Ford Australia Invests $230 Million in New Fuel-Efficient Engines for Local Vehicles

[Falc'man]

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.

I think the differences would be that it's designed to suit RWD. This on it's own would allow more power through less compromised intake and exhaust designs for FWD.

[Swordsman88]

Its really far to early to say much about the RWD version of this engine that would be in Falcon. I doubt Ford itself know/has decided on a final power output etc. Testing at this stage is all about torque/weight, driveability, installation/cooling and how this all works out versus fuel burn etc. As things move on NVH is further investigated and finally, marketing gets involved when deciding just how much grunt the motor will have (not to mention the number put on the badge....true or not).

As noted earlier money is on about 160-170kw, so to get from 147 to 160 would only take what Falc'man has aluded to (intake/exhaust etc.).

I don't think Ford will want to go right up to 190kw etc., for starters because you would be pushing it a bit (which doesn't help fuel burn...mitsu evo 2.0T anyone...) but also because there is no need. The 0-100 times of FG falcons is certainly much better than my EF XR6 for example (it is packing more than 30kw more power), but its the modern DIVCT set up that gives it the improved driveability and makes it 'feel' so much quicker whe you drive it. Combined with a mondern 6sp i think a 340-350nm engine at 1500 rpm would feel just as punchy if not more than something like a AU VCT.

It will be interesting how they market it as much as anything because with small capacity and two less pots than the Holden 'competitor' it could be an issue. Particularly if Ford does undershoot the power number a bit and come in some 20+kw less than Holden's 3.0 SIDI on peak power. Of course we know better, but the average punter might be fooled into thinking the Ford is a 'slug'. I would say the fuel economy angle will be used, given this thing is on track to burn low 8s.....

[Luke Plaizier]

I think a 'best of both worlds' dual PCM mapping is required these days. One to give the the car bragging rights for fuel efficiency in economy mode, and another to give it power bragging rights.

The processors inside the Spanish Oak PCM's used these days are more than capable of addressing additional off-chip flash. The Power button (aka shift-the-gearstick-left-to-perf-mode) should do more than just change the transmission shift strategy if you ask me.....


Lukeyson

[EgoFG]

Originally Posted by Luke Plaizier

I think a 'best of both worlds' dual PCM mapping is required these days. One to give the the car bragging rights for fuel efficiency in economy mode, and another to give it power bragging rights.

I have been saying this for ages

An Economy switch that changes the tune !!

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by EgoFG

I have been saying this for ages

An Economy switch that changes the tune !!

I am in two minds on this issue. I think it is great to have the choice and certainly it wouldn't be that hard in this day and age....perf cars have had it of ra while and subaru went maintstream with the liberty i think a while back trying this out. Having it linked to the perf option is quite smart too.

But on the other hand if you can just generate a tune that comes close to doing both why give people the option. For 'car people' it might be pretty cool, even used quite regularly but the average joe bloe won't really understand it or use it. Hell the 'sequential' option on autos has been around a while now and most people just put them in drive and potter around. Regardless of overtaking, cruising, round town etc. they just drive them in one setting. The 'econ' switch on EF-AU is the same...almost everyone drives around with it 'on' all the time except maybe towing or large hill work (or ahem...testing....).

Maybe sport models it would make more sense (switchable ESP is common and aussie cars are taking it up now as well) where you might want to stretch her legs on occasion. But blatant 'detuning' is not the way to go to save fuel....for one it woud only work if the driver consciously did it and then DROVE ACCORDINGLY. If you put it in 'eco' mode then hit the gas hard repeatedly it will just burn as much if not more than before. If you castrate the car too far to save fuel you make a pretty horrid compromise and no one will use that eco mode anyway (which is what happened on the subarus which were pretty low on torque to start with).

I'd rather manufacturers did their best to get a good base tune, then for perf cars maybe offer an 'agressive' mode that was linked to esp/auto etc. to get that hard edge in responsiveness. Basically take the 'supercar' and luxo set up and offer it on all cars. I suppose like everything this will happen in time.

Either way the I4T eco engine in a falcon is no place for such options. The important thing is that is delivers what is needed in base form out of the box...which i am confident it will.

[ivorya]

Originally Posted by EgoFG

I have been saying this for ages

An Economy switch that changes the tune !!

I don't think this'll work.

