Ford Racing just unveiled the Riley Daytona Prototype that will make its racing in the United SportsCar Racing Championship Rolex 24 at Daytona in January, and now it has released a video showing development of twin-turbo 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6 that powers the car. Using the same block and heads that can be found on a production Ford Taurus SHO, this new racecar benefits from the collaboration between Ford Racing and Ford powertrain engineers.

While we still don't know what kind of power this engine is putting out, it has definitely gotten a workout at Ford's 17G dyno. This area deep within Ford allows the automaker's racing program to work hand-in-hand with production engine programs, which can be a benefit to racing operations and production cars alike. Scroll down to hear a few people from Ford talk about the crosspollination between its racing and engine teams and watch the EcoBoost get red hot on the dyno.


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
  • 23 Comments
      AboZala
      • 1 Year Ago
      Good job ford , good job.
      Brodz
      • 1 Year Ago
      Admittedly it does sound very nice.
      amerifight
      • 1 Year Ago
      Innovation is great, Ford needs to return to Formula 1 and maintain its second place in number of victories.
      • 1 Year Ago
      [blocked]
        • 1 Year Ago
        [blocked]
        AcidTonic
        • 1 Year Ago
        GM V8 equals 65-75hp per liter...... Seems they are stuck there. If they want more power, they add more engine. 5.3v8 making 320hp is 60hp/liter 5.7v8 making 350hp is 61hp/liter 6.0v8 making 400hp is 66hp/liter 6.2v8 making 420hp is 67hp/liter I've never seen a jump like the old Ford 5.0 (225hp) to the OHC 4.6 (300hp) to the0 2011+5.0 (420hp) then the Boss302 (445hp) which is essentially moving from 45->65->84->89hp/liter within a single product line without adding forced induction. Why doesn't GM hone a single engine and simply raise it's hp/liter without throwing more cubes at it? See how Ford did it and GM hasn't? Old skool V8's are fun in project cars..... I'd rather go Ford if forced to American. They seem to be "engineering" a little more on that front.
          Flexo
          • 1 Year Ago
          @AcidTonic
          If you want to get a better picture its more useful to compare torque per liter since that's the actual force generated by the engine and peak torque occurs when the engine is operating at its highest volumetric efficiency. Also base specific fuel consumption is another good indicator of efficiency as the engine with the lowest .BSFC is the real winner when it comes to mileage. Also your comparison of Ford engines is flawed in that the old Ford 5.0 was a pushrod engine and didn't see any improvement after it was used in the Explore V8 models (GT40P Heads, Distributorless Ignition System (DIS) and the GT40 style intake), the 4.6 MOD motor was obviously a completely new architecture and wasn't that impressive in 2v form when it peaked at around 260hp form and 320hp with the NA Mach 4v. The Coyote and Road Runner 5.0 4v V8's are a descendant of the MOD motor but they are essentially a clean sheet design only subject to having to share the machining centers used on the previous MOD motor. The coyote V8 did its best o fix the old 4.6 and 5.4 problems of running a small bore which shrouded and limited the size of the valves. GM's method isn't wrong or antiquated as long as their engines produce comparable levels of torque per liter and meet or exceed the .BSFC of their competitors. They are just trading displacement for engine speed to get their power and by using an OHV format it also allows them to create a smaller engine package (although the coyote and GM engines are pretty close in weight) over a wider range of displacements (5.3 to 7.0) which pays dividends when it comes to the engine effecting vehicle dynamics and size.
          Rotation
          • 1 Year Ago
          @AcidTonic
          Ford got a big jump because they went from pushrod to OHC. That raises output per liter. GM has not made this jump. There's not a big advantage to going to OHC, because although the output goes up per liter, the engine also gets a lot bigger, heavier and more expensive. GM's 6.2L is smaller than Ford's 5.0L (it was a few years ago, not sure about this years 5.0) and produces more output. You've made a basic mistake in how you measure engineering. Power per unit displacement has no real advantage unless you are running in a racing series which limits displacement or in a country that taxes based upon displacement. Also, you say "add more engine" even though all those engines you mention use the same block, they are all essentially the same physical size. Even the 7.0L! Any reason you ignore GM's 460HP 6.2v8 in the current Corvette? (74.2HP/liter)
          AcidTonic
          • 1 Year Ago
          @AcidTonic
          Forgot the LS7, which is another tier up on the naturally aspirated scale.... 7.0v8 making 505hp is 71hpliter
          edward.stallings
          • 1 Year Ago
          @AcidTonic
          When regulations are not the driver, like they are in many forms of racing, power to weight is a lot more important than power to displacement. Aircraft engines are large displacement pushrod engines for the most part for a good reason. The Corvette engine is the best compared to other naturally aspirated production engines when it comes to power to weight ratio.
          • 1 Year Ago
          @AcidTonic
          [blocked]
      Black Dyanmite
      • 1 Year Ago
      Ford talks a whole lotta %$#@! BD
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Black Dyanmite
        [blocked]
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Black Dyanmite
        [blocked]
      Riley C.
      • 1 Year Ago
      That engine sounds really good... Especially for being mostly stock (according to the video).
      vulnox
      • 1 Year Ago
      This is pretty cool. I have an Ecoboost F-150, and it is a blast to drive. 24-25MPG @ 65MPH on the freeway, but 420lb/ft of torque on hand when you want it. Just have to be careful in the rain, because you hit that torque peak with no effort. I really hope Ford adds a small Diesel option in the future, but keeps advancing the Ecoboost line because while a Diesel will likely get better MPG, its hard to argue with the far lower cost of the Eco.
      J-Hova
      • 1 Year Ago
      Well if this is the future of Ford then I'll be switching brand alliances. I'm about tired of this Ecobullchyt. So you can make some decent power using a TT v6. Whooptiedamndoo!!! Nissan and Mitsubishi were showing us that back in the early 90's. Ecoboost is a gimmick and a failure. I mean it's not a failure or gimmick in the sense that it sells well, and makes very broad/strong power, but it's MPG is not impressive, and Ford keeps pushing it off like it is. Even without DI the Coyote, and LS motors can match or better it's MPG all while making more overall power even if their powerbands aren't as broad. Ford needs to quit worrying about making a good performance v6 because they are going to piss off their traditional performance buying market. Your traditional American performance car buyer wants a cylinder count of 8, and they want the sound of the v8. Also American V motors are suppose to be 90*. Leave the 60* BS to Ferrari, and others. Also Ford needs to stop with these stupid looking new exhaust designs that the aftermarket is adopting. People quad tips on a Mustang look really stupid, and do nothing but add a little weight. Also the way the aftermarket has copied the Raptors dual tips that exits behind the right rear tire looks dumb also. It's not cool looking and looks like it belongs on a 3/4 ton diesel. Ford need to concentrate on developing a suspension system to combat GM's MR system as it is excellent, and is kicking a lot of arse. A Ecoboost v6 is not a threat to GM's performance v8's. Not in power or MPG so quit with this v6 fasination, and people quit buying into Fords BS about how great a boosted v6 is compared to a v8. Ford need to update the very good Coyote, and add DI, etc to it and if they want to Ecoboost something the Coyote is excellent for it. Ford should refine the 6.2. It is a good motor that has the potential to be an outstanding motor. It's bore/stroke is way more ideal than a Modular based motor, but it's a very low-tech motor for such a modern motor. First iron blocks are a thing of the past(even in many diesels) so why no aluminum 6.2 block? Make it an all aluminum motor with DI, VVT, etc, and make it a modern, and very powerful motor. It's a little to big for a Mustang engine bay but would make a great starting point if Ford ever decides to build another FGT type car, and it would make a great premium motor for a full-size truck, if Ford would show it some love.
      bullitt2605
      • 1 Year Ago
      They need to put the V6 EB in an all wheel drive Focus and Fusion. Now!
      amerifight
      • 1 Year Ago
      J-Hova, The EB V6 and others are simply Fords way of pushing newer tech. You cannot compare turbo 4s from the 90s to these mills because they are using materials and tech that did not exist back then. When Ford began using overhead cam tech on V8's I heard the same argument from people who wanted more traditional 90 deg 8's. but Ford ignored those calls and made better Small V8's than ever. Power is Power and the current Ecoboost is still in its first generation so its bound to only get better. I cant stand when people get frumpy about new Technology , if it was up to people like you Ford would still be running the Flathead.
      tom.tommarello
      • 1 Year Ago
      595HP @ 6448RPM Does anyone know anything about those dyno numbers and power conversions? I saw 658.35NM=485ft-lbs @ 6448RPM. 485*6448=3127280. 3127280/5252=595HP @ 6448RPM Did I use the correct numbers?
    • Load More Comments