Ecoboost On Its Way; Debuts Summer 2009

[theoldwizard]

I calculated a 3.5L EBS engine producing 450 to 500 ft lbs. Wow! In USA, Diesel is dead.

The deal breaker on EBS is cost. The #1 cost issue is CG Iron. We beat this to death before. There are only a few foundries that can cast CG Iron and there are even less places where is can be machined.

 

And don't trivialize the cost of the second pump, set of injectors and plumbing. Even on a 4 cylinder I would bet that Ford's cost for just those components would be close to $100.

 

Isn't it interesting that 2 out of the 7 members of the Board Of Directors of EBS are retired from Ford and a third has been consultant to Ford for over 25 years ?

Edited October 20, 2008 by theoldwizard

[battyr]

Take a look at the EERC study on ethanol in non-flex cars. What they found is that first, non-flex cars can often run up to E65 with no fault codes being thrown.

 

Second, and relevant to this thread, there is a bump in effeciency of ethanol gas at a blend of about 30%, depending on the car. There isn't a direct correlation between ethanol blend and the amount of energy in ethanol. They couldn't explain why on some cars, they actually got better mileage on E30 than straight 87 pump gas. It didn't follow the math on how much energy should have been lost.

 

So ethanol blends can work, it the right car, and for better mileage.

 

http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/Pre...ase_12507-1.pdf

 

 

Note that you can build an engine to run on E-85 only with much higher compression, and get much higher efficiency. You build a Diesel engine to burn E-100 and get even higher efficiency.

[battyr]

The deal breaker on EBS is cost. The #1 cost issue is CG Iron. We beat this to death before. There are only a few foundries that can cast CG Iron and there are even less places where is can be machined.

 

And don't trivialize the cost of the second pump, set of injectors and plumbing. Even on a 4 cylinder I would bet that Ford's cost for just those components would be close to $100.

 

Isn't it interesting that 2 out of the 7 members of the Board Of Directors of EBS are retired from Ford and a third has been consultant to Ford for over 25 years ?

 

The CG Iron is needed because you need the strength of a Diesel to handle the extra pressure.

 

The cost effectiveness depends on:

 

Cost compared to a Diesel.

Power and Efficiency compared to a Diesel.

Cost of extra Emission control in a Diesel.

[92merc]

Note that you can build an engine to run on E-85 only with much higher compression, and get much higher efficiency. You build a Diesel engine to burn E-100 and get even higher efficiency.

All they need to do is run the boost higher with E85. That'll give it an effective higher compression. My guess is Ford isn't pushing the boost as high to keep reliability up. So they're not seeing the real gains of E85. I wish they would. I can get E85 around my area and it's usually 15-20% cheaper.

[battyr]

All they need to do is run the boost higher with E85. That'll give it an effective higher compression. My guess is Ford isn't pushing the boost as high to keep reliability up. So they're not seeing the real gains of E85. I wish they would. I can get E85 around my area and it's usually 15-20% cheaper.

 

This is why I am disappointed that we don't see the results of E-85 in an EcoBoost engine. The EcoBoost engine likely needs to be strengthen to handle the extra boost.

 

At 20% cheaper, I don't think you will make up for the pooring efficiency. I expect further drop in ethanol prices as the industry adopts new technology and becomes more competitive. We can't say until we see the efficiency numbers for E-85 in the EcoBoost.

 

I see more value in E-10 until technology makes E-85 much cheaper. What is needed is for service stations to have 2 tanks, an E-5, and an E85. Then they can mix the two to give you the percent you want, E-10, E-20, E30, E85, depending on your engine and the octane you want.

[chiefstang]

This is why I am disappointed that we don't see the results of E-85 in an EcoBoost engine. The EcoBoost engine likely needs to be strengthen to handle the extra boost.

 

At 20% cheaper, I don't think you will make up for the pooring efficiency. I expect further drop in ethanol prices as the industry adopts new technology and becomes more competitive. We can't say until we see the efficiency numbers for E-85 in the EcoBoost.

 

I see more value in E-10 until technology makes E-85 much cheaper. What is needed is for service stations to have 2 tanks, an E-5, and an E85. Then they can mix the two to give you the percent you want, E-10, E-20, E30, E85, depending on your engine and the octane you want.

Yeah. I saw a lady drive away from the pump with the nozzle still in her car two days ago.

 

 

Now she'll have to pick the octane, ethanol rating, AND work the pump!!!

[92merc]

At 20% cheaper, I don't think you will make up for the pooring efficiency.

