Talk:Ford EcoBoost engine

Taurus summary at bottom of page
The summary and links box for the Ford Taurus appears at the bottom of this page, as if this were the main page for the Taurus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.24.22 (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

News of the engine
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2009/09/report-ford-confirms-f-150-to-get-ecoboost-v6.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.69.219.3 (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

MY and years
It should be recognised that only the USA really uses MY in advance of real year, so for worldwide consumption it is worth putting chronological dates in. For instance in Oz you buy a BA Falcon, not a 2004MY one. So come up with a way of including that data in the article. My suggestion doesn't actually work, but perhaps it is less ugly than tomcha's suggestion. Maybe a table would be a better approach? Greglocock (talk) 03:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see the point of specifically stating the start of production ahead of the model year - I'd assume it's generally understood that model years are used in place of production years in most cases. I'll concede, of course, if you plan on altering every wiki page for every engine series and application, in every language. --Benjamin Henry (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is EcoBoost?
I think the article could be improved with a description of how EcoBoost works, and how it differs from an engine without this "technology." Or is it simply a difference in engine design philosophy? Bohemian89 (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It is actually a turbo, so not much in terms of "technology" 79.103.193.155 (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "A Turbo" would be a understatement. If you look at the torque curve of the 3.5 F-150 engine, it is superior to F series International Harvester IDI and some early  Ford Power Stroke engines

Key points of Ecoboost:
 * Variable cambshaft(s)
 * Variable turbo(s)
 * Direct injection
 * Low end torque.
 * E85

--Dana60Cummins (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is the Roadrunner Listed??
It's listed under ecoboost V8 but if it's not considered an Ecoboost v8, then why is it listed? This doesn't make sense? MediaRocker (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Bobcat
That's built on the "modular" block like the 5.0 Coyote, not the old Windsor block? Bizzybody (talk) 09:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Correct stroke for V6
The correct stroke for the 3.5L Ecoboost is 86.7MM or approx. 3.4134 inches. 92.5MM x 86.7MM is the correct bore and stroke. 9.25/2 = 4.625 x 4.625 = 21.39 x 3.1416(pi)= 67.2 x 8.67 = 582.63 x 6 cylinders = 3496cc or 3.496L x 61.024 = 213.34 CID Your incorrect stroke of 88.7MM or 3.4921 is as follows: 9.25/2 = 4.625 x 4.625 = 21.39 x 3.1416(pi)= 67.2 x 8.87 = 596.07 x 6 cylinders = 3576cc or 3.576L x 61.024 = 218.22 CID — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.167.26 (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Correct stroke
The stroke has been corrected to 86.7mm. The stroke in inches still needs to be corrected to 3.41 in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.162.68 (talk) 03:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

What is EcoBoost?
EcoBoost is nothing more than combining modern high compression engines with turbocharging. Historically when an engine was turbocharged compression was reduced. This resulted in a low compression, inefficient engine whenever the turbocharger was not engaged. For instance, imagine a high performance normally aspirated engine with a 10:1 compression ratio. In the "old days" compression would have been decreased to 8:1 or 8.5:1 when a turbocharger was installed. Today this does not occur. The auto makers can now install a turbocharger on the 10:1 high compression engine with variable timing and all other modern technology. The result is an engine that is highly efficient when running with or without the turbocharger. Ford did not directly invent this technology. Volvo (both before and during Ford ownership) were pioneers in this technology. Volvo was building "EcoBoost" engines in the late 1990's before Ford bought Volvo. It can safely be assumed that Ford gained it's EcoBoost technology from Volvo. The horsepower and torque to cubic volume ratios of the Ford EcoBoost engines are almost identical to Volvo engines built in the late 1990's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.162.68 (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Completely false. No 90's Volvo engine had variable cam shafts, variable turbos, direct injection, and was able to run on E85.  I'm yet to find another engine like the EcoBoost. Also these engines are light and produce a low end torque like a diesel.  --Dana60Cummins (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Really? Maybe you should read the Wiki Volvo Modular Engine Article and then you might what you are talking about.
This is straight from Wiki: 2.3 The B5234 is a 2.3 L (2319 cc) straight-5. Bore is 81 mm and stroke is 90 mm.

[edit] B5234T3 The B5234T3 features exhaust cam variable valve timing (in later engine revisions), a single turbocharger, and an intercooler. Output ranges from 225 hp (168 kW) at 5200 rpm and 221 ft·lbf (300 N m) of torque from 2000-5200 rpm in the pre-VVT engines to 247 hp (184 kW) at 5200 rpm with 243 ft·lbf (330 N m) of torque at 2400-5200 rpm with VVT. Also features a drive-by-wire electronic throttle and Bosch ME7 Engine Management from 1999 onwards Applications: 247HP/141.51CID = 1.74HP per cubic inch. 243LB-FT/141.51CID = 1.72LB-FT per cubic inch. Very similar to the Ford Ecoboost and as you read above with variable valve timing. Volvo added variable valve timing to this engine and several others in 1999. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.172.86 (talk) 02:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1994-1997 Volvo 850 T5/T5R
 * 1998-2000 Volvo S70
 * 1998-2004 Volvo V70
 * 1998-2004 Volvo C70
 * 2001-2004 Volvo S60 T5


 * I can't find any notable similarities. If you find a sourced one, skip the talk page, and add it.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Specifications Lists
Can somebody please clean up the horribly formatted specification lists in the EcoBoost I4 section? They're full of typographical errors, and are based on pre-production figures as far as power ratings, torque ratings, etc. and are either lacking US customary units, or any units altogether. Either condense them into paragraph/narrative form, or omit invalid information, and add bullets, and correct punctuation. Thoughts? -- 16:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.228.238 (talk)

-i did what i could to make it look clean, i also added US units, hope it's better now ZunaOFP (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)ZunaOFP

There's an oddity still, in this section: "Displacement-1,596 cc (2 L; 97 cu in)" Now, that *should* read "1.6 L", not "2 L", but the display seems to be a generated one: "Displacement-1596 cc" Does anyone know how to correctly display the litre displacement figure? Alsavage (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I fixed that, but I did it manually, I didn't used that convert stuff. It didn't worked for some reason I just can't understandZunaOFP (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)ZunaOFP

EcoBoost - Fords intro to direct injection
EcoBoost is all about direct injection. Variable cam timing and many other technological advancements play a part but this is all about Direct injection and the benefits like dramatically better fuel economy that go along with it. Ford engineers had a hard time making a direct injection engine that did not knock or detonate at various RPM's. They found using turbocharging and a higher octane helped considerably with the benefit of more horsepower. They could have spent the money to buy out a patent but with Ford being a innovator rather than a follower, did it their own way that is unlike other direct injections.

-Ford has an infomercial that i bet you can find on youtube that explains the whole thing.


 * Bosch did the work with the fuel injection system. The efficiency comes from a combination of known technologies.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Tone and sources
This article really reads like an advertisement, especially the opening few paragraphs and the links at the bottom. Plus a lot of the sources are Ford press releases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.216.215.162 (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I completely agree, the only thing missing is a ™ / &trade; Symbol after every third word. There are multiple posts on the Talk page to the tone of "What is "EcoBoost"?" answered by Dana60Cummins but not the article. --Moritzgedig (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Article Split
Might I suggest that the different engines be split into their respective engine family articles and this page be about the EcoBoost technology, with a list of the engines that use the technology. For example the 3.5 EcoBoost actually is in the Ford Cyclone engine family, so while it uses EcoBoost technology it is more closely related to the Cyclone engines. Just a suggestion. VX1NG (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed, these engines are not really meant to be together. The EcoBoost technology should be a separate page as well. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

An e-mail from Ford isn't a hoax.
F.u.c.k. you Wikipedia/ISIS. Trump 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:A4A4:D6D4:0:46:7AAF:4701 (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, not automatically, but when you (Sockpuppet investigations/Altimgamr) post a screenshot of a fake email from Ford, and try to use it as a source here on Wikipedia, then it is a hoax. - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 19:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ford EcoBoost engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130728152234/http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=27455 to http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=27455
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120225033633/http://www.sr3sl.com:80/A-Radical-Departure/?hprnav to http://www.sr3sl.com/A-Radical-Departure/?hprnav
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100820145729/http://media.ford.com:80/images/10031/2011_F150_EcoBoost.pdf to http://media.ford.com/images/10031/2011_F150_EcoBoost.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Ecoboost is a marketing name, not a family of engines, and not all based on a Mazda
I'll work on some solid sourcing, but starting out that the motors are manufactured by Mazda is wrong. Some of the motors did have origins in Mazda, but as "Ecoboost" is nothing more than Fords branding for a turbo motor, then it is false to claim Mazda created them, and certainly they aren't manufacturing them. If others can help to contribute and edit we can make this corrections. The intro that uses fords claim on a specific (yet unspecified) application and then disputing that with a CR article seems slanted to me as well. An explanation of breakdown and neutral introduction with better facts on it being markings and not a family will make the article much more proper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DPFrantz (talk • contribs) 20:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * There's been a few people (maybe just one?) that have made edits like this on several Ford pages.


