Ecoboost Falcon arrives in Aussie market

[Biker16]

very interesting perspective, Biker!

want to get that in before someone starts... ...you know

 

i feel like we have been banished to this forum to make it easier to ignore me.

[2b2]

problems with editor - again

Edited April 27, 2012 by 2b2

[2b2]

i feel like we have been banished to this forum to make it easier to ignore me.

well at least it's freshly painted and the carpet is new...

 

actually since using the [new content] button

I don't really care how this forum is 'organized'.

 

 

re: the original topic: the EB4 in the Falcon: I've started speculating that the (rumored) new 2.3 4cyl might also come in a 2.0 size - one that can actually produce 280hp, unlike the current 2.0EB ...IF FordNA utilizes dual-tunes like euro-EB's, the new 'family' of large-ish 4's could cover a LOT of models

[Biker16]

well at least it's freshly painted and the carpet is new...

 

actually since using the [new content] button

I don't really care how this forum is 'organized'.

 

 

re: the original topic: the EB4 in the Falcon: I've started speculating that the (rumored) new 2.3 4cyl might also come in a 2.0 size - one that can actually produce 280hp, unlike the current 2.0EB ...IF FordNA utilizes dual-tunes like euro-EB's, the new 'family' of large-ish 4's could cover a LOT of models

 

nice

 

I think filling the gaps in the ecoboost line up is what for needs to do.

 

you have the

EB10 125

EB16 180-200hp

EB20 250

EB27 340

EB35 440

 

the gaps ford needs to fill are the 140-160hp range and the 240-270hp range.

 

I think a 1.3l I3 or I4 engine and as you have said a 2.2 or 2.3 liter I4 couyld fill those gaps.

 

the 1.3 could replace the base engines of the escape and Fusion and become the main engine in the Focus replacing the 2.0 GDI.

 

with the 1.3 in the Fusion and escape you could offfer leap ahead economy gains that no make can match.

Edited April 28, 2012 by Biker16

[2b2]

^ ty

 

I saw a post recently saying the 1.3 is dead

&

EB's are supposed to be capable of 140hp per liter (easily)

so

for with dual-tunes (sport vs mpg?)

2.3 high = 300**-325hp

2.3 low = 240hp

2.0 high = 280hp

2.0 low = 210hp

1.6 high = upto 225hp

1.6 low = 170? instead of the current ~180?

1.0 high = 140hp

1.0 low 105hp

 

** my pet category - also for the biggest D3/4's too (while they last)

 

edit

another benefit of 2 displacements for the larger 4cyl imho

is easily having 2 Atkinson versions for hybrids

Edited April 28, 2012 by 2b2

[jpd80]

Would have loved for Ford upgrade the Volvo 2.5 I-5T to Ecoboost.

By my estimations, that would be just over 300 hp and 330 lb ft....

that's very similar power outputs to the recently deceased 5.4 3V

Edited April 28, 2012 by jpd80

[Biker16]

^ ty

 

I saw a post recently saying the 1.3 is dead

&

EB's are supposed to be capable of 140hp per liter (easily)

so

for with dual-tunes (sport vs mpg?)

2.3 high = 300**-325hp

2.3 low = 240hp

2.0 high = 280hp

2.0 low = 210hp

1.6 high = upto 225hp

1.6 low = 170? instead of the current ~180?

1.0 high = 140hp

1.0 low 105hp

 

** my pet category - also for the biggest D3/4's too (while they last)

 

edit

another benefit of 2 displacements for the larger 4cyl imho

is easily having 2 Atkinson versions for hybrids

 

I like it alot.

 

I just want more of a pay back for the economy version. right now the the 150hp version of the 1.6 makes the FE numbers the 180hp version.

 

there needs to be a payback for lless power.

[2b2]

^ Agree & just ^^guesswork

 

I'm having a lot of trouble making the time to keep up with actual facts lately

but

what about substituting the 1.0EB-high for the 150hp 1.6EB you mention**?

- everything I've read is very enthusiastic for the 1.0

- so maybe the HiPo version could be closer to 150hp?

- but either way, the reduced weight of a 140hp 1.0 compared to the 150hp 1.6 might mean equal performance + equal MPG (when driven hard) + better MPG (with a light touch) (& lower cost?)

more^or^less, the std EB litany we heard from the start

 

via Mike Levine, "Ford brags it has smallest engines in the industry" - www.latimes.com

 

** which might still be gen1 EB config+tuning afaik

I've gotten the impression that gen2 will include the exhaust-in-head feature

Does the 1.6 have that?

Edited April 29, 2012 by 2b2

[Biker16]

^ Agree & just ^^guesswork

 

I'm having a lot of trouble making the time to keep up with actual facts lately

but

what about substituting the 1.0EB-high for the 150hp 1.6EB you mention**?