To do this properly, FORD will have to dyno every engine to create a map for that particular engine due to small indifferences and tollerances in the engines. This would blow the costing's out of the water.

If they made a generic map, i think you'd still find cars running rich and others pinging there head off.

Maybe with the econ tune, this could be another OPTION when buying the car. If selected you get a copy of the Dyno sheet showing all the fully optimised infomation. ie/ A wnak really, they could also print the info on the engine ALA HSV power curves on the v8.

[R-Design]

Originally Posted by 17 December 2009 By RON HAMMERTON

Ford’s EcoBoost four-cylinder debuts in Europe with 8.1L/100km fuel efficiency

EcoBoosted: Ford of Europe's S-Max is one of two people-movers to get the 2.0-litre EcoBoost four-cylinder engine that will also be offered in the Ford Falcon by 2011.

FORD’S planned four-cylinder Falcon is set to make fuel-efficiency gains of about 20 per cent over the current 4.0-litre six-cylinder models, judging from figures quoted for the first large-car application of the 2.0-litre EcoBoost engine in Europe.

If the figures translate to the Australian application, the 2011 EcoBoost Falcon will be well placed to out-point not only its most thrifty local six-cylinder rivals, Holden’s 3.0-litre Commodore and the Toyota Aurion, but also the standard four-cylinder Toyota Camry.

The 3.0-litre Commodore has a combined figure of 9.3 litres per 100km, while Toyota local contenders, the Aurion and Camry, have figures of 9.9L/100km and 8.8L/100km respectively.

However, the four-pot Falcon will still fall short of the new Camry Hybrid, which Toyota claims will achieve an official combined fuel figure in the low sixes when it is launched in February.

According to data released by Ford this week, the EcoBoost STCi engine – to make its debut in Ford of Europe’s Mondeo-based S-Max and Galaxy people-movers at the Brussels motor show in January – returns a combined fuel consumption figure of 8.1L/100km, compared with the Ford Falcon’s best current figure of 9.9L/100km in models fitted with the upmarket six-speed automatic transmission.

The fleet-friendly Falcon XT base model, with its standard five-speed auto transmission, is thirstier, returning a combined fuel consumption test figure of 10.5L/100km.

Although Ford Australia cautions that the European version of the engine will not necessarily be the same as the Falcon unit – which will almost certainly have more power than the 149kW quoted for S-Max and Galaxy – much of the technology of turbo-charged, direct-injection engine is set to arrive in the four-cylinder Falcon to be launched in 2011.

The Falcon will be the first rear-drive application of the 2.0-litre EcoBoost engine which Ford is rolling out globally, along with 1.6-litre version and a 3.5-litre V6. The latter is being pitched as a V8 alternative in cars such as the Taurus, Flex and Lincoln MKS and MKT.

The twin European people-movers will get the 2.0-litre EcoBoost engine in the first quarter 2010 as part of a facelift to be revealed on January 16 in Brussels, near Ford’s Genk plant that makes them alongside the Mondeo.

The engine will be offered standard with Ford’s latest Powershift dual-clutch transmission – a gearbox that is almost certain to be matched to the engine in its Falcon guise to maximise fuel efficiency.

At 1600kg, the S-Max is about 100kg lighter than the current six-cylinder Falcon, which weighs in at 1704kg, but that bulk will be pared considerably, courtesy of the smaller all-aluminium engine and lighter transmission, bringing it close to the S-Max’s mass.

While Ford Australia has not given specifics of power and torque outputs for the Falcon four-cylinder engine, Ford is clearly shaping up to produce more than one 2.0-litre EcoBoost engine variant with a number of performance levels for a number of applications.

While the engine in the S-Max generates 149kW and 300Nm, Ford’s vice-president of global powertrain engineering Barb Samardzich announced a 172kW/325Nm version in July.

This North American variant – a more likely starter in the Falcon than the Euro – is said to deliver 20 per cent fuel efficiency improvements over large six-cylinder engines, which is in line with a low 8.0L/100km fuel figure for the Australian large car.

Even with the higher output of the North American engine, peak power figures would be short of all local six-cylinder rivals in the 190-210kW range, but ahead of the 117kW output of the standard four-cylinder Camry.

However, the low-boost turbo and direct-injection characteristics of the EcoBoost engine are said to be tuned to maximise low-end torque, meaning it could well surprise in launch feel and urban performance.

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...25768F0003D87B

[Deco28]

The Falcon is heavier, so say, still an impressive 8.4l/100km?

[Brazen]

Does any other car in the family car class, e.g. Accord, Maxima, Aurion have this type of technology coming? Falcon will be a very impressive package in 2011.

[CSV_LS1]

Would be nice to know what the engine weight of the Eco4 is. And also the dual clutch g/box. Anyone know the weight of the I6? The ZF box is 75kg on it's own.

[Franco Cozzo]

Reckon they'd include the new I4 EB in FWD with the same power/torque as the Falcon for an XR4T in the WS Fiesta? The car only weighs 1090kg, it would be pretty cool hey?

[FPV GTHO]

Fiesta would probably get a 1.6T for the ST

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by CSV_LS1

Would be nice to know what the engine weight of the Eco4 is. And also the dual clutch g/box. Anyone know the weight of the I6? The ZF box is 75kg on it's own.

About 200kg.
Theres atleast 100kg to be saved, if not closer to 150kg.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by Boss315

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...25768F0003D87B

Hey guys....where is my due credit here....check out how accurate my predictions were earlier in this thread LOL!!!!

I said in this post:

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/200...***-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.

I pointed out an estimated fuel burn of 8.6L/100km. Based on the S max figures (8.1 with a less agressive tune, DSG and lower weight) i reckon i'm pretty damn close. And the 8.6 would be worse case really, because if ford uses a DSG instead of the current autos then that would be of great help, and the final I4T falcon may not weigh around the same as the S max but ít's pretty obvious its aerodynamics would be a fair bit better!!!! It's pretty fair to say there is a good 100kg saving in the I4T drivetrain setup too....

Either way my points remain totally valid, not only based on this latest info but also the results of the 3.0 SIDI Holden V6....which continues to undeliver on its supposed fuel saving promise. As long as Ford can get an ADR number of less than 9/100km (which they will) while still having solid performance (i.e. like a real large car....not this Holden 3.0 V6 trollop) they are home marketing wise. Add a knock down of the camry ADR and backed by real world results and things are looking pretty good. Throw in the new coyote SC V8 and its a good time to be a Falcon fan no?

[Deco28]

I think they'd need to be at least 8.4l/100km so that the engine is viable with the extra premium cost and also the public perception of the bad reliability of turbos.

[Fev]

I can't wait for this 4cyl Turbo engine to come out in the Falcon. If my stars are shining i'll get one into the Escort ASAP hehehe. Any version of the turbo engine will do me. Now that will be fun!

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

Hey guys....where is my due credit here....check out how accurate my predictions were earlier in this thread LOL!!!!

I said in this post:


I pointed out an estimated fuel burn of 8.6L/100km. Based on the S max figures (8.1 with a less agressive tune, DSG and lower weight) i reckon i'm pretty damn close. And the 8.6 would be worse case really, because if ford uses a DSG instead of the current autos then that would be of great help, and the final I4T falcon may not weigh around the same as the S max but ít's pretty obvious its aerodynamics would be a fair bit better!!!! It's pretty fair to say there is a good 100kg saving in the I4T drivetrain setup too....

Either way my points remain totally valid, not only based on this latest info but also the results of the 3.0 SIDI Holden V6....which continues to undeliver on its supposed fuel saving promise. As long as Ford can get an ADR number of less than 9/100km (which they will) while still having solid performance (i.e. like a real large car....not this Holden 3.0 V6 trollop) they are home marketing wise. Add a knock down of the camry ADR and backed by real world results and things are looking pretty good. Throw in the new coyote SC V8 and its a good time to be a Falcon fan no?

The EB4 will be coming with Dual Clutch transmission. So there is a weight saving there. Maybe 15kg. I4T will probably be 75kg lighter once you take into account turbo and plumbing. In the end, i reckon 1625kg give or take 10kg.

Back to the S-Max, well it is detuned for 8.1L/100km and weighs 1600kg. It does have some cons though. The frontal area is large and the people mover body shape will not be as aerodynamically efficient as an FG Falcon. Together they mean a higher CDa figure. eg more drag.

I reckon Ford Aus will be pushing like crazy for a 'psychological' number. That will either be 7.9L/100km or 8.3L/100 which undercuts the VE 3.0L by a full litre. That lower figure might take low rolling resistance tyres like the VE.

Swordy, your estimate of 8.6L or better will be achieved. I'm sure of it.

[Franco Cozzo]

I think the older folks are a bit weary of the whole 4 cylinder idea, my Dad commented on the 4 cyl Commodore and how bad it was. So already for some people it has a bad image.

But I look forward to it, I like going forwards in technology

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by Deco28

I think they'd need to be at least 8.4l/100km so that the engine is viable with the extra premium cost and also the public perception of the bad reliability of turbos.

Where is it said that the EB Falcon will be dearer? and turbo's aren't any less reliable than anything the general puts under it's bonnet, My Friends SS is not aloud on my drive way as it pumps out too much oil even at 130000k's.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by phillyc

The EB4 will be coming with Dual Clutch transmission. So there is a weight saving there. Maybe 15kg. I4T will probably be 75kg lighter once you take into account turbo and plumbing. In the end, i reckon 1625kg give or take 10kg.

Back to the S-Max, well it is detuned for 8.1L/100km and weighs 1600kg. It does have some cons though. The frontal area is large and the people mover body shape will not be as aerodynamically efficient as an FG Falcon. Together they mean a higher CDa figure. eg more drag.

I reckon Ford Aus will be pushing like crazy for a 'psychological' number. That will either be 7.9L/100km or 8.3L/100 which undercuts the VE 3.0L by a full litre. That lower figure might take low rolling resistance tyres like the VE.

Swordy, your estimate of 8.6L or better will be achieved. I'm sure of it.

I think 7.9 would really be pushing it to be honest. Sure if you wanted a detuned version with eco tyres and aero etc.....it could be done. For me, i'd go with the 8.3 number. Firstly, although quite punchy the I4T will not have the go of the I6, yet will be sold at approx the same price. So Ford needs to make it truly economical with a real measurable advantage over the already good 4.0. What holden has now is so stupid IMO not only because it doesn't drive all that well versus other large cars but because it doesn't burn any less niether. Certainly versus the 3.6 version there is bugger all in it (as numerous holden fans have told me personally...).

If you have it tuned agressively and have I6-like grunt, it might burn 8.9-9.1....but why do that if you have an I6 that is around 9.6-9.8 by then anyway??? Not enough difference to convince the average punter to go for it. If you go for 7.9-8.1L/100km you would have to make it a real 'econetic' model....like a fiesta/focus econetic with special badging etc. If you aim to fit the engine in a range of falcon models as a 'option' engine etc. then you'd go middle of the road...so 8.3-8.6 and have more than adequate performance with a good litre or two per hundred REAL WORLD saving over the I6 (at least in urban driving...which most people do....).

The rumours are pretty consistent that this is more than a 'one model' engine....but its not so clear if Ford will run different tunes for different models etc. There is no reason at all (apart from cost in developmet of course) why Ford can't have a 'econetic' style model that burns 0.3-0.5L/100km less than the others. A minor retune, low rolling resistance tyres, weight saving (less creature comforts then up spec models at least) etc.

[FalconXV]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

I think 7.9 would really be pushing it to be honest. Sure if you wanted a detuned version with eco tyres and aero etc.....it could be done. For me, i'd go with the 8.3 number. Firstly, although quite punchy the I4T will not have the go of the I6, yet will be sold at approx the same price. So Ford needs to make it truly economical with a real measurable advantage over the already good 4.0. What holden has now is so stupid IMO not only because it doesn't drive all that well versus other large cars but because it doesn't burn any less niether. Certainly versus the 3.6 version there is bugger all in it (as numerous holden fans have told me personally...).

If you have it tuned agressively and have I6-like grunt, it might burn 8.9-9.1....but why do that if you have an I6 that is around 9.6-9.8 by then anyway??? Not enough difference to convince the average punter to go for it. If you go for 7.9-8.1L/100km you would have to make it a real 'econetic' model....like a fiesta/focus econetic with special badging etc. If you aim to fit the engine in a range of falcon models as a 'option' engine etc. then you'd go middle of the road...so 8.3-8.6 and have more than adequate performance with a good litre or two per hundred REAL WORLD saving over the I6 (at least in urban driving...which most people do....).

