backtop

Print 255 comment(s) - last by 67STANG.. on Oct 23 at 3:30 PM

Ford's EcoBoost technology uses turbocharging to increase the engine torque and power.  (Source: Ford)

Direct injection is also used in EcoBoost, to prevent the loss in compression ratio that turbocharging can cause. The direct injection is fine tuned and includes a cold start cycle. These precautions help prevent engine knock.  (Source: Ford)

The end result of this turbocharging + direct injection strategy are cars like the 2010 Ford Taurus SHO, that gain 10 to 20 percent improvements in fuel economy without sacraficing performance. In many cases, EcoBoost V6 engines actually outperform V8 engines of competitors.  (Source: Jalopnik)
We get exclusive insight into how Ford was able to rush this technology to market so fast

It's no secret that Ford is excited about EcoBoost.  With the release of the 2010 Lincoln MKS/MKT, the 2010 Taurus SHO, and the 2010 Ford Flex, consumers are getting their first taste of EcoBoost.  And with Ford planning to have 90 percent of its domestic nameplates (80 percent internationally) offered with EcoBoost engines by 2014, along with production of 750,000 EcoBoost units a year (Ford sells over 5 million cars and light commercial vehicles yearly), it's also clear that it's confident that consumers will be too.

We caught up with Ford and were among an exclusive group of journalists who got a tour of the company's research and design center and a briefing on EcoBoost.  Two things quickly became apparent -- first, that Ford appears committed to departing from natural aspiration, and second that Ford believes that none of its competitors have as advanced testing and control systems as it does when it comes to direct injection and turbocharging. 

Looking at the first point -- the departure from natural aspiration -- it's important first to explain what natural aspiration is.  Every engine needs air to fuel its combustion.  In naturally aspirated engines, this air isn't forced into the engine by compressors, rather the intake simply relies on atmospheric pressure.

When designing more efficient engines one approach is simply to refine or redesign inefficient mechanical components (using technologies such as variable valve lift).  Thus far, Ford and others have largely taken this approach.  An alternative is to turn to turbocharging -- artificial aspiration via exhaust-driven compression of air -- to improve efficiencies.

If there's one thing that Ford made clear to us at the presentation, it's that it is turning from the former approach (natural aspiration) to the latter approach (turbocharging), and that it believes that eventually the majority of its consumer production will be of turbocharged models.  This is a different approach than its domestic competitors -- GM and Chrysler -- which are largely opting for refined natural aspiration, as well as exploring more exotic alternatives like gasoline compression engines.

The second major point of the presentation is that Ford strongly believes that it has unique technologies and testing assets that its competitors don't have.  In order to maintain the engine's compression ratio when turbocharging, Ford is employing direct injection of gasoline.  Direct injection, while improving compression and providing a torque gain offers its own unique challenges -- including engine knock.  In order to implement such a strategy and avoid such problems, complex tools are needed to model and design the engine.  Ford believes it has these tools, but its competitors do not.

States Ford's Don Kapp, Ford's Powertrain Research and Advanced Engineering Director, "We have developed world class design tools and methodology.  There are others out there doing DI and turbocharging [but] a lot's how you implement it."

Ford has unique internal tools to model how fuel sprays out of the injector.  Ford believes that it is the only automaker to have accurate, working models of fuel injection in three dimensions and fuel film formation and rippling on the piston surface.  Thanks to this CFD model, along with more traditional test technologies such as an optical engine (an engine you can see inside) and single cylinder engine, Ford was able to tune EcoBoost for awesome performance.  It also helped them address cold start issues by splitting injection into two separate pulses.

The end result of Ford's extensive testing and control systems development is 125 filed patent applications.  The number is one that Ford is particularly proud of, as it believes that the patents are representative of EcoBoost's revolutionary nature.  Ford representatives, in response to an audience question, also stated that Ford would be willing to work with other automakers to license EcoBoost and its supporting technologies, if they show interest.

One challenge that Ford still faces is managing emissions during cold start.  Current cold start technologies from Ford tend to significantly reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions.  In order to meet U.S. emissions guidelines, Ford may be forced not to deploy its 1.6 L and 2.0 L EcoBoost engines domestically.

Still at the end of the day, Ford seems to be on the right path with EcoBoost.  Doubling torque/liter and offering 1/2 to 1/3 more power/liter Ford's 3.5 L V6 EcoBoost engine can outperform many V8 engines.  This is advantageous as smaller engines get better fuel economy (due to less friction) and cost less to produce.  The resulting engine can be tuned to be very powerful -- when pushed, the 3.5 L V6 EcoBoost engine can put out up to 500 hp for a "couple hours" if smog emissions are thrown out the window.

At the end of the day, though, the Ford EcoBoost engines instead pocket a 10 to 20 percent increase in fuel economy, while offering an impressive 365 hp.  And with EcoBoost variants coming soon to the Ford F150 (a 5.0 L EcoBoost engine is in the works), Ford appears to just be getting started.




Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Cost?
By jonmcc33 on 10/5/2009 10:15:56 AM , Rating: 4
Taurus SHO = $37K Base Price
2009 Mustang GT = $27K Base Price

I think I'll take the V8 and $10K savings! Thanks! With that $10K there's no telling what I could do to the V8 engine on the Mustang GT as well.




RE: Cost?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/5/2009 10:24:00 AM , Rating: 4
The Mustang GT's current V8 is weaksauce anyway. I'd wait for the new 400+ hp 5.0 V8 coming out for the 2011 MY.


RE: Cost?
By Regs on 10/5/2009 11:09:20 AM , Rating: 2
The new chevy camero can get 308 hp out of a v6 for cheaper. Makes the Mustang look like a toy.


RE: Cost?
By Jeffk464 on 10/5/2009 11:25:04 AM , Rating: 3
Damn I want that car, are they still selling over sticker?


RE: Cost?
By Cypherdude1 on 10/6/2009 6:08:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The new chevy camero can get 308 hp out of a v6 for cheaper. Makes the Mustang look like a toy.

I drove a '68 Mustang Fastback. I always liked its classic looks. I don't think I like what they did with the new Camero. Yes it looks mean, but it doesn't have the classic looks of the original '68 Camero. If I had a choice between buying a new Camero or rebuilding a '69 from the ground up, I think I'd choose rebuilding the '69.

As for the new Mustang model, it would be a tougher choice. Ford did a good job recreating their classic look. BTW, I believe Ford based their new model on their '68 Fastback. The 6 brakelights on the back are very similar. American car companies really knew how to make cars back then.

The problem is the newer cars have better safety features. If you were hit by a minivan in an older classic car, you could easily be killed or maimed. Nevertheless, for both the older Cameros and Mustangs, I still like their look better. I think it's the curves. The classic cars had curves in their sheet metal which the newer cars don't have, probably a result of trying to save money during manufacturing.


RE: Cost?
By Cypherdude1 on 10/6/2009 6:27:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't think I like what they did with the new Camero.

Yes, I spelled Camaro wrong. It's Chevrolet Camaro:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camaro

BTW, this is what the 1968 Chevrolet Camaro Z28 looked like. It was probably the best looking Camaro ever made:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1968ChevroletCam...

This is Wiki's Ford Mustang 1st gen page. There are no pictures of the '68 or '69 Fastback, the best looking muscle cars ever made (oh well):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang_%28first...

BTW, if you were to rebuild a '68 Camaro or Fastback Mustang from the ground up and drop a new 8 cylinder engine into it, it would be faster than any new model today. The older models aren't impeded by smog devices and catalytic converters. ;^)


RE: Cost?
By Chaser on 10/8/2009 9:06:19 AM , Rating: 2
And I'll take a new over the old any day of the week. After walking away from a head on going 45 MPH -the other car turned into me from a red light- with a smashed wind shield, smashed front end and both air bags deflated laying in my front seats covered with powder- I walked away with only a head knot.


RE: Cost?
By Manch on 10/8/2009 9:54:03 AM , Rating: 2
Look up the interviews with the lead designer of the S197's. It's an interesting read. The 68-69 is where he drew his design cues from.

I'm not a fan of the 2010 mustang or the new camaro's rear end. I think it throws off the look on both cars. There are a few companies that recreate the old ones but with modern safety and interiors. My next project car, I'm looking into doing that with either a 68 mustang or camaro. The only bad thing is I can only afford one. Yellow with black stripes on either. To me that's the best color combo for those cars.


RE: Cost?
By 67STANG on 10/5/2009 11:30:45 AM , Rating: 3
LOL @ toy. Good for the v6 "camero" whatever that is. The Camaro v6 cannot beat a Mustang GT, and the Camaro SS barely beats a Mustang GT (in a straight line). The Camaro is a lardass (funny since it is made almost completely of cheap plastic). It can't even beat a Mustang in handling and the mustang has a solid axle...

Anyhow, a Mustang GT500 still hands the Camaro it's ass on a platter and next year, the standard 400hp Mustang GT will do the same. Makes the "camero" seem like a toy... Not surprising as the it's the first time the U.S. government has made a muscle car.


RE: Cost?
By Regs on 10/5/2009 12:03:51 PM , Rating: 2
4.6-liter V8 that generates 300 hp is a disgrace this day and age. Don't try to sugar coat it.


RE: Cost?
By Regs on 10/5/2009 12:05:14 PM , Rating: 2
edit: sorry 315 hp.


RE: Cost?
By rudolphna on 10/5/2009 12:09:45 PM , Rating: 3
Do you ride the short bus? The fact that the 4.6L, 315HP v8 in the Mustang can sometimes beat, and usually will be barely slower, than the 426HP 6.2L V8 in the Camaro is impressive. The 4.6L is a good engine.


RE: Cost?
By FITCamaro on 10/5/2009 12:20:31 PM , Rating: 3
It's also geared with much shorter gears and a 3.73:1 rear vs. a 3.45:1 in the Camaro. But no a Mustang GT is in the mid 13 second range. The new Camaro SS is in the low 13 second/high 12s. It's no light weight by far either but it's still 400 pounds lighter too.

I'm not happy with the weight of the newer muscle cars but the Camaro SS handily beats the Mustang GT. Again not the GT500 but again, you're talking a greater than $10,000 price difference. With that money into the Camaro, you can easily create a GT500 killer.


RE: Cost?
By 67STANG on 10/5/2009 1:02:41 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't say "handily". Most tests show it is only 0.2 seconds faster in the 1/4 mile. And it only matches or loses in comparisons on road courses.

As far as creating a GT500 killer, you would have to do exactly that-- create. Chevrolet does not currently make a Camaro that can compete with the upper-crest of Mustang offerings-- at any price. Even the fabled Z28 won't be able to touch a Super Snake.


RE: Cost?
By FITCamaro on 10/5/2009 2:05:59 PM , Rating: 4
So because Chevy chooses not to build a $50,000+ Camaro, the Mustang is a better car? They could easily put the new Caddy CTS-V motor in the Camaro and own a GT500. Why would they build a Camaro that bests a Corvette in price? You can buy a Vette for as much as the GT500 costs. So why the hell would I want a Camaro at that price range? It'd make no sense for GM to build a Camaro that bests its top car in price without the same performance.

Throw a Magnacharger on a stock SS and you have a GT500 killer and still have several thousand dollars in your pocket. Saw one this weekend from Hennessey and it did 495hp and 501 tq on the dyno. Stock motor with a maggie. Had a bunch of other appearance stuff but that was the engine mods.


RE: Cost?
By MrPoletski on 10/5/2009 2:40:09 PM , Rating: 2
.. yeah but is it all really that important?

*ducks the sideswipe*


RE: Cost?
By Jeffk464 on 10/5/2009 3:20:24 PM , Rating: 3
Oh, who cares. Its not like any of us are going to be racing them against each other. My only concern is which car I like to drive the best and which one is the most stylish. I would actually prefer the v6 camaro to the SS because of the mileage and 300hp should be plenty fun.


RE: Cost?
By Jeffk464 on 10/5/2009 3:22:03 PM , Rating: 2
P.S. this is why the mustang is out for me, their v6 is a real turkey.


