Ecoboost I-4 Territory?

[Brent]

Efficiency of the design isn't being questioned. kw output per litre will also probably be most impressive. However, the engineering reality is that its a smaller, lighter engine doing the job of a normally larger unit. The stress loadings on key components will be higher if it is to do the same (or better) job of propelling the vehicle in question.

[chevypower]

That would be correct if it is structurally weaker, but cylinder displacement says nothing about how strong the block, pistons, crankshaft etc are.

[irlewy86]

Having the EB-I4 being tested in a Territory sort of fills you with confindence that it will be a winner in the Falcon. Either FoA are pushing it to its limits in a bigger vehicle or it can more than handle itself in the big girl Tezza . Either way I'm quite confident this 2 litre is going to change peoples preception of displacement.

[jpd80]

The Ecoboost Falcon is not about convincing the I-6 stalwarts to go buy an I-4 turbo.
No, this is about offering the Camry/Accord/Mazda 6/Sonata buyers something better....
It's about growing the market for Falcon and if they're smart, Ford will do a diesel Falcon too.

And if Ford decide to do an EB I-4 RWD Territory then perhaps some of those RAV4 or Outlander buyers
might like to try something with a bit more room without paying the earth for diesel like fuel economy...

[TUF_302]

A very good move from Ford this is, lets hope a Diesel isn't far away either though

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by Brent

And also consider the metallurgy and quality of materials used in BMW and Merc engines. Not all engines are created equal.

No, there not. Ford engines are most likely just as good as the so called 'premium' euro manufacturers you have mentioned. Sure, they are built to a tighter budget (due to generally lower overall sale price, though that is amortised over more units), but that tends to affect fuel burn and/or HP, NOT reliability. The waranties on euro cars are all that impressive last time i checked, in fact its the supposedly 'unreliable' koreans that have the best warranties.....

You can easilly claim that due to their larger R&D budget (as % of overall outlay at least) the euros will be the 'first' to introduce new tech. But anyone familiar with how Ford (and most decent multinational car companies at that) goes about developing its engines, including testing, would scoff at the suggestion that they couldn't match BMW/Merc for engine reliability. The laws of physics are the same no matter what language the engineer speaks. In fact, given a sizeable portion of the R&D work for the ecoboost was done in europe by european engineers i daren't accuse them of being 'substandard' compared to their fellow countryman working at merc/beemer. The Ford US guys aren't rubbish niether....witness 3.7V6 in the mustang, the brand new 6.7V8 diesel in the F series, or the hugely impressive Coyote 5.0 V8....

I'm not saying Ford is perfect RE engine reliabilty, we all know the stories. Nor am i saying the EB I4 is guranteed to match or outlast a nominally 'less stressed' and 'less complex' I6 NA. But in general, when it comes to engines, Ford knows what it is doing. Some other car giants (GM??), well not so much.

[smoo]

Originally Posted by chevypower

That would be correct if it is structurally weaker, but cylinder displacement says nothing about how strong the block, pistons, crankshaft etc are.

At the end of the day it will still be working a lot harder in a Territory than what it would be in a lighter family sedan/Falcon, Mondeo.
At least it will give the ******* who have turbo timers on their daily drivers a genuine excuse to fit one, cos an EB4 Territory would be constantly on boost!

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by smoo

At the end of the day it will still be working a lot harder in a Territory than what it would be in a lighter family sedan/Falcon, Mondeo.
At least it will give the ******* who have turbo timers on their daily drivers a genuine excuse to fit one, cos an EB4 Territory would be constantly on boost!

A turbo timer isn't needed with a water cooled centre bearing.

[Bossxr8]

There will be no Ecoboost 4 Territory. They might test it to see how it goes but it won't make production. The TD V6 will be the economy Territory.

The article seems like a total crock to me. Did they pop the bonnet of a test mule to look to see wether it had a 4 cylinder engine, cause that would be the only way they could tell, and they give no clue as to how they supposedly "busted" them testing it. I see mules weekly but the only way I can pick a TD V6 Territory from an I6 version is the sound of diesel rattle at idle. I could not pick it if it was an I4.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

There will be no Ecoboost 4 Territory. They might test it to see how it goes but it won't make production. The TD V6 will be the economy Territory.

Maybe they built a mule to Show Derrick Kuzak the difference in
fuel economy between the I-6, EB I-4 and the preferred TDCI V6...

Hypothetically, the combined economy with RWD and ZF could be:
I-6: 10.8 l/100 klm
EB I-4: 9.5 l/100 klm
TDCIV6: 8.0 l/100 klm

[JPFS1]

I've discussed this with the owners of CA and looked into what they call evidence for this being an EcoBoost Territory. Personally their evidence lacks any real substance. I highly doubt this is an ecoboost Territory, it's possible just for testing purposes. Certainly not for production anytime soon anyhow imho. I'm not against an ecoboost Tezza though, I think it would be great to have and I wouldn't be surprised to see it in a few years.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by JPFS1

I've discussed this with the owners of CA and looked into what they call evidence for this being an EcoBoost Territory. Personally their evidence lacks any real substance. I highly doubt this is an ecoboost Territory, it's possible just for testing purposes. Certainly not for production anytime soon anyhow imho. I'm not against an ecoboost Tezza though, I think it would be great to have and I wouldn't be surprised to see it in a few years.

Ford was talking about two or three generations of Ecoboost engines, each successive version was
to have higher outputs through increased turbo boost and increased Exhaust gas recirculation into
the combustion chambers to suppress detonation and prevent/limit NOX formation.

I'm wondering whether FoA is looking at what power level/economy balance would be required
and then sending the findings back to FoE or FNA for verification and development....
This would be in line with stakeholders giving input to power train on their regional needs..