Welcome to the Australian Ford Forums forum.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and inserts advertising. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features without post based advertising banners. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Please Note: All new registrations go through a manual approval queue to keep spammers out. This is checked twice each day so there will be a delay before your registration is activated.

Go Back   Australian Ford Forums > General Topics > The Pub

The Pub For General Automotive Related Talk

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 14-08-2009, 02:57 PM   #151
mafiastafcar
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 71
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JPFS1
You shouldn't always believe what's written in the media...
True, you can't... but at least if it's shown false, you can say it wasn't you that made it up ;)
mafiastafcar is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 14-08-2009, 03:02 PM   #152
HSE2
7,753
 
HSE2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Tasmania..... Moderator: Tas FPV club
Posts: 5,128
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by atec77
you cant beat the right fuel and a lazy motor


I get to drive a lot of different cars and I couldn't agree more. Combinations that do the job "easier" often deliver a wider "window" of opportunity to obtain better fuel consumption under a wider range of applications without driving specifically for consumption.


It’s about getting a package with the right torque characteristics that consumers will default to, rather than "go looking for". The moment that factor is missed, real life consumption will drop significantly in proportion to the benefits supposedly on offer in the first place.
__________________
BREAKING NEWS: The Pity Train has just derailed at the intersection of "Suck It Up & Move On" after it crashed into "We All Have Problems" before coming to a complete stop at "Get the Hell Over It." Reporting LIVE from Quitchur Bitchin'
HSE2 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 14-08-2009, 03:04 PM   #153
mafiastafcar
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 71
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by atec77
classic exampl eof to small a turbo and motor is the baby toyota 4wd , mine was a 2.4 turbo and was gutless , a change to a 3 litre turbo was much more like it , returned better economy but was still destroed performance and drivability wise by an i6 , economy was very similar both returning on distance of around $10.00 / 100k long trips , once on gas the I6 won by a mile..
you cant beat the right fuel and a lazy motor
Actually, if there was a turbo donk I would stick in the falcon, it would be the one with variable compression that they stuck in the Saab Viggen:

http://www.trollhattansaab.net/archi...-dead-yet.html

Those figures are for a 1.6L!!! Now, say they conjoined and made a V8 version?
mafiastafcar is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 14-08-2009, 03:22 PM   #154
vztrt
IWCMOGTVM Club Supporter
 
vztrt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern Suburbs Melbourne
Posts: 17,799
Valued Contributor: For members whose non technical contributions are worthy of recognition. - Issue reason: vztrt is one of the most consistent and respected contributors to AFF, I have found his contributions are most useful to discussion as well as answering members queries. 
Default

Just remember guys FordUS are putting this engine in a F150. So it cant be that bad for the Falcon.
__________________
Daniel
vztrt is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 16-08-2009, 09:29 AM   #155
phillyc
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
phillyc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 3,246
Valued Contributor: For members whose non technical contributions are worthy of recognition. - Issue reason: Always factual and beneficial. 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vztrt
Just remember guys FordUS are putting this engine in a F150. So it cant be that bad for the Falcon.
Sorry, but no they aren't going to fit the EB i4T to the F series. It was in another thread.
__________________
BA2 XR8 Rapid M6 Ute - Lid - Tint -18s
226.8rwkW@178kmh/537Nm@140kmh 1/9/2013
14.2@163kmh 23/10/2013

Boss349 built. Not yet run. Waiting on a shell.

Retrotech thread
http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthr...1363569&page=6
phillyc is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 16-08-2009, 02:59 PM   #156
chevypower
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
chevypower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Utah
Posts: 3,479
Default

To my knowledge, 3.5 EB is a certainty for F150, and 2.0 EB is seriously being considered. I would only expect 2.0 in single cab 4x2 models - same as what you would find old 4.2 Triton V6
chevypower is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 16-08-2009, 03:26 PM   #157
vztrt
IWCMOGTVM Club Supporter
 
vztrt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern Suburbs Melbourne
Posts: 17,799
Valued Contributor: For members whose non technical contributions are worthy of recognition. - Issue reason: vztrt is one of the most consistent and respected contributors to AFF, I have found his contributions are most useful to discussion as well as answering members queries. 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chevypower
To my knowledge, 3.5 EB is a certainty for F150, and 2.0 EB is seriously being considered. I would only expect 2.0 in single cab 4x2 models - same as what you would find old 4.2 Triton V6

