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.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Early speculation indicates (probably correctly) that this will be $700 over the cost of the V8, not over the base V6. Sounds logical. $700 over the V6 would be insanely cheap.
Raises an interesting question to which I don’t know the answer. The current Ford V8 (the 4.6 and the 5.4) have been around for a while now. Are they designs that can be refreshed or they outdated to an extent that Ford really needs to set to work on a replacement?
Sounds like a recipe for torque steer to me since Ford ixnayed plans for a RWD flagship architecture.
But hey, V8 power with V6 mpgs… can’t really complain there. Not for $700 anyways.
Seriously, if this is a $700 option over the V6 it will be an outstanding value. This engine would be perfect for a mid level trim Mustang (although it would likely smoke the V8) and a high-po version of the Fusion and maybe MKZ (with preferrably less bland looks) and a batshit crazy Focus just for the hell of it. I still say they would be better off putting a V8 in the MKS, but then again they’d be better off making it RWD and not calling it MKS so…
@jgholt:
You can bet the Ecoboost version with all that torque will only be available on the AWD models.
I know, I know – D3’s AWD is really just FWD based, like in the Volvos and therefore you could end up with serious torque steer anyway. Here’s to hoping.
“Eco-boosted” V8.
Maybe they will drop this Ecoboost into the Crown-Vic, as a parting gift.
# Jordan Tenenbaum :
Maybe they will drop this Ecoboost into the Crown-Vic, as a parting gift.
I’m sorry….i just fell off my chair from laughing so hard after reading that.
Ahem…a twin turbo V6 in the Ford Mustang would be great, you’d just have to tell the loyal pony folk that a V8 will still be available.
And yes, I’d imagine with such power figures, the MKS will have AWD standard with the EcoBoost V6.
Now if only Chrysler would get with the program and see how the turbo 4 from the Caliber SRT-4 will fit the base Challenger (and for Pete’s sake, the SE version NEEDS a 5 speed manual)
That’s what I’m sayin’ Orangutan.
I disagree that Ford will need V8 engines for the Mustang. Ford needs profits, not sideshows that consume resources. If the ecoboost is this kickass, roll with it. Let the 3rd party entities provide V8’s. Ford needs Focus, and I don’t mean the car.
I would love to have a twin turbocharged V6 available for the Mustang. If it is only a $700 premium over the naturally aspirated V6, why would anybody buy anything else, including the base V6? I got to believe that $700 premium is over the V8; otherwise, this is the deal of the century. I do think it would sound a death knell for naturally aspirated V8’s, but they would still produce SVT Mustangs using turboed V8’s.
I say that in a contest between the Ecoboost V6 and GMs 5.3L OHV V8 for the trucks that GM will win. Better packaging and less maintenance and the only time that the Ecoboost engine will get better fuel mileage is on the EPA test. If it even gets that.
V6 MPG? (what V6 MPG?) is completely wishful thinking.
The current MKS V6 get 17/24 and has 275 HP. With its V6, it gets worse gas mileage than the heavier Hyundai Genesis with a 375 HP V8. To make the Ecoboost as special as Ford wants it to be, it will not only have to deliver better gas mileage than Ford’s V8’s, it will also have to deliver better mileage than the current V6’s that it’s based on. We’ll see.
Didn’t Ford turbocharge the euo-escort once upon a time? Did those ever make it to the states in one form or another?
I’m guessing that this will be limited availability for the first few years. Plenty of D2.8 products still have 4-speed transmissions, after all. You probably will have to pay extra on top of a loaded vehicle to get this.
I disagree that Ford will need V8 engines for the Mustang. Ford needs profits, not sideshows that consume resources. If the ecoboost is this kickass, roll with it. Let the 3rd party entities provide V8’s. Ford needs Focus, and I don’t mean the car.
The mustang doesn’t need a V8 like the Mitsubishi Eclipse didn’t need a turbo-four and all-wheel-drive.
cleek:
Ford Europe had two different turbocharged Escorts at one time. One was a FWD 1.6 liter that put out about 130hp, the other was the AWD Cosworth variant that put out 224hp from 2.0 liters. I don’t think they were officially imported, but they are of an age where a personal import wouldn’t be too complicated.
If the turbo noise on the ecoboost engines is as loud and annoying as I’ve heard in other turbo’d or supercharged Fords- then the extra $700 and loss in fuel mileage might be worth it just for the V8 exhaust note.
The mustang doesn’t need a V8 like the Mitsubishi Eclipse didn’t need a turbo-four and all-wheel-drive.
Cheers to that! The eclipse used to be the best selling car in its class, these days I have no idea, but I know I hardly see them around, where as in the early 90s, they were all over the place.
Of course mustang needs a V8! the mustang is one of those cars the sells its slow models off the images of the fast ones, and loud ones! Twin turbos sounds great.. but its not the american sound that the die hard (repeat customer) mustang people want. I do believe its $700 over gt price.. but hp wise its still a bargin since the $1000 ford racing computer flash/muffler/cold air/oil filter kit only adds 20hp to the 4.6
The 4.6 isn’t the same as it was when it started either.. its a 3 valve engine now (since 05) so its not an antique as it first seems.. though rumor has it that 2010 or 2011 could bring back a 5.0 (boss anyone?)
this sounds awesome, to be honest. A twin-turbo Ecoboost Duratec 35-powered Mustang would be a winner… if they would stop sucking and put IRS in it!
“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.
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.
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.
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.