 

That's why I pointed out the EERC article. At E30 on non-flex cars, they saw a bump UP in efficiency. Not down, like one would expect. So I think it's still possible to get better efficiency with ethanol and boost. Maybe not full E85. But I suppose that's where the EB 2.0 comes in.

 

Once winter is over, I think I may try doing some splash bend experimenting on my Montego. See if the 3.0 has similar results to the EERC tests. I already run E10 with no issues. Don't notice any mileage difference over non ethanol. So I'll probably try E20, then step up to E25, and I think I'll stop at E30. Just to see if mileage changes. It's too much of a PITA to fill from 2 pumps, so I doubt I'd do it long term. Not unless gas jumps back up to $4 a gallon again.

[battyr]

That's why I pointed out the EERC article. At E30 on non-flex cars, they saw a bump UP in efficiency. Not down, like one would expect. So I think it's still possible to get better efficiency with ethanol and boost. Maybe not full E85. But I suppose that's where the EB 2.0 comes in.

 

Once winter is over, I think I may try doing some splash bend experimenting on my Montego. See if the 3.0 has similar results to the EERC tests. I already run E10 with no issues. Don't notice any mileage difference over non ethanol. So I'll probably try E20, then step up to E25, and I think I'll stop at E30. Just to see if mileage changes. It's too much of a PITA to fill from 2 pumps, so I doubt I'd do it long term. Not unless gas jumps back up to $4 a gallon again.

 

Great, let us know how it turns out.

[theoldwizard]

The CG Iron is needed because you need the strength of a Diesel to handle the extra pressure.

 

The cost effectiveness depends on:

 

Cost compared to a Diesel.

Power and Efficiency compared to a Diesel.

Cost of extra Emission control in a Diesel.

While you are comparing it to diesel (as do the EBS personnel), I suspect (right or wrong) most people will compare it to EcoBoost.

 

Compared to EcoBoost, the additional power of EBS (and the additional inconvenience for requiring the customer to fill up 2 tanks) just is not worth it.

 

To bring up the "dead horse" discussion on CG Iron, Ford is just not going to spend the money (in the next +/- 5 years) to tool up for it.

[silvrsvt]

Compared to EcoBoost, the additional power of EBS (and the additional inconvenience for requiring the customer to fill up 2 tanks) just is not worth it.

 

But you have the same issue with Diesels and urea

[akirby]

First Honda cancelled plans for an Accord diesel and instead planned to bring a diesel Acura TSX next year. Now that's been shelved because they can't get the automatic transmission model to pass emissions testing. If Honda - the holy grail of engine mfrs - can't do it, why should Ford even try at this point?

[theoldwizard]

Wrong. Ford has already installed proper CGI equipment from MAG in the Chihuahua engine plant in Mexico where 4,4 liters och 6.7 liters diesels will be made from next summer. It´s no longer a big deal to machine CGI and further dewelopment will be made. Sandvik and Coromant are among those who are making the same machining results from CGI compared with ordinary grey iron.

I'm quite well aware of this.

 

The point I was making is that other engine plants (Dearborn, Cleveland, etc) would have to change their existing tooling. You certain aren't going to machine 1.6L and 2.0L I4 engines on the the same tooling that is being installed Chihuahua !

Edited October 29, 2008 by theoldwizard

[theoldwizard]

Compared to EcoBoost, the additional power of EBS (and the additional inconvenience for requiring the customer to fill up 2 tanks) just is not worth it.

But you have the same issue with Diesels and urea

True, but the target refill for urea is 5,000 miles. I suspect that the E85 tank would have to be filled much more often.

[suv_guy_19]

But you have the same issue with Diesels and urea

 

True, but the target refill for urea is 5,000 miles. I suspect that the E85 tank would have to be filled much more often.

I can't remember for sure, but i don;t believe the ethanol tank requires filling very often.

[battyr]

But you have the same issue with Diesels and urea

 

True, but the target refill for urea is 5,000 miles. I suspect that the E85 tank would have to be filled much more often.

 

EBS uses 1% E-85 to 100% gasoline. The filling period would depend on the size of the tank. I would think they would use a larger tank than used with urea. Since E-85 is flammable, it would be located in the back of the car next to the gas tank. In fact, the fuel tank can be made smaller since the car will be more fuel efficient. This would make room for the E-85 tank. If you use E-10 or E-20 as a fuel instead of gasoline, then I would think you would use less E-85.

 

If the car gets 40 mpg. Then the car will get 4000 mpg of E-85. A 10 gallon E-85 tank could take 3 years to use up for some people. I would think that they would have to waste some of the E-85 as fuel, just so that it won't stay in the tank long enough to collect water. Force the user to refill the tank with every oil change, dump the old E-85 into the fuel tank to get rid of it.

