Print 157 comment(s) - last by Alexvrb.. on May 20 at 6:25 PM

The 2010 Lincoln MKS is among Ford's first four vehicles to feature Ecoboost. The technology delivers comparable performance to a V8 engine with only a V6, while substantially reducing emissions.  (Source: Car and Driver)

The 2010 Ford Flex also features Ecoboost technology.  (Source: Gawker)
EcoBoost looks to be Ford's killer app in the auto market

It’s hard not to love Ford's EcoBoost initiative.  The technology is poised to deliver a healthy cut to emissions, all the while increasing performance of a number of the models.  The technology is a win-win situation style of efficient engineering, packing V8 performance into a V6 envelope.

The technology combines gasoline direct injection with a turbocharger to deliver its environmentally friendly, high performance engine.  The EcoBoost 3.5 liter twin turbocharged V6 is going to debut this year in the all-new 2010 Lincoln MKT large crossover; the 2010 MKS large sedan; the 2010 Ford Flex; and the 2010 Ford Taurus SHO.

Barb Samardzich, Ford's vice president of powertrain engineering, opened the gates allowing reporters to test drive the vehicle.  He states, "I've been talking about EcoBoost for two years.  All of the talking is over."

Scott Burgess, a writer at the Detroit News, test drove the new vehicle and adds, "When testing the MKT, I averaged 21.2 miles per gallon in a five-mile loop at 70 mph. In the MKS, on the same loop, I averaged 25.6 mpg...  When it comes to driving, talk is cheap and EcoBoost's performance speaks for itself. "

Ford expects to get 16 mpg in the city and 22 mpg for the Lincoln MKT, and 17 mpg in the city and 24 mpg on the highway for the lighter Lincoln MKS, when they are EPA certified.  This equates to approximately a 10 to 20 percent fuel savings over previous versions.

And the cars are packed with power.  The MKS accelerates at a peppy pace to 60 mph thanks in part to 350 pound-feet of torque at 1,500 rpm.  The powerful engine can effortlessly take the vehicle up to 120 mph on the track, meaning it should be able to excel at even the most demanding highway situations.  The engine performs comparably to the V8-equipped Audi Q7 (Lincoln MKT competitor) and Cadillac STS (Lincoln MKS competitor).

Ford plans for an aggressive deployment of EcoBoost technology.  By 2013, it plans to offer engines with EcoBoost on 90 percent of its nameplates.  This means that ultimately the technology may have a greater impact in reducing emissions than even GM and Chrysler's prospective electric vehicle deployments, thanks to the large volume.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Two things...
By Brandon Hill on 5/18/2009 9:21:23 AM , Rating: 5
1) Ford needs to quit with these bullcrap names: MKX, MKT, MKS? Give me a break; it's highly annoying.

2) 350 lb-ft @ 1,500 RPM?? That just makes me all giddy inside :)

RE: Two things...
By Spivonious on 5/18/2009 9:27:09 AM , Rating: 5
1) meh, it's just three vehicles in their smallest line-up.
2) that is truly awesome torque for a V6. I'm looking forward to them implementing this in their lower-end lineup.

I wonder if they can do the same with 4 cylinder engines. I'd love to get 200+ ft-lb of torque while still getting 30+ mpg.

RE: Two things...
By acase on 5/18/09, Rating: 0
RE: Two things...
By theapparition on 5/18/2009 2:31:00 PM , Rating: 5

V8 performance in a V6. What crap!

Perhaps 15 year old V8 performace, but hardly contemporary. Last I checked, LS3's were putting out north of 430hp, with comparable fuel economy. And 350lb-ft at 1500 rpm, think the LS3 has that covered too.

I'm not against Ford's eco-boost line up. It's actually quite good, but enough with the marketing bs.

RE: Two things...
By Richardito on 5/18/2009 3:02:01 PM , Rating: 2
You are clearly not understanding the point. Why are you comparing these luxury cars with a Corvette? They are in two completely different segments in the market. The future of cars is taking shape and it is very obvious (if you are an engineer). Smaller engines (consumes less gas, lower emissions and have less weight), direct injection (more power, better MPG and lower emissions) and turbos (on demmand power, much better MPG, makes a "small" engine breathe like a "big" engine). I actually have a Saab 9-2x (4 cylinder, turbo) with Cobb programming (and aftermarket bolt-ons) I have 285hp and 25-28 City MPG & 35-40 Highway MPG.

RE: Two things...
By theapparition on 5/18/2009 5:46:24 PM , Rating: 5
I don't understand the point???

First off, the entire LS series of engines are all available in other cars....not just the Corvette. The Vette gets the best fuel economy since its also the lightest, but the others are not that far off. See the new tank of Camaros for an example.

The future of cars is taking shape and it is very obvious (if you are an engineer)

I am an engineer, however the future of cars, as you put it, is being dictated, not by personal preference, but rather knee-jerk reactions to economic and political issues. You know this is true, but it is certainly not being driven by long term consumer preference. Fact is, if times were better, people as a whole wouldn't give a damn about fuel economy.

Smaller engines (consumes less gas, lower emissions and have less weight)

I beg to differ. When you add the weight of the turbos and pluming (you have to consider the package), they tend to be on par or even heavier. Witness the 335i powerplant vs a comparable V8. What you fail to mention is the signifigantly higher cost that turbos add over a NA setup.

and turbos (on demmand power, much better MPG, makes a "small" engine breathe like a "big" engine).

On the subject of turbos, I've yet to see any turbo'd engine that delivers the same power levels as a comparitively modern NA, and gets signifigantly better fuel economy. Usually, they are on par. Regardless of volumetric efficiency, you still need to pump a volume of air, that must get mixed with fuel in a prescribed ratio. So yes, you can get similar power levels with a smaller engine, but if it gets similar fuel efficiency, what's the point??? The only advantage is for light duty (city) where the turbo is not spooling since you get the advantage of less pumping work.

Direct injection was the holy grail for a long time, I'm glad they have conquered the technical limitations. That's a great thing.

Please note, I'm a big fan of forced induction and can get over 30mpg on the highway in my daily driver supercharged 800+rwhp Corvette Z06. I'm also not deluded enough to actually believe that I'm getting 30mpg everywhere, either, especially when pushing the pedal down a little further. While I appreciate your numbers, I'd be willing to wager that those numbers would be decidedly lower if it was tested by the EPA.

RE: Two things...
By Lord 666 on 5/18/2009 6:10:00 PM , Rating: 2
Modern turbo diesels produce similar or greater power with better fuel economy.

While not exactly apples to apples to your comparison, diesels are clearly ommitted from comparisons in today's tread.

RE: Two things...
By horadrum on 5/20/2009 8:48:31 AM , Rating: 2
If this were Europe, where diesels have a much greater market share in this segment, we could say they were omitted for a reason. In the US, turbo gasoline engines make more sense. Americans simply don't want diesel-power like other parts of the world might.

RE: Two things...
By Alexvrb on 5/20/2009 6:02:53 PM , Rating: 2
Diesel fuel contains more energy per gallon, so that's kind of a given. So its even less of a fair comparison than comparing mediocre Ford V8s with fancy newfangled turbocharged direct injected V6s. Diesel is also often more costly, in some areas even more expensive than Premium 93 octane gasoline. If everyone switched to it, don't expect diesel fuel costs to exactly plummet.

RE: Two things...
By Regs on 5/18/2009 6:16:54 PM , Rating: 2
It's what people want though. People think V8 is only for heavy duty trucks or race cars like corvette's. But if you pack more power into a V6 plant with reasonable fuel economy people will buy it. Do you think the wife is going to let the husband drive the kids around in a V8 mustang convertible or corvette? Does that same husband though have the urge to sometimes to flip the finger up at the rice burner behind him?

RE: Two things...
By dgingeri on 5/18/2009 9:48:43 AM , Rating: 3
If they could get 200+ft-lb of torque out of a 4 cylinder engine, I (who has been a long time GM fan) might actually think about buying a Ford.

RE: Two things...
By Hare on 5/18/2009 3:12:34 PM , Rating: 2
200+ft-lb? That's quite modest isn't it? I mean VW/Audi 2.0 liter 4cyl TFSI engine produces 208hp and 258 ft-lb torque.

