Falcon EcoBoost: The Fuel Efficiency Australians Need with the Performance They Want

[russellw]

Melbourne 01/02/12

• Falcon EcoBoost delivers customers outstanding fuel efficiency starting at just 8.1L/100km fuel economy with 192g/km of CO2
• Falcon EcoBoost achieves a perfect balance of power and torque, with 179kW @ 5500 rpm and 353Nm @ 2000 rpm
• Ford’s global EcoBoost engine will be available on Falcon XT, G6 and G6E at no additional cost

Ford’s new Falcon EcoBoost will deliver consumers a new standard in large car fuel efficiency, reduced emissions, outstanding performance and affordability when it goes on sale in Q2.

The first RWD application of Ford’s global EcoBoost technology will deliver an 18 per cent improvement in fuel efficiency for the Falcon XT, compared to the standard inline six-cylinder engine. Achieving just 8.1L/100km1, the Falcon XT will also deliver just 192g/km of CO2. Both the Falcon EcoBoost and Ford’s state-of-the-art, liquid phase injection, dedicated LPG powerplant in the Falcon EcoLPi are the only two Australian-built large sedans to deliver sub-200g/km CO2 emissions.

The G6 and G6E will also receive significant fuel economy and emissions improvements with the introduction of the EcoBoost engine. Fuel economy will improve to 8.5L/100km1 – a 14 per cent improvement; while CO2 emissions will improve by 14.8 per cent to just 201g/km.

Despite achieving such impressive new fuel efficiency and emissions targets, the Falcon EcoBoost engine will also continue to provide drivers with the performance they love in a large car. Official power and torque figures return 179kW @ 5500 rpm and 353Nm @ 2000 rpm, showcasing the outstanding performance feel drivers will enjoy.

“Ford’s EcoBoost technology really is the best way to achieve improved fuel efficiency and reduced emissions at a price consumers can afford,” said Ford Australia President & CEO Bob Graziano.
“Our goal has been to find the sweet spot for Australian consumers – to give them the fuel efficiency they need, combined with the power they want. Ford’s global EcoBoost technology does just that - without any price premium.”

Smart engine technology

Falcon EcoBoost is the first global application of an EcoBoost engine in a rear-wheel drive and introduces the latest smart engine technology from Ford to large car buyers in Australia. EcoBoost uses direct injection and turbocharging to deliver more power and performance from a lower displacement powerplant, yet with impressive fuel economy and low CO2 emissions.
EcoBoost petrol engines use much of the same technology that is found in today’s state-of-the-art turbo-diesels, such as:

• A high-pressure direct injection fuel system fed by a common rail that delivers a precise amount of fuel in the exact spot for fast and complete burn.
• Turbocharging to create a more dense mix of air and fuel in each cylinder
• Special pistons with optimised bowls in the centre to improve combustion efficiency – these pistons are also oil-cooled, which reduces in-cylinder temperatures
• Reduced CO2 emissions and improved fuel economy

Just like diesels, Ford’s EcoBoost engines deliver outstanding performance and driving enjoyment at all speeds, however, EcoBoost accomplishes this at less cost than a similar-displacement diesel engine.
EcoBoost engines are already on sale in a number of Ford vehicles around the world and by 2013, will be available in 80 per cent of the company's global nameplates.

“Ford customers have embraced EcoBoost technology because of its ability to deliver power and performance with uncompromised fuel economy,” Graziano added. “With its introduction to Falcon, we’re expanding its reach to more customers so they can enjoy its unique blend of power, performance and fuel economy.”

With more than 125 patents and patent applications on its EcoBoost technology, Ford's global EcoBoost engine family is the cornerstone of its near-term sustainability plan to deliver high-volume, affordable, fuel-efficient vehicles that customers both want and value

Falcon EcoBoost will be available in Ford dealerships around Australia in early Q2.

Figures obtained from controlled tests using ADR 81/02. Actual fuel consumption will depend on many factors including driving habits, prevailing conditions and the vehicles equipment, condition and use.

[ivorya]

WOW!!!!

Congrats Ford AUS. They are great figures.

Lets hope the media and the driving public give it the recognition it deserves.

[EDManual]

That is impressive!!

However when crusing I would imagine there couldnt be too much difference in economy between the 4 and 6? Pushing the same air... Be interesting to see the open road figures.

[Polyal]

Originally Posted by EDManual

That is impressive!!

However when crusing I would imagine there couldnt be too much difference in economy between the 4 and 6? Pushing the same air... Be interesting to see the open road figures.

