• Apr 3, 2009
Last year at the Detroit Auto Show, Ford announced its intention to introduce a lineup of EcoBoost engines as a cost-effective means of getting a significant improvement in fuel efficiency.

The first of those EcoBoost engines is a turbocharged and direct-injected version of the 3.5-liter V6 used in many of Ford's larger cars. Those engines will launch into production in just a few weeks and should start appearing in first in the Ford Flex and Lincoln MKS well before summer solstice arrives. Later this summer, the same engine will also provide power to the new Taurus SHO and Lincoln MKT. While we're not yet allowed discuss what it's like to drive cars and trucks, you can draw your conclusions from the Ford-provided torque graph (at right) that compares its output against the output of the 4.6-liter Cadillac V8 in the STS.

While 3.5-liter EcoBoost has impressive power production, it also substantially reduces the fuel consumption and CO2 emissions compared to competitive V8 engines. Relative to the 4.2-4.8 -liter V8 motors used in other luxury sedans, Ford's V6 is near the top of the segment in terms of power and torque, yet CO2 emissions are only 218 grams-per-kilometer. The V8s range from 227 g/km for the Lexus GS460 to 272 g/km for the Infiniti M45. Learn more about EcoBoost after the jump.

Note: The Ford provided table above erroneously lists the Lexus GS450 which should be the GS460 with a 4.6-liter V8.

The 3.5-liter V6 is just the first step. When Ford first announced EcoBoost last year, the plan was offer up to 500,000 such engines annually within five years. That plan has now been significantly accelerated. The V6 will be targeted as a premium engine option in the larger vehicles this year. In 2010, the same engine will be available in the F-150 pickup as lower consumption alternative to the 5.4-liter V8 while offering comparable or better performance and an 11,000 pound towing capacity. Ford says the V6 should be able to achieve up 20 percent better fuel efficiency than the larger V8.



Late this year, Ford will also start production of a 1.6-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder in the UK for vehicles like the Focus. In the next couple of years, Ford will also launch a mid-level four-cylinder, likely a 2.0-liter to supplant the current 3.0-liter V6, as well as smaller 1.2-liter EcoBoost engines. By 2013, 90% of all vehicles that Ford builds will be available with EcoBoost power. The company plans to sell 1.3 million such powerplants globally, with 700,000 of those coming to the U.S.



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
  • 98 Comments
      • 5 Years Ago
      If you look at the curve you can see how long it initially takes to spool up the turbos, looks like it took about 1500rpm worth of airflow to get them going, which means these are probably very small. Spool up should be minimal.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Good grief.

      I read through all 5 pages, and still could not find one post, of someone who "gets" it. However, there were plenty of "why did they compare with _________ , when turbo V6 ________ would be more comparable."

      If you go back to the first announcement of Ecoboost, the primary thing they said about the Ecoboost V6, was that it would provide V8 power, with V6 fuel economy.

      Period.

      Fast forward to the chart. What does it show?? It shows an Ecoboost MKS (large AWD luxury car), with V8 power.............. that gets V6 mileage (actually better than V6 MKS on hwy), against other large AWD V8 luxury cars.

      In other words, they are proving, what they said. Nothing more, and nothing less.

      Ford is not trying to show that their Ecoboost V6, in a large AWD luxury car, will get the same mileage as a V6 Accord/Camry/Fusion/Malibu/Mercedes/Audi/BMW. However, it isn't far off of those, either.

      I will now say that when the 4cyl Ecoboost comes out, it will get V6 power, with 4cyl fuel economy. Thus, I will go out on a limb here, and say that they will show a graph, it will be against "like" 6cyl vehicles.

      Wow............... what a surprise.
        • 5 Years Ago
        "If you go back to the first announcement of Ecoboost, the primary thing they said about the Ecoboost V6, was that it would provide V8 power, with V6 fuel economy.

        Period. "

        They also said it was going to cost "$700.00"...period.

      • 5 Years Ago
      Where's my salt shaker?

      While "Eco-boost", I mean DI, engines sure look purdy on paper, the simple fact remains that gasoline engines are not ever going to be an acceptable level of efficient. Wake me when 90% of the fuel I put into my car is transferred to my drivetrain.

      But... i do like torque!
        • 5 Years Ago
        Is irregardless even a word?
        • 5 Years Ago
        @ aj121489 - No.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Propane engines get close... but for the most part you are correct.
      • 5 Years Ago
      This good and all, but where are the city number comparisons? That's where a lot of these babies vary and you can't get a combined number without the city mpg.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Ford has estimated numbers on their site for the 2010 model.
      • 5 Years Ago
      I see. it makes perfect sense NOT to compare ford's blown v6 because to Audis... hrm... Oh... that's right. the 3.0T (T, you know, for supercharged) gets 26mpg on the highway and puts out just one more g/km of emissions. Let's stick to the V8s, it is marketing after all.

