Should they build an Ecoboost XR6?

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

so because BMW are stupid enough to mislead their customers by implying an engine configuration that it doesn't have Ford should do the same? XR6 is a 6 XR8 is an 8 so the XR6 tag does not belong on a 4 regardless of how good it is . there is nothing wrong with the XR configuration on an ecoboost but the name XR6 if misleading the buyers . people expect a 6 cylinder in an XR6

Hogwash, XR6 is a brand as much as a 528i is, the number of cylinders or engine capacity has become meaningless because XR6 is so recognisable as a brand itself. Calling it anything other than XR6 Ecoboost is throwing away brand recognition for no reason.

XR Ecoboost comes across as half baked. XR6 Ecoboost would mean something to the huge amount of people who know of the XR6 (over 45% of Falcons are XR6).

[NX74205]

Originally Posted by turbodewd

it could be priced cheaper since its less torquey than the 4.0L I6.

Why should a more advanced engine that performs to within a whisker of the six in a straight line and leaves it for dead around the twisty bits, be priced cheaper?

[arronm]

Originally Posted by Buntz

This just confirms that the buying public are ignorant.

Doesn't matter if they are ignorant, they are the ones parting with their money.

[Luke Plaizier]

Perhaps when the 2.3 Ecoboost comes out for Mustang/RS Focus, it might be worthwhile looking at it again for the XR.

Volumes of 4 Cyl Falcons sold would need to improve before anyone even looks at doing another model though.

[FGII-XR6]

it would be throwing away brand recognition if the 6 were being discontinued ( it is not) the 6 is, as previously stated, to indicate a 6 cylinder. To call a 4 cylinder an XR6 is fraud as it represents a 4 cylinder car with a well known 6 cylinder name

Originally Posted by Brazen

Hogwash, XR6 is a brand as much as a 528i is, the number of cylinders or engine capacity has become meaningless because XR6 is so recognisable as a brand itself. Calling it anything other than XR6 Ecoboost is throwing away brand recognition for no reason.

XR Ecoboost comes across as half baked. XR6 Ecoboost would mean something to the huge amount of people who know of the XR6 (over 45% of Falcons are XR6).

[Luke Plaizier]

Huh?

By Brazens argument, the XR8 is a brand too. Why not have an XR8 Ecoboost?


Lukeyson

[Elks]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

so because BMW are stupid enough to mislead their customers by implying an engine configuration that it doesn't have Ford should do the same?

It's not just BMW, Mercedes do the same. The model names always used to represent engine capacity. A 250 was a 2.5 litre, a 560 was a 5.6 litre. That's all long gone a c180 is a 1.6t a c200, and c250 are 1.8t unless it is a diesel then they are 2.1tdi. A '63' can be a 6.2 or 5.5turbo. But the names reflect relative output and place in the market.

Small capacity boosted engines are the future. Embrace it.

The Ecoboost G6 is faster, better handling, better equipped, of course more fuel efficient and in my opinion better looking than the XR6. And can be had for about the same money. Just buy one of those and put a spoiler on it.

[Joe5619]

Originally Posted by barra240t

That's right, I've dug this up again because in my opinion this is a very important subject. Let me tell you why, my job is to order brand new Ford's in advance, 3 to 4 months depending. Without going into detail I DO have to order Falcon sedan and ute and I am over having to order XR with either 6 cylinder petrol or LPI, yes they do sell, but no where as much as they ever did back in the day, it's just the facts.

I am sure we could pump out a few more retail Falcon numbers if I had this option.

I agree with you Barra on the whole XR6 Ecoboost. However, just writing it on a forum is not going to get the message far. You clearly work within the Ford dealer network, have you tried to filter this feedback back up the change within Ford? Do other dealers try to feedback this information back up. If Ford is getting this feedback from the dealer network directly they are more likely to take action.

[FGII-XR6]

having another level for the ecoboost is not a bad thing I just disagree with the XR6 name being used on a 4 . the ecoboost is an impressive package, responsive and very sure footed. by all means use it in the XR spec car with an appropriate name
here are a few options
Falcon S Ecoboost
XR4
XR Ecoboost
Ecoboost sports
Ecoboost S pack
or bring the povo pack out with a limited edition special that is basically an XR spec Ecoboost

Originally Posted by Luke Plaizier

Perhaps when the 2.3 Ecoboost comes out for Mustang/RS Focus, it might be worthwhile looking at it again for the XR.

