![\"... and furthermore, we were first to use gasoline as a way to move \"... and furthermore, we were first to use gasoline to power a car...\"a car...\"](https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/610x3.jpg "\\"... and furthermore, we were first to use gasoline to power a car...\\"")
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.
I call it the “Waaaaazuuuuup” school. Or maybe “Green. Wise. Er.” Or perhaps “Always a good decision” or simply “Brilliant”
See, beer marketing is easy.
“Some Ford executives argued that U.S. consumers would never accept a V-6 in place of a V-8, no matter how much horsepower and torque it generated.”
I want to ask ‘can this be true?’, but I suppose it could; and such thinking is why Ford is where it is.
Ford can always claim that being late to the EcoBoost party was intentional, and by letting VW, Audi, Subaru, etc. make the expensive R&D mistakes, Ford was being smart. I know that wasn’t their plan, but they can always claim that to save face.
You can cut Fields’ hair to remove the mullet – but you can’t take the mullet out of Fields!
Haven’t European Fords had direct injection turbos for years now? Mazda? Volvo? Bueller? Premium fuel? Premium price?
I call it the business up front (fuel economy), party in the back (smoky burnout) school of mullet powertrain technology.
detroit1701 : Haven’t European Fords had direct injection turbos for years now? Mazda? Volvo? Bueller? Premium fuel? Premium price?
I was going to comment on that. I could swear that the DISI 2.3 in the Speed3, 6 and CX-7 was a direct-injected, turbocharged engine.
Could omeone with more knowledge of this stuff than I care to explain what makes TwinForce EcoBoost different from the Mazda DISI engine or other DI+TC implementations?
@detroit1701: yup, exactly – 2.3 DI turbo in the Mazdaspeed3 & CX-7.
I have a question.
I am looking forward to anybody making 4 and 6 cylinder cars more powerful and with better mpg.
But, if the Ford turbos are going to require the premium fuel like all the euro cars have, then what really will be the benefit?
Whats all the fuss if its gonna be premium?
I thought that was the reason Ford never did it here earlier…not that they couldn’t.
After driving a car with a V8…I can tell you that a V8, RWD car will ALWAYS be on the top of my list. To me…FWD, V6 just seems a little…limp wristed.
But my question to Ford is…where are they pulling this “20% better fuel economy” number? What is their baseline…what are they comparing it to? The Lincoln Taurus and Ford xB were not designed to have a V8 under their hoods (even though the Lincoln should). So how do they know that the Ecoboost engines will result in 20% better fuel economy, if they don’t know what the baseline figures were?
And “Ecoboost” is a stupid name. “Twin Force” sounded A MILLION times better.
Just like Zetec – it does not have variable valve timing but sounds like it does – by mimicking VTEC. A lot cheaper to name an engine than to engineer it. Ecotec too is another – sub par rough engines with low powerband but sounds like it’s very fuel efficient and low on emissions.
Not everyone needs a RWD V8…My 944S2 has a 4 cylinder no turbos or superchargers and can easily keep up and out accelerate many RWD v8 cars. In fact the only time I require a V8 in any of my vehicle purchases is for my tow rig as I have lots of steep hills to tow it up and need all the power I can get.
“EcoBoost” = greenwashing
“Ford began working on EcoBoost more than seven years ago”– only to be stymied by the marketing guys.
That, in summary, is the problem that is killing Detroit.
Fields: But you get 20 percent better fuel economy with 15 percent less CO2.
Compared to what?
So far I’ve heard that EcoBoost will only be available with AWD models. That’s real good for the environment!
Course, if it is available in the FWD cars, it would be an absolute nightmare to drive. The D3 chassis is not Eco-friendly and greenwashing the system isn’t gonna fool anyone.
Fact is, people want a lightweight, RWD, direct-injected V8 when they think about upper-crust Fords. Tarted up Volvos with derivative style and AWD thirst? Henry knew what FoMoCo was made of when he made the original Ford V8 sedans.
I guess the expense of EcoBoost will keep that tech in the “big sleds” for some time.
I’d rather see a 1.5 liter with good performance and astounding FE myself.
mel23:
I don’t get that statement either. If they think V8s are so marketable, why have the Panthers been allowed to rot? Why not sell the MKS with the Volvo-Yamaha V8? Why is the Mustang the only real torch-bearer for the V8 in Ford cars if consumers “wont accept a V-6”?
Fact is, people want a lightweight, RWD, direct-injected V8 when they think about upper-crust Fords. Tarted up Volvos with derivative style and AWD thirst? Henry knew what FoMoCo was made of when he made the original Ford V8 sedans.
I disagree. I don’t think the Ford-buying public gives a damn what drive wheels are spinning or how many pistons are moving beneath the hood, at least not today. Ford liquidated it’s heritage a long time ago. The reason V8 sedans were popular is because they were good cars for the time, not because they were rear-drive V8s.
