Explorer Ecoboost 2.0: 176 Kw@ 5,500 and 337 nm torque 1,700 to 4,000

[LeadFoot81]

I think Fomoco have really outdone themselves with this one. What a great looking, well equipped car. Hopefully the forthcoming reviews will confirm its as capable as it is good looking.

Seeing all the technology (and gimmicky yet cool features) that are coming out on US Fords (I think) confirms that an Oz/US/One Ford unification is not a bad thing at all.

[jatt]

You'd hope the new Territory packs atleast as much punch as this thing in both design and drive, or you can see the beancounters signally the Territories end.

[aquahead2001]

I do wonder how Ford will convince the American punters that an oversized Ford Edge which is just an oversized Ford Taurus which is an oversized Volvo is going to take over from a full sized, 6 & 8 cylinder body on frame heavy duty SUV.... In my limited experience in the USA, just about every Explorer I saw there had a tow bar on it. I read somewhere recently that the Amercians lead the world in trailer use, folllowed close by us Aussies.

Seeing I have a caravan, 2 trailers and 2 boats, I will never consider something with an east/west engine and think there will be a fair few existing Explorer owners in the same category. I reckon Ford has walked away from this market completely with the new Explorer. All they have done is produced a bigger and as far as I'm concerned, uglier Ford Edge.

Yes I agree the interier looks good and the features seem impressive too, but it looks bloated.

[glavas]

YAWN!!!!!! its impresive on paper but i bet it drives like a camry does the job with no soul or feeling. nothing wrong with the i6 best sixxxxx on the market and thats comming from a holden man. good luck ford in making the public buy a 4 cylinder large seddan. the i6 is good on fuel anyway so why bother with a 4 pot?

[chevypower]

@Aquahead, well I don't think anyone cares that it's not a truck. Ford has F-150, Super Duty and Expedition to handle all those needs. It looks to be a competitor to the GMC Acadia, Mazda CX9 and Toyota Highlander, but with a little more off-road capability being one advantage. I noticed how they market it as 4wd, not AWD. I bet it drives just nicely on the road. If you needed a 7+ seater SUV with serious towing capability, you would buy an Expedition, not complain that the Explorer doesn't do the job.

[Raptor]

Interesting comment on Drive; http://smh.drive.com.au/motor-news/r...726-10shd.html

The Explorer’s underpinnings, however, could find their way beneath the 2015 Falcon. The big 4WD’s platform is shared with the Taurus large car that could provide the basis for the next-generation Falcon as part of Ford’s global plan to build only one vehicle for each segment.

So this things built on the Taurus (FWD/AWD) platform too

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by glavas

YAWN!!!!!! its impresive on paper but i bet it drives like a camry does the job with no soul or feeling.

No, it will atually drives better than the SIDI 3.0 Omega.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

Yes, at first glance it appears that way. However, look at how "low" the peak power rpm is (for a 2 litre) and you know there's a lot more scope. Obviously for this kind of vehicle there's no point in extending the limit (and boost); better off for future iterations of hot Focuses.
Looking forward to seeing it in the Falcon, although, again, it's the type of vehicle that won't see a hotter version of this motor. It may even be a little easier to get more power - or same with less boost) through better breathing thanks to Falcon's rwd layout; the fwd layouts have less space to work with for the breathing hardware.

Yeah, SPOT on! Max power at 5,500rpm is low for a 2L i4T. Could easily spin it 20% harder and maintain boost for a corresponding power boost. Do that and add 20% or more boost. Again for a similar power and torque hike. We haven't even added warmer camshafts! 240kW/400Nm would be entirely achievable in a Hi-Po RS Focus

[Falc'man]

John, like you I find this vehicle quite attractive and loaded in a way we know the locals will not match - not in the immediate future, anyway. I hope, though, the new Territory will provide some of these features and have us thinking what a great vehicle Ford Au has produced.

Also, notice the comparison that is relevant to us here?
The 290HP/255lb.ft V6 offers a 20% improvement over the superseded model, where the EB2 offers an extra 30% over the outgoing model. This is relevant to what to expect in improvement with the Falcon if comparing the two new motors.

Old model (V6): EPA-estimated 16.8l/100km city, 11.76l/100km hwy, ~2025kg
New V6: 13.44l/100km city, 9.41l/100km hwy, ~1975?kg
New EB2: 11.76/100km city, 8.32l/100km hwy. ????kg

Originally Posted by jpd80

No, it will actually drive better than the SIDI 3.0 Omega

Anything would.

Originally Posted by Seduce XR6

This engine sounds great as an economy alternative but will it really compare to the I6 for performance or pulling power?

Nothing would.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Yeah, it's not like Ford North America's products really suck anymore,
these guys are really getting their act together and it would be great
to see FoA able to share electrical systems and features.

I don't know why it is, but I have a really bad feeling the 2011 Territory is going to get shown up. Badly.

[Joe5619]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

I don't know why it is, but I have a really bad feeling the 2011 Territory is going to get shown up. Badly.

By a car that wont be sold in this country??

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by LeadFoot81

I think Fomoco have really outdone themselves with this one. What a great looking, well equipped car. Hopefully the forthcoming reviews will confirm its as capable as it is good looking.

Seeing all the technology (and gimmicky yet cool features) that are coming out on US Fords (I think) confirms that an Oz/US/One Ford unification is not a bad thing at all.

Adding all these expensive to develop systems, drivetrains and modern underpinnings and you very nearly have a home run. I think add that great tech to our Falcon/Territory and you have an excellent basis for GRWD. This really is the future for One Ford.

Their amazing turnaround which is powered by improved product and simplified strategy is why they have made $4.7B USD globally in the first 6mths of 2010.

[Falc'man]

One insider (who has been proven to be reliable) on a US forum has indicated this 2 litre is a US$995 option over the 3.5 litre V6... I wonder if this could be the same case here??

Early on some members (myself included) thought maybe it would be cheaper, but come to think of it if the Falcon petrol 6 is the standard motor you will have to pay if you tick the Ecoboost or Lilpg option...

[gtfpv]

did i see a decent stock stereo system in FORD !!!!!

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Joe5619

By a car that wont be sold in this country??

In terms of features and interior content, yes. Motoring press will automatically compare the '11 Territory with the new Exploder (given the scarerumourmongering going on about the Territory and Falcon's 2015 replacement), even though it won't be available here, yet, and use it as another excuse to bag FoA. Drive, I'm looking at you.

BTW, the Explorer is slated to be sold in 90 countries.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

John, like you I find this vehicle quite attractive and loaded in a way we know the locals will not match - not in the immediate future, anyway. I hope, though, the new Territory will provide some of these features and have us thinking what a great vehicle Ford Au has produced.

Also, notice the comparison that is relevant to us here?
The 290HP/255lb.ft V6 offers a 20% improvement over the superseded model, where the EB2 offers an extra 30% over the outgoing model. This is relevant to what to expect in improvement with the Falcon if comparing the two new motors.

FoA are quoting the Ecoboost as having approximately a 20% improvement over the I-6,
and from that, I would infer that the 3.5 V6 would be less than 10% improvement
over the I-6 which means about 9.3 to 9.5 litres/100 klm.

this 3.5 is yet another Ford PFI engine that makes GM's SIDI engine range look ordinary.

[naddis01]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

Also, notice the comparison that is relevant to us here?
The 290HP/255lb.ft V6 offers a 20% improvement over the superseded model, where the EB2 offers an extra 30% over the outgoing model. This is relevant to what to expect in improvement with the Falcon if comparing the two new motors.

If Gillards announcement regarding the $2000 vote buyer is anywhere near accurate, then the Ecoboost's emmissions are less than 220 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre. Which would equate to 9.24L/100km at worst for the Ecoboost Falcon.

[Grippy]

That's an incredible looking interior

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

I hope, though, the new Territory will provide some of these features and have us thinking what a great vehicle Ford Au has produced.

If they put the useful gear into the new terri (would be easy to also get it in the FG then) it would be a good way to recapture the market. New model, tons of features!

Originally Posted by gtfpv

did i see a decent stock stereo system in FORD !!!!!

No its only Sony gear.

[kpcart]

they should do a diesel 4 cyl.
mercedes have a 1.9L 4 cylinder turbo diesel in their c class (1500kg +) which can under 7L per 100km and has 125kw and 400nm, and it accelerates the heavy car in 8.2 seconds to 100kmh. and it pulls great at any speed and from idle. they also have a 2.1L 4cyl diesel that does 150kw and 500nm and still does about 7l per 100km.

or maybe a 6 cylinder diesel like jaguar has.
3 litres, 202kw and 600nm and great fuel economy.

its interesting seeing people getting exctided now about a 4 cylinder falcon, they probably will too for a fwd or awd drivetrain. its all good either way, if done correctly. im sure it wont end up being a camira like fail.

another option for ford could have been to get rid of the petrol 6 and focus solely on an lpg 6. its good for the environment and costs less to run then most 4 cylinder cars, and i dont think it would cost too much to develop an efficient direct lpg injected l6 with power and torque to match the petrol engine.

