Filed under: Green, Ford, Autoline on Autoblog
Autoline on Autoblog with John McElroy
by John McElroy on May 15th 2008 at 5:00PM 
FIRST-HAND LOOK AT FORD'S ECO-BOOST TECHNOLOGY
I just spent a day at Ford's proving grounds driving a number of vehicles that use Eco-boost technology, which is the centerpiece of the company's strategy to improve fuel economy. I wish I could tell you more about my driving impressions of these Fords, but all that information is embargoed for now. What I can say is that the Eco-boost technology works impressively well.
However, while the technology works well, I wonder how well Ford's strategy will work. That's because this technology does not really improve the fuel economy of an engine. It merely allows the company to use a smaller engine in place a bigger one. And sure enough, across almost the entire rev-range, an Eco-boost engine produces more torque than naturally aspirated engines that are at least one liter larger.
John McElroy is host of the TV program "Autoline Detroit". Every week he brings his unique insights as an auto industry insider to Autoblog readers. Follow the jump to continue reading this week's editorial.
For example, on a future F-150, Ford will offer a standard naturally aspirated 3.5L V6 or the same engine with optional Eco-boost technology. The Eco-boost version will replace the 5.4L Triton V8 and though it produces better torque and fuel economy than the V8, at best it will get the same fuel economy as the base V6.
So while Ford will have a better fuel economy average for its fleet, those customers who are purely looking for better fuel economy are going to have to keep on looking. In other words, don't expect an F-150 that gets, say, 30 mpg. Not at this stage.
And the same goes for the other vehicles that I got to drive. There was a Lincoln MKS with an optional 3.5L V6 Eco-boost in place of a V8, and a Fusion with a 1.6L Eco-boost engine in place of the 3.0L V6 2.5L four-cylinder (an Eco-boost 2.0L would replace a 3.0L V6). For customers who are not willing to trade off performance, the Eco-Boost system is a great package. But for those who are strictly after fuel economy, it doesn't do a lot. And as we all know, customers (at this snapshot in time) are screaming for fuel economy!
Eco-boost is Ford's name for using direct fuel injection and turbocharging with 6-speed DCT transmissions. A key benefit of direct injection is that it cools the charge in combustion chamber, and that in turn allows the compression ratio to be higher. Higher compression ratios, of course, translate instantly into more power and fuel economy. Typically, automakers have to lower the compression ratio with turbocharged engines to avoid detonation. Ford is running a 10:1 compression ratio in its 3.5L V6 Eco-boost engine, which is a pretty good number, especially considering that all the V engines with Eco-boost get twin turbos. And to make sure it gets long life out of the turbos, they are water cooled.
Of course, other automakers such as Audi and Mazda already use direct injection, turbocharged gas engines with 6-speeds. Even Dongfeng in China is pursuing the same technology. It just didn't occur to them to give it an ecological brand name like Ford has.
But Ford is not relying solely on Eco-boost technology to boost its fuel economy. Over the next decade it plans to trim the weight of its vehicles anywhere from 250 to 750 pounds. It will adopt electric power steering almost across the board. It will install "smart alternators" that only charge the battery when needed. It will use its own patented stop/start technology. It's going to come out with smaller cars. And all its future vehicles will be more aerodynamic.
It's a very conservative and cautious strategy, but it definitely is going to boost Ford's corporate fuel economy. Indeed, this is precisely how the company planned to meet the new 35 mpg CAFE standards for 2020. The only problem is, just weeks ago the Bush Administration suddenly and unexpectedly rushed the fuel economy standards up to 2015. On a sales-weighted basis, every automaker's car fleet will have to average 35.7 mpg by then, trucks 28.6 mpg.
Remember, all the 2010 models are already in the pipeline. It's too late to make any major changes to them. That means from 2011 to 2015 automakers will have to raise the average fuel economy of their cars by 8 mpg and their trucks by 5 mpg. In 5 years? I don't think so.
The problem the automakers face with these new CAFE standards is not a technological one. The technology is there. No, this is a customer affordability/capital investment/tooling time/mass production problem. Personally, I don't see how any of the car companies are going to do it by 2015. But that's another story for another day.
Read more about CAFE standards over at John's Journal on Autolinedetroit.tv.
Autoline Detroit
Airs every Sunday at 7:00AM on Speed and 10:30AM on Detroit Public Television.
