Ford Falcon EcoBoost on schedule: Burela
September 11, 2009 by David Twomey
Ford has moved a step closer to the four-cylinder Falcon with the news that the first test prototypes using the EcoBoost engine have begun running.
Ford’s President and CEO Marin Burela told a media briefing in Melbourne this morning that the first Falcon ‘mules’ running the 2.0-litre, direct-injection, turbocharged, four cylinder were in operation.
Questioned by CarAdvice about the EcoBoost progress at this morning’s briefing Mr Burela said the engines were now being tested.
“We use different types of vehicles, yes we have mules that have Falcon configurations,” he said.
“All the testing that we have done in terms of weight-ratio, vehicle performance, take-off, torque, everything that we have done has indicated to us that this will be very good,” Mr Burela added.
In July, when Ford announced the $230 million dollar plan to make the Falcon the first rear-wheel-drive car in the Ford world to run the engine, Mr Burela said it would be fitted to test vehicles within two weeks.
He later told journalists that this had been delayed, although he did admit that the engine was running in the T6 commercial vehicle mules that CarAdvice has previously photographed being tested at the Ford Proving Ground.
Despite the slight delays in getting the test vehicles underway Mr Burela indicated that the program was on schedule and he said the Falcon EcoBoost would be on sale in the first half of 2011.
He said the strategy remained on track and he prophesised the engine would give Ford an avenue into a wide range of government and fleet sales that it was currently being denied.
“Look many fleets do buy large cars but there are a lot of smaller four-cylinder cars also being bought, where a larger car would be more desirable, and we will be able to satisfy that desire,” Mr Burela said.
“I think it is going to be a huge surprise and delight for the market because it will give people and incredible option, and the EcoBoost technology, being a direct-injection, turbocharged four-cylinder engine will give us the power, give us the fuel efficiency and the CO2 reductions.”
Information from Ford in the US indicates the four-cylinder, 2.0-litre engine with EcoBoost technology delivers 205kW and 379Nm of torque, approximately the equivalent for a 3.5-litre V6 engine.
He also took a swipe at Toyota’s Camry Hybrid, saying the EcoBoost Falcon would offer more accommodation and better fuel economy for a significantly lower cost.
He also expressed considerable confidence that the performance of the EcoBoost engine would win over any buyers who were sceptical about the ability of a small engine to move a vehicle as large as the Falcon.
Mr Burela dismissed suggestions that the EcoBoost would be used in a low-cost, fleet style model of the Falcon saying it represented affordable technology that would give people a choice.
He said the four-cylinder Falcon would compliment the in-line six-cylinder powered vehicles in the range and would appeal to those who chose to buy into the proposition.
Mr Burela suggested that the EcoBoost Falcon would provide Ford with incremental business and sell alongside the in-line six, which will be upgraded to Euro4 emissions standards next year.
Print it: 
This is gunna make the 3.0 Commodore look like a joke. Much more torque over a wider range.
agreed Robin. The turbo will give it a good torque curve, given they will be small turbos there will be very minimal lag. If in the market for a base large car I would go a turbo 4 over a V6 any day. I’m sure there will be several after market options become available also.
Good move Ford.
Are you sure they’re small turbos? I would think you’d need a fairly big turbo to make 205kW reliably from a 2L motor. That’s a fairly substantial per litre output. Unless they’ve worked some kind of magic I would expect some lag.
I thought that awell Philthy,Eg Nissan 2 liter turbo SR20DET has 183kw and 274nm in its Highest output version with 11 psi(very noticable lag),22kw down on the ecoboost and 105nm down but it has no DI,interesting to see how much boost will be needed with DI,I reckon it would have to be down to 7psi for a normal drivers car.Also what if Ford used a Variable Geometry Turbo combined with DI,that could be a way of getting the power without the lag.Could that be what is up there sleeve.
I don’t really think quoting that iron block dinosaur is very relevant to modern engines. The SR20, back in its day, was average at best.
There will be lag. And forgive me if im wrong, but the whole point of adding more air via the form of a turbocharger is so that you can add more fuel and maintain the correct air/fuel ratio.
So if you are simply adding more fuel, whats the point? Most smaller turbo cars are still fairly thirsty, they use smaller engines for regulations, weight or packaging, not because of efficiency.
Just trying to compare apples with apples,although its an old apple,maybe the VW TSI 2.0 would be a better compare it to.Anyone know how mush boost the Tsi engine has for its 147kw????.On the efficiency point,the VW Golf tsi(turbo)2.0 has 147kw and 280nm at 1800.The renult Clio197 is a 2.0 naturally aspirated engine with 145kw and 215nm at 5550,less torque and way up in the rev range but the quoted consumtion figures are GTI at 8.0 and the Clio at 8.4,so there are some gains to be made.I will be interesting to see how the ecoboost will compare aginst the 3.0SIDI engine thats Quoted at 9.3 l\100km,so i’d think the ecoboost will be around the 9 mark.
Aren’t Ecoboosts equipped with a small and a large turbo to avoid that lag?
It don’t see why it makes the Holden 3.0 a joke. That is a very good motor. It also sounds like this will be a good very option as well. It’s great to see competition producing some great local alternatives to the imports.
The Commodore 3.0 litre engine’s not a joke now, so what will make it one in the future? I applaud Holden and Ford for their respective strategies.
No other 3 litre normally aspirated engine gets near the Commodore’s mix of power, torque and economy except for a version of BMW’s straight six that goes in the 5 series. Check for yourself.
i agree golfy,
i’ve just driven both(3.0 & 3.6)and their quieter,more powerful,and the 6 speed makes them heaps more user friendly,especially off the line.the 3.6 now “lifts the nose” like the 6.o ltr v8.and more fuel efficient to boot.not crazy on the tyres but,the bridgestone’s feel better(to me)…
guys guys – the common enemy here is TOYOTA !!!!111!eleven11!1!
Hes right buy falcon/commodores they are so much better than the Aurion/camry lol they are FWD. the 8.8L/100km in the camry isnt impressive and the hybrid isnt worth buying since u spend more money on the premium over the standard car than u could save from less fuel consumption (ie its not worth buying over the standard car).
Just another bogan who won’t give up the view of front drive is rubbish. Given that the Aurion and Camry don’t have performance models, this is probably a hint that they aren’t targeting petrolheads. And for the target audience, this is fine. If they are going to be crawling in traffic at 10km/h, then it won’t really matter what end the power is coming from will it?
They Tried a sports Aurion,didn’t workout too well for them.Fwd is Rubbish for large,heavy performance cars.TRD Aurion is proof of this.
try towing a trailer in an fwd, no thanx. Is there a tow rating for the baby ford donk yet?
Long time to wait to put the motor in the car – gives Holdens Commodore a nice advantage for a long time. I mean if you want economy you go for the 3.0 litre if you want performance you get the 3.6 litre. Ford will struggle just offering a 4.0 litre from XT to G6E. I know they have the Turbo six but that in essence is no more powerful or that much more frugal than the 6.0 litre Holden engines.
It may be a case of too little too late for the I4T Falcon – Magna/380 anyone?
If u want performance buy the aussie 4L I6… with more torque and a way better gearbox the 3.6 will be hard pressed to outperform it. But for economy u cant beat the v6 3L well not until they release this 2L ecoboost engine, it will better it in performance and economy.
Who is going to be more attractive to fleets? Ford, of course
Petrol burns fuel faster than diesel.
Overall cost of ownership is less in a diesel.
The diesel is environmentally better with emissions.
Diesel will be more popular used so resale is protected.
Fleets companies will want to be seen by their customers as environmentally conscious
I think Holden has made a costly move staying with the six.
On the other hand it gives them a nice point of differentiation. Those not trusting a 4cyl turbo have an alternative in the 3.0l Holden, while those who want a large Ford with economy can plumb for the Ecoboost.
Given that the Holden 3.0 in out now and Ford are still 18 months from market with their alternative, you would expect Holden to have some sort of reply in the pipeline by then. Whether it is ongoing tinkering with the engine or weight reduction and aero improvements.
It’s great to see some actual innovation in the large car segment happening.
Which is why the forthcoming diesel Commodore makes so much sense, Salesman.
Passat TDI for the win
Did an intern write this?
He also….
He Also…..
He Also……
He said…
He Also…..
LOL nice pointing that out, just scrolled back up – nearly every paragraph beings like that lol
Yeah Gift-ed, Reuss said before he left that after the new engines that weight reduction was highest on the agenda. Lets hope they can get the luxo models to do some good economy figure so that their marketing campaign has some truth in it.
good to see Ford and Holden with innovative options.
I like the comments about the hybrid Camry.
Toyota should have been putting money into diesel technology. They opted for hybrid in Australia because Mr KRudd threw (our) money at them.
I think the folly of their thought will be realized in hybrid Camry sales (or lack there-of). The competition will be too good in every regard.
Good on Ford and Holden for finally coming to the party although they still have a lot of room for improvement in the diesel stakes.
{Mode= Toyota bash – off
I must give some credit to Toyota. If it wasn’t for the Aurion, Ford and Holden would probably still be sitting on their hands.
I’m not convinced. Considering that XR and G6E Falcons make up such a large proportion of Falcons sold, I think that finding a cheaper place to assemble the Mondeo would make more sense. This way they could push Mondeo as a fleet car (petrol 4-cyl and diesel) and keep the performance models for those buyers who actually care about RWDs (fleet buyers don’t).
But then again, Ford oz could pull the plug on the whole Falcon ecoboost project as they did with the idea of assembling the Focus locally.
