EcoBoost Edge for Ford same as what the falcon will have

[Jason[98.EL]]

taken from http://ninemsn.carpoint.com.au/news/...for-ford-17099

Originally Posted by carpoint

EcoBoost Edge for Ford


American SUV to be powered by the same EcoBoost four-cylinder locked in for Falcon
Ford's Edge crossover SUV will be updated for the 2011 model year with the same EcoBoost 2.0-litre engine that Ford Australia plans to offer buyers in the Falcon.

The American vehicle is wider than the Aussie-built Territory SUV, but not as long and is currently equipped with a 3.5-litre V6. This disguised vehicle was spotted while testing and appears to be a facelift rather than an altogether new model.

According to master spy photographers, Carparazzi, the Edge should muster around 170kW of power and 325Nm of torque from the direct-injected and turbocharged four-cylinder powerplant. Those seem like pretty good figures for Falcon too, when the locally-built sedan is introduced with the same engine sometime in 2011.

Being a large sedan, the Falcon can't afford to go to light on output for the sake of fuel efficiency, but nor can it present a better alternative to the existing inline six -- soon to be upgraded to Euro 4 compliance -- for power and torque.

The Edge, being a 2011 model, will likely reach American showrooms late in 2010, perhaps as much as 12 months or more ahead of the similarly-powered Falcon. Where the Edge will differ from the Falcon in the application of the EcoBoost engine resides in the mounting of the powertrain. In the Edge, the engine runs transversely and drives the front wheels primarily. The Falcon, as already reported, will run the engine longitudinally.

sounds good in my books if it can move an SUV it shouldn't have much probs with the falcon

thoughts??

Jason

[Allen]

It'll be a bit of a slug with only 325Nm of torque in an 1800+kg car.

To put that in perspective, an e-series XR8 with the 165kW, 388Nm 5.0 Windsor were quite slow, and they weigh a couple of hundred kilos less.

They will have to rely on short ratios in the gearbox and final drive in order to keep the EcoBoost Falcon from feeling underpowered. The trade off for that is compromised fuel consumption, which defeats the whole point.

Hopefully by the time the EcoBoost is released in the Falcon, they have pulled some weight out of it.

[kircher]

If they put in some good gear ratios, then it should get up and move. The standard 2.73:1 diff ratio surely wouldn't help it off the line. With 6 speed and wide ratios, it should be alright for performance and fuel.

[Polyal]

Are the Mercedes C class supercharged 4's comparable weight to the Falcon with a I4T?

[Allen]

Originally Posted by Polyal

Are the Mercedes C class supercharged 4's comparable weight to the Falcon with a I4T?

C class kerb weight is 1490kg, gross weight is 1975kg.

The most powerful 4 cylinder is the 135kW 1.8 16V M271 Petrol Engine, or the 150kW 2.1 16V OM651 twin turbo CDI Diesel.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Allen

It'll be a bit of a slug with only 325Nm of torque in an 1800+kg car.....

It really all depends on where in the rev range (and the gearing used) that the torque is produced. Quoting peak power (kW) and torque (Nm) figures is all pretty meaningless unless all you want to do is impress your mates. I'd like to see a graphs of kW and Nm vs rpm rather than be quoted peak figures.

My tezza produces a peak of 380Nm torque but it's very rare that i'll be revving the engine to 5000rpm where that's produced.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by Raptor

It really all depends on where in the rev range (and the gearing used) that the torque is produced. Quoting peak power (kW) and torque (Nm) figures is all pretty meaningless unless all you want to do is impress your mates. I'd like to see a graphs of kW and Nm vs rpm rather than be quoted peak figures.

My tezza produces a peak of 380Nm torque but it's very rare that i'll be revving the engine to 5000rpm where that's produced.

Actually depending on your model Raptor it probably makes that 380 somewhere between 2500-3500 RPM. This low down torque is as much as secret of the tractability of the I6 as the actual 380 value.

It is difficutl to make much in the way of prediction about the I4T engine in falcon based of these 'rumoured' numbers because this is installed east-west in a AWD SUV...not North South in a RWD sedan. Also the power/torque values will have to fit in with the edge line up, which uses a less powerful 3.5 V6 as it standard motor, not the more poweful I6 we have here.

I don't doubt the engine wil do the job in the aussie falcon. The comparison made to a EL XR8 is a bit miisleading frankly. To show you what modern gearing/tuning can achieve look at the new 'SIDI' 3.0 commodore. It has a very paltry 290n of torque, but with 6sp when compared to the old alloytec base omega with 320nm it is atcually about the same in terms of acceleration, if a little better in terms of driveability.

Its too early to get too concerned...best guesses would have the aussie version making 170-180kw and 340-350nm, from about 2000RPM at worst. That is more than enough i'd say.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

Actually depending on your model Raptor it probably makes that 380 somewhere between 2500-3500 RPM.....

You are indeed correct Swordsman ;)

I quickly googled that and it seemed rather high when I typed it. 5000rpm is where the peak power of 182 kW is made, the torque peak being at a much lower and thus more usable 3250rpm according to the Ford release.

[EgoFG]

I wonder how the photographers were able to estimate the power and Torque

Those cameras sure make the dynamometer seem dated

[Chilliman]

Originally Posted by Allen

It'll be a bit of a slug with only 325Nm of torque in an 1800+kg car.

To put that in perspective, an e-series XR8 with the 165kW, 388Nm 5.0 Windsor were quite slow, and they weigh a couple of hundred kilos less.

They will have to rely on short ratios in the gearbox and final drive in order to keep the EcoBoost Falcon from feeling underpowered. The trade off for that is compromised fuel consumption, which defeats the whole point.

Hopefully by the time the EcoBoost is released in the Falcon, they have pulled some weight out of it.

From a previous post in another thread:

Another interesting Ecoboost article:

Ford Officially Confirms Four Cylinder EcoBoost Engine
by George Delozier

Ford's EcoBoost engine has gained quite a bit of popularity since first being introduced. Offering performance comparable to that of a V8 while also returning fuel economy more akin to an inline four engine, what's not to love? Now, Ford has decided to expand on the EcoBoost line by including a four cylinder version that will not only provide outstanding fuel economy, but also offer a sport oriented powerplant for many small vehicles.




The current 3.5 liter EcoBoost engine is nothing short of an engineering masterpiece. Thanks to direct injection and z pair of quick spooling turbochargers, the 3.5 liter V6 is able to crank out 365 horsepower and 350lb/ft of torque. While these numbers are impressive, what makes the engine even more appealing is the latter of these two figures being available between 1500rpm and 6000rpm. All this is available while returning 25 miles per gallon on the highway and 18 in the city.

For the 2.0 liter EcoBoost inline-4 powerplant, Ford has promised at least 230 horsepower and 240lb/ft of torque. Once again, the engine will be designed to provide the maximum amount of torque over a broad range without sacrificing fuel economy. Ford engineers have also outfitted the engine with a Twin Independent Variable Cam Timing (Ti-VCT).




Unlike some current cam timing adjustment systems that will change both the intake and exhaust sides at the same time, the Ti-VCT system will allow for independent changes to occur. When combined, the EcoBoost system and Ti-VCT equate to a 10%-20% improvement in fuel economy when put side-by-side with similarly performing V6 engines. The 2.0 liter EcoBoost engine will be the first in the EcoBoost family to feature the Ti-VCT system and will likely act as a test bed for the technology.

Ford is planning on using the new 2.0 liter EcoBoost engine to replace many of their current V6 drivetrains, such as the 3.0 liter being used in several models. While there was no official word as to what would get the new EcoBoost, there are definitely many candidates for the powerful little turbo-4.


Full article with output curve graphs:
http://inventorspot.com/articles/fo..._en gine_30576
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by 51RTE
Wont be long and this thread will be finished just like 427 if people dont smarten up

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Chilliman : 06-08-09 at 12:36 AM.

[XWGT]

I have an Audi A4 with the 1.8 Turbo and although the car is only 1495kg it performs and drives very well, mainly due to the CVT. This engine is a little more powerful and has a lot more torque so as long as they dial the 6spd transmission in correctly I think it will actually suit most peoples needs. It certainly wont be a road rocket but it wont be a shocker either.

The 1.8T also returns 7.2lt / 100k in real life (daily driver) and can get down to as low as 5.2 on the open road......so I think the EcoBoost engines will tick enough boxes to keep most people happy.

[XR Martin]

4cyl Falcon wont be anywhere near 1800kg. An alloy 4cyl and gearbox could be 100kg lighter than the 6cyl cast iron lump and its transmission. The current Falcon 6 is about 190kg, minus a 3rd and you've just saved 65kg, now make it in alloy and theres probably 25kg saved. Now take into account the transmission will be smaller and lighter, you've probably found another 10kg.

Which would put an XT Falcon at around 1600kg. A Toyota Aurion weighs as much and has only a little more torque.(at much higher revs) And most people will say they go quite well.

[XR Martin]

Lexus GS300 weighs 1620kg, has 183kw and 310nm. It does the 0-100kmh in low 7s.
A Ecoboost 4cyl Falcon wont be any slower than that.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

4cyl Falcon wont be anywhere near 1800kg. An alloy 4cyl and gearbox could be 100kg lighter than the 6cyl cast iron lump and its transmission. The current Falcon 6 is about 190kg, minus a 3rd and you've just saved 65kg, now make it in alloy and theres probably 25kg saved. Now take into account the transmission will be smaller and lighter, you've probably found another 10kg.

Which would put an XT Falcon at around 1600kg. A Toyota Aurion weighs as much and has only a little more torque.(at much higher revs) And most people will say they go quite well.

I'd say thats right, the current XT is something like 1695 kg. So adding a smaller all alloy engine should have it down to the low 1600 kg's.

[naddis01]

Go and check out a Skoda Superb if you want to see how a 2Litre turbo performs in a 1600+kg car.

[FPV GTHO]

Honestly, i dont understand all this concern on how "slow" an Ecoboost Falcon would be. Some of you guys who may have only ever driven Falcons might be worried, but ive gone from a 1.8 Pulsar into a 4L EB, and with the low end torque and the ridiculously tall gearing, some performance loss isnt the end of the world. And the new cars are considerably faster than my 17yo EB.

[ED Classic]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

4cyl Falcon wont be anywhere near 1800kg. An alloy 4cyl and gearbox could be 100kg lighter than the 6cyl cast iron lump and its transmission. The current Falcon 6 is about 190kg, minus a 3rd and you've just saved 65kg, now make it in alloy and theres probably 25kg saved. Now take into account the transmission will be smaller and lighter, you've probably found another 10kg.

Which would put an XT Falcon at around 1600kg. A Toyota Aurion weighs as much and has only a little more torque.(at much higher revs) And most people will say they go quite well.

You beat me too it.

This will be much lighter than an i6 and will have a much much more effeciant driveline too

[Windsor220]

Its not like people are going to be buying these things to take on Clubbys down the strip. Aslong as the thing moves its done its job.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

I'd say thats right, the current XT is something like 1695 kg. So adding a smaller all alloy engine should have it down to the low 1600 kg's.

If the I4T falcon weighs more than 1650 kg i'd eat my hat as they say. This is one of (many) reasons why in addition to burning less fuel (both ADR and real world) than holden's brand new SIDI 3.0 it will also smoke it something shocking. 340nm at 2000RPM (at least) pulling 1650kg with 6sp auto/dsg versus 290nm at 2500RPM pulling 1696kg with 6sp auto. Not hard to work out which car will feel more lively now is it??

[greenfoam]

Not to mention 4 cyls sound better than V6's :!)

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by greenfoam

Not to mention 4 cyls sound better than V6's :!)

well...then GMH's V6s at least....

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by greenfoam

Not to mention 4 cyls sound better than V6's :!)

That's why I have two of them in my vehicle :

[boris]

Do you think ford would consider a cvt with the ecoboost? I know they are boring to drive, but they seem to give good economy and save weight, and if your buying a 4cyl falcon your not looking for big performance are you. would solve all the problems with matching gear ratios etc.

[tweeked]

The peak torque figure has to be read in context. I am willing to bet this will have a very flat torque curve, and will smash the 3lt Crummydore.

Anyway, this is not about flat out performance, it is about economy. There are other engines in the lineup for performance.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by boris

Do you think ford would consider a cvt with the ecoboost? I know they are boring to drive, but they seem to give good economy and save weight, and if your buying a 4cyl falcon your not looking for big performance are you. would solve all the problems with matching gear ratios etc.

AFAIK Ford have never used a CVT in anything, but they are rolling out DSG boxes for the Focus etc. I'd say there is a good chance the I4T Falcon will have a DSG because they are usually better than manuals for economy, and since it can run soley in auto mode, and autos usually make up 90% + of Falcon sales it would be the best choice, although Ford would have to make a front engine RWD version of it, as currently I don't think they do.

If not it might just be 6 speed auto and possibly 6 speed manual.

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by boris

Do you think ford would consider a cvt with the ecoboost? I know they are boring to drive, but they seem to give good economy and save weight, and if your buying a 4cyl falcon your not looking for big performance are you. would solve all the problems with matching gear ratios etc.

There's not really much evidence out there to prove that CVTs get better fuel economy than regular transmissions. I think DSG does though. My only issue with DSG is they don't feel as smooth as regular autos. Maybe with a bit more refinement they could improve in that area. Fuel economy, less loss in power are DSGs strengths.

[Paxton]

I'm still yet to see a Rear Drive car with a DSG Gearbox. Veyron doesn't count, as it is rear engined, and the GTR is also out of contention with its DSG Transaxle.

[kircher]

Originally Posted by chevypower

There's not really much evidence out there to prove that CVTs get better fuel economy than regular transmissions. I think DSG does though. My only issue with DSG is they don't feel as smooth as regular autos. Maybe with a bit more refinement they could improve in that area. Fuel economy, less loss in power are DSGs strengths.

In my experience DSGs have been smoother than any conventional auto I've driven. That said I've never driven any of the new 6 speed autos. The DSG I drove admittedly was not perfect at low speeds, but once moving I found the gear shifts to be imperceptible, and you can adjust your driving style to make low speed driving smoother. I think some are smoother than others depending on the software. I've also heard the 6 speed wet clutch is smoother than the 7 speed dry clutch unit. I do believe dual clutch transmissions are the way of the future for internal combustion propulsion.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Paxton

I'm still yet to see a Rear Drive car with a DSG Gearbox. Veyron doesn't count, as it is rear engined, and the GTR is also out of contention with its DSG Transaxle.

Panamera?

[SSVPom]

In a country where you get booked for doing more than 65mph on most freeways, 170kw is more than enough for most people, well at least "non-car people" and fleets/taxis etc.