New Ford EcoBoost 3.5L V6 engine smiles for the camera
by Sebastian Blanco on Aug 27th 2008 at 8:26PM 
A prototype of Ford's 3.5L EcoBoost engine. Click to enlarge.
When Ford announced the EcoBoost idea at this year's Detroit Auto Show, the main message was that this was a reasonable technology that could be implemented soon, would save people money by improving fuel economy without decreasing performance and that the improved engines would be paired with lighter cars to emphasize the fuel savings. Oh, and then there's that easy-to-remember tag line that its a V6 with the power of a V8.
Ford is moving full steam ahead with the EcoBoost project and will install the first production engines in the 2009 Lincoln MKS. Thus far, there have been hundreds of test engines built at the Dearborn testing facility and these have spent countless hours (well, we're dealing with engineers here, so these hours were probably actually counted) on the track and dynamometers. Ford is inviting journalists to Dearborn this week to get a close-up view of the EcoBoost technology and AutoblogGreen got to spend a few hours talking to the team and bolting a few parts to the test subject.
Read on after the jump for more.
Gallery: Ford EcoBoost 3.5L
At Ford's Beech Daly Technical Center, we sat down with Corey Weaver, EcoBoost systems engineer, who has been working on the program since it started about six years ago. Weaver said when the EcoBoost program got started, the team took a look where things stood in the auto industry but also where they were going. Looking back now, it's a good thing that, in 2002, Ford noticed that gas prices were headed up and that customers would want more efficient engines. This mindset has been increasingly evident to the EcoBoost team. Weaver said that at the beginning, the team was asked if they could make a V8 EcoBoost, to really increase power. As gas prices crept higher, the question became, "Can we get this in a 4-cylinder?" (The answer to that is yes, at least in the near future)
Weaver wouldn't talk about specific fuel economy numbers for EcoBoost models, but stuck to the Ford line that performance has been retained while fuel usage has been decreased. By using direct injection with turbochargers, the EcoBoost engines are able to provide the full 340 lb-ft of torque at just 1500 RPM. With 340 hp (compared to 265 in today's 3.5L V6 engine), the EcoBoost vehicle should be a treat to drive while being slightly better for the environment than what's currently available. For more details from Weaver, check out the video below. We've got an in-depth look at the EcoBoost technology here.
Here's what else we know about EcoBoost:
- It will reportedly cost $700 extra (unconfirmed by Ford)
- Ford expects it will save drivers "hundreds a year"
- You may find it in a Mustang in the next few years
- Honeywell's turbochargers will become a much more important part of Ford's engines
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
why not the LS2LS7? 12:20AM (8/28/2008)
Look at that. All you need is an engine taller than a man's torso and head, plus some turbos and piping and intercoolers (not pictured) and you can make almost as much HP as a small block V8 and probably with the same or worse mpg.
I'm as of yet unconvinced.
Reply
BoneHeadOtto 9:03AM (8/28/2008)
MEE TOO! Just because you change a name from TwinForce to EcoBoost doesnt make your engine more efficient LOL. Plus who wants 340 lbft torque at 1500 rpm going through the front wheels of a ford 500.. uh sorry Ford Taurus. there's that name change agian.
I drive a turbo and they are not efficient. Case in point. Toyota rav-4 with a 269hp 3.5L v6 gets 19/27
Mazda CX-7 DI turbo 4 2.3L with less hp gets 17/23 or worse
Acura RDX DI turbo 4 with less hp gets 17/22
In a road test the Toyota cost less, weighed less, was biggest, fastest and more fuel efficient. Most of that due to the engine.
PLUS the Rav-4 was the only one that didnt require premium. Has Ford mentioned that their turbo economy engines will take premium. Im all for eco boost if it really gives a boost but evidence is against them and they will be scoffed at for releasing an Ecoboost that gets worse mileage than a 5L v8.
MikeW 1:46PM (8/28/2008)
Have you seen the belt line of recent cars?
http://www.caranddriver.com/content/download/118099/1602754/version/1/file/2009+Lincoln+MKS+AWD+-+Spec+Sheet.pdf
The dimensions look very close to the second generation Dodge Intrepid, except this is 1/2 foot taller.
So there is room for this engine, same for the F-150.
I hope that with E70 in the F-150, 350hp 400ft-lbs.
That is an improvement over the 5.4 V8
They aren't Audi, 90 degree longitudinal
http://www.audiworld.com/news/08/v6-supercharger/header.jpg
The gearing of the Mazda Cx-7 is too short. The axle ratio of 3.749 should be 3.464 (and maybe even taller for front drive)
The gearing of the RAV4 is too tall, at least the 4x4 models (the axle ratio should be 3.291 instead of the 3.08)
The RAV4 V6 engine is supposed to use European mid-grade 95RON
and Ford isn't going to make an 340hp front drive Taurus
Michael 2:35PM (8/28/2008)
LS2LS7, this ecoboost engine reportedly makes full torque by 1500rpm, a v8 would be way up over 3000rpm. I love it when I drive cars with flat torque curves, and never driven one with more than 2.0 liters, so I can't wait to try this engine.
And if this engine makes the same mpg as a v8, so what? (I think it will be higher) At least it makes more power and torque, especially down low. If it weighs more than a V8 or gets less mpg, then I will start to take issue with it.
crisjcesar 9:49PM (10/19/2009)
please do not confuse irresposible people with what North America is.. A nation. There are far more concious people than those who rant on forums and make noise when someone tries to prove that their "toys" are actually harmful. Go take a knife away from a 10 year old who thinks it's the best toy ever! EX... no to bash anyways.. just talking to people that care about that point. God Bless America and the World for which it stands!
Dave 2:01AM (8/28/2008)
GM already has a direct injected, turbocharged 2.0 four cylinder engine. And will soon introduce a more economy oriented 1.4 litre turbo DI engine in the Cruze.
Seems like Ford is getting a lot of attention for adding the "ecoboost" name to technologies that others (not just GM) already sell.
What gives?
Reply
João Prates 3:35AM (8/28/2008)
You got to be kidding me... a 3.5L engine is an eco engine? American manufacturers and mainly American auto consumers have to start thinking about this nonsense once and for all. Why do you need these huge engines? Why do you need 300bhp just to drive along at 75mph speed limited roads? What's the use? In Europe we rarely have cars over 2000cc, most are around 1600cc that's about half of this "eco" engine. And guess what? Our cars are 10 times more fun to drive than your American ones, not even mentioning "eco" and mpg attributes. You have to loose that sense that you need huge engines and huge power, you're wasting resources from the whole worlds, not just your resources.
Reply
dejal 7:17AM (8/28/2008)
Look up sanctimonious.
We've been whittling down the Big 4 to the Big 3 to the Big 2.something for some time now. Why would that be?
Because americans over the years HAVEN'T been buying the domestic brands in the #s (as a percentage) that we did previously.
Also, you people are taxed up the wazoo for gas, you get a break on deisel, and in most countries you get taxed on engine size. Do that here and we'd be driving the same size cars if for no other reason than economic common sense.
Save your crap about how noble you are with mother earth.
JamesWB 8:02AM (8/28/2008)
What american cars have you driven that were much less fun than your 1.6?
oldraven 11:37AM (8/28/2008)
The entire point of this 3.5L engine is to replace the 4.6L+ engines we currently have in our FULL SIZE Fords. For small and mid-sized cars they are working on 4-cyl versions.
Way to sound like a pompous knob, slappy.
MeiSooHaityu 1:05PM (6/01/2009)
"You got to be kidding me... a 3.5L engine is an eco engine? American manufacturers and mainly American auto consumers have to start thinking about this nonsense once and for all...." - Joao Prates
Umm... ok, that's an ignorant thing to say.
Look, the idea of the engine is to boost HP levels from a V6 without the V8 gas mileage. Turbo charging is a perfect way to do that. When the engine isn't boosting, you aren't using the gas.
As for that idiotic comment Joao made, Just because the european media says there cars are that much funner (*cough* top gear *cough*) doesn't mean it is true. I bet he hasn't EVER driven an american sports car :)
Reply
Sean 8:04AM (8/28/2008)
I think he may be referring to the nimbleness of smaller cars. (Try a slalom in a Tahoe vs. a Smart and you'll see what I mean.) Since they tend to be lighter too, power per pound can be noticeably higher with smaller cars. That and good handling make for very fun driving.
Rich 7:55AM (8/28/2008)
What a joke!
We need small 2 and 4 cyl engines and they are still making big gas guzzlers.
EVs would be the best but the big 3 are dinosaurs that will die of soon. I can't wait.
Reply
oldraven 11:34AM (8/28/2008)
Did you miss the part where they're also developing 4-cyl ecoboost engines?
Steve 9:53AM (8/28/2008)
In Europe your situation is very different and has been for a long time. High taxes on fuel, narrower roads, different preferences in suspension feel, and so on. There is a cultural difference as to what we each like about driving a car as well as what kind of roads we drive on, just like the road course racer vs. drag racer.
V8 power with V6 gas mileage is better than V8 gas mileage alone. This is a good thing for my wallet and the country's oil use.
