• Aug 18, 2008
Ford has been touting Ecoboost as an economical alternative to hybrid technology, and word from Automotive News is that the price tag could be $700 per vehicle. Ecoboost is said to deliver 20-30% fuel economy gains by combining turbochargers and direct injection technology with down-sized engines. The automaker also estimates that owners will pay off their Ecoboost premium in two year's time at $3.25 per gallon gasoline and 15,000 miles of driving per year. Since $3.25 is at the optimistic end of the gas equation, we're thinking Ecoboost could likely pay for itself before that. While hybrids might be able to post higher fuel economy numbers than vehicles equipped with this off-the-shelf technology, consumers should pay less for each mile per gallon they gain going with a similarly sized Ecoboost-equipped Ford.

Brett Hinds, Ford's advanced engine design manager, said the 3.5L V6 Ecoboost slated for F-150 duty in 2010 would produce "significantly more" than 340 hp and 340 lb-ft, which easily bests the 300 ponies delivered by the truck's current top shelf 5.4L V8. A similar story will unfold with boosted four-pots, as V6 power is attainable with small displacement fuel economy. We've also learned that Ecoboost engines with a V6 will receive two turbochargers, while four cylinder models will only get one. Throw that 3.5L V6 Ecoboost in a Mustang and hand us the keys, then we'll decide.

UPDATE: Ford has not officially announced Ecoboost pricing.


[Source: Automotive News - sub. req'd]


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 68 Comments
      • 6 Years Ago
      about time
      • 6 Years Ago
      This is a very positive move. I am an old Ford owner who was getting disillusioned in their products of late, but this move is something that I have to applaud. Yes, Ford, I have my loan on my present car coming to an end in about six months. I'll be waiting to see what you have by then in your showrooms.

      Keep up the good work!
      • 6 Years Ago
      $700 for heated and cooled cupholders and pretty trim, a hairdressers car.


      $700 for an engine that's fuel efficient and fun to thrash around, a driver's car.

      Guess where I'd love to spend the extra $700?

      Thanks Ford.
        • 6 Years Ago
        You'll probably have to buy both in the only available package to include ecoboost. And don't forget leather! :)
      • 6 Years Ago
      Has anyone considered the aftermarket potential on this?

      Take the decades old Audi S4.

      Stock it produced 250hp
      A simple ECU reflash nets 307hp/366lb-ft
      if you're rolling in cash, a new turbo kit brings 447hp/467lb-ft

      And this is on a decade old 2.7l. This could bring a lot more diverse tuning potential to ford's lineup for the aftermarket gear heads.
      • 6 Years Ago
      How much of a premium over the 6 speed auto, for the 8 speed automatic?
      another $300

      Go for it Ford!

      If Ford could get 375hp 400ft-lbs on E85, that would be impressive.
      350hp 350ft-lbs on regular would also be slick
      • 6 Years Ago
      The problem is these engines will require premium fuel. That's one thing Ford is not advertising. The majority of the country is paying more than $3.25 for premium right now, and that's with fuel prices being down.

      Any chance they will put in a switch for 87 octance vs premium? Someone I work with has an 88 turbocharged T-bird that has that.
        • 6 Years Ago
        You don't need a switch, modern engine management systems detect the knock and detune on the fly (back off on boost and spark advance) to compensate for crap fuel.

        Really, the difference between premium and regular is LESS than it used to be. The split between the grades is the same or only slightly more in absolute terms (usually 10 to 15 cents per grade, so super is .20 to .30 higher, at least in Texas.) When gas was $1.50, that was as much as a 20% premium... now it's only 10% more.

        I've been driving cars that mandate Super for years. I'd rather give up a few cents than 50 hp.
      • 6 Years Ago
      Did Ford officially announce that these engines were to run on premium fuel?
      • 6 Years Ago
      I'll believe ecoboost when I see the road tests.

      Hybrid systems yield tremendous torque at low speeds, while turbochargers take time to spool up.

      The hybrid allows for a smaller (more efficient Atkinson cycle often) motor.

      A turbocharged engine doesnt provide as much torque off the line. It also doesn't allow for recapture of momentum lost in braking.

      Can anyone name a fuel efficient turbocharged gasoline powered vehicle?
        • 6 Years Ago
        Yes,
        I drive a 2003 Volvo S40 which has a 1.9T engine and I get about 35MPG on the highway. I must admit I've chipped it, but even before the tune I would get 31-33 mpg.
        It is small, it is economical, and it is powerful.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Torque converter.
        For pulling a load, from a dead stop the engine revs up to 1500rpm (no boost from a 3.5 liter V6, with compression ratio reduced from 10.3 to 10:1) and as torque builds, the torque converter increases the stall speed, up to something like 2500rpm. and away you go!

        Something more realistic is 1750 & 2750rpm, but you get the idea. It all depends on the fuel AKI (or E85) swirl flaps operating speed and the turbocharger latency.

        and then you lock up the torque converter when you upshift to 2nd gear.
        • 6 Years Ago
        My 2003 and 2004 Saabs (both 9-3 2.0T) both average over 30 on highway trips. 31-33 is typical, but I've seen 36.
        • 6 Years Ago
        There's no reason you couldn't combine the two.
        • 6 Years Ago
        R56 MINI CooperS.
        • 6 Years Ago
        VW/Audi 2.0T (and the 1.8T before it)
        • 6 Years Ago
        Mazda 3 2.3L
        22/29 mpg
        MazdaSpeed 3 - direct injection, turbo
        18/26 mpg

        Toyota camry 3.5L v6
        19/28 mpg
        Honda Accord 3.5L v9
        19/29 mpg

        I see no evidence that DI and turbo on a 4 can be getter than a V6. Put DI in a smaller displacement v6 and you have a cheaper better solution IMO
        • 6 Years Ago
        Pontiac Solstice:
        2.4L - 173hp - 19/25mpg
        2.0turbo - 260hp - 19/28mpg

        Of course in this case you'd have to pay over $5000 more to get the turbo. Ford's $700 would be a bargain.
        • 6 Years Ago
        You'd have to drive the DI 4 as slow as the NA V6 goes to compare millage numbers. Doing 0-60 in 9+ seconds in a MS3 is great for millage. Bad for the soul though.
      • 6 Years Ago

      Sounds like Ford is well on its way to accomplishing what the Detroit-3 told NHTSA was impossible and would cost $15,000 per car a short time ago.


        • 6 Years Ago
        What, make 17/20 in a 1/2 ton truck? GM has been doing it for some time already. Let's leave behind the idea that this is a miracle until we see miraculous results.
      • 6 Years Ago
      I used to be all about NA, then I drove a twin turbo car... I couldn't be happier with the new lean towards FI. Turbo everything. easy way to get power.
      I'm with Autoblog. get me a EcoBoost V6 powered mustang
      ASAP.
      • 6 Years Ago
      Dont you need premium for a turbo though ?Wouldnt that severely cut down the fuel savings since you will be putting a more expensive fuel in there?
      • 6 Years Ago
      Maybe I am confused but did'nt Chrysler have a line of 4Cyl Turbos in the 80's
    • Load More Comments