Ford Embraces the Environment, 355hp at a Time | Some Lincoln Boost! (post 29)

[YSSMAN]

Ahh, my mistake.

Strangely, if I'm going that deep into the comfort zone I head to the Buick dealer. Odd.

 

[JCE]

Town Car > Buick

Even you love that Lincoln barge. The CTS has a really nice interior but I think the Lincoln MKS is better...but maybe we are baised towards our preferred manufacturer. lol

 

[Omnis]

He means barge, a la Town Car. Comfort first, sport third.

And don't forget the hemorrhoid-friendly mush seats.

 

[Hitman]

Cars debuting with this EcoBoost engine:
2010 Ford Flex
2010 Ford Taurus
2010 Lincoln MKT (T stands for Tank not Truck)
2010 Lincoln MKS
2010 (or 2011) Ford F-150

Its not in the 2010 Mustang, because in 2011, the Mustang is getting Boss engines, with top of the line being a 6.2 liter 420-horse V-8. Remember it gets .95 g on the skidpad and has a 3.73 axle ratio. Acceleration time, 0-60 mph: low fours?

Isn't it the Duratec 3.5 V6 they have now, except with two turbos?

 

[YSSMAN]

No doubt the Town Car has some wonderful seats, arguably my benchmark for comfort overall. Its too bad the Americans don't put couches inside of their cars anymore, I think the Town Car (et. al) is the only guy left doing it.

I miss my green TC from the visit to Miami last year. Rear parking sensors FTW.

 

[Omnis]

Actually, I can't stand those mush seats. There's no support or anything. That's why I was so upset that the Genesis had them. My benchmark for seats is more like the E-class or something else that is cushy but firm.

 

[Keef]

Isn't it the Duratec 3.5 V6 they have now, except with two turbos?

Not quite. It's significantly redesigned, including direct injection.

Also, where did you get your information about the F150 and Mustang? I haven't read anything definitive about either application.

 

[Stotty]

I think this thread clearly demonstrates the massive cultural differences between Europe and the US.

In Europe, Eco is a term you might see on a small, fuel efficient car. A manufacturer calling a 355bhp turbo-charged engine 'Eco' and then sticking it in a 2 ton truck would get slaughtered by the press for hypocrisy... it's just marketing bull**** designed to make people feel better about buying something so wasteful.

I don't know the conversion rate... is 22mpg US really 27mpg UK? I'd be amazed if this got anywhere near that under real life driving conditions considering it's weight and aerodynamics - it's not exactly got a small frontal area now, has it?

 

[Omnis]

I think this thread clearly demonstrates the massive cultural differences between Europe and the US.

In Europe, Eco is a term you might see on a small, fuel efficient car. A manufacturer calling a 355bhp turbo-charged engine 'Eco' and then sticking it in a 2 ton truck would get slaughtered by the press for hypocrisy... it's just marketing bull**** designed to make people feel better about buying something so wasteful.

I don't know the conversion rate... is 22mpg US really 27mpg UK? I'd be amazed if this got anywhere near that under real life driving conditions considering it's weight and aerodynamics - it's not exactly got a small frontal area now, has it?

That's what's "Eco" about it, though. In this case, it makes big, inefficient V8 power with a smaller, more efficient turbo engine. EcoBoost reaches down to turbo four-pots too, however. So if their I4 is light and super-efficient, the name (if only for the technology and not the actual engine) can be justified.

I'd say 22mpgUS is probable if the engine has an ultra-lean burn program.

 

[JCE]

If the driver's of these vehicles keep their foot out of the accelerator they can easily achieve these figures and possibly better.

 

[McLaren]

If the driver's of these vehicles keep their foot out of the accelerator they can easily achieve these figures and possibly better.

Being a Lincoln, they probably will. I have only seen Navigator owners actually haul on the freeway, nothing else from this company. Even then, it can't be too hard to achieve them. I'm rated for 20/29 and I easily achieve this figure even with a daily dose of power.

 

[Stotty]

Guys, not being provocative here, but if someone really NEEDS a car of this type it makes so much more sense when fitted with a modern, high tech diesel... something like the BMW 3l (in single or twin turbo application).

The reason I'm doubting the fuel economy figures is that they are similar to real world figures for something like an X5 3.0 or an M320d... which I think are both lighter and on first glance I'd expect to have better aerodynamics. Using the X5 as an example - as BMW are broadly recognised as making the biggest advances in engine efficiency over the past few years (through their efficient dynamics program)...

X5 3.0 petrol 272bhp; 244 g/km co2; combined fuel consumption 27.7 mpg; 0-60 8.1
X5 3.0 diesel 235bhp; 214 g/km co2; combined fuel consumption 34.9 mpg; 0-60 8.1
X5 3.5 diesel 286bhp; 216 g/km co2; combined fuel consumption 34.4 mpg; 0-60 7.0

The 3.5d is actually a 3l, but has sequential twin turbos.

I know from personal experience (as my wife an I ran one for 60k miles over 2 years) that a 3.0d X5 with an automatic gearbox in the real world averages about 29 mpg. And a 3.0 petrol X3 also fitted with an automatic gearbox (my wifes sister and husband have one of these) averages about 23 mpg.

So either the sums for the 'Eco boost' don't add up, or to achieve them you've got to use so little of the performance that there's little point in having 355bhp in the first place.

 

[McLaren]

Except the biggest buyers of this will more than likely be Americans, and we apparently, don't like or care for diesel cars all that much. If we did, we'd have a lot more available to us. You can use that 355Bhp & still achieve the est. mpg if you drive smart. As I just noted, I can achieve my est. results and I really let my car out at least once every drive.

 

[Keef]

It sucks that there aren't hardly any diesels offered here. I'd definitely drive one. A technician friend of mine got a pre-production drive in a diesel Kia Soul at his dealership recently. He said he loved that demo car. Some people would definitely dig diesels, but not enough. In America nobody seems to care about long-term costs; gasoline has dropped to half it's high price of 2008. That's all they care about, how much gas costs today. Not how much it's going to cost in 5 years.

 

[buickgnx88]

The thing is though, will diesel still be higher than gas in 5 years? Considering when prices first rose, diesel was cheaper than gas, so it is possible that the cost of gas would once again surpass diesel...but it may also not be the case.

 

[YSSMAN]

So either the sums for the 'Eco boost' don't add up, or to achieve them you've got to use so little of the performance that there's little point in having 355bhp in the first place.

Not necessarily. The performance comes out of it because the turbos are able to spool up down low and give these otherwise absurdly heavy vehicles (the Flex at 4600 with AWD, the MKS likely around 4100) the power they actually deserve with otherwise decent fuel economy otherwise. If Ford would have used the Modular V8, my guess is that fuel economy would have doped to 20 MPG or below on the highway, so there are advantages to the TT V6.

Now, if Ford really wanted to do something easy and interesting, they would equip all of their cars with the "Eco Meeter" from the Fusion Hybrid. That little display shows the driver how much fuel they're using based on excessive acceleration and braking, as well as a "window" to keep speed in to optimize fuel efficiency.

*A Point on Fuel Economy Ratings*

Its a rough science, at best, and using actual EPA figures is always a bit wishy-washy. A few years back, the EPA drastically recalibrate their testing procedures to be more like the "real world" (as you requested Stotty). Most cars and trucks lost fuel economy ratings by a few ticks, some actually gained a bit as well. Nevertheless, there is always a sticker on the window that says "Actual Mileage May Vary," but overall, it is not difficult to beat the EPA figures.

Case in point?

My Celica is rated at 19/26 using the old figures. If anything, I should be getting fuel economy numbers that are worse. But, even in mostly urban driving, I've been able to pull of 28+ MPG regularly (when the weather is a bit warmer), all with very little work.

Ford's point with EcoBoost is to give drivers the power their vehicles deserve with the fuel economy that they want. So, when you're getting BHP figures that are higher than any V8 offering other than whats given in the GT500 with the fuel economy of the 3.5L V6... Its a good bonus. But, as Omnis pointed out, the sweet spot will likely be the EcoBoost equipped I4 engines... Conceptually demonstrated in 1.6L and 2.0L forms. Those engines are set to replace standard V6 options in most vehicles, or become a performance option. Everything from the Fiesta to the F150 is set to have an optional EcoBoost I4... And that, I'd say, is progress.

