EcoBoost Power and Economy figures

[wizric]

On Fords new FG II website it quotes the EcoBoost numbers.
http://www.ford.com.au/cars/new-falcon/experience/power

179kw
353Nm (more than the 3.6L commodore)
8.1 l per 100 km

VE 3.0L

190kw
290 Nm
8.9 l per 100 km

Should be a good drive.

Sorry if this is a repost or if I've missed it elsewhere. (delete if needed)

[GCRXR6]

Originally Posted by wizric

On Fords new FG II website it quotes the EcoBoost numbers.
http://www.ford.com.au/cars/new-falcon/experience/power

179kw
353Nm (more than the 3.6L commodore)
8.1 l per 100 km

VE 3.0L

190kw
290 Nm
8.9 l per 100 km

Should be a good drive.

Sorry if this is a repost or if I've missed it elsewhere. (delete if needed)

It wont matter Wiz .. bogans still can't ignore their Holdens

[Werd.]

Originally Posted by GCRXR6

It wont matter Wiz .. bogans still can't ignore their Holdens

Very impressive specs though, and I think everyone knows how easy it's going to be to up the boost a tad and have a weapon on your hands.

6 speed ZF, fairly light XT falcon, tune, exhaust/cai. Sleeper.

[TMC]

Originally Posted by GCRXR6

It wont matter Wiz .. bogans still can't ignore their Holdens

especially their fully sick VL's

[Assassinbm]

Originally Posted by TMC

especially their fully sick VL's

Yes, sick like the flu....

[chevypower]

I think the EB will be even more impressive in real life than on paper, given that the max torque is available down low. The 3.0 needs to be revved to deliver. Looking forward to reading forum member's reviews on this engine. Also to anyone in the market for one: upload some vids to YouTube.

[TMC]

Friends of mine just bought a brand new Ecoboost Mondeo. They reckon it's rocket ship, and that's with the lower spec engine. I think a lot of people are going to be surprised how well it goes in a Falcon. I want to take one for a test drive or even hire one for a weekend away in the country to test it out. Any hire companies buying them yet?

[dimka100]

The EcoBoost power and economy figures are based on 95 RON!

Ford should upgrade the I6 ratings to match i.e. Show the power and economy figures on 95 RON instead of 91 RON ... but I guess they wont as that would reduce the benefit to going with EcoBoost ....

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by dimka100

The EcoBoost power and economy figures are based on 95 RON!

No they're not, check and you'll see that Ford states that only for the XR6 Turbo figuere were achieved using 95,
so we can take it from that very specific stipulation for XR6T that all other engine outputs are achieved with 91.

Unlike the 10:1 compression 366 nm version of Ecoboost, Falcon uses a 9.3:1 compression 353 nm version.

[dimka100]

Read again http://www.ford.com.au/cars/new-falcon/experience/power the small print for the ecoboost engine ... it clearly states 95 RON

Originally Posted by jpd80

No they're not, check and you'll see that Ford states that only for the XR6 Turbo figuere were achieved using 95,
so we can take it from that very specific stipulation for XR6T that all other engine outputs are achieved with 91.

Unlike the 10:1 compression 366 nm version of Ecoboost, Falcon uses a 9.3:1 compression 353 nm version.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by dimka100

Read again http://www.ford.com.au/cars/new-falcon/experience/power the small print for the ecoboost engine ... it clearly states 95 RON

OK, I phoned a friend who said that all Ford HP engines are tested with 95 RON - or US PON 91 Premium fuel (same thing)
but that does not necessarily mean that the torque will take a dive when the engine is fueled on 91 RON...

This might give you some cause for surprise, figures released by Ford NA for the 2013 Taurus 2.0 Ecoboost:
Premium Fuel: 240 hp @ 5550 rpm
Regular Fuel: 231 hp @ 5500 rpm

Premium Fuel: 270 lb.ft. @ 3000 rpm
Regular Fuel: 270 lb.ft. @ 3000 rpm


Now, the Taurus' version of Ecoboost makes the same torque regardless of fuel used, the power is trimmed slightly
so I'd say that FoA has trimmed torque for durability and most likely to achieve same torque on 91 ULP,
I would however expect the power to drop back to around 170 Kw on 91 while the 353 nm stays there.

[JimStone]

Originally Posted by TMC

Friends of mine just bought a brand new Ecoboost Mondeo. They reckon it's rocket ship, and that's with the lower spec engine. I think a lot of people are going to be surprised how well it goes in a Falcon. I want to take one for a test drive or even hire one for a weekend away in the country to test it out. Any hire companies buying them yet?

I bought a 149kw/320Nm Ecoboost Mondeo in January - it is a surprisingly quick drive especially when you appreciate just how big the sucker is:



The key to success or failure of the EB Falcon will be down to the gearbox programming - it's not just the flat 300Nm from 1750rpm to 4500rpm that makes the EB Mondeo a flyer, the dual clutch 6speed auto/maual makes a sizable contribution to the mix too.

[Mr Hardware]

For over 50 years now, Ford has been scratching their heads as to why their superior vehicle doesn't sell as well as its direct competitor. Even more proof that it is superior isn't going to change much at all.

[bmorris]

Its really interesting looking at those comparsion numbers there provided by Jim, the medium sized car really smaller then the "large" car, its only the falcon is a bit longer

[DJM83]

There is a review of the EcoBoost in a Focus in the Feb edition of Fast Ford (UK)

[TMC]

I was looking inside a 2011 Mondeo wagon yesterday (wasn't an Ecoboost) and it was as big inside as my old EL. I suppose all cars just grow bigger and bigger until the engine just needs more and more power to move it. Bit like people really.