This, and how will it go when you want to pull a load.

Dont get me wrong there is a place for this car. One more nail in the coffin for the I6 though. They need to bite the bullet and get the TDi in there, id prefer that over the EB4.

Good to have choices, and something else for Ford to talk about.

But bugger me, Ford REALLY need a feel good add about the company, the direction they are going and what tech they have right NOW...because no one understands or knows.

[madmelon]

Originally Posted by EDManual

That is impressive!!

However when crusing I would imagine there couldnt be too much difference in economy between the 4 and 6? Pushing the same air... Be interesting to see the open road figures.

I suspect the 4cyl will still be ahead at cruise- the engine would be at a more efficient operating point than the 6 would be, as it is smaller.

[jpd80]

Greenvehicleguide has the figures up and they are impressive- LINK

Ecoboost gives fuel economy figures similar to Diesel Territory

Ecoboost Falcon:
Combined - 8.1 l/100km
Urban - 11.8 l/100 km
Extra Urban - 6.0 l/100 km

Compared to 4.0 XT:
Combined - 9.9 l/100km
Urban - 14.6 l/100 km
Extra Urban - 7.2 l/100 km

3.0 SIDI Omega:
Combined - 8.9 l/100km
Urban - 12.3 l/100 km
Extra Urban - 6.9 l/100 km

[prydey]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Greenvehicleguide has the figures up and they are impressive- LINK

Ecoboost gives fuel economy figures similar to Diesel Territory

Ecoboost Falcon:
Combined - 8.1 l/100km
Urban - 11.8 l/100 km
Extra Urban - 6.0 l/100 km

Compared to 4.0 XT:
Combined - 9.9 l/100km
Urban - 14.6 l/100 km
Extra Urban - 7.2 l/100 km

3.0 SIDI Omega:
Combined - 8.9 l/100km
Urban - 12.3 l/100 km
Extra Urban - 6.9 l/100 km

another comparo

Ecoboost Falcon 2.0L 4cyl (T), Auto 6 speed:
Combined - 8.1 l/100km
Urban - 11.8 l/100 km
Extra Urban - 6.0 l/100 km

Toyota Camry 2.5L 4cyl, Auto 6 speed
Combined - 7.8
Urban - 10.9
Extra Urban 6.0

Honda Accord Euro 2.4L 4cyl, Auto 5 speed
Combined - 8.9
Urban - 12.3
Extra Urban - 6.9

Mazda 6 2.5L 4cyl, Auto 5 speed
Combined - 8.7
Urban - 11.9
Extra Urban - 6.8

i used all auto's to keep it 'apples for apples'. some manual figures were more efficient.

as you can see, the ecoboost falcon is right in the thick of it. its all up to image and perception now. if all the members on here want the falcon to survive, they should do their part and keep any negative comments to themselves.

[Cobramad]

Best thing would be to drive them back to back. As you said, at cruise, the consumption figures will make for an interesting comparison. Remember the good old Starfire 4 that GM-H fitted to VH Commodores? Used more fuel and delivered less performance than the 6cyl models did.

[galaxy xr8]

Originally Posted by Cobramad

Best thing would be to drive them back to back. As you said, at cruise, the consumption figures will make for an interesting comparison. Remember the good old Starfire 4 that GM-H fitted to VH Commodores? Used more fuel and delivered less performance than the 6cyl models did.

Technology has somewhat progressed since the '80's, I wouldn't be comparing the Eco-boost to what has been done in the past by other's.

[TC200six]

Originally Posted by Cobramad

Best thing would be to drive them back to back. As you said, at cruise, the consumption figures will make for an interesting comparison. Remember the good old Starfire 4 that GM-H fitted to VH Commodores? Used more fuel and delivered less performance than the 6cyl models did.

Ford aren't cutting 2 cylinders off an already gutless 6 like Holden did and as galaxy xr8 said, technology has come a long way since then 1980s. So there shouldn't be any concern about it consuming more fuel than the 6 at this stage.

[Ford_The_Win]

Well done Ford, very well done.

*waits for the old farts stuck in the 1980s to draw comparisons to the 4 cylinder Commodore

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by Cobramad

Best thing would be to drive them back to back. As you said, at cruise, the consumption figures will make for an interesting comparison. Remember the good old Starfire 4 that GM-H fitted to VH Commodores? Used more fuel and delivered less performance than the 6cyl models did.

