Ford will be offering four-cylinder Ecoboost engines in a vast array of its forthcoming models, reports Motor Trend. The 2.0 EcoBoost will likely see base-model duty in vehicles ranging from the Edge and Mustang to the unibody 2011 Explorer, while replacing the V6 option in the Fusion and Escape. And though the EcoBoost two-liter looks good on paper (275 hp, 280 lb·ft), its projected ubiquity raises an interesting question: how important are engines in product differentiation? If GM’s blurring of the platform-sharing/brand-engineering lines hurts its brands, does the same hold true for Ford’s engine-sharing? Though modern engine control units theoretically allow Ford to customize engine characteristics (torque curve, power, efficiency) for each application, we’re not hearing anything about any such plans in the EcoBoost PR material. Could Ford’s engine uniformity hurt its appeal?
Doubtful. Power, plus efficiency is exactly what everyone wants… so, who cares? GM has it’s 2.4L 4 in nearly everything, and the new 3.0L and current 3.6L V-6 is in EVERYTHING they make. So, what’s the big deal?
No one will care if its smooth and powerful and reliable. Thats the secret.
Nissan puts the VQ series V6 in just about everything. VW has that 2.0T in lots and lots of stuff. Toyota has the 2.4l in a variety of vehicles.
They can tune the driving dynamics easily and give each car a completely different feel. im not worried.
Ford currently uses the 3.5 liter V6 in the Fusion, Edge, and Flex, MKZ and MKX and a slightly bored out to 3.7 liter version in the MKS and upcoming MKT, while Mazda uses the same 3.7 liter in the Mazda6 and the CX-9. The 2.3/2.5 liter four twins are used in the Fusion, Milan, Escape, Mariner, Ranger, Mazda3 and Mazda CX-7, and the ubiquitous 4.6 liter V8 is used in Town Cars, Grand Marquis, Crown Victorias, Mustangs, Explorers, F150s, and E-series vans.
The 2.0 liter four which currently only sees duty in the Focus, Mazda3, and Transit Connect is actually probably Ford’s least used engine, but it is a beauty where it comes to reliability, smoothness, and sound. If the EB 2.0 four can really put out those numbers there is no reason for Ford not to stick it in tons of cars (although I do hope an Ecoboost V6 option putting out similar power to the Taurus SHO becomes an option for the Fusion).
Anything that helps Ford kill off the awful 4.0 V6 that currently lives in the Explorer and Mustang is a very good thing.
how important are engines in product differentiation?
I’d say very little. yournamehere already brought up the 2.0T that finds its way into everything from the GTI to the CC to the Tiguan to the A4, with no real damage to anything. The Nissan VQ V6 is another good example he used.
The E550 coupe and the CL550 use the same engine even though the two cars have a nearly $50K price difference. Same deal with the 135i and 535i (roughly $20k price difference).
Another example is the Dodge Ram, 300C, Grand Cherokee, and Challenger all sharing the 5.7L V8. I haven’t heard any complaints from prospective MOPAR buyers about that even though the four vehicles are different.
If the engine is good (and the 2.0 EcoBoost sounds good), it won’t hurt anything to use it in as many applications as possible.
Using the same basic motor in everything from sports cars to sedans to SUVs hasn’t hurt BMW or Nissan.
Edward, you are commenting on two very separate issues.
You first bring up product differentiation. Successfully differentiated products commonly share their engines — yournamehere brings up cases in which successful automakers engine share between well-differentiated products. There’s a possibility that engine sharing diminishes product differentiation, but it seems that for most successful manufacturers the effect is not strong enough to deter such engine sharing.
Your second inquiry deals with brand differentiation. GM’s issue with badge engineering and engine sharing is that it occurred across multiple brands, and left all of those brands too similar. This is a more likely issue between Ford, Lincoln, and Mercury, but engines have been shared among the brands for years; this changes nothing. Also, only Ford brand cars are mentioned in this article (although the 2.0 is likely to make its way to the other brands…).
EcoBoost is a brand within itself that can be instantly tied to Ford. In the contemporary market brand strength is a ridiculously important factor, particularly for mainstream offerings. Thus, I think the engine uniformity will actually boost the Ford brand (no pun intended).
In general, it’s not a bad idea.
However, the traditionalists who buy Explorers and Mustangs may find four cylinder engines a bit too much to bear–even if they can outrun a Corvette while pulling an Airstream.
Unibody Explorers will probably be difficult enough.
All the big boys do it – it’s about time Ford caught up. Although they kind of did it with that ancient 4.0L v6 (Ranger/Explorer/Mustang/minivans/freestyle?) and the “modular” 4.6L v8 (Town Car/Crown Vic/Marquis/Mustang GT/Explorer/I’m sure I’m missing a lot).
BMW, Nissan, Toyota, Merc (even AMG), VW/Audi all do it.
As long as the engine is great, why complaining?
Now just shoehorn that ecoboost v6 into a mustang and let it breathe some to get to 400hp……
More so than Ford or Chrysler, GM marketing emphasized the distinct engines in each division’s products. The famous 1949 Oldsmobile Rocket V8 was built for decades. My Dad rejected Oldsmobiles after shortsighted GM bean counters substituted Chevrolet engines, an early nail in GM’s corporate coffin.
I doubt Ford will have difficulty sharing engines between divisions. Nor does Toyota/Lexus or Nissan/Infiniti. Acura models once had distinct engines. The Vigor had a longitudinal five cylinder. The jewel-like, longitudinal, C35A V6, 3.5RL engine idled at 200 rpm! Honda substituted a generic, transverse, corporate engine. Now it is having difficulty selling Acuras in meaningful numbers. Hmmmm….
If a carmaker lives by the engine, it dies by the engine.
See Mazda on how it’s done. Notice they don’t call it Eco anything. It doesn’t seem to work. Have you seen the fuel economy they get on the CX-7? I hope I’m wrong because I’d love a sportwagon with a 6 speed and 220ish HP from a 4 cyl engine that gets 30 MPG for under $30k. Any automakers listening?
I think Acura’s problem stems from having the majority of their products based off one very basic platform: the Accord, whether in Euro or American based, the TSX/TL/RL all use the same platform and (just recently) the same engines. In terms of powertrains, it’s not a problem until you notice the TL making the same power as the RL (with more interior space to boot).
I don’t see Ford having that problem. Turbocharged engines can be tuned to a great extent, such that each version provides a driving sensation that suits the vehicle it’s dropped in. Hopefully Ford uses this knowledge wisely (Ecoboost Fiesta?…..Ecoboost Fusion SHO?…..a Focus SVT return?….the possibilities)
@SecretAznMan
Saab 9-3 2.0T SportCombi – 210hp/226lb-ft, 6spd stick, ~$30k base MSRP, commonly discounted by a couple thousand anyway, I paid $22.9K brandy-new for my leftover ’08 in March. Well-proven, and quite reliable, they have had plenty of time to work the bugs out. I get 27mpg around suburban town, 33+ mpg on roadtrips. And I don’t let any moss grow under me, either.
If you need more than the 210hp, they can be easily chipped to darn near 300hp.
I wanted to bring up VW. In Europe their ubiquitous 1.4 has power levels ranging from 130-170, I think. With the right engine programming, axle ratios, transmission programming (and potentially ratios) and even different transmissions (manuals, DSG, standard auto, select-shift auto, etc), you can make the same engine feel drastically different in different applications.
I think we’ll likely see it around 245/255 as far as power. I do believe it will be eco. Ford will be shooting for close to 30 mpg on the Edge and Explorer and likely get well over 30 on applications like the Fusion in the future… but we shall find out officially sometime early next year, I think. I really can’t wait for the 1.6, which should bring 40+ mpg to the Fusion on the highway after its redesign for MY2013.
I’d say very little. yournamehere already brought up the 2.0T that finds its way into everything from the GTI to the CC to the Tiguan to the A4, with no real damage to anything.
Yeah, though to get technical some of the new 2.0Ts are still the older EA113 engine, and some are the newer EA888. The EA113 uses a timing belt, the EA888 a timing chain. The EA888 also uses the the newer improved variable valve timing “valvelift” (what, not “valvetronic,” come on Audi). Of course, the EA888 2.0T is a clear evolution of the EA113 2.0T.
EcoBoost is a brand within itself that can be instantly tied to Ford. In the contemporary market brand strength is a ridiculously important factor, particularly for mainstream offerings.
The closest analogy would be Chrysler’s branding of HEMI, I believe. Take that as a good sign or bad, though.
I saw an article a couple of months ago or so, possibly in Car and Driver (because it’s the only car mag I ever read), which looked at vehicles which have turbo and non-turbo options. In no instance turbo version had materially better mileage than its bigger displacement equivalent. Make your own conclusions, but my conclusion is that the cylinder deactivation and variable timing destroyed the turbo advantage.
I’m just wondering when there will be some truth to the saying of V8 power with V6 mileage…or V6 power with I-4 mileage.
So far…there has been nothing ‘eco’ about Ecoboost…rather…it has produced less power and worse mileage than some V8 plants.
“How important are engines in product differentiation?”
Not important at all. Toyota powers the majority of its lineup with the AZ family of four cylinder engines and the GR family of V-6s. Honda likewise basically has one four cylinder engine family and one V-6 family. In fact, all the profitable major volume players have a minimal lineup of engines which go into everything. In the US at least, very few mainstream buyers could care less about the details of the vehicle’s engine and what other products share it.
P71_CrownVic
Show me the V8 with the same MPG, torque curve and uses regular fuel.
This will be interesting to see.
RobertSD
I also feel more strongly on the smaller engine applications of the ecoboost and in cars like the Fusion, Focus and Fiesta.
These are the perfect fits.
Check out the Ecoboost I4 torque curve vs 3.0L V6; I’ve seen similar graphs that tell the same story for the V6 Ecoboost vs all the competitive V8s.
http://www.allfordmustangs.com/articles/uploads/ecoboost-slide-torque.jpg
Max torque and max HP numbers just don’t tell the story of these engines. These curves give you a better idea, but it’s best to wait to drive an Ecoboost vehicle before you pass judgement.
The only writer (or vocal commenter) that seems to have driven an Ecoboost is Mr. Baruth. And he gave the vehicle five stars. In a Flex.
These engines kick butt.
@Paulie:
Show me the V8 with the same MPG, torque curve and uses regular fuel. This will be interesting to see.
I haven’t seen an independent dyno test of the 3.5L Ecoboost yet. I’m guessing with a turbo’d automatic AWD car, there is going to be some decent drivetrain power loss. I know the claims Ford makes, but I really don’t know what its power curve looks like in actuality.
If Ford really wants to impress with me the 3.5L Ecoboost then they should go over to Edmunds (or TTAC) with a Taurus SHO (off the showroom floor, no ringer from Dearborn), a Charger R/T, and a G8 GT. Let the testers fill the three cars with 87 octane, and dyno test them back-to-back-to-back.
Then I’ll know the real power the SHO puts out compared to a traditional American V8.
I would love to see the Ecoboost 4 in a Caterham 7. Or a Transit Connect.
Ford Australia announced weeks ago that the Falcon will be the first RWD application of the 4 cylinder Ecoboost engine in the world.
Falcon is getting this engine in 2011, so the Mustang won’t be getting it any earlier than this
EcoBoost is a brand within itself that can be instantly tied to Ford.
Scorched Earth gets it.
EcoBoost, Hybrid Synergy Drive, M Dynamics, VTEC even (cough) Hemi. If I recall correctly Toyota used to also use “SR – Super Responsive”.
Ford could go further and call all the 2Ts “Cosworth” IMHO.
By way of contrast (at least in Australia), GM’s effort is “AlloyTech”. Lame.
OK, so here’s the deal:
We have an engine that makes the power of a V-6 with better fuel economy…and there’s a QUESTION of how this may hurt Ford’s marketing strategy?
ajla :
August 20th, 2009 at 12:43 am
@Paulie:
Show me the V8 with the same MPG, torque curve and uses regular fuel. This will be interesting to see.