RE: Two things...
By Samus on 5/18/2009 5:47:14 PM , Rating: 3
Likewise, my Focus SVT has 190ft/lb of torque from a factory ford racing supercharger, and that's from 2003. the only real technology the engine has is variable intake cam timing and dual stage intake runners, and that's old school stuff as well. ford builds good engines, always leaving ample headroom for abuse. every ford engine i've tuned has always remained internally stock, and has never suffered reliability even with harsh boost, harsh driving environment, etc. all i do is change the oil and the timing belt on time and they pretty much remain maintenance free well beyond 100,000 miles.

although i only have 94,000 on my svt, so uhh, knock on wood.

i'm just surprised ford is taking over what crystler tried to lead the industry with in the 80's. that is, offering turbo charging on nearly their entire vehicle lineup. crystler failed miserably because at the time, turbo chargers just couldn't be implemented reliably for cheap. a lot of them didn't even have liquid cooling (just oil feed cooling) so that caused the oil to practically boil and when people didn't let the lines cool off they usually leaked in a matter of years of owning the vehicle. just kind of put a bad taste in the american audiences mouth about turbo charging.

RE: Two things...
By ICE1966 on 5/18/2009 10:17:48 PM , Rating: 2
Ford actually did get over 200ft/lbs of torque out of a 4 banger in the SVO mustang from the 80's. The last year that the SVO wqas made, 1986, the 4 cyl. was rated at 215hp and just over 250ft/lbs of torque.

To the guy with the 800rwhp corvette, I not sure what your engine displacement is, as I do not fool with Chevy engines, but I have a 1988 mustang that produces 1000rwhp out of 356ci. the engine is twin turbo'd, and its a full weight car with all the goodies, and its gets over 27.5 mpg. I could get the 30mpg like you if I detune the setup a bit. it is a street car and on the skid pad I hit a full 1g of lateral grip with the car, which is pretty good. Of course it has suspension upgrades to make this happen since its underpinnings were not as good as the vettes from the factory. I also have a mustang full out drag car that should hit close to the 1700hp mark. I am currently building this car with new dart complete alum. billet block as a starting point for the engine Anyway,take care and be safe on the road.

RE: Two things...
By FITCamaro on 5/18/2009 11:36:18 PM , Rating: 2
LS1 is 346 ci.
LS2 is 364 ci.

All depends on the setup you're doing.

RE: Two things...
By FITCamaro on 5/18/2009 9:50:31 AM , Rating: 5
Get a Cobalt SS Turbo. 260 lb ft. And they still get 29-30 mpg. Same with the GXP Solstice or the Sky Turbo. Or if you want to go older, get a SRT-4. Even the older Cobalt SS Supercharged and Ion Redlines made over 200 lb ft of torque. And both were easily modifiable.

There's plenty of affordable turbo cylinders out there getting that kind of power.

RE: Two things...
By FITCamaro on 5/18/2009 9:51:19 AM , Rating: 2
Whoops that was supposed to be to dgingeri's post and supposed to say "turbo 4 cylinder"

RE: Two things...
By sprockkets on 5/18/2009 10:23:34 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Two things...
By Jeff7181 on 5/18/09, Rating: 0
RE: Two things...
By Keeir on 5/18/2009 2:42:22 PM , Rating: 2
They don't make that amount of torque at 1500 RPM, though. That's the significance of these EcoBoost engines... that kind of grunt down low has been largely unheard of outside of a diesel up until now.

Not really....
258 lbs of Torque at 1,500 rpm out of a 2.0L 4 Cylinder

Standard Audi/VW engine used in many US models.
295 lbs of Torque at 1,900 rpm out of a 2.8L 6 Cyclinder.

GM owned company

300 lbs of Torque at 1,400 rpm out of a 3.0L 6 Cyclinder.

BMW I guess is fairly exclusive

260 lbs of Torque at 2,500 rpm out of a 2.0L 4 Cyclinder.

Ecoboost Engines are nice. But they are just a small evolutionary step from what other manufactures have been putting out at the 25,000-35,000 (4 Cyclinder) and 35,000-45,000 (6 Cyclinder) ranges.

RE: Two things...
By Pryde on 5/19/2009 3:25:46 AM , Rating: 2
How about Ford Australia

FG XR6 Turbo ( 4.0L DOHC DI-VCT TURBO I6 )
533 nm from 2,000 - 4,750rpm
270kw @ 5250rpm
25 MPG

and all that for only $54,000 NZD ( or $32,000 USD, $23,000 EUR )

F6 ( XR6T by Ford Performance Vehicles )
565Nm 1,950 - 5,200rpm
310kW @ 5,500rpm
Still maintains 25 MPG

The FG model was launched Feb 08. This EcoBoost from Ford offers nothing new.

RE: Two things...
By 67STANG on 5/18/2009 2:33:10 PM , Rating: 2
Everything that I read states that the 4cyl. Ford EcoBoost engine is rated at 250hp/250lb. ft.

Definately not new technology, as the Cobalt already had comparable specs and the same engine size, at 2.0 liters. The difference is that ford is trying to get 40mpg when they put the 2.0EB in the Fusion.

I've driven a couple of the Neon SRT's and they are definately a hoot to drive. Can't say I'm a fan of the Viper seats they put in them, but hey, they are quick so who cares? If only it wasn't still a Neon at heart, I would have bought one.

They are supposed to be putting the 3.5EB in the 2011 Mustang as well, although this one will be rated at 400hp-- 85hp more than the current 4.6 V8 GT version and more than the older 2003-2004 Supercharged Cobras that had 390hp.

Although, I am almost more interested in the 2010 Taurus SHO that has the 365hp 3.5EB. The Taurus is rumored to be VERY fast and for the first time ever (for a Taurus), looks awesome.

EB Engine:

RE: Two things...
By Keeir on 5/18/2009 4:02:34 PM , Rating: 2
Definately not new technology, as the Cobalt already had comparable specs and the same engine size, at 2.0 liters. The difference is that ford is trying to get 40mpg when they put the 2.0EB in the Fusion.

They might be trying, but the improvement numbers they are returning from the V6s would be more like 36 mpg highway for the fusion sized car. Personally, I would be happy if the 2.0EB returned 30 mpg combined with 250/250 on the fusion....

RE: Two things...
By 67STANG on 5/18/2009 6:54:55 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed. 30mpg combined would be great. Although it's important to note that the new (soon to be) government mandate of 42mpg fleet average for cars in 2016 is a "short" 7 years away. This will however, be phased in every year, so manufacturers must implement immediately.

Cosidering the track record of fuel economy increases over the past few decades, that will be a lofty goal. I'm assuming that plug-in hybrid technology will have to be combined with these EcoBoost engines in order to meet that fleet goal-- which will, of course, raise consumer costs dramatically.

There has been talk of ways around this affecting entire car-lines by producing 1 or 2 "super-efficient" cars that get 60+mpg so as to raise the fleet average, but I'm unaware of any of the "big 3" (ok big 1, bankrupt 2) having anything tangible.

RE: Two things...
By Locutus465 on 5/18/2009 11:00:05 AM , Rating: 4
That Tarus SHO sounds like it's going to be badass.

RE: Two things...
By retrospooty on 5/18/2009 12:47:46 PM , Rating: 2
"I wonder if they can do the same with 4 cylinder engines. I'd love to get 200+ ft-lb of torque while still getting 30+ mpg."

That's exactly what I was thinking. It would be sweet.

The extra torq potential looks awesone - the one thing I miss from my old Camaro is the sore neck from taking off like a bat out of hell. Not missed were my monthly repair bills. =)

RE: Two things...
By Doormat on 5/18/2009 1:05:07 PM , Rating: 2
The V6->V4 eco-boost technology is coming, they just started with the V8->V6 because it was a bigger relative improvement..

However, for most of us who like smaller, more efficient cars, the best is yet to come. Ford is working on 1.6-liter and 2.0-liter V4 engines with EcoBoost. The 1.6-liter will go into production later this year and start appearing in vehicles like the Focus.

