• Sep 14, 2010
Once again, reports are making the rounds that each model in Ford's stable will soon be available with an Ecoboost engine option. While this isn't the first time we've heard such murmurings, The Detroit News reports that Jim Farley, the Ford global head of sales, says that his company's product plans include direct-injection and turbocharging at the core of each vehicle's future powertrain lineup. Don't think that those high-tech, smaller-displacement engines will command a price tag that's any easier to swallow, though.

Farley believes consumers will be willing to pay more for Ecoboost-powered vehicles. Why? Because the fuel economy savings can offset the MSRP premium in as little as two years. That may help to explain why the Blue Oval has priced the Ecoboost four-cylinder Explorer above the equivalent V6 model.

Even so, Farley didn't make mention of whether or not the Blue Oval is meditating on situating a forced-induction engine into the likes of the mighty Mustang. While we know the new F-150 will arrive with a twin-turbo 3.5-liter V6 under its hood this fall, the brand's pony car has been hallowed ground for the naturally-aspirated faithful... for now.

[Source: The Detroit News]


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
  • 67 Comments
      • 4 Years Ago
      Ecoboots Mustang FTW.
      • 4 Years Ago
      Can i get an engine swap for my 2007 Fusion
      • 4 Years Ago
      I'll bet Mr. Farley is dead wrong in his off thinking. People will not opt to pay a premium to save fuel. Especially when other manufactures arent charging a premium for a fuel saving engine. He'll learn the hard way. People want to to be able to afford.Great engine but dumb idea to charge you more for somthing that should cost less. Who like getting hosed?
        • 4 Years Ago
        Are you forgetting that gas was almost $5/gal 2 years ago?

        The recession is keeping the prices low. They will rise again.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Man, I'd hate to live where you did, gas barely crested $4/gal here. Diesel was closer to $5/gal. though. My car even takes Premium and I don't recall once paying over $4/gal.

        Exagerration is always fun though I guess.

        For the record, looking at the historical data, the National price for Regular Unleaded crested at $4.054/gal. the week of July 14th, 2008.

        That said, the majority of the reason for the price increase then had virtually nothing to do with market forces, production or supplies, but instead was trading related.

        Over time yes, fuel prices will rise, as do the costs of virtually everything. But a repeat of the price spike of '08 is largely a scare tactic and anyone with a slight understanding of what happened will see right through it.
        • 4 Years Ago
        But to bluntly tell someone that I am going to charge you more for something that cost me less to make? That's an insult. How about you just charge me the premium price without telling me upfront that I'm being sucker punched. Put an end to the huge "rebate" at the end of every Q. How about we try selling a car with a fair margin for profit for a change?
      • 4 Years Ago
      The SVO Mustang had a turbo 4 cylinder engine.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang_SVO
        • 4 Years Ago
        @Boxer: When you say Lincoln should have a regrilled Mustang, do you remember how well that worked the last time FoMoCo gave that a try?

        The Mercury Capri was far from a success, and its resurrection probably wouldn't be a good thing.

        Plus, the new Lincoln grille that they're slapping on things looks completely ridiculous.
        • 4 Years Ago
        The plans for the next-gen "Global" Mustang in 2014 should have 2-door and 4-door configurations and convertible, cloth for Mustang and retractable for upscale Lincoln coupe that should be positioned for Global markets. The "tops" of these vehicles will be very different, not a grill-job like the ole Capri...

        This fits Lincoln's plan for 7 new vehicles in the next 4-years with a strategy to take Lincoln (volume) global... finally!
        • 4 Years Ago
        If your world is only 0 to 60 and 1/4 mile time you will not like the Turbo Mustang SVO. But if you are the kind that will run the tach to amber through the gears and set the cruise control at 74 Mph, the SVO fits well. Then you find a road sign with a wiggly line warning abot a winding roadway!! You shift out of overdrive, begin to grin and your right foot starts twitching. Your wife either starts hollering "Slow Down", or you slacker, you only had two tires drifting!! I worked for a Ford dealer during '85 and had a chance to drive the SVO Mustang and the Turbo Coupe Thunderbird. Either would be a welcome addition to my '89 SHO Taurus. My wife took our Taurus SHO with a couple of her friends for a Casino outing, one speeding ticket on the way out and another on the way home. The tickets far exceeded her winnings.
        • 4 Years Ago
        It was also much lighter and smaller than the current S197, as well as smaller than the SN95 versions.

        A turbo 4 Mustang had better be a light-weight stripped-out model, and even then, it may not perform compared to a GT 5.0.

        The SVO slightly bettered the 84-85 carbureted 302 Mustang GT, and almost dead-matched the performance of the 86 EFI version, while being more expensive.

        Sales of the SVO were hard, due to the fact that it was more expensive than the V8 GT, while not being demonstrably faster, even though the suspension, brakes and tire fitment were better.

        Putting the EcoBoost 4 in the Mustang could be saddling a small engine with too much curb weight, while the 3.7 V6 is healthy, and the 400hp V8 is much more powerful.

        Putting the EcoBoost 6 twin turbo in it, is almost splitting hairs between the NA V6 and NA V8, while being more complex, and likely when said and done, not any lighter or faster than the V8.

        EcoBoost 6 may be a good "Instead of" option compared to a V8 like the Taurus SHO, but not really differentiated enough for "in addition to", like the Mustang. The V8 Mustang is not going anywhere, in terms of less availability.