- everything I've read is very enthusiastic for the 1.0

- so maybe the HiPo version could be closer to 150hp?

- but either way, the reduced weight of a 140hp 1.0 compared to the 150hp 1.6 might mean equal performance + equal MPG (when driven hard) + better MPG (with a light touch) (& lower cost?)

more^or^less, the std EB litany we heard from the start

 

via Mike Levine, "Ford brags it has smallest engines in the industry" - www.latimes.com

 

** which might still be gen1 EB config+tuning afaik

I've gotten the impression that gen2 will include the exhaust-in-head feature

Does the 1.6 have that?

 

 

the 1.6 does not have exhaust in head feature.

 

the knock on economy of the ecoboost engines is the need to cool the compustion chamber to reduce emmisions.

 

The use of liquid cooled EGR and exhaust in head help alot to increase that threshold where fuel dumping must be used to to cool the compustion chamber, an in the case of the EB 2.0 prevents the use of higher CR to improve BSFC.

 

the difference between the design of the 1.0 and the 2.0 is te 2.0 is over square bore x stroke 87.5 x 83.1mm while the 1.0 has 71.9mm x 82.0mm

 

9.3:1 compression ratio on the 2.0 10:1 on the 1.6 and 1.0.

 

The long stroke keeps temps down, better cooling the combustion chamber. A few mnths aog I thought a short stroke engine would be best for the next gen ecoboost engine now I see the oppsoite is true at least on the small displacement engines. As the size goes up so does the mass of the moving parts.

 

The perfect engine would have a balance between runing cool to preserve economy and tollerance of boost at higher RPM without self distructing. in the interm better cooling of the exhaust, more tempreture toleratant turbos, centralized injectors can bridge the gap until an entirley new arhctecture is developed.

[2b2]

Thanks for the info, Biker

& bringing up bore/stroke numbers.

I looked up the 1.6 and it's almost square, 3.10 x 3.20 / 79.0 x 81.4 mm

Wonder how they'll handle the 2.3/2.0 - assuming my assumption - the easiest might be to just stretch the stroke and use a new head with indoor plumbing...

[Biker16]

Thanks for the info, Biker

& bringing up bore/stroke numbers.

I looked up the 1.6 and it's almost square, 3.10 x 3.20 / 79.0 x 81.4 mm

Wonder how they'll handle the 2.3/2.0 - assuming my assumption - the easiest might be to just stretch the stroke and use a new head with indoor plumbing...

 

the original Duratec 2.3

 

had the same bore as the 2.0, used the same head but a longer stroke, 94mm vs the 2.0's 83.1 in order the achieve the longer stroke the deck height was increased by the difference.

 

the no longer used duratec1.8 had a square Bore stroke of 83.1 x 83.1.

 

the 1.8 at 140hp per liter would make 250hp.

[Captainp4]

Then you'd just end up with a fat pig of a GRWD platform.

The other guys pretty much covered what I was getting at, but was speaking more of loosely shared architecture like the thing biker posted, rather than a camaro based on a fat sedan type thing.

 

Another idea, put GRWD under Lincolns, mustang, falcon only. Ford can stick with FWD everything, Lincoln gets RWD of every size, including SUVs. Higher costs of the Lincoln, plus mustang and falcon might be able to pay for it??

Edited April 30, 2012 by Captainp4

[2b2]

...Another idea, put GRWD under Lincolns, mustang, falcon only. Ford can stick with FWD everything, Lincoln gets RWD ... including SUVs. Higher costs of the Lincoln, plus mustang and falcon might be able to pay for it??

yup

Edited May 1, 2012 by 2b2

[Biker16]

the falcon only sell 30-40k per year, that is not enough to warrant a new platform, or even a new top hat.

 

logic would dictate that it merges with the Taurus.

[Captainp4]

That would be my preference as well, but who knows what they want to do with d3/4 and how long they want to keep it around. If they need to keep d3/4 around global lincolns of almost every size including suv/cuvs, global mustang, and falcon would certainly be enough volume to justify GRWD, wouldn't it?

[2b2]

I saw an online document that indicated the Interceptors (at least) would continue until 1Q2017

 

 

Wish I knew what would be "enough" to justify GRwdP

Edited May 3, 2012 by 2b2

[Hugh]

http://jalopnik.com/5907310/aussie-ford-ad-murders-a-toad-in-the-name-of-the-environment

 

EcoBoost advert in Australia

[fordmantpw]

http://jalopnik.com/...the-environment

 

EcoBoost advert in Australia

 

Ha ha ha!! That's hilarious! Too bad that wouldn't fly in the US with so many PETA whack jobs!

[Hugh]

Ha ha ha!! That's hilarious! Too bad that wouldn't fly in the US with so many PETA whack jobs!

As here, it wouldn't fly as well.