My first drive of an EcoBoost vehicle

[Matt P]

The main reason for eco boost is Gov and fleet are moving away from 6 cyl cars so in order for ford to capture this market they need to move with it if that means making a 4 cylinder Falcon then that is smart business. If you want to succeed you need to move with the market I don't know why everyone is so worried about this if you don't want an eco boost don't buy it the Falcon will still be available in 6 and 8 buy those. Ford just want to make sure the still getting their piece of the pie I think it good business instead of trying to dictate to the market they are changing with it.

[Elks]

Am I the only one who see's a ready supply of 2.0 turbos at wrecking yards in years to come. All i need is a MKII escort :

[mrbaxr6t]

if what I read on here which triggered me to do more research is accurate then the 4 cylinder might just be able to pull it off - heres the way I see it

you cant feed boost to a n/a compression rated engine and have reliability UNLESS you reduce compression not by using low comp pistons but by valve timing overlap resulting in a not full compression charge (piston moves up 1/3rd before exhaust port closes for example) reducing compression in the cylinder chamber and thus allowing one to feed it boost to get performance, while at coast/off boost having compression ratio of n/a engine (wastegate be full open of course) this will allow for somewhat of the best of both worlds n/a compression for coasting and boost under load/climbing hills due to valve overlap if this is correct I have one burning question that I want an answer to

all the componentry exists in the b series I6T and on to the G6ET, surely it couldnt be as simple as different piston heads and a tune to overlap valve timing on the DOHC head? if so will some performance shop please play with this if it is really that simple?

I can see this setup working as long as you intelligently decide when to let the engine spool boost and run in a low comp turbo fashion over a n/a fashion - doing this would give you a tabletop torque/power curve bcause when n/a runs out of puff you adjust it on the fly feed it boost to maintain the power levels, if I understand what I have been reading correctly this is what ecoboost is, I can see this making massive ripples and most (if not all) car makers will want to get one to work out how the heck Ford did it.

The brainboxes that come up with this are amazing hats off to them honestly

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by mrbaxr6t

if what I read on here which triggered me to do more research is accurate then the 4 cylinder might just be able to pull it off - heres the way I see it

you cant feed boost to a n/a compression rated engine and have reliability UNLESS you reduce compression not by using low comp pistons but by valve timing overlap resulting in a not full compression charge (piston moves up 1/3rd before exhaust port closes for example) reducing compression in the cylinder chamber and thus allowing one to feed it boost to get performance, while at coast/off boost having compression ratio of n/a engine (wastegate be full open of course) this will allow for somewhat of the best of both worlds n/a compression for coasting and boost under load/climbing hills due to valve overlap if this is correct I have one burning question that I want an answer to

all the componentry exists in the b series I6T and on to the G6ET, surely it couldnt be as simple as different piston heads and a tune to overlap valve timing on the DOHC head? if so will some performance shop please play with this if it is really that simple?

I can see this setup working as long as you intelligently decide when to let the engine spool boost and run in a low comp turbo fashion over a n/a fashion - doing this would give you a tabletop torque/power curve bcause when n/a runs out of puff you adjust it on the fly feed it boost to maintain the power levels, if I understand what I have been reading correctly this is what ecoboost is, I can see this making massive ripples and most (if not all) car makers will want to get one to work out how the heck Ford did it.

The brainboxes that come up with this are amazing hats off to them honestly

What you have talked about is advancing and retarding camshafts. For the sake of simplicity, the intake cam has the most effect on engine output of either intake or exhaust.

The standard Barra 182 DOHC engine from the BA had this VCT on the intake cam. In fact my model Falcon, the AU VCT had this function (albeit a SOHC) which advances both intake/exhaust (as it's on the 'one' stick).

The BF is where I believe both of the pre-existing cam-phasors were used. ie Intake and Exhaust.

The 'smarts' for lack of a better word have multiple tables for camshaft 'phasing'. This allows for changes to 'separation angles', advance & retard.

Essentially, the ECU will look at the relevant tables, check the rpm, the TPS and then say to create maximum torque with this throttle/rev/temp combo i'll need 30% of that map, 70% of that map, does it's thing and spits out a number. This takes immense amounts of dyno-time / calibration by the engineers. It also means much bigger 'pcm' sizes. Eg my AU's are 224kb, an FG is several times bigger.

This is why the DOHC 4.0L Falcon motors are so damn good. FG they are bordering on incredible.

[phillyc]

With all this 'on-boost' talk I thought i should add my post from the Coyote 5.0L thread.