Volumes of 4 Cyl Falcons sold would need to improve before anyone even looks at doing another model though.

[tweeked]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

so because BMW are stupid enough to mislead their customers by implying an engine configuration that it doesn't have Ford should do the same? XR6 is a 6 XR8 is an 8 so the XR6 tag does not belong on a 4 regardless of how good it is . there is nothing wrong with the XR configuration on an ecoboost but the name XR6 if misleading the buyers . people expect a 6 cylinder in an XR6

Yeah you have got me there. Why would they ever want to emulate companies like BMW? I mean BMW have no idea about inline sixes and being successful. So maybe this is why they have no issue using a nameplate that was on one of their famed inline sixes and using it on a four.

You will have to come up with another way of convincing people in a thirty second ad break that an XR4 ecoboost is not a lesser car than an XR6. Maybe you can invite them all to a seminar and run a powerpoint presentation?

You have seconds to make an impression on most consumers. The smart, successful companies are on to something. XR6 is a valued nameplate - it wont be devalued by using the 6 - but they need to use this value in marketing the car - if they choose to build it.

[FGII-XR6]

So because BMW use a fraudulent name we should all follow them? the use of XR6 on a 4 will dilute the meaning of the XR6 name, it is fraudulently misrepresenting the capacity and configuration of the car regardless of how good it is ( and the Ecoboost is a good car ). it seems some people are hell bent on using the XR6 name to , by your own logic, fool the public to make the car sell. this shows a remarkable lack of morals and ethics. If the car can not sell with an honest name that does not mislead the buyer it is not really desirable in the first place.
I guess the big question is where to you morals and ethics lead you?

Originally Posted by tweeked

Yeah you have got me there. Why would they ever want to emulate companies like BMW? I mean BMW have no idea about inline sixes and being successful. So maybe this is why they have no issue using a nameplate that was on one of their famed inline sixes and using it on a four.

You will have to come up with another way of convincing people in a thirty second ad break that an XR4 ecoboost is not a lesser car than an XR6. Maybe you can invite them all to a seminar and run a powerpoint presentation?

You have seconds to make an impression on most consumers. The smart, successful companies are on to something. XR6 is a valued nameplate - it wont be devalued by using the 6 - but they need to use this value in marketing the car - if they choose to build it.

[ryeman]

Originally Posted by arronm

Doesn't matter if they are ignorant, they are the ones parting with their money.

There're not ignorant ... just not enthusiasts.
The % of Austalians who are Ford 'enthusiasts' is so small in such a small market and not supported by any exports that it begs the question...is it more important to pander to this minuscule nr or to the vast majority?

[Maka]

The way i see it, xr6 ecoboost will only be a addition to the xr6 range not a stand alone model with its own family of variants, the ecoboost engine is good enough to power its own range of falcons, etc

cheers, Maka

[FalconXV]

Originally Posted by Luke Plaizier

Perhaps when the 2.3 Ecoboost comes out for Mustang/RS Focus, it might be worthwhile looking at it again for the XR.

Volumes of 4 Cyl Falcons sold would need to improve before anyone even looks at doing another model though.

Volumes won't improve unless Ford does something to improve them ; like an exciting sports model, or the Green Car Guide recognises its superior emissions performance.

[csv8]

Maybe with this ecoboost ??
3.5 L EcoBoost V6

This engine first appeared in the 2007 Lincoln MKR Concept under the name TwinForce.[29] The engine was designed to deliver power and torque output equivalent to a typical 6.0 L or larger displacement V8 while achieving at least 15% better fuel efficiency and reduced greenhouse emissions. In the MKR the concept TwinForce engine was rated 415 hp (309 kW) and 400 lb·ft (542 N·m) of torque, as well as run on E85 fuel.[30] When the same prototype engine reappeared in the Lincoln MKT concept in 2008 North American International Auto Show, the name was changed to EcoBoost. Official EcoBoost production began on May 19, 2009 at Ford's Cleveland Engine Plant No. 1.

