jpvbs Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 (edited) autoblog green Not a lot of detail. I don't know if this is new news or not. I'm not sure how you only get 130hp from a turbo 1.6. Edited June 30, 2009 by jpvbs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 autoblog green Not a lot of detail. I don't know if this is new news or not. I'm not sure how you only get 130hp from a turbo 1.6. ?.all w differing MPGS I would expect.......as for the car...those are some WILD headlights....but have to say, oh, wait.....a FordJelly impersonation....ahem " Gotta say....." LOL, getting tired of seein concepts with features that will NEVER see the light of day on their production variants....ie...theres those cool sliders again..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ford Jellymoulds Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 (edited) Only reservations l have with turbocharged engines they do have a reputation for blowing their head gaskets a lot and they get old and clapped out before their time & they have more parts to go wrong, and once they let Larry leadfoots and the erks loose on them in the real world at Otis Fords where they might have 50 cars a day to service when they have don't have all month to make adjustments like Ford development teams do. Lets hope Ford have got it right first time & does not come back to bite Ford in JD Power surveys. Just interested does the ecoboost only run expensive premium grade fuel only? We don't hear a lot about ecoboost in UK at all. Edited June 30, 2009 by Ford Jellymoulds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92merc Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Why is it that a lot of people are bashing the Ecoboost because "it'll have turbo problems". (name your turbo related problem) And yet, many of those same people are diesel lovers. Which are turbo. Ahhhemm...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92merc Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 BTW, I like the Iosis Max. I don't care for those crazy looking front seats. But the rear sliders would be perfect for those that want the ease of entrance like a mini-van, but don't want a mini van. (ME! ME! ME!) I've always liked "big" cars. Just getting tired of big mileage and want something good on gas, small on the outside, and versatile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 autoblog green Not a lot of detail. I don't know if this is new news or not. I'm not sure how you only get 130hp from a turbo 1.6. Doesn't it say the 1.6 "will be rated at 180 hp." Further versions will be available at 130 and 150 hp levels. Thay could be smaller versions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 autoblog green Not a lot of detail. I don't know if this is new news or not. I'm not sure how you only get 130hp from a turbo 1.6. Maybe the key is the intended application in the UK and Europe as a diesel replacement? I think the EB 1.6 is tailored to be cheaper alternative to the 1.6/1.8/2.0 diesel range that FoE likes to put in most of their passenger vehicles. You wouldn't do a 130/150 hp EB I-4 for the US but it makes sense for Europe...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Doesn't it say the 1.6 "will be rated at 180 hp." Thay could be smaller versions. 1.2 and 1.4? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpvbs Posted June 30, 2009 Author Share Posted June 30, 2009 1.2 and 1.4? That would make more sense. The article title says the 1.6 will come in 3 power levels. (?) The text of the article isn't so clear about that though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White99GT Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 A 180 HP EcoBoost 1.6 Fiesta would be a pretty fun car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 A 180 HP EcoBoost 1.6 Fiesta would be a pretty fun car. considering the initial cooper S was 163 I would say a vehicle with similar weight but 17hp more would be a blast...BUT, don't burden the car with a 5 speed...to trump one needs 6 speeds, both in a slushbox AND Manual... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 (edited) A 180 HP EcoBoost 1.6 Fiesta would be a pretty fun car. I agree, half the power and half the weight of a Taurus SHO - maybe half the price too..... Paddle shift 6-speed DSG...Mmmmmmmmmmm Edited June 30, 2009 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 ... the four (cy;inder engine) has direct injection and turbocharging. Just as Volkswagen does with its similar 1.4-liter TSI engines ... Gee, I wonder where VW buys their GTDI system from ... ? (Hint, VW has been buying from Bosch since the days of the K-Jetronics) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 The EcoBoost and PowerShift will also be available here in the U.S. when the new Focus arrives for 2011. The PowerShift transmission (not the exact same version) will be available in the US on the Fiesta (without EcoBoost) in 2010. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ausrutherford Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Well the 1.6 EB in the Fiesta would be a good engine for SVT/RS to get their hands on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 1.2 and 1.4? An EcoBoost with a 1.2L or 1.4L I-4 would be more expensive than say a 2.0L non-EcoBoost. While it would be more fuel efficient, it would be at a cost. Ford is developing a 1.0L? I-3 that will be built soon in Europe. It will be offered as an EcoBoost engine. That is about all that is known about this engine. There has been criticism about cheap 3 cylinder engines. From what I have read, they are balanced engine when built with a simple balance shaft. Both BMW and Mercedes are working on 3 cylinders, so they can't be that bad. In fact, most European makers are planning to build 3 cylinder engines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lfeg Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 It is reasonable to expect to have an engine with one displacement but 3 power levels. Different states of tune for different buyers/segments. Lowest hp probably tuned for best mpg. Changing fuel delivery schedules, cam timing and profiles, boost levels to tune an engine is no earth shaking thing today. Back in 66 we has 3 states of tune for the 289, so why not for the 1.6? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_fairmont_wagon Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 HEck, that's easy enough to do with just 3 turbo sizes. Small, medium, and large. The small and medium probably wouldn't need the torque boost of GDI to offset the lag as they'd have a pretty small turbo. The large one probably would enjoy it, but may get a more advanced turbo setup instead. That's my speculation on another way of going about making three different power levels for one EB engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 (edited) If You can have such a range of HP for the 1.6, will we see a 280 hp version of the 3.5L EB for people who want the best fuel efficiency? Maybe something like this for the Mustang. 400 hp 5.0L V-8. 360 hp EB 3.5L V6 Save 20% on fuel. 330 hp EB 3.5 L V6 Save 25% on fuel. 280 hp EB 3.5L V6 Save 30% on fuel. 220 hp EB 2.0L I4 Save 40% on fuel. Manybe add in 410 hp EB 3.5L Save 15% of fuel and have flater torque curve than the V8. Edited July 1, 2009 by battyr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
battyr Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Oops, look at my numbers. The low power EcoBoost engines have about the same power as the Non-EcoBoost engines. Maybe the 1.6 EB has 2 power ratings and a Non-EcoBoost power rating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSFan00 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Why is it that a lot of people are bashing the Ecoboost because "it'll have turbo problems". (name your turbo related problem) And yet, many of those same people are diesel lovers. Which are turbo. Ahhhemm...... The issue is that the tiny gasoline diesels will spend considerably greater periods at much higher RPM's than the diesels. Higher RPM's=wear on bearings, head gaskets, basically everything inside the motor. Some don't understand that turbo gas motors don't last as long as turbo diesel and I refuse to engage in a debate with that "some" here as she's basically the board Europhobe who would banish the whole discussion to the dustbin anyway since diesels are "from Europe." The tiny displacement gas ecoboost engines to be sold to the masses (in the interest of carbon footprint reductions) will likely, IMHO, become maintenance/PR issues once they start hitting 50,000 miles. Maybe not, but that's a big concern of mine... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 The issue is that the tiny gasoline diesels will spend considerably greater periods at much higher RPM's than the diesels. Higher RPM's=wear on bearings, head gaskets, basically everything inside the motor. Some don't understand that turbo gas motors don't last as long as turbo diesel and I refuse to engage in a debate with that "some" here as she's basically the board Europhobe who would banish the whole discussion to the dustbin anyway since diesels are "from Europe." The tiny displacement gas ecoboost engines to be sold to the masses (in the interest of carbon footprint reductions) will likely, IMHO, become maintenance/PR issues once they start hitting 50,000 miles. Maybe not, but that's a big concern of mine... Europe is different to the US, their products are heavily biased towards diesel for fuel economy and CO2. FoE's gasoline vehicle sales are in the dumpster so Ecoboost is needed to improve efficiency and sales. That situation is far removed from trying to justify EB I-4 in US applications where gas is much cheaper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 The issue is that the tiny gasoline diesels will spend considerably greater periods at much higher RPM's than the diesels. Higher RPM's=wear on bearings, head gaskets, basically everything inside the motor. Some don't understand that turbo gas motors don't last as long as turbo diesel and I refuse to engage in a debate with that "some" here as she's basically the board Europhobe who would banish the whole discussion to the dustbin anyway since diesels are "from Europe." The tiny displacement gas ecoboost engines to be sold to the masses (in the interest of carbon footprint reductions) will likely, IMHO, become maintenance/PR issues once they start hitting 50,000 miles. Maybe not, but that's a big concern of mine... That doesn't make any sense at all..what about a non-ecoboost I4 engine....I've had several I4 engines in my family last well above 100K miles on them...and the difference in RPM can be taken care of by gearing at highway speeds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92merc Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 The issue is that the tiny gasoline diesels will spend considerably greater periods at much higher RPM's than the diesels. Higher RPM's=wear on bearings, head gaskets, basically everything inside the motor. Some don't understand that turbo gas motors don't last as long as turbo diesel and I refuse to engage in a debate with that "some" here as she's basically the board Europhobe who would banish the whole discussion to the dustbin anyway since diesels are "from Europe." The tiny displacement gas ecoboost engines to be sold to the masses (in the interest of carbon footprint reductions) will likely, IMHO, become maintenance/PR issues once they start hitting 50,000 miles. Maybe not, but that's a big concern of mine... Why would a turbo-gasser spend any more time at high RPM than a diesel? The gasser will have virtually the same torque curve. As long as the tranny doesn't have ridiculous gearing, it should be near same RPM. Throw on top of that, you're comparing the longevity of the known Euro diesel, to a new engine. No automaker in the world has made engines quite like the Ecoboost. So you can only make some guestimations. No real world testing yet to back up your assertion. Outside of the fuel pressure system used on a diesel, the gasser has all the same parts. Outside of the spark plug of course... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fbmphil Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 You're acting as if a turbocharged direct injection inline-4 is come kind of newfangled, untested technology. It's not. Even "don't even think about owning this vehicle out of warranty" Volkswagen and Audi powertrains don't eat themselves up after 50k miles. The technology is as close to perfected as it will get; powertrains simply don't experience critical failures at mass scale anymore. They put 50k+ miles on tons of vehicles before they sell em, you know! When I was down in Dearborn, we didn't have ONE powertrain failure on a production-spec vehicle in the test pool AFAIK, and these vehicles were beat to death with over 50k miles on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.