair, Ford really didn’t invest that much into hybrid technology (first gneration was the licence from Toyota’s HSD) so there is still plenty of potential from hybrid technology.
Plus, Ford’s European diesels are so good, they’re actually better than the Germans’ diesel powertrains (Yes, you read that right). So there’s scope there, too.
So, I asked the chief engine engineer at Ford yesterday at SAE how the proposed EcoBoost technology was different than that of a 2 year old BMW. After an awkward moment, he turned to his minions who also had an awkeard moment. Finally he said, “Well, our technology will be mass produced”.
I didn’t follow up with an observation that BMW probably used mass production techniques to knock off a couple hundred thousand 335 and 535 cars a year for the last couple of years.
I sat at the SAE Mobility History Committee booth for a few hours Monday, directly accross from the Fod display, and opposite the new Lincoln MKS. After showing off the 1908 Model T, 1908 Buick and 1912 EMF in our booth, I would point to the MKS across the aisle and mention that there was the new Lincoln flagship. People were underwhelmed, to say the least. Usually they said, “where?”
Bob
so ford says “no” to more priora and “yes” to turbocharging everything? awesome. maybe there is hope for automotive coolness after all
Bob (relton), I’m guessing the main difference will be about $15,000.
I also imagine the Ford engines will be tuned more for a balance between performance and economy rather than pure performance.
I recently drove an Audi A4 with the 2.0L turbo and 6 speed auto. The thing had more than enough power. If this is where Ford is headed, I would love a 2.0L Ecoboost turbo 6spd manual Fusion please!
MattVA
I suspect that Ford will get neither the economy nor the performance of the BMW. They will, however, probably be able to knock $15,000 off the price of the car.
On the other hand, the Lincoln MKS seems to be priced midway between a 3 series and a 5 series. EcoBoost isn’t saving them anything there.
Bob
Well, I believe this Ecoboost technology is already in production: in the Mazda CX7 (direct injection 2.3L turbo).
It’s not QUITE the same engine tech but it’s indicative of Ecoboost’s real-world performance. In all the message boards, I’ve found the engine is a gas guzzler. In fact, the larger CX9 gets similar mileage.
On the other hand, GM’s turbo 2.0L is just as efficient as the 2.2L ecotec. And VW’s 2.0L turbo is efficient as well.
So we’ll wait and see at Ford. If they drop the 4cyl Ecoboost in the Stang, Ford will have my business!
@KatiePuckrick
This sounds promising, it sounds very similar to GM’s HCCI technology
How on earth does “turbo and direct injection” sound like “HCCI”?
Sure, HCCI doesn’t work without direct injection and doesn’t make much sense without a turbo, but HCCI = homogenous combustion, which isn’t part of EcoBoost.
EcoBoost is just Ford marketing lingo for DI+turbo, like
-VW’s line of 1.2, 1.4, 1.8, 2.0, 3.0 and 5.2 DI turbo engines (branded TFSI at Audi, TSI at VW)
-GM’s 2.0 Ecotec turbo in the Opel GT/Saturn Sky Redline/Pontiac roadsters and Cobalt SS, which is btw unrelated to the non-DI 2.0 Ecotec turbo in Opels and Saabs
-The BMW 3.0 I6 and 4.4 V8 turbo DI engines
-The BMW/PSA jointly developed 1.6 turbo DI for the MINI and various Peugeot models
-The Mazda 2.3 DISI turbo in the 3/6 MPS and the CX7
-The Porsche V8 in the Cayenne turbo after the facelift has direct injection too
They are basically developing exactly what everybody else already has on the market. And trying to sell it to the general public as an innovation.
@limmin
Well, I believe this Ecoboost technology is already in production: in the Mazda CX7 (direct injection 2.3L turbo).
… In all the message boards, I’ve found the engine is a gas guzzler. In fact, the larger CX9 gets similar mileage.
On the other hand, GM’s turbo 2.0L is just as efficient as the 2.2L ecotec. And VW’s 2.0L turbo is efficient as well.
GM’s turbo ecotec (in the Opel GT, which is a badge engineered Saturn Sky) may be efficient on paper, but in comparison reviews BMW’s naturally aspirated 3.0 I6 Z4 with 272hp is usually about 20% more efficient.
VW’s 2.0 turbo is available in a lot of different power levels – 170hp, 185hp, 200hp, 230hp, 240hp, 265hp, 272hp and 285hp.
The 170hp version goes into the base Audi A6 and is tuned for economy. If Ford just turns of the boost to 11 (which seems to be the case, as they brag about the “better than V6” power), it won’t be economical in real life.
Mirko,
I meant that Ford had a gameplan to increase efficiency of their engines (like GM), despite others having the same.
Sorry, should have clarified, that’s how I get into trouble…..(ahem)…..
Does this Ford eco powertrain for economy strategy mean a requirement to use premium octane fuel for the gasoline powered vehicles? I have personally vowed to go away from premium fuel vehicles for my family for cost reasons. I would consider one of the new turbo diesels such as the one VW will soon offer in its re-designed version in the USA, but the value proposition of the diesels is much less clear now with the higher price of diesel fuel here.
Does anyone know why diesel is priced so much higher relative to gasoline in America, compared to other places? If this is simple supply demand, is the supply here less now compared to demand (I have a feeling diesel demand is still flat), or has the consumption demand risen and I missed the facts?
@KatiePuckrick
I meant that Ford had a gameplan to increase efficiency of their engines (like GM). It’s just nice to hear Detroit TAKING the lead in technological steps forward, rather than slipstreaming behind others
For me, it looks like they are slipsteaming behind all the others. They didn’t get into direct injection until everybody else had working DI engines on the market, selling in lange numbers.
It takes a lot of Ford Kool-Aid to see EcoBoost as “TAKING the lead”
I like this stuff. I know that Mustangers will cringe, but I’d buy a new mustang convertable in a new york minute if it came with a techy 4 turbo, that didnt run me outa gas money the first day. The current 6 is not up to it, sounds and acts agricultural. The 8 is sweet, no doubt, but i wanna drive this car for a few years, and i wanna drive alot, so it has to be fuel efficient. In the mean time, I’m looking at a Mini Cooper S, smaller, but also distinctive, and 38 mpg. Bravo. Ford should be able to pull this stuff off.
So EcoBoost is the strategy of swapping out a larger n/a displacement engine with a smaller DI turbo’d engine. This will not provide the mileage improvement a hybrid engine would (I’d call this a halfway substitute). It would remove much of the complexity though.
As for HCCI – this is an otto cycle compression ignition gasoline engine and very difficult technology to employ at higher RPMs. There are many working prototypes with Honda, Saab / Opel, Mercedes Benz DiesOtto, etc.
Mirko and Limmin,
I own a MPS6 (Speed6) and I will be the first to admit that it is not the most efficient vehicle. Mazda’s 2.3 DISI turbo is after all pretty much the same thing as Ford proposes with the Ecoboost. My Speed6 typically gets 21-22 mpg in mixed driving with plenty of spirited runs for good measure. I can easily get 24-25 mpg on an all highway run at 80mph, best I have seen is 28 mpg on an all highway run.
But Mazda’s 2.3 is not a terribly efficient engine to begin with. Mazda’s new 2.5 and Ford/Mazda 2.0 are both more efficient alternatives. Also, the Mazda 2.3 DISI turbo is optimized for performance, whereas the Ford Ecoboost will likely be a much better mix. I think it is a pretty safe bet that the Ecoboost engines will run on regular gasoline lest the buying public be frieghtened away from showrooms by the prospect of a premium fuel bill (which most people blow way out of proportion).
This may not be new technology, but you have to give Ford credit for following this route given its customer base’s love of normally aspirated larger displacement engines. I have seen a lot of rumors floating around regarding the output and economy of the upcoming ecoboost engines which sound like pie-in-the-sky speculation, if they prove to be anywhere near true, we may all be in for a pleasant surprise.
isn’t this what Audi/VW and BMW/Mini are already doing with their direct injected turbo engines?
