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]
2010 Nissan Cube breaks cover in Japan
Officially Official: 2010 Ford Mustang!
2010 Ford Mustang revealed early on Ford's own website!
2009 Nissan 370Z rolls out early in So. Cal
VIDEO: 2009 Nissan 370Z revealed early in So. Cal.
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 HUMMER H3T Alpha
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Mercedes Benz C63 AMG
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Hyundai Genesis
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Chevrolet Traverse LT
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
TJ @ Aug 18th 2008 11:07AM
I would like to see the dyno chart of the turbo 6 in the effonefiddy.
Mike @ Aug 18th 2008 12:01PM
Absolutely! Wait until the tuners get ahold of these. A little engine reprogramming and you might have a Ford that *GASP* responds when you push the pedal?!
I can't believe it took $4 gas, massive drops in the sales figures and huge public outcry for an American manufacturer to finally discover turbo-charging on an appropriate scale.
TJ @ Aug 18th 2008 12:31PM
No, I am talking about WHERE the power is produced.
I don't care if has the same or equal power at 4500 rpm. I want the same power at 1000-2500 RPM, where it really matters in a truck (at least for people who USE their truck).
zamafir @ Aug 18th 2008 12:53PM
@TJ - have u ever looked at a dyno from a modern turbo charged engine? Hell, even check the dyno from audi's decade old bi turbo 2.7l. Every capably built modern turbo produces peak power much sooner than their NA counterparts, they're all much better suited in that regard for work in a truck vs larger NA engines.
havoc @ Aug 18th 2008 12:57PM
@ TJ:
yes, why hasn't anyone else looked at this?
if the power doesn't hit until 5k, then what good is it to a truck?
i would have to assume that ford is using the proper sized twin/bi-turbo setup with a stepper, or dual scroll or singles scroll turbo that boots at a relatively low rpm... otherwise trailers or heavy loads are going to eat the rest of the drivetrain up (smokey burn-out? nope just trying to pull my u-haul).
why not the LS2LS7? @ Aug 18th 2008 1:17PM
zamafir:
Even though modern low-pressure turbo setups have the torque come in low, pushrod V8s can provide even more torque and often at an equally low level. Really what the low pressure turbos did was bring back the low end that was lost in truck motors when they (Toyota & Ford) went to OHC setups.
So although a twin-turbo V6 is a lot more practical for most people and has a lot of torque down low, the old 454s got the job done even better, at the expense of a lot of mass and fuel burn.
MikeW @ Aug 18th 2008 1:29PM
1000-2500 rpm, it sounds like you are describing a diesel.
Supposedly (on E85) the updated 5.4 V8 makes 320hp@5200, 390ft-lbs@3500.
and it has a 6 speed auto.
So if the EcoBoost 3.5 V6 can make 400ft-lbs@2500-4500 on E85, it should have superior bottom end power.
Well at least until the turbos spin down
Mez Jr @ Aug 18th 2008 2:42PM
Why not get a turbo diesel, those things are inline sixes and turbo, and have torque to spare.
TJ @ Aug 18th 2008 3:21PM
@MikeW: have you ever driven a fullsize truck? How about midsize, S10 w/ 4.3, MJ with a 4.0? (I leave Toys out of here because they utilize gearing, not power, to get the job done).
With my MJ I would shift at 2500, especially under load. Yeah, diesels make great low-end, but so do NA depending on the engine. Like I said, it all depends on WHERE the power comes in. I understand lag has been negated in many applications (audi as stated above), but there are many more where the severe lag is still an issue (subi 2.5)
MikeW @ Aug 18th 2008 4:34PM
Lets compare a regular fuel 5.4 V8 in the F-150
310hp@5200 375ft-lbs@3500
to a regular fuel ecoboost 3.5, 350hp@5500, 350ft-lbs@2000-5000
There are two areas where the V8 makes more power, roughly 2500-4000, and
MikeW @ Aug 18th 2008 4:46PM
(post got clipped)
sub-1500
Nothing can be done to fix the sub 1500 power, except upgrade to the 8 speed auto as soon as it is available.