If American cars are such a waste then stop your fellow European countrymen from importing them by the thousands. They must not even know why they are doing it. I think they are doing it because the 1.4L does not give them the kind of excitement they want. They must be drag race fans instead of road course race fans. To each their own.
Reply
justmeudontcare 9:44PM (10/19/2009)
weird comment. Big cars have brought North America nothing but shame and waste. It is time to think greatly. I do not see the need to have a car that can run more than the speed limit anyways. And not listening to other people and keeping being snappy will prove to be your doom once new rules are applied by North American government. It is a fact. We are polluting too much and there are far greater needs than guzzlers. maybe we will be able to run this cars in space. but not now becasue they give us more harm than good. and as I just said we have far more important things to take care of that will include stepping off the car scence a little bit. I am sure you can find a new hobbie! We all do!
SteveCT 10:28AM (8/28/2008)
There are four technologies I'd like to see automakers add to their gas-powered cars to improve fuel economy while we wait for batteries to come down in price:
- VVTL (Variable valve timing and lift): This technology improves the functioning of the engine and improves both efficiency and power.
- Cylinder deactivation: I rented a Chevy Tahoe with this technology and I thought it was a very good idea to shut down some of the cylinders when the engine isn't under heavy load. Should save a lot of fuel if it's added to every vehicle with a big engine.
- Start/Stop: The Prius already has this, but it needs to go mainstream. The ability to shut down the engine at stoplights would save huge amounts of fuel in any gas car. As it is, we can turn off the engine ourselves, but if you're in front of a line of traffic, turning your engine back on takes too much time and will piss off people behind you.
- Hydraulic Regenerative braking: Why don't we use hydraulic brakes to capture compressed air during braking and release it against the wheels when taking off again? We can even use heat from the engine to increase the pressure. This eliminates the charging limits of electric regenerative braking, and it's a simpler, better-understood technology.
Add all four of those to your basic econobox car today and I'm willing to bet it would get excellent mileage, even without a tiny engine or significant weight reduction.
Ford's EcoBoost is supposed to bring dramatic increases in fuel economy. I'll believe it when I see it, but if true, then downsized, turbocharged engines could be a worthwhile feature to add to the above list. Add in weight reduction efforts and improved aerodynamics and our cars could be far more efficient than ever before.
The problem is, of course, that I have not heard of automakers trying to add all four of the above ideas to any one vehicle, which I think is a damn shame.
Reply
Anne Ominous 11:34AM (8/28/2008)
Using a Scanguage II, and adjusting driving behaviour, I can easily beat the EPA estimates for my Mazda6 V6 5spd, keeping me consistently me under 10L/100km (24MPG) combined.
So this ecoboost engine, which could end up in a future Mazda6 would offer me more power for the same mileage. Great!
But a friend just returned from Europe where he did a month-long trip with the whole family in a new 85bhp diesel Renault Clio III Estate and *averaged* 5L/100km (48MPG) over 4000km at speeds up to 185km/h (110mp/h). He's an ex-motorcycle racer.
So while I can improve mileage by 10-20% by adjusting behavior and ecoboost might improve a similar amount by use of technology, there are already choices that will *double* your mileage while not affecting performance in any way that is meaningful (i.e. legal) on any public road.
So what are we talking about here? The arrogance of people already making more fuel efficient choices - prodded by narrow roads and government tax regimes? Or the ignorance of people who believe that shaving a few percent off the rate of consumption is the solution - because that's what the customer wants.
Some day, when my kids are using buses or bikes to get around and I look wistfully at the miata in the garage that I can't afford the gasoline for, I don't know if I'll even remember Ford.
Reply
JamesWB 1:46PM (8/28/2008)
The Clio is a much smaller car so it will obviously get better mpg.
As for this:
''I think he may be referring to the nimbleness of smaller cars. (Try a slalom in a Tahoe vs. a Smart and you'll see what I mean.)''
A smart will do terrible in a slalom.
Anne Ominous 3:06PM (8/28/2008)
For an apples-to-apples comparison, the Mazda6 is available as a diesel in Australia, where it is rated at 5.9L/100km (40MPG).
The Clio is a smaller car similar to a Mazda3 GT, but my friend - who has a crossover and a full size sedan - did not mention the size once, but did mention the handling and the high mileage. And this was with the whole family and camp gear. On his return, he did mention that the crossover handles like sh*t in comparison.
In other notes, a Smart and a Tahoe have similar slalom times, but unless you need to tow a trailer, the Smart wins in any urban environment.
Given the way prices are, instead of one new big car, just buy two three-year-old cars: the Tahoe for (occasional) trailer towing and the Smart for the urban commute (daily).