      *disclaimer, I in no way disagree with ford's decision to join audi and the rest of the world in building a blown V6 for better economy and power, I just don't care for hand picked comparisons (like the lexus did when justifying the LS600h's naming, because it's putting out as much power as a 6L v12... while several 5L V10s were putting out a tone more, same sort of deal).

      Come to think of it... doesn't the 535i also put out better mpg figures @ 26mpg? I guess it's a little harder when you include cars equally as quick, with equal blown v6s, putting out better mileage figures, in the case of the A6, WITH awd.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't GM make the gearing of the heavier/more traction 'awd' CTS TALLER.
        http://media.gm.com/us/cadillac/en/product_services/r_cars/r_c_CTS/09index.html
        Apparently that is how they both get the same mileage 17/26, yet one is 200 odd lbs heavier.
        • 5 Years Ago
        @zamafir

        For 300hp, a 26mpg hwy rating is nothing special. CTS with AWD has 300+ hp and gets 26mpg on the highway, while on regular gas (unlike that A6). And it does this without turbocharging.

        There is nothing to convince me that turbocharging produces better fuel economy than naturally aspirated engines. The only reason why it appears that turbocharged engines have a little better fuel consuption is because they have a newer design that the engines in that table, that is all. When compared with engines from the same generation, this difference goes away.

        Ecoboost is good only as a marketing tool, and I agree that Ford needs it. Otherwise, it offers no advantages over the new generation of V8s from GM. And more annoyingly, we will lose the V8 soothing woosh for some V6 unrefined noise (luckily muted by the turbos).
        • 5 Years Ago
        @zamafir
        Dont forget that the MKS is the size of a 750Li... that's almost 15inches longer than a 550i and more than 10inches longer than a GS450, Audi A6 and Genesis. Those cars are small enough to weigh between 300 to 500 lbs less than the MKS! And still the Linconl gets better MPG and is probably faster... now imagine the acceleration and MPG the Mustang will have when paired with this thing!
        • 5 Years Ago
        Both the A6 3.0T and 535i only put out 300hp. Horsepower wise, this engine more closely compares to the A6 4.2 or the 550i, which it blows both away as far as MPG is concerned.
        • 5 Years Ago
        If you lool at the graph's sub-title you will see that the point of it was to compare to competitive V8s.
        • 5 Years Ago
        @dondonel

        No, turbocharging doesn't net you better fuel economy than a N/A engine of the same size, what it does is net you more power when you want it but not pay for the displacement when you don't.

        GM's small block engines are pretty amazing, they've really pulled one off, but few of them are powering 4200 lb cars and in those cases, they're not getting better fuel economy.

        Ecoboost (ttdi) isn't Ford's invention (other than the naming of it), there's other vehicles with that technology on the road. What they are doing what they've always done best which is bring the most up-to-date technology to the masses at a reasonable price and in bulk plus the designs are typically as good or better than those already out there.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Well. if the MKS can hit sixty as quick as the v8's it's comparing itself to (which in fairness is rather moot, A6 3.0T hits sixty.1 seconds slower than the 4.2) than i guess the Ford comparo is game. Which I'm guessing it can as it weighs the same as the A6. Thanks for calling me out, I learned somethin :).
      • 5 Years Ago
      ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzz.....

      Ford meet VW. VW/Audi family of cars have had this idea for how long now in production cars you can already buy? !ZOMG!, Direct Injection gas engine with forced induction!!! Take a look at the 2010 S4, 333hp, 325 lb-ft torque, 25mpg in a vehicle with Quattro.
        • 5 Years Ago
        DI and Turbo in Audi "S4" - that's the "limited" performance offering and exactly my point vs. Ford "mass" producing 750,000 EcoBoost engines - big difference!

        Plus, Ford will offer EcoBoost on full-size vehicles (MKS, MKT, Flex and SHO) vs. the small Audi S4 and at what price? How much for the S4? $50K or more! I'll take the larger SHO for $38K thank you!
      • 5 Years Ago
      those V8's are weak......when you take a look at the 355hp EcoBoost.



      I also must say...EcoBoost sound RETARDED.
        • 5 Years Ago
        TwinForce was so much better... that's what happens with a performance technology gets the fuel economy is job 1 treatment... more performance is bad...
      • 5 Years Ago
      But when can I see a Flex with Ecoboost? That's what I want!!!!!
        • 5 Years Ago
        I believe it's comming out the same time as the MKS and Taurus.
      • 5 Years Ago
      I'm really looking forward to them throwing this engine in more cars. The MKS is a little to big and Lincolnish for my tastes. The need to drop it in the AWD Fusion and the Mustang ASAP.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Just thinking about a Fusion with twin turbos makes me excited. Could pick up a used one in a few years on the low-low and enter a Tuner's Dream or Project Car Hell, whichever one you prefer.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Lets see if Ford can put the I4 ecoboost in the Fusion before the '11 model year ('10.5? perhaps)
        drop the 3.0 V6, and then upgrade the Fusion Sport to the 3.7 V6. (to put some distance from the ecoboost I4)
        • 5 Years Ago
        +1 Mr Oak

        And invite me to correct anyone on crossing homophones, the laziest of which are of course your and you're.

