Further evidence for the ecoboost doubters.....

[Swordsman88]

Alot has been discussed regarding Ecoboost on the forums, especially with falcon getting the EB 2.0I4 next year. Some are for it, some concerned over reliability, and some think the cubes are still the answer (albeit with modern tech...e.g. 4.0I6). Well we can't say much regarding reliability just yet (though it will meet the same ford benchmarks as any other engine...) evidence is mounting.

Here are some recent tests done on the Ford S Max (people mover off the mondeo platform) in europe. It is slightly lighter in weight then the falcon (once the FG gets the lighter EB engine will be almost identical) but has much worse aero. It is now available in detuned form (150kw/300nm) with the 2.0T that Falcon will use (expect FG to get 170/320-330nm). It uses a DGG 6sp transmission (as will be seen in mondeo/focus/fiesta etc.) which may be used on FG (or else a 6sp auto will suffice). Fuel burn rated at 8.1L/100km with a best figure (highway i assume) of 6.8L/100km.

(just of interest for euro ford owners on here, it will be getting a 2.0 diesel (based off the current unit in mondeo/focus) that will have 120kw (up from 100) too so that may filter its way down to other ford models.....)

Goauto story:
http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...25768F0003D87B
Europe first drives:
http://www.girlracer.co.uk/motoring/...rst-drive.html
http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/...oboost/247241/
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/carrevi..._ecoboost.html

An example:

Originally Posted by autoexpress

Ford S-Max EcoBoost
Sporty seven-seater gets a raft of updates for 2010, including all-new EcoBoost turbo engine.
Ford S-Max
Auto Express Car Reviews
By Jack Rix
February 2010

The S-Max is leading the way once again! Famous for creating the sporty MPV segment when it launched back in 2006, the seven-seater has received a host of visual and mechanical upgrades for 2010, including the first instalment of a powerful but efficient EcoBoost engine. We drove it to find out whether four years after its initial launch it’s still good enough to compete for class honours.

The new EcoBoost family is a series of turbocharged petrol engines designed to produce all the performance and driving pleasure of larger units, but with a boost in both efficiency and bhp. For example, the 200bhp 2.0-litre turbo engine making its debut on the 2010 S-Max produces 19 per cent less CO2, but 25 per cent more power than the old 2.3-litre naturally aspirated unit it effectively replaces.

So how are such huge gains possible? A combination of high presure direct fuel injection, smaller capacity and therefore a lighter weight engine and the first ever use of a twin-clutch automatic gearbox on a large MPV, mean that Ford has been able to squeeze out every last mpg. But thankfully the fun factor has stayed put.

From low rpm the EcoBoost picks up quickly, offering the flexibility of a diesel around town but with the added refinement a petrol engine brings. Keep your right foot pinned and it revs freely to the 7,000rpm red line, accompanied by a pleasing crescendo from the exhausts. While it never feels genuinely fast, there’s more than enough performance available to keep the average family driver entertained.

Ford’s new six-speed PowerShift dual-clutch gearbox, which comes as standard with the EcoBoost engine, distributes the power beautifully, too. Whether in normal mode or the more urgent sport setting it’s quick to shuffle into a higher ratio on light throttle loads and swaps down several cogs instantly when you decide to push on. It’s just a shame that wheel-mounted paddles aren’t an option as they could potentially be the clincher for driving enthusiasts looking at larger cars.

Elsewhere the S-Max is as good to drive as ever, with a solid, positive feel to all the major controls, and a supple ride that belies its talents in the corners – especially for a car this size.

Styling changes are kept to a minimum – presumably because the S-Max still looks so fresh even after four years in the showroom. A more strongly sculpted bonnet, bolder trapezoid grille and redesigned front bumper with LED daytime running lights on higher-spec models make up the modifications at the front. While a chrome strip surrounding the side glass area, LED taillights and a new S-Max logo embossed on the boot lid complete the changes.

It’s a similar story on the inside too, where besides the three-row fold-flat seat system coming as standard, a new one-piece panoramic roof being added to the options list and a the offer of a superb new premium stereo, it’s familiar territory. But that’s no bad thing – the S-Max still retains a premium feel above its price tag, especially in our high-spec Titanium test car.