That isn't correct. pg 249. How to Tune & Modify Engine Management Systems - Greg Banish (Ford Consultant / OEM Calibrator) According turbo & supercharging expert Corky Bell, he points out that 70-80% of the energy required to drive a turbine comes from the heat. It's a function of the absolute turbine inlet temp to the fourth power minus the absolute turbine oulet temp to the fourth power. Essentially 1.5-2/10ths of a per cent per psi.

So, yes it's a loss but it is a small one.

The Eco-Boost adopts DI which has a charge cooling effect. This means that it uses still high compression ratio of 10.1:1 with turbocharging!

The NA version of this motor also has Ti-VCT for 155hp/145ftlbs or 116kW/200Nm. So will likely only require 6-8psi of boost for the rumoured outputs.

I look forward to an Eco-Netic Falcon, not because i want one, but because they will have appeal.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by phillyc

With all this 'on-boost' talk I thought i should add my post from the Coyote 5.0L thread.

So, yes it's a loss but it is a small one.

The Eco-Boost adopts DI which has a charge cooling effect. This means that it uses still high compression ratio of 10.1:1 with turbocharging!

The NA version of this motor also has Ti-VCT for 155hp/145ftlbs or 116kW/200Nm. So will likely only require 6-8psi of boost for the rumoured outputs.

I look forward to an Eco-Netic Falcon, not because i want one, but because they will have appeal.

Well explained phill. I think the ecoboost falcon will be well recieved in the market place espeically fleets.

The DI is an important issue. Ford has not put DI on 3.7 v6 or 5.0 v8 because it didnt deliver any sizeable gains, but it all depends on teh application of the tech for a given engine. In EB engines it is very useful not only for charge cooling but esp for finer knock control and more 'effiective' burn...i.e. you can get the fue to burn rather than 'knock' at high comp ratio.....

This is of course very necessary for EB engines as they need to have a high comp ratio off boost but no knock their heads of when on boost (and use base fuel too...)

As for the 2.0 DI, i assume this is our base engine for next gen focus? If XR5 (st) get the 2.0T engine, i wonder if ford will leave off the 1.6T as the base engine (which was one early theory) I know the 16.T has more torque but it may not be advantageous given the cost and unecessary complexitiy of the 1.6T. Then again, if the make and then sell a ST/XR4 fiesta with the 1.6T maybe focus will have the smaller turbo donk. Or will the zetec get it's own engine as per the LR days???

[BrisVegas]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

As for the 2.0 DI, i assume this is our base engine for next gen focus? If XR5 (st) get the 2.0T engine, i wonder if ford will leave off the 1.6T as the base engine (which was one early theory) I know the 16.T has more torque but it may not be advantageous given the cost and unecessary complexitiy of the 1.6T. Then again, if the make and then sell a ST/XR4 fiesta with the 1.6T maybe focus will have the smaller turbo donk. Or will the zetec get it's own engine as per the LR days???

Yeah it could go either way. I suspect that a NA 2.0 would make for a cheaper entry level Focus. VW Golf went for the boosted 1.4 as their entry level, but then they charge quite a bit more for it. 1.6T would probably give a better fuel economy number than NA 2.0 though. There's possibly room for both. Put the 1.6T in the Zetec and (hopefully) Titanium models and the basic 2.0 in the CL & LX & Ghia. The 2.0T in the next XR5/4 should be a corker.

[outback_ute]

Originally Posted by mrbaxr6t

you cant feed boost to a n/a compression rated engine and have reliability UNLESS you reduce compression not by using low comp pistons but by valve timing overlap resulting in a not full compression charge (piston moves up 1/3rd before exhaust port closes for example) reducing compression in the cylinder chamber and thus allowing one to feed it boost to get performance, while at coast/off boost having compression ratio of n/a engine (wastegate be full open of course) this will allow for somewhat of the best of both worlds n/a compression for coasting and boost under load/climbing hills due to valve overlap if this is correct I have one burning question that I want an answer to

all the componentry exists in the b series I6T and on to the G6ET, surely it couldnt be as simple as different piston heads and a tune to overlap valve timing on the DOHC head? if so will some performance shop please play with this if it is really that simple?

Holding the intake valve open for the first part of the compression stroke is also known as the Atkinson cycle, and was a feature of the old Eunos 800M. To achieve this and 'normal' valve timing off-boost would require a very big range of motion for the cam phasor, ie several times that of a 'normal' VVT/VCT setup, and I would doubt a 4.0 6cyl one would do it.

It does sound like a real 'best of both worlds' setup though.

[Swordsman88]

ford has put atkinson cycle on the fusion hybrid engine since it is used as a 'generator' and not a drive motor. Biggest problem with atkinson cycle is poor torque but in a boosted application that wouldn't be an issue. It does save fuel but is not widely used in normal passenger cars due to torque issues. Either way they have been playing with it so the data learned will no doubt be applied in some form on other engines.....

[outback_ute]

Yep, without a blower it acts as a smaller capacity engine with a better power stroke & gets better efficiency. Would the Fusion hybrid be DI? Otherwise air/fuel mix coming back out the intake valves would be a concern!

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by phillyc

What you have talked about is advancing and retarding camshafts. For the sake of simplicity, the intake cam has the most effect on engine output of either intake or exhaust.

The standard Barra 182 DOHC engine from the BA had this VCT on the intake cam. In fact my model Falcon, the AU VCT had this function (albeit a SOHC) which advances both intake/exhaust (as it's on the 'one' stick).

The BF is where I believe both of the pre-existing cam-phasors were used. ie Intake and Exhaust.

The 'smarts' for lack of a better word have multiple tables for camshaft 'phasing'. This allows for changes to 'separation angles', advance & retard.

Essentially, the ECU will look at the relevant tables, check the rpm, the TPS and then say to create maximum torque with this throttle/rev/temp combo i'll need 30% of that map, 70% of that map, does it's thing and spits out a number. This takes immense amounts of dyno-time / calibration by the engineers. It also means much bigger 'pcm' sizes. Eg my AU's are 224kb, an FG is several times bigger.

This is why the DOHC 4.0L Falcon motors are so damn good. FG they are bordering on incredible.

The BA had VCT on both the intake and exhaust cams, but they both had to advance/retard at the same rate ie. if the intake cam advanced 2 degrees the exhaust cam would have to do the same.

It wasn't until the BF came out that both cams were able to be advanced/retarded independently of the other ie. the intake cam could advance/retard differently to the exhaust cam.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

The BA had VCT on both the intake and exhaust cams, but they both had to advance/retard at the same rate ie. if the intake cam advanced 2 degrees the exhaust cam would have to do the same.

It wasn't until the BF came out that both cams were able to be advanced/retarded independently of the other ie. the intake cam could advance/retard differently to the exhaust cam.

Correct. Which is why i referred to the pre-existing VCT phasors.

What i am not sure of, is whether it was that the engineers / developers just didn't have time to develop it completely or if it wasn't available in the PCM. Anyway, they wisely optimised the intake valve timing (which is the most important) and when they had more time, utilised both intake/exhaust independent timing. Do you have info on that?!

[Bossxr8]

They didn't have the time to get independent VCT working for BA, it required a massive amount of time to get the programming done as there are a hell of a lot of different parameters and conditions that needed to be taken into account like air temp, coolant temp, load, rpm, what gear its in etc, and each and every one would probably alter what is required, and thats just scratching the surface of it. Very complex.

[boris]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

They didn't have the time to get independent VCT working for BA, it required a massive amount of time to get the programming done as there are a hell of a lot of different parameters and conditions that needed to be taken into account like air temp, coolant temp, load, rpm, what gear its in etc, and each and every one would probably alter what is required, and thats just scratching the surface of it. Very complex.

So, is it possible to the BF cpu onto a ba to get the independant vct?

[Luke Plaizier]

If you can get past the fact that the BF PCM has different pinouts than the BA then you might stand a chance - it's certainly not for the feint of heart. They had to shuffle the 4A auto pins out of the central connector so that they could fit more O2 sensor pins in there. The on the BA the small 3rd connector only did LPG/Turbo. On BF that 3rd connector now also does the 4A.

Also, since the BF had stability control (they all moved from the Bosch 5.3 to Bosch 8.0 ABS module anyway), and some the ZF 6 Speed, there are some slightly different messages sent by the PCM on the CAN bus for those modules to do their thing, so you'd probably need the Bosch 8.0 ABS module as well, plus the Steering ANgle Sensor and Yaw Rate Sensor, plus a BF Instrument Cluster.

I'd just get a BF and be done with it.....


Lukeyson

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by Luke Plaizier

If you can get past the fact that the BF PCM has different pinouts than the BA then you might stand a chance - it's certainly not for the feint of heart. They had to shuffle the 4A auto pins out of the central connector so that they could fit more O2 sensor pins in there. The on the BA the small 3rd connector only did LPG/Turbo. On BF that 3rd connector now also does the 4A.

Also, since the BF had stability control (they all moved from the Bosch 5.3 to Bosch 8.0 ABS module anyway), and some the ZF 6 Speed, there are some slightly different messages sent by the PCM on the CAN bus for those modules to do their thing, so you'd probably need the Bosch 8.0 ABS module as well, plus the Steering ANgle Sensor and Yaw Rate Sensor, plus a BF Instrument Cluster.

I'd just get a BF and be done with it.....


Lukeyson

Your a gun with that sort of stuff! Much appreciated.