The Camry and Accord more or less prove this. While light, rear-drive V8s play to the gearhead media, Toyota still sells a lot of Camrys to a lot of people.
The D3 platform’s problems are threefold: it’s too expensive (for customers), the powertrains suck and Ford marketing couldn’t sell free gold bricks. Come to think of it, that’s the problems the Fusion has, too. Either the D3 cars or the Fusion needs to be a better Camry or Accord. Full stop.
EcoBoost willmight help one of those issues by finally giving Ford a powertrain that isn’t thirstier and slower than the competition, but the Taurus and Flex are still too expensive for mass-market acceptance and, last I checked, Ford’s marketing is still the dictionary definition of inept.
I guess this means the service departments better start stocking up on intake manifold and cylinder head gaskets.
Taurus too expensive?? It is thousands cheaper than Avalons, and even some models of Accords and Camrys.
I invented DIT
Albert Gore
I’ll take an easy working low stress V-8 any day.
Oh wait, I have two of them. The 390 v-8 in my 67 Ford has never been opened, and ditto on any modular Ford 4.6 V-8 I’m owned.
Ford service departments hate customers like me.
First, how is Ecoboost different from DISI?
The design of the turbos, the cam heads, the throttle control, the valve technology and the exhaust system are all different. The blocks may be CGI (although that’s not confirmed), which would make those different. The Ecoboost system is not related to Mazda’s engines.
@ Sajeev Mehta
Second, 20% compared to what?
A 3.5 Ecoboost is more than a FWD car can handle. However, in 2010, Ford will be launching their new 2.0 Ecoboost which will be fine for a FWD platform. So, imagine a 2.0 with 260/260 in a D3 car that gets 23/34 mpg. That’s what Fields is alluding to. And that is when we’ll start to see the power Ecoboost.
In the meantime, expect the Lincoln MKS to get similar mileage in AWD with its base 3.7 and new Ecoboost despite the fact that the Ecoboost engine will take you to sixty about 1.5 seconds faster.
Thirdly, did Ford invent turbo-DI? No. Although they had done work on it in the early 80s before they had computer chips to really control things like they can now, and the results were mixed. If forget what the project was called, but any Ford old-timer will remember it. Is their goal original, though? Kind of. Not because no one has ever thought of using a turbo to improve fuel economy, but because of the shear amount of control that Ford is adding to these engines. They are completely optimized for economy and not performance, and everything from throttle control to fuel injection is built around that principle.
Think of it from this perspective: the goal of an Ecoboost engine is to only use as much fuel as you need for the driver’s demands and use it as efficiently as possible. If you think about the Fusion with a 1.6 Ecoboost, at idle, you have a 1.6’s efficiency. At cruise, you basically have a 1.6’s efficency. Slight taps of the pedal or slow acceleration won’t call on all available power. So 98% of a normal person’s driving is much more efficient than a current (or coming soon) 2.5L. It’s almost as if you are varying the engine’s displacement. And what Ford is really working on is the control of the throttle the timing of the valves and the injection system so that they spool up the turbos efficiently and allow the engine to only operate as it the driver demands.
So, although Ford’s initial launch is the 3.5, its future launches will be much smaller engines targeted at economy. Examples with estimated EPA numbers (and all of these are estimates that I have gathered):
F-150: 3.5 – 350/380 – mid-upper-teens/mid-20s mpgs
Edge: 2.0 – 260/260 – low-20s/upper-20s
Taurus: 2.0 – 260/260 – low-mid-20s/mid-30s
Fusion: 1.6 – 190/190 – mid-20s/mid-upper-30s
Fiesta: 1.0 – 100/100 – mid-upper-30s/upper-40s
And with DSG transmissions and other new technologies, some of those numbers might be *under*estimates.
The final key goal for Ecoboost: reliability on a mass scale. Ford wants to be able to mass-produce this engine and yet have it hold up as well as a gas engine or diesel engine over time. That means finding the right suppliers, using the right design, building the right manufacturing process, but Ford’s 500,000 unit goal is still bigger than anyone else in the U.S. Ford’s worldwide 1,000,000 or so goal in 5 years is bigger than anyone’s ever done with gas engine turbos.
It’s not trivial. It’s not like they are just rehashing old stuff and calling it their own. The Ecoboost design that Ford is working on is more than a couple turbos and DI attached to an engine to create more power – it’s an entire system of controls that optimizes the engines fuel burn (and even takes advantage of different fuel types – regular, premium, ethanol) better than any engine that I know of on the market right now.
RobertSD: However, in 2010, Ford will be launching their new 2.0 Ecoboost which will be fine for a FWD platform. So, imagine a 2.0 with 260/260 in a D3 car that gets 23/34 mpg. That’s what Fields is alluding to. And that is when we’ll start to see the power Ecoboost.