RE: Two things...
By Spivonious on 5/18/2009 2:15:34 PM , Rating: 2

RE: Two things...
By Alexvrb on 5/20/2009 5:22:55 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if they can do the same with 4 cylinder engines. I'd love to get 200+ ft-lb of torque while still getting 30+ mpg.
They already have this. In fact you could be driving a 4 cylinder car right now with 260HP and an awesomely flat 260 ft/lb torque curve. Oh, and its not Ford that makes it. :) This particular car comes with a direct injected, dual VVT, turbo'd and intercooled 2.0L. 30MPG highway, and 22 city, in a small (but not compact) sedan. Namely, the Cobalt SS, which also does well on the track (C&D has some good articles sometimes). If mileage was this car's main goal, a ECU flash and regearing would trade some acceleration could be traded for even better economy. They could use a smaller variant of the LNF to further bump up economy.

Regarding V6s, There are a few reasons GM isn't currently using forced induction on their 3.6 and 3.0L HFV6s. For one, they already get good power in NA form, especially the DI versions. Also their current LS series of V8s are already quite powerful and efficient, even though they are lowly NA pushrod motors. :D Not to mention that turbocharging does add some cost, weight, and complexity, although that is less of an issue than it once was.

In the near future I suspect we'll be seeing turbocharging used on more vehicles. Like it or not, the new administration has enacted harsher CAFE standards. Car manufacturers can use turbochargers to get fleet mileage up, even if the vehicles only get the advertised HP, torque, and mileage when using manufacturer-recommended 91+ octane fuel. CAFE doesn't care about the type of fuel you recommend. So the cost to operate the vehicle may end up being roughly the same, depending on the premium being charged for (ahem) Premium grade. But the MPG is higher, so it looks better on paper!

Now don't get me wrong, I'm far from against turbocharged DI vehicles. Modern ones using advanced knock detection and VVT can be engineered to safely burn 87-93 octane (like the LNF example above). However, if it is optimized for 91+ and you run 87, you will suffer decreased power and mileage. The same can even be said for some aggressive NA motors. Again, looks good on paper, meets CAFE, but does it really save you any money if you only get rated power and fuel economy with Premium?

RE: Two things...
By mjcutri on 5/18/2009 9:47:44 AM , Rating: 5
1) Ford needs to quit with these bullcrap names: MKX, MKT, MKS? Give me a break; it's highly annoying.

This coming from a guy who covers tech...
Intel, AMD, AMD(ATI), and nVidia are MUCH worse when it comes to naming schemes. (especially nVidia: 8800GTS 512MB->9800GT->GTS250)

At least Lincoln has a little bit of rationale behind their scheme. The current Lincoln trend with the "MK" (em-k) prefix is a tribute to the old "Mk" (mark) series of luxury coupes.

RE: Two things...
By rudolphna on 5/18/2009 10:12:53 AM , Rating: 5
come on, its not any more annoying than BMWs pure number based names. whatever happened to good interesting names? seriously 335d, 128i? Are you saying that is less annoying? Anyway on another note, I am excited for this, it shows fords continuing commitment to quality, fuel efficiency and cost. This and the new fiesta, which looks awesom
e, are the two things i think are really going to help ford. the fiesta looka awesome, i definitely plan on looking to gwt one when i can. Ford is back, and im proud to own some. This was posted from a cell phone, so sorry for the bad spelling, and lack of caps.

RE: Two things...
By PrinceGaz on 5/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: Two things...
By Durrr on 5/18/2009 11:12:17 AM , Rating: 5
wrong,the 335 has a turbocharged 3.0L I-6, same as the 135, and the number doesn't indicate whether it's better or worse, it indicates the size of the vehicle. a 1 series is basically a RWD compact car (with 300hp/tq in the 135, not something to sniff at), 3 series is a mid-size/entry level luxury, the 5 series is a mid size/ executive, and 7 series is the executive/full size. The M-class versions generally fit into sports categories

RE: Two things...
By chrnochime on 5/18/2009 12:26:13 PM , Rating: 1
128/135 compact car? At less than 6" shorter than the 3 sedans and weight of ~3400lb I don't consider that compact. The thing is less than 200lb lighter than the 3, yes costs nearly as much. And there's no "M-class" version. Technically speaking a M-class would be the M35/45 from Infiniti. That or the ML-class SUVs from Benz.

RE: Two things...
By 67STANG on 5/18/2009 2:50:45 PM , Rating: 2
I think the "M-class" was a reference to BMW's very well known: M3, M5, M6, M Coupe and M Roadster. M stands for Motorsport...

BMW's M cars are competitors to the Mercedes AMG cars.

RE: Two things...
By Zshazz on 5/18/2009 4:12:34 PM , Rating: 2
To clarify the 335 d does not have the same engine as a 135 i . The 335d's turbocharged 3.0L I-6 produces only 265hp (but a much higher 425ft-lb tq).

RE: Two things...
By Richardito on 5/18/2009 3:07:49 PM , Rating: 3
It USED to be logical. BTW the first number used to meant the numbers of cylinders minus one. So series 3 meant 4 cylinders, series 5 meant 6 cylinders, etc. Your observation about the other two numbers is correct. It used to be that way but from what I've seen lately they do not play by those rules anymore. Entropy (chaos, randomness) is winning the fight...

RE: Two things...
By nixoofta on 5/18/2009 12:51:09 PM , Rating: 2
S'ok,...just keep the bus on the road.


RE: Two things...
By Lord 666 on 5/18/2009 5:57:29 PM , Rating: 2
Guess you have never driven a VW TDI 3.0 or MB CDI that make more lbs and use less fuel.

RE: Two things...
By rbfowler9lfc on 5/18/2009 10:38:33 PM , Rating: 1
Voila, welcome united-statians to the wonderful world of supercharged engines. European cars have been using it in their engines since the 80's providing them with good power output, flat torque curve, lower emissions and higher mileage, but hooray, in N.America this is brand new!!!

RE: Two things...
By Alexvrb on 5/20/2009 6:25:54 PM , Rating: 2
1) We're talking about turbocharged engines.
2) Forced induction of ANY kind is far from new to us. Especially with regards to turbocharging... look at our WWII birds. Not exactly completely new stuff.
3) In years past, turbocharged gasoline engines were not as appealing for various reasons. Cost, octane requirements, complexity, weight, long-term reliability (especially given abuse of the cars, not letting them cool down, weaker turbos, inferior oils, etc).
4) I don't see gasoline turbocharged German cars exactly driving the naturally aspirated Japanese cars out of our market with their "superior mileage".

It has taken a lot of time to wash away such memories, as well as engine advancements across the board, to make turbocharging really make sense for more and more vehicles.

I don't understand...
By Cerin218 on 5/18/2009 10:21:04 AM , Rating: 2
So you have come up with this brilliant plan to twin turbo charge a v-6 to get all this fuel economy? I owned a 1984 Buick Grand National. It had a 3.8L 231 V-6 that was fuel injected and single turbo charged producing 200hp with 300 lb·ft of torque. I could get 25mpg city with it if I kept my foot out of it. And that was powering a heavy as a brick Buick Regal from '84. So 30 year old technology is brought out and introduced as all new Ecoboost? Am I missing something here?

RE: I don't understand...
By xprojected on 5/18/2009 10:40:56 AM , Rating: 2
The '87 Buick 3.8 V6 turbo is EPA rated (today's standards) at 15 city 23 highway. Ford/Lincoln is promising similar mileage (admittedly not all that great) on the MKS and MKT. Also, this article failed to mention that the EcoBoost is expected to put out 355 hp as well.

RE: I don't understand...
By twhittet on 5/18/2009 11:48:56 AM , Rating: 1
Lol - don't you just love it when people make up their own EPA numbers. For some odd reason, I don't trust "I get 50mpg city in my 1960 boat, and it was more reliable too! And it had wings! And no emissions! And it was safe too - didn't need no seatbelts/airbags"

RE: I don't understand...
By sprockkets on 5/18/2009 10:45:11 AM , Rating: 4
Yes, you are.

Since you cannot do basic math, 355HP > 200 HP (your numbers).

And, 3.5L < 3.8.

And, 1984 is 25 years ago, not 30.

Lastly, the engine you refer to has so many different variations, I'm not sure which one you are referring to. If you are referring to the Grand National, it actually put out 235hp or more.

Which, seeing as how a Lexus V6 naturally aspirated can put out 306HP, this Ford engine is probably not over boosted to be such a pesky engine. It is supposed to be a luxury car, not a sports car after all.