http://www.autoblog.com/2008/07/14/f...oost-for-f150/

This article is an old one, but it was being considered. Apparently its in development, but I have nothing really to back it up.
__________________
Daniel
vztrt is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-08-2009, 11:05 AM   #158
Ross-b
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
Ross-b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: NSW
Posts: 864
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mongoose
Can't say im too keen on a turbo 4cyl in a 1800 odd kg falcon... But on the other hand it's at least good to see that they reconise the I6 as a good engine and have put some money into it. Funny no mention on any V8(s) though...
from what ive heard its making the same power, if not more then current na6s and surely there would be a few kilos lost for the new eco boost
__________________
Old Car

Recent Car
Ross-b is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-08-2009, 11:11 AM   #159
Ross-b
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
Ross-b's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: NSW
Posts: 864
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sgt_doofey
Hey Barry_v, have you driven a modern diesel car? I would like to think that you haven't judging by your comment. You'd be quite surprised how that can push you back in your chair with the acceleration they have thanks to the bags of torque they possess. And that's in any gear from about 1750rpm onwards.
drove the current model jetta turbo d
6speed manual.
never again
that is all
__________________
Old Car

Recent Car
Ross-b is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 19-08-2009, 07:46 AM   #160
Swordsman88
Getting it done.....
 
Swordsman88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2,219
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HSE2
I get to drive a lot of different cars and I couldn't agree more. Combinations that do the job "easier" often deliver a wider "window" of opportunity to obtain better fuel consumption under a wider range of applications without driving specifically for consumption.


It’s about getting a package with the right torque characteristics that consumers will default to, rather than "go looking for". The moment that factor is missed, real life consumption will drop significantly in proportion to the benefits supposedly on offer in the first place.
Well said HSE. Fact is that some cars have 'natural' driveability and some don't. Often both cars may have the same ADR fuel burn (hell often the nicer to drive is higher) but in the real world there is usually nothing in it. in fact if the tuning is done right the more flexible engine results in lower fuel burn.

In the past the 'larger engine', particularly one that has taller gearing and breathes better (intake/exhaust) was the one to go for. Fuel burn may be higher (particularly in cruise) but real world its preferable.

Of course Fords aim with all EB engines was not to necessarily generate 'performance' flagships but rather replicate this flexibility you refer to in smaller, inherently more efficient engines. After all, when cruising/idling etc. a 2.0 I4 with 10.1 compression ratio has to burn less than a 4.0 I6 with 10.3 compression ratio. Of course that is only this example. In the states they are going to have 3.5 EB engines replacing V8s and in europe 1.6 EB replacing 2.0 so the general theory holds. Real world you can't be sure, but i doubt Ford would have gone to the trouble if it didn't make a noticeable difference. Most importanlty for drivers, the cars will atcually better performance and response than the NA engines they replace.
__________________
Dynamic White 1995 EF XR6 Auto

Now with:
Pacemaker 4499s
Lukey Catback Exhaust
Chrome BA XR-style tip
Airdam Mounted CAI with modified (bellmouth) airbox
Trip Computer install
KYB shocks
Bridgestone Adrenalin tyres

Coming Soon:
Exhaust Overhaul.....
Swordsman88 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 06-09-2009, 11:24 PM   #161
Swordsman88
Getting it done.....
 
Swordsman88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2,219
Default

Ok guys...thought i'd dig this thread up given some news i came accross from Mercedes of all people LOL!

Carpoint recently ran this story:

http://www.carpoint.com.au/news/2009...ss-lands-16542

Basically, it details merc's plans to offer in this country 4 cylinder E classes, both diesel and petrol, as part of its new 'environmental' line up. For those that are not aware, the E calss is basically the large sedan. Somewhere between a medium/large car....close to a falcon. Kerb weight is in the range of 1.7-1.8 tonne, depending on model.

Early in this thread kpcart and others questioned both how a 2.0 DI DIVCT I4T engine could pull off what ford claims, and moreover if all the 'great' manufacturers in the world couldn't do it, how could lowly FOrd pull it off.

The article points out the following:
...the four-cylinder direct-injection petrol E 250 CGI. It displaces 1.8 litres and winds out 150kW/310Nm while consuming 7.6L/100km.