        The only thing the Mustang really needs... is a Lincoln up-market pair of twin sisters, a GT coupe, and a sleek 4-seat sport sedan. I used to say those should be Mercurys, like the Cougar and Capri, but we can see that hope has died. Lincoln should still have a competitor to the A4/A5, G37 twins, CTS triplets, IS, 3-series, and the Genesis sedan, and likely next-generation GenCoupe.

        I could see a Lincoln setup with 300hp V6, 380-400hp EcoBoost V6, and a special limited edition "Hot Rod Lincoln", with the 440hp 5.0 Liter V8, with the same calibration as the Boss 302 engine. Maybe with the advent of luxury 5-doors like A7, Panamera, 5-series GT, and others... the sport sedan variant could have 5-doors, and the coupe version have 3, like the Jag XK coupe, and Aston Vantage. That would separate them a little bit from the MKZ and MKS, which have traditional trunks.
      • 4 Years Ago
      The turbocharged Mustang goes all the way back to 1979 (the 2.3l turbo), with the launch of the Fox body Mustang. They were pretty crude, though, with large manufacturing tolerances, and were notorious oil burners.
      OG Loc
      • 4 Years Ago
      My 1958 VW Beetle gets 36mpg without a problem. My 1968 Fiat 500 gets over 50mpg, and I bet I can make it to 60. My 1975 Honda Civic got in the 40s all the time. My old Triumph got in the high 30s, and I floored it all the time. Even my 1976 Datsun 280z got in the low 30s and that thing was extremely fast. The similarities between them- the engines were extremely simple, anybody could fix them, they were very inexpensive to buy, there wasn't any computerized anything, and they were made of thick steel. It doesn't take a complicated piece of technology to get 40mpg in a car. I found that it takes a relatively small car, no A/C, no electric motors to weight it down and put a strain on the alternator, and good gearing. I am blown away at the terrible gearing in modern cars. I can chirp in all gears but 4th in my '58 Beetle and it has a whopping 36hp. Today's cars are absolutely pathetic. Not only do they look disgustingly horrible, they are engineered to die in a couple years, they're full of extremely complicated and expensive technology that, when broken, disables the entire car and commands a multi-thousand dollar bill. I can rebuild a VW engine in a day but I can't change a headlight in an 08 Maxima for my life.
        • 4 Years Ago
        @OG Loc
        I also think the problem is that cars are extremely overregulated.

        I mean seriously, if you go buy a new car, it has 10 airbags now. And there's practically no side/rear visibility because of new rollover regulations.

        Now each car comes with two catalytic convertors per exhaust bank, and three oxygen sensors per bank also.

        This stuff eats into what auto makers make on each car. You pay for it in increased sticker cost.
      • 4 Years Ago
      So...twin turbo expedition? sweet.
        • 4 Years Ago
        I should have put, 'for now'
        The new V8 could/should be under the hood for '11.5 model year.
        3.5 might take another year '12.5
        • 4 Years Ago
        Probably not.
        Expedition: 5.0, Expedition XL: 6.2
        4x2: 3.31 axle ratio, 4x4: 3.73
      • 4 Years Ago
      Mustang SVO. Mustang SVO. Mustang SVO....
      • 4 Years Ago
      Ecoboost V6 Turbo All Wheel Drive Ford Fusion (SHO?)

      Drool...
      • 4 Years Ago
      As some have said before me. I bet the engine technology is going to stagnate with Direct Injection and Turbo setups. I think the next area that will be looked at is extreme weight loss. Mazda has said that is going to try and reduce the Miata's weight back down to around 2200lbs, similar to that of the original. And with it's new SKY-G engine, they are expecting around 50mpg. If ford could cut 3-400 lbs off the mustang, it would not need the Eco 4 banger to make 35MPG.
        • 4 Years Ago
        I was thinking something similar as well. Once aluminum spaceframe technology becomes affordable enough, I believe that most of the auto makers will start using it.
      • 4 Years Ago
      Maybe a 4 will replace the V6 (like in the '80's), but remember back when a fwd turbo was to replace the Mustang GT? A write in campaign ended that notion, and the fwd turbo became the Probe GT! I think the future holds an independent rear suspension for the GT, but anything but a V8 (as long as there are truck engines available) wouldn't be a 'Stang
      • 4 Years Ago
      Ecoboost Fiesta RS with awd!?!?

      Pretty please?
        • 4 Years Ago
        Honestly, I'd rather have a slightly lower hp ecoboost fiesta with no AWD. Save the weight, and something like 180-200hp will be more than enough to turn that car into a real crazy ride that will still handle like a go-cart.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Well, I grew up in Rochester, NY, and I never had AWD (look up the snowfall numbers if you want to wonder why you should care). Never even had snow tires. Now I live in NJ, and had an AWD car, and it wasn't worth the power and gas waste. But, to each their own. My brother has an AWD car because he doesn't like to shovel his driveway.
        • 4 Years Ago
        Gee, i'd be happy with even 150hp. Gimme that magic mix of fuel economy and power that Honda once had, and you got yourself a damn sale.
        • 4 Years Ago
        We all know Americans never get the performance vehicles that Europeans get
        • 4 Years Ago
        If I lived someplace like LA, I would absolutely agree with you. However, living in Ohio, I'd personally like to have the awd to make the snowy winters more fun. And in 7-10 years when I feel like getting a new DD, boom, instant rally car.
    • Load More Comments