RE: Cost?
By teldar on 10/5/2009 4:50:11 PM , Rating: 2
So you don't like the V6, so you wouldn't buy the car? Wow
What if I said that about any car that has a i4? I wouldn't be able to buy anything less than the $70000 range.


RE: Cost?
By 67STANG on 10/5/2009 4:22:16 PM , Rating: 2
No, the Mustang is a faster car, not necessarily better. And yes, they could put the CTS-V in there-- but they don't, do they? Even if they did, it still couldn't hang with a Super Snake. Period.

Why would you buy a Stock SS and put on a Magnacharger when you could buy a 2003-2004 Mustang Cobra (for under $20k) and spend $300 on a pulley still smoke the SS?

Either way, the days of Ford's top Mustang not being able to hang with Chevy's top Camaro are long gone.


RE: Cost?
By Smilin on 10/5/2009 5:52:34 PM , Rating: 3
What in the fvck did you just say?


RE: Cost?
By theapparition on 10/6/2009 8:56:37 AM , Rating: 2
But when you price a top mustang in Corvette territory, than it's going to lose, every time. Even GT500-KOTR-super-snake-bullet-shelby signature editions can't compete with a stock Grand Sport, much less Z06. And that's in a strait line. Throw some curves at it, and it's all over.

You know this, although I doubt you'd admit it.

With that said, I do believe that Ford will have a winner with my2011 Mustang GT's. The new Camaro is actually a pretty nice car. It's not the best styling, and the interior is hideous, but overall it's a decent car. The SS versions are price competitive and faster than thier competition Charger/Challengers and Mustang GT's. But the added weight really hurts them. I'm not excited about them at all. However, to claim they are more plasticy or bad cars is not correct.

What's truely sad about "new" mustangs are the fact that they too are hideous looking (my opinion, don't like retro designs), have pathetic engines (4.6 is a bust), and can't outrun Camaros/Firebirds from years past. Pretty sad when a 2002 F-body can beat a 2010 stang.

quote:
Why would you buy a Stock SS and put on a Magnacharger when you could buy a 2003-2004 Mustang Cobra (for under $20k) and spend $300 on a pulley still smoke the SS?

Terminator Cobra's are still commanding a premium. But then again, why not buy a C5, slap a Paxton on it and smoke the Cobra? Or an old Supra Turbo with 20psi on race gas? Illogical argument, since if you want to race, anything new should not be on your shopping list. What you get with any new car is more modern ammenities, reliability, and comfort that older cars can't match.

The rumored Z28 will have the LSA (CTS-V) engine in it and will be competitive with the Shelby GT500. Yes, there will be faster mustangs, but then again this leads us back to Z06/ZR1 price terratory. I don't care how much power you add onto a mustang, it's just not a great platform for anything other than a strait line.

To claim that you've never lost to a Camaro is pretty stupid. That just smacks dumb fanboy. (C'mon, that was one of the dumbest things you've said). Unfortunately, emotions can get the better, and outlandish comments like that can undermine your entire argument.
I have a TransAm that will give you a run for your money. I have no idea what your old car will run, but mine's running in the 9's with all motor. Chances of me being in Califonia with the TA are non-existant, so it's just going to be pointless internet chest-thumping.

I'm glad you like your car, and everyone is entitled to thier opinion. You don't like the new Camaro and GM. That's fine. But correct me if I'm wrong, you don't own any modern "pony car". If not, why not join the party and have some more basis for your opinions.


RE: Cost?
By callmeroy on 10/6/2009 2:53:48 PM , Rating: 2
The 2010 camaro is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaar more better value than the 2010 Mustang in just about every category you could well "categorize"....from looks (which owns the looks of the current mustang hands down) to performance value (300+ horses at the lowest end model WITH respectable gas mileage AND a cheap price tag)....

In the end though as a son of an enormous car nut , along with many family who are all "gear heads" --- I do appreciate ones devotion to the brand they like. Car junkies are diehards for their chosen makes and models.

In the end unless you live in one of those mid west states were your entire state population doesn't even equal 25% of a major metropolitan area -- the only thing you are going to use speed for is to measure how fast you can beat the guy next to you to the next traffic light.


RE: Cost?
By weskurtz0081 on 10/6/2009 3:17:35 PM , Rating: 2
Honestly, I think the Mustang looks better. The back end of the new Camaro is just FUGLY.


RE: Cost?
By Alexvrb on 10/5/2009 9:10:00 PM , Rating: 2
The V6 Camaro trashes the V6 Mustang, and the SS is a bit faster than any comparably priced Mustang. The Camaro is a big muscle car, too. Where's the plastic on the Camaro? Same places the Mustang has plastic. It weighs a lot for a reason, big heavy chassis, multilink IRS, it's a lot more steel than you give it credit for.

Also, in order to get such a speed boost over the 09 model, the 2010 Mustang GT raised its redline 250 RPMs, comes with a factory cold air intake, and optional 3.73 rear. I'd prefer the Camaro to be lighter, sure, but they were building a muscle car, not a sports car. If you want quick, light, cheap, and good on the track, a Cobalt SS is hard to beat for the money.

quote:
Chevrolet does not currently make a Camaro that can compete with the upper-crest of Mustang offerings-- at any price.
Yes, because the "upper-crest" Mustangs are expensive. Like, Corvette-price territory, but nowhere near Corvette performance.

You're probably just grouchy Ford is looking to dump the 4.6L for TC V6s, just like they dumped the venerable 302. I don't blame you. The 4.6L is a decent engine (well once they refined it). I'd much rather get a Mustang GT or Camaro SS over an overpriced turbocharged SHO. The new Taurus is pretty, but geez that's a lot of cash for a performance variant of it.

Regarding Ecoboost, none of this technology is new. In fact, the only thing that is new is the name. Hardly news, micky.


RE: Cost?
By Nfarce on 10/5/2009 9:44:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The V6 Camaro trashes the V6 Mustang, and the SS is a bit faster than any comparably priced Mustang.


Please, don't speak the truth to a Fard Moostang fan. The Moosetang has been a POS for decades. I've driven the current generation (actually the first generation of the new generation) and hated it. Handled like crap. Ford owned Camaros and Firebirds in the 80s from a drag perspective, but they handled like crap, looked like crap, and were built like crap - engines included in that build crap.

In the 90s, GM kicked Ford's ass out to pasture with the 4th-Gen F-bods, of which I owned one - and enjoyed blowing the Mustangs away at traffic lights and on the track. Mustangs have always been more girl-oriented cars anyway, and let's not forget that the latest Mustang iteration has several years ahead of GM on the production line, giving it a full advantage on development and refinement.

Never been a Ford fan, and never will be.


RE: Cost?
By 67STANG on 10/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: Cost?
By FITCamaro on 10/6/2009 12:19:56 AM , Rating: 4
The fact that you've never lost to one doesn't mean there isn't one out there who can beat you.

Plus a 40 year old Mustang is more of a Mustang than what they build today. Everything was better as far as cars go 40 years ago.

And there aren't any 3rd gen Fbodies on the roads? Where do you live? I had 3. And the only weak point of any Fbody from 82-02 was in the rearend. The motors were solid. Especially the 4th gens with the 3800 series, LT1, and LS1. I don't know where you live that there are virtually none, but in Florida and here in South Carolina there are plenty. And even a bone stock LS1 Camaro or Trans Am will still keep up with or spank the Mustang GT of today. Depends on what day the motor got built. I was at a get together in Atlanta this past weekend and saw a few LS1 fbodies with minimal mods dyno. The lowest was 300 rwhp, the highest was 330 rwhp. None had much more than headers, CAI, and exhaust. One or two had nitrous but they weren't running it.

And the Mustang has survived because it continues to be what it was built to be, a girls car. It was designed for women and its still largely the car a daddy gets his little girl when she wants a sporty car for her 16th birthday.

Personally I like driving a car that had no V6 option. Of course plenty of people mistake it for a Grand Am. But I don't mind. That's fixed when I hit the go pedal and my exhaust opens up. ;) But its nice to have the cops not notice you as much.

My dream car remains being a 67-69 Camaro with an LS motor, 6 speed, 12 bolt with 3.42s, new suspension, and a redone interior though.


RE: Cost?
By Spuke on 10/6/2009 1:59:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And the Mustang has survived because it continues to be what it was built to be, a girls car. It was designed for women and its still largely the car a daddy gets his little girl when she wants a sporty car for her 16th birthday.
LMAO!!!! Like another poster said, it's good to see the Mustang vs Camaro arguments again.


RE: Cost?
By 67STANG on 10/5/09, Rating: -1
RE: Cost?
By Alexvrb on 10/7/2009 4:06:17 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
a straight line, a $45,000 GT500 beats a $49,000 C6. (so does a $20,000 03 or 04 Mustang Cobra)
Funny how fast you flip around. First it was "Well the Mustang GT isn't quite as fast as the SS on the strip, but it's quicker on the track!" and now it's "Well the Cobra isn't nearly as quick on the track, but its slightly faster than the Vette in a straight line!"


RE: Cost?
By 67STANG on 10/23/2009 3:30:33 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure it's a "flip around"... since both statements are true.. We are talking about (4) different cars that do (4) different things, right?


RE: Cost?
By tastyratz on 10/5/2009 12:35:45 PM , Rating: 2
and what does that have to do with the engine mr driver of the short bus? You can slap a civic engine in a go kart and it will be faster in a straight line than all of them.

The fact still remains that 4.6l NA for 315hp is indeed poor with today's technology. 68hp per liter when there are plenty of engines making 100+hp per liter NA does NOT make it a good engine power and efficiency wise.
Both the 6.2 and the 4.6 make 68.xhp/l therefor they both fail just as hard.


RE: Cost?
By The0ne on 10/5/2009 12:42:11 PM , Rating: 1
Honda has one of the best engines when talking about hp/liter. I think they're over 100hp/liter and that was a few years back when I read the article.

While the big liter sounds nice I don't think I will ever go beyond 6 myself. I'm still stuck with rally cars but oh well fun is subjective :)


RE: Cost?
By FITCamaro on 10/5/2009 12:55:29 PM , Rating: 4
As far as the S2000 engine, sure it makes great horsepower per liter but you have to spin it to 8000 rpm to get it to go anywhere. It's gotten better since its release but still. You can make big horsepower per liter out of any size engine, its just a matter of where and how usable it is.


RE: Cost?
By 67STANG on 10/5/2009 1:05:05 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. The S2000 has to use a separate camshaft to idle because the main camshaft wouldn't be able to. Not only that, but the S2000 can still only muster a 14.0 1/4 mile. It only has 162 lb/ft. torque.... pretty pathetic.


RE: Cost?
By NA1NSXR on 10/5/2009 6:13:34 PM , Rating: 2
WHy would you even bring up its acceleration numbers when clearly that was not the design criteria for either the car or engine? Acceleration is just a component of performance and for most people in the know its not even close to being one of the most important ones.


RE: Cost?
By tastyratz on 10/5/2009 2:40:00 PM , Rating: 2
The larger the cam, the more the hp & the higher your powerband is raised... any engine any displacement
(unless taken to extremes where other limitations kick in such as terrible harmonics/balance)

Put a monster cam in a v8 that requires getting spun to 8krpm and you will see a vast increase of efficiency per liter. New Musclecars tend to still choke the engine down for low end torque. More of them should take a page from cars like the s2000 in that respect.


RE: Cost?
By Reclaimer77 on 10/5/2009 2:45:59 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Put a monster cam in a v8 that requires getting spun to 8krpm and you will see a vast increase of efficiency per liter. New Musclecars tend to still choke the engine down for low end torque. More of them should take a page from cars like the s2000 in that respect.


That would kill a great aspect of the V8 ; low end torque. The perfect V8 requires variable camshafts like Ferrari so you can have great low end torque and a screaming V8 at high revs all in one.

But a V8 like an s2000 ? NO thanks.


