ecoboost goes drag strip

[diddiyo]

Originally Posted by jalopnik.com:

Ford's EcoBoost engines promise higher performance while simultaneously providing higher fuel economy. To prove it, they took us out to the drag strip with a Taurus SHO-ish Lincoln MKS EcoBoost and Ford Flex EcoBoost to go head-to-head with some "competition." They certainly raised a few eyebrows.

i think this is great news! great power AND good fuel economy. it can be done

[Mr. Wyndham]

What sort of mpg rating is this powertrain supposed to get?

[BigRigMike]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

What sort of mpg rating is this powertrain supposed to get?

I tried to find hard numbers but Ford just says 15-20% better than a comparable V8. Which throws me a little off since they don't have a V8 Taurus.
I would assume that if this engine was in a Mustang GT it would get 15 -20% better than the 4.6L.

[Mr. Wyndham]

hmm....it better be that high. I can't help but think that the V6 Camaro gets close to that kind of performance with the mileage of a 4-cylinder, without turbos and fancy eco-names.....

[Design1stCode2nd]

And without the ability to turn up the boost for $500 and be making over 400hp. Very interested in what Ford is going to do in the next few years with teh series of ecoboost 4 and 6's.

I find the name better than GM's voltec...

[Zabo]

EcoBurst is nice, but I'm holding out for the 5.0L on my decision. Surprisingly, Ford really DID fix the Mustang this year. Drove extremely well for a LSRA. I just don't feel like having turbo spooling noises attracting ricers..

I'll bend them over backwards and spank them with some DOHC N/A fury. Camaro can bring the paddles and the rods.

[Design1stCode2nd]

Originally Posted by Zabo

EcoBurst is nice, but I'm holding out for the 5.0L on my decision. Surprisingly, Ford really DID fix the Mustang this year. Drove extremely well for a LSRA. I just don't feel like having turbo spooling noises attracting ricers..

I'll bend them over backwards and spank them with some DOHC N/A fury. Camaro can bring the paddles and the rods.

Right because as soon as there is a turbo on something you have 18 year old ricers all over you. You do know pedestrian vehicles like a VW Jetta and Subaru Forester as well as diesels are turbocharged? Haven’t seen any hanging on my brother’s F250.

While many will want the 5.0l V-8 for the classic sound the direct injection turbo V-6 will be lighter and take much better to tuning. I’m betting you could get an easy 50-60hp (maybe as much as 90 if BMW’s 3.0l TT6 is any indication) just from an ECU flash on the ecoboost 6.

[MrIcky]

The thing about what Ford did there that I most admire: they took these cars to regular old spectator drags night. That shows a lot of confidence that this is a rock solid platform. I guarantee if one of these cars had an issue, even for something stupid like loose charge piping- you would have had a completely different article.

I really am not much of a Ford guy for various reasons- but Ford gets a big from me on this for the venue.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by Design1stCode2nd

And without the ability to turn up the boost for $500 and be making over 400hp. Very interested in what Ford is going to do in the next few years with teh series of ecoboost 4 and 6's.

And you're right of course. I didn't mean to discount the EcoBoost lineup at all. There are different ways to approach a goal -- and EcoBoost is lookin' good. Hell -- Ford wants a version in 90% of it vehicles within years, if I remember correctly. That's mighty aggressive -- and I like it!

It's just when people start fawning over it because it gets a 13.9 quarter-mile and 26mpg, or whatever it will get...I, again, can't help but point out things like the SS getting a 12.9 1/4 and 25mpg...without turbos or fancy names. It's just interesting to me...

[Zabo]

Originally Posted by Design1stCode2nd

Right because as soon as there is a turbo on something you have 18 year old ricers all over you. You do know pedestrian vehicles like a VW Jetta and Subaru Forester as well as diesels are turbocharged? Haven’t seen any hanging on my brother’s F250.

While many will want the 5.0l V-8 for the classic sound the direct injection turbo V-6 will be lighter and take much better to tuning. I’m betting you could get an easy 50-60hp (maybe as much as 90 if BMW’s 3.0l TT6 is any indication) just from an ECU flash on the ecoboost 6.

Not when the Mustang is already Rice-bait. Throw a Factory turbo and all of the sudden.. "Great..another Flyby. I hope their parents have good coverage because someone is going to get effed up"

That's all I'm saying. If the car is already something Rice will try to hassle, throwing a turbo on is like throwing gas into a fire.

