My first drive of an EcoBoost vehicle

[kezzer]

How the hell has this turned from ecoboost into $1000 taxis???

We all know 350nm is below 380nm, but the V6 will still destroy a Ba. What the hells your point? Doing it in much more comfort, with more features, whilst looking good and not having reliability issues.
Stop justifying owning a Ba, no one cares.

If you are after a full on race engine the alloytec can deliver.
The SIDI V6 that you hate so much revs freely to 9000rpm with just a cam change. The stock internals: forged pistons, rods and crank with 6 bolt mains and oil squirters.
It was also designed to be stroked out to 4.0l, ive never heard of a stroked 4.0I6 that isn't a boat anchor.

Give me an ecoboost or SIDI 3.6l over the Ba I6.

Can we get back on topic please lol

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

The SIDI 3.6 is 'detuned' largely because holden wanted to get the torque much lower in a flatter torque curvve. This is why the peak torque is down, and hence why peak power has gone down with it (albeit teh peak power is also marketing related....) However, your suggestion that the FG can't make the 230kw is wrong. For example, you note that on a 'tune' the 3.6 picks up more, probably due to the detune. BUT, if you put 98 ron in your FG you can get to near 210kw....some 15kw more only by changing the juice you run it on.... With a retune and 98 ron you could get 220kw easy.....
Getting back on topic, imagine an ecoboost DI 3.7 (if they ever build it) now the 3.5 eB is impressive enough, if they EB the 3.7 it will go close to being a straight replacement for the 4.0I6T, at least in XR6T spec....

I see what your saying, but the SIDI in the states have achieved a flatter torque curve on all accounts from what I've seen?? I also think Holden detuned it because there would be TOO big a gap between the 3.0l and 3.6l, not to mention when the next engine update comes out, they can just fix the tune... easy, and typically holden. What will they do after DI on the alloytecs? produce a new engine? lol

I see what your saying with the FG on premium, but what does the SIDI achieve on premium? A stock standard but tuned SIDI alloytec makes 247kw and around 395nm of torque from looking on a few sites. I haven't tuned my FG yet, but have a few mods and run it on premium, so 230kw/440nm to me sounds good

Have ford actually been quoted in saying what the XR6T will be replaced with, and if it will get direct injection?

[Road_Warrior]

What the bloody hell is going on here?? Since when has a clapped out taxi had anything to do with EcoBoost?

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by kezzer

Would anyone here seriously consider a 4 cylinder falcon?? I know I would much rather stick with the tested 4.0l.

Personally I don't think the Ecoboost Falcon will be a private buyer magnet, it's the fleets that will be quite interested in an economical four cylinder Falcon.

And to fromBAonwards, PLEASE stop talking about BAs!!!!!! I owned one back in the day, it was a great car, but it's not in the same league as the current cars on the market. There is more to a car than just power and torque delivery. I think you need to drive all of them for a decent amount of time instead of looking at graphs and figures. I also think a 3.0L would keep up with a BA anyway, particularly with its 6 speed auto the shorter first gear will help out. And on top of that, the 3.0L Commodore was not designed to be a performer so I don't know what your point is. Also, if you are talking about the BA I6 as a baseline comparision, it is not. It's been half a decade since they produced it and when we are comparing to a 3.0L V6, the "baseline comparison" will be Ford's economical alternative which is the Ecoboost 4 cylinder, which is the TOPIC OF THIS THREAD.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

Personally I don't think the Ecoboost Falcon will be a private buyer magnet, it's the fleets that will be quite interested in an economical four cylinder Falcon.

You are probably right. Especially since fleets dont keep the cars over the longer term (more than a few years) so any concerns over turbo reliability (not that i am predicting alot of problems) are null and void. Fuel burn is a big concern for them because of the number of kays they do, as is environmental considerations. This is what the EB 4pot will do. Private owners are probably doing to stick with teh 4.0 more so because it is proven, ultimately will be faster and fuel burn is less of a % of their operating cost. Still, i expect quite a few on this forum to have a crack at the EB4, especcially if its a daily driver for the family rather than a sports model weekend warrior......

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

I also think a 3.0L would keep up with a BA anyway, particularly with its 6 speed auto the shorter first gear will help out. And on top of that, the 3.0L Commodore was not designed to be a performer so I don't know what your point is. Also, if you are talking about the BA I6 as a baseline comparision, it is not. It's been half a decade since they produced it and when we are comparing to a 3.0L V6, the "baseline comparison" will be Ford's economical alternative which is the Ecoboost 4 cylinder, which is the TOPIC OF THIS THREAD.

I agree the 'standard' has moved on, and that the I4T will be the correct benchmark. THis is hardly good for holden though, beause its hard to see how Ford coud possibly balls up the EB 4 enough to drop to Holden's low standards.....

As for the 3.0 versus 4.0 BA, while i'm loath to bring up the BA AGAIN, i am not so sure the 3.0 will beat it. 0-100 times of the 3.0 have been high 7s at best....i don't think a BA will be any different. When you consider it has much larger capacity (and would burn more) well fair enough, i'm not saying the 3.0 VE was ever designed to compete with a 4.0L motor. BUT, the BA had a 4sp FFS..... This is the point i and others have made all along with the whole SIDI debacle from holden, even before the cars were released.

For example, if you buy a current FG falcon XT/G6 with 5sp, it is rated at 10.5L/100km. If you 'optoin up' the 6sp auto, that goes to 9.9-10.1L/100km. So an improvement of approx 0.6L/100km. FFS holden put in an entirely different, 'economy' tuned 3.0 engine, with DI, etc. etc and it gets THE SAME SIZE IMPROVEMENT. WTF.....ford put in a gearbox with one extra cog, tunes the engine to exploit that setup and gets the same improvement as GM-H spending millions on an entirely new engine!!! Plus Holden also put on low rolling resistance tyres, and deleted a spare tyre of any kind on the 3.0 models!!!

Now we all know ADR is not worth bupkis in the real world (in general), but it does serve as a useful comparison. The example i just gave proves two things:
1. given's ford experience, clearly changing autos is a large % of the gain the SIDI models make in fuel efficiency, not the engines themselves.
2. This improvement is hardly impressive, especially when you consider ford made the same gain for a fraction of th cost The fact i can say with such confidence the EB engine will make a mockery of the 3.0 SIDI at this early stage (before any local specs have been discussed) is proof of that....

[fromBAonwards]

all i know is that you need to have a BASELINE to which you need to look at and then try to improve another engine basing it on an already successful player with was a Ford Falcon BA XT 4.0L DOHC VCT, BA XT I6 is a great reference model to start with.

DOHC VCT with just an oil and water pump change can spin up to 7500rpm and still generate more power and torque than any propaganda driven V6 holden ever made.

Cars that need to make power at high reves are not cruises and relaxed drivers. Looks like i will be ending up with a BARRA220 after all , 220kW at just 4750 rpm, or 97% of peak 472Nm of torque from just 1500 reves.


Go the Ecoboost, lets look to the future.

[Sourbastard]

Originally Posted by fromBAonwards

Besides that, any Falcon from EF onwards is comfortable , quiet, large and reliable.

a feature you seem to lack. You are spraying multiple threads with multiple posts of varying garbology. You are either bored, or big brother has stolen the tv remote, but either way, you need to take a breath and rethink your posts.

Noone cares how many traffic light battles you have won. There are some seriously powerful cars owned by people on this forum, who win events at real drag strips, and I can guarantee, your stories dont impress anyone.

You are probably running short on warnings.

[Professor Farnsworth]

fromBAonwards: i understand you're passionate about your car, i love b series more than anything and i'll defend them like my sister. however bagging all the upcoming engines isn't doing anyone any good, and won't change ford's plans. The eco boost isn't my cup of tea, but i'm sure they know what they're doing (lol).

the i6 is fantastic, the boss is ok but too heavy, but they've had their prime last decade. The Coyote and ecoboost are the future, time to get used to it.

howdy bastard man, ltns

[geckoGT]

Now that we are back on topic, thank god. I have to say that I think the introduction of EB technology to the falcon range is a great thing for Ford Australia. As much as we love the I6, what a great engine it is, new emission standards and public requirements in cars are setting standards that it will be difficult for the old girl to achieve, much the same as happened to the old 250. I do however hope that they continue to evolve the I6 alongside the EB4 so that we the consumers are blessed with choice.

I think many here will be surprised by the performance of the new EB4 and although I have no doubt it will not enjoy the strong following here that the I6 now does, I am sure it will be received quite well by the general car buying public. Even more promising now that we can read positive experiences from people that have driven vehicles with this new tech, I know I am looking forward to trying it out. Keep up the good work Ford.

[XBROO]

One thing I don't like about V6 to I6 is that after a million kays which one will still be going strong. I know it won't be the V6 but I suppose car manufactors don't care about that as you should be rich enough to trade it in every couple of years. Nuff said.

