More on EcoBoost 3.5 for RWD application

[chevypower]

Just saw this link on pickuptrucks.com.
http://jalopnik.com/5392757/400-hp-e...d-hitting-sema
It's the first time we can see how much power and torque this engine will have in RWD applications (possibilities would be F150, Expedition, Mustang and Falcon) to put out approximately 400HP/400lb-ft. (300kw/540Nm). Remember that that torque will be available from under 1800rpm up to around 5000 rpm, no lag, gets the fuel economy of a standard 3.5 V6, and runs on regular unleaded. Oh and it's obviously designed to be strong enough for towing.
Nice hot rod too!

[Deco28]

There is no way it would have the same fuel economy of a N/A 3.5l V6, I'd say you're mistaken on that commen. It would however offer V8 performance for less economy.

[chevypower]

Well if it had "less economy" than a V8, that would defeat the purpose. I assume you mean "better economy" or "less consumption." Anyway, Ford says the EcoBoost engines have the same consumption as the N/A engines they are based on. If you look at the Flex and Taurus N/A AWD 3.5L V6 versions and compare them to their EcoBoost counterparts, which also have a 3.5L engine and AWD, they have the same fuel consumption. That is the only evidence we have at the moment, so anything to the contrary is just speculation.

[EDManual]

What it will do is have pretty much the same economy HP for HP. That is if you need to use 300hp you will use 30 litres per hundred in a v8 or this v6.
When you dont need all the power it will use less as it has lots of low torque for normal driving.

Thats what I think anyway..

[Chilliman]

Originally Posted by EDManual

What it will do is have pretty much the same economy HP for HP. That is if you need to use 300hp you will use 30 litres per hundred in a v8 or this v6.
When you dont need all the power it will use less as it has lots of low torque for normal driving.

Thats what I think anyway..

How do you explain the XR6 Turbo then? Same power as the 6.0Litre Commodore, but uses over 2Litres/100Km less......and out guns its - 0-100Km/hr and 0-400metres

[FordFalconBF]

Originally Posted by Chilliman

How do you explain the XR6 Turbo then? Same power as the 6.0Litre Commodore, but uses over 2Litres/100Km less......and out guns its - 0-100Km/hr and 0-400metres

That's because traditionally Holden has always needed to have higher ltr v8 motor produce the same power Ford has with it's smaller ltr sixes and eights. Holden will probably bring out a 25ltr v8 next to beat the 5.4 of Fords. My little rant.

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by Deco28

There is no way it would have the same fuel economy of a N/A 3.5l V6, I'd say you're mistaken on that commen. It would however offer V8 performance for less economy.

You need to account for the mass of the vehicle.

If the n/a 3.5 is struggling to pull 2t then it wouldn't surprise me at all if the turbo had better or the same consumption, especially when torque is peaking at 1800rpm.

As you already know, the seedy 3.0 isn't more economical than it's bigger, more powerful 3.6 litre sister, as has Holden forgot the VE wasn't exactly a flyweight.

A car's mass needs to be matched by the right amount of torque at the right amount of rpm, to meet it's objective.

[EDManual]

Originally Posted by Chilliman

How do you explain the XR6 Turbo then? Same power as the 6.0Litre Commodore, but uses over 2Litres/100Km less......and out guns its - 0-100Km/hr and 0-400metres

well when its not using its power its more economical because of the easy torque at low revs, but when it is using it its probably about the same.
It gives you the choice.

Turbos use heaps of fuel if floored. Thats a fact...

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by EDManual

Turbos use heaps of fuel if floored. Thats a fact...

As does any engine, I guess the nice thing about the EcoBoost is it has the low end torque of a diesel, not a wimpy low-end that we are used to with most turbos. The type that you have to floor it just to enjoy it. But if you do open it up, it has it there also... I am really liking the idea of this engine.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by EDManual

well when its not using its power its more economical because of the easy torque at low revs, but when it is using it its probably about the same.
It gives you the choice.

Turbos use heaps of fuel if floored. Thats a fact...

Correct. But thats not to say that in spirited driving mode the i6T uses more fuel than the outdated, but reasonably effective (if poor for emissions-hello soon to be EuroIV-crippled performance) GMH 6.0L.

Most tuners agree that a well sorted NA uses fuel, has a BSFC of about 0.5lbs/hp/hr. A turbo has about 0.55-0.60 lbs/hp/hr. With the i6T at the lower end of that from most reports.

But the other 85% of time when your not on it. The i6T benefits from being 33% smaller. Much lower pumping losses.