RE: Cost?
By tastyratz on 10/5/2009 3:28:41 PM , Rating: 2
The perfect engine would have variable 3d camshafts like ferarri no matter what the size (or camless solenoid popped valvetrain for ultimate control and performance)

s2000 achieves this with a very breathable head and variable valvetrain... something that's pivotal and yet absent in many production v8's


RE: Cost?
By Reclaimer77 on 10/6/2009 12:33:03 PM , Rating: 2
s2000 is a gimik and I wouldn't have one. I'm not buying some car that I have to flog to 10k RPM everytime I want to go somewhere.


RE: Cost?
By Spuke on 10/6/2009 2:02:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not buying some car that I have to flog to 10k RPM everytime I want to go somewhere.
I don't know if you've driven one or any other high rpm car but you wouldn't notice really. Cars like those just rev. It's not like driving a big block with extra revs. Now, I prefer SOME torque and even though cars like the S2000 are fun in their own right, I would rather have a lower rpm limit and turbocharging.


RE: Cost?
By 67STANG on 10/5/2009 1:09:25 PM , Rating: 1
A Honda 3.0 VTEC V6 makes 200hp and 195 lb ft/torque.

That's 66hp/liter and 65torque/liter.


RE: Cost?
By koenshaku on 10/5/2009 2:04:58 PM , Rating: 2
actually the 2.4 vtec gets 195hp and nissan's dohc 3.5L gets 290hp as seen in the 09 maxima.


RE: Cost?
By Spuke on 10/5/2009 3:25:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A Honda 3.0 VTEC V6 makes 200hp and 195 lb ft/torque.
You're not much of a car guy, are you? It's a 3.5L with 271hp/254 lb-ft.

http://automobiles.honda.com/accord-sedan/specific...


RE: Cost?
By Lord 666 on 10/5/2009 4:16:18 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe he's stuck in a time warp or just got out of a coma; those were the specs back in 2002. Incidentally, I had a 2002 V6 Accord. Great car that lasted 160,000 miles with me and then another 40,000 with a friend.

http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/1998-to...


RE: Cost?
By 67STANG on 10/5/2009 4:25:43 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm, guess Honda doesn't know about Honda's engines. http://corporate.honda.com/press/article.aspx?id=2...

You aren't much of a car guy are you?


RE: Cost?
By Spuke on 10/5/2009 4:32:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hmm, guess Honda doesn't know about Honda's engines.
I guess you can't read either. LOL! That article is dated 9/15/2000. Doesn't matter. I posted a link to the actual car with the engine I mentioned that's on sale today. This isn't difficult dude. Look at Car and Driver, Motor Trend, etc. You'll get up to date relevant info.


RE: Cost?
By 67STANG on 10/5/2009 4:46:01 PM , Rating: 2
LOL! You're right! They never produced that engine. Silly me.


RE: Cost?
By Alexvrb on 10/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: Cost?
By blppt on 10/6/2009 8:24:21 AM , Rating: 1
I cant believe somebody rated you DOWN for this comment.

HP/liter taken by itself is irrelevant, I agree.

For example: the "old tech" "inefficient" LSx motors can get up to 26mpg highway in vettes. The hp/liter NA champ F22C S2000 motor can only muster 25mpg highway.

Why? Largely because of GM being able to exploit the powerful low rpm output of the "old tech" LSx engines by making a tall O/D gear. Despite the LSx cars low hp/l, how exactly is the F22C more efficient in real life? Where exactly does hp/l show extra "efficiency" in real life?


RE: Cost?
By Spuke on 10/6/2009 2:06:04 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Largely because of GM being able to exploit the powerful low rpm output of the "old tech" LSx engines by making a tall O/D gear.
Pushrod engines have less rotating mass. They're lighter than the equivalent OHC engines and it shows. Combine them with some good gearing and you have a very fuel efficient engine for what it is. The LSx engines are VERY good.


RE: Cost?
By blppt on 10/6/2009 6:39:13 PM , Rating: 2
Correct me if i'm wrong, but dont pushrods actually have MORE rotating mass, as they have full lifters (the "pushrod") versus the followers on OHC engines?

Regardless, due to the smaller size of the pushrods engine's heads vs a DOHC engine (cam sits in the unused space between the cylinder banks), the OHV engines are often far more compact. I remember many years ago looking at the models of a Ford 302 pushrod versus the new modular DOHC 4.6 (281) and being astonished at how much larger the 4.6 appeared.


RE: Cost?
By Alexvrb on 10/7/2009 4:11:48 PM , Rating: 2
Can't hate them for being ignorant - it would be considered a hate crime.

"I'm going to build a 300HP 2.0L four cylinder that gets 11 MPG on the highway, then I'm going to brag about how efficient it is!"

That's the kind of mindset you're up against.


RE: Cost?
By 67STANG on 10/5/2009 1:12:48 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, but this is just incorrect. How many cars under $30k make 100hp/liter, naturally aspirated?

The answer is going to be: Not many .


RE: Cost?
By tastyratz on 10/5/2009 2:28:51 PM , Rating: 2
prettymuch all sport compact 4 cylinders fit in that category.

Making that kind of power makes greater use of today's technology to extract it from smaller engines. Translating this to larger engines equates to higher cost but not proportionally by size. Engine components don't increase proportionally as well so logically it should be easier to make more hp/l the larger the engine (within reasonable constraints). You still only have 1 alternator, 1 harmonic balancer, etc. (resulting in less rotating mass per l as well as lower production cost per l)

The simple fact is that it boils down to target audience and engine capabilities. If companies sold a 500hp 5.0l to their lower priced segments it would reduce motivation to buy their higher tiered vehicles.

That doesn't make the low priced outdated technology lower tiered economy "performance engines" a marvel.


RE: Cost?
By Fallen Kell on 10/5/2009 3:46:52 PM , Rating: 2
Subaru 2002-2005 WRX 2.0L (237 HP)
Subaru 2004 STI 2.5L (300 HP)
Mitsubishi EVO VIII 2.0L (271 HP)

I can go on... those were just a few that I looked at when I last bought my car back in 2003.


RE: Cost?
By Fallen Kell on 10/5/2009 3:52:57 PM , Rating: 2
Missed the naturally aspirated part, but still, we were talking about the EcoBoost... And personally I would never buy a naturally aspirated engine again in my life. Why in the world would you not utilize it to its fullest without either a Turbo/Super Charger? It is just bad engineering to not have this any more.


RE: Cost?
By PrinceGaz on 10/6/2009 12:07:22 PM , Rating: 2
Okay, what about the Mazda RX-8 with the 1.3L (actually 1308cc) naturally-aspirated Renesis engine which produces 238hp in the "High Power" version. I make that about 182hp/L, and yes it is naturally-aspirated :)


RE: Cost?
By 67STANG on 10/5/2009 4:30:34 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly. Not only were these ALL boosted, but I believe they were all over $30k too.


RE: Cost?
By Spuke on 10/5/2009 4:49:22 PM , Rating: 2
Honda Civic Si - various
Toyota Celica GTS - late models
Toyota Matrix XRS - before the 2.4L
Acura Integra Type R
Acura RSX Type S

Mostly Honda's were making this NA. There are others that are close (Acura Intregra GS-R for example). The only NA car on sale today under $30k that's close is the Honda Civic Si with 197hp on a 2.0L. Not too many available anymore because most automakers are moving to 2.4L 4 cyls. It's funny because with direct injection, a NA car could run 12:1 compression on pump gas so it would be "easier" to do this today. Can't really wait for someone to do a NA 4 cyl with DI but somehow I don't think that's going to happen on the low end of the market.


RE: Cost?
By The0ne on 10/5/2009 4:13:02 PM , Rating: 2
NA, I don't know. But I'm 100% sure the article I read back then stated Honda having the most efficient liter/hp out there. Whether or not these are used to their full potential in production car is another question.


RE: Cost?
By Oscarine on 10/5/2009 4:15:39 PM , Rating: 1
Not many, I dunno if the S2000 is under 30k but I doubt it and I think that went out of production this year... the last Celica GT-S made 180hp at 1.8L I think and that was under 30k... not sure what else really.


RE: Cost?
By pillagenburn on 10/5/2009 5:07:14 PM , Rating: 3
another horsepower per liter idiot. Look at horsepower to engine weight. The pushrod V8 from the Camaro has a MUCH better rating. This is usually the question you need to ask yourself "a 4 or 6 cylinder is maybe 50-200lbs lighter than a pushrod v8... but what do i gain by going with that 4 or 6 cylinder engine over the pushrod v8?"

add a turbo and the weight advantage lessens... but still the pushrod v8 makes significantly more power.


RE: Cost?
By Fireshade on 10/7/2009 7:52:48 AM , Rating: 2
4.6L, 315 HP V8 a good engine?
BMW squeezes 420 HP out of their 4.0L V8 engine. Now that's a good V8 engine.


RE: Cost?
By Fireshade on 10/7/2009 7:54:07 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, and that was back in 2007... ;)


RE: Cost?
By SAnderson on 10/5/2009 3:39:56 PM , Rating: 2
The 4.6L block from Ford is not weak. Slap a Kenne Bell on the Cobra motor and it easily does 700HP.


RE: Cost?
By Manch on 10/5/2009 9:33:49 PM , Rating: 2
I have a Whipple HO kit and I'm running mid to low 12's. The car, supercharger and some nice rims with drag radials cost me 35K. With the SC/stock rubber I could only run low 13's high 12's because of way too much wheel spin. I've only been to the track a few times so I should be able to get my numbers down even more. I'm still fairly new at drag racing so my shiftin needs work.

I've seen several of the new SS's down there and they're running high 13's- low 14's for the automatics and mid to high 13's for the manuals everything stock. One SS owner says he's waiting on his drag radial. That should help him a lot. He said he should be able to get high 12's. He's looking at weight reduction for his car first and maybe seeing if he can swap out the rear end for a straight axle. They're just more durable and a lot cheaper to fix/replace.

Keep in mind we're all weekend racers so we're not going to post the "pro" numbers you see in the mags and nor do we all have the opportunity to race out in Cali where you can get the kind of weather that allows them to post and publish those numbers.

The V6 camaro's, well they suck. I dont care if it has 308 HP it has too little torque torque, the power band is too narrow and the car is too heavy. It can't run with a mustang gt period. Stock vs stock it will get ate up. I don't like the V6 mustang either. I think those cars are just for looks, and for the people that want them great but they're not for me.

As far as the SS having 400(auto) and 426(manual) goes, congratulations Chevy. After 5 years you finally put out a car with more horsepower(and weight). That's like AMD bragging about a Phenom beating up a P4. Don't get me wrong I dont think they're bad cars but after 5 years I expected the camaro SS to solidly beat a stock GT. The weight is a prduct of basing it off of a four door platform, just like Dodge did with the Challenger. I think the next generation of camaro will be better. BTW the rear on the camaro and the 2010 Mustang look like crap. It's like the designers had an ugly contest.


RE: Cost?
By FITCamaro on 10/5/2009 12:14:52 PM , Rating: 2
Actually yes, the V6 Camaro is very competitive stock for stock vs. a Mustang GT. You're talking a difference of less than 10 hp and if nothing else, you can get the V6 Camaro in a 6-speed manual now, something that still isn't available on the Mustang unless you spend over $50,000 on a GT500. About the only thing slowing down the Camaro vs. the Mustang (since both are heavy) is the far larger wheels on the Camaro vs. the Mustang GT. I'm not sure on the gearing differences either but that plays a major factor.

And the GT500 is over $10,000 more expensive than the Camaro SS. So I'd hope its faster. It's better compared to the Corvette for the price and there it gets spanked. As far as the new 400 hp Mustang coming, it will be more competitive but it remains to be seen which will be faster. But I love how you act like it's already out and you already know all the facts.


RE: Cost?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/5/2009 12:17:53 PM , Rating: 2
Well, there's a little more to it than that. The Camaro V6 is way down on torque -- the Mustang has it by 50 lb-ft at 1,000 lower revs. A stock Camaro V6 also weighs about 380 pounds more than a stock Mustang GT.

Now I haven't seen any head-to-head performance matches with the Camaro V6 and the Mustang GT, but I'd place my bets on the Mustang.


RE: Cost?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/5/2009 12:22:40 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, and Fit, you excited about this :)

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleI...


RE: Cost?
By Camikazi on 10/5/2009 12:37:45 PM , Rating: 2
I so want one of those!!! Love the old Caprice cars.


RE: Cost?
By FITCamaro on 10/6/2009 12:22:28 AM , Rating: 2
Finally the possibility of a mass produced cop car that might be able to keep up. ;)

Chargers and Mustangs just can't do it. Not that I know. (Really I'd never be stupid enough to run from the cops). Course there is that one town that confiscated a brand new C6 Z06 Corvette and turned it into a cop car.


RE: Cost?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/6/2009 8:48:06 AM , Rating: 2
That was my county... Wake County, NC :)

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/5627211


RE: Cost?
By 67STANG on 10/5/2009 1:20:18 PM , Rating: 2
No, the Camaro isn't competitive with a Mustang GT.

Camaro V6: 14.4 1/4 mile
Mustang GT: 13.5 1/4 mile
Camaro SS: 13.2 1/4 mile

Unless you are calling almost a full second "competitive"...

No, the 400hp Mustang GT isn't out yet, but you do the math. It will have at least 85hp more than the current GT that is only 0.2 slower than the Camaro SS...

And no, the GT500 shouldn't be compared to a Corvette as it isn't a sports car... it is still a muscle car-- just an expensive one.


RE: Cost?
By Spuke on 10/5/2009 3:32:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, the 400hp Mustang GT isn't out yet, but you do the math.
Honestly, this is going to be a really desirable car. Hopefully, it will be direct injected. If it is then all Ford needs to do is redo the suspension with front and rear double wishbones and they'll have a buyer. Wishful thinking, I know.


RE: Cost?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/5/2009 3:52:15 PM , Rating: 2
They didn't add IRS with the '10 MY refresh, so they aren't going to do it until the next complete redesign -- if they do it at all.


RE: Cost?
By 67STANG on 10/5/2009 4:42:54 PM , Rating: 2
No IRS is planned for Mustangs. Ford seems to think that Mustang purists would not welcome the change. I'm not sure they need it since it already handles quite well.

If the Camaro's current IRS-breakage problems are any indication, they made the right choice.


RE: Cost?
By Spuke on 10/5/2009 4:53:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the Camaro's current IRS-breakage problems are any indication, they made the right choice.
The Camaro isn't the only car on the planet with IRS. Only Ford continues to live in the dark ages with the beam axle. Develop a good suspension (no struts please) and put it on the car. GM did it in a $19k base car (Solstice/Sky). Big hp cars have it all the way down to eco boxes. There's no excuse. Get it done and do it right.


RE: Cost?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/5/2009 7:33:32 PM , Rating: 2
The comment about the Camaro's IRS doesn't make sense. The Mustang is about the only performance vehicle still sold that uses a SRA.

EVERY other RWD IRS setup can't be THAT bad, so if the Camaro is having issues, it's not exactly the norm.


RE: Cost?
By dubyadubya on 10/5/2009 8:50:52 PM , Rating: 2
I was hoping for IRS on the new mustang but it did not happen.
From what I have been reading Ford stayed with SRA for 2 reasons. Cost and drag racing. Whats the first thing people will do if they want to go in a straight line? get rid of the IRS. I have seen many Vettes destroyed by dumb ass's that want to go in a straight line.

The reviews I have seen comparing the Camaro and Mustang say the Mustang handles better and has better ride quality. Looks like GM dropped the ball on their IRS. I do like the looks of the new Camaro better than the Mustang. The 2010 model Mustang is not as nice looking as the last generation was.


RE: Cost?
By Spuke on 10/6/2009 2:17:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
From what I have been reading Ford stayed with SRA for 2 reasons. Cost and drag racing.
Unless you want to make your car a trailer queen, in which case there's nothing that will be stock, there's no point to running a SRA as PLENTY of cars are super fast with IRS's. And cost is a non-issue as there are/were econo cars with IRS's. The guys crying for a SRA in the Mustang for drag racing can just go buy an aftermarket one and stuff it in there or make the IRS's diff work. What's another few grand on top of the thousands you've already spent making a 7 second Mustang? I don't see the problem here.

Point is, the VAST majority of Mustangs never see the track and their owner would benefit from a properly designed independent suspension. And not some BS MacPherson strut cheapo sh!t either. GM got it done on the cheap with a VERY nice design in the Solstice/Sky. Ford has NO excuses.


RE: Cost?
By callmeroy on 10/5/2009 4:08:47 PM , Rating: 2
You should probably let Car and Driver and Motor Trend know this...since I have those issues at home right now praising the Camaro over the current Mustang in pretty much ALL areas from appearance to performance.


RE: Cost?
By 67STANG on 10/5/2009 4:45:11 PM , Rating: 2
If you read Motor Trend, then your post is already null and void. Those guys have are about as fair and balanced as Fox News is when reporting on liberals.


RE: Cost?
By Manch on 10/5/2009 9:42:48 PM , Rating: 2
Car & Driver declared the Mustang the winner, so it just depends on what mag you read. I have a Mustang GT and I love the damn car. The Camaro's while nice are just too damn heavy. Chevy needs a solid rear axle option. Some of my friends are considering doing what a lot of the cobra owners do and swap it out if possible. I'm sure someone will come up with one for it.


RE: Cost?
By Spuke on 10/6/2009 3:23:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Chevy needs a solid rear axle option.
See!!!! If someone wants/needs a SRA then they'll find a way. In the meantime, Joe SixPackNeverTracksHisCar can enjoy the improved ride and handling of the IRS.

quote:
Some of my friends are considering doing what a lot of the cobra owners do and swap it out if possible.
The problem is that Ford used a weak BS IRS in the Cobra. There's no way they should've had problems with that. Sh!t the Ford GT can rock WELL over 1000whp with the stock diff/IRS. There are TONS of other cars running power levels WELL above stock on a IRS. This BS about IRS being not up to drag racing standards sounds like someone unwilling to try something "new".


RE: Cost?
By Manch on 10/6/2009 5:25:17 PM , Rating: 2
That's great if Joe SixPackNeverTracksHisCar enjoys the camaro but they were marketed for Joe SixPackHowFastCanIRun1320ft. Chevy unfortunately lost sight of that and left out their core demographic when they decided to build the car on a heavy 4 door platform with an IRS. Ford proved that you can have your cake and eat it to with their SRA setup. It rides great even in the corners and has proved that it's a very capable road course racer.

The Cobra was geared towards road racing. The guys that road race leave the IRS in the ones that drag race swap out for a SRA. The IRS in the Cobra was retrofitted to a chassis that was designed for a SRA, so no it's not the ideal setup. IRS isn't unusable for drag racing but it sucks for one simple reason. It cannot take the same amount of punishment that an SRA can. Plus, when it breaks it will be expensive! SRA's are cheaper, more durable and you simply dont need a IRS for drag racing. You're going in a straight line! It's not the unwillingness to try something new, it's the unwillingness to break your car and then shell out a bunch of money that would otherwise be going to parts to make your car go faster and beer.

As far as the Ford GT goes, so fricken what. At $120,000 it damn well better have a bullet proof IRS. Plus the car was designed with it in mind. You can't compare the $120000 Ford GT to the 35000 Cobra. That's like comparing an apple to a diamond crusted orange.


RE: Cost?
By Noya on 10/6/2009 12:36:53 AM , Rating: 2
Amen to that.

I take all three (CD, MT, RT) and Road&Track is by far the best mainstream US auto mag.

They're the only ones that seem to have a real editor and journalists, along with complete honesty when evaluating cars.


RE: Cost?
By RivuxGamma on 10/5/2009 8:33:00 PM , Rating: 2
The live axle is a bad thing for anything other than a straight line. A limited slip differential is essential for controlling that kind of power in a turn. It seems as though Ford could have put that in, but just held back. As a result, the car is more affordable, but the handling is worse for it.


RE: Cost?
By mikeyD95125 on 10/5/2009 11:38:14 PM , Rating: 2
I think anyone named 67STANG is going to be a little biased.


RE: Cost?
By weskurtz0081 on 10/5/2009 11:40:22 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, right, just because someone uses a certain screen name means that they can't be objective.....


RE: Cost?
By Ammohunt on 10/5/2009 2:31:53 PM , Rating: 1
G overnment M otors? no thanks as long as they are owned by the feds they might as well not exist as a car company as far as i am concerned.


RE: Cost?
By Camikazi on 10/5/2009 12:38:25 PM , Rating: 2
Nice to see a return of the Mustang vs Camaro debates :)


RE: Cost?
By mindless1 on 10/5/2009 1:38:55 PM , Rating: 2
Good for you, but grown-ups tend to want something more versatile than a Mustang, doesn't have to outperform anything else, only have enough muscle to feel a little zippy.

... not saying the Taurus is the perfect car by any stretch, not that it should cost 10K more, but it's not the cost it's the feature set you need that dictates entry level into that class/type of car.


RE: Cost?
By teldar on 10/5/2009 4:51:57 PM , Rating: 2
You should look at the Taurus SHO before saying it anything about it's power or refinement.
The only negatives I've heard about it is that the waist is too high and the brakes are significantly unbeefy for the size of the vehicle.

And the normal Taurus does NOT cost the $37k base. That's the SHO's base.


RE: Cost?
By jonmcc33 on 10/6/2009 9:49:10 AM , Rating: 2
We are talking about the Taurus SHO here are we not? The normal Taurus does not have the V6 twin turbocharged engine does it?


EcoBoost is a load of marketing crap?
By LTG on 10/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: EcoBoost is a load of marketing crap?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/5/2009 10:11:39 AM , Rating: 5
I understand what you're saying, and would agree with you to a point...

However, a 911 Turbo is $100,000+. Ford seems to be taking turbocharging to a more mainstream level -- 90% of Ford fleet using turbocharging is quite a bit larger than Porsche's niche market.


RE: EcoBoost is a load of marketing crap?
By LTG on 10/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: EcoBoost is a load of marketing crap?
By Deschutes on 10/5/2009 11:59:31 AM , Rating: 4
Have you driven an STi? It has ZERO bottom end torque. This is about replicating the feel and power of a larger displacement engine albeit more efficiently. Besides the STi gas mileage sucks a$$.


By Reclaimer77 on 10/6/2009 6:49:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Have you driven an STi? It has ZERO bottom end torque.


Yes I have, and you are wrong. It has plenty of low end torque if you know how to drive it. And by that I mean, spool up the turbo, and dump the clutch. Like it's meant to be launched. It feels like my eyeballs are sucking into the back of my head, if that ain't torque I don't know what is.


RE: EcoBoost is a load of marketing crap?
By JasonMick (blog) on 10/5/2009 10:19:01 AM , Rating: 4
I'm no engine designer, but I'd say that seems like an unfair comparison. I'm willing to bet the Porsche 911's engine is much more expensive than the Taurus SHO's.

I think was Ford is claiming is that it has the most efficient use of Turbo charging/DI in terms of an affordable, mass produced engine.

Further, throwing cost out the window, Ford's 3.5 L V6 Ecoboost likely could have gotten closer to the 911's horsepower if it sacrificed fuel economy. The 2009 Porsche 911 gets 18 mpg average fuel economy. The 2010 Lincoln MKS, on the other hand, averages appr. 21.4 mpg.


RE: EcoBoost is a load of marketing crap?
By LTG on 10/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: EcoBoost is a load of marketing crap?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/5/2009 10:38:10 AM , Rating: 5
I laughed at this...

The STI weighs 3,400 pounds, makes 305 hp and gets 17/23

The Taurus SHO weighs a whopping 4,400 pounds, makes 365 hp and gets 17/25

The STI doesn't really sound all that impressive from those numbers, especially considering the SHO can hit 60 mph in 5.2 seconds.


RE: EcoBoost is a load of marketing crap?
By LTG on 10/5/09, Rating: -1
RE: EcoBoost is a load of marketing crap?
By weskurtz0081 on 10/5/2009 11:09:58 AM , Rating: 5
I think he was laughing at a car that weighs a 1000lbs more getting better mileage with more power. You don't have to be a fanboy to figure that one out.


RE: EcoBoost is a load of marketing crap?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/5/2009 11:15:49 AM , Rating: 3
Exactly; weight does have more than a little bit to do with fuel efficiency. Why do you think so many manufacturers are trying to trim weight from their vehicles with aluminum, "new steel" and carbon composites? An engine is nothing without the chassis it's attached to.

Pulling an extra half ton around, the SHO still manages to get better fuel economy while having more power and better low-end torque.

If the SHO wasn't such a lardass, its fuel economy would be even better.


By Keeir on 10/5/2009 1:23:48 PM , Rating: 2
"If the SHO wasn't such a lardass, its fuel economy would be even better. "

The Taurus is a Full Sized Car. It's size is similar to a BMW 7 series.

The STi is a Compact Car. It's size is similar to a BMW 3 series.

The fact that the Taurus SHO is within sight of the STi AND gets better fuel economy is amazing. If we put a SHO engine in an STi enevelop, with proper adjustment of current gears, no doubt the SHO would be in the upper 20s combined, and into the 30s for actual Highway driving.


By RandomUsername3463 on 10/5/2009 11:21:49 AM , Rating: 2
Have you ever looked at a horsepower & torque vs. RPM plot? These engines are tuned *VERY* differently. I'm sure the Ford gets way more low-end torque than the Sub a ru.

Lets see how fast an STi accelerates (and the gas mileage it gets) while towing a 1000 lb trailer :)


By Masospaghetti on 10/5/2009 2:25:06 PM , Rating: 3
You're a moron.

Who cares how much power you can get out of a tiny engine, if the performance and fuel economy suck?

The fact that the Taurus is more powerful, with a more flexible powerband, weighs more, and gets better fuel economy makes it obvious it has a superior powerplant.

On a similar note, you'd probably argue that the Corvette 6.2L LS3 with 426 HP and 16/26 mpg is inferior to the STi motor. Let me guess, it uses "outdated" pushrod technology and only 2-valves per cylinder. My point is, WHO CARES? It has more power and uses less fuel - end of story.


RE: EcoBoost is a load of marketing crap?
By Manch on 10/6/2009 12:29:44 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
What exactly are you laughing at Ford FanBoy?


says the Subaru Fanboy LOL

The SHO has a 12:1 weight to power ratio

The STI has about 11:1 weight to power ratio

The SHO gets better mileage. aka more efficient

HP per liter is not the sole determination of efficiency. When you quote only HP per liter you're only speaking to the max HP the engine can make.

The SHO's engine has more torque and a broader torque curve. Torque is the application of force. That means the engine can apply more force to the wheels over a broader range than the STI's engine.


RE: EcoBoost is a load of marketing crap?
By Reclaimer77 on 10/6/2009 6:39:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
says the Subaru Fanboy LOL The SHO has a 12:1 weight to power ratio The STI has about 11:1 weight to power ratio The SHO gets better mileage. aka more efficient HP per liter is not the sole determination of efficiency. When you quote only HP per liter you're only speaking to the max HP the engine can make. The SHO's engine has more torque and a broader torque curve. Torque is the application of force. That means the engine can apply more force to the wheels over a broader range than the STI's engine.


Ummm.. ignoring the stupidity of your argument, you realize Subaru is limited on what engines it can use because their rally vehicles need to meet the World Rally Associations rulebook on production car displacement, right ?


By Manch on 10/6/2009 7:09:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Subaru is limited on what engines it can use because their rally vehicles need to meet the World Rally Associations rulebook on production car displacement, right ?


You call my argument stupid but your reply has nothing to do with what I'm talking about or the post i was replying to. WR association rules have nothing to do with my argument. The post I replied to claimed the subaru engine was more efficient because of it's HP per liter ratio.

The Subaru's engine makes 122 peak HP per liter
The SHO's makes only 104 peak HP per liter in comparison.

We're talking about engine efficiency here. While the Subaru's 2.5 liter engine can make more peak HP than the SHO's 3.5 engine per liter it cannot produce the same amount of torque over it's entire rpm range. It's torque aka application of force is not as efficient as the SHO's. That's why despite that the SHO's power to weight ratio being higher, and it's HP/liter ratio lower than the STI's it still gets better gas mileage.

The SHO's engine was designed around a balance of power and efficiency. The SHO's engine isn't designed to sink you back into your seat as you try to make the run to McDonalds in 12 parsecs you moron. Now the Subaru's engine was designed around performance. These are two purpose built engines for two different requirements, hence their power & toque curves are very different, not to mention they're in two very different cars that dont even compete against each other.

I'm not arguing about which car is better or which engine is better, I'm talking about efficiency and that you cannot determine the efficiency of an engine solely by it's peak HP per liter ratio.

Next time you want to reply to an arguement maybe you should read the whole string of comments and get some context or maybe a clue.


RE: EcoBoost is a load of marketing crap?
By KornVdd on 10/5/09, Rating: -1
By Jeffk464 on 10/5/2009 11:20:24 AM , Rating: 2
What, the taurus is a full size car. Its not exactly fair to compare it to the weight of a compact. HP is also not everything you have to also look at torque curves and overall torque output.


By Totally on 10/5/2009 11:30:43 AM , Rating: 2
Seriously? You could pause for a second think that one out? The two cars are in different classes, come back and ask that question when ford throws it into a Focus that tips the scales at 4400lbs.


RE: EcoBoost is a load of marketing crap?
By HelToupee on 10/5/09, Rating: -1
RE: EcoBoost is a load of marketing crap?
By 67STANG on 10/5/2009 11:38:06 AM , Rating: 2
Are you seriously comparing a WRX STi to a Ford Taurus?


RE: EcoBoost is a load of marketing crap?
By SuperFly03 on 10/5/2009 12:17:53 PM , Rating: 3
A brilliant man once said "You can't fix stupid."

Exhibit A: DT article commentators comparing a STi performance AWD hot rod to a family sedan.


By The0ne on 10/5/2009 12:55:13 PM , Rating: 2
Einstein said it! :) Well, sounds like one of his famous quotes hahaha


By weskurtz0081 on 10/5/2009 12:15:10 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, seriously man, comparing a WRX STi to a Tarus.....

WOW!


RE: EcoBoost is a load of marketing crap?
By randomposter on 10/5/2009 11:55:11 AM , Rating: 2
Holy hell, the SHO weighs 4400lbs?

This car was on my "hey maybe" list but I'm not so sure anymore. I suppose if it still manages to get decent fuel economy that's an offsetting factor, but still ...


By weskurtz0081 on 10/5/2009 12:14:21 PM , Rating: 4
Really? What does it matter if the car weighs 44000lbs if it still handles well, brakes well, and gets good fuel economy?


RE: EcoBoost is a load of marketing crap?
By Spuke on 10/5/2009 3:14:36 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Holy hell, the SHO weighs 4400lbs?
The new BMW 5 series weighs more than this car. Which is probably a more fair comparison for the SHO.


RE: EcoBoost is a load of marketing crap?
By Keeir on 10/5/2009 3:53:23 PM , Rating: 4
"The new BMW 5 series weighs more than this car. Which is probably a more fair comparison for the SHO. "

Is that the 2011 5 series? All the 5 series I could find were less than 4,000 lbs.

BTW, the SHO is more like a 7 series. The SHO has a higher Interior Volume score than a 2009 standard 7 series. I am pretty sure the SHO is also Longer, Wider, and Taller than a 7 series (though with a smaller wheelbase). And only around ~200 lbs seperates the two.

Ford seems to have this car right... significantly bigger than a 5 series, enough power to push the AWD pretty much as fast as any non RS/M/AMG variant of the germans, AND better fuel economy at a cost close to 30-50% less.

BTW, for everyone who moans that today's car don't get better fuel economy.

A 2000 year Audi A4 is estimated at 17/26 on EPA 2008 testing. In 10 years, this Taurus SHO gets the same fuel economy with nearly 2x the power (which translates into 2-3 second faster 0-60 times), 1.25 times the size, AND emits around 1/5 of the real pollution (per EPA standards, actual figures unknown). At 37,000... thats around the cost in 2010 dollars of that A4.


By Spuke on 10/5/2009 7:12:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is that the 2011 5 series? All the 5 series I could find were less than 4,000 lbs.
I was looking at the 7 series website and wrote 5. My mistake.


By Reclaimer77 on 10/6/2009 6:45:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The STI doesn't really sound all that impressive from those numbers, especially considering the SHO can hit 60 mph in 5.2 seconds.


DO me a favor and drive an STI, then go drive your vaunted SHO Taurus.

Seriously are you an idiot ? Okay tell me this one, how many Rally/Autocross/Track - you name it - championships has a Taurus won lately ?

Are you seriously comparing a specialized rally / sports car to a freaking Ford Taurus SHO ?? Do you realize Subaru can't do whatever they want to the STI, because then it would be disqualified from World Rally, right ?


RE: EcoBoost is a load of marketing crap?
By Spuke on 10/5/2009 3:09:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ford's 3.5 L V6 Ecoboost likely could have gotten closer to the 911's horsepower if it sacrificed fuel economy.
The 911 Turbo has larger turbo's with variable turbine geometry. Ford wasn't trying to compete with a $100k plus sports car here (lol), it's replacing it's V8 engines with smaller one's that get better fuel economy with the same or greater power. Besides, who crosshops a sports car and a luxury sedan?


RE: EcoBoost is a load of marketing crap?
By Iaiken on 10/5/2009 4:03:38 PM , Rating: 4
Not to mention that it is made of titanium-vanadium-aluminum alloy... The turbo alone costs $9000 while your typical single-scroll costs around $1000.

Seriously, where do these idiots come from?

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_060...

This article gives you a good idea of just how much more advanced the 997's turbo is compared to the rudimentary design being fielded by ford.

Here, I'll make it easier for you to understand STI fanboi:

Big static turbo's on small displacements suffer from high back pressure at low RPMs. This causes a significant drop in torque as energy is wasted forcing the exhaust out. This usually plays itself out over the first 60-70 feet of launch.

Variable geometry turbos on the other hand are very light and easy to spin, they can raise or lower their exhaust impellers at different angles to create boost at low RPMs without choking out the engine with excess back pressure. As the RPM's start to climb, the turbo decreases the exhaust impeller angles. This further reduces back pressure while allowing the turbo to maintain a constant level of boost. The car can also over boost by increasing the angles and ramping boost up dramatically for a short period of time (~10 seconds) in the middle RPMs.


RE: EcoBoost is a load of marketing crap?
By Reclaimer77 on 10/6/2009 6:59:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Big static turbo's on small displacements suffer from high back pressure at low RPMs. This causes a significant drop in torque as energy is wasted forcing the exhaust out. This usually plays itself out over the first 60-70 feet of launch.


Which is why anyone who knows anything replaces the exhaust with a high flow cat back, or complete exhaust system, right off the bat.

The reason they don't come that way already is because of bullshit emmisions and fuel economy standards. Not a design flaw of the turbo.


By Black69ta on 10/14/2009 12:07:45 AM , Rating: 2
Sure upgrading the Turbo Back in the Exhaust will aid in avoiding turbo lag but the main factor is still turbo design much like conventional camshafts they are designed for a very specific RPM band, Big enough for top end Mega HP and it creates back pressure at low RPM; giving a lot of Turbo Lag.
Likewise a small Turbo that spools up quickly chokes at the high end. A Variable Vane Turbo functions like Honda VTEC Camshafts, acting like a small turbo at low RPM/Exhaust Velocity, Spooling very quickly. And a Large Turbo at High RPM/Exhaust Velocity, Pushing a lot of Boost and Horsepower.