Yes, we had a VC Commodore SL with the Starfire four backed with a Traumatic auto gearbox. Fairly slow off the line...but not that slow...you have to remember that a Commodore at that time weighed only about 1300kg, so by largish four cylinder standards it wasn't too bad, probably similar to a two liter TE/TF Cortina in performance.
It was, basically, an idea whose time hadn't come...it was in fact a bit better on fuel than the six cylinder (if you drove it normally), and was certainly cheaper to run with cheaper rego and insurance costs.
I always wondered how it would have gone with a transplant for something later like a sweet SR20 in NA or even turbo form backed with a five speed...then you'd have room, comfort, and power as well.
Don't forget, Ford was only a whisker off fitting the old SOHC two liter from the Cortina to the XD...it was a very near thing indeed.

The four cylinder Falcon is an idea whose time has come...four cylinder engines are at a stage where there is really no reason to not have one in even a large car...on this very forum a while back some people made fun of the NA engine in the great new Toyota 86 for "only" putting out 200hp...the four cylinder in our VC Commodore put out about 60-odd kilowatts or 80hp, and was seen as quite a normal output for the era from a 2 liter.

[Cobramad]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Yes, we had a VC Commodore SL with the Starfire four backed with a Traumatic auto gearbox. Fairly slow off the line...but not that slow...you have to remember that a Commodore at that time weighed only about 1300kg, so by largish four cylinder standards it wasn't too bad, probably similar to a two liter TE/TF Cortina in performance.
It was, basically, an idea whose time hadn't come...it was in fact a bit better on fuel than the six cylinder (if you drove it normally), and was certainly cheaper to run with cheaper rego and insurance costs.
I always wondered how it would have gone with a transplant for something later like a sweet SR20 in NA or even turbo form backed with a five speed...then you'd have room, comfort, and power as well.
Don't forget, Ford was only a whisker off fitting the old SOHC two liter from the Cortina to the XD...it was a very near thing indeed.

The four cylinder Falcon is an idea whose time has come...four cylinder engines are at a stage where there is really no reason to not have one in even a large car...on this very forum a while back some people made fun of the NA engine in the great new Toyota 86 for "only" putting out 200hp...the four cylinder in our VC Commodore put out about 60-odd kilowatts or 80hp, and was seen as quite a normal output for the era from a 2 liter.

I disagree that the time wasn't right for a 4cyl large car, its just that the engine was a total piece of junk, thirsty, coarse and underpowered. Noted motoring journalist, the late Peter Wherret went to the trouble of transplanting the Mitsubish 2.6 4cylinder and 5speed 'box into the Commodore. It was called the "Comma", referring to the pause one would make before continuing. It went as hard as the Holden 6cyl and still used less fuel. There was no way in the world that Mitsubishi, who at the time were selling the most popular mid-sized car in the country, would ever have let anyone else have that engine/trans combo. That experiment made serious food for thought.
EB4 allows Ford to broaden its appeal to potential purchasers, which it desperately needs at present. Im hanging out to drive it and see for myself how well it stacks up as an alternative to the I6. It could be a winner..

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by Cobramad

I disagree that the time wasn't right for a 4cyl large car, its just that the engine was a total piece of junk, thirsty, coarse and underpowered. Noted motoring journalist, the late Peter Wherret went to the trouble of transplanting the Mitsubish 2.6 4cylinder and 5speed 'box into the Commodore. It was called the "Comma", referring to the pause one would make before continuing. It went as hard as the Holden 6cyl and still used less fuel. There was no way in the world that Mitsubishi, who at the time were selling the most popular mid-sized car in the country, would ever have let anyone else have that engine/trans combo. That experiment made serious food for thought.
EB4 allows Ford to broaden its appeal to potential purchasers, which it desperately needs at present. Im hanging out to drive it and see for myself how well it stacks up as an alternative to the I6. It could be a winner..

Sorry, I hadn't heard of that one! Sounds great...the Astron 2.6 was the pick of the litter when it came to four cylinder engines at that time.

I think they're totally justified in quoting fuel figures on European based cars giving results from premium unleaded...in most places the "normal" unleaded is what we call "premium".

[Jeddak]

[Remember the good old Starfire 4 that GM-H fitted to VH Commodores? Used more fuel and delivered less performance than the 6cyl models did.[/QUOTE]

mmmm.. dont forget that the starfire 4 was not engineered to be more effiecient and better than its doner engine just smaller ,even the lamenatible fiber timing gear was a carry-on with the resultant unannounced failures.
it was a cheap answer to the much more effiecient engines coming from everywhere else,Holden could have sourced a much better engine from within the GM empire ,but no...
one of the very few times that "the Aussie way" bombed.

