Ford EcoBoost Challenge 2014

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Originally Posted By: Miller88
.
I have got 30MPG out of my parents 2.0 Ecoboost Ford. The key is to ALWAYS let it draw a vacuum. As soon as it starts building boost, it starts running pig rich.

I use the sport mode and as soon as a slight hill comes along, I make it shift to 5th or 4th gear. Then it's fine. When it's lugging along trying to pull a hill at 1500RPM in 6th gear, it is running super super rich to avoid pinging - it's pussing 7 or 8 pounds of boost. If I drop it to 5 or 4 to pull the same hill, it's running at much lower boost PSI and not running as rich.


It can't run rich, since emissions laws (engine control software) prevent that. It can retard timing a bit to prevent detonation (pinging). Ecoboost also relies on the direct injection cooling the mixture to avoid detonation as well during lugging with high boost.


What are you talking about? Modern cars have to run rich to meet emissions requirements. You are starting to wander off the reservation with your posts.


Honda Civics had a high fuel econonmy model in the mid 90s that was capable of mid 50s US MPG on the highway. Lean burn model. Was shot down because it was polluting too much by running lean and using such a small amount of fuel.

The same with DFPE "regen" cycles.

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: FetchFar

ooo, one more please: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?a...87&id=34346
where the Honda Accord 3.5L V6 (no-turbo) gets the same MPG as the Fusion 2.0L Ecoboost. ... Who says Ecoboost wins much of anything? Ecoboost is largely a failure.


I typically don't argue with idiots but I'll indulge this one time.

Ford has sold well over 1 million Ecoboosts since 2009 so I'd hardly call it a failure. It is sold in all of it's best selling cars and trucks. It has proven itself to be a durable and powerful family of engines.

Quote:
And notice the Accord v6 has about 12% more horsepower than the Fusion Ecoboost (278 vs. 240 hp). same fuel economy, more power for Honda, ecoboost fails yet again


But the 2.0 has better torque than the V6
Originally Posted By: FetchFar

ooo, one more please: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?a...87&id=34346
where the Honda Accord 3.5L V6 (no-turbo) gets the same MPG as the Fusion 2.0L Ecoboost. ... Who says Ecoboost wins much of anything? Ecoboost is largely a failure.


I typically don't argue with idiots but I'll indulge this one time.

Ford has sold well over 1 million Ecoboosts since 2009 so I'd hardly call it a failure. It is sold in all of it's best selling cars and trucks. It has proven itself to be a durable and powerful family of engines.

Quote:
And notice the Accord v6 has about 12% more horsepower than the Fusion Ecoboost (278 vs. 240 hp). same fuel economy, more power for Honda, ecoboost fails yet again


But the 2.0 has better torque (
Originally Posted By: FetchFar

ooo, one more please: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?a...87&id=34346
where the Honda Accord 3.5L V6 (no-turbo) gets the same MPG as the Fusion 2.0L Ecoboost. ... Who says Ecoboost wins much of anything? Ecoboost is largely a failure.


I typically don't argue with idiots but I'll indulge this one time.

Ford has sold well over 1 million Ecoboosts since 2009 so I'd hardly call it a failure. It is sold in all of it's best selling cars and trucks. It has proven itself to be a durable and powerful family of engines. It also gets decent fuel economy for what it is.

Quote:
And notice the Accord v6 has about 12% more horsepower than the Fusion Ecoboost (278 vs. 240 hp). same fuel economy, more power for Honda, ecoboost fails yet again


But the 2.0 has better torque (270@3000) than the V6 (252@4900) which translates to a more powerful feeling. You feel torque but drive HP. So the Fusion will downshift less going up hills and should pull better (although the Accord gets to 60 faster)

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: FetchFar

It can't run rich, since emissions laws (engine control software) prevent that. It can retard timing a bit to prevent detonation (pinging). Ecoboost also relies on the direct injection cooling the mixture to avoid detonation as well during lugging with high boost.


You know very little of what you speak of so I'd avoid any discussions on this topic, as Miller88 is correct. The EB's do like to run on the richer end of the scale when pushed hard. I have verified it on both mine and the tailpipes are somewhat sooty.

However, 26 MPG highway on an AWD sedan that weighs as much as an F150 is not bad at all. And it will out accelerate the majority of cars on the road.

And 17.1 MPG in mixed driving (hit 19 in the winter on the highway) lugging around a 4WD, 5000+ lb vehicle with the aerodynamics of a brick isn't too bad either. Especially since I don't baby it.

 

[jigen]

Our focus St makes 252hp/270tq from the 2.0 ecoboost. Lots of spirited driving around town with little hwy nets us 25mpg. Hand calculated. I find that number very impressive for the type of vehicle.

I've driven plenty of turbo vehicles. The ecoboost turbo lag is close to non existent compared to other turbo 4cyl's out there.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: FetchFar

It can't run rich, since emissions laws (engine control software) prevent that. It can retard timing a bit to prevent detonation (pinging). Ecoboost also relies on the direct injection cooling the mixture to avoid detonation as well during lugging with high boost.


You know very little of what you speak of so I'd avoid any discussions on this topic, as Miller88 is correct. The EB's do like to run on the richer end of the scale when pushed hard. I have verified it on both mine and the tailpipes are somewhat sooty.

However, 26 MPG highway on an AWD sedan that weighs as much as an F150 is not bad at all. And it will out accelerate the majority of cars on the road.

And 17.1 MPG in mixed driving (hit 19 in the winter on the highway) lugging around a 4WD, 5000+ lb vehicle with the aerodynamics of a brick isn't too bad either. Especially since I don't baby it.



5000 lbs??? They are a bit porky due to AWD, but a loaded Taurus SHO weighs about 4350 or so depending on equipment. An extra drivetrain will do that to ya!

And of course ALL supercharged vehicles (mechanical or exhaust driven) use fuel enrichment to cool themselves, if they don't they quickly go BOOM...

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted By: badtlc
Do you realize the Fusion weighs almost 500# more than the Mazda6? You can't look at everything in a vacuum.


The Fusion is a much more substantial car too. Not a direct comparison to the above.

A better comparison is the 2014 Honda Accord. They return similar MPG's.

I've also got to admit that I very much prefer the feel of a turbo 4 cylinder to a normally aspirated 4. More mid range torque and smoother.

 

[badtlc]

Originally Posted By: Cujet
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Do you realize the Fusion weighs almost 500# more than the Mazda6? You can't look at everything in a vacuum.


The Fusion is a much more substantial car too. Not a direct comparison to the above.

A better comparison is the 2014 Honda Accord. They return similar MPG's.

I've also got to admit that I very much prefer the feel of a turbo 4 cylinder to a normally aspirated 4. More mid range torque and smoother.


I think the Accord is even lighter than the Mazda6. I think the accord is right at or over 500# less than the fusion.

 

[FetchFar]

Originally Posted By: itguy08
I typically don't argue with idiots but I'll indulge this one time.


I win on the facts, you win with the girlie emotion. ... I know you've wasted a lot of money on the Ecoboost marketing gimmicks, sorry you didn't see it coming.

 

[FetchFar]

Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Do you realize the Fusion weighs almost 500# more than the Mazda6? You can't look at everything in a vacuum.


The Fusion is a much more substantial car too. Not a direct comparison to the above.

A better comparison is the 2014 Honda Accord. They return similar MPG's.

I've also got to admit that I very much prefer the feel of a turbo 4 cylinder to a normally aspirated 4. More mid range torque and smoother.


I think the Accord is even lighter than the Mazda6. I think the accord is right at or over 500# less than the fusion.


Did anybody bother to look it up? I did:

2014 model curb weights rounded to nearest 100 lbs, and width x length:
Accord v6 3500 lbs 72.8" x 191.4"
Fusion 3400-3500 lbs 72.9" x 191.8" (1.5L & 2.0L ecoboost model)
Mazda6 3200 lbs 72.4" x 191.5"
(Weight data from manufacturer's own pdf spec files, dimensions from Edmunds.com.)

They are all about the same size in exterior dimensions.
Mazda6 does have about a 10% weight advantage, and does help partially explain why it trounces the Fusion 1.5L Ecoboost comparison.

My point still stands, based on the facts alone. All in all, Ecoboost loses. Too complex of a solution, turbo lag, reliability concerns, vibration higher in a boosted-4 vs. a V6, etc.

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted By: FetchFar

Did anybody bother to look it up? I did:

2014 model curb weights rounded to nearest 100 lbs, and width x length:
Accord v6 3500 lbs 72.8" x 191.4"
Fusion 3400-3500 lbs 72.9" x 191.8" (1.5L & 2.0L ecoboost model)
Mazda6 3200 lbs 72.4" x 191.5"
(Weight data from manufacturer's own pdf spec files, dimensions from Edmunds.com.)

They are all about the same size in exterior dimensions.
Mazda6 does have about a 10% weight advantage, and does help partially explain why it trounces the Fusion 1.5L Ecoboost comparison.

My point still stands, based on the facts alone. All in all, Ecoboost loses. Too complex of a solution, turbo lag, reliability concerns, vibration higher in a boosted-4 vs. a V6, etc.


I disagree. I rent the EB Fords all the time. Far from being 4cylinder-objectionable, I find them powerful and fun, well refined, quiet-vibration free and smoother than I would have expected. With excellent mid range torque, properly matched to the 6 speed automatic.

Not to mention the superb performance at altitude. I drove up the West Coast, into the mountains and to crater lake in Oregon with a 2.0 EB Escape. I really enjoyed the performance at altitude. In fact, I found that vehicle to be nearly ideal in many ways.

Please understand, I'm not brand loyal, and "IF" I were to purchase a 4 door conventional sedan for my location in South Florida, it would be a Toyota Camry Hybrid.

Still, I fully disagree with your take on the Ford EB's driving dynamics. As they are excellent.

 

[FetchFar]

Originally Posted By: Cujet

Still, I fully disagree with your take on the Ford EB's driving dynamics. As they are excellent.


I drove an Ecoboost myself and they are not all that bad, I never said they were all that awful. ... Remember Ford's GOAL was to make Ecoboost have BETTER fuel economy per power, as in more MPG/HP. So they now have a complex solution to merely equal a good modern V6. ... I did notice while driving the inherently shaky 4-cylinder Ecoboost that the steering wheel vibrated much more than in a smooth V6. If you like more NVH (we engineers use that acronym for 'noise-vibration-harshness') then Ecoboost 4-bangers are for you! ...... What smart car companies like Mazda, Honda, and others are doing is raising the thermodynamic efficiency (higher compression), lowering friction in their rings, adding direct injection (DI), cylinder deactivation, etc. INSTEAD of the less-elegant solution of Ecoboost DI/turbos.

 

[Bladecutter]

Originally Posted By: FetchFar


Did anybody bother to look it up? I did:

2014 model curb weights rounded to nearest 100 lbs, and width x length:
Accord v6 3500 lbs 72.8" x 191.4"
Fusion 3400-3500 lbs 72.9" x 191.8" (1.5L & 2.0L ecoboost model)
Mazda6 3200 lbs 72.4" x 191.5"
(Weight data from manufacturer's own pdf spec files, dimensions from Edmunds.com.)

They are all about the same size in exterior dimensions.
Mazda6 does have about a 10% weight advantage, and does help partially explain why it trounces the Fusion 1.5L Ecoboost comparison.

My point still stands, based on the facts alone. All in all, Ecoboost loses. Too complex of a solution, turbo lag, reliability concerns, vibration higher in a boosted-4 vs. a V6, etc.


I hate to ask, but it usually isn't fair to compare an American car vs a competing import car with regards to weight. Why not include the Dodge, Chrysler, Chevy, and Buick vehicles that compete in the same segment?

They offer a mixture of NA Inline 4's, Turbo Inline 4's, and V-6's, plus they all weight in the same range as the the Ford. American cars are just too heavy, when you compare weight against the Japanese Imports.

They're not even lighter than some German cars, which usually go out of their way to make their vehicles heavier than needed.

I also have to call you out on the statements about turbo reliability being questionable, and vibration being more than a V-6. And your statement about complexity is more of a perceived issue, than a real one.

Typically, working on an inline 4 cylinder (normal maintenance), turbo or otherwise, is easier than lots of V-6 engines, where one whole cylinder bank is wedged up against the firewall, and may require removing the intake and or tilting the engine in the engine bay in order to replace spark plugs.

Not to mention, if you have valve covers that leak, there's two that need to be replaced, vs just one, on an inline 4. Larger radiator in the V-6, plus more coolant equals greater expense, and more waste that needs to be processed.

All in all, you can argue yourself until you're blue in the face, and someone can easily counter your every argument until they are blue in the face, too.

I will admit one thing, however, the Mazda 6 is the best car in the group you listed, in my opinion.

BC.

 

[FetchFar]

Originally Posted By: Bladecutter
. Why not include the Dodge, Chrysler, Chevy, and Buick vehicles that compete in the same segment?


Then you go ahead and do so. I don't want to write a book here, thats "Why not". Those three sedans are a fair comparison, and clearly illustrate why Ecoboost is a failed strategy so far.

You said a 4-cylinder is as smooth as a modern V6. Really? Inline 4's have inherent vibration issues when compared to V6's.

It would be interesting to see if the Ecoboost Challenge will include the Mazda6 and Accord going head to head with a Fusion. Remember, the Mazda6 competes with the Fusion 1.5L, and the Accord the fusion 2.0L. I'll bet they won't include those.