By the Way SRT-4's did come with relatively good exhaust omitting a Muffler to reduce back pressure.

While it isn't a design flaw of the Turbo it is a poorly matched Turbo/engine Combo. Detroit shot themselves in the foot in the late '80s because of this problem. '89 Daytona Turbo Z, ring any Bells?


RE: EcoBoost is a load of marketing crap?
By Maroon on 10/5/2009 11:06:21 AM , Rating: 2
Other automakers have been mass producing DI + turbocharged vehicles for several years (Hi2u VW/Audi). I'm glad that Ford's on the bandwagon, but let's face it, EcoBoost is just a fancy marketing term. I hope they can make it reliable and teach their servicing depts to service them.


RE: EcoBoost is a load of marketing crap?
By EasyC on 10/5/2009 12:22:03 PM , Rating: 1
Yea, I don't see the big deal with this. I have a turbo-charged toyota from 91 that makes 300+ whp and still manages 29 mpg when I lay off it (which isn't often)...

I just hope ford steps up in supporting engine design as well. FI motors need to be built accordingly. I fear that Ford will follow the typical mentality of putting a turbo on a regular motor and just down tuning it to 6-7 psi for "safety".


RE: EcoBoost is a load of marketing crap?
By Masospaghetti on 10/5/2009 2:28:43 PM , Rating: 4
Does your Toyota weigh 4400 lbs? How many airbags does it have? How about anti lock brakes, anti-skid and traction control systems? What model are you even referring to?

I had a Honda CRX that got over 40 MPG but it was a small, lightweight death trap not fit for today's driving world.


RE: EcoBoost is a load of marketing crap?
By EasyC on 10/5/2009 3:12:15 PM , Rating: 2
No, its 2700 lbs, has airbags, anti-lock brakes, and tires big enough to not worry that much about skidding. I don't drive like a tool.

The CRX IS a death trap, but it isn't turbo-ed so I don't see how it applies to this article??? My whole point is Ford is boasting about this "new" technology that's been implemented for years at other car companies. They have a hard time getting NA motors right, so I hope they can figure out how to make a decent turbo motor.


RE: EcoBoost is a load of marketing crap?
By Manch on 10/6/2009 7:52:08 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
They have a hard time getting NA motors right, so I hope they can figure out how to make a decent turbo motor.


Huh? Their NA modular motors run quite well and they take well to turbos and SC's. The "new" technology is how they've implemented the turbo with the engine. I had a 94 Subaru WRX when I lived in Japan and like many other turbo cars I've driven you could feel the turbo when it kicked in. Driving around normally the car accellerated OK but when you stomped on it you hear teh turbo spool and you'd feel it kick in. I've driven a 2006 STI and it's the same way albiet a lot smoother. Ford has designed this so it's seamless with the operation of the engine and to you. I test drove a SHO and it drives like it's an NA car. It's actually very nice. If I'm in the market for a car like that I don't want turbo whiplash everytime I accelerate at a decent clip. The Turbo on WRX's/STI's/EVO's etc are designed with all out performance in mind. The ecoboost engine was designed around efficiency, smoothness.


RE: EcoBoost is a load of marketing crap?
By EasyC on 10/6/2009 12:12:57 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not taking away from Ford's ability to make a smooth powerband with a turbo. Anyone with tuning knowledge can accomplish that. That also applies to their NA motors 'taking well' to turbo's and SC's... Tuning has one of the biggest effects on the reliability of a motor. The problem I see with boosting an NA motor is not reinforcing the bottom end. Every single boosted NA motor I've ever seen has blown something at some point. I just hope Ford builds accordingly.

Oh, and this link doesn't give much faith to Fords NA building prowess...

http://www.carcomplaints.com/top_vehicles.shtml


RE: EcoBoost is a load of marketing crap?
By Manch on 10/6/2009 4:34:59 PM , Rating: 2
That was probably the worst link you could have posted for backing up your claim. According to your link:

The top 6 spots are split between two companies, Ford and Honda.

Of these 6 spots the 02,03,04 Ford explorer are all the same generation so there was very little if any difference between them. Engine problems were only 3.4% of the total complaints listed.

As for Honda they had three distinct models, the 2 different generations of accord and a civic. Engine problems were 3.5% of the total complaints.

So how you correlate one model with 3.4% having engine problems according to only one source to Ford not being able to build a decent NA engine is beyond me and just pure rubbish. By your logic the Honda can't build them either and there problem is more wide spread since it spans three different cars.

Another thing, do you know that the bottom end on the ecoboost engines aren't built? The 03-04 terminators and the GT500's, two of Fords most popular factory FI cars have built bottom ends. I have a mustang GT and it has Hypereutectic pistons and yet I can run 10 pounds without havign to worry about my engine exploding or seriously hurting the life of it. Sure, tuning has great effect on an engine but also not pushing more than the engine can handle. Ford built both the terminator and the GT500 with very safe boost levels. These cars were/are afterall sold with warranty.

Basically what i'm saying is, your link doesnt back up your BS. Way to poorly cherrypick information to prove, well in your case disprove your own point.

EPIC FAIL


RE: EcoBoost is a load of marketing crap?
By EasyC on 10/7/2009 10:12:24 AM , Rating: 2
Anyone who uses the term EPIC FAIL in a civilized argument automatically loses respect. If you actually READ...yes READ my statements (I know its hard), you would see that I never once said Ford doesn't build their bottom ends for boost. I said I hope that they choose to for an "economy" car.

You listing the GT500 as part of your argument is rather negligable. For the price tag and target market of that car, you'd better hope they build the motor. The sho is geared more towards the general public and they are trying to market it as "economical" with their "ecoboost" technology. Anything marketted towards the general public will have to priced as such...and in todays economy...that means pretty cheap. When you price cheap, you cut corners. THAT is why I made that statement.

I know you're having a hard time seeing past that Ford fanboy nose of yours, but I'll spell out exactly what I was trying to say (as I didnt mean to ruffle the Ford fanatics feathers). I'm saying that this ecoboost is a marketting ploy. Turbo technology has been around for decades providing the same features that Ford is claiming as unique to their "testing" and such. All Ford has done is slap a turbo on a car and tune it so conservatively that you don't feel a peaky powerband. And as such, I hope they aren't cost cutting on building the motor to handle it. Now run along and play with your other epic fail buddies.


RE: EcoBoost is a load of marketing crap?
By Manch on 10/7/2009 11:05:27 AM , Rating: 2
Anyone who uses links to prove their point but instead proves themselves wrong in a civilized argument automatically gets an EPIC FAIL!

Now that I've shown that your previous statement about Ford's inability to make a decent NA motor is pure BS you want to argue about my choice of words?

The GT500 isn't negligible. At a price range of 43K-50K vs 37K-45K for the SHO, they're both priced pretty high up and there price ranges overlap. Neither one of these particular models are economy, which BTW you never once said in either of the post I originally replied to.

I don't care if you think if the ecoboost is a marketing ploy or you dont like my choice of words. What I'm saying is your statement that Ford cannot build a decent NA car is complete BS. You own link proved you wrong!

So now your trying to redirect the arguement to something else.

BTW, this "Ford Fanboy" also has a 78 Chevy C10 stepside w/454 that will stomp the crap out of a lot of cars. I also had a J-Spec '94 WRX that would run neck and neck with the S197's and would lose them in the turns. The Mustangs could only beat it on the top end in a straight line.

I like all kinds of cars/trucks, and I dont care who makes them as long as they're good. I don't like the pure BS that flows from that orifice you call a mouth.


RE: EcoBoost is a load of marketing crap?
By EasyC on 10/7/2009 11:53:56 AM , Rating: 1
My own link was laziness on my part, no where in that article did it necessarily prove me wrong. You twisted the contents of the article to your liking. Bravo.

I haven't redirected anything. I've stated multiple times what the purpose of my posting was. You continued to veer off point on some tyrade about your own Ford fantasies. I'm a car guy myself and as such, have had the privelage of experiencing a plethora of car makes/models through various channels.

I've known quite a few people with fords. One had a lightning and the motor blew one day while the weather was cold (yes his truck was warmed up). One bought a brand new mustang in 2001, only to have both the transmission and motor go within the first 27k miles. It was automatic...and babied. I could go on, but this is beginning to bore me. Only up until late have Fords been recognized as getting better on the reliability scale (google 'Ford Reliability' and you'll see a majority of positive articles are recent)...and for that I'm happy. I think there should be atleast 1 competitive American car company. I also have all the respect in the world for them being able to wade through this economic shitstorm without taking a handout from the government.

Im glad at what you have/had for cars. However this isn't a dick measuring contest so I really could care less. I'm really done with this argument, I feel like I'm competing in the special olympics with you. In the end, you still have yet to address my original point. EPIC FAIL in comprehension.


By Manch on 10/7/2009 1:07:23 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't need to twist anything since your link disproved your point about the Ford's NA engines all by itself. That was the only thing that I commented on. I didn't take issue with anything else, just that one blanket statement and you kept arguing. You are redirecting because you don't have anything to stand on. So yeah, your done.


RE: EcoBoost is a load of marketing crap?
By Spuke on 10/5/2009 3:19:23 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Yea, I don't see the big deal with this. I have a turbo-charged toyota from 91 that makes 300+ whp and still manages 29 mpg when I lay off it (which isn't often)...
Comparing modified cars to unmodified cars is not an apples to apples comparison. Does your car meet emissions regulations in California without having to pay someone to look the other way? Can you seat 4 people with their stuff comfortably? Is it quiet? Does it have navigation? How about traction control and stability control? How often do you have to tweak on the motor? Can you take your car into the dealership and have issues replaced under warranty?


RE: EcoBoost is a load of marketing crap?
By EasyC on 10/6/2009 12:18:03 PM , Rating: 2
You're right, however my motor is bone stock. I can't seat 4 people since it's a 2 seater, but I have 2 decent size trunks to fit things. It's fairly quiet. I don't have/need/want stability or traction control. I don't tweak the motor at all anymore. And it's a 91....so what warranty are you referring to?

There are plenty of other examples out there, I was just using mine as a reference.....I'm not a Ford hater, I'd just never own one. Too risky.


By Spuke on 10/6/2009 4:26:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not a Ford hater, I'd just never own one. Too risky.
I would and do own one. No fear here. JD Powers scientific research is enough for me.


RE: EcoBoost is a load of marketing crap?
By randomly on 10/5/2009 11:25:38 AM , Rating: 2
Insufficient information to make a meaningful comparison.

The Porsche engine is designed for high octane gas so it probably has a compression ratio advantage. The Ford engine is probably more optimized for thermodynamic efficiency to get better gas mileage. Different priorities. Fuel efficiency is not a priority for the Porsche, performance is. It's not clear how much of a performance hit the Ford takes to meet emissions standards.

You can hardly expect dramatic improvements in 100 year old ICE technology, they are going to be small incremental improvements so you have to make careful comparisons.

Yes it still may be marketing crap, but it's not clear yet.


RE: EcoBoost is a load of marketing crap?
By The0ne on 10/5/2009 12:58:08 PM , Rating: 2
Don't know if many of you know this but subaru uses the boxster engine like porsche. Though obviously not exactly the same it's still impressive. :)


RE: EcoBoost is a load of marketing crap?
By Iaiken on 10/5/2009 4:15:51 PM , Rating: 4
It's BOXER engine... Boxster is the name of a Porsche branded car. The pistons are arranged on a horizontal plane and there the similarity ENDS.


By The0ne on 10/6/2009 2:06:26 PM , Rating: 2
You need to chill or share some of the dopes.


Its about time
By ebrius on 10/5/2009 10:47:02 AM , Rating: 1
Welcome to the 21st Century Ford.

Most European and Asian car companies use turbos in at least a few of their models. Audi and BMW make heavy use of turbos, and Saab has been using them for... about 30 years.

Good marketing though, making people think you invented turbochargers. Maybe you can do the same thing with VTEC?