Further info on the car:
http://www.oneshift.com/pdb/car_overview.php?pid=2355

Now, its interesting to see what this means for the anti-Ford EB club. If you use the very nasty, but roughly accurate method of percentages, a 2.0 ecoboost Ford engine (similar tech set up) is a little over 10% bigger, it would give APPROXIMATELY 165kw and 340 nm. Now, in an earlier post i noted:


You'd gestimate 91 RON it would do somewhere between 170-180kw. Probably 330-340nm, but from a low 1500 rpm or so..........This engine should have no problem beating holdens 3.0 V6 and it will burn less doing so. .

Well i didn't do too bad in my prediction.

Best bit is the fuel burn. Merc have claimed 7.6 L/100km with a 7speed auto. Based on the fact the Falcon may be a tad heavier, and Ford may tune the engine a bit more agressively to maintain that reknown Falcon performance, you'd be hard pressed to imagine the EB Falcon burning more than 1 L/100km more than the merc. That gives you 8.6 L/100km. WELL UNDER HOLDEN'S 3.0 V6. In fact its not inconcievable the Ford could burn over a litre per 100km less than the Holden.

Further to my point, using the E class once again as a test case, the current E350 (3.5 V6, 200kw, 350nm) burns 9.4 L/100km. Also rougly consistent with an FG I6 6sp auto.

I trust we can use Merc's example as a test balloon on the production application of DI, Ecoboost style 4 cylinders in large sedans. Given this, it shows that:

1. Ford is not at all being wildy optimistic in its claims.
2. The tech in use is viable and 'best practice'
3. GM/Holden will struggle in comparison with their small capacity DI V6 - their method is unlikely to be competitive.
__________________
Dynamic White 1995 EF XR6 Auto

Now with:
Pacemaker 4499s
Lukey Catback Exhaust
Chrome BA XR-style tip
Airdam Mounted CAI with modified (bellmouth) airbox
Trip Computer install
KYB shocks
Bridgestone Adrenalin tyres

Coming Soon:
Exhaust Overhaul.....
Swordsman88 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 07-09-2009, 12:30 AM   #162
Falc'man
You dig, we stick!
 
Falc'man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,461
Default

Good write up as always swordy.

Don't forget, the 2.0 comes with a 6sp DSG box. I imagine this would be quite efficient in it's power transmission - I don't know how it'll stack up against Merc's 7 speed, but being clutch derived it would be at least as good?

The EB has a high-ish 10:1 ratio, with a 12psi of boost.... pretty tractable if you ask me.
__________________
"....You don't put the car through engineering" - Rod Barrett.
Falc'man is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 07-09-2009, 10:17 AM   #163
TOM-CAT
F-14 TomCat
 
TOM-CAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Perth Hills WA
Posts: 353
Default

So what price do you think you would be looking at for a EB 4cyl in a falcon? brand new release price, anyone got any figure estimations from ford yet?
__________________
TOMCAT™

Check your bible; it say’s - if thou is to fit forced induction via supercharging to a performance car, then it is right and good that this supercharger be heard.
TOM-CAT is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 07-09-2009, 10:22 AM   #164
Road_Warrior
Pity the fool
 
Road_Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wait Awhile
Posts: 8,997
Default

This 2.0EB decision is shaping up to be something much more significant than we first thought.
__________________
Fords I own or have owned:

1970 XW Falcon GT replica | 1970 XW Falcon | 1971 XY Fairmont | 1973 ZG Fairlane | 1986 XF Falcon panel van | 1987 XFII Falcon S-Pack | 1988 XF Falcon GLS ute | 1993 EBII Fairmont V8 | 1996 XG Falcon ute | 2000 AU Falcon wagon | 2004 BA Falcon XT | 2012 SZ Territory Titanium AWD

Proud to buy Australian and support Ford Australia through thick and thin
Road_Warrior is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 07-09-2009, 02:17 PM   #165
sgt_doofey
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
sgt_doofey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Barossa Valley, South Australia
Posts: 3,381
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ross-b
drove the current model jetta turbo d
6speed manual.
never again
that is all
May I ask why? (Curiosity has gotten the better of me haven driven our 2.0L HDi 6sp manual for the last 3 years, I'm curious as to why)
__________________
Cheers,
Sam.
sgt_doofey is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 07-09-2009, 03:29 PM   #166
terri tx
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Burwood
Posts: 29
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swordsman88
Ok guys...thought i'd dig this thread up given some news i came accross from Mercedes of all people LOL!