I haven’t seen an independent dyno test of the 3.5L Ecoboost yet. I’m guessing with a turbo’d automatic AWD car, there is going to be some decent drivetrain power loss. I know the claims Ford makes, but I really don’t know what its power curve looks like in actuality.
Well, there have been instrumented tests of this engine in all the major mags, and the performance results all seem to be in the 5.5 range to 60. That’s entirely reasonable given the horsepower and vehicle weight. I see no reason to think these test cars are ringers.
I’d say if anything the opposite would be true, Ford could actually create a brand image under the ecoboost name if the engines are successful. Most shoppers know very little about the engine in the car they’re looking at, maybe the number of cylinders and the displacement. Its unlikely they’ve done any research into the motors specifics, so to them its just a generic piece of equipment. If you attach a name to that equipment like ‘ecoboost’ or ‘hemi’ it becomes a feature you can advertise and sell. The customer can say, “yeah ecoboost, I’ve heard of that, must be good.”
As the litany of examples above shows, there’s plenty of engine-sharing going on. It’s not new, either – at one time my family owned four different Ford products equipped with the same 3.8L V6.
I just hope that whatever ford goes with long term gets significantly better mileage than my favorite turbo’d 4. let me tell ya: 16mpg for a subcompact in the city SUCKS.
@NulloModo Anything that helps Ford kill off the awful 4.0 V6 that currently lives in the Explorer and Mustang is a very good thing.
I don’t think so at all. The 4.0 Cologne V6 SOHC is a solid, tough, reliable engine. In one form or another, it’s been in production about as long as the small block V8 was. Generations of engineers and technicians have worked to improve it and fix problems that arose. It has all the hallmarks of a modern V6: 60º banks, EI, EFI, OHC… Not bad for an engine that went into production in 1968. Some people on this board weren’t even born yet. They wouldn’t still be making 173,500 a year if they had something readily available to replace it. Retired, yes – “killed off”, no.
Having fewer engines in a line up simplifies manufacturing and maintenance. Tuning allows for variability depending on load and desired driving characteristics.
A good, properly turbocharged 4 is plenty for even a good sized car. Remember the Volvo Turbo Wagon ad: http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/iipcache/1332.png
I had a 740 Turbo Wagon for many years. Decent mileage, and plenty of punch for a car that could carry 7 people or a weekend’s worth of homeowner project lumber.
So far the Ecoboost engines have fulfilled the promise of V8 power with V6 fuel economy. If you look at any of the Ecoboost models the EB V6 gets the same mileage as AWD naturally aspirated V6 model does. The problem is that so far the Ecoboost engines have only been used in fairly heavy vehicles, and with the 3.5 EB AWD comes standard. When we see the 2.0 EB combined with FWD or the 3.5 EB in lighter cars the fuel economy savings will be more pronounced.
Adding a turbo four to the Mustang range will be interesting. I suppose the lineup will go –
2.0 EB 275hp Base Mustang
3.5 EB 350hp Mustang V6
5.0 V8 425hp Mustang GT
5.0 EB or SC V8 600-700hp Mustang GT Shelby
“So far the Ecoboost engines have fulfilled the promise of V8 power with V6 fuel economy. If you look at any of the Ecoboost models the EB V6 gets the same mileage as AWD naturally aspirated V6 model does.”
All that means is Ford’s V6s drink fuel like a V8.
There’s nothing wrong with sharing engines between different vehicles. As pointed out above, it is done by everyone from Nissan/Infiniti to BMW.
What Nissan shows is that different platforms and RWD are far more important for luxury differentiation than different engines. Nobody cares that an M35 and Altima share the VQ, because the rear wheels spinning instead of the front wheels makes them vastly different cars.
Unless Ford is ready to make serious RWD cars under the Lincoln brand it might have to put Lincoln out of its misery. Mercury is already obviously being phased out.
A 275 HP turbo I4 Mustang would be on my shopping list.
Anyone who justifies a 275hp turbo engine on the basis of environmentalism deserves the $3,000 repair bill which is inevitably coming their way.