RE: Its about time
By FITCamaro on 10/5/2009 10:52:11 AM , Rating: 3
Yes and they cost $40-50,000 dollars if not more.

Apples to oranges.


RE: Its about time
By Pneumothorax on 10/5/2009 11:57:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
by FITCamaro on October 5, 2009 at 10:52 AM

Yes and they cost $40-50,000 dollars if not more.


What's the price of the Taurus SHO again?


RE: Its about time
By weskurtz0081 on 10/5/2009 12:08:12 PM , Rating: 2
$37,000 if I am not mistaken. Not $40-$50K.


RE: Its about time
By The0ne on 10/5/2009 12:48:08 PM , Rating: 2
What cost 40-50000 more? O.o Honda should have gown down by now if their VTEC costs that much. Thankfully they don't, phew.


RE: Its about time
By The0ne on 10/5/2009 12:49:10 PM , Rating: 2
"didn't"


RE: Its about time
By Emma on 10/6/2009 6:10:13 AM , Rating: 2
The VW CC costs $27,100

2.0L TSI engine, inline 4, direct injection.
200hp @ 5100-600rpm, 207lbs-ft @ 1700-5000rpm. 0-60 6.9 seconds, top speed ~130mph.
21mpg city, 31mpg highway.

Europe has been doing these engines for many years, and are getting significant gains every generation. Ecoboost is nothing new at all.


RE: Its about time
By Spuke on 10/6/2009 4:30:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Europe has been doing these engines for many years, and are getting significant gains every generation. Ecoboost is nothing new at all.
We've had those same cars in the US. Audi/VW's DI 4 cyl has been available here also. Ford's not claiming anything new but like EVERY automaker, when they introduce something, they advertise it. Nothing new here.


RE: Its about time
By weskurtz0081 on 10/5/2009 11:13:26 AM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't say BMW makes heavy use of Turbo's. They really only use it in the higher end parts.


RE: Its about time
By SanLC504 on 10/5/2009 12:47:30 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, BMW is starting to use it in more models. All #35 models use the 3.0L I6 with twin turbos. Many #50 models are using the 4.8L Twin Turbo V8.

And all of BMW's dynamic diesel models have twin turbos.


RE: Its about time
By Mojo the Monkey on 10/5/2009 1:10:13 PM , Rating: 3
Which is hilarious because BMW used to be committed to using only naturally aspirated engines in their performance line (M series). Their chiefs all called it a pure engine, and referred to what the Merc E55 AMG was doing at the time (supercharging to get ~450hp and beating the M5 in a straight line with an automatic trans) as "cheating".

Now its turbo/supercharger abound. Less than 5 years to reverse this strong language.


RE: Its about time
By Zshazz on 10/5/2009 1:57:43 PM , Rating: 2
What's this "used to be committed" business? Their M line is still all NA.

So they're using turbo chargers to keep performance exceptional while retaining gas mileage on their regular cars... but I fail to see what this has anything to do with their M series.


RE: Its about time
By Mojo the Monkey on 10/5/2009 2:44:55 PM , Rating: 2
you're right. my mistake. I saw all of the other BMW's coming out with turbos and I assumed. Let the down-modding commence.


RE: Its about time
By Spuke on 10/5/2009 3:43:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What's this "used to be committed" business? Their M line is still all NA.
The future M's will be turbo'd too.


RE: Its about time
By weskurtz0081 on 10/5/2009 1:18:18 PM , Rating: 2
Starting to make heavier use of turbo's, sure, but they don't make heavy use of turbo's.

The 35 models are the higher end models, as well are the 50's. The bulk of the sales are not coming from these models, so I would have to say the heavier use is in non-turbo vehicles.


RE: Its about time
By Keeir on 10/5/2009 1:25:56 PM , Rating: 2
the 335i and 335d both start below 45k. Even optioned out, it takes quite a bit to reach the 50's let alone "well into the 50's"


RE: Its about time
By weskurtz0081 on 10/5/2009 2:26:48 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, now we are splitting hairs man. You are basically talking about 1 single model.

Even that one model is still within $10K of a CTS-V. The price might not be Lamborghini high end, and the performance might not be Lamborghini high end, but I don't think ANY of the cars we have been talking about are.


RE: Its about time
By Keeir on 10/5/2009 4:08:45 PM , Rating: 2
That one single model accounts for large numbers of sales however.

http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.a...

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS17...

The 3-series in NA accounts for between 30-40% of total sales (including MINI) and traditionally more than 50% of the BMW passenger car sales.

The most popular model has traditionally been the 330/335 type, accounding for more than 20%+ of the sales of BMW group (30%+ of BMW passenger cars) in NA in years past.

Not sure about you, but when an Automaker is clearly passing the 25% of total sales using a device, I start calling that "heavy". Its entirely possible that 50% of sales of BMW in NA include a turbo.


RE: Its about time
By weskurtz0081 on 10/5/2009 4:24:58 PM , Rating: 3
Ok, you posted me something that says the 3 series is the most popular lineup for BMW. You provide links to that.

Then, you say that the highest end 3 series sales account for 30% of all the passenger car sales? Am I on track so far?

So, the only possible conclusion I can draw from this is that they sell almost exclusively 335's (since we are talking about turbo's, and the 330 gas engines didn't have a turbo, at least most of them didn't).

So, since you say the 330/335 accounts for around 30% of the passenger car sales for BMW, and the overall percentage of the 3 series sold is also around that % mark, then they must hardly sell any of the 328's (current model with no turbo), and must have hardly sold any 325's, 323's etc.

You do know the 335 is not the only 3 series car they make right?


RE: Its about time
By Keeir on 10/5/2009 5:51:33 PM , Rating: 2
Sigh

you failed Math Eh?

BMW Brand Sales, August 2009-19, 19,232 car
BMW 3-Series, 9,833
(Numbers from Link)

Total Percentage 51% of BMW brand sales
(Mini takes it down to 40%)

In years past, the 335i and 335d would command 60-70% of all 3 series sales in thier various forms. (Sedan, Coupe, Convertible, etc). Even if we assume that this year it feel down to 50% of the 3 series sales in NA. Thats still 25% of the total.

Here let me help you out

9,833 * 0.5 / 19,232 = 0.2556

In addition to the 335i and 335d, there are 5 series turbos... oh look at that, the 5 series is the next most sold BMW type. All Mini S models contain turbos as well, not sure about the break down, but it wouldn't surprize me if mini was 40%+ turbo'ed

Your arguing BMW is not heavily into Turbo, when its clear more than 25% of the cars they sell in NA contain a turbo, at a minimum, and its entirely possible that figure reaches close to 50% when you include the Mini Series. Its also fairly clear that most of those turbo spec cars sell for less than 50k!


RE: Its about time
By weskurtz0081 on 10/5/2009 9:13:28 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, no, I didn't fail math, I failed to interpret the stats correctly.

However, it doesn't change the fact that you posted stats for "3 series" sales, and no where does it break it down by model, you do that with nothing to back it up.

You say that it's clear that more than 25% of the cars they sell contain a turbo when you have nothing to back it up.

I'll tell you what, once you find the numbers showing the sales of the actual model's containing a turbo, and not just the series lines that have certain models that contain turbo's, then I will stand down. So far though, you have not been able to back the stats up with ACTUAL sales figures for models that contain turbo's. Presuming a certain percentage of total sales are turbo's just doesn't work.


RE: Its about time
By weskurtz0081 on 10/5/2009 10:06:55 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, I found some figures for the 3 series that are broken down my model number. They are from 2007, but I think it's safe to assume that the ratio holds fairly steady from year to year, and even model line to model line, not because of the turbo, but because the fact that the turbo model's are more expensive.

So, in 2007, about 25% of all 3 series sales were those with a turbo. Apparently they still had some old 330's and 325's that had not sold.

According to one of your links, about 45% of all BMW's sold in NA were in the 3 series line. If about 25% of those contained a turbo, then about 11.5% of total BMW's sold were 335's or 330's. When you include total BMW group sales (with Mini), that's about 9%.

The next highest sold model line is the 5 series. Total 5 series sales come to about 22% of total BMW NA sales. If the same ratio of turbo to non turbo holds true from 3 to 5 series, then about 5% of the 5 series sold contain a turbo. So, that adds up to around 16%. If you put that into the total of BMW group, that is about 4.5%.

So, in the past years, the 335 commanded NO WHERE NEAR 60-70%, as it has been shown.

I will also use the ratio for the mini, about 25% w/turbo, since I have nothing else that says otherwise. If you consider that, the total Mini sales is about 18% of total BMW NA sales, and then take 25% of that, it comes out to about 4.5%.

So, if you add up the 5 series with turbo's, the 3 series' with turbo's, and the Mini's with turbo's..... that adds up to less than 20% (about 18%), not 25%.

http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/attachment.php?at...


RE: Its about time
By Spuke on 10/6/2009 5:19:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When you include total BMW group sales (with Mini), that's about 9%
Including Mini sales throws this off a bit because there are turbo models in the Mini lineup. You could separate the turbo sales in the Mini lineup or just remove the Mini's altogether.


RE: Its about time
By weskurtz0081 on 10/6/2009 5:24:07 PM , Rating: 2
I included a percentage of turbo's that might be sold out of the mini lineup, and added them all together at the end.


RE: Its about time
By weskurtz0081 on 10/6/2009 4:32:52 PM , Rating: 2
I guess we are done here?


RE: Its about time
By weskurtz0081 on 10/5/2009 4:35:31 PM , Rating: 2
I forgot one part. You also mentioned that BMW is passing 25% of total sales using a device. Well, lets forget the first mistake about the 335 being the only 3 series model, or misunderstanding the graph, or whatever happened, and lets think about it.

Everything BMW US sells equals 100% right? So, according to one of your links, around 27% of that 100% is for passenger cars. Of that 27%, about 28% is for the 3 series lineup, which includes that 328 and the 335 currently. So, out of 100%, about 7.5% of those sales are 3 series, but it's very unlikely even 50% of that 7.5% is the 335 (the one with a turbo). So, if the 335 manages to get 20% of the 335 sales (which I think is on the high side), that would equal out to about 1.5% of BMW's total sales in the US.


RE: Its about time
By Spuke on 10/5/2009 3:48:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The bulk of the sales are not coming from these models, so I would have to say the heavier use is in non-turbo vehicles.
You're going to have to post some numbers to back this up.


RE: Its about time
By weskurtz0081 on 10/5/2009 9:05:32 PM , Rating: 2
How about you post some numbers to refute it?

Or, I could call my friend, the GM of one of the few BMW dealerships in Houston, and I am sure he could get me the numbers.

But, before I do that, why don't you prove me wrong?


RE: Its about time
By Spuke on 10/6/2009 4:35:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But, before I do that, why don't you prove me wrong?
Because YOU are making the assertion, not me. LOL! YOU back yourself up otherwise you're full of sh!t.


RE: Its about time
By weskurtz0081 on 10/6/2009 4:46:47 PM , Rating: 2
Did you read above? I already backed myself up with the numbers.

Also, you are right that I was making the assertion, however, the guy arguing with me was making up stats to support his claim that I was wrong. Sure, he found total 3 series sales, but then pulled some % out of the air for how many were 335's etc. Why should I use facts when my opponent is just making things up?


RE: Its about time
By weskurtz0081 on 10/6/2009 4:48:50 PM , Rating: 2
And, whether or not I back myself up with some numbers doesn't make me full of sh!t.... being right or wrong is what does that. And, I am right.


RE: Its about time
By Spuke on 10/6/2009 5:55:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
being right or wrong is what does that. And, I am right.
How can someone, that does not know you from Adam, possibly know you are wrong or right without proof? We're in a public forum, not a family reunion.


RE: Its about time
By weskurtz0081 on 10/7/2009 8:43:56 AM , Rating: 2
They can look up the stats and verify or dispute what I say.... easy.


RE: Its about time
By weskurtz0081 on 10/5/2009 11:28:05 PM , Rating: 2
If you look above, I posted my numbers to back up my claims. The BULK of the sales do not have a turbo. Do consider, that bulk in that context means "the majority". And, if you look at the numbers, it should be very obvious that the numbers back up my claim.