Carpoint recently ran this story:

http://www.carpoint.com.au/news/2009...ss-lands-16542

Basically, it details merc's plans to offer in this country 4 cylinder E classes, both diesel and petrol, as part of its new 'environmental' line up. For those that are not aware, the E calss is basically the large sedan. Somewhere between a medium/large car....close to a falcon. Kerb weight is in the range of 1.7-1.8 tonne, depending on model.

Early in this thread kpcart and others questioned both how a 2.0 DI DIVCT I4T engine could pull off what ford claims, and moreover if all the 'great' manufacturers in the world couldn't do it, how could lowly FOrd pull it off.

The article points out the following:
...the four-cylinder direct-injection petrol E 250 CGI. It displaces 1.8 litres and winds out 150kW/310Nm while consuming 7.6L/100km.

Further info on the car:
http://www.oneshift.com/pdb/car_overview.php?pid=2355

Now, its interesting to see what this means for the anti-Ford EB club. If you use the very nasty, but roughly accurate method of percentages, a 2.0 ecoboost Ford engine (similar tech set up) is a little over 10% bigger, it would give APPROXIMATELY 165kw and 340 nm. Now, in an earlier post i noted:


You'd gestimate 91 RON it would do somewhere between 170-180kw. Probably 330-340nm, but from a low 1500 rpm or so..........This engine should have no problem beating holdens 3.0 V6 and it will burn less doing so. .

Well i didn't do too bad in my prediction.

Best bit is the fuel burn. Merc have claimed 7.6 L/100km with a 7speed auto. Based on the fact the Falcon may be a tad heavier, and Ford may tune the engine a bit more agressively to maintain that reknown Falcon performance, you'd be hard pressed to imagine the EB Falcon burning more than 1 L/100km more than the merc. That gives you 8.6 L/100km. WELL UNDER HOLDEN'S 3.0 V6. In fact its not inconcievable the Ford could burn over a litre per 100km less than the Holden.

Further to my point, using the E class once again as a test case, the current E350 (3.5 V6, 200kw, 350nm) burns 9.4 L/100km. Also rougly consistent with an FG I6 6sp auto.

I trust we can use Merc's example as a test balloon on the production application of DI, Ecoboost style 4 cylinders in large sedans. Given this, it shows that:

1. Ford is not at all being wildy optimistic in its claims.
2. The tech in use is viable and 'best practice'
3. GM/Holden will struggle in comparison with their small capacity DI V6 - their method is unlikely to be competitive.
Nice job swordie, looks good for ford.
__________________
Incar DVD players - Keeping kids quiet and parents sane for the noughties :
terri tx is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 07-09-2009, 03:32 PM   #167
Fev
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
Fev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Cattai, Sydney
Posts: 7,701
Default

Quote:
...the four-cylinder direct-injection petrol E 250 CGI. It displaces 1.8 litres and winds out 150kW/310Nm while consuming 7.6L/100km.
NICE! turbo it and i wonder what numbers it could be pulling
__________________
1992 EBII Fairmont Ghia 4.0l <---Click for the Gallery!
Insta@mooneye_ghia
White on bright red smoothies with thick whitewalls. Cruising around to some rockabilly

Last edited by Fev; 07-09-2009 at 03:37 PM.
Fev is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 07-09-2009, 04:11 PM   #168
Swordsman88
Getting it done.....
 
Swordsman88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2,219
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fev
NICE! turbo it and i wonder what numbers it could be pulling
That is with a turbo Fev....it would seem the quote i pulled from the article didn't make it clear. Basically its a turbo, DIVCT, DI I4. So effectively the same tech ford is using in the EB 2.0 I4 that will go in falcon. Hence the reason i have singled this development out as an example.