Autoline Detroit Podcast
Click here to subscribe in iTunes
Last week's show: "Westward Ho"
I just spent a day at Ford's proving grounds driving a number of vehicles that use Eco-boost technology, which is the centerpiece of the company's strategy to improve fuel economy. I wish I could tell you more about my driving impressions of these Fords, but all that information is embargoed for now. What I can say is that the Eco-boost technology works impressively well. However, while the technology works well, I wonder how well Ford's strategy will work. That's because this technology does not really improve the fuel economy of an engine. It merely allows the company to use a smaller engine in place a bigger one. And sure enough, across almost the entire rev-range, an Eco-boost engine produces more torque than naturally aspirated engines that are at least one liter larger.
John McElroy is host of the TV program "Autoline Detroit". Every week he brings his unique insights as an auto industry insider to Autoblog readers. Follow the jump to continue reading this week's editorial.
For example, on a future F-150, Ford will offer a standard naturally aspirated 3.5L V6 or the same engine with optional Eco-boost technology. The Eco-boost version will replace the 5.4L Triton V8 and though it produces better torque and fuel economy than the V8, at best it will get the same fuel economy as the base V6.
So while Ford will have a better fuel economy average for its fleet, those customers who are purely looking for better fuel economy are going to have to keep on looking. In other words, don't expect an F-150 that gets, say, 30 mpg. Not at this stage.
And the same goes for the other vehicles that I got to drive. There was a Lincoln MKS with an optional 3.5L V6 Eco-boost in place of a V8, and a Fusion with a 1.6L Eco-boost engine in place of the 3.0L V6 2.5L four-cylinder (an Eco-boost 2.0L would replace a 3.0L V6). For customers who are not willing to trade off performance, the Eco-Boost system is a great package. But for those who are strictly after fuel economy, it doesn't do a lot. And as we all know, customers (at this snapshot in time) are screaming for fuel economy!
Eco-boost is Ford's name for using direct fuel injection and turbocharging with 6-speed DCT transmissions. A key benefit of direct injection is that it cools the charge in combustion chamber, and that in turn allows the compression ratio to be higher. Higher compression ratios, of course, translate instantly into more power and fuel economy. Typically, automakers have to lower the compression ratio with turbocharged engines to avoid detonation. Ford is running a 10:1 compression ratio in its 3.5L V6 Eco-boost engine, which is a pretty good number, especially considering that all the V engines with Eco-boost get twin turbos. And to make sure it gets long life out of the turbos, they are water cooled.
Of course, other automakers such as Audi and Mazda already use direct injection, turbocharged gas engines with 6-speeds. Even Dongfeng in China is pursuing the same technology. It just didn't occur to them to give it an ecological brand name like Ford has.
But Ford is not relying solely on Eco-boost technology to boost its fuel economy. Over the next decade it plans to trim the weight of its vehicles anywhere from 250 to 750 pounds. It will adopt electric power steering almost across the board. It will install "smart alternators" that only charge the battery when needed. It will use its own patented stop/start technology. It's going to come out with smaller cars. And all its future vehicles will be more aerodynamic.
It's a very conservative and cautious strategy, but it definitely is going to boost Ford's corporate fuel economy. Indeed, this is precisely how the company planned to meet the new 35 mpg CAFE standards for 2020. The only problem is, just weeks ago the Bush Administration suddenly and unexpectedly rushed the fuel economy standards up to 2015. On a sales-weighted basis, every automaker's car fleet will have to average 35.7 mpg by then, trucks 28.6 mpg.
Remember, all the 2010 models are already in the pipeline. It's too late to make any major changes to them. That means from 2011 to 2015 automakers will have to raise the average fuel economy of their cars by 8 mpg and their trucks by 5 mpg. In 5 years? I don't think so.
The problem the automakers face with these new CAFE standards is not a technological one. The technology is there. No, this is a customer affordability/capital investment/tooling time/mass production problem. Personally, I don't see how any of the car companies are going to do it by 2015. But that's another story for another day.
Read more about CAFE standards over at John's Journal on Autolinedetroit.tv.
###
Autoline Detroit
Airs every Sunday at 7:00AM on Speed and 10:30AM on Detroit Public Television.
Autoline Detroit Podcast
Click here to subscribe in iTunes
Last week's show: "Westward Ho"
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Dan 5:28PM (5/15/2008)
So they toss all the Mazda turbo FWD parts in the front of a Fusion and it becomes "Eco Boost"?
Reply
TriShield 5:29PM (5/15/2008)
"Eco-boost" technology?
How about we just call it what it is, turbocharging.
And yes, it's not going to make fuel economy magically go up, it lets a smaller engine (in theory) do the work of a bigger one. But what exactly is it saving if fuel economy is not significantly better?
Not much, which is what I've said here and elsewhere for a long time.
My Grand National accelerated like a V8, it also used more fuel than my current V8 does at 12mpg. Said V8 averages 17-19mpg overall per tank.
Reply
pmiddle5 10:13PM (5/15/2008)
So we're gonna compare a 20 year old engine with a modern engine for fuel economy? Genius idea!
Ian 5:30PM (5/15/2008)
I am sorry John I do not understand your logic.
Quote
... at best it will get the same fuel economy as the base V6....
Unquote
Did anyone ever think a boosted (turbo w diect injection) V6 would give "better" mileage than the same sized NA engine? Not me. I expected more torque and HP and thereby more performance on the road, in return for similar highway cruising mileage.
In the same way I do not expect the current big V8 engine which shuts down to 4 cylinders on a highway to give 30+ mpg.
Isn't the whole and only point, as you later note, that the turboed direct injection gives V8 performance w/o sacrificing mileage over a NA V6?
Also I wonder if and when Ford will link this new engine to a hybrid electric motor to further improve mileage in city driving....?
Reply
Lithous 6:20PM (5/15/2008)
It is kinda confusing since the Fusion example was 1. L (maybe that is 1.0 or 1.x) but I think what he is saying for the most part is that instead of having a 3.5L normal with a 3.5L eco-boost as options for one model it will be 3.5L normal and 5.4L eco-boost are your two options for a given model as an example. Which means that your 5.4L eco-boost will give fuel economy of the 3.5L normal so if you don't care about performance you are at best getting the 3.5L normal engine fuel economy with either engine choice. He is saying, "where is the 3.5L eco-boost or smaller option eco-boost for that same model for those who only care about fuel savings?"
If the Fusion does come out with a 1. L then that isn't all true what he says but I guess he means it would be nice across the board to offer smaller liter eco-boost than they are going to offer.
I think it comes down to the customer in Ford's thinking. Most people aren't going to pay more for a 2.5L eco-boost (even if it eats less gas and has the 3.5L normal performance but the technology costs more) than they do for the 3.5L normal engine. Ford must think that too many people equate, with no exceptions, that pricier must always mean bigger.
CH 6:37PM (5/15/2008)
John, your argument makes no sense because it's based on a false premise:
"... those customers who are purely looking for better fuel economy are going to have to keep on looking."
There are no such customers. Fuel economy exists within the context of other needs and wants for all car buyers, regardless of how much priority is placed on fuel economy. In other words, the car buyer you're thinking of wants better fuel economy while meeting minimum requirements w.r.t convenience, number of passengers, cargo volume, performance, etc. If the only desire is to maximize fuel economy, they would simply walk, cycle or use public transportation.
Eco-Boost provides better fuel economy while meeting those other requirements.
CH 6:37PM (5/15/2008)
John, your argument makes no sense because it's based on a false premise:
"... those customers who are purely looking for better fuel economy are going to have to keep on looking."
There are no such customers. Fuel economy exists within the context of other needs and wants for all car buyers, regardless of how much priority is placed on fuel economy. In other words, the car buyer you're thinking of wants better fuel economy while meeting minimum requirements w.r.t convenience, number of passengers, cargo volume, performance, etc. If the only desire is to maximize fuel economy, they would simply walk, cycle or use public transportation.
Eco-Boost provides better fuel economy while meeting those other requirements.
Lithous 7:35PM (5/15/2008)
My guess is that he meant to write that the Fusion had a 4.1 (or 5.1) eco-boost as an option over a 3.0 normally aspirated. Which again would put the fuel economy choices for the Fusion at 3.0L normally aspirated at best.
BTW CH, I was pseudo-quoting what I thought McElroy was saying. So if I was wrong then direct your disapproval at me. Also, I don't think that he meant people with 100% fuel economy and 0% performance on their mind he probably meant people who are 70% fuel economy and 30% performance (for highway merging) or something. Not sure those people are going to walk and bike everywhere like you meantion.
Infinihertz 7:56PM (5/15/2008)
Lithous, I think you're misunderstanding things. I don't know the exact number (I think it was around 1.6 +/- 0.2 L), but the ~1.6L EcoBoost I4 Fusion will get approximately I4 fuel economy with similar fuel economy to the 3.0L V6 that the Fusion currently offers.
I used to work at Ford, and though I don't anymore, my best guess is that the 2010 Fusion will offer the new 2.5L I4, a refreshed 3.0L V6 (both discussed here in the past), and this ~1.6L EcoBoost I4. The EcoBoost one will get a bit better economy than even the 2.5L I4, with comparable horsepower to the 3.0L V6. However, it will cost a decent amount more. Customers will have to make pricing and performance tradeoffs when they purchase.
