ECOBOOST® OR “ECOBUST”: INSIDE FORD’S NEW TURBO ENGINE (And a response to the FREEP’s Mark Phelan)
[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]
When Ford Motor Company ® first proposed a new line of turbocharged “TwinForce” engines, many of FoMoCo’s long-suffering turbo fans had visions of 7,000+ r.p.m. redlines and “fifteen minute hop-ups” to 500 horsepower dancing in their heads.
The more idealistic turbophiles imagined that Ford would take the good parts of the late Yamaha SHO V6 design, such as the beautiful variable geometry intake manifold, and then add modern turbocharging.
Some crazies even anticipated that the Glass House Gang would tap into the Zeitgeist of Ford’s storied V8 heritage and the current 2.4-liter V8 limit in Formula One to offer a fully-modern, displacement-on-demand, VTEC-equipped (Variable Valve Timing and Lift Electronic Control) twin turbo (or even "twincharged") mini-V8.
(No matter how much high-tech "lipstick" you put on a V6, it's still a "PIG SIX" and not a V8. Moreover, cubic inch displacement, not cylinder count is the primary factor in off-boost fuel efficiency)
When news came out about Ford-ex Dr. Neil Ressler landing at Ethanol Boosting Systems, turbo lovers expected Ford’s new turbo mills to come with direct, on-demand injection of ethanol, providing a 160+ effective octane support for huge, ZR1-killing boost spikes, combined with brilliant off-boost fuel economy that cannot be matched by old-school two-valve pushrod engines.
And when Alan Mulally’s marketing crew reacted to the anti-performance political hurricane flowing from Democrat-controlled Washington D.C. by renamed the turbo engines under the silly “EcoBoost” moniker, turbo fans held their breath and kept the faith that finally Dearborn would offer state-of-the-art high performance turbo engines.
What were WE all smoking?
FoMoCo’s engine department – which often seems more conservative than Barry Goldwater and less creative than Barry Mantilow – has delivered up an underwhelming initial installment for the EcoBoost saga: The 365-horse 3.5 EcoBoost V6.
While the gory details have been known in industry circles for some time, Stephen Kim, in the October 2009 issue of Popular Hot Rodding Magazine, gives the general public the most clear insight yet into how Ford’s engineers and bean-counters slouched their way into building a V6 that’s really not that much better than what could (and should) have been offered fifteen years ago.
And as PHR's sickeningly fawning espose' on the EcoBoost 6 shows, much of this technology will not be "rodder friendly" in the initial years.
The EcoBoost 3.5 has a brace of tiny GT15 turbos that run out of breath at 200 h.p. each. The pistons and rods are not forged. The intake and exhaust manifolds are probably the worst things this side of an antique A-series BMC. The compression/boost relationship is virtually maxed out at the factory. The rev limit is a pushrod-esque 6,200 r.p.m.
There is no displacement-on-demand, or variable geometry intake, or full VTEC (just variable cam phasing), or direct ethanol injection.
Seemingly the lessons learned by the Ramchargers nearly fifty years ago on the scientific design of intake and exhaust manifolds have been lost or, more likely, ignored to placate the penny-pinchers.
To say these pedestrian specifications are tractor-like, is probably an insult to some of the high-tech tractors now available.
Moreover, the early tests report that Ford’s electronic management of the EcoBoost system manages to deprive enthusiasts of the sensations and sounds that have made turbocharging legendary. It’s as if Ford set out to engineer a clandestine, tamper-proof “black box” engine that no ordinary motorist would even suspect was turbocharged.
About the only really exciting development that probably couldn’t have been offered in the late 1980s or 1990s is direct injection. GDI allows for a stratified charge at part throttle, more targeted fuel induction events, and in-cylinder evaporative cooling. All good stuff, but an expensive, steep hill to climb for tuners and hot rodders.
Thus, turning the not-so-stunning 3.5 EcoBoost into a legitimate performance engine will take buckets of money and time. (a limp 104 horsepower per liter isn’t exactly the stuff of legends)
Also, given the fact that the underwhelming initial installment of the EcoBoost family will be implanted into a series of 4000+ pound AWD sleds, any aftermarket pressure to develop the engine may be initially limited. And the EcoBoost V6 option runs over a couple of thousand dollars – which doesn’t exactly feel like the deal of the century.
Maybe it will get better in future installments. But the first chapter of EcoBoost is decidedly less exciting than some anticipated.
That, of course, hasn’t stopped many in the legitimate media to uncritically sing Ford’s praises for offering up such tardy and expensive mediocrity. In addition to Mr. Kim (who undoubtedly has to keep his sources at Ford happy), many “buff books” have treated the EcoBoost with the reverence of the Second Coming. They only obliquely point out the inferior relationship of the EcoBoost-equipped vehicles to some of the V8-powered bruisers from GM, Chrysler and even Hyundai.
Detroit Free Press auto scribe Mark Phelan opines the EcoBoost 3.5 is “stunning” in support of his Pollyanna argument that “Muscle cars aren't slowing down” under the coming weight of the 2012-2016 increases in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. In fact he says:
As Truth With Speedzzter opined over at Bangshift.com:
While Truth With Speedzzter recognizes the reality that higher tech is probably the only way a semblance of performance and automotive liberty are to be salvaged under the “new world order” and power-hungry greeniac religion, we shouldn’t pretend that it will come without an enormous cost and a massive chilling effect on grassroots hot rodding of new vehicles.
[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]
When Ford Motor Company ® first proposed a new line of turbocharged “TwinForce” engines, many of FoMoCo’s long-suffering turbo fans had visions of 7,000+ r.p.m. redlines and “fifteen minute hop-ups” to 500 horsepower dancing in their heads.
The more idealistic turbophiles imagined that Ford would take the good parts of the late Yamaha SHO V6 design, such as the beautiful variable geometry intake manifold, and then add modern turbocharging.
Some crazies even anticipated that the Glass House Gang would tap into the Zeitgeist of Ford’s storied V8 heritage and the current 2.4-liter V8 limit in Formula One to offer a fully-modern, displacement-on-demand, VTEC-equipped (Variable Valve Timing and Lift Electronic Control) twin turbo (or even "twincharged") mini-V8.
(No matter how much high-tech "lipstick" you put on a V6, it's still a "PIG SIX" and not a V8. Moreover, cubic inch displacement, not cylinder count is the primary factor in off-boost fuel efficiency)
When news came out about Ford-ex Dr. Neil Ressler landing at Ethanol Boosting Systems, turbo lovers expected Ford’s new turbo mills to come with direct, on-demand injection of ethanol, providing a 160+ effective octane support for huge, ZR1-killing boost spikes, combined with brilliant off-boost fuel economy that cannot be matched by old-school two-valve pushrod engines.
And when Alan Mulally’s marketing crew reacted to the anti-performance political hurricane flowing from Democrat-controlled Washington D.C. by renamed the turbo engines under the silly “EcoBoost” moniker, turbo fans held their breath and kept the faith that finally Dearborn would offer state-of-the-art high performance turbo engines.
What were WE all smoking?
FoMoCo’s engine department – which often seems more conservative than Barry Goldwater and less creative than Barry Mantilow – has delivered up an underwhelming initial installment for the EcoBoost saga: The 365-horse 3.5 EcoBoost V6.
While the gory details have been known in industry circles for some time, Stephen Kim, in the October 2009 issue of Popular Hot Rodding Magazine, gives the general public the most clear insight yet into how Ford’s engineers and bean-counters slouched their way into building a V6 that’s really not that much better than what could (and should) have been offered fifteen years ago.
And as PHR's sickeningly fawning espose' on the EcoBoost 6 shows, much of this technology will not be "rodder friendly" in the initial years.
The EcoBoost 3.5 has a brace of tiny GT15 turbos that run out of breath at 200 h.p. each. The pistons and rods are not forged. The intake and exhaust manifolds are probably the worst things this side of an antique A-series BMC. The compression/boost relationship is virtually maxed out at the factory. The rev limit is a pushrod-esque 6,200 r.p.m.
There is no displacement-on-demand, or variable geometry intake, or full VTEC (just variable cam phasing), or direct ethanol injection.
Seemingly the lessons learned by the Ramchargers nearly fifty years ago on the scientific design of intake and exhaust manifolds have been lost or, more likely, ignored to placate the penny-pinchers.
To say these pedestrian specifications are tractor-like, is probably an insult to some of the high-tech tractors now available.
Moreover, the early tests report that Ford’s electronic management of the EcoBoost system manages to deprive enthusiasts of the sensations and sounds that have made turbocharging legendary. It’s as if Ford set out to engineer a clandestine, tamper-proof “black box” engine that no ordinary motorist would even suspect was turbocharged.
About the only really exciting development that probably couldn’t have been offered in the late 1980s or 1990s is direct injection. GDI allows for a stratified charge at part throttle, more targeted fuel induction events, and in-cylinder evaporative cooling. All good stuff, but an expensive, steep hill to climb for tuners and hot rodders.
Thus, turning the not-so-stunning 3.5 EcoBoost into a legitimate performance engine will take buckets of money and time. (a limp 104 horsepower per liter isn’t exactly the stuff of legends)
Also, given the fact that the underwhelming initial installment of the EcoBoost family will be implanted into a series of 4000+ pound AWD sleds, any aftermarket pressure to develop the engine may be initially limited. And the EcoBoost V6 option runs over a couple of thousand dollars – which doesn’t exactly feel like the deal of the century.
Maybe it will get better in future installments. But the first chapter of EcoBoost is decidedly less exciting than some anticipated.
That, of course, hasn’t stopped many in the legitimate media to uncritically sing Ford’s praises for offering up such tardy and expensive mediocrity. In addition to Mr. Kim (who undoubtedly has to keep his sources at Ford happy), many “buff books” have treated the EcoBoost with the reverence of the Second Coming. They only obliquely point out the inferior relationship of the EcoBoost-equipped vehicles to some of the V8-powered bruisers from GM, Chrysler and even Hyundai.
Detroit Free Press auto scribe Mark Phelan opines the EcoBoost 3.5 is “stunning” in support of his Pollyanna argument that “Muscle cars aren't slowing down” under the coming weight of the 2012-2016 increases in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards. In fact he says:
Don't believe the fuel-economy fear mongers who say the fast car will be an outlaw in a future world of high-m.p.g. bore-mobiles. New systems and technologies from automakers and suppliers will maintain the upward trajectory.
As Truth With Speedzzter opined over at Bangshift.com:
The crack pipe at the FREEP must be industrial-sized.
It's going to be worse than 1975 again for new, affordable V8 muscle. Sure, a few with deep pockets will hang on, mostly with aesthetically-inferior substitutes, such as the EcoBoost/Ecotec 4 and 6s or rare, exotic-priced V8s. But all of this new technology will most certainly cause dramatic increases in the costs of a dwindling number of truly high-performance cars. Phelan simply does not have a grip on this reality.
Phelan squeals like a Detroit fanboy or someone from an OEM P.R. operation. Either that, or he sounds like someone desperately trying to convince himself that a disposable 500cc Japanese bike is as satisfying as a classic V-twin Harley. Either way, he just doesn't get it.
* * * *
Most of the bureaucrats at the OEMS would abandon high performance in a flash if it meant career advancement.
And if some super-high tech Shelby Mustang V8 with a full array of fuel saving technology and aluminum/carbon fiber body work costs $100,000.00 to buy -- and because of the 2016 CAFE averages can only be produced in tiny, dealer-gougefest numbers . . . while the masses are left to fend with some piddly EcoBoost Fiesta or tiny electrified Bill Ford dream whip -- haven't most of us been in effect "abandoned?"
In the '60s, just about any industrious young person could sign up for a new Tri-power GTO or a Cobra Jet Mustang or a Road Runner. Even the less industrious could score a "junior muscle car," such as a Ram Rod Cutlass or a 340 Swinger or a Nova SS. And on “Day Two,” these hard-working kids could start building their new muscle cars into screamin' machines.
A similarly situated young person these days usually has to settle for some horrible Korean or Japanese wusswagon. And maybe one out of 1000 has the technological savvy to get beyond adding tacky body kits, ugly stick-on "graphics", "cold air kits" and other cheap Pep Boys accessories to build any of these FWD jellybeans into some sort of legitimate "tuner" car.
I'm sorry, but I cannot see any of that as progress.
While Truth With Speedzzter recognizes the reality that higher tech is probably the only way a semblance of performance and automotive liberty are to be salvaged under the “new world order” and power-hungry greeniac religion, we shouldn’t pretend that it will come without an enormous cost and a massive chilling effect on grassroots hot rodding of new vehicles.
Labels: Eco-Boost, EcoBoost V8, Ethanol Boosting Systems, Mark Phelan, Neil Ressler, SHO
posted by Editor at 07:36
0 comments