Apologies if my quoting skills were misleading LOL!
__________________
Dynamic White 1995 EF XR6 Auto

Now with:
Pacemaker 4499s
Lukey Catback Exhaust
Chrome BA XR-style tip
Airdam Mounted CAI with modified (bellmouth) airbox
Trip Computer install
KYB shocks
Bridgestone Adrenalin tyres

Coming Soon:
Exhaust Overhaul.....
Swordsman88 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 07-09-2009, 04:42 PM   #169
ivorya
Mad Scientist!
 
ivorya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 2,874
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Swordsman88
Ok guys...thought i'd dig this thread up given some news i came accross from Mercedes of all people LOL!

Carpoint recently ran this story:

http://www.carpoint.com.au/news/2009...ss-lands-16542

Basically, it details merc's plans to offer in this country 4 cylinder E classes, both diesel and petrol, as part of its new 'environmental' line up. For those that are not aware, the E calss is basically the large sedan. Somewhere between a medium/large car....close to a falcon. Kerb weight is in the range of 1.7-1.8 tonne, depending on model.

Early in this thread kpcart and others questioned both how a 2.0 DI DIVCT I4T engine could pull off what ford claims, and moreover if all the 'great' manufacturers in the world couldn't do it, how could lowly FOrd pull it off.

The article points out the following:
...the four-cylinder direct-injection petrol E 250 CGI. It displaces 1.8 litres and winds out 150kW/310Nm while consuming 7.6L/100km.

Further info on the car:
http://www.oneshift.com/pdb/car_overview.php?pid=2355

Now, its interesting to see what this means for the anti-Ford EB club. If you use the very nasty, but roughly accurate method of percentages, a 2.0 ecoboost Ford engine (similar tech set up) is a little over 10% bigger, it would give APPROXIMATELY 165kw and 340 nm. Now, in an earlier post i noted:


You'd gestimate 91 RON it would do somewhere between 170-180kw. Probably 330-340nm, but from a low 1500 rpm or so..........This engine should have no problem beating holdens 3.0 V6 and it will burn less doing so. .

Well i didn't do too bad in my prediction.

Best bit is the fuel burn. Merc have claimed 7.6 L/100km with a 7speed auto. Based on the fact the Falcon may be a tad heavier, and Ford may tune the engine a bit more agressively to maintain that reknown Falcon performance, you'd be hard pressed to imagine the EB Falcon burning more than 1 L/100km more than the merc. That gives you 8.6 L/100km. WELL UNDER HOLDEN'S 3.0 V6. In fact its not inconcievable the Ford could burn over a litre per 100km less than the Holden.

Further to my point, using the E class once again as a test case, the current E350 (3.5 V6, 200kw, 350nm) burns 9.4 L/100km. Also rougly consistent with an FG I6 6sp auto.

I trust we can use Merc's example as a test balloon on the production application of DI, Ecoboost style 4 cylinders in large sedans. Given this, it shows that:

1. Ford is not at all being wildy optimistic in its claims.
2. The tech in use is viable and 'best practice'
3. GM/Holden will struggle in comparison with their small capacity DI V6 - their method is unlikely to be competitive.

The Major problem FORD now have, and i guess have always had, is how they will MARKET this against the Small V6 of Holden. Will their Marketing work?

I'm really looking forward to it. Should be very interesting.
ivorya is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 07-09-2009, 04:53 PM   #170
phillyc
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
phillyc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 3,246
Valued Contributor: For members whose non technical contributions are worthy of recognition. - Issue reason: Always factual and beneficial. 
Default

Swordy, as always, a thorough and well reasoned post! Excellent info.
__________________
BA2 XR8 Rapid M6 Ute - Lid - Tint -18s
226.8rwkW@178kmh/537Nm@140kmh 1/9/2013
14.2@163kmh 23/10/2013

Boss349 built. Not yet run. Waiting on a shell.

Retrotech thread
http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthr...1363569&page=6
phillyc is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 07-09-2009, 05:18 PM   #171
Citric GT
Its yellow, NOT green!
 
Citric GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Hunter Valley
Posts: 1,219
Default

I wonder what sort of life expectancy the turbo 4 would have in a 1600+ kg car and 15000km service intervals etc...

I dare say that it would be a rather expensive car to own over the long term compared to a 6 cylinder.

Also, look at the fuel consumption of the Ralliart Lancer. 1500+ kg, 2.0T, 6sp auto and real world fuel consumption is terrible.
__________________
EL XR8 sedan - low & loud
FG XR6 Turbo ute - Auto & Lux pack
Citric GT is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-09-2009, 07:46 PM   #172
R-Design
Guess Who's Back?
 
R-Design's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,369
Default Falcon four-cylinder turbo: first secrets out

The latest on the I4T:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jez Spinks, drive.com.au, September 17, 2009
Ford has revealed the first details of the 2.0-litre turbo ‘EcoBoost’ engine that will power a Falcon from 2011.


Ford unveiled its new EcoBoost engines in Frankfurt. The 2.0-litre turbo version will power the Falcon in 2011.

The four-cylinder Ford Falcon will have at least 147kW of power when it debuts in 2011.

Ford used the 2009 Frankfurt motor show to reveal the first details of the ‘EcoBoost’ 2.0-litre turbocharged inline four-cylinder being introduced to help improve the Falcon’s fuel efficiency.

The 2.0-litre turbo is one of a handful of ‘EcoBoost’ engines that debuted in Germany, accompanied by claims that they are 20 per cent more efficient than larger engines with similar power outputs.

The 147kW figure is lower than the 195kW of the Falcon’s current locally built inline six-cylinder, though power is expected to be somewhere between those two figures when the smaller-engined version arrives in two years’ time.

There are also encouraging signs for the Falcon four-cylinder’s driveability, with Ford claiming the EcoBoost engines will produce peak torque from 1500rpm or even lower. The company says the engine will also have minimal turbo lag – the characteristic delay between the accelerator pedal being pressed and the engine responding.

The Falcon’s high-tech four-cylinder is designed to provide both strong performance and frugal accompany with its combination of efficient turbocharging, variable valve timing on both intake and exhaust camshafts, and high-pressure direct fuel injection.

Fuel consumption for the Falcon is expected to be about 8 litres per 100km – about 20 per cent more economical than Ford Australia’s most efficient six-cylinder (9.9L/100km).

The 2.0-litre turbo is being built in Valencia, Spain, and will debut next year in North America and Europe. The engine will replace naturally aspirated V6s on those continents, though Ford Australia is expected to retain the locally built (Geelong) inline six-cylinder.

In 2011, the Falcon will become the first rear-wheel-drive Ford to be powered by the 2.0-litre EcoBoost engine.

Ford also unveiled 1.6-litre and V6 EcoBoost engines in Frankfurt, and says the entire suite of engines will be fitted to 80 per cent of the company’s global model range by 2013 – about 1.3m cars.

“The new family of Ford EcoBoost four-cylinder petrol engines coming in 2010 is a key element of Ford Motor Company's global blueprint for sustainability,” says Ford of Europe boss John Fleming.

“We believe these engines will provide customers with a genuinely attractive alternative to diesel or hybrid power units, delivering highly competitive fuel economy and cost-of-ownership, along with the responsive performance and wide rev range which have made petrol engines the favoured choice for so many drivers.”

Ford Australia announced last July that it was abandoning its plan to build the Focus small car locally to instead focus on a $230m program to introduce the four-cylinder Falcon, as well as a more advanced LPG engine and a diesel unit for its Territory soft-roader.
__________________
The 18th Letter
R-Design is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-09-2009, 08:22 PM   #173
Falc'man
You dig, we stick!
 
Falc'man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,461
Default

Thanks for posting that.

I wonder for what purpose, or application the 1.6 V6 would be good for?

Edit: It says 1.6 *and* V6... Thanks Phil

HSE2, that's still too small for a lawnmower.
__________________
"....You don't put the car through engineering" - Rod Barrett.

Last edited by Falc'man; 17-09-2009 at 08:28 PM.
Falc'man is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-09-2009, 08:25 PM   #174
HSE2
7,753
 
HSE2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Tasmania..... Moderator: Tas FPV club
Posts: 5,128
Default

Lawnmower
__________________
BREAKING NEWS: The Pity Train has just derailed at the intersection of "Suck It Up & Move On" after it crashed into "We All Have Problems" before coming to a complete stop at "Get the Hell Over It." Reporting LIVE from Quitchur Bitchin'
HSE2 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-09-2009, 08:35 PM   #175
R-Design
Guess Who's Back?
 
R-Design's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,369
Default Ford Launches New Ecoboost Petrol Engines

There's a bit more meat in this article, hit the link for the full story:

Quote:
Originally Posted by honestjohn
Ford of Europe has revealed further details of its new generation of Ford EcoBoost high-efficiency low-CO2 four-cylinder petrol engines at the Frankfurt Motor Show, prior to their first production applications in 2010.

The engines feature direct petrol injection, turbocharging and twin independent variable valve timing to maximise combustion efficiency, resulting in fuel consumption and CO2 emissions reduced by up to 20 per cent compared to conventional petrol engines with a similar power output.

“The new family of Ford EcoBoost four-cylinder petrol engines coming in 2010 is a key element of Ford Motor Company's global blueprint for sustainability,” said John Fleming, Chairman & CEO, Ford of Europe.

“We believe that these engines will provide customers with a genuinely attractive alternative to diesel or hybrid power units, delivering highly competitive fuel economy and cost-of-ownership, along with the responsive performance and wide rev range which have made petrol engines the favoured choice for so many drivers,” Fleming added.

The initial range of four cylinder Ford EcoBoost engines for the company's European product range will launch in 2010. The line-up will comprise 1.6-litre units for the all-new Ford C-MAX and 2.0-litre units for the company's large car range.

An additional advanced, small-capacity Ford EcoBoost engine will be introduced later to expand the range of applications within Ford’s small and medium car line-up.

“With the 2.0-litre engine catering for applications of 200PS and above, the 1.6-litre engine spanning the 150-180PS range, and the small-capacity unit meeting the demand for engines in the sub-130PS segment, over time we will offer a high-efficiency low-CO2 Ford EcoBoost engine for all of our major European vehicle lines,” said Fleming.
http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/news/item.htm?id=10187
__________________
The 18th Letter
R-Design is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-09-2009, 08:42 PM   #176
Swordsman88
Getting it done.....
 
Swordsman88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 2,219
Default

Thanks for the posts Boss315. The 1.6 ecoboost would be a mondeo/top spec focus engine in europe. So basically in two states of tune one at 135 kw/280nm (mondeo) and the other 120kw/230nm etc.

Fiesta gets 1.3 ecoboost as its largest engine....which would give you something like 90-100kw and 180 nm. Sounds about right, and they will probably weigh less than the old engines and have more driveability with fuel economy.
__________________
Dynamic White 1995 EF XR6 Auto

Now with:
Pacemaker 4499s
Lukey Catback Exhaust
Chrome BA XR-style tip
Airdam Mounted CAI with modified (bellmouth) airbox
Trip Computer install
KYB shocks
Bridgestone Adrenalin tyres

Coming Soon:
Exhaust Overhaul.....
Swordsman88 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-09-2009, 08:45 PM   #177
Burnout
Falcon RTV - FG G6ET
Donating Member3
 
Burnout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In Da Bush, QLD
Posts: 31,839
Default

Surely that article has a wobbly boot on, a 2 liter, 147kw delivering 8 litres per 100km.
Our I6 does 9.9.

I think the bloke who wrote that was sitting in the Beer Keller across the road when he tapped that one out.
__________________
BAII RTV - with Raptor V S/C.

RTV Power
FG G6ET 50th Anniversary in Sensation.
While the basic Ford Six was code named Barra, the Turbo version clearly deserved its very own moniker – again enter Gordon Barfield.
We asked him if the engine had actually been called “Seagull” and how that came about.
“Actually it was just call “Gull”, because I named it that. Because we knew it was going to poo on everything”.
Burnout is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-09-2009, 10:44 PM   #178
Wally
XP Coupe
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,098
Default

I think the bloke who wrote the base article was a Ford media staffer, because the one posted here is just a thinly veiled rehash of other releases e.g.

http://www.themotorreport.com.au/426...-on-their-way/
Wally is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 18-09-2009, 01:06 AM   #179
madmelon
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,334
Default

I see a cam belt :(
madmelon is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 18-09-2009, 01:32 PM   #180
R-Design
Guess Who's Back?
 
R-Design's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,369
Default Frankfurt show: Ford’s EcoBoost future revealed

Falcon’s 2011 four-cylinder engine to have at least 147kW of power and low-end mumbo
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18 September 2009 By RON HAMMERTON

FORD has pulled the wraps from its EcoBoost four-cylinder engine – the powerplant that will carry Ford Australia’s hopes for the eco-version of its Falcon from 2011.

FoMoCo promised at this week’s Frankfurt motor show that the 2.0-litre variant of the direct-injected, turbo-charged engine would generate ‘147kW and above’ of power and strong low-end torque.

But Ford Australia communications manager Sinead McAlary told GoAuto that the engine would be “very different in our car”, presumably meaning that the engine would be boosted well past the minimum 147kW for the Aussie large car – the first rear-drive application of the four-pot EcoBoost powerplant.

Ford’s existing Geelong-made, mainstream 4.0-litre inline six-cylinder engine for Falcon produces 195kW of power in its current, normally aspirated guise, and might generate even more in its next, Euro 4 configuration in 2010.

But torque will be the EcoBoost key rather than peak power figures, with Ford’s announcement emphasising the low-end performance of the new family of high-tech engines that will enter service in Europe and the US from next year in the new Focus-based C-MAX small people mover and an unnamed Ford large car family, providing fuel savings of up to 20 per cent.

As reported in GoAuto last week, Ford Australia has already started local testing of the rear-drive application of the 2.0-litre engine for Falcon.

While Ford’s Frankfurt announcement said the 2.0-litre version of the engine would be made in Spain, in Valencia, Ms McAlary indicated that Ford Australia would not necessarily source its 2.0-litre engine from there.

“The Spanish plant will produce the engine for Europe,” she said. “It will be one plant making the 2.0-litre engine.”

Announcing details of the EcoBoost powerplant, Ford of Europe chairman and CEO John Fleming said the EcoBoost family of engines would be a key element of Ford Motor Company's global blueprint for sustainability.

“We believe that these engines will provide customers with a genuinely attractive alternative to diesel or hybrid power units, delivering highly competitive fuel economy and cost-of-ownership, along with the responsive performance and wide rev range which have made petrol engines the favoured choice for so many drivers,” he said.

EcoBoost four-cylinder engines will cover a wide range of sizes and performance levels. Apart from 2.0-litre, a 1.6-litre variant is coming with power quoted at between 110kW and 132kW.

As well, Ford foreshadowed an “additional advanced, small-capacity Ford EcoBoost engine” to come on stream in future to power Ford’s small and medium car line-up.

These smaller EcoBoost engines will almost certainly surface in Ford Australia’s four-cylinder range, if only to counter Holden’s similar 1.4-litre direct-injected low-boost turbo-turbo four-cylinder engine that will be the powertrain highlight of its new, locally-made Cruze sedan and hatch from the third quarter of next year.

In spelling out the detail of the EcoBoost technology, Ford said the heart of EcoBoost was a high-pressure 200-bar direct-injection system that injects fuel into each cylinder in small, precise amounts in droplets one-fifth the size of a human hair.

Compared with conventional fuel injection, direct injection produces a cooler, denser charge, delivering improved fuel economy and performance, Ford said.

“Like in a modern diesel engine, multiple injections are also possible per combustion cycle, which further enhances economy and emissions."

The charge-cooling benefit of direct injection plays an additional part in boosting performance at low engine speeds.

As well, variable valve timing on both intake and exhaust camshafts helps to optimise gas flow through the combustion chamber at all engine speeds, improving efficiency and performance, particularly at part load.

Variable valve timing also enhances torque through a ‘scavenging’ effect.

Ford says EcoBoost uses advanced turbocharger technology, with small, low inertia rotors spinning at more than 200,000rpm.

“The turbines are carefully selected to ensure that maximum torque can be achieved at 1500rpm or lower, with the absolute minimum of delay when the driver wants quick acceleration in traffic,” Ford says.

Careful matching of the turbo ensures that Ford EcoBoost engines remain powerful and responsive at more than 5000rpm, providing a wider spread of power.

By 2012, Ford plans to produce 1.3 million EcoBoost engines a year globally, 750,000 of them in the US.

By 2013, Ford expects to offer EcoBoost engines in 90 per cent of its global product lineup.

Ford recently started production of a 3.5-litre EcoBoost V6 in the US for the new Ford Taurus SHO, Ford Flex and Lincoln MKS and MKT.
http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...257635000A1921
__________________
The 18th Letter
R-Design is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Reply


Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 06:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Other than what is legally copyrighted by the respective owners, this site is copyright www.fordforums.com.au
Positive SSL