I love how they renamed it from TWIN FORCE to EcoBoost.
One sounds like a powerful, we mean business name. The other just sounds fruity.
What other US market volume manufacturer has committed itself to rolling out direct injection, turbocharging and reduced engine displacements across it’s product line and tuned for improved fuel economy?
Technologically there is nothing ground breaking about this strategy just as there were V-8 engines in production in 1932, but Ford’s introduction of widespread availability of their V-8 at that time changed everything in the US market. Ecoboost isn’t as radical as the 1932 V-8 was, but it could be a big step if Ford rolls it out through the product line quickly.
I smell a bit of the Boeing influence here. Commercial jets are very, very long lived beasts. One of the main selling propositions for a new jet is that it’s fuel economy it much better than the older designs it is replacing. American Airlines aging fleet of MD-80, the backbone of it’s operation, burn about 30% more fuel than does a modern replacement new jet of similar size. Likewise a brand new 737 is more fuel efficient than is a 15 year old 737 thanks to engineering improvements in the engines and aerodynamics.
Although I’m an advocate of buying cars for cash, there are times when a new vehicle can save the buyer enough in the monthly fuel costs over his/her old vehicle to pay for a reasonable new car loan or lease.
Ecoboost throughout the product line is an absolutely brilliant strategy compared to Lutz’ $45k Volt!
Cretinx, I think Ecoboost is genious marketing for a buying public that is apparently so easily greenwashed. The heavy promotion of the Ecoboost engines could be the best piece of marketing by Ford in the last few decades.
Mazda does not even seem to have a really fuel-efficient engine in North America.
Currently, the new 2.0L Duratec in the new Focus is perhaps the most fuel efficient engine the Ford group has right now in the States. That combined with the Focus being relatively light, produces excellent fuel economy. The Mazda 2.0L and 2.3 do not produce awesome economy numbers (perhaps it has something to do with the weight of the 3 and 6). The 3 hatch also has enormous tires and is low to the ground. Volvo’s 2.4L also is nothing to write home about.
However, the Duratec probably does not have the umph to push around a Fusion, 6, or even a Mazda3 (it seems anemic in the Focus). With the impending redesigns of all of the above-cited cars in 2009/10, hopefully Ford has plans for turobcharging and DI — let’s see a 1.6L 4-turbo (3, S40, Focus, Verve), and a 2.0 4-turbo (Fusion, 6). Then offer the 3.5L V6 for enthusiasts.
@detroit1701
The 3 hatch also has enormous tires and is low to the ground.
The Mazda 3 hatch is enormous. Full stop. It’s not an example of efficient packaging. The trunk is smallest in class, yet the car is just two inches shorter than a BMW 3-series station wagon.
In Europe, they put a PSA-sourced 1.6L diesel into the 3, which only gets 4.9L/100km = 48 mpg US.
The same engine in the Focus Econetic is rated at 4.3 l/100km = 55 mpg US, yet the Focus has 33% more trunk space and much more space for rear seat passengers.
Now European Mazda dealers are quite happy to give enormous rebates, making a 3 much, much cheaper than a comparable Focus.
Sorry, but I don’t think that people are giving Ford enough credit here.
Mirko Reinhardt: They are basically developing exactly what everybody else already has on the market. And trying to sell it to the general public as an innovation.
I wouldn’t say that “everybody” already has this technology.
Of the marques you mentioned, one is too expensive for the average American (Porsche), one is known for dismal reliability and lousy dealer service (VW), and one is too expensive for the average American and offers uneven reliability (BMW).
There is an opportunity for Ford here, if the company plays its cards properly. It’s also quite a risk for a company whose customer base has accepted the “there-is-no-substitute-for-cubic-inches” mantra since the time Henry Ford I died.
With the increase in CAFE standards, Ford has to do something, and I’d rather it take this approach, than whine; bet the farm on battery technology that doesn’t yet exist; or offer us stripped down Focuses so that it can continue to sell V-8 Expeditions and F-150s.
jthorner: Ecoboost throughout the product line is an absolutely brilliant strategy compared to Lutz’ $45k Volt!
You hit the nail on the head. The 1932 V-8 analogy is also on point.
If Ford can bring this technology to the masses – especially to those areas where there are no BWM, Mini or VW dealers, and there are more of those areas than posters apparently realize – it will have scored a big marketing coup. Provided, of course, that the EcoBoost engines don’t self-destruct just after the warranty ends.
The EcoBoost name is also great – it’s catchy and it sounds “green.” Give Ford credit for coming up with something that the public will remember, and associate with Ford.
Ford / GM have a history of innovating the names of the products instead of actually providing innovation on the product itself. For instance, the EcoTec is GM’s corporate 4 cylinder that had slightly better emissions than the outgoing crappy 4 cylinder – the EcoTec had nothing groundbreaking in emissions, fuel efficiency, or NVH. It is referred to as the EcoTractor b/c of its lack of refinement.
Ford had its me2 Zetec to copy the names of competitor’s with variable valve timing and their catchy acronyms – just the Zetec was nothing special.
I agree. There is nothing “new” or innovative about Ford’s Ecoboost engines. In true American automaker fashion, there is more PR hype and marketing hoopla than actual substance. Plently of automakers already have engines on the market with DI and turbo.
It’s a silly strategy for Ford to sideline hybrids while putting more focus on Ecoboost products. It should be the other way around. Ford needs to mostly focus on hybrids while implementing Ecoboost across the lineup.
What will happen to Ford’s strategy when an automaker combines a DI + turbo engine with a hybrid system?
Fact is, many competitors are improving their engines. Ford is not alone here. Ford cannot afford to lose focus on hybrids because the competition is relentless. Toyota is updating and redesigning it’s engines and transmissions across the board, while it continues a relentless focus on hybrid technology. Toyota literally has a large army of engineers dedicated purely to hybrid R&D.
You also have to wonder, what will be the cost of an Ecoboost engine compared to a regular, “non-Ecoboost” engine?
What is NEW here is noteworthy: that Ford (and other US manufacturers) are publicly acknowledging the reality of fuel prices and the changing market winds and the consequent need to rapidly change the market mix of their products. They know now that the old paradigm of high profit, high volume large vehicles is dead and most unlikely to return no matter how much they want it to happen. We know they are late to the party to understand this, and we know that they are far behind on hybrid technology or capacity and therefore unlikely to be able to leverage that. Therefore, this all makes sense from the perspective of the corner they are painted into and trying desperately to “Escape”. If they can deliver on this powertrain philosophy and mate them up with well designed vehicles that people want, they may survive. If not, finding a Korean or Chinese partner may be the only viable option.
Ford isn’t doing anything groundbreaking here. They are simply trying to greenwash turbocharged engines.
The issues with turbocharged engines, especially those tuned for performance is that they have heavy fuel consumption if driven as intended. Any time you dip into the throttle and boost is built it drowns the cylinders in fuel to make the claimed power.
I had a Grand National for nearly 10 years. It didn’t use a whole lot of fuel provided you only did open road driving and used the cruise at reasonable speeds. If you did all city driving or driven it as it’s supposed to be driven it had dismal fuel consumption, 12-14mpg overall from a V6. But boy it did have a ton of power.
I agree that EcoBoost is really nothing new as VW, BMW have already started the DI/TC movement. However, Ford’s effort to market the technology and spread it over a variety of it vehicles is a good move, one akin to VW’s spreading the 2.0 DI I4 over its products. The MazdaSpeed3’s 2.3 DISI engine is tuned more for performance and its dismal fuel economy in the CX7 betrays that fact and, in my mind, is not a good example of EcoBoost at work. The fact that Ford is willing to forego a V8 in the mass market Mustang is certainly a bold move.
Ford not having a V8 option in the Mustang would not be a good move. Even if it is a small displacement twin turbo option.