RE: I don't understand...
By FITCamaro on 5/18/2009 3:12:28 PM , Rating: 2
You're comparing a modern, direct injected V6 to a 1985 V6s output? And don't forget there was a 300+ hp version of the turbocharged 3.8L in the GNX.

And both the GNX and the Grand National/Regal T-Type were underrated.

RE: I don't understand...
By Atheist Icon on 5/18/2009 3:19:27 PM , Rating: 2
And both the GNX and the Grand National/Regal T-Type severly underrated.

Fixed it for you.

RE: I don't understand...
By mudgiestylie on 5/18/2009 8:19:07 PM , Rating: 2
And both the GNX and the Grand National/Regal T-Type severely underrated.

and i fixed it for you.

but you couldn't be more right (other than the 3rd e in severely), I saw a modified grand national on a dyno putting out over 1000hp. that is something to behold.

RE: I don't understand...
By Atheist Icon on 5/19/2009 12:29:59 AM , Rating: 2
The one that was burning out on the dyno? That one sent chills down my spine...too bad it wasn't, to my knowledge, a 3.8, something much bigger...

RE: I don't understand...
By sprockkets on 5/18/2009 7:52:24 PM , Rating: 3
As an example, the 2.3L turbo in the Mazda CX-7 puts out 240HP while it puts out 263HP in the Mazdaspeed3. Why? Because one is expected to use all the output it can put out, and one is supposed to be a day in day out vehicle.

Which one is going to require more maintenance? Which one will act more civil?

Just because something puts out a high number of HP, doesn't mean it puts it out on a broad curve of RPM. Some people whine that the engines in trucks put out less HP per liter of engine than cars do, only to forget, they have to put out that output rather broadly, because they need to haul stuff, not pass people on the road.

So, yeah, that engine and others are great. But I'm willing to bet that the GNX didn't last anywhere near as long as the Grand National did, and for that matter, probably used much more gas.

Bottom line? "There's no such thing as a free lunch." aka, the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

RE: I don't understand...
By sprockkets on 5/18/2009 10:57:41 AM , Rating: 3
Oh, and just to add to that, I doubt your car qualifies for what today's emissions standards require. Just remember, GM canned the supercharged Cobalt SS due to just that.

RE: I don't understand...
By MadMan007 on 5/18/2009 12:06:05 PM , Rating: 4
I sort of agree with this. I'd like to see what kind of numbers I could get to compare, auto journalists are known to thrash cars and get poor fuel economy. It really seems like the auto makers are still pushing in one direction and that is increasing everything...I could care less about going 0-60 in 5.x seconds, even driving a sporty car I don't go maxing out performance, why not just keep performance flat and get a really substantial increase in fuel economy?

RE: I don't understand...
By sprockkets on 5/18/2009 8:01:37 PM , Rating: 2
Well, in that case, perhaps there is the Smart, or any other baseline car, with say, a variable drive transmission. There are diesels, although the gas costs more. Or most any car in Europe, since gas there is still 2-3x what we pay.

Yeah, Car and Driver thrashes cars. That's why in their test, the Cobalt SS turbo got 22MPG, and so did the MSP3.

By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 5/18/2009 12:26:22 PM , Rating: 2
Point well taken, though. I have a 2009 Venza with 3.5L V6 VVTi that gets better mileage, at about 270 HP. Corvettes get better mileage if HP is a sticking point. All the US automakers did this in the late 70's, too. Trotted out these V6 motors and crowed about better mileage, which added momentum to the downward spiral. There was a real jump to Japanese cars for fuel economy and later power after that.

RE: I don't understand...
By morning on 5/18/2009 1:47:11 PM , Rating: 2
building superior petrol engines for todays demands ....

select 'USA' - 'engines' - 'TFSI'

Seriously guys...
By richie1008 on 5/18/2009 5:37:29 PM , Rating: 2
Why is it you guys in the US insist on buying such massive heavy cars that you still get such appalling fuel economy and need a V6 or V8 to shift it!

My UK Focus has
- a 4 cylinder 2.5 litre engine,
- does 0-60 in 6.5 (someone wanna say that's slow and theirs does it in 6 go on!)
- easily fits 4
- does 30 mpg

Whats wrong with that?! Queue someone telling me I need a V8 to be a man! Ha ha ha

Guys, oil is running out, you don't need 2 massive guys that only you ride in 90% of the time, do you! Come on, find a new p***s extension!

RE: Seriously guys...
By Keeir on 5/18/2009 6:52:38 PM , Rating: 4
Why is it you guys in the US insist on buying such massive heavy cars that you still get such appalling fuel economy and need a V6 or V8 to shift it!

Hahah, it amuses me to be reminded of how much Europeans don't know about the US.

Some Facts:
England Population Density: 1,015 per Sq Mile
US Population Density: 80 per Sq Mile

Avg. Price of English Petrol: 100p/L --> 5.79 USD/USgallon
Avg. Price of US Gasoline: 2.25 USD/USgallon

Avg. Height of 16+ UK Male: 175.3 cm
Avg. Height of 20+ US Male: 178.9 cm (Probably a good 30 lbs+ as well)

Truth is, your UK focus is a wonderful car which is not even availible in the US. The US gets crappy little cars because most people choose to buy larger cars. The US is sparsely populated (In comparison) which often leads to significantly longer commutes, long times driving at "stable" conditions on 70mph roads, and danger from much larger trucks and other vechiles. Since the price hit to using the larger car is significantly smaller due to the much milder taxes on petrol in the United States, many find the comfort, safety, and increased utilities of larger vechiles acceptable at the lower price hit.

Last time I was in England, I wouldn't have wanted to drive a larger car like we do in the US. Smaller lane sizes, drive ways, etc leads to the size being a limitation (which it is not in the US). Also, I didn't notice any particular stretch where I would travel 70+ for more than 2 hours (140 miles is roughly the distance between Manchester and London right?)

RE: Seriously guys...
By richie1008 on 5/19/2009 3:29:38 AM , Rating: 2
most people choose to buy larger cars.

Fair enough points, but this quote was all I was getting at basically... Driving further is a good reason for comfort, but even with your cheaper fuel, would of thought those extra miles would have pushed you further to smaller lighter stuff. Maybe that's whats happening now I guess... Just interesting to see so many suggesting you need a V8 for it to be a decent car...

RE: Seriously guys...
By Keeir on 5/19/2009 1:19:04 PM , Rating: 2
Naw, these Lincoln are the Audi/BMW/Lexus of the US market. They are designed for the rich to ride in comfort with enough power.

I remember when I was 18, gas was around 1 dollar a gallon. Traveling an average of 15,000 miles a year, thats a cost at 20 mpg avg of only 750 dollars. At 30 mpg, your only saving 250 dollars in a whole year. Its not really worth the trade off. Even at 40 mpg (switching from a full-size full powered car to essentially an eco-box) you only save ~375 dollars a year... just a dollar a day.

Now when gas is 6 dollars a gallon, its 1,500+ dollar a year difference. Thats going to motivate people. Heck, even if you cut the drives in 1/2 (similar to how the UK must drive... I have no clue though), your still able to save 750 dollars moving from 20 mpg to 30 mpg.

RE: Seriously guys...
By mudgiestylie on 5/18/2009 8:54:53 PM , Rating: 3
last time I checked luxury cars in the UK and the rest of europe were similarly large, with similarly large engines. some of this has to do with many european car manufacturers being owned by US car companies (vauxhall, opel, volvo and until recently jaguar, aston martin, landrover, and lotus). My family is originally from Millom, England so I'm not trying to trash talk, but you can't lecture us about our driving habits as you haven't figured out yet which side of the road to drive on :)

RE: Seriously guys...
By richie1008 on 5/19/2009 3:37:24 AM , Rating: 2
Apparently we were using horse karts on the left because of the Romans well before the USA existed, so probably seemed like a shame to change :)

Eh, if they want to be "hard core"
By goku on 5/18/2009 10:47:18 AM , Rating: 2
If ford wants to be hard core like a V8 but have better fuel economy, why go with a V configuration at ALL? Bring back the inline configuration, a straight 6! That way you could tune it for even better fuel economy and still have the same power, or you could continue being retards and just leave fuel economy as is and continually improve power.