[TMC]

Does anyone know what the Mondeo 2l Ecoboost will make on 98RON ie peak torque peak power?

[Crazy Dazz]

Originally Posted by wizric

On Fords new FG II website it quotes the EcoBoost numbers.
http://www.ford.com.au/cars/new-falcon/experience/power

179kw
353Nm (more than the 3.6L commodore)
8.1 l per 100 km

Am I the only one that sees this as incongruous?

Yes, if you plant your foot the turbo will go like stink, but you aint gonna get 8.1l/100km whilst doing it. What's the purpose in lauding the performance aspects of a car that is meant to be driven for economy?

Personally, I still don’t get the attraction. Of all the things Ford could have done to boost Falcon sales, this is definitely the weirdest.

As a driver/ owner/ husband/ father/ manager/ I cannot imagine a scenario under which I would recommend buying the EcB Falcon. Dependent on many factors, I can see a case for an EcB Mondeo, a TD Mondeo, an EcoLi Falcon, an XR6T, an (unobtainable) V8 Falcon, and even a vanilla I6. I simply cannot imagine a niche that isn’t already better served.

[Bossxr8]

The engineers are saying the real world Economy of the Ecoboost Falcon is unbelieveably good.

And to all the Captain Obvious's saying you won't get the claimed economy if you flog it, will any car?

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

The engineers are saying the real world Economy of the Ecoboost Falcon is unbelieveably good.

And to all the Captain Obvious's saying you won't get the claimed economy if you flog it, will any car?

Did Ford pick the wrong car to pitch to fleets?
Holden must be worried that Ecoboost will pinch all of Omega's fleet sales, they have no answer...

[Joe5619]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Did Ford pick the wrong car to pitch to fleets?
Holden must be worried that Ecoboost will pinch all of Omega's fleet sales, they have no answer...

We'll find out very soon!!


When does this thing go on sale?? Must be getting close if they are biulding them..

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by Joe5619

We'll find out very soon!!


When does this thing go on sale?? Must be getting close if they are biulding them..

Knowing Ford, March next year.

[jpd80]

Already building stock so I expect after Easter.....

[whales]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Did Ford pick the wrong car to pitch to fleets?
Holden must be worried that Ecoboost will pinch all of Omega's fleet sales, they have no answer...

Thats only if Ford tell everyone but lately Ford don't even advertise the falcon

[XR Martin]

According to the latest Wheels mag, the LR Evoque did 0-100 in 7sec and the 1/4 in 14.9s. Weight was 1780kg.
The same engine is in the Ecoboost Falcon (Falcon actually has 3kw and 13nm more) So I dont think anyone should be disappointed with the performance side of things.

[TMC]

When I think back to my old EL, I never considered it a slow car. It could get up and boogy when it wanted too, had low down torque, cruised smoothly at 110kmh through hilly country, and could tow real heavy stuff with ease. It weighed around 1600kg empty. It made 157kW @5200rpm and 357Nm @3000rpm. It wasn't a peaky motor, but you felt the torque around the 3000rpm mark increase.

Compare now the Ecoboost 2L with 179kW at around the same rpm as the EL(157Kw), and almost the same torque at 353Nm as the EL except the Ecoboost motor makes a billiard table flat torque curve from 1750-4500rpm unlike the EL. So it actually will have more torque than the old EL down low.

I'm amazed by these little engines. Would love to throw one into an old 70's Cortina or Escort.

[Linkachu]

Originally Posted by wizric

On Fords new FG II website it quotes the EcoBoost numbers.
http://www.ford.com.au/cars/new-falcon/experience/power

179kw
353Nm (more than the 3.6L commodore)
8.1 l per 100 km

VE 3.0L

190kw
290 Nm
8.9 l per 100 km

Should be a good drive.

Sorry if this is a repost or if I've missed it elsewhere. (delete if needed)

This is why the 3.0L commodore is better, that all is anyone looks at. Even though it has better fuel economy and more touque it still has less KW and there for inferior.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Linkachu

This is why the 3.0L commodore is better, that all is anyone looks at. Even though it has better fuel economy and more touque it still has less KW and there for inferior.

Until you look at the 0-100 kph times , then Ecoboost wins by about a second,
that is a lot faster and people will notice that, the 3.0 might win to 160 kph but who really cares.

[Nic85]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Until you look at the 0-100 kph times , then Ecoboost wins by about a second,
that is a lot faster and people will notice that, the 3.0 might win to 160 kph but who really cares.

No way will a 3L Commodore beat the EB Falcon to 160km/h. The 3L Commodore probably does the quarter mile in high 15's @ 140-145km/h (someone please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm only guessing) The EB will do mid/high 14's at around 155-160km/h.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Nic85

No way will a 3L Commodore beat the EB Falcon to 160km/h. The 3L Commodore probably does the quarter mile in high 15's @ 140-145km/h (someone please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm only guessing) The EB will do mid/high 14's at around 155-160km/h.

EB is probably going to be mid 15's for the quarter and the Omega will be longer than anyone cares to measure..

What I was suggesting is 100-160 kph Omega might stand a chance when it can use its higher power
but gee, I wouldn't like to have money on that as it may well lose out to the I-4 Falcon..

Maybe this is also why Holden is down balancing Commodore production in May,
maybe fleet orders aren't rolling in like they used to as managers weigh the alternatives..