And that won’t be a hard sell. The Acura RL on steroids (Ecoboost MKS) doesn’t mean much to me, but THAT works. And I hope to see 1.5L Ecoboost Fiestas (or something like that) by 2012.
psarhjinian :
I disagree. I don’t think the Ford-buying public gives a damn what drive wheels are spinning or how many pistons are moving beneath the hood, at least not today.
The D3 platform’s problems are threefold: it’s too expensive (for customers), the powertrains suck and Ford marketing couldn’t sell free gold bricks. Come to think of it, that’s the problems the Fusion has, too. Either the D3 cars or the Fusion needs to be a better Camry or Accord. Full stop.
I’m talking about a higher price point only.Not Camry, think Nissan midship RWD chassis. The Fusion (especially with the 2.0 EcoBoost Robert mentioned) is for that mainstream market.
Ford’s small(er) car operation looks to be in order, if the quality and consistency holds up. The premium models are driving the wrong wheels with import-wannabe chassis hard points and dull sheetmetal, and aren’t likely to sway increasingly loyal import buyers.
Maybe that 2010 Taurus will make things like 1986 again, but I still see the D3 chassis is too big and expensive for a small car and too downmarket for a bigger one. The sales of the D3 vs. Panther are the proof that Ford’s heritage lies in RWD, bold proportions and a V8.
It’s a sad state of affairs when an automaker feels the need to pretend that a technology as basic and commonplace as turbocharging is groundbreaking and transformational.
I’d move along, folks, there’s nothing to see here.
20% better fuel economy but only 15% reduction in CO2? Does that mean the engine will spew huge amounts of CO or NOx?
Some speculation above suggests 260 HP from 2.0L engine. That seems pretty high. The Audi/VW engine makes about 205 HP from 2.0L. With software reprogramming and some minor hardware tweeks you might get 260 HP, but you would hardly pass USA emissions not to mention California emissions. Is the Ford engine a pushrod, because that will put it at a power disadvantage too.
Premium fuel would probably be a good idea technically, but a bad idea from a marketing standpoint. Out here I see pump prices at about $4.10 for 87 octane and $4.35 for 91 octane. The improved power and/or efficiency of designing for 91 octane outweighs the tiny price difference. If Ford goes with 87 octane, then I suppose people could re-program and get some advantage for 91.
SunnyvaleCA:
Some speculation above suggests 260 HP from 2.0L engine. That seems pretty high. The Audi/VW engine makes about 205 HP from 2.0L. With software reprogramming and some minor hardware tweeks you might get 260 HP, but you would hardly pass USA emissions not to mention California emissions.
GM’s 2.0L turbo makes 260 HP from the factory, and I believe that it is allowed in all 50 states. However, the GM engine does recommend premium fuel.
VW sold the “EcoDiesel” in the early 90’s with no more engine controls than those included with the 100% mechanical fantabulous Bosch VE fuel injection pump.
By definition, a diesel that is not spewing black smoke is using only just enough fuel as the driver needs. So Rudolf Diesel was about 100 years ahead of mullet boy.
@ Sunnyvale CA
Pushrod? Where did you come up with that? It’s not pushrod. DOHC, VCT, TDI.
You also won’t need to add a chip or tune to use premium fuel or ethanol more fully. The engine is designed to adapt to the fuel type being used – including ethanol.
As for the CO2/mileage differential – no idea. It would have to mean a resulting decline in CO… CO2 doesn’t just magically appear out of nothing.
@ Sajeev
As far as I’ve heard, Ford’s GRWD program is alive and well and will underpin Lincolns starting for the 2012MY, I believe, unless the program gets delayed for any reason. If you visit a Ford specific chat board there have been conversations about GRWD for about a year now and its role in the U.S.
RobertSD: good to hear. Last time I checked they put it on indefinite hold from an older report of a 2010 release. Rumors are fun like that.
The only RWDs that I’ve heard are on hold or are being re-considered are new non-luxury RWDs like the proposed Crown Vic replacement and supposed rebirth of the T-bird. Not to say they won’t be developed, but Ford has limited cash and looming CAFE for now.
But, Mustang stays, and there are still plans to give Lincoln a more RWD line-up as far as I know.
Much as I would like it to be true, Subaru does not have direct injection on any of their engines. In fact, they are only “working” on it.
On the other hand, my 08 Legacy GT turbo automatic has averaged about 23.5 mpg US since I got it in mid winter, which I regard as very acceptable. The car weighs 3500 lbs, and spends most of its career moving me back and forth to work in what would be described as suburban routes. 15 miles in 22 minutes, and it happily trundles along my side road at 1400 rpm or less in fifth.
With the instantaneous gas meter in the dash, 45 mph gives consumption of about 39mpg US on the flat, declining to 30 at 70mph. Stopping and starting is what eats gas, as does climbing hills, which jumps consumption to 20mpg at 70 on an average long freeway hill. Coming down the other side of the hill though gives 60 to 100 mpg.
As one would expect — one’s foot is almost off the gas. RPM at 62 mph is about 2200. Passing cars on major two laners reveals just over 100 mph at the shift from 3rd to 4th and 6600rpm.
Therefore, I find Ford’s Ecoboost mpg estimates not out of the question, as related by RobertSD. My mileage includes some hooning on each tank as well. If I’m a good boy for a tankful I get about 26mpg. My mileage is recorded at TrueDelta, and I find the onboard Subaru computer accurate to within a couple percent as compared to actual gallonage and odometer mileage.
My Subie gets almost exactly two thirds the mileage of a co-worker’s ’07 Civic in very similar circumstances, which I regard as worth it, because there ain’t no fun there when he gooses his automatic, and the Civic’s ride is clippy-cloppy and noisy by comparison and doesn’t even have AC.
Guys, it’s like Henry Ford all over again. He didn’t actually invent the assembly line, he was just the first to apply it across the board and use it to sell millions. Ford certainly didn’t invent the Turbo-DI engine, but they’ve realized its benefits in the market and are beginning to employ it globally. And a name like EcoBoost doesn’t hurt. Sounds like a pretty viable plan to me…
Regarding the D3 platform – I don’t see why lots of people like to hate on it. It is exceedingly safe, very rigid, and has proven to be versatile as well. The powertrains used, namely the 3.5 and 3.7 liter NA V6s are excellent engines, producing above average if not chart topping power, with smooth delivery, and requiring only regular old 87 octane. The transmissions used are smooth and the gearing allows quick off the line acceleration plus low RPM highway cruising.
The Taurus isn’t a Camry/Accord/Malibu competitor, it’s an Avalon/Impala/300C competitor. While the Hemi 300C admittedly is a better drive, the Taurus holds its own against the Avalon and the V6 300, and does it with sportier driving dynamics and more interior space. The styling is a bit frumpy, but that should change with the redesign from the spy shots that have popped up.
As far as the EcoBoost engines, I doubt they will require premium, the 2008 Mazda CX-7 with the turbo 4 doesn’t require it (though the 2007 did) and it runs quite well on 87 octane.
There will of course be a need for a new Ford large car RWD platform, as there is no way that Ford will lose the fleet business it has owned for decades with police cars (which could concievably benefit from the handling edge that RWD provides) as well as taxis and livery cars, but until that happens the panther can just keep rolling along in the fleet only sales channel.
NulloModo :
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Regarding the D3 platform – I don’t see why lots of people like to hate on it. It is exceedingly safe, very rigid, and has proven to be versatile as well. The powertrains used, namely the 3.5 and 3.7 liter NA V6s are excellent engines, producing above average if not chart topping power, with smooth delivery, and requiring only regular old 87 octane. The transmissions used are smooth and the gearing allows quick off the line acceleration plus low RPM highway cruising.
Where do I start…
First, the D3 platform was introduced by Volvo in 1999…so it is already 9-10 years old.
Second, it doesn’t sell. Ford has had SIX vehicles fail on this platform. The Flex will be number 7, the Lincoln Taurus will be number 8, and the horrid looking Lincoln Flex will be number 9.
Third, because of number two…Ford will forever be in debt because of this platform. They have sank BILLIONS onto this platform.
It is a terrible platform and needs to be thrown out.
It is a terrible platform and needs to be thrown out.
It isn’t, really. Its reviewed very well by every non-enthusiast source, notably including CR
The problem is that Ford’s Marketing people can’t sell it, and that Ford Powertrain can’t equip it with a decent engine.
I agree that the marketing is failing with regards to most of the D3 platform-mates (it is doing very well with the Edge and the MKS, and they aren’t failing for lack of trying with the Flex, actually, we have seen a lot of people coming in asking about Flex lately, and sales have picked up). With the rest of them though, Taurus X (which I agree is pointless now that the Flex is here, the Taurus X need to die a quick and quiet death), Taurus and Sable have been left out of the loop.
The 500 and Montego actually sold decently, and given that the new Taurus and Sable have a good engine (the 3.5 liter 265hp/250 lb/ft is smooth, quiet, and more than enough to move those cars) the new Taurus and Sable could be doing better. The fuel economy numbers are also strong on both of those vehicles for a full size sedan, throw in 5 star crash test ratings in every category and lots of standard equipment even on base models, and great value throughout the range, we should be moving them more than we are.
The problem isn’t bad marketing, it’s non-existant marketing.
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!”
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?
“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?
Seems like CGI as a material is ready for use. Click on the link