Filed under: Tech, Videos, Ford, Lincoln, Mercury
VIDEO: Ford Powertrain Director talks EcoBoost
Autoblog talks EcoBoost with Ford Powertrain Direc
Turbocharging has long been associated with performance, but the 103-year-old technology is also very efficient. A small displacement gasoline engine with a turbocharger can equal or out-perform similarly sized naturally aspirated motors while also saving fuel. Europe is all over turbo engines for everything from high-performance Porsches to family wagons, but here in the States, force-fed engines are mainly sold in low volume sports cars.
Ford intends to jump into the turbocharging arena in a big way with "EcoBoost", and is planning to move up to 500,000 vehicles in the U.S. annually with twin-spool technology. Ford claims its EcoBoost suite of engine technoloies will give customers fuel savings of up to 20% versus a like-powered naturally aspirated engine, and the first samples are scheduled to go on sale in about a year. We wanted to learn more about Ford's plan, so we accepted an invitation to speak with Ford's director of Advanced Powertrain, Dan Kapp. Click play on the video above to see what Dan has to say about EcoBoost.
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
TheRaven 8:09PM (3/31/2008)
It seems Ford at least "gets it" as far as powertrain goes. Between small turbocharged engines and hopefully an influx of diesels, the MPG average will climb.
Reply
Thomas Brown 8:12PM (3/31/2008)
Exactly what I think. The F-150 would preform just fine with a 4.0T rather than the 5.4NA.
Craig 9:40PM (3/31/2008)
But I reckon Ford will lose it and still go for the 2.0 litre engine instead of going for the 1.4 or 1.6 litre turbo motor. If they don't downsize the capacity, they will not see the fuel savings.
vintage 1:57AM (4/02/2008)
Chrysler should have done this with the challenger, because then I'd actually want one. Unfortunately, getting 12mpg isn't cool, or affordable, especially considering the 1970 Challenger achieved roughly the same performance and fuel milage. 40 years of progress? Hardly.
why not the LS2LS7? 1:37AM (4/01/2008)
Oh yeah. Ford "gets it". The company with the worst mpg to date "gets it". Not only did Audi and GM beat them to the punch by a mile with smaller turbo motors, but Ford has had a 2.3L turbo derivative of their 4-cylinder they've mostly sat on (only Mazda has used it).
Sounds like a company that really "gets it".
TheRaven 5:14AM (4/01/2008)
Although "why not the LS2/LS7?" is clearly a troll, I will respond anyway.
I was saying they seem to "get it" now. I wasn't talking about what mistakes they have made in the past or what they currently have available. In the near future they are making a smart move to a powertrain strategy that will help improve their MPG average noticeably while not sacrificing performance or significantly raising costs . It may be a small step, but it is a very realistic and practical one that could none-the-less have a positive impact for them.
If they properly pair the powertrain strategy with better styling and improved interiors while keeping some of the good reliability they have had with recent cars like the fusion, they might finally begin to dig out of the hole they dug themselves.
zamafir 8:13PM (3/31/2008)
"force-fed engines are mainly sold in low volume sports cars. "
... and hatch backs, and sedans , and wagons , and suvs - as an option on damn near every product line out of Germany and most of Japan for the last few decades or so :).
Seriously?
If you're into FI grab a GTi, or a C30, or a Jetta, or a GLI, or a Passat, or the upcoming Tiguan, or the WRX, or the EVO, or the CX-7, or the MS3, or damn near all of Merc's lineup, or the 335i, or the forthcoming X6, or the 135i, or... I'd love to see just how those [mainly] "low volume sports cars" compare to the vast raft of FI models currently sold in the US ranging from hatchbacks to SUVs. I guess ‘mainly’ accounts for far less then the majority now?
Reply
TriShield 8:26PM (3/31/2008)
Twin-Force was a vastly better name for this new V6 engine.
Turbocharged engines may seem more efficient but nearly all of them use a lot of fuel in performance applications.
If you drive a turbocharged car like a Grand National, STi, or 3000GT as it's meant to be driven they average in the teens for overall fuel consumption, which is not better than most modern V8s out there. Modern V8s will also sip fuel if you drive with a light foot just as a turbocharged engine will.
Turbocharged engines aren't going to magically make performance vehicle money-saving, fuel-sipping green machines. If you really want an economy car, buy an economy car.
Reply
Tagg 8:35PM (3/31/2008)
But in an age of green marketing the term "EcoBoost" is more friendly on the ears. The name "Twin-Force" does sound better but the word "force" sounds bad to the greenies and by putting "twin" in front of it means its twice as bad.