The production engines use the Duratec 35 V6 engine block. The fuel charging and delivery systems can attain high fuel pressures of up to 2150 PSI, necessary for efficient operation of the direct fuel injection system. It uses two Garrett GT15 turbochargers which can spin at up to 170,000 rpm and provide 12 PSI of boost. The turbos are set up in a twin-turbo configuration. The engine can consume up to 25% more air over the naturally aspirated counterpart. Through the use of direct injection, the engine needs only regular-grade gasoline to run, though premium fuel is recommended. The EcoBoost V6 was first available as an engine option for 2010 Lincoln MKS, followed by 2010 Ford Flex, 2010 Ford Taurus SHO, and 2010 Lincoln MKT.[31] The fuel charging and delivery systems were co-developed with Robert Bosch GmbH.[32]

In 2009 Ford modified an experimental 3.5 V6 EcoBoost engine with both E85 direct injection and gasoline indirect fuel injection, which achieved a BMEP (brake mean effective pressure) of 395 psi (27 bar), which translates to approximately 553 pound-feet (750 N·m) of torque and 316 horsepower (236 kW)@3000 rpm (flat torque curve from 1500–3000 rpm).[33]
Applications

365 hp (272 kW) @5700 rpm, 350 lb·ft (475 N·m) @5000 rpm
2013– Ford Explorer Sport[34]
355 hp (265 kW) @5700 rpm, 350 lb·ft (475 N·m) @5000 rpm
2010–2012 Ford Flex
2010– Lincoln MKS
2010– Lincoln MKT
365 hp (272 kW) @5500 rpm, 350 lb·ft (475 N·m) @5000 rpm
2010– Ford Taurus SHO
2013– Ford Flex
365 hp (272 kW) @5500 rpm, 420 lb·ft (569 N·m) @2500 rpm
2011– Ford F-150[35][36][37]

[tezxr8man]

Originally Posted by NX74205

Why should a more advanced engine that performs to within a whisker of the six in a straight line and leaves it for dead around the twisty bits, be priced cheaper?

common sense, it's a fuel miser model that appeals to people who don't want to spend extra money on fuel,and rego. Why would you make it more expensive??

[In Focus]

Originally Posted by tezxr8man

common sense, it's a fuel miser model that appeals to people who don't want to spend extra money on fuel,and rego. Why would you make it more expensive??

The engine itself costs more?

[chevypower]

Ford's 3.5 V6 EcoBoost has 270 kw/570 Nm in F150 trim. I have no idea why this engine is not used in the Falcon XR6, Jag XF, XJ, XK, F-Type, Range Rover Sport, and Range Rover Vogue. Easily crank it up to 320/650. It would be far better than the 3.0 V6 Supercharged (which has 250 kw/450 Nm). Ford should also do a 5.0 V8 EcoBoost with 450kw/900Nm and use it in the XR8, also using it to replace the Jag/LR 5.0 S/C (which has 405 kw/680 Nm).

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by chevypower

Ford's 3.5 V6 EcoBoost has 270 kw/570 Nm in F150 trim. I have no idea why this engine is not used in the Falcon XR6, Jag XF, XJ, XK, F-Type, Range Rover Sport, and Range Rover Vogue. Easily crank it up to 320/650. It would be far better than the 3.0 V6 Supercharged (which has 250 kw/450 Nm). Ford should also do a 5.0 V8 EcoBoost with 450kw/900Nm and use it in the XR8, also using it to replace the Jag/LR 5.0 S/C (which has 405 kw/680 Nm).

1. It doesn't fit in Falcon, the V6 Plenum is too high.
2. The I-6Turbo makes similar HP and Torque and is available locally as a variation of the I-6
3. the cost of engineering a TT V6 when the I-6T is available is not cost effective.
4. nor is the Ecoboost 5.0 since the S/C Miami already exists.

Jaguar/Land Rover now have their own engine development programs , separate to Ford.

Rumor is that next Gen f150 will use new Ecoboost 2.7 V6 with 320 hp and around 370 lb ft,
the improvement in fuel economy over the EB 3.5 V6 should be very impressive

[chevypower]

Jag/LR has dropped the N/A V8. They source the Ford 2.0 EcoBoost for the XF and Evoque as well as Ford's 3.0 V6 and 4.4 V8 'Lion' diesels. No doubt Ford continues to partner with them to provide engines, I just think more EcoBoosts would make sense.

As for the the I-6, no disrespect to it, it's been around for a long time, but it won't get near the fuel economy of the EB V6. Compare the fuel economy (to the best of one's ability) of a turbo Territory vs the F150 EcoBoost.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by chevypower

Jag/LR has dropped the N/A V8. They source the Ford 2.0 EcoBoost for the XF and Evoque as well as Ford's 3.0 V6 and 4.4 V8 'Lion' diesels. No doubt Ford continues to partner with them to provide engines, I just think more EcoBoosts would make sense.