 

[buickgnx88]

Now, if Ford really wanted to do something easy and interesting, they would equip all of their cars with the "Eco Meeter" from the Fusion Hybrid. That little display shows the driver how much fuel they're using based on excessive acceleration and braking, as well as a "window" to keep speed in to optimize fuel efficiency.

What's funny is my friend's 80's Saab 9000 has a "fuel efficiency gauge", which is a blast to watch while driving...no joke!

 

[Philly]

My friend's DINAN M3 even has one... And it seems that most modern cars have a digital one. Both the GTI and Volvo have them.

 

[Keef]

My friend's DINAN M3 even has one... And it seems that most modern cars have a digital one. Both the GTI and Volvo have them.

Our G6 has one. Thirty-three miles per gallon from that 3.4, baby!

Honda screwed up by not putting one in the new Civic. I mean, Sarah's car cost freaking $28,000 and doesn't have a mpg readout!

EDIT: I think the EcoBoost's biggest gain over the V8 will be in the city, during stop and go traffic. That V8 has a lot more weight to turn and two more cylinders wasting fuel at idle. The V6 will be so much better.

 

[JCE]

MY 1997 Chrysler Town and Country has one...accelerating even slowly still manages a single digit rating. You need to be up to speed to get over 20mpg. I can get 28-30mpg on the highway and 22-24 in the city if I drive easy.

 

[YSSMAN]

Ford's is pretty bad-ass in the Fusion Hybrid:

Lotsa crazy stuff there that I'm eager to see in person!

 

[JCE]

That's pretty badass right there. What happens if you drive aggressively do the leaves brown up and die?

 

[Rotary Junkie]

I am too sick minded though, once you said that the idea of having it virtually kill a kitten in front of your eyes for going under a certain fuel economy figure went through my mind...

Well, it would be a good deterrent to most to not drive aggressively enough to make it happen...

 

[YSSMAN]

That's pretty badass right there. What happens if you drive aggressively do the leaves brown up and die?

I don't remember exactly, but it would be awesome if it did. From the C&D Article:

...Second, the electronic instrument cluster involves the driver, invites you into the hybrid game, and gives you the feedback needed to keep increasing your personal-best mpg number.

Or you can say the heck with it and opt for a minimum-distraction display that shows little beyond the speedo.

No matter which you ultimately choose, you’re welcomed to the game with green grass and blue sky, a dashboard notion so corny we would groan if it weren’t so vividly executed. Hybrid enthusiasts will select the expert screen. All eyes sweep to the power grouping that shows the level of battery charge beside two columns of discharge meters, one for power consumed to propel the vehicle, the other a sum of all accessory loads (lights, fans, air conditioning, stereo, etc.).

How far can you go without the engine? That’s the game. Easy on the accessory loads, of course, but whenever you’re moving, the propulsion meter gives you an EV bracket. Keep your propulsion power within the EV bracket by modulating the “gas” and you’ll drive on the battery, up to 47 mph under ideal circumstances. Call it a video game to go.

 

[Hitman]

Not quite. It's significantly redesigned, including direct injection.

Also, where did you get your information about the F150 and Mustang? I haven't read anything definitive about either application.

Car and Driver mentions something brief in one of the issues with the F150 having it. The Mustang info was on C&D's or Motor Trend's website I believe.

 

[ND4SPD]

Gah I really want an ecoboost MKS naow!
Check out this badass MKS commercial. This commercial is what sparked my interest in the first place.

 

[JCE]

I wish Ford would bring out the MKR with the over 400bhp they talked about last year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_MKR

Now give me those power numbers in the MKS and a 6spd manual. Driving heaven will happen I'm sure.

 

[C-ZETA]

The car itself reminds me a bit of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_EcoSport

Except the EcoBoost is a lot more powerful. And it will be built outside of Brazil.

 

[Omnis]

Gah I really want an ecoboost MKS naow!
Check out this badass MKS commercial. This commercial is what sparked my interest in the first place.

Wait, that thing is RWD?

 

[ND4SPD]

Wait, that thing is RWD?

Na. I wish it was. It's either FWD or AWD.