Who else is excited about EcoBoost?

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

occupant

Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
565
Location
Columbus, OH
Hrm...

1.2 liter 3-cylinder with 135 horsepower, 135 lbs-ft torque
2.0 liter 4-cylinder with 200-250 horsepower
3.6 liter V6 with 365 horsepower

Variable valve timing, direct injection, turbocharger. We've seen the ingredients before, but not in this recipe. What interests me most actually has nothing to do with the EcoBoost at all.

http://www.transmissionadapters.com/Old%27s%20Alero.htm

This company makes all sorts of oddball transmission adapters. This particular one puts a 200-4R transmission behind a 2.2L Ecotec 4-cylinder. What better way to turn an old 70s car like a Nova or an 80s G-body coupe into an economical commuter? This particular adapter requires an SBC pattern transmission due to starter clearances. But that also means it'll bolt up to Powerglides, 350s, 400s, and 700R4s, and that opens up a lot of possibilities. Imagine a 2.2L Ecotec in a 78+ El Camino

So the question remains, what bellhousing pattern is Ford going to use for the EcoBoost in the 1.2 and 2.0 liter sizes? A 2.0 liter engine putting out 200+ horsepower, if it can put out some good torque numbers as well, would be great for a light-duty half-ton pickup like a 70s Ford F-100. But depending on the bellhousing they use, there may not be a suitable duty transmission for pulling around 6400 pounds of fully loaded half-ton truck. Hence the adapters, and it shouldn't take too long at all. The Ecotec came out in 2002-2003, and they had these ready in 2007.

EDIT: The 1997 F-150 with the 4.2L V6 had 210hp and 255tq. Nearly a match to the 2.0L Ecoboost with est 230hp and 240tq? And the Ecoboost makes the torque lower, too...
 
Last edited:
I hope ford does well with these new line of engines. I just hope (and I don't think they did) cheap out on quality like Toyota did.
 
This is going to be interesting in terms of lubrication requirements, as Ford has been advertising that the Ecoboost line of engines were validated for 5w-20 conventional oil at 7500 mile intervals.
 
I would think with a turbo it would be dirtier and require more frequent oil changes...but maybe that's the 2.2L Chrysler in me talking.
 
Originally Posted By: The Critic
This is going to be interesting in terms of lubrication requirements, as Ford has been advertising that the Ecoboost line of engines were validated for 5w-20 conventional oil at 7500 mile intervals.


When the warranty claims come in to Ford they will revert to every 4months/3750 miles like Subaru did with their turbo engines only requiring 5w30 conventional. They recommend it retroactively on all turbo charged Subarus.
 
I think mass-produced turbo engines are just going to spell trouble for car makers, especially in lower-end cars.

Turbos get brutally hot, and 'cook' conventional oil if it's not changed enough. We''ve SEEn the pics of Volvo Turbos, fed dealer dino every 7.5k that are sludged to high heaven.

But people who buy economy cars don't 'fuss about maintenance - so you'll have a ton of turbo econoboxes, going 7.5k or more on 'bulk' 5w30, that will wear out by 100-120k.

This is going to become the next IM-gasket debacle, or Toyota sludge debacle for the 2010's.....I'm sure of it.
 
I have noticed that one thing that GM/Ford/Chrysler tends to do well compared to imports is to design technologies for "the masses." Or dare I say, dummy-proof.

If you have noticed, Ford/GM/Chrysler tends to design cars with very simple maintenance requirements. Nearly all of their cars take over-the-counter 5w-20 or 5w30, and even for those requiring synthetic, it's just about any 5w30 synthetic available (Corvette). Most GM vehicles don't have cabin air filters. Transmission fluid available at just about every auto part store. Etc.

So, I have faith that if Ford is bringing turbocharging to the masses, they will follow their same past philosophy and keep maintenance requirements simple and minimal. Therefore, especially with the next-generation GF-5 oils, I think they should be fine with the 7500-mile intervals.
 
I'm excited, being a big Ford fan....but I'm curious and
cautious about what these engines will do to oil. I keep
thinking about some of the lubrication nightmares other
manufactureres are having with blown DI engines and
fuel saturation. Time will tell. Interesting that
Ford is going with a naturally aspirated 302 in their
mass production performance car next year (Mustang).
Ford knows these cars will be driven hard and beat-on
...Makes me wonder if Ford really thinks the ECCo's
measure-up in the durabiiity/longevity department yet?
 