If oil-burners are more your thing there’s a superb range of diesels to choose from too - including an improved 2.0 TDCi unit available in 160bhp tune for the first time. Despite it green credentials and impressive performance the EcoBoost engine will be a niche choice in the UK – diesels make up over 90 per cent of S-Max sales to date. But a 1.6-litre EcoBoost will debut later in the year on the new Focus and C-Max – models where this breakthrough engine technology will get the appreciation it deserves.

Its clear this tech does work and certainly delivers much better performance then the outgoing 2.3L 4pot (so mondeo buyers will like this....almost certainly replacing the 2.3 in locally sourced mondeos as the new petrol 4pot option....unless the 1.6T does it instead) One reviewer claimed that he was disapointed with its fuel burn on test because it didn't meat the stickered claim. He got 24mpg (about 9.8L/100km) on the mountanous, tight windy roads of the test route in Jerez, Spain. Gee, i'd like to see the fuel burn of the old 2.3 motor in a heavy people mover (apparently it was quite windy too which would have hampered the poor aero tank LOL) in the same circumstances...or any other rivals people mover for that matter.

Jury will remain out till Falcon gets the donk and it is locally driven/reviewed/seen by punters. But anyone still taking bets that VE 3.0 SIDI will be even more irelevant come mid 2011??

EDIT: Mods feel free to combine this thread with other EB ones i just felt it was worthy of it own given it was the 'first drives' of the EB 2.0.

[4dlvr]

falcon is rwd though and approx 100kg more, that will slightly hurt consumption, Aussie engineers are so good, i reckon if they work on it enough, it will be a success.. they seem to be doing well in every other department right now..

[Wretched]

I think it will be fine. There are many large Euro cars with small engines (e-class and Skoda Superb) that are doing fine.

[Road_Warrior]

The thing is, moving from the iron block I6 will shed quite a few kilos from the front end. The EcoBoost 4 cylinder is alloy block, but the turbo will add weight.

[Nikked]

There is no replacement for displacement... Unless that small engine has a turbo charger on it.

When you have a look at the SIDI 3L and its good proof that just cutting the size of an engine won't work. The EB 4 has always looked promising, after seeing the dyno chart with the table top like torque curve, with peak torque at something like 1-2000 rpm, where a engine spends most of its life. Thats how you save fuel, buy having an engine that doesn't need the guts reved out of it to make torque.

[smoo]

Originally Posted by Wretched

I think it will be fine. There are many large Euro cars with small engines (e-class and Skoda Superb) that are doing fine.

Just read a review on the VW Golf R, 2.0 petrol turbo, which in NZ has replaced the R32. 200kw and 350nm at 2500rpm, 0-100 in 5.4 secs. Impressive figures, journos reckon it walks all over the R32. Although it is a few hundred kilos lighter than a Falcon I can't see why the similar EB 2.0t wouldn't work. At the worst it would better the 3.0 SIDI.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by Nikked

There is no replacement for displacement... Unless that small engine has a turbo charger on it.

When you have a look at the SIDI 3L and its good proof that just cutting the size of an engine won't work. The EB 4 has always looked promising, after seeing the dyno chart with the table top like torque curve, with peak torque at something like 1-2000 rpm, where a engine spends most of its life. Thats how you save fuel, buy having an engine that doesn't need the guts reved out of it to make torque.

I'll just take you up on a few points there:

the "table top" torque curve is more likely just a boost controller and not unusual when trying to smooth the car's tractive effort curve (i.e make it less peaky and more economical) ;
by revving the guts out of a motor, you actually reduce torque.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by Wally

I'll just take you up on a few points there:

the "table top" torque curve is more likely just a boost controller and not unusual when trying to smooth the car's tractive effort curve (i.e make it less peaky and more economical) ;
by revving the guts out of a motor, you actually reduce torque.

Yeah, it'd be a combination of boost control and TiVCT.

[ebxr82nv]

but on another note how will the local insurance companys treat these? From my understanding just about anything with the word turbo attached jacks the premium through the roof.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by ebxr82nv

but on another note how will the local insurance companys treat these? From my understanding just about anything with the word turbo attached jacks the premium through the roof.

