• Jul 21st 2009 at 4:05PM
  • 19
2010 Mercury Milan Hybrid - Click above for high-res image gallery

At Ford's 2010 model year preview – hey, they're more efficient! – in Dearborn, Michigan this morning, Barb Samardzich, VP of global powertrain development announced the next stage of the company's EcoBoost strategy for North America. The new 2.0-liter EcoBoost four cylinder will debut in 2010. This will be the first four-cylinder EcoBoost for North America. (Read all about previously-announced EcoBoost technology here).

Along with the new engine, Ford will also debut its Powershift 6-speed dual clutch gearbox in North America next year. The Powershift uses a dry clutch system that is more efficient than the wet clutch systems used on some existing DCTs (see: VW DSG). Samardzich said the Powershift will yield a 7 to 9 percent efficiency improvement over current automatics.

So far, no Ford officials will say which applications will see the new engine or gearbox first, although there are several likely possibilities. More on this after the jump.

[Source: Ford]

Brett Hinds, Manager of advanced powertrain engineering, wouldn't say whether the PowerShift would be paired with the new EcoBoost or even which vehicles it would appear in. However, Samardzich's charts compared it to the current 3.0-liter V6. According to Hinds, the four will be rated at about 230 hp and 240 lb-ft of torque. By comparison, the current V6 is rated at 240 hp but only 223 lb-ft of torque with a peak at 4,300 rpm. The EcoBoost reaches its torque peak below 2,000 rpm and stays there until about 5,500 rpm.

Like the current V6 EcoBoost, the new engine uses direct fuel injection and turbocharging to achieve its impressive output. A first for the new engine is twin independent variable cam timing. Both the intake and exhaust cams are adjustable independent of each other.

The V6 is currently used only in the Fusion/Milan (pictured above) and the Escape/Mariner, so those would seem to be the obvious applications for the new engine. However, when Ford showed its Explorer America Concept last year it was also listed as using either a 2.0-liter or 3.5-liter EcoBoost engine. The new uni-body Explorer is debuting in 2010, so this would seem a suitable application. Another possibility is the Mustang where the turbo four could make a suitable replacement for the hoary old 4.0-liter V6, a powerplant that is well past its expiration date.

A long shot at this point is a base engine application for the F-150. The current F-150 is probably still too large and heavy for a turbo four cylinder. Also unknown is whether the new engine will immediately replace the V6 or supplement it as a premium option.

The new gearbox is currently used in several European Ford and Volvo models, mostly based on the C1 Focus platform. The U.S. Fiesta preview page has hinted at a dual clutch gearbox, so the best guess for the transmission would be the Fiesta and the new Focus coming later in 2010.

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
      • 6 Years Ago
      My next car is a Ford.
      • 6 Years Ago
      Are we going to see start/stop and rear axle electric drive?
      You could afford to lose one or two cylinders if your going to add electric assist.
      • 6 Years Ago
      I like the sound of a turboed 2.litre with direct injection and a dual dryc clutch transmission....mmmmm....sign me up (especially if they drop it in the fiesta or focus)

      Now, for the F1-50 and thier other big SUVs, why not just take that brilliant little engine, and add the 100HP electric motor that is used in the fusion hybrid, and use that system for it, just with the turbo 4 instead of the regular 4 that the fusion hybrid uses?
      • 6 Years Ago
      This engine would be perfect in a Focus ST model. Offer this in a 5-door Focus ST, and you've got a customer!
      • 6 Years Ago
      I have often wondered why we didn`t have direct injection years ago it has worked great in diesels for years although Ford is not the first to offer direct injection I am still glad to see it,but I still prefer diesel power.
      • 6 Years Ago
      This seems to be an innovative idea from http://www.carazoo.com/article/1606200901/Interesting-Facts-on-the-Historical-Tour-of-Ford-Motors.


      Indian Car Advisor

      • 6 Years Ago
      Yes all ICE car companies have been increasing power/displacement and creating less emissions since they started building them. If you bun oil there will always be pollution. Don't forget 100,000 to 150,000 people graduate from college a year and they all want to burn oil to. Well they don't want to however all car companies but one don't give them a choice. What is wrong with a choice? Instead people are happy to be tied to the oil supply, and speculation. They don't give you a choice for a reason. They want you coming back and since you have no choice you will be back and they make you feel it is right and good. Choice is better but not for car companies and oil companies. They will loose money and there for power if they give you choice.

      Read the Daimler autoblogg article on Daimler also improving there mileage by 20 percent. Gee it is funny how they increase the same amount. If you read on Daimler's improvements you will find direct injection was invented by them ( they say) in the 50's.

      It does not matter that it does not use more parts, it uses a distinct part that can only be gotten by ordering it through Ford. What a waste of natural resources all these parts and the energy to build them when there is such a simpler way. If not for the fact most parts can be recycled we would really be in trouble.

      Direct injection would not longer require a starter? Seems I may have read something on that. Its like the engine no longer needs to be on the firing stroke or top dead center. Some thing along the lines of it turns over easier with DI. Interesting.