As for the the I-6, no disrespect to it, it's been around for a long time, but it won't get near the fuel economy of the EB V6. Compare the fuel economy (to the best of one's ability) of a turbo Territory vs the F150 EcoBoost.

The Lion diesels were developed by J/LR and PSA but built in Ford plants.
the new V6 with 90 degree angle allows them to use V8 engineering and get a S/C engine under a lower hood line.

The Ford 2.0 EB engine will most likely be dropped shortly after J/LR's engine plant is finished in early 2014.

No disrespect taken the cost of engineering the TTV6 when the I-6T is in and done precludes any business case of it actually happening.

The cost of change is greater than keeping same and has no bearing on increased return on investment,
Ford would never get their money back...

Oh, turbo Territory is no more, the last year it was available it only had 169 sales, over 70% of Territory's current sales are V6 diesels

[Joe5619]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

So because BMW use a fraudulent name we should all follow them? the use of XR6 on a 4 will dilute the meaning of the XR6 name, it is fraudulently misrepresenting the capacity and configuration of the car regardless of how good it is ( and the Ecoboost is a good car ). it seems some people are hell bent on using the XR6 name to , by your own logic, fool the public to make the car sell. this shows a remarkable lack of morals and ethics. If the car can not sell with an honest name that does not mislead the buyer it is not really desirable in the first place.
I guess the big question is where to you morals and ethics lead you?

fraudulent?? No where in the letters & numbers 'XR6' does it say the engine must be 6 cyclinders!!!

[NX74205]

Originally Posted by tezxr8man

common sense, it's a fuel miser model that appeals to people who love driving

Fixed.

No, I didn't say it should be more expensive. I think Ford's pricing is just about right - giving customers the choice of Ecoboost or straight six for the same price.

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by Joe5619

fraudulent?? No where in the letters & numbers 'XR6' does it say the engine must be 6 cyclinders!!!

UM .... the 6 in XR6 gives it away?

Wouldn't go as far as saying fraudulent but it just doesn't fit, especially seeing there was an XR4, XR6. XR8 already. Would seem pointless. Change the looks slightly and call it a Cortina .... makes more sense .... or just drop the number and call them all the 'XR'.

Just make an EcoBoost GT? After all the Falcon GT is just a name.

[NX74205]

As for the argument over what to call an Ecoboost "XR6", I would agree with those who don't believe it should be called an XR6. I'd like to see an Ecoboost in XR guise named simply as an "XR Ecoboost". I disagree that "XR6" is the brand name, but rather, "XR" is, and the 6 or 8 just denotes how many cylinders it has.

"XR Ecoboost", if it happens, would keep the "XR" brand that has been so successful and at the same time, introduce a new advanced engine into the mix.

[jpd80]

And yet Ford sees fit to release a G6 and G6E with a four cylinder Ecoboost engine undermining the whole XR6 = I-6 only argument.
The reason Ford did not do an XR6 Ecoboost was because Ford didn't want internal competition that would further imperil I-6 engine production.

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by jpd80

And yet Ford sees fit to release a G6 and G6E with a four cylinder Ecoboost engine undermining the whole XR6 = I-6 only argument.
The reason Ford did not do an XR6 Ecoboost was because Ford didn't want internal competition that would further imperil I-6 engine production.

Yep ... weird hey! But I think the XR name associated with the following number .... and being 3 of them ..... is more synonymous with piston count than the G6.

Could always rename it the G4-S ........ (G Force)

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

Yep ... weird hey! But I think the XR name associated with the following number .... and being 3 of them ..... is more synonymous with piston count than the G6.

Could always rename it the G4-S ........ (G Force)

We'll see what happens come the FU in 2014...

[Brazen]

XRe ? Or is that a bit lame?

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

Yep ... weird hey! But I think the XR name associated with the following number .... and being 3 of them ..... is more synonymous with piston count than the G6.

Could always rename it the G4-S ........ (G Force)

Thats the thing, the number next to the XR denoted the piston count ie. XR4, XR5, XR6, XR8 etc. The 6 in G6 and G6E was never supposed to be used in any other form bar a 6 cylinder, hence they used the 6. There's never been anything else.


Ford are selling bugger all Ecoboost's and they would not want to spend more money making more models of an engine choice no one wants. The build numbers are pitiful. I doubt we will ever see additional models of Ecoboost Falcons.