RE: Eh, if they want to be "hard core"
By FITCamaro on 5/18/2009 10:59:05 AM , Rating: 2
Inline 6s are awesome and give great lowend torque. The issue is fitting them in a cars engine bay. You need a longer or wider engine bay to fit an inline 6 for the same liter engine.

GM has a great inline 6. They even built a prototype twin-turbo Trailblazer that put out 450 hp.

RE: Eh, if they want to be "hard core"
By Nexos on 5/18/2009 11:41:09 AM , Rating: 2
What about the VR6 configuration?

By FITCamaro on 5/18/2009 3:17:38 PM , Rating: 2
Sure looks like the pistons are in a V configuration to me.

By rudolphna on 5/18/2009 11:02:39 PM , Rating: 3
Best Inline 6 IMO, was the 4.0L Inline 6 in the Jeep Wrangler and Cherokee, that thing was bulletproof, and had lots of low end grunt for offroading.

so wait
By tastyratz on 5/18/2009 12:30:36 PM , Rating: 2
Ford decided to make more horsepower out of a smaller engine with a turbo? Brilliant!

Why didn't anyone think of that before many years ago?

They might as well have come out and announced they just discovered the wheel or fire.

RE: so wait
By Atheist Icon on 5/18/2009 3:16:08 PM , Rating: 2
Ford did a long time ago, but because people were ignorant on turbo timers...or hell, just letting their cars idle for a couple minutes after a drive. So when their turbo's cooked, it was Ford's fault that people didn't know this.

My 88 Turbocoupe TBird was perfect example of Ford ability to make a good turbo 4-banger. Could run on Premium or Regular via a switch that either advanced or retarded the timing. From 83-88 they produced Turbo Tbirds, of course the most recognized Turbo car they made was the 85(I believe) SVO Mustang.

My 89 Supercharged TBird gets 32 mpg in 5th at 70. My 93 Supercharged TBird gets 24 mpg in OD, the same as my 02 Rustang.

Ford has done quite a bit with their boosted motors but because of the ignorant masses, they were not properly recognized. For some reason the majority of Americans want a car that will "run forever" with the lest possible required maintenance. Never going to happen with mass production, regardless of the manufacturer. Talk to my wife about her 99 Civic that had multiple waterpumps fail from the dealer.

RE: so wait
By Devilboy1313 on 5/18/2009 8:13:51 PM , Rating: 2
I still don't know why all, or at least most, car companies don't drop modern twin turbos in every vehicle and lower displacement. Then add in some form of MDS (or whatever you want to call using 2, 3 or 4 cylinders in a v6 when you don't need full power) and properly gear the thing for actual driving conditions.

You could improve horsepower, boost mpg and reduce weight. The turbo costs would be offset in part by economies of scale & reduced displacement related costs.

RE: so wait
By AlmostExAMD on 5/19/2009 4:57:43 AM , Rating: 1
Because Americans started a trend with feeling safer in a big SUV,Now a lot of the western world is following suit,My country Australia is SUV crazy now!.
If we all drove around in minis or ride motorcycles we could all save fuel/planet,Problem is not everyone wants to,I know I certainly don't I love my LS1 V8 Commodore.
Need to change peoples attitudes to wanting large cars first,I'm sure a few including myself won't be seen driving in a death trap little turbo bubble car knowing there are a lot of drivers out there in SUV's who shouldn't even be on the road. Examples being some asian ladies(no offence intended to asians) at my work that drive large SUV's,They don't know half the road rules and I have witnessed a number of near misses including them trying to overtake turning trucks,Not knowing who has right of way,and changing lanes without even looking.
One lady in her Honda Accord had a major accident trying to get out onto main road at work and guess what she drives around in now,Yep SUV.
I feel safe in my Commodore,There is enough impact/crumple zone/airbags if I'm in a moderate crash with one of those 4WD's.

Premium Gas Only?
By JBird7986 on 5/18/2009 12:04:52 PM , Rating: 2
It seems to me that EcoBoost is primarily a turbocharger added to the engine...don't turbochargers usually require premium fuel? If you're driving one of the Lincolns, that shouldn't be a problem, but some families may have to look away from these vehicles just because they can't afford the extra money for the gas.

RE: Premium Gas Only?
By FITCamaro on 5/18/2009 3:14:47 PM , Rating: 3
It depends on the tune. Generally less but you can likely get away with running midgrade. Regular will probably be out though. But in reality, you're talking an extra dollar or two per fill up. Assuming you were to fill up every week you're talking an extra $52-104 a year. If that breaks the budget you shouldn't be buying the car.

driving habbits
By Adul on 5/18/2009 10:11:42 AM , Rating: 3
what ford should also do is include a gauge in their vehicles to discourage aggressive driving habits to help conserve fuel more. You can easily gain a few more MPG but changing your driving habits.

RE: driving habbits
By kellehair on 5/18/2009 12:07:07 PM , Rating: 1
I don't think people who are buying 350HP vehicles will be too interested in taking it easy on the gas pedal. Lame asses can get one of the other engine options.

This deserves a catchy name?
By SublimeSimplicity on 5/18/2009 10:31:08 AM , Rating: 2
I understand that marketing departments need to put food on their tables too, but this isn't exactly an earth shattering technological advancement.

The technology combines gasoline direct injection with a turbocharger to deliver its environmentally friendly, high performance engine.

Almost 15 years ago Mazda had the miller-cycle Millenia S... THAT deserved a flashy name like ecoBoost... this is just a direction injection turbo engine. We've seen this in the BMW 335, Mini Cooper before that, Solstice GXP before that, and I'm sure something else before that.

RE: This deserves a catchy name?
By xprojected on 5/18/2009 10:52:13 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe not the first, but direct injection is still making its way into mainstream engines, and turbocharged engines in North America are still pretty uncommon. The fact that it's making Ford ditch many of its V8 engines is certainly something to put a name on.

Barb is a woman, no?
By Suomynona on 5/18/2009 11:07:43 AM , Rating: 2
Barb Samardzich, Ford's vice president of powertrain engineering, opened the gates allowing reporters to test drive the vehicle. He states, "I've been talking about EcoBoost for two years. All of the talking is over."

RE: Barb is a woman, no?
By Durrr on 5/18/2009 11:13:27 AM , Rating: 2
Yes! Turbos are the future...
By wingless on 5/18/2009 8:44:55 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, the world has figured out FRICKIN' TURBOS are the answer to power/economy problems. Ummm, those of us in the import world have known this for a long long time. Our turbo 240sx/Silvias do 35 highway on even medium tunes. Direct Injection increases the effect of turbos too.

Honestly, automakers in the US should have made it to this point 10 years ago, but this is a start. Now Ford just needs to EcoBoost the Mustang V6.

RE: Yes! Turbos are the future...
By rudolphna on 5/18/2009 11:20:59 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, Ford needs to replace that Archaic 4.0L in the mustang.

I disagree completely.
By mindless1 on 5/19/2009 4:40:23 AM , Rating: 2
You're all idiots.

We don't need more performance out of any engine. Right now if you are in a typical 6 cylinder sedan and floor it to get top performance, you will already get a moving violation ticket, be ragging out the engine, and due to traffic, seldom get where you are going more than a minute or two faster.

So if we have V8 performance in a V6, what do we gain? NOTHING USEFUL EXCEPT TO WEINERS.

Grow up children, or I should write retarded chimps, because intelligent people recognize what matters while chimp-human hybrids only understand larger numbers on a spec sheet.

Let me clue you in. Increasing engine density and complexity is a bad thing. It means the engine wears out faster and is more costly to repair, all for something we don't need (see above, if we needed this performance we'd be flooring the gas pedal more of the time, though frankly I can't recall the last time I ever needed to floor a larger V6 engine based car).

Marketing BS, engines have made continual advancements year after year. We could have said the same thing in 1990, that a V6 then was as powerful as a V8 from many years prior.

By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 5/19/2009 7:41:02 AM , Rating: 2
There have been quite a few advancements in engine technology in the past 30 years. The problem is, the cars are about 800# heavier on average (even Corvettes). But you are correct. This is typical Detroit hype. Have your cake and eat it to. Well, the V6 might get V8 power with better fuel economy, but the people who will drive these things won't be in it for the fuel economy. They will continue to blat around in rush hour traffic like they want to get to work first so they can turn on the copier or something. Total tards.

I was expecting a bit better.
By McScoot on 5/18/2009 10:15:42 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know how heavy those vehicles are, but are those figures really that impressive? That doesn't exactly sound like an amazing cut to fuel consumption, unless those cars were atrocious before this change. I was expecting better, though the torque sounds good.

The current Ford Falcon XR6 Turbo in Australia (4.0 litre inline 6) gets a fuel consumption rating here which converts to 20.1 mpg mixed, 13.76 mpg city, 26.7 mpg outside the city. So it seems like the MKS sedan will probably be more fuel efficient in city driving (they say 17mpg city, 24 highway). The XR6 Turbo isn't exactly considered to be the most economical car around though. The XR6 Turbo weighs something like 4000 lb, accelerates to 62 miles/hr in something like 5.7 seconds and has 393 lb/ft of torque from 2000rpm to 4750rpm. It doesn't require premium unleaded, has a 6 speed automatic transmission, has been out in the current version for at least a year, and there's a high performance version (417 lb/ft 1950-5200rpm, 415hp). It just doesn't sound to me like this new engine is in a different league. It sounds like it will at best offer close to the same performance with better city mileage.

By djc208 on 5/18/2009 12:33:41 PM , Rating: 2
Turbos to boost power/efficiency aren't new, nor are twin turbos. It's a good idea that I think more companies will be embracing it in the future. My problem is longevity. Turbos live hard lives and need extra care. How are these going to hold up whith people who only do maintenance because something is wrong? Heck, for most people the "check engine" light is only a suggestion.

Adding tubo timers and similar tech would help, but having your car run for a minute or two after you shut it off would partially negate some of those fuel savings, and probably freak a lot of owners out the first time (after all, who reads the instruction manual). And once one or both of those tubos go bad you'll be left with a farily low power, normally aspirated engine and a huge repair bill.

And since the GM guys are blowing their horns I have to add that these numbers aren't much below what you see from the 5.7L HEMI thanks to the cylinder shutdown technology. I regularly average 16/23 in my Magnum and technically make more power (on all 8 cylinders).

Missing the point
By andrinoaa on 5/18/2009 6:16:37 PM , Rating: 2
I cannot get over the postings from the usual crowd. You guys would make a shrink's day everyday. If the goal is fuel economy, why the hell would you design a small engine to give you big engine obeisity. Why do you NEED 350nm to just lug around the suburbs? Guys, the world has changed, penis throbbing power is so yesterday. If the world economy picks up again, you will be back to square one. Ford should be working on 1.2 - 1.6ltr turbo/supercharged to get 200-250nm and design lighter cars cause to me that will deliver far far better economy. Just look at the development of diesels in Europe. To me, it looks like Ford is half in and half out. They want to be seen to be at the forefront but are only dragging the chain.

That's it?
By FITCamaro on 5/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: That's it?
By Brandon Hill on 5/18/2009 9:28:11 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, yes, we know. The wonderful LSx engines with their tall sixth gears ;)

I think you've already drilled that into everyone's brain by now :)

RE: That's it?
By FITCamaro on 5/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: That's it?
By callmeroy on 5/18/2009 10:04:13 AM , Rating: 3
I had a V8 --- was beautiful. :)

Today though they are building some fantastic V6's though. My pop who was a gear head of sorts most of his life until a few years back when he "relaxed" because of his age getting up there. He told me he is amazed at the power V6's are coming out with these days, "back in the day..." (as we've all heard from our parents or older folks in general) --- "you'd need a V8 to do that"....

Heck the base Camaro is V6 -- over 300 hp and (if my memory doesn't fail me on the Motor Trend article i read a couple weeks back....) I believe about 326 ft-lbs of torque, with EPA highway of 30 mpg (though I personally never believe EPA ratings...real world is almost always lower). From the lowest end engine they offer, not too shabby.

RE: That's it?
By maxcue on 5/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: That's it?
By FITCamaro on 5/18/09, Rating: 0
RE: That's it?
By mudgiestylie on 5/18/2009 9:05:26 PM , Rating: 1
and i take it you believed "an inconvenient truth"? you should check out how silly lord monckton makes gore look (and why the prevented monckton from testifying in congress), how the guy who came up with the concept of global warming admitted he made it up to get more money for the scripps institute and doesn't believe climate change is man made, and co2 levels were as high or higher before the industrial revolution than they are now. Man-made climate change is a myth, or at least exceedingly exaggerated.

RE: That's it?
By superkdogg on 5/18/2009 9:50:17 AM , Rating: 2
You should upgrade your Goat to a new V6 Camaro. 300 horses and 29 mpg highway from a V6....and it weighs just as much as the GTO (3740). As an added benefit, you get a car that doesn't look like the family truckster!

At any rate, with the numbers on the Chevy V6 and the Ecoboost Fords, looks like US automakers have made some leaps in engine tech. I hope it's soon enough and profitable enough to help with the recovery.

RE: That's it?
By FITCamaro on 5/18/09, Rating: 0
RE: That's it?
By corduroygt on 5/18/2009 10:24:17 AM , Rating: 2
If only thay had the 6-speed auto in there.

I'm considering replacing my goat with a G37 sedan. The GTO's manual is the worst manual transmission I've ever shifted, and I've rented the biggest size U-haul you can rent which was almost 10k lbs loaded with manual transmission and a diesel engine.

I was going to get the G8, but GM in its infinite wisdom chose to kill Pontiac and let Buick and GMC survive, Therefore the cheapest RWD sedan with a LSD is G37, since the G8 is pretty much dead and non-M(oney) BMW's don't have LSD's.

RE: That's it?
By FITCamaro on 5/18/2009 10:36:54 AM , Rating: 2
You can still get a deal on a G8 GXP. They may be killing the brand but that doesn't mean your warranty will be gone. And many of the parts are on other cars.

Yes the stock shifter kinda sucks but $300 and a few hours will fix that. Get the GMM Street or the Billet Pro. The transmission itself isn't the problem.

RE: That's it?
By Chernobyl68 on 5/18/2009 10:50:50 AM , Rating: 2
twin-turbos? that's the brand new environmentally friendly technology?

RE: That's it?
By rudolphna on 5/18/2009 11:11:26 PM , Rating: 2
It allows to get much more power out of smaller displacement engines, and using less fuel, to acheive better fuel economy, and lower emissions with smaller engines.

RE: That's it?
By austinag on 5/18/2009 11:54:55 AM , Rating: 2
I'm hoping the G8 will resurface as a Chevy Impala in a few months, as the current Impala should actually be named Lumina SS.

RE: That's it?
By FITCamaro on 5/18/2009 12:05:43 PM , Rating: 1
Actually the Lumina SS is the same as the G8. But yes I agree. Bring the Lumina SS here and call it the Monte Carlo or Impala. When people think of a Lumina here they think of a cheap, small piece of crap.

RE: That's it?
By Nfarce on 5/18/2009 1:53:31 PM , Rating: 2
I've got the G35 sedan (auto) and even though it "only" has 306hp/270ft-lbs, it is more than enough to move it 0-60 in the mid-5 second range, something my 4-gen Firebird Formula did stock with an LT1 V-8 & 6-speed manual. Yet, it returns a solid 27-28mpg on the interstate (just like the Formula), and 19-20mpg around pure city driving where the Formula would only get about 16-17.

They are great cars and mine is nearly three years old now with 50k miles and still just as tight as new.

RE: That's it?
By FITGto on 5/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: That's it?
By FITCamaro on 5/18/09, Rating: 0
RE: That's it?
By Lord 666 on 5/18/2009 1:17:30 PM , Rating: 1
Your the idiot named FITCamaro who owns a GTO. Was FITCobalt taken prior?

RE: That's it?
By DigitalFreak on 5/18/2009 1:47:47 PM , Rating: 1
Actually he's an idiot for buying a POS GTO.

RE: That's it?
By FITCamaro on 5/18/2009 2:48:18 PM , Rating: 1
Should I change my name just because my vehicle changes?

RE: That's it?
By jabber on 5/18/09, Rating: 0
RE: That's it?
By rudolphna on 5/18/2009 10:18:19 AM , Rating: 3
15 years ago a 3.5 liter V6 was lucky to make 200hp with anything resembling even respectable fuel econommy

RE: That's it?
By Xavier434 on 5/18/2009 11:21:05 AM , Rating: 3
Regardless of the various speculative opinions about where we "should" be, it is still a great thing that Ford is pushing this technology so hard. I hope they continue to do so and that other companies follow suit and compete more with each other over it.