      Oops I put a Model A response to Chads. The Model A got about 20 mpg if I remember right. It never went that fast is the reason and think how cheap oil was back then. Contemporary engines are of course are cleaner but they can't hold a candle to my EV, even if it was completely coal fired electricity it is sipping.
        • 6 Years Ago

        tisk, tisk , notty, notty You better read the latest think AG has just put out, I have not read it yet but I think you will be proven wrong. Keep in mind my car gets over 120 mile to the gallon of gas. 33Kwh = 1 gallon of gas.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Uhh, ray, you are wrong. The coal emissions are far worse than automobile emissions. Automobile pollution is far below what a coal plant puts out, in just about ever fashion, including particulate matter. Burning gasoline doesn't leave mercury, uranium, thorium and radiation coating everything the way burning coal does. Those emissions are far more harmful, especially mercury, as it accumulates in waterways. You might feel content that your particular vehicle doesn't produce much in the way of emissions, but since about 50% of the power it is using comes from coal power, the damage is likely the same or worse than a gas powered vehicle.

        More uranium gets released by burning coal than gets used in nuclear power plants.

        So, no, your coal powered EV ain't all that grand, you're just shifting the pollution component to a less regulated, dirtier, more toxic power plant than the modern gasoline powered IC motor.
      • 6 Years Ago
      At Ford we believe in making more engine components and more complicated engines in order to eek out a tiny bit more of fuel economy. Please disregard the fact that these engines become less efficient and pollute more as time goes by.

      We here at Ford enjoy taking 100 year old engine technology and selling it to you as the latest most innovative thing. Through millions of dollars of advertisement this worked for us in the past and because of your ignorance it will work again.

      We could have made more efficient engines eight years ago but the government didn't make us. After all we had much more cash back then to buy politicians, errahh lobby politicians.

      We know this engine won't last one quarter as long as a electric motor but after the warranty expires, what do we care? As customers you will be employing hard working Americans in our parts and services departments and our oil associates. Excuse me, I meant the oil industry.

      We will do anything to avoid producing EV's as we simply can't make enough profit in service and repairs. We will greenwash people by importing EV's from
      Smith Electric.

      Please forget about when the price of gas escalates so much over time that you really don't save any money. Please just take pride that you are buying American and supporting the oil economy. We take our hats off to the oil industry for sending extra lobbying funds to congress on our behalf, if we get enough suckers, errahh customer we will lobby next year. Thanks for buying a Ford. Signed: Chief Officer of no solutions.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Ray:"Please disregard the fact that these engines become less efficient and pollute more as time goes by" and "We here at Ford enjoy taking 100 year old engine technology and selling it to you as the latest most innovative thing"

        You're must be joking here. All engine manufacturers have increased power to displacement ratios while creating less emissions. Direct Injection, for instance, does not require more parts (they relocate the injectors to the cylinder head instead of the intake) but reduces emissions and increases output by creating a more complete burn. I don't think Direct Injection was not available 100 years ago. The use of Direct Injection technology can also lead to no longer needing a starter.

        Bottom line, these engine are far cleaner and more efficient than those in the Model A so your rant is ridiculous as others have pointed out.

        • 6 Years Ago
        This is some of the biggest piece of garbage i've ever heard. You have no idea what you're talking about.
        1. ALL car companies are adding components and making them complicated beyond belief to make them more efficient, gasoline engines are by nature very inefficient.
        2. ALL engines become less efficient and burn dirtier over time.
        3. Ford is making the best of current technology such as turbocharging that doesn't add thousands of dollars of cost to the MSRP and repairs for the vehicle like hybrids.
        4. Ford does in fact make hybrids and will release electric cars in the future.
        5. Not all cars/trucks are not (yet) logical candidates for current hybrid/EV technology (doesn't make sense to add $3000 in MSRP to get 3 more mpg)
        5. Ford is the only one of the Big 3 that didn't take BILLIONS of dollars from U.S. citizens.. and you're also talking like Ford is the only company that lobbies congress.
        6. Not many car companies were focusing on fuel economy 8 years ago.. and they only are now not just because the government is requiring them, but because that's what customers want because energy costs are hurting their wallets.. which in my opinion is probably why most now "believe" in global warming

        But we do appreciate your narrow-minded Ford hating opinion.
      • 6 Years Ago
      SVO Mustang Had 150 to 190 hp. A new Mustang I-4 with 230 hp and great gas mileage... Bring it on.
      • 6 Years Ago
      I think this is totally the right way to go.
      • 6 Years Ago
      THIS is the engine that Ford should be selling as a flex-fuel vehicle, not their duratech non-turbo engines. Turbos should almost be manditory for flex-fuel vehicles since only with a turbo can you take advantage of the higher octane that comes with E85. That way you can use other properties of E85 to make up for the lower energy content.

      It's sad that only in Europe can you buy Ford and GM owned vehicles that use turbos with E85 (volvo's and saabs) and not a single one in the US.

      Or like this dude says:

      "Ethanol compatibility: Today’s EcoBoost engines can’t use E85, which has several properties that make it better to use in an EcoBoost engine than in a conventional non-turbo engine. Ethanol has a higher octane and heat-of-vaporization point than gasoline, meaning it combusts at a higher temperature and with greater force (higher compression) than gasoline, while also having a greater capacity to cool the fuel/air mix in the cylinder before combustion. This allows a larger charge to be drawn into the cylinder before ignition.

      What it means: An EcoBoost engine running on E85 could produce the same power as the Flex’s 3.5-liter V-6 but with even smaller displacement. This could also improve E85 fuel economy, which is typically less on a per-gallon basis than a gallon of gasoline because of E85's lower energy content. "

      • 6 Years Ago
      The Fiesta looks hot in orange but is "Orange peel" really the best name for that color or any color for that matter? That's not all, the red one is named "Sunburn"! Does the marketing department know ANYTHING about paint?
    • Load More Comments
    Share This Photo X