[Swordsman88]

So where are all those 'EB 2.0' engine doubters now? How much more evidence to we need that this ecoboost donk, 4 pots or not, is the real deal? Reserve final judgement till its in the car no doubt (plus the questions about sales...), but you can pretty much call it now from an engineering perspective. It will burn less fuel than its 6 pot (SIDI, small capacity or not) competitors, be as quick as the miserly base models (and much quicker than most medium car competitors), and provide pretty impressive performance for its size. I'm looking forward to my first drive to be honest...which is more than i can say for the 3.0 SIDI commodore which i have no interest in really ever driving...

Originally Posted by jpd80

FoA are quoting the Ecoboost as having approximately a 20% improvement over the I-6,
and from that, I would infer that the 3.5 V6 would be less than 10% improvement
over the I-6 which means about 9.3 to 9.5 litres/100 klm.

this 3.5 is yet another Ford PFI engine that makes GM's SIDI engine range look ordinary.

I'm not 100% sure i understand your reasoning there mate but i think i get what you are saying. Either way, i fully agree with your point RE the 3.5/3.7 duratec engine linueps. Just because GM (and by extension Holden) cant' build a proper modern V6 petrol donk doesn't mean the rest of the car world has the same problem. Nissan has shown for years its possible for a mass produced V6 to deliver in the real world and i notice chrysler has just launched its new V6 that seems quite competitive. The ford V6 just gets better and better as further optimisation is undertaken (TiVCT, and DI on some versions). If and when the I6 goes (and it might be some time) i think Ford Aus is in safe hands....

[chevypower]

@kpcart, I think the 3.0L V6 diesel would be a ripper motor in the Falcon, but it's not an engine for keeping your cost of vehicle ownership down. Yes, it will give great performance and not use much fuel, which is good, but what would the price premium be for that engine? $5000-7000+? I am betting. Plus the extra cost of diesel fuel in filling up the tank. The money you save on fuel will be going to your monthly payments. I think the 2.0 EB would be a good all-round money saver with decent performance. Maybe the 3.0 V6 diesel would be a good option in the higher-end Falcon models.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

So where are all those 'EB 2.0' engine doubters now? How much more evidence to we need that this ecoboost donk, 4 pots or not, is the real deal? Reserve final judgement till its in the car no doubt (plus the questions about sales...), but you can pretty much call it now from an engineering perspective. It will burn less fuel than its 6 pot (SIDI, small capacity or not) competitors, be as quick as the miserly base models (and much quicker than most medium car competitors), and provide pretty impressive performance for its size. I'm looking forward to my first drive to be honest...which is more than i can say for the 3.0 SIDI commodore which i have no interest in really ever driving...

A lot of the negativity is driven by the misconception that a turbo 2.0 in a heavy car is a recipe for disaster.
From a very early age, we're indoctrinated that turbos, even under moderate boost drink fuel
and that most of them have huge dead spot down low (Turbo lag) before the turbo kicks in...

Ford is now showing that:
1) lag can be for all intents and purposes, eliminated.
1) part throttle lean boost is possible
3) Ecoboost 2.0 will have diesel like torque curve.

I'm sure acceptance of Ecoboost Falcon will grow once we start seeing them
in the flesh in everyday running and the people attracted to it may have never
even considered owning an I-6... now that would be a huge coup for Ford....

I'm not 100% sure i understand your reasoning there mate but i think i get what you are saying. Either way, i fully agree with your point RE the 3.5/3.7 duratec engine linueps. Just because GM (and by extension Holden) cant' build a proper modern V6 petrol donk doesn't mean the rest of the car world has the same problem. Nissan has shown for years its possible for a mass produced V6 to deliver in the real world and i notice chrysler has just launched its new V6 that seems quite competitive. The ford V6 just gets better and better as further optimisation is undertaken (TiVCT, and DI on some versions). If and when the I6 goes (and it might be some time) i think Ford Aus is in safe hands....