I like turbocharged engines and have a friend who had a very nice SVO Mustang. I myself have owned 4 Turbo Coupes and now own a Thudnerbird Super Coupe. I “get” smaller displacement forced induction engines. I just think that to say true to the Mustang’s heritage a V8 should at least be an option.
Cheers,
Swervin
I read recently that GM was going to go ahead and dump the 2.4 Ecotec four cylinder engines in the mid-sized cars and replace them outright, with an Opel based 1.4 litre plus turbocharger (and presumably, intercooler). Don’t know about direct in-cylinder injection, but even Isuzu’s last (own) V6 engine had direct in-cylinder fuel injection. That was what, 5 years ago?
Small displacement engines are fine but hybrid technology (be it electric or hydraulic) means you can actuall recoup some of the otherwise wasted kinetic energy (usually about 30%, on the Prius, for example). Hard to argue with that.
I do think that eventually mid-sized and larger vehicles may need to be hydraulic hybrids with small displacement engines to take advantage of the best of all worlds (especially since there are not enough rare-earths around to make the number of electric motor-generators and batteries required to replace the worldwide auto fleet with electric-hybrids).
NickNick:
so ford says “no” to more priora and “yes” to turbocharging everything? awesome. maybe there is hope for automotive coolness after all.
No…all of the coolness will be wiped out by the fact that it is in a Ford.
I really don’t see what the big deal of this Twin Force, oh wait…wrong name…ecoboost stuff really is. Gm has it on their Solstice and Sky models…and BMW, as mentioned before, has had it for years. Who does Ford think they are fooling?
I’ll consider the 20% fuel economy gains vaporware until I see real world numbers (not EPA)
Who wants to bet that the Pontiac G8 V8 gets better real world fuel mileage than the ECoBoost MKS.
The only way we’ll get better fuel economy is to accept a 0-60 time of 9-10 seconds as good enough.
At risk of inflaming folks, I suggest that daily use of high powered cars for commuting and so forth is an obsolete model and the cars with sub-whatever nought-to-60 are best reserved for occasional weekend fun. Otherwise, they may risk being legislated against if the fuel situation worsens, which I believe it is bound to do considering the rapid growth of car acquisition in China (+28% per year) and the consequent strain on supply. I have been a car buff all my life, owned fast cars, 12-cylinder cars,
V8 muscle cars, V8 sports cars, etc., but have made a decision that my daily driver must now be greater than 35 mpg (real world) or it does not land in my garage. Therefore, I applaud Ford for trying whatever they can to survive in this environment. Frankly, I don’t care if it is leading edge, bleeding edge, or whatever technology, as long as it works, is deliverable, is reliable and affordable, and has good driveability. And I would prefer it if American manufacturers had competitive models in this niche. After all, the laws of thermodynamics and physics make it damn difficult to have our cake and eat it too, and we have eaten it for a very long time indeed.
Ecoboost is just marketing…but pretty smart marketing.
Almost all vehicle will need to have turbo-DI engines in the future for fuel economy (along with stop start, regen braking systems, lighter materials, lower rolling resistance tires, better aerodynamics, possible friction launch/no TC, diesel option, electric power steering, radiation repellant glass, reflective paint, LED lighting, maybe even solar roof panels etc)
Ford’s just trying to get some positive marketing out of it…no point criticizing them for it.
GM’s doing the same thing with the Volt, and the announcement of Li-ion mild hybrids.
Ford isn’t dumping their V8 and replacing it with a turbo V6, that would be a dumb move, not a bold move.
Ford has a new V8 engine set to debut in 2010 for the Mustang, F-150 and their SUVs to compliment the turbo V6. In the Mustang the engine will make over 400hp and all the right sounds for the muscle car faithful.
In the F-150 and SUVs it will provide stump-pulling power for those who don’t want to pony up for the 4.4L diesel or pay diesel prices. It will also perform much better than the old 5.4L.
kudos to streamliner, I couldn’t have said it better (apart from the fact that I haven’t ever owned a 12-cylinder…)