 

[jrustles]

I bet if Ford could look back, they would drop the DI-turbo investment. Back when they dropped the hammer and committed to a strategy, DI-turbo seemed so great. Their former engineering partner Mazda had DI-turbo finished and out in service, Ford felt emboldened that this was the best decision. So did a couple of other manufacturers also.

They never thought of the high-compression, standard displacement,
atmospheric route. Well even if they did, they would have had to pioneer that development completely on their own, costing more money overall and with no time to do it. Ford et al are kind of stuck at this point.

The real world variables that really kind of screwed DI turbo has always been combustion stability and local fuel quality. Bad fuel economy are what the original 2.3L DISI engines were known for. The later production runs on the 2.3L DISI get much better economy, smoother torque onset because they've had more tuning and refinements done. Perhaps Ford can eventually refine their small ecoboost tunes, but it will undoubtedly be more difficult, due to the lack of displacement, which pushes average cylinder pressures higher than a larger disp. di-turbo, leading to more instances of 'panic fuelling'

 

[FetchFar]

Anybody know what "competitor" vehicles exactly were used in this desperate Ford marketing gimmick known as "ecoboost challenge" ? (Well, I guess they didn't want to call it the "ecoboost almost-as-good")

 

[FetchFar]

Originally Posted By: Miller88
It's not going to dump fuel in like a carburetor on a cold morning, no. Bit it will enrichen the fuel mixture and pull timing. Have confirmed with scan tool. Put your finger on a (cold) tailpipe of one. Very sooty.


Since Ecoboost relies on it's direct injection DI to cool the charge, not running richer than stochiometric, maybe when you say "enrichen" now you mean near 14.7:1 air/fuel. ....... Did your scan tool show a lambda (air/fuel ratio) less than 1 ? ..... The cat convertor can't compensate for much. The gradual build-up of soot may be due to excessive cylinder wall wetting from the injector spray.

 

[FetchFar]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
And of course ALL supercharged vehicles (mechanical or exhaust driven) use fuel enrichment to cool themselves, if they don't they quickly go BOOM...
Remember that DI, injecting early in the intake stroke with atomization misting, is supposed to cool the turbo engine when necessary, avoiding too-rich mixtures in the first place here. (We are talking about Ecoboost here.)

There may be some slight lambda < 1 happening, but catalyic convertors can't handle everything.

 

[FetchFar]

Originally Posted By: jrustles
I bet if Ford could look back, they would drop the DI-turbo investment. Back when they dropped the hammer and committed to a strategy, DI-turbo seemed so great. Their former engineering partner Mazda had DI-turbo finished and out in service, Ford felt emboldened that this was the best decision. So did a couple of other manufacturers also.

They never thought of the high-compression, standard displacement,
atmospheric route. Well even if they did, they would have had to pioneer that development completely on their own, costing more money overall and with no time to do it. Ford et al are kind of stuck at this point.

The real world variables that really kind of screwed DI turbo has always been combustion stability and local fuel quality. Bad fuel economy are what the original 2.3L DISI engines were known for. The later production runs on the 2.3L DISI get much better economy, smoother torque onset because they've had more tuning and refinements done. Perhaps Ford can eventually refine their small ecoboost tunes, but it will undoubtedly be more difficult, due to the lack of displacement, which pushes average cylinder pressures higher than a larger disp. di-turbo, leading to more instances of 'panic fuelling'


Yeah, BMW has turbo-ed themselves up too. With better engine management, more research into injector spray patterns, higher compression ratios with turbos, the future may be an Ecoboost approach after all. Right now, Ecoboost hasn't delivered on its promises, clearly illustrated in the comparison of the Fusion 2.0L to the Accord V6.

 

[badtlc]

Originally Posted By: jrustles


They never thought of the high-compression, standard displacement,
atmospheric route. Well even if they did, they would have had to pioneer that development completely on their own, costing more money overall and with no time to do it. Ford et al are kind of stuck at this point.



They did do that. Ford developed a 2.0L DI non turbo motor along with their 1.XL engines.

 

[badtlc]

Originally Posted By: FetchFar
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
And of course ALL supercharged vehicles (mechanical or exhaust driven) use fuel enrichment to cool themselves, if they don't they quickly go BOOM...
Remember that DI, injecting early in the intake stroke with atomization misting, is supposed to cool the turbo engine when necessary, avoiding too-rich mixtures in the first place here. (We are talking about Ecoboost here.)

There may be some slight lambda < 1 happening, but catalyic convertors can't handle everything.


You should do more research. The way the combustion chamber is cooled is by running rich, not avoiding it. More fuel absorbs more heat before ignition.