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

[mafiastafcar]

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 ;)

[HSE2]

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.

[mafiastafcar]

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?

[vztrt]

Just remember guys FordUS are putting this engine in a F150. So it cant be that bad for the Falcon.

[phillyc]

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.

[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

[vztrt]

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.

[Ross-b]

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

[Ross-b]

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

[Swordsman88]

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.

[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.

[Falc'man]

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.

[TOM-CAT]

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?

[Road_Warrior]

This 2.0EB decision is shaping up to be something much more significant than we first thought.

[sgt_doofey]

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)

[terri tx]

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.

[Fev]

...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

[Swordsman88]

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!

[ivorya]

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.

[phillyc]

Swordy, as always, a thorough and well reasoned post! Excellent info.

[Citric GT]

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.

[R-Design]

The latest on the I4T:

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.

[Falc'man]

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.

[HSE2]

Lawnmower

[R-Design]

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

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

[Swordsman88]

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.

[Burnout]

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.

[Wally]

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/

[madmelon]

I see a cam belt :(

[R-Design]

Falcon’s 2011 four-cylinder engine to have at least 147kW of power and low-end mumbo

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