backtop


Print 88 comment(s) - last by jconan.. on Jan 30 at 1:14 AM

Ford makes big promises for small engines

Auto manufacturers are furiously working up ways to increase the fuel economy of their vehicles without compromising the consumer's current expectations of large, powerful vehicles thanks to new CAFE regulations.

General Motors recently unveiled the 2009 Saturn Vue Green Line with an improved two-mode hybrid system, and still hopes to push out the highly anticipated Chevrolet Volt by 2010. Toyota is merrily improving their popular Prius, while Honda is promising both a hot-hatch revival with the CR-Z concept and the "family diesel" in the 2009 Accord. Ford, on the other hand, is taking an entirely different approach, trying to make the adage "More From Less" apply to high-powered SUVs and sedans.

At the 2008 Detroit Auto Show, Ford was showcased a new family of four and six-cylinder engines, dubbed "EcoBoost" to highlight their improved fuel economy. While the words "new engine technology" were thrown around fairly often to describe the EcoBoost line, the cornerstone technologies behind the engines -- direct injection and turbocharging -- should be immediately familiar to anyone who's followed automotive powertrain development in recent years. As the name suggests, Ford is trying to give small, high-boost engines a market beyond the current demographic of performance junkies -- but they need to get their foot in the door somehow.

The first vehicle to receive an “EcoBoosting” will be the upcoming 2009 Lincoln MKS. Shown in 2007 as the "MKR Concept," the MKS will feature a 3.5L twin-turbo V6 said to produce approximately 340 horsepower, and 340 lb-ft of torque between 2,000 and 5,000 RPM. Those hoping for a four-door, rear-drive performance sedan will be disappointed to discover the transverse mounting of the engine, and the associated choices of FWD or AWD; however, the possibility of such a vehicle hasn't been entirely ruled out.

Returning to the economical side of the impeller, Ford also featured a 2.0L turbo four, claiming an impressive 275hp and 280lb-ft. While such an engine would seem a perfect fit for a sport compact, Ford had bigger ambitions for the "little engine that could" -- announcing that it would be the base engine for the Ford Explorer America concept.

Ford's VP of product development, Derrick Kuzak, had high hopes for the technology, praising its low initial cost in comparison to other engine designs. "Compared with the current cost of diesel and hybrid technologies, customers in North America can expect to recoup their initial investment in a 4-cylinder EcoBoost engine through fuel savings in approximately 30 months." That's not to say that hybrids and diesels will be abandoned -- some light-duty Fords will be receiving these options as well.

Strangely, no mention of an EcoBoost engine was made for the Mustang -- perhaps Ford still has some of the hundreds of thousands of letters they received the last time they suggested a replacement.



Comments     Threshold


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

20 = 15 ?
By masher2 (blog) on 1/7/2008 3:08:58 PM , Rating: 2
According to the accompanying Ford graphic, mileage increases by up to 20%, and CO2 emissions decline by up to 15%.

Since CO2 is a direct function of fuel burned, I'm curious why those two numbers don't line up.




RE: 20 = 15 ?
By masher2 (blog) on 1/7/2008 3:10:24 PM , Rating: 2
To correct myself, a 20% increase should equate to a 17% decrease. Is Ford just doing some creative rounding here?


RE: 20 = 15 ?
By andrinoaa on 1/7/2008 3:25:12 PM , Rating: 2
Another discrepency that comes to mind is how come their plan is smaller engines with the same power. Should it not be smaller engine less power more economy, It is ECOboost ,not? SPIN city don't you think?


RE: 20 = 15 ?
By masher2 (blog) on 1/7/2008 3:28:59 PM , Rating: 3
It's not a discrepancy. Same power, but 20% greater fuel efficiency equates to having your cake and eating it too.

I know that, to a "true" environmentalist, you can't go green without making painful sacrifices, but to the rest of us, this sounds pretty good.


RE: 20 = 15 ?
By Spuke on 1/7/2008 4:30:58 PM , Rating: 3
Works for me. I just don't understand what's wrong with having a choice. Have some cars that focus more on economy and others that focus more on performance. We all get what we want here. Or am I not supposed to get what I want?


RE: 20 = 15 ?
By ElrondElvish on 1/7/2008 4:58:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Or am I not supposed to get what I want?


Thats more than debatable. Lots of people/companies want profit/etc above all else (including the health and recovery of the environment)... are they supposed to get what they want, regardless of damage done? Of course not.

Ford's step is a good one, but indeed just that: a small step.


RE: 20 = 15 ?
By Spuke on 1/7/2008 5:26:42 PM , Rating: 3
You're missing my point. If I want sport and fuel economy and I can get it, what's inherently wrong with having that choice? If I want a more economy focused car and there's a choice for it, what's wrong with me getting that? You seem to equate that choice with me wanting to destroy the world somehow. Maybe I'm not understanding you.


RE: 20 = 15 ?
By andrinoaa on 1/8/2008 1:39:57 AM , Rating: 2
Your absolutely correct in what you say. My point is " ECOBOOST" implies a focus on economy , where as its focus is the same power. Where this is bloody obvious is in large vehicles. Smaller moter is pushed harder for same performance as lazy large engine. Overall result is same economy. Ecoboost implies less power and more economy.
It's all in the spin! lol


RE: 20 = 15 ?
By tygrus on 1/7/2008 11:31:29 PM , Rating: 2
Incomplete combustion results in Carbon-monoxide (CO) with less power but the CO is converted to C02 (little 2) by the catalytic converter. Maybe it's because of this or rounding errors in their calculations.
In other comparisons, don't forget diesel and unleaded petrol have different amounts of carbon per litre (different density as well kg/L, diesel has longer carbon chains and hence more combustion energy per litre).


"I mean, if you wanna break down someone's door, why don't you start with AT&T, for God sakes? They make your amazing phone unusable as a phone!" -- Jon Stewart on Apple and the iPhone














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki