Ecoboost - 104hp / Litre

[Luke Plaizier]

http://www.sae.org/mags/AEI/6636

Should we be impressed?


Lukeyson

[4dlvr]

in one word... no
in more words.. theirs obviously a f#@k load of technology put into the car..
but i think it lacks outright raw power.
but then again. if we never new of our mighty f6, wed probably think this was our competition with the r35 gtr

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by 4dlvr

in one word... no
in more words.. theirs obviously a f#@k load of technology put into the car..
but i think it lacks outright raw power.
but then again. if we never new of our mighty f6, wed probably think this was our competition with the r35 gtr

I agree. It makes near identical power to the XR6 Turbo but its near 50nm down on torque for an engine thats half a litre smaller but has direct injection and a high compression ratio compared to the XR. I don't think its numbers are really that impressive at all, but its economy might be good, but its hard to compare it to an XR6 Turbo when its in a different car.

[Bad Bird]

Horsepower per litre is not even a particularly useful means of measuring the efficiency of an engine. Certainly not as useful as brake mean effective pressure.

[Barry_v]

Originally Posted by Bad Bird

Horsepower per litre is not even a particularly useful means of measuring the efficiency of an engine.

makes ricers feel good about themselves though

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

I agree. It makes near identical power to the XR6 Turbo but its near 50nm down on torque for an engine thats half a litre smaller but has direct injection and a high compression ratio compared to the XR. I don't think its numbers are really that impressive at all, but its economy might be good, but its hard to compare it to an XR6 Turbo when its in a different car.

They did say it was biased towards durability and economy.

Also, our I6T is under-quoted, are we sure this isn't?

[Ohio XB]

I spoke with "someone" at Ford that would know all about this engine. This is the version that is being introduced. Here in the States it is pretty impressive and if it was released with more power the fuel mileage would be less, and that would be counter productive to what Ford is looking to use the engine for.

As for potential of the engine.......no, this is not near what it is capable of. Ford went on to see what it is capable of. I think even down under you would be impressed. But for reasons mentioned earlier, this is what it is built to now.......for now. ;)


Steve

[Luke Plaizier]

We're seeing in the media numbers of at least 170kW out of the 2Litre US EcoBoost engine being targetted for installation in the Aussie Falcon. That's closer to about 118hp/litre right?

Just a point of annoyance by the way - if they are using metric for the engine capacity, why the heck don't they use metric for the power output? It still feels like the rest of the world is dragging the US kicking and screaming into the modern age....


Lukeyson

[fordboy1981]

I thought the 2L EcoBoost was 205kws?!

[Eu-GenixX]

thats one version of it... i think it was used in a prototype of some sort?

most figures quoted for Aus application are 170kw..

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by fordboy1981

I thought the 2L EcoBoost was 205kws?!

It is capable of at least 205kw/380Nm. That's what the spec sheet for the Explorer America concept had it at.

Originally Posted by Luke Plaizier

Just a point of annoyance by the way - if they are using metric for the engine capacity, why the heck don't they use metric for the power output? It still feels like the rest of the world is dragging the US kicking and screaming into the modern age....

Why does it annoy you? I travel between Aus and the US all the time, and make the adjustments. I actually like having something different. Kind of boring if the world was all the same. To me though horse power sounds like something a car enthusiast would talk about. Kilowatts sounds like you're trying to be scientific about it. Metric is used for engine sizes here, and 2L drink bottles? Haven't worked that one out yet. Every other drink size is in ounces. In Australia, I remember most people compare their height in feet/inches?

[merlin]

104hp = 77.6kw per litre. Thats what an S13 200SX/Silvia pumped out in 1992 from its 2L turbo. I think the Ecoboost will be much higher than this whilst having vastly superior economy. Just have to wait and see.

[Eu-GenixX]

Originally Posted by merlin

104hp = 77.6kw per litre. Thats what an S13 200SX/Silvia pumped out in 1992 from its 2L turbo. I think the Ecoboost will be much higher than this whilst having vastly superior economy. Just have to wait and see.

i think 104hp per litre was for the 3.5 ecoboost...

the 2 litre ecoboost is higher

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by Ohio XB

I spoke with "someone" at Ford that would know all about this engine. This is the version that is being introduced. Here in the States it is pretty impressive and if it was released with more power the fuel mileage would be less, and that would be counter productive to what Ford is looking to use the engine for.

As for potential of the engine.......no, this is not near what it is capable of. Ford went on to see what it is capable of. I think even down under you would be impressed. But for reasons mentioned earlier, this is what it is built to now.......for now. ;)


Steve

Common sense, really. In most cases motors aren't released with their full potential; always leave room for improvement.

A good example is the 3.6 SIDI recently released in the VE, it's rated to 15kW less to what Cadillac has quoted.

Another factor is the market expectations for certain levels.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by Bad Bird

Horsepower per litre is not even a particularly useful means of measuring the efficiency of an engine. Certainly not as useful as brake mean effective pressure.

Care to explain?

[1LOUDXFUTE]

Originally Posted by chevypower

Metric is used for engine sizes here, and 2L drink bottles? Haven't worked that one out yet.

What do you mean by that?