Ian 11:33PM (5/15/2008)
As an aside I see the type of vehicle I am looking for in the 2010 Saturn Vue Green Line. The one with a V6 engine and electrical hybrid motor. It's rumored to give something in the 30-34 mpg range with top of the line performance, as the V6 alone must give around 260 HP.
The GM hybrid moves and Ford's econoengine (whatever they now call it) are decided turns for the better. In fact so much so that they appear to have the Japanese and Germans going in the wrong direction. Finally I am really getting bullish on the US car manufacturers.
havoc 5:43PM (5/15/2008)
why can't we use a hybrid system for the eco-boost?
the hybrid drivetrain could be used in times when extra power is needed.
boost the power when needed, but limit it all other times.
a 4 cyl making 140 hp, boosted by a regenerative system could get those shots of 30-40 hp when needed... perhaps a capacitor to store that burst of energy, it could even be trickle-charged by the alternator perhaps
Reply
havoc 5:52PM (5/15/2008)
going to add more
what about compression increases? the DI setups have a good cooling factor, and if used to lean burn like a diesel get even better. With good fuel metering and ignition timing, we should be able to increase the compression ratios on most engines. when gas costs over $4/gallon, the extra $0.20 for premium (91-93 octane) is a small increase in cost (5%) whereas when gas was $1.30 a gallon, $0.20 was a much larger percentage (15%)
turbos are a great way to increase power, but most turbo systems also run fat by nature, which means unburned hydrocarbons in the tail, as well as a reduction in fuel efficiency (compared to a simialr output engine of larger displacement at WOT) due to the rich a/f mix.
my b18a blower, cammed, integra ran 10.5:1 pistons with no problem for more than the 50k miles i had it for (90k total no block rebuild) and would get 28-36mpg
my friend ran a b20 frankenstein with 12.5 roller waves to the tune of 40 mpg on the highway (and 200 whp).
my ms3 gets a real 18-22 with its 9.something pistons and blurbo (not tuned for fuel efficiency/mileage)
the real kicker, all 3 cars are about equal in the 1/4 (13.8-14.2)
Reply
Dave 6:02PM (5/15/2008)
John, are these as loud as VW's engines? I think the biggest benefit is you can get the fuel economy of a 1.6L but when you need the power to pass, merge, etc it is available. So with the F-150 you can get V6 fuel economy and V8 power. There is a clip of a Taurus mule with an EcoBoost whooping a Caddy and BMW. If the 3.5-3.7 lives up to the hype it will be very impressive. So when will you be able to talk about this??? This is a big tease!
Reply
michael pettibone 6:02PM (5/15/2008)
The current model f-150 gained hundreds of pounds over the one that debued in 97-they need to be a little more rational in design and not just make them constantly bigger,heavier and more macho.The smaller turboed engine is all the rage in europe but I think that it is an expensive solution.Design an f-150 that is lighter than the 97,give it the 4.2 v-6 with direct injection and 220 h.p. It would perform like the v-8 does now and get better milage-also the 97 was more aero-give up the mack truck looks to save some gas when cruising.
Reply
Don 7:38PM (5/15/2008)
Well, in '97 gas was waaaaaaaaaaaay cheaper per gallon. All that weight is just now catching up with us due to fuel price increases.
Patrick 7:07PM (5/15/2008)
At $4.00 a gallon and climbing at 10 cents a week, the market may require 35 mpg average before 2015.
Since the requirement is based on the CAFE fleet average, currently 27.5 mpg, 35 mpg is less than a 30% increase from that.
Reply
Don 7:37PM (5/15/2008)
Ten cents? I think prices are increasing faster than that in South Florida.
Don 7:34PM (5/15/2008)
Hey, any changes that result in better overall fleet fuel economy is a good thing, no?
Reply
Alex B 7:58PM (5/15/2008)
I think what's confusing about this article is that the author is mixing up improving the mileage of an engine (which eco-boost doesn't help with), vs. improving the mileage of a vehicle or fleet (which eco-boost will do, assuming you add eco-boost to existing engines or smaller engines).
Reply
Matt 12:11AM (5/16/2008)
I don't see why Ford is being made out to be some sort of genius over this Ecoboost stuff.
GM has the EXACT same technology out RIGHT NOW in the Solstice, Sky, HHR SS, and Cobalt SS.
Way to go Ford...you are late to the party again.
Reply