 * One large issue with the edits made on this page is under the engine family list. It states that the new 3.0L Ecoboost is the "Mazda GY, note 1991 Taurus SHO Yamaga v6 engine" which is most likely completely incorrect, the 3.0L Duratec V6 (called the GY engine in Mazda applications) has been out of production for years, I seriously doubt that they brought it back for this application. If there's any proof of that being the case, I'd love to see it. Personally, I think the article should be reverted if the issues cannot be addressed. Check out the Wikipedia pages for the Ford CD4 Platform, the Ford Duratec V6 and the page for the Ford Cyclone engine, similar edits have been made to them. 174.140.181.220 (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Update:


 * I posted this to the Cyclone talk page, it might be of interest here as well:


 * I have been doing some research on Google for the Cyclone engine and the Duratec 3.0L V6. Interestingly, they actually have some information about their engine history right on their site, in PDF format. Here's what it says about the Cyclone V6:


 * "Code named “Cyclone” in development, this all-aluminum design uses a deep-skirt die-cast block with cast-in liners, six-bolt main bearing caps, forged steel crank, and mechanical bucket tappet heads. Launched  from Lima Engine Plant for the 2007 Edge, it is now used in all of Ford’s North American mid/large-sized front-wheel drive vehicles, typically coupled to the new  6F transmission. Lincoln and Mazda applications increased bore size for 3.7L displacement,  with Mazda engine manufacturing localized in Hiroshima.


 * Cleveland-built “EcoBoost” Gas (twin) turbo direct injected (GTDI) 3.5L versions premiered in 2010 for the All-Wheel-Drive Taurus SHO, Flex, plus Lincoln MKT and MKS. With 365 horsepower, this engine provides V8 performance without the associated fuel-economy or vehicle-packaging compromises. For 2013, Explorer Sport applications are added.


 * Twin-independent variable cam timing (Ti-VCT) was added for the first rear-wheel-drive usage, achieving 305 horsepower for the 2011 3.7L Mustang — more than three times base Mustang"


 * There's no mention of Mazda having anything to do with the design of the engine. There's also info provided for many of the engines Ford makes/uses, including the 2.0L/2.3L/2.5L DOHC engines, which clearly states that they were initally designed by Mazda. If the Cyclone was designed by Mazda, it would probably have been included in the info for the Cyclone V6. Also, it states that Mazda did actually build Cyclone engines in their Hiroshima plant, so they did technically manufacture them, without turbos.


 * Here's a link to the pdf document from Ford: https://performanceparts.ford.com/download/pdfs/EngineHistory.pdf I would say that it should count as a reference, seeing as it's directly from Ford. 174.140.181.220 (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting there is a Vandal that repeatedly edits the Ford Duratec V6 and Ford Cyclone Engine Pages (as well as this page and others) claiming that Mazda is to credit for many things they are not. The above pages have to be reverted every few months. 97.70.245.17 (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Fossil Fuels and Carbon Dioxide
The article mentions 30% less fuel and 15% less carbon dioxide. This cannot be correct. The carbon dioxide quantity is directly proportional to the fossil fuel used since 12 grams of carbon produce 44 grams of carbon dioxide.

Less Fuel and Less Carbon Dioxide
The article talks about 30% less fuel, but 15% less carbon dioxide. This cannot be correct as 100% less fuel (no consumption) would mean 50% less carbon dioxide. 193.242.214.5 (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Not going to go into it but I suspect the Ford is talking about greenhouse emissions, not just CO2. Greglocock (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Bridgend
The Bridgend Engine Plant has now closed, so someone with a Clue might like to update the article with where, if anywhere, production has moved to. Mr Larrington (talk) 11:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikilink for FEV
FEV North America (mentioned in the first paragraph) apparently is Forschungsgesellschaft für Energietechnik und Verbrennungsmotoren.

If that page is ever translated into English (or if Forschungsgesellschaft für Energietechnik und Verbrennungsmotoren / FEV North America are ever created), it should probably be wikilinked in this article. Jim Grisham (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Ecoboost 1.0 Timing Belts
Ford made the decision to place the oil-bathed wetbelt inside the 1.0 "Fox" engine, initially claiming to last "the lifetime of the car". Their decision later being reconsidered, the wet belt became a serviceable item at a 10 year, 100,000 mile interval. Requiring specialist tools, some Ford garages quote over £1,500 for renewal of the belt, with other independent garages able to recoup on their tool investment and charging up to half of that quoted by Ford. A typical belt change can take anywhere from 8 to 12 hours and many owners are choosing to take their chances with the timing belt.

May be worth adding the difficulty of accessing the belt to the article. The belt is locked behind a difficult to access crankshaft pulley bolt and whilst it can be removed, the job does take considerable experience. RodFranPlan (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)