You say you want “eco”? Forget about zero-to-sixty times and drive a 90-horsepower car like we did just a few years ago. You will still get to work. Better yet, move closer to work and drive whatever the hell you want. That is “eco”. What Ford is doing is pure marketing B.S.
There are 2 methods to improved fuel economy for a give rated horse power.
1. Down Size: as in the Ecoboost or VAG’s 1.4FSI & 2.0T. This works well in automotive application where the duty cycle (average power) of the engine is really low – very few cars need more than 50hp (say 100hp for trucks) to cruise the interstate and therefore the extra boost for the turbo / supercharger is only needed for acceleration which happens in short bursts
2. Down Speed: which reduces the engine pumping work (PMEP). Toyota’s gen 3 Prius is an example of this – the engine moved from 1.5 to 1.8 ltrs but is geared for lower engine speeds.
SecretAznMan – the CX-7 is an example of downsizing but this in part was done with up speeding – it’s also a heavy car. I’d be interested to see how the 2.5NA engine compares.
At a minimun, Ford should at least put a more upscale engine cover on the EcoBoost engine for Lincolns. The current cheap black plastic cover is TERRIBLE! Compare that to any European engine and they look more like a piece of art…
That is “eco”. What Ford is doing is pure marketing B.S.
Its very smart marketing BS. Ecoboost refers to tuning. The engines can be tuned for economy then power (ecoboost) or they can be tuned for power then economy (twinforce). All companies use marketing and in a way all marketing is BS. What ford is doing is using a very smart a adjective to described the benefits that otherwise might be missed by the consumer. 2015, when ecoboost is an established brand, is when Ford will really reap the benefits.
Now for the mustange and F150 applications (and if they ever decided to make a US Falcon), Twinforce would be the adjective to use.
@ P71_CrownVic
I can’t find a single vehicle that is as large as a Ford Taurus Eco-boost, with a V8 and AWD that gets better fuel economy. I don’t see a single one.
Ford Taurus 365 HP 20 MPG Comb
Audi A8 345 HP 18 MPG Comb
Chrysler 300C 340 HP 18 MPG Comb
Cadillac STS 320 HP 17 MPG Comb
BMW 550i 360 HP 18 MPG Comb (also no AWD)
Lexus 460 380 HP 18 MPG Comb
Pontiac G8 GT 361 HP 18 MPG Comb (also no AWD)
I’m sure there’s more that I can look at but so far so good for Ford.
One thing that’s nice about the Ecoboost is that it runs on regular fuel. I suspect it won’t be nearly as tolerant as a normally-aspirated engine when the owner uses dino oil and misses an oil change or three.
This would be a nice base engine for the Focus.
So… let me get this straight; Ford has plans for an efficient, powerful engine that has enough versatility to be relevant across platforms, and we’re finding fault because “engine uniformity” might “hurt [Ford’s] appeal”?
This coming from TTAC which is Billy The Kid-quick to point out when manufacturers don’t show enough uniformity when it comes to their respective brand images and/or product lines. Hmmmm…
Come on, guys. Tie this potentially “hurt”ful “uniformity” to the brand image argument you *constantly* bring up; if they unleash a ubiquitous engine that has a pronounced, marketable combination of traits (efficiency *with* power), Ford might just not be able to help spinning up a new, potent image for themselves – Ford: Efficiency *with* Power. Now tell me that wouldn’t work.
@ colin42 The 2.5 is EPA listed at 28 or 29 MPG on the highway. This is much more palatable. Throw in a manual shifter, and I might take this CUV over a wagon.
@ krhodes1 Really?!? I’ve had my eye on one of these, but didn’t think they were selling for that cheap. We do need more than just one option in this class though.
the average consumer won’t know the difference, or care.
I used to sell cars. Only about 10% of the people I sold to actually gave a crap about the engine, other than the fact that it was there and it worked.
“I can’t find a single vehicle that is as large as a Ford Taurus Eco-boost, with a V8 and AWD that gets better fuel economy. I don’t see a single one.”
First off…AWD is un-necessary…especially if it is a limp-wristed FWD-based system like Ford uses.
Second, you should compare cars that WILL be cross-shopped. AWD (for a reasonable person) is a non-issue.
Third…every review of the porky SHOW has seen average economy in the teens (16-18). That’s “real world”. I drove a Crown Vic that could get 30MPG on the highway…but yet it was only rated for 24 MPG highway. My Silverado Crew Cab gets 23.1 MPG on the highway at 60MPH…but yet it is rated at 18 highway. Just because Ford pads the numbers (like they do with the F-150) does not mean it’s gospel.
Those HP and Torque numbers are HUGE for a 2 litre enine. If they can pull long term reliability off, great. If not…look out. My 2.7T Audi makes almost the same numbers. I can chip it to put out 370ish hp. But without further upgrades, the engine will tear itself apart, if the turbos do not blow first.
The numbers claimed for the engine are really, really big. Doing that in a test environment and getting those numbers in long term performance are two different things.
@ P71_CrownVic So your complaint is about AWD. Ford offers V8 power with V6 fuel economy, but I’d rather have in non-awd. Personally I think it’s useful being in a state that gets a lot of snow in the winter. RWD sucks in the winter. I’m sure you can drive fine in it, but I don’t like to and so do a lot of other people.
Your complaint about the Taurus’s fuel economy is based on anecdotal evidence? I’m sure the people reviewing the SHO weren’t driving it at 60 miles an hour cruising on the freeway. Personally I trust information coming from an independent government body designed to test vehicles to a standard. 20 MPG isn’t Ford’s estimate, it’s the EPA’s estimate.
@gregaryous
The bigger question is why do we need to waste the owner’s money, petroleum, and the time of mechanics on stupid engine covers in the first place.
Ford offers V8 power with V6 fuel economy,
No they don’t. They offer a 3.5 V6 that gets V8 economy.
Personally I think it’s useful being in a state that gets a lot of snow in the winter. RWD sucks in the winter. I’m sure you can drive fine in it, but I don’t like to and so do a lot of other people.
I had NO PROBLEM driving a open-diff, V8 sedan on bald Eagle RS-A tires…with no traction control…in a Minnesota winter…
In today’s world…if you cannot safely drive a RWD vehicle in the snow…you simply shouldn’t be driving. And you certainly shouldn’t use AWD as a crutch for your poor driving skills.
I’m sure the people reviewing the SHO weren’t driving it at 60 miles an hour cruising on the freeway.
You’re right. They were driving like the average person would.
Personally I trust information coming from an independent government body designed to test vehicles to a standard. 20 MPG isn’t Ford’s estimate, it’s the EPA’s estimate.
And where did the EPA get that estimate?
Do you even know how the EPA tests vehicles? Silly me, of course you do. You obviously know that the EPA cannot possibly test every single car every single year. You know that they test only a handful of cars every year and TAKE THE MANUFACTURES WORD on the rest.
Of course you know that…
I remember having a bar debate with a die-hard Ford guy back in 2003. I told him that the Bonneville SSEi was a better car than the Mercury Marauder because it turned in the same (or better) performance and handling figures, FWD was more manageable in bad weather than RWD, and the Pontiac turned out better fuel economy figures. He told me I was wrong because a V8 RWD setup is a necessity for an American performance car.
I defended Pontiac’s honor, but deep-down I wished the Bonneville followed that formula. I wonder what he thinks about the product direction FoMoCo is going these days.
_________
I also remember Ford fans (and ads) ripping into Buick, Cadillac, and Chrysler because they didn’t offer a V8 RWD car.
Man, what a difference six years can make.
I’ve read this entire thread and have made a couple distinct realizations.
(1) Most TTAC commenters seem to think that the idea of an EcoBoost lineup is either non-damaging, or at best a positive branding strategy.
(2) No one really knows yet whether the EcoBoost performs as advertised because their really isn’t enough real-world data yet.
(3) P71_CrownVic seems to enjoy bashing Ford with vague accusations but never responds back to posts that include actual DATA refuting his/her claims. Did Henry Ford run over your Great Grandma? What exactly is the reason for that oval shaped chip on your shoulder?