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by XBROO

One thing I don't like about V6 to I6 is that after a million kays which one will still be going strong. I know it won't be the V6 but I suppose car manufactors don't care about that as you should be rich enough to trade it in every couple of years. Nuff said.

:yeees: You know this because of the extensive testing you've done on both engines?
Have you got your findings in a report we could read?

[Brent]

A 4 cylinder turbo Falcon? Thanks, but no thanks.

Fact of the matter is that the Falcon already starts off as a heavy car. Combine that with lots of stop-start city traffic when you're constantly on and off the throttle, or the typical Aussie situation of loading our cars up with boats, caravans, 4 people, luggage etc and its a tough ask for a small engine. A 4 cylinder engine simply doesn't have sufficient anturally aspirated torque or power, so sure, whilst it might have a turbo or two to make up the shortfall, it'll be working those turbos very, very hard.

I'd be concerned about long-term reliability for those not fortunate enough to be able to change their cars every 3 years.

[cosmo20btt]

Does anyone know whether the EB-4 is a cast iron block or a fully alluminum block?

[Swordsman88]

I don't want to sound like some sort of of know it all but some of the posts in this (and other) EB 4pot threads are based on VERY mis or uninformed views.

Stuff like reliability, 'it won't have enough grunt' it will 'burn just much fuel as the I6 etc'. I can see how it would be easy to come to this conclusion based on the general views out there....i know when i was first told (long before it was in the media) of a rumour RE the I4T falcon i was very suspicious. Upon further investigation my fears were allayed....

Based on the info ford has released in the states and in europe even at this early stage i have no concerns at all. Ford will not release an engine that will just explode as soon as the warranty period is up. They also won't release an engine that is a massive dud RE performance.....not as fast as the I6 but no problem versus the 3.0 SIDI and moreover, it will feel punchy. Finally, it will burn less than just about any other large car out there. This is the entire point of the operation and why EB exists....

Remember, this is Ford we are talking about...not GM.....

[BrisVegas]

I can't wait. People want it all from cars these days. Power, economy, space, reliability etc.. I had a Passat 1.8litre turbo 4 cyl a few years back. It was only around 125kw and 250NM. It looked lost inside the engine bay, but ultimately it was plenty of engine for the job. I regularly filled it up with people and stuff and it cruised along just fine. The best part though was it nice and fuel efficient. The EB 2litre, with 160-180kw and 300+NM will have more than enough grunt for the job I am guessing.

There's also something to be said for having a lighter engine over the front wheels. It takes the pressure off front suspension and brakes.

[Wally]

Umless Garrett are using some special dupadupa metals for their bearings, pistons, thrust plates and seals, chances are there are going to be some fairly expensive legacy costs to the owners who choose to keep their 2.0T after the 100k period has expired. CHRA assemblies do wear out and coke exponentially in real world driving conidtions.

My suspicions are purely based on experience with turbo jap cars over a long period. Garrett/Honeywell, who are supplying the hair dryer for the 4 pot, have had a few problems in the past, the most notable being GT17s fitted to SAABs, where the thrust pistons wore holes through the diffuser plates in response to coking. And that raises another important issue; owners of turbo cars have to be very mindful of oil changes and service, because turbochargers are very unforgiving, whereas a good old N/A donk like a V8, can be mistreated somewhat badly and still come back to play.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Brent

A 4 cylinder turbo Falcon? Thanks, but no thanks.

Fact of the matter is that the Falcon already starts off as a heavy car. Combine that with lots of stop-start city traffic when you're constantly on and off the throttle, or the typical Aussie situation of loading our cars up with boats, caravans, 4 people, luggage etc and its a tough ask for a small engine. A 4 cylinder engine simply doesn't have sufficient anturally aspirated torque or power, so sure, whilst it might have a turbo or two to make up the shortfall, it'll be working those turbos very, very hard.

I'd be concerned about long-term reliability for those not fortunate enough to be able to change their cars every 3 years.

I think your "typical aussie" may not be a typical as you think. I do not know of one person in my circle of friends that have a caravan, horse float or boat. The fact is the heaviest duty towing any do is a box trailer to the tip.

You need to remember, we are not talking about a starfire 4 in a commodore here. This is a 4T with only about 90 nm less but also less weight than the I6 and probably max torque lower in the rev range. I think in normal use this car will be slightly slower but still no slouch. Like has been said, it being able to tow boats or race the I6 is not important, if you want that performance buy the I6. It needs to compete with other large family cars, ie 3l SIDI and be able to equal or better performance, economy and features etc. I think it may achieve this quite nicely.

[cosmo20btt]

Originally Posted by cosmo20btt

Does anyone know whether the EB-4 is a cast iron block or a fully alluminum block?

If the EB4 is Aluminum then their might be a cost to pay, Nissan years ago ran a similar engine called sr20det, now N/A version was fine, but the turbo suffered from inherent mains weakness after a period of time, ie: the main bearing cap bolts used to pull out of the alloy block. I am not saying that it will happen on EB4 but it is a problem with the design. This will not be a problem for the EB3.5v6 as the piston load is not 180degrees against the main bearing.
This fault was more likely to happen to an AWD setup more so than FWD or RWD as it was applied to all of them.

[XBROO]

Originally Posted by Wretched

:yeees: You know this because of the extensive testing you've done on both engines?
Have you got your findings in a report we could read?

Hate to state the obvious but look at the cars dating back 30 or more years ago with inline 6's. I know a heap of them still driving around with original motor that hasn't been touch. Apart from a service every now and then and maybe a carby kit. Now show me a V6 that can do that. : And I'm not about reports on paper it's what I've experience. Only believe half of what you see and nothing of what you read. :

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I think your "typical aussie" may not be a typical as you think. I do not know of one person in my circle of friends that have a caravan, horse float or boat. The fact is the heaviest duty towing any do is a box trailer to the tip.

You need to remember, we are not talking about a starfire 4 in a commodore here. This is a 4T with only about 90 nm less but also less weight than the I6 and probably max torque lower in the rev range. I think in normal use this car will be slightly slower but still no slouch. Like has been said, it being able to tow boats or race the I6 is not important, if you want that performance buy the I6. It needs to compete with other large family cars, ie 3l SIDI and be able to equal or better performance, economy and features etc. I think it may achieve this quite nicely.

the peak torque argument is an interesting one. The engine can make up to 350-360nm quite easilly, but ford may be inclined to keep ti down around 320-330 and go after fuel burn savings...once you push past 350 you would need to run the boost a fair bit higher and then you will get knock issues....so compression ratio will be affected (even with DI) and this equals more fuel burn esp when cruisning.

the funny thing is that if you look at the torque curves for the FG I6 for example, it makes 391nm at 3250rpm, but at 2000rpm makes around 360-370nm. At 1500 it would make 350nm or so... The I4T will reduce the weight of the FG by about 50kg, or so the estimate goes (could be more). Now regardless of the final torque figure it wil probably make 330nm at 1500rpm. So for 20nm less you have to haul 50kg less weight. Rough rule of thumb i've always used is that you need a good 30nm to haul 100kg.....to 'feel' the same performance at least. So based on that at low speeds off the line the I4T will not feel any slower than teh I6 we have now..... Of course as speed builds the lack of power and lower peak torque will mean it will be alot more 'flat' and not accelerate as hard. Some drives may even complain in the higher rev range it feels slower than teh 3.0 SIDI, but 90% of the time where everyone atcually drives (down low rpm) the I4T will be a much better option.

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by XBROO

Hate to state the obvious but look at the cars dating back 30 or more years ago with inline 6's. I know a heap of them still driving around with original motor that hasn't been touch. Apart from a service every now and then and maybe a carby kit. Now show me a V6 that can do that. : And I'm not about reports on paper it's what I've experience. Only believe half of what you see and nothing of what you read. :

That still doesn't answer the question, have you or have you not tested the EcoBoost and Duratec V6 engines alongside the I6 engine in all conditions for reliability to prove your claim that the V6 will not last alongside the I6?

I couldn't care less what engines were doing 30 years ago, times have changed and so has the technology within them.

[XBROO]

Originally Posted by Wretched

That still doesn't answer the question, have you or have you not tested the EcoBoost and Duratec V6 engines alongside the I6 engine in all conditions for reliability to prove your claim that the V6 will not last alongside the I6?

I couldn't care less what engines were doing 30 years ago, times have changed and so has the technology within them.

Technology has changed but it still a V6 all the crap that sits on top might be different. And so far I6 has been lasting alot longer then V6 why do you think most of the taxies are I6. OOOPS I said taxi.

[Franco Cozzo]

Regarding the EB I4, does Ford and Mazda still share platforms/engines? Imagine the EB I4 in a higher state of tune in the Mazda 3 MPS.

Personally, I think the 4 cylinder in the Falcon is great, it gives off that "fuel efficient" vibe to the people who don't know or take interest in cars. Except the older crowd like my Dad who sort of hesitated about the 4 cylinder in a Falcon, he said something about the Commodore had a 4 cylinder and it was the worst thing ever, but when I told him power and torque figures he liked the idea.

Plus, maybe you could retrofit it in older, smaller cars?

[Wretched]

Originally Posted by XBROO

Technology has changed but it still a V6 all the crap that sits on top might be different. And so far I6 has been lasting alot longer then V6 why do you think most of the taxies are I6. OOOPS I said taxi.

So I take it as a NO you haven't, just another "opinion" more than fact.

[Brent]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

You need to remember, we are not talking about a starfire 4 in a commodore here. This is a 4T with only about 90 nm less but also less weight than the I6 and probably max torque lower in the rev range. I think in normal use this car will be slightly slower but still no slouch. Like has been said, it being able to tow boats or race the I6 is not important, if you want that performance buy the I6. It needs to compete with other large family cars, ie 3l SIDI and be able to equal or better performance, economy and features etc. I think it may achieve this quite nicely.

Don't get me wrong....I'm not questioning whether you'd get decent performance out of a turbo 4, but at what price you pay for that performance in terms of engine stress and long term wear. I'll tip that the engine will be "on boost" for quite a bit of its operating life when lugging an 1,800kg sedan around. So what you're doing is stressing 4 cylinder internals to get 6 cylinder performance. Big end bearings, conrods, and even cooling systems all come under increased pressure. Will it detonate as soon as you turn the key?....most certainly not, but it will always be a more "stressed" engine than a larger, naturally aspirated engine of relatively equal quality.

Yes, you can overcome some of these issues via use of higher quality metals and better engineering methods, but then the price per unit goes up which often largely negates the value equation of such an engine to begin with.

Will be interesting to see how this story unfolds.

[kezzer]

Originally Posted by XBROO

Technology has changed but it still a V6 all the crap that sits on top might be different. And so far I6 has been lasting alot longer then V6 why do you think most of the taxies are I6. OOOPS I said taxi.

Plenty of old VN's etc with over 500,000km on the clock.

I would be interested to read your study how you came to that conclusion, have you published it?

Cheers

[XBROO]

I haven't seen a VN with over 500,000km unless it's had a motor transplant and that's not a million.

[XBROO]

Originally Posted by Wretched

So I take it as a NO you haven't, just another "opinion" more than fact.

You can take it how you want to, but to date the I6 last longer then V6. Maybe you should do a bit of research youself if that's what your into. Me,I'd rather drive then read.

[Wally]

It's a bit hard making broad observations on car engine life expectancy. Someone who has driven one Falcon year after year isn't likely to have carried out a parallel activity on a V6 anything. What is acceptable loss of performance over the time, maybe be unacceptable to someone else.

The ecoboost V6 was supposedly put through some fairly rigorous bench testing, including a WOT continuous 15 day trial. How that equates to handling on road conditions is anyone's guess, but some thought must have gone into the validity.

[XBROO]

Your probably right mate, who knows the ecoboost V6 maybe the one to change the trend. But up until now they have been getting more miles out of an inline 6.

[mrbaxr6t]

what worries me about the whole 4 cylinder boosted thing is this : everybody knows that more load on a turbo engine increases boost pressure which in turn increases power - this is all fine and dandy but more boost equals more fuel burn, thus undoing the aura of fuel efficient 4 cylinder engine, not to mention the mechanical stresses and work the engine is doing hurtling down the highway sucking down boost and fuel to maintain speed. In comparison my soon to be traded AU XR6 W/VCT gives 750 kms to a tank on the highway regardless of load so it seems, drive it with just driver it gives 750 k to tank, load the boot completely the floor area under the kids' feet and the back seat between them and the parcel shelf, and have a passenger in it and still the car handling and fuel burn does not shift, will the ecoboost 4 cylinder be able to match this? I will be really interested to see if it can. Also if we consider an I6T and the fact that on the highway fully loaded up like the AU it runs under substantial vacuum (giving economy) until you hit a hill, at which time the vacuum is nullified and no boost pressure is applied, or atmo pressure no vac or boost - this still maintains economy, if the EB 4T runs under boost at cruise it will only get worse when loaded and when climbing hills - I am wanting to check one of these ecoboosts out to see if it "behaves" the same way in terms of load and boost. if it drives around under boost 24/7 the economy of a 4 cylinder will be somewhat undone or even nullified.