RE: Its about time
By Spuke on 10/5/2009 3:41:56 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Good marketing though, making people think you invented turbochargers. Maybe you can do the same thing with VTEC?
Speaking of marketing, VTEC is Honda's MARKETING term for variable cam timing and lift. Damn near every car has this technology, Honda was just smart enough to give it a name and plaster it on every car they sold making people like yourself think it's something special. The cool thing about Honda's tech was the amount of cam advance. Used to be pretty cool but, like I said, everyone has that now.


By Lord 666 on 10/5/2009 10:02:56 AM , Rating: 1
However, would be interested in driving the Ecoboost Taurus.




By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/5/2009 10:08:10 AM , Rating: 2
The 3.5 EcoBoost seems to be a MONSTER. Could you imagine that thing in a Mustang?


By FITCamaro on 10/5/2009 10:48:55 AM , Rating: 2
Well its got more horsepower than the V8 in the Mustang. But Mustang's can't even hook up with the power they have from the factory now.

The new SHO is impressive for sure. But GM had this in the GNX in the 80s. It was EXTREMELY conservatively rated at 300 hp back then.


By Jeffk464 on 10/5/2009 11:23:05 AM , Rating: 3
They need to drop that engine into the mustang to give the camaro V6 some competition. The current V6 in the mustang is a real dog.


By 67STANG on 10/5/2009 11:36:42 AM , Rating: 2
Even Ford fans have known for a while that the current 210hp v6 in the Mustang is tired. Next year, it has been confirmed that the Mustang will get the 3.7 v6 found in the Lincoln MKS, as the base engine. This will compliment the new 400+hp coyote 5.0 v8 going into the GT.

Horsepower numbers have not been released yet, but expect 275-310hp from this engine. More than enough to beat the heavier Camaro. About time too. The current v6 has been a dog for years.


By Reclaimer77 on 10/5/2009 11:58:17 AM , Rating: 1
Pffft Ford can't even get V8 performance out of their V8's. Sorry but when it comes to engines, GM > Ford ever since 1950 something.


By rudolphna on 10/5/2009 12:06:58 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but you don't know what the hell your talking about. Ford has been using smaller V8s than the competition. The 4.6L V8 in the mustang has 310HP. That is a fairly decent power/liter engine. the 5.4 needs replaced. And my mother has a 07 Mustang with the 4.0L V6, it isn't that slow. It's very peppy, and it wants to go. By the way, the 4.0L mustang runs almost the same 0-60 as the 3.6L Camaro because of its weight advantage.


By Reclaimer77 on 10/5/2009 1:07:45 PM , Rating: 1
Please. The Chevy 350 small block is a legendary world renowned engine that has been the last word in V8 performance since before I was born.


By 67STANG on 10/5/2009 4:35:59 PM , Rating: 2
LOL. When my mustang had a 289 in it, I'd eat 350 small blocks for lunch. Horrible engine.

And I'd hardly say it's world renowned. It's more like the AK-47 of small blocks. Brutal and reliable, but there's no precision or technology involved. If you're talking about great V8's I'd say BMW is the best on the block. If you're feeling nostalgic, the factory Boss 351 from Ford owns pretty much every factory 350 Chevy from the era.


By rudolphna on 10/6/2009 8:42:31 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. A 10 year old could probably rebuild a 350 and it would work perfectly.


By Jeffk464 on 10/5/2009 3:28:05 PM , Rating: 2
Really, I might have to check that out.


By Jeffk464 on 10/5/2009 3:52:48 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, the camaro still has better specs then the lincoln v6. It does look like a big improvement over the mustangs current V6. Will have to wait and see what kind of mileage it will make. Its not to good in the lincoln, but the lincoln is much heavier then the mustang. So far its pretty hard to beat the mileage and performance of the V6 camaro.


By 67STANG on 10/5/2009 4:40:17 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, we will all have to wait and see. Most likely, it won't have to be as powerful as the Camaro's V6 as the Mustang is much lighter. The Lincoln's V6 will have a different intake and some other mods as it is currently only used in FWD cars. I doubt anyone will know the official power ratings for months.

The Camaro's V6 is definitely sweet. The exhaust note makes it sound "ricer" to me however.


By lagomorpha on 10/5/2009 5:57:38 PM , Rating: 3
"They need to drop that engine into the mustang to give the camaro V6 some competition. The current V6 in the mustang is a real dog. "

The current V6 is also much cheaper to manufacture and not intended for people who know anything about cars. It's the model for women who want the car purely for the body style (sizzle).


I will wait for the F150's with Ecoboost
By aguilpa1 on 10/5/2009 10:40:37 AM , Rating: 2
I will wait until they have the F150's with ecoboost. I am in no rush to trade out my still only 37,000 mile (just turned) 2004 F150. I always thought the 4.2L V6 in that was very efficient (22MPG) and powerful for its size but with something equivalent but with ecoboost it would be a real stump puller with better gas mileage.




RE: I will wait for the F150's with Ecoboost
By HelToupee on 10/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: I will wait for the F150's with Ecoboost
By aguilpa1 on 10/5/2009 11:32:40 AM , Rating: 2
yea, I'll wait until you finish actually reading the technology. It says increasing HP and TORQUE. I would think they will have this figured out or they would not be considering rolling this out to 90% of their fleet including trucks. Its about new technology not old turbo lag everyone else has.


RE: I will wait for the F150's with Ecoboost
By HelToupee on 10/5/09, Rating: 0
By randomposter on 10/5/2009 12:12:18 PM , Rating: 2
2009 Ford F150 4.6L V8: 292hp @ 5700, 320ft.lb @ 4000
2010 Ford SHO Ecoboost: 365hp @ 5500, 350ft.lb @ 3500

Oh, and before you go on again about pulling stumps at idle, take a look at this:
http://jalopnik.com/5151498/2010-ford-taurus-sho-l...

Modern FI applications are worlds better than the early production vehicle experiments of the '70s and '80s.


By rudolphna on 10/5/2009 12:13:58 PM , Rating: 2
You are wrong. You obviously don't understand how this works. Using smaller turbos will serve two purposes. 1-Spool up much faster, and having 2 will net the same power as a single turbo, if not more. The torque curve of these engines is almost flat. The torque you have right off the line with these is impressive. No engine has its full 300+ lb/ft of torque until 2000RPM ish anyway. And when the power from the turbo DOES come, it will be very powerful. Go learn the basic physics you are preaching others don't know.


By Vesuvius on 10/5/2009 2:31:29 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, you're right Hel. All those Turbos in diesel trucks...they don't benefit towing AT ALL. So why put them in gasoline trucks? </sarcasm>


By FITCamaro on 10/5/2009 12:24:46 PM , Rating: 2
Depends what size the turbo is. A smaller turbo will boost the lowend more than the highend. Have you never heard of a turbo-diesel? Sure they make good torque without a turbo but the turbo only amplifies it.


RE: I will wait for the F150's with Ecoboost
By Zapp Brannigan on 10/5/2009 1:19:12 PM , Rating: 2
Man, your way behind the times. New turbos have Variable Geometry so that they have a minimal amount of lag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_geometry_tur...

also, as long as the engine block is sufficiently overbuilt and has a good enough cooling system, the ecoboost range will be perfectly capable of towing trouble free.


By Spuke on 10/5/2009 4:23:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Man, your way behind the times. New turbos have Variable Geometry so that they have a minimal amount of lag.
Most turbo's don't use this tech. Most DO use twin scroll tech though. But it's mostly about proper sizing for the application. For street cars, small turbo's work best. They spool quick and put out great low end torque which is all you need.


Ford or Mazda?
By WHIP57 on 10/5/2009 10:37:21 AM , Rating: 1
How long has Mazda been producing the DI turbo 2.3L four (264 BHP/ 280 lb-ft) in the MazdaSpeed 3? 5-6 years?
How much of Mazda does Ford own? 50%?




RE: Ford or Mazda?
By FITCamaro on 10/5/2009 10:50:51 AM , Rating: 2
Bout the same amount of time as GM has had a 2.0L putting out nearly the same power (and more if you get the GM Stage 1 kit bumping out 290hp/330 lb ft).


RE: Ford or Mazda?
By randomposter on 10/5/2009 12:26:13 PM , Rating: 3
If you start talking stage 1, stage 2, stage 3 kits, etc. this discussion is going to go nowhere in a hurry. We are talking about how a manufacturer chooses to tune the engines they release to the public in order to hit the power, economy, and reliability standards they need to hit.

I had a V6 Tiburon several years ago with intake, IM, BBTB, headers, exhaust, fuel tuner, flywheel, and clutch. The fact I was able to turn it into a pretty quick little car doesn't change the fact Hyundai released a dog of a V6 in stock form.


RE: Ford or Mazda?
By Spuke on 10/5/2009 3:01:30 PM , Rating: 2
The GM Stage 1 kit is not an aftermarket item. It is CARB legal and is covered by the factory warranty. If you are outside the warranty period then you get a new 1yr/12k warranty to cover the upgrade. Only the dealership can install this upgrade. Considering the expense and effort GM put into this upgrade, the cars should've left the factory like this from the get go.


RE: Ford or Mazda?
By bighairycamel on 10/5/2009 3:18:34 PM , Rating: 2
0%. It was 30% but they sold that back to Mazda either earlier this year or late last year.


RE: Ford or Mazda?
By bighairycamel on 10/5/2009 3:25:00 PM , Rating: 2
Woops, I looked it up again to check my numbers and they kept 10% of their stake.


RE: Ford or Mazda?
By Jeffk464 on 10/5/2009 3:40:34 PM , Rating: 2
My dad had a 2.3L 12psi Turbo mustang back in 1985. I think that predates your mazda. Turbos were all over the place in the 80's the problem was they put out too much emissions and added a lot to the price of the car.


Very Mild Article
By vilespankmachine on 10/5/2009 3:02:50 PM , Rating: 3
I am fashionably late to the party with my comment, I see that I have not been disappointed by the discussion but I have been by the amount of information provided.

Best overall information of Ford's tech is discussed here:
http://www.autospeed.com/cms/A_111422/article.html

Some tidbits:

(on the turbos) "They are rated for a 150,000-mile, 10-year life."

(on the watercooled turbo design) "The test ran EcoBoost at maximum boost flat out for a 10-minute period. Then the engine and all cooling were abruptly shut down and the turbo was left to “bake” after this high-speed operation. This process was then repeated 1,500 times without an oil change. After the 1,500 cycles, the turbos were cut open for detailed technical examination and proved to be fine."

(also on durability) "EcoBoost also endured Ford’s standard engine durability test signoff. Back in the dynamometer lab, the 3.5-litre EcoBoost V6 went back up to full revs – and maximum turbo boost – for a real endurance test. This time it stayed at full throttle for 362 hours. That’s like running the 24 Hours of Daytona for more than 15 days straight."




RE: Very Mild Article
By Jeffk464 on 10/5/2009 5:44:04 PM , Rating: 1
ya, 150,000 isnt good, enough my buddy had an old turbo 4cyl toyota 4 runner and the turbo went out at 250,000 miles. He drove it for another 50,000 miles without a turbo before I lost touch with him. It was pretty underpowered without the turbo.


RE: Very Mild Article
By Keeir on 10/5/2009 6:03:21 PM , Rating: 2
Sigh...

Now, I am not saying anything about 150,000 miles not being enough

But to compare something like a 95/95 life (not sure but I imagine that must be where they are going with the rate life) to 1 anedoctal evidence is not really a valid comparison.

Likely the SHO turbos will last in varying degrees from 1 miles to 1 million miles.


RE: Very Mild Article
By Spuke on 10/5/2009 7:07:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
ya, 150,000 isnt good, enough my buddy had an old turbo 4cyl toyota 4 runner and the turbo went out at 250,000 miles.
What mileage did the manufacturer rate rate that turbo at?