The rumours are pretty consistent that this is more than a 'one model' engine....but its not so clear if Ford will run different tunes for different models etc. There is no reason at all (apart from cost in developmet of course) why Ford can't have a 'econetic' style model that burns 0.3-0.5L/100km less than the others. A minor retune, low rolling resistance tyres, weight saving (less creature comforts then up spec models at least) etc.

As an economy model it will be measured in the context of Camry Hybrid and Skoda Superb 1.6TDI- needs consumption which reflects its 2.0L capacity- if low resistance tyres and aero mods are used, the side effects can be engineered out of it.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

Where is it said that the EB Falcon will be dearer? and turbo's aren't any less reliable than anything the general puts under it's bonnet, My Friends SS is not aloud on my drive way as it pumps out too much oil even at 130000k's.

There was an article, I think GoAuto, where Marin says the EB engine will have a premium over the I6, they suggest around $1000-$1500.

[vztrt]

http://www.caradvice.com.au/64835/fo...le-for-falcon/

Ford adds three EcoBoost engines for 2010, I-4 possible for Falcon

April 15, 2010 by Tim Beissmann


Ford Motor Co will launch three more EcoBoost engines by the end of 2010, including the 2.0-litre four-cylinder unit that may be destined for the Falcon in 2011.

The new I-4 is expected to generate around 172kW/325Nm and consume as little as 8.0 litres/100km and has been confirmed for the next generation models of the Ford Explorer and Ford Edge.

The other new engines include a 1.6-litre four-cylinder for the European C-Max people-mover and a 3.5-litre V6 for the F-150 truck.

The new fuel-saving engines are part of Ford’s plan to ramp up EcoBoost production to 1.5 million units globally by 2013, 200,000 more than originally anticipated.

Ford vice president of powertrain engineering, Barb Samardzich, said the company expects around half of those to be sold outside North America, with the aim to have an EcoBoost engine available across 80 percent of its global nameplates.

“We are focused on sustainable technology solutions that can be used not for hundreds or thousands of cars, but for millions of cars, because that’s how Ford will truly make a difference,” she said.

While the first generation of EcoBoost engines are steadily rolling out, Ford director of powertrain research and advanced engineering, Dan Kapp, revealed work is already underway on the second-generation technology.

“We are trying to get in front of the pack in leveraging EcoBoost for fuel economy.

“It’s going to be a trend in the industry, and we can’t rest on our laurels for one minute. We are going to keep wringing more efficiency out of EcoBoost,” Mr Kapp said.

The new technology will continue to focus on downsizing engines and incorporating more efficient turbochargers, more precisely controlled direct-injection systems and optimum gearing of transmissions, all aimed at running the engine in its “sweet spot” more often.

By the end of 2012, Ford says 98 percent of its North American vehicles will be equipped with six-speed transmissions with the goal to improve fuel economy by four to six percent.

By 2014 the ambition is to equip as many as 20 percent of Ford’s global nameplates with stop/start engine technology, which can also reduce fuel and emissions by around five percent.

Ford has already committed $US1 billion to its electric vehicle future. The Transit Connect Electric will be launched later this year, followed by the Focus Electric in 2011. A hybrid and plug-in hybrid will also be built off Ford’s global C platform in the near future.

[phillyc]

How many Eco-boost mules are out and about? Only about 9 months away from release now!

[Paxton]

Originally Posted by phillyc

How many Eco-boost mules are out and about? Only about 9 months away from release now!

How would we know it was a mule? It wouldn't have to look any different to an I6 Falcon to be tested out in the open.

[GK]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

I think the older folks are a bit weary of the whole 4 cylinder idea, my Dad commented on the 4 cyl Commodore and how bad it was. So already for some people it has a bad image.

I guess Ford isn't too concerned about what the older folks think. Think younger folks, Falcon size, better than Camry economy.

It's the minds and hearts of the younger ones we need to win over.

I think it'll be a hit.

GK

[JPFS1]

They're out there alright, but most will not be able to pic them. Might even be running around in unexpected bodies.

[Ghiadude]

Originally Posted by JPFS1

They're out there alright, but most will not be able to pic them. Might even be running around in unexpected bodies.

Territory? FPV?? wagon??

[Paxton]

Originally Posted by Ghiadude

Territory? FPV?? wagon??

I'd say BA/BF shells. No one pays them a second look. They did some Duratec (V6) work in the BA sedan shells as well.

[JPFS1]

Ghiadude might be closer to the mark...