Just a parallel universe look at the 3.5/3.7 in the Falcon, I'm thinking that
fuel economy of the D35/D37 would have been very similar to the 4.0 I-6
because our engine isn't as prehistoric as the SOHC 4.0 V6.


If we had to move to a V6:
If Ford Australia were given the SOHC 4.0 Cologne and cash to redevelop it
into a properly modern DOHC DIVCT engine, it would be an absolute ball tearer.
There are problems with head gasket sealing and the complicated gear and chain drive
but I'm sure that the men from Geelong could get all the skippies out of it.

[BAxtER]

Originally Posted by Grippy

That's an incredible looking interior

seconded, that is a great looking car inside and out!
I wouldnt mind ford australia using that interior for a territory over the fg interior, something different.

[Quicksand]

Originally Posted by Joe5619

By a car that wont be sold in this country??

Damn...so it wont make it over here? I was already thinking about opening my wallet for the V6 version...i wonder if they can be imported? I suppose they would be too much competition for the Territory?

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Just a parallel universe look at the 3.5/3.7 in the Falcon, I'm thinking that fuel economy of the D35/D37 would have been very similar to the 4.0 I-6 because our engine isn't as prehistoric as the SOHC 4.0 V6.

You've raised some really good points. But i'll focus on this. Realistically the Cologne V6 was no more advanced than the AU i6.

Part of the impressive economy gain is also due to the addition of 6spd auto, a 2% weight reduction and improvement to aero efficiency.

So, if we just compare the new V6 and the EB2.0 economy from a percentage we can ascertain some relativity. The first is said to be 20% more frugal and the second 30% more frugal than the outgoing V6. ie 80% consumption versus 70% respectively. We can therefore say 0.7/0.8 or 0.875 which means the Eco-Boost is 12.5% more frugal than the new V6.

Hypothetically. If we said that the new V6 and our i6 are as economical as each other, then using the Falcon 9.9L/100km economy figure as a guide, then an EB would be 8.7L/100km.

I think the Falcon's economy will be 8.3L or better. My reasoning is that I believe the 2.0L EB is at it's limit for efficiency gains in a 2000kg SUV. The gains in the 1500-1600kg SMAx have been impressive. Which is much closer in the weight department.

[vztrt]

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/07/27/v...-off-its-tech/

Videos: 2011 Ford Explorer shows off its tech

by Steven J. Ewing (RSS feed) on Jul 27th 2010 at 3:01PM



Unless you've been in seclusion for the past 24 hours, you know Ford officially unveiled the 2011 Explorer yesterday. (Be sure to read Part One and Part Two of our deep dive for the full details.) The new Explorer is a pretty drastic departure from the generations preceding it – Ford has opted to use a unibody construction and a car-based platform rather than a traditional body-on-frame SUV, and naturally aspirated V8 power has been ditched in favor of more fuel-efficient four- and six-cylinder powerplants.

So while the Explorer seems to fit better in the crossover classification, Ford is confident that traditional SUV shoppers will still be pleased with what the new Expy has to offer. There are a host of new technology features on the 2011 model, including things like blind spot monitoring, trailer sway control and a terrain management system (similar to what you might find on a Land Rover). These features will be

Vids:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYX19...layer_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jqTf...layer_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17aNC...layer_embedded

[Road_Warrior]

Thing is, the soccer mum and family wagon brigade in the US will create anarchy to get their hands on this car. It is a sure fire winner.

It would be kinda awesome if the new Territory looked like this and had at least some of the features.

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Thing is, the soccer mum and family wagon brigade in the US will create anarchy to get their hands on this car. It is a sure fire winner.

It would be kinda awesome if the new Territory looked like this and had at least some of the features.

This would have to be one of my favourite Fords at the moment. Id take a front wheel drive EcoBoost one, the perfect family truckster.

[BrisVegas]

The Territory, as good as it is, was never intended as a 4wd competitor. It's a family hauler, Falcon wagon replacement and light off-roader at best. The Explorer, despite being an 'inferior' FWD/AWD layout will fill the same role. The economical 2.0 option will just make it all the more attractive to soccer mums.

The 2.7 diesel going into the Territory should create some interest for a few more years, but it's seems pretty inevitable to me that Oz will get the Explorer in the next model cycle of the Falcon/Territory.

FWIW, I can also see the mainstream Falcon being replaced by the Taurus given the one platform stratgey. I think there will remain a place for performance RWD Falcon as it merges with Mustang next time around.