To get your mid-range back, use premium in the V6, 375ft-lbs@2250-4750
ryan @ Aug 18th 2008 11:07AM
shoot, for only 700 i'll take mine in fiesta form please!!!
sdiori @ Aug 18th 2008 11:12AM
I'm a bit confused and disappointed that Ford has renamed turbocharged "EcoBoost" and is acting as though it just reinvented the wheel. Smaller engines + DI + turbo = more efficient? Really, Ford? We've known this for quite a while now. Then again, all automakers have their own terminology that does the exact same thing that Ford just did.......I guess I just hate when we're playing semantics.
nardvark @ Aug 18th 2008 11:21AM
Not semantics, marketing. Nothing wrong with tooting your own (turbo-charged) horn in this business.
Besides, I think it's fair to say that they will be the first mainstream automaker to apply this tech to a large portion of their line-up in the US.
BigMcLargeHuge @ Aug 18th 2008 11:37AM
I agree w/ naardvark,
Its not much worse than terms like i-Drive, Quattro, or Hemi.
The only reason I don't like the naming scheme is that it sounds more like GM's Ecotec than Ford's Duratec.
halogenrepublic @ Aug 18th 2008 11:38AM
Ford "GTI"?! VW's 2.0L Direct injection engine with turbocharger is available for both VW and Audi lineups.
boneheadotto @ Aug 18th 2008 11:49AM
I really dont understand how this is more efficient. Sure its more high tech but every other direct injection engine with a turbo gets worse gas mileage than the same engine without the turbo. Plus when turbo charging you must use higher octane gas so there goes the fuel savings. Personally i think that direct injection and non turbo could go a long way. The direct injection can significantly cool the air temp in the cylinder and allow the car to run leaner. There is even a group that is talking about having two direct injectors. One uses a tiny amount of pure ethanol which absorbs even more heat when injected under extreme pressure.
Im all for turbo and direct injection (ahem...MazdaSpeed3) but i dont see how this is a gas saving measure (ahem...MazdaSpeed3)
nardvark @ Aug 18th 2008 11:58AM
I know VW does this, but I don't think it's fair to compare Audi and Ford (different market segments). And I don't consider VW a mainstream automaker in the US. I was thinking more of GM, Toyota, Ford, Honda.
zamafir @ Aug 18th 2008 11:58AM
@BigMcLargeHuge - yeah, except quattro was the FIRST significant production all wheel drive imbued sedan... so when you're the first, I think people tend to tollerate branding a bit better vs ford, if we'll continue to use audi as a reference, joining the party a decade after audi (and many others) in terms of bi turbo sixes and half a decade after large scale adoption of FSI, yea people are bound to niggle at ford's second coming sort of marketing...
But I get it's needed. If you're this late to the game you have to market the hell out of it as something previously unheard of to get any attention, so it all makes sense.
It's just not a remarkable first, as quattro was.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Aug 18th 2008 12:02PM
Not only that, but Ford touting the gas savings by comparing against their own engines, thus taking advantage of the fact that they never got off their butts and improved the efficiency of their vehicles before.
In the end though, $700 is not a huge premium. The twin-turbo V6 in my Audi added a lot more than $700 to the price of the vehicle.
nardvark:
In 2000, Audi sold turbocharged 4-cyls (1.8T) and twin-turbo 6-cyls (2.7T) in their 3 of the 4 vehicles they offered. VW (including Audi) has sold 1.8T and 2.0T engines (the 2.0s being DI) from 150HP to 235HP from 1997 until the present. GM has an excellent 2.0 DI turbo that Ford seemed to have appreciated enough to crib the name from.
In the end, what I really don't get is Ford's mention of boosting the HP of the F-150 significantly. If this done to increase fuel economy, why not set the engine size and boost to hit roughly the same HP as the engine you are replacing so you can maximize fuel economy.