I do not think this will be much of an issue. There is a large difference between an I6 4LT and a I4 2LT, they will know this is not a "performance" car. It is the performance turbo's that get slugged with large premiums.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I do not think this will be much of an issue. There is a large difference between an I6 4LT and a I4 2LT, they will know this is not a "performance" car. It is the performance turbo's that get slugged with large premiums.

Until some cheeky people decide. What the heck and turn up the boost!!!

The i5T in the XR5 Focus / Mondeo goes from a fairly nice 166kW@6000rpm & 320Nm@1600-4000rpm (which also is torque limited in 1st-2nd IIRC) to a punchy 230kw/450Nm combination with SCT/Dream Science pcm!

I'd imagine that the 2.0L TiVCT Eco-boost with it's high compression might be knock limited at a similar output despite DI. Wonder if the turbo size or injectors might be a limiter too?

[ebxr8240]

The turbo's are so small on these type of engines, raising the boost isn't going to turn them into WRX beater etc...
Especially with diesels the turbo is there to pass emissions...

[Chilliman]

I read the articles and noticed that the S-Max weighs in at 1676kg! Very similar to a B-Series XT Falcon. With 150kW/300Nm it does 0-100km/hr in 8.5 seconds - one can only expect that with the 172kW/325Nm that Falcon will get, it will considerably improve on that.

Even 8.5 seconds from the 150kW EcoBoost is still better than 8.9 seconds for the Commodore 3.0Litre SIDI

[jamesson1980]

Paint me naive but my concern is about the lifespan of the motor. I haven't read all documents on this new 2lt Falcon power plant but I just feel an engine half the size, pushing the same large car as the current 4lt motor, plus with the added stress of turbo boost and possibly towing, how long til it needs an overhaul? A 4lt with moderate driving habits tends to use oil, lose compression etc at about 200,000km onwards (depending on many factors of course) thus becoming less efficient and increasing emmissions. Is there any research happening in regard to longevity of the turbo 2lt in a large car? Like a clandestine mule FG getting about town just racking up km's under various loads/speeds etc

[Ghiadude]

by all accounts ecoboost will walk all over the sidi 3.0. The question remains - How will Holden pre-empt ecoboost. Surely they wont stay with the current rubber band motor. Then again things are pretty tight in GM-H land. Time will tell

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by jamesson1980

Paint me naive but my concern is about the lifespan of the motor. I haven't read all documents on this new 2lt Falcon power plant but I just feel an engine half the size, pushing the same large car as the current 4lt motor, plus with the added stress of turbo boost and possibly towing, how long til it needs an overhaul? A 4lt with moderate driving habits tends to use oil, lose compression etc at about 200,000km onwards (depending on many factors of course) thus becoming less efficient and increasing emmissions. Is there any research happening in regard to longevity of the turbo 2lt in a large car? Like a clandestine mule FG getting about town just racking up km's under various loads/speeds etc

Good points but you need to understand that the manufacturers don't give a stuff if the motor is good for 500,000 km, or even half that. They want you to change over before the warranty is out, that way they earn more.

I do not really think you will see too many eco boost falcons towing, in fact I would guess they will have a very limited towing capacity so that the towing market stays with the 4L.

I really do not think that longevity will be an issue for the market that will be attracted to eco boost. Family hacks towing a small box trailer 2-3 times a year to the tip and back, hauling kids to school and metro use only, not a problem. The performance market will stick with the XR/FPV range, people with frequent towing will stick to the 4L and territory.

Personally I think ford are on a winner here and are much better positioned for the future market than holden.

[Chilliman]

Looks like the 2011 Ford Edge Crossover will get the 172kW 2.0Litre EcoBoost this year:

A new reports suggests Ford will debut a new EcoBoost 4-cylinder engine at the Chicago Auto Show next week. As the new standard engine in the Ford Edge, it will produce roughly the same power as Ford’s 3.0-liter V6 but with significantly better fuel economy and emissions. As shown already in European models the 2.0-liter turbocharged 4-cylinder EcoBoost engine should make aronnd 230-hp in the Edge. Ford will continue to offer the 3.5-liter V6 as the top engine offering for the sporty crossover.