[Road_Warrior]

No extra cost eh, sweet.

I think the I6 plant is going to be a bit quiet soon...

[svo347]

I'm sorry but I must have had my head in the sand... Performance?? I just can't see it

[Professor Farnsworth]

Originally Posted by svo347

I'm sorry but I must have had my head in the sand... Performance?? I just can't see it

keep your thinking relative.. Performance as in the same if not better performance of an FG 6A in a more economical, better handling package.

[BigAL_250]

Originally Posted by svo347

I'm sorry but I must have had my head in the sand... Performance?? I just can't see it

179kw is still more power than was available in any of the AU Intech Sixes, and the standard AU V8. The Torque figures aren't far off either for that matter.

I for one am most glad that they've been able to put this engine forward as a No Cost Option, would have been much harder to sell if it had a price premium over the I6

[smoo]

Originally Posted by BigAL_250

179kw is still more power than was available in any of the AU Intech Sixes, and the standard AU V8. The Torque figures aren't far off either for that matter.

I for one am most glad that they've been able to put this engine forward as a No Cost Option, would have been much harder to sell if it had a price premium over the I6

Except you had lazy unstressed torque pushing around 1600kg as opposed to a high strung 4 pot that is gonna rely on boost to move the FG falcon... Be interesting to see the longevity of the EB4

[Polyal]

Originally Posted by smoo

Except you had lazy unstressed torque pushing around 1600kg as opposed to a high strung 4 pot that is gonna rely on boost to move the FG falcon... Be interesting to see the longevity of the EB4

The ZF is the key here...gearing and calibration will keep it in the sweet spot for when its needed.

They wouldnt release it if it was a dog.

[Eaturbo]

Originally Posted by smoo

Except you had lazy unstressed torque pushing around 1600kg as opposed to a high strung 4 pot that is gonna rely on boost to move the FG falcon... Be interesting to see the longevity of the EB4

You could hardly compare the AU engine with this engine in technology terms. Direct injection means high compression and a lot of ignition timing so it wont need to be revved to find its torque. It will also use a small Turbo to eliminate lag. This engine like the Ecoboost 6 cyc in the USA will be a cracker and with piston cooling jets and advanced engine design using wider mains and bigends with pistons you would see in race engines this engine will easily see 200,000km [/QUOTE]

[Polyal]

Agreed Ford have an uphill battle with convincing people but that furl consumption figure is a good start!

Its like comparing the old BTR with the ZF/Ford 6SPD. Sure they are both autos, but generations apart and the benefits are pretty clear.

[Cobramad]

Yes, Im sure it will be light years ahead, as it truly needs to be. More choices for the buyer cant hurt overall sales, but it will no doubt will hurt I6 sales. Im not knocking the efficency gains however.

[XtRmn8]

are those figures achieved on 91 or 95 RON fuel?

[EFFalcon]

just short of 180kw certainly aint bad.

[Road_Warrior]

Who cares about performance?? The primary buyers for this car are going to be fleets that won't buy anything with over 200g/klm CO2 emissions, and the odd family buyer who want a large car without the thirst and the boofy size of an SUV

[Joe5619]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Who cares about performance?? The primary buyers for this car are going to be fleets that won't buy anything with over 200g/klm CO2 emissions, and the odd family buyer who want a large car without the thirst and the boofy size of an SUV

And that is a problem.. G6 & G6E are both over 200g/klm.

I'm actually a little disappointed with 8.5 from the higher end models.. I'd really like to know why??

8.1 for XT is great, but 8.5 doen't look so good & then over 200 for CO2 as well..

[Eaturbo]

This car is aimed at the Toyota Camry market and also those looking to get out of falcons into a 4 cylinder. Not everyone tows things which is clear when you look at the number of Falcons that dont even have a tow bar. You would also quite easily tow box trailers and camping trailers with this engine. We use to tow things with XF Falcons and they had 100kw. Cheap rego, cheap on fuel,and more power than an AU V8 what are the down falls. with this.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Eaturbo

This car is aimed at the Toyota Camry market and also those looking to get out of falcons into a 4 cylinder. Not everyone tows things which is clear when you look at the number of Falcons that dont even have a tow bar. You would also quite easily tow box trailers and camping trailers with this engine. We use to tow things with XF Falcons and they had 100kw. Cheap rego, cheap on fuel,and more power than an AU V8 what are the down falls. with this.

Hell, I saw a Suzuki Ignis once towing a Nissan Patrol on a car trailer

Not saying he should have been, but he was doing it...