RE: That's it?
By FITCamaro on 5/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: That's it?
By yomamafor1 on 5/18/09, Rating: 0
RE: That's it?
By FITCamaro on 5/18/2009 10:37:52 AM , Rating: 2

RE: That's it?
By Chaser on 5/18/2009 10:18:43 AM , Rating: 2
Sure. At the top gear with no power and a tail wind. How does it compare to the city mileage? Not even close. Apples and Oranges.

And speaking of that, for the record, that GTO is a POS. I'm sorry. It was the true "Blunder from Down Under". good Riddance. That car permanently soiled the AMERICAN Muscle car GTO lecacy.

It works much better in my modified C6, TYVM.

RE: That's it?
By sprockkets on 5/18/2009 10:32:04 AM , Rating: 2
Er, guess what? The Camaro rides on the same platform.

RE: That's it?
By Chaser on 5/18/2009 10:39:48 AM , Rating: 2
But unlike that which will go nameless I like the looks of the new Camaro. I was looking at one in the Detroit Airport. It has clean lines and a very nice retro/modern look. It was done right. Thank God.

RE: That's it?
By Lord 666 on 5/18/2009 5:52:46 PM , Rating: 2
Its a bit small. At the NYC autoshow, seeing two "plus" sized american guys in the front seat looked funny.

They should bring out an IROC version jut so that same demographic can re-live their glory days out cruising.

RE: That's it?
By FITCamaro on 5/18/2009 10:40:50 AM , Rating: 2 And my car gets 16-17 which is what Ford is saying this new car will get in the city. I get 24.5 mpg at 80 mph. And of course its at top gear. Who drives on the highway in 4th or 5th gear when you have a 6-speed.

Pretty freaking stupid to be picking on a GTO owner when it shares its drivetrain with your own car. Especially when the person you're talking to loves Vettes and any other GM V8 RWD vehicle ever made.

RE: That's it?
By Chaser on 5/18/2009 10:44:09 AM , Rating: 2
Hey it is a bargain, I'll concede that. Sorry FITC. But maybe you should go with your name sake and get the new Camaro. :)

RE: That's it?
By FITCamaro on 5/18/2009 10:52:06 AM , Rating: 2
Trust me I would love to own one. But I've got the GTO and selling it isn't an option. I'm called FITCamaro because I went to FIT and owned a Camaro (have owned 4 of them).

The new Camaro is an awesome car though. In 5-6 years I'm definitely going to try to pick up a used one.

RE: That's it?
By FITGto on 5/18/2009 11:08:51 AM , Rating: 1
FIT as in Fashion Institute of Technology?

RE: That's it?
By FITCamaro on 5/18/2009 12:07:16 PM , Rating: 1
Wow dude. Really? That the best you've got?

RE: That's it?
By DigitalFreak on 5/18/2009 1:46:09 PM , Rating: 4
I thought it stood for Farting In Tub.

RE: That's it?
By corduroygt on 5/18/2009 1:11:01 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see why would you pick up an SS over a G8 GXP unless the camaro can transform into Bumblebee.
The GXP is/has:
- More practical
- Better quality interior
- Same performance
- Better handling and steering feel
- You can actually see out of it
- With the markups on SS and the discounts on GXP, similarly priced.

For me that's too much of a price to pay for the retro style. Not to mention the G8 is a very handsome car too.

RE: That's it?
By callmeroy on 5/18/2009 2:31:51 PM , Rating: 2
No doubt the performance of the GXP can't be ignored, after all you can't really ignore over 400 hp / 400 ft-lbs of torque going down the highway now can you? :)

But I'd still go with the SS (which has a performance edge over the GXP, granted its a *slight* edge, but none the less and edge)and personally I like the look the SS much better...but looks are a personal taste of course.

Better quality interior -- I can't argue on that, I'm fine with the interior -- but even being biased for the Camaro -- its very bland , very utility looking.
Being about to see out of it --- true, the new camaro (I was in one recently) has a very nasty blind spot in the back...the owner of the car I mentioned that to simply said that it bummed him out too at first but "you get over it".

As far as practial? LOL...I'm sorry but I had to say this one -- who buys a 400 hp car with "practical" being anywhere on their mind whatsoever? ;)

RE: That's it?
By FITCamaro on 5/18/2009 10:47:35 AM , Rating: 1
Oh and as much as I love the Vette, the GTO's seats beat the Vette's hands down.

And we don't have the same steering wheel as a Cobalt. ;)

RE: That's it?
By Chaser on 5/18/2009 2:59:50 PM , Rating: 2
Well three cheers for the Holden.

RE: That's it?
By andrinoaa on 5/18/2009 6:19:25 PM , Rating: 2
still farting in tub, i see, lol!

RE: That's it?
By sprockkets on 5/18/2009 11:00:51 AM , Rating: 2
The figure for 16 in the city is for the MKT, not the MKS. This is a 355HP 6-7 wagon, not a car .

RE: That's it?
By sprockkets on 5/18/2009 11:03:09 AM , Rating: 2
Er, to clarify, that is a 6-7 passenger wagon.

RE: That's it?
By FITCamaro on 5/18/2009 12:08:03 PM , Rating: 2
Yes and then they follow it with saying that the MKS is 17 mpg city.

RE: That's it?
By sprockkets on 5/18/2009 8:26:01 PM , Rating: 2
True, true, I wish I could just edit the posts.

RE: That's it?
By superflex on 5/18/2009 10:23:48 AM , Rating: 1
But with a proper ECU chip upgrade, the twin turbo V-6 would kill the normally aspirated V-8 on both HP and torque. You're not going to get much improvement with a normally aspirated engine, via an ECU upgrade

RE: That's it?
By FITCamaro on 5/18/2009 10:42:16 AM , Rating: 2
True. But how many people are going to be modding a Lincoln MKS?

RE: That's it?
By tastyratz on 5/18/2009 1:10:42 PM , Rating: 1
Look at what power people get out of cars these days. Engines can easily be fortified to handle greater amounts of power.

Why are we even talking about 6cyl or 8cyl for these cars?
A bi-turbo fortified low displacement 4cyl would be perfect for something like this. Boost the hell out of it and you get an extremely efficient engine.

Whats stopping them?

I have a 4cyl that's built for 600+whp reliably. Automakers could easily do the same from the factory (albeit to lesser extremes)

stick a small 1.8 4 cyl in your trucks with a small turbo and a large turbo. Smaller turbo keeps the engine under positive pressure (3-6psi) in all but the lightest load conditions (light and transient response), and helps spool the larger turbo. Larger turbo kicks in when power is needed and delivers all the torque you could ever need. Throw 25psi at it from the factory and call it a day. You could get the power figures you want as well as run a tiny thermally efficient engine.

Why do automakers waste their time with naturally aspirated engines in anything but the economy class cars?

RE: That's it?
By Jimbo1234 on 5/18/2009 1:57:30 PM , Rating: 2
Whats stopping them?

What's the displacement of that 4 banger for 600 wheel hp? What is the torque curve? What is your fuel economy making all that hp? Do you really think it will last 100,000+ miles? Is it refined enough for a daily driver?

What's stopping them is plenty of things, not to mention cost. Turbos are not cheap the last time I checked. A pair of K04s (If I wanted to beef up my B5 S4) would cost about $4500. That's a lot to be adding to a $20K average car.

stick a small 1.8 4 cyl in your trucks with a small turbo and a large turbo.

I hope you are talking about a diesel, and a compact truck. A gas engine at that displacement will not get you the torque you are after with any reliability for a full size truck.

A factory example of a similar engine is the 2.0T(FSI) In the Audi A4: 211hp, 258 ft-lb torque ( Direct injection, turbo, etc., etc. Audi pretty much throws all the available technology at their disposal into cars before anyone else. (They've been using direct injection for what, 5 years now on most engines, and previous to that used 5 valve per cylinder engines). By comparison, the twin turbo 2.7 V6 in the S4 is 250hp, 256 lb-ft. Progress? Yes. Would I use it in a truck? No. Do people mod their engines to get much more hp and torque? Yes (S4 stage 3 for example.) Do they last? That's debatable. As a former design engineer at an OEM, I would not risk the additional warranty exposure.

RE: That's it?
By tastyratz on 5/18/2009 3:13:42 PM , Rating: 2
My point is that you can reinforce an engine to make much more power than it does factory. I could do 600whp but I won't daily it at 600. 600whp is never "refined" for regular public anyways :-)

Where are you getting $4500? k04's can be had for under 800 ea, and that's not what a big name player would pay for it.

Hell, a new garrett GT series ball bearing can be had in the range of 1500 bux consumer, and that's about as top tier as you go.

Turbocharging an engine certainly isn't cheap, but REALLY turbocharging it can be done for just a little bit more. This is also an option for 90% platform, not mandatory. People are opting to choose this.

Think outside the box. The lower torque your after can be had with a VERY small engine under boost. A small enough turbo can spool so fast and boost so instantly you could easily have PLENTY of low end torque and drive ability. Running BI turbo means you don't have to worry about the smaller turbo falling flat on its face at high rpm and power levels, but it also means not worrying about lag. Wastegate flow can spin the larger turbo once the small one hit 3-6psi or so and that i4 will feel just like a v8 behind the wheel, you would be amazed.
Bi turbo has been around for many years, but its just been cheaper and less complicated to throw a bigger engine at it.

Audi has more tech generally, but you could argue the evo has ~300hp.

My proposition isn't to start selling 600whp 4 cylinders - that's just asking for trouble.

I do believe 350whp 375lbs/tq is easily attainable in a sub 2.0L or flat 2.0 platform though for daily driver cars.

Start talking diesel though and that changes all the rules. Consumers aren't ready for that going much more mainstream in the usa which is too bad.

RE: That's it?
By FITCamaro on 5/18/2009 2:53:22 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not against any more motor being turboed. But that doesn't mean you should stop building NA motors.

And you can say what you want, a 600 whp 4 cylinder a) isn't going to get good gas mileage and b) isn't going to last forever. Plus many small vehicles with that much power, you start breaking other parts of the drivetrain.

RE: That's it?
By tastyratz on 5/18/2009 4:26:12 PM , Rating: 2
I agree we shouldn't stop making NA motors, but I think turbocharging should really be more widespread. Given the invention of water cooled turbochargers they are more idiotproof now too. NA has its place in econoclass and chassis entry trims. "ecoboost" here isn't mandatory on everything, but optional.

I'm afraid my car is taking a little too much away from my argument. 600whp is what people regularly can safely run similar configurations of. I am talking about a retrofit, so yes engines with 600whp are going to need transmissions that can handle 600whp... but I don't think we should see 600whp production consumer class vehicles anytime soon, that is not what I am talking about. Drivetrain is irrelevant to the argument because a 200hp car needs a 200hp capable transmission, 400hp a 400hp capable one, etc... whether its from a 4cyl or a 12cyl. My engine is "retrofitted" I am talking about factory.

The beauty of a turbocharger is its like having displacement on demand, you can get great gas mileage if you keep off the pedal. If you double your engines power and double your fuel requirement under load turbo or not. You will get better gas mileage with a well designed small displacement 4cyl than an equivalent NA v8 making the same power all other conditions equal because it allows the engine to operate at a smaller thermal envelope.

Think for a second, what kind of reinforcements do you need. Forged pistons, forged crankshaft, forged rods, iron block or iron sleeved aluminum block, little thicker headbolts. That's about all you need to change to make it reliable. Some of those things are in regular NA builds on their own! Just how much can it REALLY add to the cost for them to push a little harder and how much does that compare to producing another larger engine as well?

RE: That's it?
By dubyadubya on 5/18/2009 3:34:47 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds nice but a truck engine needs to be able to run at WOT for an extended period of time. Cooling a high output small displacement engine at WOT would be next to impossible.

RE: That's it?
By Screwballl on 5/18/2009 11:34:50 AM , Rating: 2


RE: That's it?
By Davelo on 5/18/09, Rating: 0
RE: That's it?
By FITCamaro on 5/18/2009 12:09:40 PM , Rating: 3
How about its time to build what people are willing to and want to buy? As it always should be.

RE: That's it?
By Runiteshark on 5/18/2009 11:53:31 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed, my dad's 05 Malibu with a v6 gets 35mpg regularly.

RE: That's it?
By FITCamaro on 5/18/2009 12:08:58 PM , Rating: 2
To be fair though, your dads Malibu is slow as balls.

RE: That's it?
By Runiteshark on 5/18/2009 12:20:33 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, but it goes to show it all depends on how you drive. To be accurate, he gets around 28-30mpg in town and 34+ on the highway.

RE: That's it?
By MadMan007 on 5/18/09, Rating: 0
RE: That's it?
By FITCamaro on 5/18/2009 2:54:35 PM , Rating: 3
I find most men who don't drive a fast car view them this way.

RE: That's it?
By Chaser on 5/18/2009 2:55:11 PM , Rating: 2
Powned :)

RE: That's it?
By SLEEPER5555 on 5/18/2009 6:13:51 PM , Rating: 2
I have to say for once i agree with FIT!

back in 2004 i had a 300c (5.7l V8 with MDS) and even though it did 345hp 390tq if i put cruise controll on at 70mph i could get 26mpg. And they just now upped the HP & TQ on the updated version of the motor while increasing the MPGs so the #s are even better that fords v6. I think everyone has this misconception of V8's and they think of the PIG V8s of the 60's and 70's

RE: That's it?
By SLEEPER5555 on 5/19/2009 12:10:36 AM , Rating: 2
i dont understand why i got rated down here? al i did was agree with FIT for once in my life and shared some facts.

RE: That's it?
By valkator on 5/19/2009 2:49:45 AM , Rating: 2
Hey there are advantages to V8s as well. The reason why V8s or larger engines are popular in more expensive cars is not just power. It is also smoothness. A v6 is not a truly balanced motor so now they need to add balance shafts, change the degrees on the crank so the power strokes overlap, stuff like that. a V8 is a truly balanced motor and if made correctly, is smooth because of the overlapping power strokes in the design. Hey I have an AWD Talon pushing 320awhp and I love it but there is no overlapping power stroke, for there is only one power stroke happening at a time. This causes vibrations in the motor even with balance shafts. People don't want vibrations in there nice 30k+ cars, so they have bigger motors to smooth out the ride. It even comes in handy with trucks when you're hailing stuff. I love turbocharged 4 bangers and V6s, but they are not as smooth as larger engines and that is the biggest disadvantage. Any company can push ass loads of power out of a 4 or 6 cylinder, but have trouble making the engine as smooth as larger engines. They don't put V12s in expensive Italian cars just for power, they ride like a dream.

RE: That's it?
By andrinoaa on 5/19/2009 6:29:30 PM , Rating: 2
Oh how much smoother an electric motor is, lol

From Europe
By Zingam on 5/18/09, Rating: -1
RE: From Europe
By Nfarce on 5/18/2009 1:46:16 PM , Rating: 5
1800's tech, eh? Do you see steam engines in cars mentioned here? Of course, I could state that you non-Americans love diesel engines and turbochargers - the first tech being patented in the last decade of the 1800s, and the latter in the first decade of the 1900s.

Other than that though, what was your point again?

RE: From Europe
By richie1008 on 5/18/2009 5:51:47 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, the man has an (exaggerated) point.

One of the selling points of this new tech is "direct injection"? I haven't seen a car in the UK without direct injection for 15 years!

RE: From Europe
By RandomUsername3463 on 5/18/2009 8:00:01 PM , Rating: 2
FYI, direct injection is NOT fuel injection. Most auto companies didn't have direct injection gasoline engines until a few years ago. Most have them now.

This technology wasn't available in any mass produced gasoline engine cars until the mid to late 90s.

RE: From Europe
By sprockkets on 5/18/2009 8:19:57 PM , Rating: 2
You all need to keep in mind, that DI is rather old technology. It's been used in a way, since the birth of the diesel engine. And when they first started doing it for petrol, they couldn't stand the extra heat and stress it causes. Naturally diesel engines are made to handle it.

I'd wait a few years to really see whether this trend continues. Hopefully they are keeping this in mind and/or, hopefully they aren't overboosting the engines to lead to early death.

"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki