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:

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.

TAURUS SHO: FINALLY PAST 100 M.P.H. IN THE "1320" BUT STILL TOO HEAVY AND OVERPRICED

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

The print reviews of the 2010 Ford Taurus SHO are starting to come in.

They're mixed, at best.

Apparently both Car and Driver and Motor Trend were provided with a SHO that was fitted with the performance package left off of the Edmunds test car.

Both CD and MT managed to get the EcoBoost-powered SHO past the magic 100 m.p.h. in quarter mile testing. But both magazines ripped the portly size of the car, the high buy-in, and the somewhat anticeptic driving experience produced by it.

A side-by-side photo of older SHOs flanking the 2010 tells much of the story about the SHO-Bloat problem.

One reviewer even suggested shifting the SHO down to the Fusion to recover some of what's been lost since '89.

Other commentary mirrored the "failed lessons" ideas posted here, claiming that the new SHO was too "adult" and too anonymous.

Apparently Ford has managed to make a 13-14 second "appliance" car that lacks excitement and panache.

Slow . . . Heavy . . . Overpriced? Indeed.

"LUTZ SEZ" PONTIAC G8 SHOULD BECOME CHEVROLET CAPRICE (AND THEN "LUTZ SEZ" IT DOESN'T)

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Here's a rumor that ought to give nightmares to the Glass House Gang. Just when it looked like the mega-potent V8/RWD Holden Commodore, oddly known in the States as the Pontiac G8, would be retreating back to the "Land of Wonder, the Land Down Under," "Maximum Bob" Lutz may intervene to save it as a Chevrolet Caprice.

(That sound you just heard was a host of Ford lifers exclaiming "Crikey!")

Given that the Commodore is already sold as a Chevrolet Caprice in the Middle East and likely could be easily "badge engineered" into a bow-tie bruiser (Why bother to do anything more than just rip off the "Pontiac" badges and glue on some new Chevy ones?), Lutz's proposal is a "beyond obvious" move.

Whether "Obama/U.A.W. Motors" can pull off the switch before the Obama hikes in Corporate Average Fuel Economy hit is a question. Another question is whether an obviously good idea such as the "Holden Caprice" can survive the current political climate for what would likely be a short run.

Ford, of course, will be left without any U.S. certified V8 capable RWD sedan chassis after the slaughter of its Panthers sometime in the 2010-2011 time frame. Thus, as the Second Supercar Era ends in the hailstorm of "climate change"/"Cap-n-Tax"/"Global Governance" madness, FoMoCo will not be able to build one last "muscle car" sedan to tide us over through the coming malaise. (The overweight, under-performing, V8-less "Fat Buddha" 2010 Taurus and SHO (Slow, Heavy, Overpriced) certainly won't!

Tragic. Stupid. And just as predicted here, Ford has "Lutz more to worry about."


[UPDATE: After this post, Truth With Speedzzter reader "Alex" and Bangshift.com reported that Lutz had to flip-flop on the Caprice, saying that there was no "business case" for it.

As Speedzzter wrote over at "Bangshift,"

And a bunch of those FoMoCo execs who approved the Taurus SHO (Slow, Heavy, Overpriced) are now breathing again . . . .

(Of course they probably never really expected that "Government Motors" would offer something as audacious as the RWD V8 G8/Caprice.

and

No "business case" is Detroit-speak for the when the parasitic Robert McNamara bean-counter types (i.e. Fritz Henderson and his appliance motorist handlers on the Car Czar Central Committee) shoot down a what looks to everyone else like a "no brainer."

So much for another good idea.]

IS THE 2010 FORD TAURUS A "FAT BUDDHA?”

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

It now seems that SHO in the current Taurus vernacular stands for . . . .

Slow
Heavy
Overpriced

But does the base “Bull” (or more fittingly, the “steer” -- based on recent road tests) stand for something else? Something theological?

Usually automobiles do not have any religious qualities. They are non-sectarian machines. They have no consciousness or an eternal "soul." Accordingly, manufacturers tend to avoid religious themes.

But a recent press release from Ford Motor Company suggests that “centered” interior designer Lon Zaback apparently attributes Zen Buddhist aesthetics to the 2010 Taurus interior design!

For example, Zaback jabbered to FoMoCo’s in-house P.R. scribes that:

The rubber mats in the storage compartments have a pebble-in-pond water droplet pattern,” said Zaback. “It’s a Zen detail that imparts a sense of harmony and well-being. It really shows the distance we’ll go to impress a customer with our attention to the most minute detail.”

A similar Zen “wave” pattern also is repeated in the pads in the base of the center console.

This sort of new-age gibberish causes eyes to glaze over in much of the heartland.

Most certainly potential Taurus customers will appreciate “attention to detail” and the absence of cheap, smelly molded plastics. But few, if any, will anticipate . . . or appreciate . . . that the “patterns,” “harmony” and “well-being” were apparently inspired by misplaced devotion to some obtuse, morbidly obese, dead Chinese religionist!

On the other hand, perhaps it does explain the Taurus’ weight problem . . . .

And all that "harmony and well-being" balogona will give Taurus drivers something to think about when they're getting their clocks cleaned by the Hemis, V8s and Eurotrash sports sedans in the next lane . . .

This is not FoMoCo’s first foray into the “Zen” morass.

Truth With Speedzzter readers will recall that “Zen” nonsense was part of the plan for revitalizing Mercury (See "Zen and the Art of Killing Mercury" in the "Best of Speedzzter" sidebar) And unsubstantiated flirtations with Buddhism have long dogged Chairman William Clay Ford, Jr. A 2004 USA Today article contained this interesting passage:

Ask Ford Motor CEO Bill Ford if he CEgO [sic] surfs, and he shakes his head. "It's too depressing," he says.

What Ford would find are frequent mentions of him being a Buddhist. He pinpoints it to a 2000 article in The New York Times magazine with the headline: The Buddha of Detroit. It was a straightforward profile, but the lead paragraph seized on Ford's interest in Eastern mysticism, acupuncture, homeopathy, Zen -- and Vipassana Buddhism.

Ford says he wouldn't "categorize" himself as a Buddhist. "Not exclusively a Buddhist by any means, although I have read quite a bit." Still, it's grist for the Internet mill. A recent search for "Bill Ford" and Buddhist on the search engine Dogpile.com returned 72 hits.

(Perhaps if “Lil’ Billy” read more about automobiles and less worthless bilge from false and deceptive Eastern religions, his tenure at Ford wouldn’t have been such a mess).

Undoubtedly somebody at Ford has market researched all of the silly “Zen talk” and decided that it is not a liability. Perhaps they believe that it makes FoMoCo more “Oriental” in an age when Pacific Rim predators are raiding the American market. Of course FoMoCo market research also brought us the Edsel, so perhaps faith in it is misplaced.

And this sort of thing may not sit too well with some of Ford’s more conservative and sensitive Judeo-Christian Taurus customers. Some of these customers still have a bad taste left over from FoMoCo’s pandering to the radical homosexual rights lobby and the resulting boycott. Moreover, it was bad enough that Ford named the original front-wheel-drive “steer” after an astrological symbol. But now some may blow all of the allusions to new age and Buddhist religions out of proportion to attack the image of the car.

A memorable line from the film “Animal House” is "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.” To paraphrase it for the 2010 Taurus – Fat, slow and Zen Buddhist is no way to design (or market) a sedan, son.

TAURUS SHO IS A PIG IN EDMUNDS TESTING

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

Truth With Speedzzter previously opined that Ford Motor Company hadn't learned the correct lessons from the Mercury Marauder debacle.

And a recent Edmunds comparison test bears that out.

The EcoBoost Taurus is an expensive, fat pig that labored to card a weak 14.2-second quarter-mile timeslip. Notwithstanding all-wheel drive and a brace of liliputian turbos, the SHO failed to break the 100 m.p.h. barrier in the quarter mile. That makes the SHO "easy pickin's" for a long list of cheaper sport sedans.

The 2010 Ford Taurus has undoubtedly picked up right where the last 1999 Ford Taurus SHO left off. The problem is, this is not the year 2000. . . . In the end, the 2010 Ford Taurus SHO feels like an excellent all-new Taurus with a muscular engine, period. It's not quite up to the sport sedan badge. [T]he 2009 Infiniti G37 (and the crowd in which it is typically found) has nothing to worry about from the Taurus SHO. That is, unless someone starts changing the G37's list of standard equipment to include two NFL players.

Brakes are apparently an area where Mulally's boys seem have a problem. Edmunds panned the SHO's stoppers. Similarly, Car and Driver (which is no friend to the Glass House Gang, notwithstanding the underdog victory it declared for the underpowered 2010 Mustang GT in last months issue) dogged the brakes of the regular non-SHO 2010 Taurus.

The 2010 Taurus and Taurus SHO are shaping up to be less than expected. Ford's penny-pinching, false economy, and poor benchmarking may have doomed them to also-ran status.

It's an inauspicious start for the EcoBoost era.

CAFE + CASH FOR CLUNKERS = FOMOCO'S "ONE-TWO PUNCH"

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter here]

No doubt about it, William Clay Ford, Jr., Alan Mulally and the other radical greens at Ford Motor Company threw the automotive enthusiast and racing communities "under the bus" when they caved in to the infamous Obama-Schwarzenegger 42 m.p.g. Corporate Average Fuel Economy deal, and supported the disguised bailout/corporate welfare plan known as "Cash for Clunkers."

The company that's been gouging us for years on the overpriced Shelby GT500s, and which further plans to rip-off more of its most loyal customers with the bogus, V8-less Taurus SHO, is likely planning to use the OBAMA-nator's artificial market limitations to line its corporate pockets and kill off virtually all OEM rear wheel drive performance vehicles.

Under this fetid "deal" "Truth With Speedzzter" predicts that the vaporware "Coyote V8" will have one of the shortest careers for a mass-production engine ever.

Ford will wholly abandoned all pretense of serving the traditional RWD V8 enthusiast as it does backflips to cajole us into tiny, expensive Fiestas and other mini-cars that RWD V8 lovers will absolutely hate.

Whatever the OBAMA-Schwarzenegger-Eco era "Mustang" becomes, it's likely that current V8 ponycar customers will reject it as a worthy successor (even as Ford has done its dead level best to lag behind in the Second Supercar Era horsepower race with undersized V8s constructed with the weakest, cheapest, most worthless possible internal components). Of course, factory-paid journalists and propagandists will extol the virtues of the next generation wimpy, V8-less spiritual successor to the horrible 1974 Mustang II and the awful FWD Mazda-Probe-stang.

When that happens, there will be little if any reason for any Ford V8 traditionalists to darken the doors of a Ford dealership. The only thing that will be left of eighty years of affordable V8 performance tradtion at that point will be fading memories, and the dwendling number of collector Fords that somehow manage to escape the jaws of Billy Ford's "Cash-for-Clunkers" crushers.

Ford's "eco" politicking is simply a one-two punch to the guts and the wallets of its most loyal customers.

About the only other thing that's certain is that everything will cost a lot more.

Car Connection had this analysis:

The only reliable prediction, in fact, is that it will cost more--simply the cost of developing low-consumption new cars and advertising them to an uncertain public.

More involved is the dynamic for used cars. On the one hand, used-car prices are sure to rise as consumers can no longer buy a brand-new Chrysler 300C or Cadillac STS--as those companies get out of the big rear-drive-car business and shift their product mix heavily downward in size and engine output, some will opt instead to buy used and see how the new cars size up later. Since there will be a shortfall of new models as automakers spin on their heels to meet the new rules and to change American tastes roughly overnight, there will be a resulting shortfall in used cars as well. Shutting down production of bigger new cars now means fewer of them for sale later--and at the same time, more of you will want recent-model used cars that are bigger and safer on average, when compared to what you'll be offered in 2016.

Also pushing used-car prices higher: proposed cash-for-clunkers legislation. While some think it's yet another sop to the rich, giving a credit to people who can afford new cars, cash-for-clunkers deals also pull used cars with some value off the market. According to the Detroit News, under a plan still wending through Congress, drivers who turn in a car getting less than 18 mpg and purchasing one with fuel economy better than 22 mpg would get a voucher for $3,500 to $4,500 off a new car. Those incentives might very well take good used cars off the market for families that need low-cost used transportation.

Whatever the end result, the car of the future will look a lot less like today's Chrysler 300 and Ford Crown Victoria and a lot more like the 2011 Chevrolet Volt and the 2011 Ford Fiesta. Of the roughly 300 models sold in the U.S. today, about 130 meet a 30-mpg standard--not the nearly 40-mpg goal that will be required to blend with truck requirements and meet an overall goal of 35.5 miles per gallon

In other words, pay a lot more and get a lot less. Just like back in the 1970s.

FoMoCo and William Clay Ford, Jr. in particular, of course, apparently don't care about any of that. The Panther's dead. RWD is dead. V8s are dead. The Mustang as we know and love it is now on death row. Obama's plugging the wimpy hybrid Escape. And they're most likely giddy about all of that.

And they'd probably be happier if the Obama-Schwarzenegger assault on vehicular liberty destroys the "business case" for SVT, Ford Racing Performance Parts and Ford's support of motorsports. The appliance motorists in the Glass House will raise a toast with the liberal U.A.W. at the death of factory-built "American Muscle." The bean counters and "Steady Eddies" left in FoMoCo's bureaucracy will celebrate the "deproliferation" of high-performance options, just like they did in the 1970s.

As long as the per-widget profit margin is high enough, most of the hacks at Ford Motor Company would be happy building glacially-slow, one-cylinder plug-in hybrids. They simply just don't care about serving the wants, needs, and dreams of potential customers in the high-performance V8 market niche.

They will decry market-based oil imports as dangerous to "national security" even as they hypocritically become more beholden to cheap imported components and materials from Communist China and other places that categorically oppose America's national security.

And when the cookie-cutter, expensive new OBAMAmobile FWDs do not sell in sufficient volume to be profitable, William Clay Ford, Jr. and his paid public relations henchmen will undoubtedly be lobbying the Democrats for a draconian increase in the federal gas tax as a means of "re-educating" Ford customers to what Dearborn thinks is best for them.

The sad thing is that the thouands who would have enjoyed GT500-level RWD performance, had it been packaged in a more affordable form, will never have the opportunity.

WHY AN ECOBOOST V8?

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here]

“Why an EcoBoost V8?”

1. Better breathing (more valve curtain area possible for a given displacement) with better port velocities.

2. Increased firing pulses per crankshaft revolution provides smoother torque delivery.

3. Only a V8 can produce the classic V8 burble. Six cylinders sound . . . like sixes. A
“buzzin’ half dozen” simply doesn’t sound as good as a proper V8. (Even V8s of less than two liters sound like V8s)

4. Higher RPM potential in modified form with direct injection because injector dwell time is less.

5. No American manufacturer has built a world-class turbocharged V8 . . . ever (the Oldsmoblie Jetfire and the V8 Turbo Trans-Am were poorly done and did not have DOHC or modern engine controls).

6. Heritage: Harley-Davidson is known for V-Twins (even though that's not the best for high power density) and it's part of their brand persona. Similarly, Ford introduced the mass-market monoblock V8 to the world in 1932 and the 135-cube V8-60 (later a Simca engine) in 1937. Ford V8s have been legendary in 70+ years of motorsports. Ford has led American V8 development with its Modular and Boss/Hurricane engines in recent years. An EcoBoost V8 would be a worthy successor to this tradition and heritage.

7. Cylinder deactivation: Although Honda and GM successfully deactivate 3 of 6 cylinders, cutting 4 of 8 is inherently less vibration prone.

8. Motorsports: An EcoBoost V8 (if it were small enough in displacement) could homologate a hand-grenade-sized V8 for several forms of grassroots motorsports. A larger EcoBoost V8 would also be a boon to grassroots motorsports.

9. Efficiency: The current Eaton supercharged Modular V8s lack sufficient fuel efficiency for the coming CAFE standards. An EcoBoost V8 could increase off boost efficiency.

(Probably what will eventually happen someday is a computer-controlled, electrically-assisted Miller/Atkinson/Otto-cycle (MAO) engine with a clutched Eaton TVS, split-pulse turbocharging, intercooling, and direct Ethanol/E-85 injection. Such a MAO engine would allow for dramatic off-boost efficiency gains (Atkinson Cycle with cylinder deactivation, hybrid electric torque assist, and engine start-stop), low-boost efficiency gains (Miller Cycle), instant torque upon full throttle acceleration (via the TVS blower operating in the Otto Cycle, transitioning to larger-than-otherwise split-pulse turbos), an even broader torque curve than the current EcoBoost engines, waste energy recovery at mid and high R.P.M. (via the turbos) and dramatically increased power density. An EcoBoost V8s would be the first step toward the MAO engine. While a MAO engine would take a large amount of computer processing power to manage its transitions, it would not be as hard to manage as an HCCI or HCCI/Otto-cycle engine.

10. Intake ram-tuning/variable geometry intake: Unlike the current Eaton supercharged Modular V8s, an EcoBoost V8 could use a variable geometry intake manifold for Helmholtz resonance tuning, and multiple torque peaks (Ford, if it were so inclined could also add some intake runner length to the Eaton supercharged Modular V8s (ala Saleen & Edelbrock), but it’s more likely they’d do it with a turbo engine)

11. Halo Effect: V8 EcoBoost engines would stand out as unique in a sea of similarly-sized turbo sixes that will likely flood the market as CAFE requires increased power densities.

12. Camshaft timing: V8s can run wilder cams with acceptable levels of low-speed driveablity because of the increased number of firing pulses per revolution. Thus an EcoBoost V8 could potentially not have to sacrifice as much cam timing on the altar of the idle smoothness that the Japanese-dominated marketplace expects.

13. Dashes the “Gas Guzzler” stereotype: Many uninformed people believe that V8s are inherently thirsty. Displacement, not number of cylinders is the primary factor in fuel consumption. Thus a properly-sized EcoBoost V8 would go a long way in rebutting the mistaken belief that V8s cannot be fuel efficient.


WHY COMPARE THE 2010 TAURUS TO JAPANESE TUNER CARS?

Comparison of the WRX/EVO to the 2010 Taurus SHO is not as unreasonable as it might seem. Each of these cars are all-wheel-drive performance cars using turbocharged engines. The EVO and the SHO have the same basic layout (transversely mounted engines). Each of these cars are four-door sedans. Thus, it’s reasonable to see the SHO as a larger, “grown-up,” Americanized version of a Japanese WRC homologation car.

2010 TAURUS SHO PROVES THAT FORD LEARNED LITTLE FROM THE MARAUDER DEBACLE

[Get the latest “Truth With Speedzzter” here.

At the Chicago Auto Show, Ford Motor Company announced the return of the Taurus SHO (tm) in 2010.

For TWELVE THOUSAND DOLLARS more than a pedestrian Taurus, the new SHO will feature a 365-horsepower Eco-Boost (tm) twin-turbo V6 and all-wheel-drive.

No manual transmission . . .

No Eco-Boost V8. . . .

No symphony of high performance V8 sounds . . . .

According to Automotive News, Ford’s Jim Farley, V.P. of marketing and communications claims that "The car has better performance and much better gas mileage than a BMW 550i, which uses a 4.8-liter V-8."

That, of course, remains to be seen.

The early photos of the car suggest an almost-sleeper profile, with only big tires and a rear spoiler distinguishing the new SHO from the Tauri that Ford may end up peddling to fleets and rental car houses (like Dearborn’s new friend Dollar Thrifty – just when you thought the Glass House Gang was FINALLY kicking the addiction to residual/reliability score-killing “program car” sales . . . .)

While the new SHO isn’t approaching the market as down on power as the 2003-04 Mercury Marauder and will have the traction advantage of all-wheel drive, the price point ought to give some cause for concern.

Will enough Taurus buyers pay a one-third premium for a V6 turbo car with no particular competition heritage or image?

(That much markup stinks of price gouging – and that’s before Ford’s dealers kill off initial demand with greedy “additional dealer markups” and other add-ons).

Is Ford prepared to move enough SHOs to prevent the “sales constipation” borne of dealer greed that killed initial demand for the Marauder and hurts GT500 sales to this day?

Are there enough buyers who want an American-sized WRX/EVO (sans all of the entertaining boy-racer wings, scoops, flaps and body kit) or more likely what will be seen as an Americanized Audi?

Will the SHO be compared favorably in the market to the simpler, cheaper V8-powered offerings of Dodge (Charger) and Pontiac (G8)?

Will it get killed on the street and the drag strip by 415-horse G8 GXPs and 425-horse Hemi SRT-8s?


Is 365 horsepower enough for the last blast of the Second Supercar Era?

Does the SHO sap all of the excitement (if any) for the paltry 315-horse Mustang GT?

There are a lot of questions that the new SHO has to answer.

Certainly many will celebrate the SHO, even as they lament the huge price markup that prevents many of them from purchasing it. And perhaps it’s enough of a halo model to make people forget twenty years of neglect and damage to the Taurus/SHO franchise.

But is it too little, too late (and for too much money)?