The Edge will get more than just a new engine, however, and will feature a significant mid-cycle refresh including new bodywork. It will also be the first Ford model to go on sale with the company’s new MyFord Touch system, replacing all the controls on the center stack with a touch screen, voice activated controls and a steering wheel-mounted five-way controller.

AutoGuide will bring you full coverage of the Chicago Auto Show starting February 10th.

[Source: Detroit News]

[last fairlane]

I was thinking along the same lines as to how long would a small even though powerful motor last in a full sized car
How many four cylinder Magnas and Camrys or any four cylinder when they get a bit of age on them start blowing smoke especially at trafic lights
Just a thought
thanks John

[jpd80]

Think about this, Ford intends putting their Ecoboost I-4 engines in millions of vehicles,
would Ford risk it's reputation by putting engines with short work life onto global markets?

Only if they had a death wish....

Ecoboost is the centrepiece of their go forward plans on internal combustion efficiency gains,
it's a sure bet that these engines will be tested to the max and durability of NA engines sought.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by last fairlane

I was thinking along the same lines as to how long would a small even though powerful motor last in a full sized car
How many four cylinder Magnas and Camrys or any four cylinder when they get a bit of age on them start blowing smoke especially at trafic lights
Just a thought
thanks John

About a decade of development in manufacturing processes, design and materials, thats one difference. How do BMW provide a warranty for their turbo 4 for unlimited km?

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Think about this, Ford intends putting their Ecoboost I-4 engines in millions of vehicles,
would Ford risk it's reputation by putting engines with short work life onto global markets?

Only if they had a death wish....

Ecoboost is the centrepiece of their go forward plans on internal combustion efficiency gains,
it's a sure bet that these engines will be tested to the max and durability of NA engines sought.

Very good points.

If anyone read about what the 5 litre was put through in the durability tests you will then realise how much punishment these motors are capable of before kicking it in. They're made for people with no mechanical sympathy, worst case scenarios, and the most extreme environments. It's almost humanly impossible to torture these motors like they do at Ford. And that's only for the V8, which was "rushed".

The IB4 would have plenty more time to get reliability where it needs to be, and, as John pointed out above, being sold globally in millions of vehicles would attract a lot of attention to detail, as well as a hefty budget.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by last fairlane

I was thinking along the same lines as to how long would a small even though powerful motor last in a full sized car
How many four cylinder Magnas and Camrys or any four cylinder when they get a bit of age on them start blowing smoke especially at trafic lights
Just a thought
thanks John

4 cylinder Magnas/Sigmas are one of the worst oil burners ever made, it was a poor design. You can't compare the EB engine to it.

[Falc'man]

On a bit of a tangent here but the below was kind of noteworthy. A post with info on several things.

Originally Posted by wescoent

(2011 Mustang) V6 with the Track Pack will handily outgun a Camaro SS around a tight circuit. I've heard, due to the even lighter engine, that handling easily exceeds the 2010 GT with the Track Pack... the problem is, it doesn't quite match the old V8 in straight line acceleration.

The new V6 Mustang does present a problem for Ford, in that it's moved out of the $18,000-22,000 performance price range. That's a lucrative price range to play in, and I suspect we'll be seeing some new additions sooner than later. Once the new EcoBoost I4 comes online, I anticipate imminent applications in the Fiesta, Focus, and Mustang. Get the boost up to 250-280hp, and you've a pretty nice little set of screamers, especially if the hybrid-AWD system works out as planned. Gasoline engine on the front wheels, with the torque-monster electric motors on the rear wheels...

[ebxr8240]

The ECU will protect this engine and the transmission will keep rpm down..
The first model may have some issues.. But I'm sure they will be sorted..
This is not a performance option!! Neither a poverty pac...
Lighter engine, trans etc will bring weight down...

[G6ET8U]

Originally Posted by ebxr8240

The ECU will protect this engine and the transmission will keep rpm down..
The first model may have some issues.. But I'm sure they will be sorted..
This is not a performance option!! Neither a poverty pac...
Lighter engine, trans etc will bring weight down...

Couldn't agree more!