[syr74]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

And you're right of course. I didn't mean to discount the EcoBoost lineup at all. There are different ways to approach a goal -- and EcoBoost is lookin' good. Hell -- Ford wants a version in 90% of it vehicles within years, if I remember correctly. That's mighty aggressive -- and I like it!

It's just when people start fawning over it because it gets a 13.9 quarter-mile and 26mpg, or whatever it will get...I, again, can't help but point out things like the SS getting a 12.9 1/4 and 25mpg...without turbos or fancy names. It's just interesting to me...

SS is a poor comparison. The SHO will most likely put down performance numbers in close proximity to the G8 GT...which is a good comparison because size, weight, layout, and mission are reasonably similar..... and will, if Ford's expectations prove correct, manage at least one mpg better highway than the Pontiac does while carrying the added benefit of all wheel drive. Throw all wheel drive onto a G8 GT and fuel economy will go down by at least one mpg, likely more.

In the real world the Ecoboost is buying at least 2-3 mpg over comparable designs, and that is assuming Ford's estimates for the Taurus SHO aren't conservative at all and that awd would only knock 1 mpg off the G8's mpg figures, which is a very generous estimate. It isn't a stretch at all to think that the real world mpg improvement could prove to be closer to 4mpg and possibly even a bit more when hard numbers come in. And even if it is a gain of 2-3 mpg....with looming, tighter CAFE regs coming you better believe that GM would kill for a 2-3 mpg improvement in fuel economy with no sacrifice in performance.

The Taurus SHO is, IMHO, too expensive and the decision to use the Taurus name in spite of arguably better names collecting dust on the shelf, like Galaxie, is a huge mistake. That said, the engine itself is a major step forward for Ford and if they can get the marketing hashed out stands to really shift the status quo in the marketplace once the four cylinder rmodels start to trickle in.

[MrIcky]

Originally Posted by syr74

The Taurus SHO is, IMHO, too expensive and the decision to use the Taurus name in spite of arguably better names collecting dust on the shelf, like Galaxie, is a huge mistake. That said, the engine itself is a major step forward for Ford and if they can get the marketing hashed out stands to really shift the status quo in the marketplace once the four cylinder rmodels start to trickle in.

The SHO actually is a great name IMHO. SHO has a lot more relevance to people in their 30s and 40s (which are more likely to buy the car). The Galaxie is fairly obscure now in America and 'Galaxy' is attached to an MPV in Europe.

[syr74]

Originally Posted by MrIcky

The SHO actually is a great name IMHO. SHO has a lot more relevance to people in their 30s and 40s (which are more likely to buy the car). The Galaxie is fairly obscure now in America and 'Galaxy' is attached to an MPV in Europe.

I've got no problem with the SHO tag, but the Taurus moniker is a hindrance IMHO. Nobody in America knows or cares about the European Galaxy for the most part, and the Galaxie nameplate brings a lot less excess baggage than does the Taurus name. Further, recognition within entusiasts circles is never a bad thing, and while both the SHO and Galaxie monikers bring that to the table, the Taurus does not unless we are talking about the SHo model.

I cannot think of a single advantage to having the Taurs badge on this car.

[Design1stCode2nd]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

And you're right of course. I didn't mean to discount the EcoBoost lineup at all. There are different ways to approach a goal -- and EcoBoost is lookin' good. Hell -- Ford wants a version in 90% of it vehicles within years, if I remember correctly. That's mighty aggressive -- and I like it!

It's just when people start fawning over it because it gets a 13.9 quarter-mile and 26mpg, or whatever it will get...I, again, can't help but point out things like the SS getting a 12.9 1/4 and 25mpg...without turbos or fancy names. It's just interesting to me...

Marketings types have to blow their horns for sure. I'm very impressed with what GM has been able to get out of the SS and especially the V-6, 29mpg highway is just amazing for 300hp and 3,700lbs. Unless you absolutely have to have the big power and v-8 soundtrack the v-6 is by far the best choice.

Originally Posted by syr74

I've got no problem with the SHO tag, but the Taurus moniker is a hindrance IMHO. Nobody in America knows or cares about the European Galaxy for the most part, and the Galaxie nameplate brings a lot less excess baggage than does the Taurus name. Further, recognition within entusiasts circles is never a bad thing, and while both the SHO and Galaxie monikers bring that to the table, the Taurus does not unless we are talking about the SHo model.

I cannot think of a single advantage to having the Taurs badge on this car.

I don't know, the Taurus at one time was a class leader. I think domestics tend to throw away good names instead of just improving them or saying "hey we messed this last gen up but the new on is very good". People at least knew the Taurus they had no idea what a Five hundred was.