Ford Officially Confirms 4-Cylinder EcoBoost

[A7XFan22]

Source: Autoblog
Written By: Chris Shunk

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.

 

[bartboy9891]

Is Ford just stealing the GM 2.0L turbocharged Ecotec?

 

[smib]

If I remember correctly, the EcoBoost is just a new name for the TwinForce, which is not new for Ford.

 

[Donington]

But where's the lazors?

 

[NecroJoe]

*sigh* I really wish they would stop with this "power of a 6 with a fuel economy of a 4".

Okay, fine...it can make as much power as a 6cyl...but the economy of an incredibly thirsty 4. A turbo doesn't magically add power without drinking at least SOME more fuel than a NA 4cyl.

Car & Driver had an interesting graph at this article...it was a bunch of turbo'd small displacement engines that have lower mpg (and sometimes less power) than larger NA engines in the same class...
http://blog.caranddriver.com/engine-displacement-downsizing-feature/

I mean...take a 2.0L 4cyl and slap a turbo on it, and it will not get the same mpg as the same 2.0L 4cyl without the turbo.

 

[Leonidae]

^ isn't that more related to the gearing? That's how American cars achieve their MPGs.. you could have 4 or 5 short gears and then 6th as fuel-efficient cruise gear..

 

[NecroJoe]

^ isn't that more related to the gearing? That's how American cars achieve their MPGs.. you could have 4 or 5 short gears and then 6th as fuel-efficient cruise gear..

Tighter lower gears kills city mileage and ruins the AFE, though...maybe I'm not understanding you correctly.

 

[Dogbert]

^ Or just have two acceleration gears (e.g. 1+2 get you to 60), a city cruising gear, a 1:1 fourth gear for passing on the highway, and a highway cruising gear... but back on topic...

One thing to consider, too, is that these blown fours should be a bit cheaper to service than their NA six-pot cousins. If Ford really can get I4 economy from V6 power, and I'm pretty sure they can, then more power to them.

 

[Leonidae]

well, my point is, that first gear could be pretty short, since it just needs to get the car moving.. the rest ( 2-4 ) would be for urban speeds and 5th and 6th for highway cruising. Isn't that pretty much how most of the cars have their transmissions set today? and since modern turbos start spooling from really low revs, those engines can handle taller gears than one would expect from 2l 4 cyl engine. it's the NA 4-cyl engines that get the blame.. for example, Merc A/B series.. in quite a few reviews they got marked down due excessively tall gears in city driving.

 

[bartboy9891]

*sigh* I really wish they would stop with this "power of a 6 with a fuel economy of a 4".

Okay, fine...it can make as much power as a 6cyl...but the economy of an incredibly thirsty 4. A turbo doesn't magically add power without drinking at least SOME more fuel than a NA 4cyl.

Car & Driver had an interesting graph at this article...it was a bunch of turbo'd small displacement engines that have lower mpg (and sometimes less power) than larger NA engines in the same class...
http://blog.caranddriver.com/engine-displacement-downsizing-feature/

I mean...take a 2.0L 4cyl and slap a turbo on it, and it will not get the same mpg as the same 2.0L 4cyl without the turbo.

This chart makes a point, but they're comparing different cars and all other factors aren't necessarily equal. I know the 3-series, for instance, weighs a few hundred lbs less than the A4 quattro.

 

[prizrak]

This chart makes a point, but they're comparing different cars and all other factors aren't necessarily equal. I know the 3-series, for instance, weighs a few hundred lbs less than the A4 quattro.

Not to mention that Quattro has more driveline loss than straight up FR layout of the BMW.

The way you get better fuel economy is by staying out of boost. If you do alot of quick accel you won't have very good mileage because turbo engines are more thirsty than N/A engines with same power under boost. On the other hand I can drive my car in daily situations entirely off boost in which case it's nothing but a low compression 1.8L 4 banger.

 

[thedguy]

The problem with (modern) turbo engines is they, for the most part, cured the turbo lag. In doing so the damn things are constantly boosting. Not to mention the techniques used to get the turbo spooled quickly tend to waste fuel. Now combine that with a heavy foot and your fuel economy sucks. I honestly think this is why SAAB engines were always a bit "laggy," they intentionally kept the turbo from spooling to fast as to prevent boost (and wasting fuel).

Anyone that actually looks at things like BSFC will know that a turbo engine is less efficient at making hp on boost than a larger displacement NA engine making that same HP.