[theoldwizard]

The new way is to let the foundry do the machining. Tupy of Brazil has the proper things to do this. Ford has a V6 of 2,7 litre in CGI that has all machining made at Tupy.

Obviously Ford NA does not agree with this "new way".

[jon_the_limey]

The new way is to let the foundry do the machining. Tupy of Brazil has the proper things to do this. Ford has a V6 of 2,7 litre in CGI that has all machining made at Tupy.

 

Afraid thats not quite right. The V6 has a few basic machining ops done at Tupy and then the main machining is done at a dedicated transfer-line at Dagenham. The current V8 is all machined at Tupy but only because the volumes were too low for a dedicated machining facility.

[jpd80]

Hey Jon, youd know:

Isnt the 2.7 V6 diesel an alloy block?

I remember reading this somewhere or am I wrong again?

[jon_the_limey]

Hey Jon, youd know:

Isnt the 2.7 V6 diesel an alloy block?

I remember reading this somewhere or am I wrong again?

 

No it's definitely Compacted Graphite Iron with thin wall casting. It's a brilliant example of when CGI is used properly because the base block is only 1 kg heavier than the 3.0l V6 Aluminium block from the Isuzu/GM diesel engine! That 1kg can be more than clawed back from other areas (crankshaft, heads, camshafts) because the CGI block is so much shorter than an aluminium block would be of comparable strength (which the Isuzu wasn't!).

Edited October 31, 2008 by jon_the_limey

[theoldwizard]

Afraid thats not quite right. The V6 has a few basic machining ops done at Tupy and then the main machining is done at a dedicated transfer-line at Dagenham. The current V8 is all machined at Tupy but only because the volumes were too low for a dedicated machining facility.

Thanks for setting the record straight.

 

I agree that outsourcing low volume machining make perfect sense.

 

I wonder what the "incoming inspection" on those blocks is like. You don't want to build 3/4 of an engine only to find that one of the head bolt hole was not tapped correctly !

 

I also wonder how long Ford will be doing assembly on an engine not used in any Ford product !

[jpd80]

I also wonder how long Ford will be doing assembly on an engine not used in any Ford product !

It's being used in 2010 on diesel Ford Territory.

Edited October 31, 2008 by jpd80

[theoldwizard]

It's being used in 2010 on diesel Ford Territory.

I had to look that one up ! Sort of a Aussie Taurus X.

 

But those boys down under might be a bit confused by a V8 diesel !

[jon_the_limey]

Thanks for setting the record straight.

 

I agree that outsourcing low volume machining make perfect sense.

 

I wonder what the "incoming inspection" on those blocks is like. You don't want to build 3/4 of an engine only to find that one of the head bolt hole was not tapped correctly !

 

I also wonder how long Ford will be doing assembly on an engine not used in any Ford product !

 

Don't know about the quality of the V8 blocks coming in but I've heard of no problems.

 

I guess Ford will want to supply these engines to JLR as long the agreement lasts and remains profitable to do so, however there is also the JV agreement with PSA to consider too. FoE are very proud of the Lion engines and it is a crying shame the V6 has not found it's way into (forthcoming Territory aside) other Blue Oval vehicles. After much stalling thankfully the V8 will do so soon. Lion went a long way in restoring (or depending on point of view establishing) the capability of FoE to design and develop very competitive & brand new engines in-house, hopefully the experience gained will benefit some of Ford's future global engines.

[theoldwizard]

... FoE are very proud of the Lion engines and it is a crying shame the V6 has not found it's way into (forthcoming Territory aside) other Blue Oval vehicles...

Trust me, despite all of the hype EcoBoost is getting from The Company and most everyone here, there are plenty of folks who would like to see a V6 Lion in a Taurus/MKS or even the next gen Explorer ! It would also do well in a Global Ranger if that ever shows up in the states !!

[battyr]

Trust me, despite all of the hype EcoBoost is getting from The Company and most everyone here, there are plenty of folks who would like to see a V6 Lion in a Taurus/MKS or even the next gen Explorer ! It would also do well in a Global Ranger if that ever shows up in the states !!

 

I would think the economics of everything would show that Europeans will demand a diesel choice on most cars sold in Europe. Americans will demand an EcoBoost choice on most highend cars in the US. The truth will depend on the cost and efficiency of the EcoBoost. This information is not public yet. Maybe I am overly optomistic about the EcoBoost.