Where it fits in the lineup is going to be interesting though. Before or after the N/A 4L... ala XT stock as a rock comes with EB or XT comes stock with 4L with EB as an option. Or do Ford create a completely new model in the lineup that allows for the EB? No taxi packs etc... like a dedicated gas FG G6 LE. Or make it G6 and upwards in the lineup?

Either way it is interesting times ahead for Ford. Not so much for Holden. Ford are really struggling to stuff anything up at the moment. Plenty of win all around the place.

Good to see!!

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

Very good points.

If anyone read about what the 5 litre was put through in the durability tests you will then realise how much punishment these motors are capable of before kicking it in. They're made for people with no mechanical sympathy, worst case scenarios, and the most extreme environments. It's almost humanly impossible to torture these motors like they do at Ford. And that's only for the V8, which was "rushed".

The IB4 would have plenty more time to get reliability where it needs to be, and, as John pointed out above, being sold globally in millions of vehicles would attract a lot of attention to detail, as well as a hefty budget.

Reliability is always a tough one because at the end of the day until you have a good sample of cars out there in the publics hands for a few years you can never be certain. Even then, its not easy to make all the parts in a modern car work perfectly for extended periods while still keeping the costs per unit reasonable....just ask toyota...

But in saying that for the likely life of the car (or any modern vehicle) i'd be shocked if the EB engines had significant issues. Minor niggles during the waranty period for early builds would be more likely than damning long term stuff. Ford (like most manufacturers) do real torture tests to engines and they last very very well. If 10 years and 200k is the most that the majority of engines will ever see in the modern era (at least the first 1-2 owners....) then that is something any manufacturer would aim for as the bare minimum.

Maybe an EB 2.0 wouldn last in a falcon as long as say, my EF XR6 engine has (330k+). But then again who keeps cars for that long anymore? And its worth noting my engine has had a clean up at the 250k mark....and numerous anciliaries changed out (radiator etc.) in its life.

On a general note, reading over this thread i do see some references by members to 'stressed' smaller engines, especially under heavy load. Firstly, if you buy the EB 2.0 to do regular medium-heavy towing then well that is not very smart (ford will almost certainly downgrade the max towing capacity to 1.8 for EB models as opposed to the 2.4 of 4.0). Same thing if you want to do weekend track days (although someone will no doubt try with the boost turned up LOL).

However, I don't doubt that in essence an engine spinning at a constant 2500rpm would appear to be more stressed then one at 1600rpm, or one that is forced would take more 'pressure' (literally) than one that is NA. BUT, to be honest this is a very old school way of thinking. Engines are built to handle the manner in which they (or the worst possible user will) operate. High revving 4pots can take a rev....torquey large capacity donks can handle heavy starting loads.... Moreover, due to modern tech engines are not so 'simple' in their operation. They can make grunt when needed, but be very frugal when not. Things have moved on from the 80-90s, let alone 60s/70s.

In discussing the new EB 2.0 with my grandfather (big falcon fan), he was suitably impressed with the expected performance and technology. But he asked an interesting question, '....so if it doesn't have to rev alot, what will the gearing be?'. I responded that it is unlikely to have much shorter gearing than the 4.0. But then i also pointed out that in modern drivetrains gearing is not so important, in effect 'it doesn't matter anyway'. He was quite surprised and couldn't fathom how reving say 200-250rpm more (hypothetically) then the bigger engine wouldnt hurt fuel burn. Then i had to try to explain TiVCT and various other modern advancements......to a 70+ year old LOL. Was a bit tough but he got it in the end.

As i said at the start, evidence is mounting. It works.

[Ohio XB]

As far as the durability of the EcoBoost engines goes, I didn't find info on the I4 engine testing but here is the info on the V6 testing. Yeah, they beat the snot out of it. You can bet the same was done with the I4.

http://media.ford.com/article_displa...ticle_id=29657

RED-HOT TORTURE: NEW ECOBOOST ENGINE’S TURBOCHARGERS GLOW IN DURABILITY TESTING

Visit our 2009 NAIAS mini-site for more auto show releases and photography


The reliability of the new Ford EcoBoost™ V-6 engine is a hot topic at Ford.
That’s because EcoBoost’s twin turbos glowed orange-hot while enduring – and passing – extremely rigorous durability testing in Ford engine dynamometer lab. Ford engineers ran EcoBoost at maximum boost continuously for hundreds of hours under far more severe conditions than customers are expected to dish out.

