Talk:Ford EcoBoost engine

Automobiles Start‑class Low‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Ford EcoBoost engine. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Ford EcoBoost engine at the Reference desk.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

1994-1997 Volvo 850 T5/T5R
1998-2000 Volvo S70
1998-2004 Volvo V70
1998-2004 Volvo C70
2001-2004 Volvo S60 T5

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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-1,596 cc (2 L; 97 cu in)"
Does anyone know how to correctly display the litre displacement figure? Alsavage (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, not automatically, but when you (Wikipedia: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 | Thomas.W ^talk 19:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

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.