Until the overweight Fowlcan and Dunnydore start to shed some of their 1800 KG of blubber, then an engine, no matter how good, can only do so much. A step in the right direction, but only a step.
they are ‘full-sized’ family sedans and so a certain level of luxury and safety features has to be maintained. that is what makes a falcon/commodore what it is, not trying to be a camry, accord, or liberty. might as well critique a statesman or 7-series for being overweight large executive sized cars.
I suspect Ford will learn the lesson the hard way again.
The Mondeo is a very good car – a large car. But it doesn’t sell well in the Oz market because it has 4 cylinders. You can spice it up any way you want but the punters won’t come to the party.
I predict the 4 cylinder Falcon will go the way of the 4 cylinder Commodore. It will be dumped and executives at Ford will look at more viable options like diesel. I doubt I am the only potential customer who wouldn’t dream of a 4 pot big car. Why Bother?
The commodore’s 4cyl (w/o turbo) is 30 year old technology and the Mondeo failed because it is foreign produced and poorly marketed in Australia due to the fact its market overlaps to that of the Falcon’s.
David….are you seriously comparing the abortion of a car that was the 4 cylinder Commodore to 4 cyl turbo Falcon? They are in no way similar. Camry is a large car and is a 4 cyl. The ecoboost engine is not a chopped up 6 cylinder like the Commode engine was and I dont even know why you would even mention it. The Ford engine will have more power and importantly more torque than alot of V6 large cars and will use less fuel……..so whats wrong with that? And dont forget the wonderful I6……when its updated it will still be more powerful and more economical than the 3litre GM engine. Then there is the gas injection engine……..more power and torque than the 3 or 3.6 GM engines and less than half the cost to run…….what a great choice of engines.
The Ecoboost Falcon is going to do to the current Commodore what the XD Falcon did to the VB in the late 70’s.
Any comparison with the early 80′2 commodore 4cyl is simply rediculous. The market is very different, the 2.0 Di turbo going into falcon is simply nothing like the horrid starfire 4cyl commodore.
Ford has made the right, long term product plan imo and remember the 6 speed DSG gearbox will be used, great drivetrain set up.
I just wish it was for sale now.
I am not sure that this is going to fly with traditional Falcon buyers. The Falcon buyer dreams of the V8 but the head buys a six. If you are going to buy a four – turbo or not then would you not logically aim for the Focus/mondeo? I wonder why they do not offer a staggered range of the turbo four, six and turbo, and leave the 8 for as an option for the luxury/sports editions. Test the waters so to speak. However I still believe the Ford’s world picture is going to revolve around the mondeo…a size comparable with the Falcon – FWD aside of course and offering a 4cyl and turbo 5 cylinder. It saves bucks offering the same platform in all markets and tinkering with tune for each market. Maybe find a smaller 6cylinder i.e. volvo and offer that instead? I understand the rationelle…but marketing a turbo 4 vs the market large car leaders small 6? Not a good look. I suspect they are going to take a hit and leave Ford no option but to drop Falcon and market Mondeo..long term maybe that is what they want? Wean the Aussie buyer to be down sized in their thinking when it comes to their choice of vehicle?
So, Ford make an announcement to introduce a more efficient drivetrain when they need it to support lagging sales and then it takes 2 years to complete? When will they actually carry out some forward product planning rather than reactionary patchwork fixes?
fiesta with ecoboost = new xr4
Wow… that sounds hot – can’t believe no one has ever thought of that.
A fiesta with 379 NM of Torque?
Tyre smoke much?
Maybe they could rename it Cortina
The best thing Ford could do for sales is bring out a new Falcon wagon. Trust me, we are on the verge of a new trend of people getting out of SUVs and into wagons, im already starting to see a lot of user chooser fleet orders for wagons to replace SUVs.
That’s what I think too.
Wagons with performance and style of a sedan but the extra versatility of the load area are the future in my opinion.
If the Fordophiles have to stay with the brand, in this context the Mondeo TDI has more cred. Well engineered, more interior space, nice euro diesel all for a very competitive price.
4 liter turbo falcon can be boosted to 310 RWK with just a tune of $800. and still produce 11L/100 fuel economy. 2 cyl turbo will be even better, i think Holdens are waisting their time with 6.2 liter V8, when its 150 kg heavy. Will need 400 RWK to beat boosted XR6T falcon. and 15+ L fuel, Holdens are loosers in every term, i think they should now go turbo as well.
At this rate we will end up with a falcon powered by a sail and peddles, or an attachment to be horse drawn
anyone who wants a V8 Falcon should convince Ford to develop a V8 Diesel not to dissimilar to the Audi V8 Diesel, this thing has so much Torque you need to wear special undies to keep it all in, plus drive it conservatively and you’ll get under 8L/100km, what more can one ask for?
If this model gets released, I can see substantial overlap with Mondeo – being that it is near the size of the Falcon, and has 4-cylinder engines of a similar size, abeit in a FWD configuration.