• Jul 21, 2009
2009 is the beginning of Ford's EcoBoost era, with its spanking new twin-turbocharged 3.5-liter V6 finding its way under the hood of the Lincoln MKS and MKT and the Ford Flex and Taurus. While the blown six is able to deliver V8 performance with V6 fuel economy, it hasn't exactly put up eye-popping city and highway mileage. Ford hopes to change that with the introduction of a four-cylinder version of the engine.

Ford has confirmed what we've known for some time: a new 2.0-liter four-cylinder EcoBoost variant is on the way, capable of at least 230 hp and 240 lb-ft of torque. The engine will reportedly give drivers V6 performance with four-pot fuel economy, with possible applications for both cars and trucks. According to Inside Line, Ford reps said the first application of the 2.0-liter EcoBoost won't necessarily be in a car, either. Since the Ford Explorer America concept was powered by a 2.0-liter EcoBoost, the 2011 Explorer is a likely candidate. We've heard rumors about a four-cylinder EcoBoost under the hood of F-150s, Fusions and Mustangs, too, and in order for Ford to make the new mill cost effective, it has to be fitted to as many models as possible.

Ford promised that EcoBoost technology would soon be available across its lineup, and four-cylinder variants are crucial to Ford's ability to hit 2016 EPA mileage standards of 35.5 mpg. We're looking forward to which vehicles will receive four cylinder EcoBoost engines first, and we've got a feeling we'll hear more when the auto show season starts in the fall.

[Source: Inside Line]


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
  • 76 Comments
      • 5 Years Ago
      Will it be under performing and under delivering like the 3.5 version?

      The 3.5 gets V8 fuel economy...6.0 V8 pushrod economy to be exact.

      I expect this 4-banger to deliver V6 power with V6 fuel economy...that is assuming the spark plugs don't shoot out of the head...
        • 5 Years Ago
        you should probably look at the numbers if your literate enough to read them. ecoboost engines are made for people who want performance without the sacrifice of fuel economy (and thats what they do). and if ford is such a "problem" then why is it the only american auto maker that didn't go bankrupt like the failures at chrystler and gm. in that case, bankruptcies seem like a problem to me.. but if you enjoy having your tax money go to these failures then i guess its your problem so i suggest you circle your own name as the problem because its people like you that are going to bring this country down even further.
        • 5 Years Ago
        I have been here in reality of course!
        • 5 Years Ago
        There he is......
        Where ya' been Matt?
        We almost mised you!
      • 5 Years Ago
      My point is that old car is roughly 2700lb and has 220hp which is close to the weight and power of the cars that will be fitted with ecoboost 4, the point is this 4 cylinder fuel economy with v6 power,. is just marketing speak, real world mileage figures won't even be close to 4 cylinder territory if the owner drives normally.

      Plus turbo cars, require premium gas, more frequent oil changes, and inspections to ensure the piping isn't loose or leaking compressed air.

      I think ford should bring over some of there nice efficient european turbodiesel engines instead of shoving the ecoboost 4 or ecoboost 6 into everything.
        • 5 Years Ago
        DI turbo engines do not require premium gas, the engine management system has sufficient authority to control detonation to allow decent power on 87. You will probably get a little more power on premium since the ECU can use more aggressive settings before it causes detonation, but mass-production engines are so detuned from the theoretical potential of the engine that it's getting easy for them to make good power on 87.

        I like diesels. Most Americans don't. Even though VW is selling plenty of their TDIs, VW as a whole is a niche car in the US market, and their TDIs are a subset of that. Between the tightening emissions regs and a significant portion of the market's disinterest in diesels, I think Ford is making a better choice with the Ecoboost thing.

        By the way, VW's 1.8T and 2.0T engines provide quite decent fuel economy in normal driving, and make satisfying hp and torque available at a press of the go-pedal. I averaged 25-26 mpg over time in mixed suburban driving with my 2001 GTI 1.8T, and I have a lead foot. The 2.5T in my Legacy GT Wagon isn't so thrifty, but then again it's 250 hp/250 lb-ft of torque with AWD, so I don't mind giving up a few MPG.
        • 5 Years Ago
        There will be more version of this 2.0L engine
        The 230hp variant will be the base tuning. This 4 pots EB is largely based on the Mazda/ford MZR engine.

        Ford will later produce premium/sport version with a hp bump.
        Volvo should use this engine first within the facelift C30/C70 MY2011 with manual or powershift transmission (showed in september at Frankfurt)

        The downsized version will be a 1.6L /180hp. It won't be a MZR but a good old Sigma engine tuned with a turbo and a direct injection.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Wow. This is nothing like GM's more powerful Ecotec.

      Still comes down to the premium they'll charge for it. (and they will) the question is... how much.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Yes I understand weight is a factor.
      • 5 Years Ago
      GM already has one. It makes 260 260.
        • 5 Years Ago
        GM is also on life support, and the majority of prospective buyers are not interested in that motor.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Yep, Ford, put a 2.0 version in the new Fiesta and a larger 2.5 in the Fusion!
      • 5 Years Ago
      @Zamafir, instead it will probably be I-4 power with V6 fuel economy, knowing Detroit!

      And They're going to neuter and/or lard up the American version of the Fiesta, count on it.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Matt? No, I'm not Matt. Matt is a GM FanBoi, while I refer to them as "General Messup".

        Ford is better than GM or Crisisler, but that's like having the prettiest double-wide in the trailer park.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Matt...did you change your name?
        • 5 Years Ago
        Wow, we have brand new idiot! Welcome Brian!
        • 5 Years Ago
        Oh, so you are just an all around American hater?
        Those trailer trash domestics get on your nerves don't they?
        Get a clue.....
      • 5 Years Ago
      Let’s clear things up for those trying to put their own spin on this.

      1. GM’s 2.0L Ecotec turbo only makes the rated power numbers on premium gas. It will run on 87 octane, but it will come at a power sacrifice. Ford’s plan is for EcoBoost engines all make their rated power numbers on 87 octane. So far, the 3.5L delivers on that promise and I expect the 2.0L to as well.
      2. GM’s 2.0L turbo gets 22/30mpg in the lightweight Cobalt compared to the 25/35mpg number put down by the NA 2.2L. Ford’s plan is to get the EcoBoost engines to match or beat EPA numbers put down by the same size NA engines, which means this engine would theoretically make 24/35 or better in a Focus.
      3. Note the term “at least” in front of the power ratings. Nothing is set in stone yet, probably because Ford is still testing engines. Like most manufacturers, Ford is conservative when announcing performance figures until they are 100% sure. Remember how the 3.5L EcoBoost was supposed to make “at least” 340hp and it ended up with as much as 365hp?

      On a side note, the GM 2.0L Turbo is designed for maximum performance while the Ford 2.0L EB will be designed for maximum FE/Power ratio. I don’t expect this engine to match the GM 2.0L Turbo for power, but I do expect it to beat it in FE.
        • 5 Years Ago
        The 355hp version is rated at 87 Octane. The use of premium may be what is used to boost the SHO to 365hp, I'm not really sure. However, I highly doubt that Ford rates it using 93 Octane because 91 and 92 Octane are the common ratings of premium. Only select stations offer 93+ octane.
        • 5 Years Ago
        The SHO takes 93AKI to get 365hp.
      • 5 Years Ago
      When does the V12 with V10 fuel economy come out?
      • 5 Years Ago
      I need a mid-size truck with about 190-200 hp and not more then that, My Tacoma 210hp 4x4 and old 190hp Comanchee 4x4 pulled my boat and hunting trailer just fine. Un-loaded the Comanchee got 24mpg, the Tacoma V6 gets 20-21 highway, so this 4-cylinder should get 26-28 in a 4X4 truck as we are talking about the Comanchee with 1980's technolegy Tocama with old school 2001 tech. Supposedly they say V-6 power, hopefully it will not be over 200hp , My old 105hp Datsun pickup pulled my fishing boat and sand-rail just fine in the 70's. Never had a need for a big vehicle of any kind, but they just kept making them bigger and bigger, that is why I hung on to my 1988 Comanchee until the 2001 Tacoma came out, no us maker bulit anythng I needed over all those years, and they still do not. Hopefully this new mid-size Ford truck will not weigh over 4,000 lbs , as weight sucks gas and be decent looking.
      • 5 Years Ago
      V6 power and V6 gas mileage. Turbo and direct injection might improve that 8-12% but not that much, so expect kind of crappy real world in my own turbo car experience 1995 240sx w/ a japanese 2.0liter Sr20det from a s14 silvia k's with minor bolt on modification, i got roughly 16mpg city, and about 25mpg highway in real world driving, the only time it'd be even close to economical the original 2.4 liter engine would be on long cruises where i'd get about 28-29 mpg. Stop and go it'd definitely be worse than the original 4 cylinder and the maintenance was higher as one has to ensure the piping is free from leaks and all the turbo components are in good shape.
        • 5 Years Ago
        As autoline said last week or the week before, it's not where the car was built, but where it was designed, engineered, and developed at that makes a car, a domestic or import. Toyota builds their US market cars here for the same reason why some domestic cars are made in Mexico or Canada, it's cheaper. The import tax would be higher for Toyota then to build it here.
        • 5 Years Ago
        At no point in your comment did you begin to make a relevant statement regarding the contents of this article. Comparing a factory domestic turbo I-4 to a Japanese import motor swap into a ~15 year old car? How is that even remotely related?

        Go back to reading Import Tuner and waking up old ladies with your atmospheric venting blow-off valve (thats good for +10whp!!!) and 12" subs.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Put that 2.0L EB in the Fiesta, put the 3.5L EB in an AWD Fusion, and get that Coyote V8 in the Mustang, and I'll go ahead and build up a stable of Fords. Seriously, they've got all kinds of good engines and vehicles at their disposal; they just need to execute them properly.
      • 5 Years Ago
      All the marketing hype for these engines is kind of funny.
      Many Americans still cling to a long outdated notion that to get power and torque you need big displacement and lots of cylinders. Using a smaller forced engine to make the power of a larger engine while delivering better fuel economy may be old news technologically, but is some sort of groundbreaking idea to American drivers and Ford has to sell them on it with silly names like "Ecoboost".
        • 5 Years Ago
        The engine sludge issue is peanuts next to the all the crap Detroit has given us overe the years.

        Nova, Vega, Pinto, Escort, Tempo, Cavalier, the K-cars (every single one), Lumina, Neon, Sebring, Caliber, Malibu (until 2005) Taurus (after 1996), the GM Minivans, and on and on and on. Toyota, Honda, and Nissan haven't had any screw-ups nearly as bad as those god-awful cars.

        Notice how Toyota and Honda have kept the SAME NAME for their compact and midsize cars while the Little 2.1 have to change them every ten years or less, hoping the public will be stupid enough to forget how bad they were. Well they didn't, and they won't, and that's why they went bankrupt. And NOW they want to use my tax money to continue to fail.
    • Load More Comments