Designed for long-life reliability, EcoBoost’s turbochargers feature water-cooled bearing jackets. This architecture is designed to prevent oil “coking” that could occur in previous-generation turbochargers. The new design means that EcoBoost drivers don’t need to observe special operating precautions, such as idling the engine before switching it off.

The new 3.5-liter EcoBoost engine features normal gasoline engine service intervals of 7,500 miles and uses the same 5W20 engine lubricating oil as Ford specifies for other gasoline engines.


Detroit, Jan. 11, 2009 – It’s difficult to get the twin turbochargers in the new Ford EcoBoost V-6 engine too hot under the collar. Not that Ford engineers didn’t try.

Working to ensure the long-life reliability of the dual-turbo, direct-injected engine, Ford put the new engine through a barrage of torture testing.

One of the key areas of testing focused on the two turbos – key weapons in the EcoBoost strategy to deliver the performance of a V-8 with the fuel economy of a V-6. Would their reliability match the rest of the robust engine architecture, based on Ford’s proven 3.5-liter V-6 engine?

“The answer is yes,” says Michael Shelby, EcoBoost engine development leader. “We put the EcoBoost V-6 through the same extensive durability signoff testing as any Ford gasoline engines, and we went beyond it to validate the EcoBoost water-cooled turbocharger design and air-to-air intercooling strategy.”

The EcoBoost system is part of Ford Motor Company’s commitment to deliver the best fuel economy in each new vehicle, with at least three more additions for the 2010 model year. The 2010 EcoBoost Flex, for example, boasts segment-leading fuel economy among full-size performance crossover vehicles, with 22 mpg highway and 18 mpg combined. The 2010 EcoBoost MKT also leads its segment in fuel economy, exceeding the V-8-powered Audi Q7 by 4 mpg highway. With its premium EcoBoost engine, the new Lincoln MKS will deliver more power and better highway efficiency (25 mpg) than the 2009 Lexus GS460 (24 mpg) or 2009 Infiniti M45 (21 mpg).

Engine Dynamometer ‘Torture Chamber’
Going beyond the normal test protocol meant ramping up the boost to the maximum in special Ford engine dynamometers. These dedicated test cells allow engineers to operate the engine exactly as it would operate in a vehicle.

“The idea is to run the engine through a very difficult testing regimen at its maximum-rated operating performance,” Shelby explained. “That’s when things get hot.”

Once the EcoBoost engine was installed in the dynamometer, operators increased rpm to full boost operation.

This meant the turbos were running flat out at incredibly high temperatures. “That’s beyond red hot,” Shelby says. “They’re orange hot.”

Reliable to the Extreme
Turbochargers operate at high speed – up to 170,000 rpm – and under intense temperatures of up to 950 degrees Celsius (1,740 degrees Fahrenheit). Some previous-generation turbos were reputed to suffer from oil coking, in which they would bake their lubricating oil. Because oil coking can lead to premature turbocharger bearing failures, Ford’s advanced engine engineers specified the use of new, water-cooled turbochargers to combat this problem.

“During normal turbo operation, the turbo receives most of its bearing cooling through oil,” said Keith Plagens, turbo system engineer. “After shut down, the problems with turbos in the past were you would get coking in the center bearing. Oil would collect in the bearings, the heat soaks in and the oil would start to coke on the side and foul the bearing. Water cooling – used in the EcoBoost engine – eliminates that worry.”
The new EcoBoost V-6 uses two Honeywell GT15 water-cooled turbos.

“The EcoBoost engine uses passive thermal siphoning for water cooling,” Plagens explains. “During normal engine operation, the engine’s water pump cycles coolant through the center bearing. After engine shutdown renders the water pump inactive, the coolant flow reverses. Coolant heats up and flows away from the turbocharger water jacket, pulling fresh, cool coolant in behind. This highly effective coolant process is completely silent to the driver, continuing to protect the turbocharger.”

Going for a Spin - Flat Out
To validate their water-cooled turbo design choice, Ford engineers put EcoBoost through a special turbocharger test.

The test ran EcoBoost at maximum boost flat out for a 10-minute period. Then the engine and all cooling were abruptly shut down and the turbo was left to “bake” after this high-speed operation. If that sounds severe, imagine repeating this cycle 1,500 times without an oil change. That’s what EcoBoost’s turbos endured.
After 1,500 cycles, the turbos were cut open for detailed technical examination. The turbos passed the severe test with flying colors.

“We’ve attained things here the customer would never be able to do in their vehicle,” Plagens said. “Ten minutes of peak power (355 hp, 350 foot-pounds of torque) is something that’s probably only achievable in a vehicle for fractions of a minute, 10 seconds maybe in the extreme. We run it for 10 minutes many, many times over, and that’s far, far more harsh and severe than a vehicle test would be.”

EcoBoost also endured Ford’s standard engine durability test signoff. Back in the dynamometer lab, the 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 went back up to full revs – and maximum turbo boost – for a real endurance test. This time the duration was a bit longer – 362 hours at full throttle. That’s like running the 24 Hours of Daytona for more than 15 days straight.
Other tests subjected EcoBoost to a grueling range of operating temperatures.

“We run all of our durability testing at the maximum temperature,” Plagens said. “For the turbos, the test is 150 hours long. Every 10 minutes the test alternates between peak power at max exhaust temperature and completely cold motoring. The goal is to verify that the turbochargers can withstand extreme thermal cycling without affecting their performance. It’s pretty brutal and extreme but it’s important to prove out durability.”

Making the Grade
As the first Ford EcoBoost engine makes its production debut, it has earned its stripes in Ford’s engine boot camp. It uses that same grade of 5W20 engine oil specified by Ford for gasoline engines, and oil changes are scheduled at the same 7,500-mile intervals, too.

“Ford customers can be sure that their new EcoBoost engine requires no special treatment for its reliable operation,” Shelby said. “EcoBoost owners can pull in their driveways and switch off just like any other engine, and there’s no special oil or shorter oil-change intervals. That means the owner can concentrate on enjoying the great performance and fuel economy.”

Engines are built to handle the manner in which they (or the worst possible user will) operate.

This is what most people believe or assume, but actually Ford designs their engines to take almost twice, and sometimes even more than that, of what is expected of them. By building something to handle twice the load it is pretty well assured it can take what will be expected of it on a regular basis for quite some time.

When lifting cables and slings are tested for certification they must be able to lift twice the amount of weight they are rated for. This provides a cushion of safety. Lots of parts are handled the same way in the auto industry.


Steve

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by Ohio XB

This is what most people believe or assume, but actually Ford designs their engines to take almost twice, and sometimes even more than that, of what is expected of them. By building something to handle twice the load it is pretty well assured it can take what will be expected of it on a regular basis for quite some time.

When lifting cables and slings are tested for certification they must be able to lift twice the amount of weight they are rated for. This provides a cushion of safety. Lots of parts are handled the same way in the auto industry.


Steve

Great article steve. Thanks for the info!

My reference to druability was a general term...but yes you are very right. As Falcmann aluded to the engines are tested beyond what is even humanly possible let alone likely. Its not just becaue of waranty and general reliability its also reputation...when things fail it doesn't look good (if the failure is major esp).

Frankly, i think its the more minor electrical stuff that is more likely to affect a car's reliability these days. We all know how reliable computers can be.... Of course, toyota is in the midst of an electrical drama right now...unfortunatey theirs is pretty damning.....

[Ohio XB]

I am pretty concerned with all the electronic suff as well. As for the engines, Ford may not have always beat on them as hard as they do now, but I think Derrick Kuzak and Alan Mulally standing nearby is really ramping things up.


Steve

[jpd80]

It's a given that Ford will be benchmarking the EB 2.0 against their own 3.0 V6 as well as GM's SIDI V6.
On that score, you can bet that it's every bit as reliable, more fuel efficient and more fun to drive.

With better average fuel consumption, more low end torque and similar price to 3.0 Commodore,
Ecoboost I-4 Falcon could be more attractive to fleets and also private Camry/Accord/Mazda 6 buyers.
Not everyone is comfortable buying hybrids so maybe the EB I-4 Falcon becomes a great transitional vehicle...