It's just more of the "green" marketing crap everyone seems to be buying into. Heck, alot of consumer products that have been on the market for years unchanged are now marketed as "green" and people are buying them now.
psarhjinian 9:03PM (3/31/2008)
One difference between a NA V8 and a TC I4 is weight. It's not as much of a difference as it used to be, but we're still talking a 50-100lbs.
Another is lower frictional and thermal losses, especially compared the cylinder deactivation.
John 1:29PM (4/01/2008)
Twin Force is a name that implies adding two forces (DI & TT) to traditional engines to improve performance. The emphasis is on the performance. This is what GM and others are doing for performance reasons.
Ecoboost on the other hand is a name that seems intended to support the new Ford philosophy of downsizing the majority of their engines for economy and green reasons and adding DI & TT in order to maintain an acceptable level of performance and improved greenest.
It also uses DI & TT, but the emphasis is not on the performance, or on the technology, it is on the use of the available technology to improve economy.
Ford doesn't claim to have invented anything new. It claims to be taking a new business strategy of applying this technology to everyday cars. Ford must do this while maintaining a high level of quality across many cars, so a careful pace would certainly seem appropriate.
And, if they happen to build a few Mustang V8 TTDIs and call them EcoBoost, I could live with that.
Yar 8:35PM (3/31/2008)
Newfangled direct injection nonsense, gimme a carburetor any day.
Reply
psarhjinian 8:36PM (3/31/2008)
Just to head off the "turbos use more gas" comment. Turbos are a form of variable displacement, much like the cylinder deactivation used by GM, Chrysler and Honda. The idea behind both is that you can instantly increase the amount of displacement under heavy load, and cut back to the displacement of a small engine under light load. The difference is that, unlike cyl. deactivation (in which you lug around half an engine block), turbos and their plumbing don't weight that much, nor take up much space.
My Saab can nearly beat my Fit's highway mileage if I stay off the throttle, despite 50% more HP and double the torque. It's not half-bad in the city, either, if I stay off the boost. Intelligently programmed and correctly geared, a turbo is a good choice, though getting the most of it will depend a lot on a driver's right foot.
I tend to use my Saab's turbo gauge as a fuel economy meter: dip into the yellow, and I'm burning dollars. If Ford's smart, they'll add an instantaneous consumption meter to any EcoBoost-powered cars
Reply
why not the LS2LS7? 1:39AM (4/01/2008)
Turbos are not light, and they add a lot of plumbing (to exhaust and intake in the case of turbos) plus intercoolers to the system.
Is a turbo 4 lighter than a V8 yeah? But it's far from a slam dunk.
How about a 9,000rpm redline 2.0L instead? Now you're talking.
RJ 4:14AM (4/01/2008)
Find me a 2.0, 9000 rpm motor that can efficiently lug around an Explorer. You'd have to gear it to a ridiculous ratio just to get it moving, and end up worse than the 4.0/4.6, because you're taching 4000 rpm at a 60 mph cruise.
Even worse, high specific hp (per L) engines are the WORST for fuel economy. They're so highly optimized for high rpm performance, that the aggressive fueling, cam profiles really hurt their all around economy. Just compare the regular Civic versus the Si. European small displacement V8s (think Ferraris) are some of the world champions in mileage (in a bad way...)
Randy 8:37PM (3/31/2008)
I'm going to say this ONCE! Anyone knocking this technology is a COMPLETE MORON!
It's good for Ford
It's good for Economy
It's good for Performance
It's good for Consumers
I don't care who's fanboy you are. It's good!
Reply
aaron 10:48PM (3/31/2008)
im not knocking this tech directly but why do they have to try and reinvent the wheel? as Kapp said, the smaller engines in the european cars have better economy. why not bring those models over here? fords european models have at least 5 times the engine options per vehicle than the US models.
Matt 1:14PM (4/01/2008)
Seems like a "Rube Goldberg" approach to better fuel economy. Diesel is BY FAR a better option. And, looking at Ford's past, I have HUGE DOUBTS that they will get this right. In the past, the spark plugs were being blown right out of the head...now, they are cementing themselves into the head and being broken off when removal is attempted (on cars with 38K on them). If Ford cannot get spark plugs right...how are they going to get direct injection and turbos right?
Punkcrisis 8:58PM (3/31/2008)
One thing thats weird that they don't mention is that performance as far as handling would be better because a smaller motor I.E. 1.5L Twin-Turbo would be lighter then say a 2.5 N/A so there is another boost aswell lighter cars require less fuel another bonus they just keep coming now all Ford needs to do is add a rear drive car smaller then the Mustang and maybe a rally version on the Focus as the Verve/ Fiesta (which I am refusing to call it the later) will have the FWD handle with the 1.5L Turbo already rumored to be in place for its arrival.
Reply
Thetruck454 9:07PM (3/31/2008)
Won't the added weight of the two turbos and the intercooler add as much weight as the smaller engine saves?