Tesla Model X, Toyota FT-Bh Concept, Outlander...

Ford to charge $700 premium for EcoBoost

 
7 1,933 views August 18, 2008

Ford to charge $700 premium for EcoBoost

Ford to charge $700 premium for EcoBoost

Enlarge Photo
Ford’s new EcoBoost engine technology is heralded by the company as the key to finding a balance between power and economy, but buyers will have to wait more than a year for the first application of the new engine design. EcoBoost will be available towards the middle of next year in the Lincoln MKS sedan and Ford Flex crossover, but the Blue Oval envisages the technology one day appearing across its entire lineup.

The technology will be applied on everything from four-cylinders to V8s and will only cost consumers a premium of around $700, according to Automotive News. The information comes from Ford's advanced engine design manager Brett Hinds, who also revealed that the fuel savings from EcoBoost will enable buyers to recoup the premium paid for the technology within two years. Hinds estimates annual savings of about $340 when driving 15,000 miles per year with petrol priced at $3.25 a gallon.

EcoBoost technology combines turbocharging and gasoline direct injection. In initial testing Ford has found that a V6 with EcoBoost gets as much as 20% better fuel economy than a conventional V8 but with similar power levels.

Other initiatives Ford is planning to help reduce fuel consumption includes the introduction of six-speed transmissions with dual-clutch PowerShift technology, start-stop engines that shut off when the vehicle stops, electric power steering to even more vehicles, direct injection, Twin Independent Variable Cam Timing engines, and the introduction of more diesel models into the lineup.



Posted in:
 
Contribute
Send us a tip Comment Contact the editor
Follow Us

 

Have an opinion?Join the conversation!

  • Posting indicates you have read this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use
Comments (7)

  1. By Chris Posted: 8/18/2008 9:42am PDT

    oh wow,... If i can get a 2L ecoboost in my next focus...... for 700$... i'll probably crap myself in sheer excitement.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  2. By Craig S Posted: 8/18/2008 2:56pm PDT

    That comparison is a little odd though. A V6 with 20% better consumption than a traditional V8 (which is a gas guzzler) with the samer performance as an old V8. That sounds like no real improvement at all!

    How does it do against a similarly sized (displacement) regular V6? That is a true test not an old V8 engine! Typical domestic BS just like the Chevy Tahoe Hybrid which gets 17Mpg City and 18Mpg highway and that is supposed to be good? It's still a gas guzzler.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  3. By Gus Posted: 8/18/2008 4:42pm PDT

    No, I think what they mean is to compare say a Mustang V6 with a Mustang GT.

    If I could have bought either a Mustang GT (whcih I did) or a Mustang V6 with eco-boost (silly name, but I digress) whcih gets the same power AND torque, at the same low revs (or close to it) and get 20% better economy, for $700 more, AND it was proven technology, then I just might have gone with the V6 turbo.

    As it is, I don't drive far, and I'm not 100% sure that a blown (turbo or sc) engine is as reliable as a regular engine. Most of the time (and I don't know if this is the case with the eco-boost) a blown motor (especially with direct injection) needs Premium fuel as well, which costs up to 20% more than regular, so who knows what the real savings will be?
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  4. By NoNameDenton Posted: 8/18/2008 4:55pm PDT

    Autoblog posted an update saying Ford has NOT announced pricing for the EcoBoost, so this is an unconfirmed rumor.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  5. By chris Posted: 8/18/2008 5:59pm PDT

    yeah craig you're really missing the point here.. ford is going to replace their V8's with turbo v6's, their v6's with turbo I4's.. etc. the point is that you'll be able to get a mustang GT that gets comparable performace to the V8 with much lower fuel consumption. what's hard to understand about that? if i tell you that powerplant A gives you 300 hp and 300 lbft but sucks down 20 mpg... and powerplant B does the same power figures sucking down 25mpg.. which will you chose? oh not to mention that ideally, if you aren't revving the snot out of a turbocharged engine.. not loading it too much.. you should get the same mileage as the same car with the same engine that DOESNT have the turbo. it's displacement on demand.

    noname; let's hope that this unconfirmed rumour takes the same course as most of the rumours coming out of ford of late: that it is true. i think long gone are the days of getting complete BS out of the big 3... they cant afford to BS anyone anymore.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  6. By NoNameDenton Posted: 8/18/2008 8:26pm PDT

    I agree Chris, but I am cautious when wanting to believe if a rumor or true is not, I am interested to hear what they will charge for the 4.4 liter V8 diesel as well.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  7. By Chris Posted: 8/19/2008 11:41am PDT

    ah yes,.. the 4.4L diesel.. well, it would be nice if it costs only marginally more than the 5.4L triton.. but there's no telling.. it will be ford's first small diesel.. and the first time in 20 years that ford makes a diesel in-house.. plus they will likely try to recoup some of the cost of retooling Essex Engine Plant (Windsor) for diesel production.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

 

Have an opinion?Join the conversation!

Research New Cars

Go!


More from High Gear Media

 
 
MotorAuthority
  • Follow Us
  • Twiiter
  • Facebook
 
 
© 2011 MotorAuthority. All Rights Reserved. MotorAuthority is published by High Gear Media. Stock photography by Homestar, LLC. Send us feedback.
 

Use the form below to send us a tip, give us feedback, or just say hello.

(max 750 characters)