The only place a turbo motor makes sense is steady speed highway cruising, if you can keep the engine running out of boost it SHOULD be relatively close to that same engine without a turbo. Since the world is not perfect, this never happens.

well, my point is, that first gear could be pretty short, since it just needs to get the car moving.. the rest ( 2-4 ) would be for urban speeds and 5th and 6th for highway cruising. Isn't that pretty much how most of the cars have their transmissions set today? and since modern turbos start spooling from really low revs, those engines can handle taller gears than one would expect from 2l 4 cyl engine. it's the NA 4-cyl engines that get the blame.. for example, Merc A/B series.. in quite a few reviews they got marked down due excessively tall gears in city driving.

Nope. BMW still gears their cars really well for entertaining driving. Corvettes are geared to be a performance 4 speed with 2 over drives, IIRC they have skip shift (1st to 4th) to do sort of what you are talking about.

A turbo engine HATES short gearing, they rely on load to work properly. Unfortunately you load down an engine and it also starts drinking fuel, it's the "too small of an engine in a big ass over weight vehicle" syndrome. See pretty much every 4 cylinder Japanese SUV from the late 80's/early 90s.

 

[NecroJoe]

Essentially a paraphrase: "They totally get good mpg. Stay out of boost, and your fuel economy doesn't suck."

So...why bother fitting the turbo, then?

Of the cars they compared in that chart, one thing I didn't notice at first...while the NA either have more, or only slightly less HP, the FI engines all have more torque...

 

[thedguy]

Essentially a paraphrase: "They totally get good mpg. Stay out of boost, and your fuel economy doesn't suck."

So...why bother fitting the turbo, then?

Of the cars they compared in that chart, one thing I didn't notice at first...while the NA either have more, or only slightly less HP, the FI engines all have more torque...

And thats what makes boost good, TORQUE! Unfortunately you pay for that torque at the pump.

 

[prizrak]

Essentially a paraphrase: "They totally get good mpg. Stay out of boost, and your fuel economy doesn't suck."

So...why bother fitting the turbo, then?

Of the cars they compared in that chart, one thing I didn't notice at first...while the NA either have more, or only slightly less HP, the FI engines all have more torque...

Easiest way I found to think about turbos is this. If you have a 2.0l engine at 1bar of boost you essentially have 4.0l engine because you are forcing twice the air into the engine. Ofc with that you have to add roughly twice the fuel.

As an example right now my 1.8 is making 215HP at 1bar of boost (~15psi) this is like running a 3.6L engine. On the other hand a 350z engine is a 3.5 and makes 303HP to the crank. Yesterday driving on the highway (quickly) in 4th my avg mpg was 9.8. I have a little display that tells me and the lowest I had for realtime was 7.

 

[thedguy]

Easiest way I found to think about turbos is this. If you have a 2.0l engine at 1bar of boost you essentially have 4.0l engine because you are forcing twice the air into the engine. Ofc with that you have to add roughly twice the fuel.

As an example right now my 1.8 is making 215HP at 1bar of boost (~15psi) this is like running a 3.6L engine. On the other hand a 350z engine is a 3.5 and makes 303HP to the crank. Yesterday driving on the highway (quickly) in 4th my avg mpg was 9.8. I have a little display that tells me and the lowest I had for realtime was 7.

Unfortunately due to the need to keep things cool, you are probably dumping extra fuel in the combustion chamber to make that power than one would in a bigger engine. So you may have the equivalent of a 3.6l engine, but you're fueling a 4.0 or bigger

 

[prizrak]

Unfortunately due to the need to keep things cool, you are probably dumping extra fuel in the combustion chamber to make that power than one would in a bigger engine. So you may have the equivalent of a 3.6l engine, but you're fueling a 4.0 or bigger

YOU CAN"T TAKE AWAY MY BOOOOST!!!!! But yeah I didn't even think about that. Though I think TFSI engines don't have that issue quite as bad but I could be wrong.

 

[AiR]

Ooooh Ford Detroit makes 2-liter turbocharged engines? Welcome to the present

 

[Vette Boss]

Ooooh Ford Detroit makes 2-liter turbocharged engines? Welcome to the present

I was about to say the same. Volkswagen has been selling turbocharged cars for at least ten years, even in America. But when Ford does it "ZOMG new tech *splooge*" etc.

Modern turbo engines are torquey and quite good on petrol. I average about 23mpg in my Passat and I don't exactly drive slowly.

 

[thedguy]

Ooooh Ford Detroit makes 2-liter turbocharged engines? Welcome to the present

You are aware that Ford and GM detroit were turbo charging cars long before the Euro's and the Japanese right?

Prior to the Sierra Cosworth, racers were swapping in the Turbo 2.3l SVO motors into Sierra's over in the UK. GM gave up on Turbo charging back in the 60's (they were just full of fail though).

Funny enough, our roundy-round racing series had practically already banned turbocharged engines by the time F1 realized their potential