        • 5 Years Ago
        @mr oak...

        jezus h christ mr grammar gestapo...granted the person may have misused the word...but did it ever occur to you that it may just be a typo. i mean, clearly the writer used "the" in one case when they obviously meant "they". i love the new autoblog...but if i'm gonna have someone kick in my door, and stop me from writing mid post because i dont capitalize the first word of every sentence (i'm lazy) and occasionally dont use apostrophes when i'm supposed to (which i dont) i fear for this brave new world.
        • 5 Years Ago
        its the internets, you can talk how eva you wanna talk

        if you have a problem understanding what he is saying, then speak up. otherwise, your terrible spacing is also going to be on the table.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Mr. Oak, what is so difficult about ending questions with question marks, and your declarative sentences with periods? What is so difficult about capitalizing the word "English", or, indeed, the first word of all sentences? What is so difficult about making sure all of your sentences contain a subject?

        I'm very much a proponent of quality English prose; however, I feel that correcting someone's writing without checking your own writing is a very lame thing to do. You do this often, and I find it amusing. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that the original poster's error of using the word "to" in place of "too" was really just a typographical error, and nothing more.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Mr. Oak- as Edmond so eloquently pointed out, your writing is not beyond reproach. Why did you not respond to his criticism of your writing? Oh yeah- because it makes you out to be an anal hypocrite. You're not teaching anyone anything here, believe me. So next time, if you understand the meaning behind a post, STFU about the grammar/spelling/punctuation. God knows yours could use some work!
        • 5 Years Ago
        PET PEEVE:

        What the hell is so difficult about basic english that grown folks keep misusing BASIC english words.

        "To" is the opposite of the word "From" It indicates a general direction.
        example: "I am going TO the game"

        "Too" pronounced like the number "two" (2). Can be used in two basic instances.

        inclusive: It is interchangeable with the word ALSO.

        example 1: I would ALSO like to go. or I too, would like to go. or simply Me Too, meaning I would like to be included.

        example 2: There were TOO many blue shirts. or The MKS is a little TOO big and Lincolnish for my tastes.

        otherwise, I agree with your comment.

        Basic english folks, BASIC.
        • 5 Years Ago
        This in a fusion awd with a 6 speed manual makes me tingly down in the trouser area.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Edmond & Simba: I have no problem with loose grammar or misplaced punctuations, when writing in an informal communication like text or instant messaging. I do however, have a problem with folks who don't know the difference between "To" and "Too". I too, thought that it was an innocent omission, but as it turns out, people really don't know the difference. The same goes for "your" and "you're". You can also add "Than" and "Then" to the list.

        Saw this jackass on the George Washington bridge last week, with an elaborate graphic on his truck. The inscription? "To Cool". I asked him what it meant, and he explained. I explained the difference between "To" and "Too". Then he said, "Now, I understand why people look at the truck and laugh". Worse part? he paid $300.00 to get the graphic done.
      • 5 Years Ago
      I would have liked to see them compare the hwy mileage and emissions to other boosted motors that come in around that HP. BMW has that great one (335 - 26mpg), Audi is about to bring the 2.5 T along with their supercharged V6 S4 - 24mpg). Aren't these fairly old V8's they compare their all new motor to?

      I'm impressed, can't wait to see how it is in the real world.
      One concern though, do you think that they'll be priced right out of "ford" prices
      and people will instead consider buying a more "luxury" brand
      like the BMW or Audi? Or maybe it'll be the other way around and Ford will win over the BMW/Audi drivers.

      I thought I saw that the Taurus SHO was priced pretty high 37,995.
        • 5 Years Ago
        With the 2010 Taurus SHO priced at $38K for 365HP, 350 ftlbs torque (at a very useful 1500 rpm), AWD, large sedan, 5-star crash test rating with many advanced tech features, its a bargain compared to any other car in this class:

        Audi S4 Quattro starts at $55K and its a small car
        Infiniti M45 AWD is $55K
        Lexus GS460 RWD is $54K... etc.

        So the SHO at $38K looks like a performance bargain!
      • 5 Years Ago
      Fusion, Milan, and MKZ EcoBoost now please :)
        • 5 Years Ago
        The ecoboost I4 looks better than the 3.0 V6.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Well, that can be debated since they showing some older models like the Cadillac STS that has a really outdated V8...

      But all in all, the new engines from Ford (and GM) are just what the doctor ordered.
        • 5 Years Ago
        I agree.

        What's the rated torque for the 6-cyl EcoBoost engine? Better be in the range of 320-350 to be widely accepted as a credible alternative to even the "old-tech" V8s.
    • Load More Comments
    Advertisement
    2014 Jeep Cherokee
    MSRP: $22,995 - $30,095
    2015 Mercedes-Benz E-Class
    MSRP: $51,800 - $103,200
    2014 Chevrolet Cruze
    MSRP: $17,520 - $24,985