Originally Posted By: JonfromCB
I'm excited, being a big Ford fan....but I'm curious and
cautious about what these engines will do to oil. I keep
thinking about some of the lubrication nightmares other
manufactureres are having with blown DI engines and
fuel saturation. Time will tell. Interesting that
Ford is going with a naturally aspirated 302 in their
mass production performance car next year (Mustang).
Ford knows these cars will be driven hard and beat-on
...Makes me wonder if Ford really thinks the ECCo's
measure-up in the durabiiity/longevity department yet?


The mustang gets a N/A 5.0L because that's what mustang/muscle car fans want. A rumbling, burbling V8 with torque out the wazoo. They don't want a Subaru STi-like car that has no power until it hits 3,000 RPM and sounds like a jet engine.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I Look at reliability ease of repair and maintain most important. All the listed goodies are potential large problems areas. I am not saying all this is bad . With the price of gas I want MPGs. To add a thought if you put the engine in a truck will the engine hold up at heavy loads for a period of time? Doubt it. I will let other consumers pay to work the bugs out of the new goodies.
 
Originally Posted By: rudolphna

The mustang gets a N/A 5.0L because that's what mustang/muscle car fans want. A rumbling, burbling V8 with torque out the wazoo. They don't want a Subaru STi-like car that has no power until it hits 3,000 RPM and sounds like a jet engine.


New turbo engines especially with DI can produce nearly all torque in the 1500-2000rpm range all the way to redline and even more torque sometimes than a V8. They all do not have that sling shot effect like an STI or my older Subaru WRX.
 
That 2.0L turbo would be nice in my rock buggy.

Ford should offer these as crate engines (if they aren't already going to do so).
 
Comt to think about it Ford had the turbo 4 cyl Mustang ,it wasn't really a success over the V8. A small turbo engine has to work really hard to equal the out put of a large cubic inch engine. There may not be any advantage to a 2.2 engine in a heavy vehicle because 100 HP takes 100 HP worth of gas no matter the engine size [more or less].
 
Originally Posted By: Steve S
Comt to think about it Ford had the turbo 4 cyl Mustang ,it wasn't really a success over the V8. A small turbo engine has to work really hard to equal the out put of a large cubic inch engine. There may not be any advantage to a 2.2 engine in a heavy vehicle because 100 HP takes 100 HP worth of gas no matter the engine size [more or less].


Some guys sure make some nice drag cars from those SVT Mustangs and the T birds with the same engine.
 
Originally Posted By: JakeR22
What vehicles are they going put them in?


Ford Edge/Lincoln MKX, Ford Flex, Ford F-150, are on the list at the moment. I bet the Focus, Fusion, Expedition, will all eventually get some variant.
 
Originally Posted By: addyguy
I think mass-produced turbo engines are just going to spell trouble for car makers, especially in lower-end cars.


I don't know- Chrysler made the old 2.5L Turbo 1 very reliable for what it was, and it was sold in everything from minivans to sport coupes. Sure, it wasn't as bulletproof as a N/A 2.5 or a slant-6, but it wasn't a rolling time-bomb either like some earlier attempts at turbos. Most of them lived to a ripe old age with ordinary average care and driving habits. The key was a good turbo (Garrett), and adequate cooling/oiling for the turbo. Drivers can always kill one by shutting down right after having it red-hot from a hard run, but as I said- the T1 installation survived ordinary drivers very well.


With the better engine management available today, its not the turbo that worries me at all about the Ecoboost. Its the DI. I think Ford probably got it right, but I want to see Ecoboosts with a few years and a few hundred thousand real-world miles on them before I'm completely sold.
 
Originally Posted By: rudolphna
Originally Posted By: JakeR22
What vehicles are they going put them in?


Ford Edge/Lincoln MKX, Ford Flex, Ford F-150, are on the list at the moment. I bet the Focus, Fusion, Expedition, will all eventually get some variant.


According to Ford, 90% of their line-up will be available with ecoboost technology by 2013.
 
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
With the better engine management available today, its not the turbo that worries me at all about the Ecoboost. Its the DI. I think Ford probably got it right, but I want to see Ecoboosts with a few years and a few hundred thousand real-world miles on them before I'm completely sold.


My thoughts as well. Let's see how they hold up.

Twin turbos and small displacement (the current V6 ECB) has never been much of a recipe for longevity!
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
With the better engine management available today, its not the turbo that worries me at all about the Ecoboost. Its the DI. I think Ford probably got it right, but I want to see Ecoboosts with a few years and a few hundred thousand real-world miles on them before I'm completely sold.


My thoughts as well. Let's see how they hold up.

+2!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom