Ford Mondeo EcoBoost announced at Beijing Motor Show

By Matt Brogan | April 23rd, 2010

Ford has today announced it will use EcoBoost engine technology, as displayed at the Beijing Motor Show, in upcoming Mondeo models to be sold in China and Europe.

The Ford Mondeo EcoBoost will feature a 2.0-litre four-cylinder which, utilising the latest in direct injection and turbocharging technology, delivers class leading power and torque levels.

EcoBoost technology will be available globally in 1.6-litre and 2.0-litre four-cylinder variants by the end of the year.

Since introducing EcoBoost technology in its 3.5-litre V6 engines last year, Ford has achieved fuel economy gains of up to 10 per cent from some models.

“Customers have embraced EcoBoost technology because of its ability to deliver power and performance with uncompromised fuel economy,” said Derrick Kuzak, Ford group vice president for global product development.

“We’re committed to bringing this technology to multiple vehicles so that more customers can take advantage of the no-compromise Ford EcoBoost combination of power, performance and fuel economy.

“Ford EcoBoost works in any gasoline engine, so adding a 4-cylinder engine to complement our V6 line-up was a logical development.”

The new 2.0-litre EcoBoost engine applies many of the same technologies as found in the original V6 EcoBoost engine, including direct injection, turbocharging and variable valve timing.

Using six individual jets (in this instance), located in the fuel injector, direct injection allows fuel to be sprayed directly in to the cylinder where it immediately cools the air – just before the mixture is ignited. The result allows higher compression ratios which in turn raise power output.

By using spent exhaust gases, the small turbocharger (roughly the size of a grapefruit) forces intake air in to the engine. Exhaust gases are cooled via an air-to-air intercooler. The result is a significant increase in performance without additional engine capacity.

The 2.0-litre Ford EcoBoost engine features independently variable timing on both intake and exhaust camshafts, optimising gas flow through the combustion chamber at all engine speeds. The TiVCT (Twin independent Variable Camshaft Timing) system plays a significant role in improving engine efficiency and performance, particularly at partial loading.

The use of this technology has also improved low-end torque by exploiting a ‘scavenging’ effect. Scavenging takes advantage of pressure differences between the intake and exhaust manifolds to increase the flow of cooler, fresh air through the engine at low speeds, generating increased torque and helping the turbo to spin up more quickly. It has also reduced CO2 emissions by as much as 15 per cent.

In Mondeo, the 2.0-litre EcoBoost engine is mated exclusively to Ford’s new PowerShift six-speed automatic transmission. The transmission is specifically calibrated to the engine’s torque curve and features a new torque converter for improved driving feel, smoother shifts and better fuel economy.

The new 2.0-litre EcoBoost four-cylinder engine will appear in Ford Mondeo, Ford S-MAX and Ford Galaxy models by the end of this year, and in Australia’s own Ford Falcon by early 2011.

Specific timing for the introduction in China of the Mondeo featuring the 2.0-litre Ford EcoBoost engine will be announced shortly.

My Cars Called T-Rex

Finally Mondeos base model gets a decent petrol engine.
J

“Exhaust gases are cooled via an air-to-air intercooler” – thats new, or a mistake…

Minnow

Yeah its new, Its called EGR or Exhaust Gas Recirculation which is normally found on diesels. It works by routing exhaust gas back into the combustion chamber which allows a leaner fuel-air mixture and higher compression without burning at higher temperatures. By cooling the gases in a heat exchanger the effect is improved further. Its great because it also reduces NO2 emissions.

Able

I’m not sure it’d be on base Mondeos because this engine has replaced the 2.5T in the UK already…
Shak

The EcoBoost is only acheiving up to 10% increases in the V6? That doesnt seem like anywhere near enough for adding turbo and DI, does it?

fourl6

not sure on exact figures but the eco boost engines are designed for fuel economy not performance so a 10% power increase would be good if the fuel consumption dropped ~25%…

Shak

really, because all the Ford fanboysa have been going on about since the release is power. I thought along the smae lines as you, but their ranting is getting annoying. I agree EcoBoost is a giant leap but they make it out to be Gospel…

Bent 8 Brigade

It’s from Ford, Shak, therefore is straight from the glory of god bestowed on us undeserving mortals

noj

Ah so God is involved, ah well its definitely Bull Sh&t then.
Simon

noj – I thought this was a car forum?
But since you make such a bold (and unsubstantiated) statement consider this question.
What/whom made the big bang?
Back to the Mondeo Ecoboost. It sounds excellent but I’m wondering if it will work on regular fuel. I suspect this is unlikely but given that Holden can have regular in their SIDI it would seem to make sense to have this as an option. I look forward to some fact and figures.
I didn’t realize the power shift utilizes a torque converter. Perhaps this is the solution to the jerky experiences found in VWAG’s DSG at low speeds.
noj

Didn`t take long for the deluded to respond. Go Dawkins, go Hitchens arrest the God believing Pedophile. I can`t ever understand how people can waste time going and asking for forgiveness for doing wrong when if they had some morals they wouldn`t have done it in the first place. The Christian way what a load of Bull Sh&t.
Andrew M

So noj,
we already knew you had no respect for other peoples choice in cars, but in addition to that we now know you have no respect for other peoples choice in religion.

So you obviously have no respect for anything other then yourself, its an obvious pattern with you.

Im not a religious person my self, and there are certainly other things in the world that are not to my preference, but who would I be to go around and critisise with such a one way view….

Hang on, I’ll answer that myself, that would make me you….
noj

No Andrew, people can believe in what ever they want, I don`t have a problem with them personally. But that doesn`t mean I can`t have an opinion on it. The same with peoples choices in cars, again they can purchase their Falcons and Commodores it doesn`t mean I have to think they are great because other people do. You see Andrew its called free speech, that`s what makes this Country so great. I get the feeling your use to be the boss and your word goes whether its right or wrong.
Andrew M

Noj,
Im talking about RESPECT, not opinions or free speach.

Im not telling you what to think nor do, just asking that you apply a little respect to a world outside yours.

Dont know what you mean about the “being the boss” bit, but arent you the one calling those that dont share your opinion or ideas “deluded”
noj

I don`t think saying that someone is deluded if they believe in God is disrespectful, I honestly believe it. If I believed in Peter Pan I`m pretty sure you would say the same thing about me. Honestly there isn`t alot of difference between Religon and Peter Pan, they both are fiction.
Simon

And go Antony Flew……..oh hang on, “How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind”…………..(do a google!)
noj, there is absolutely no excuse for child abuse. It is a travesty that many child molesters seem to escape justice by hiding in the church. If there is one thing I know about God, it’s He’s a JUST God. Justice will be done by the ultimate judge.
If you can prove there is no God then you must know everything. This by definition makes you omniscient. God is the only one that knows everything therefore you must be God.
So surely, then, you know this new Mondeo will be awesome!
;op

Appologies in advance; I realise this is a Car forum and will attempt to keep all future posts on subject Sometimes it’s easier to ask for forgiveness rather than permission.
noj

I told you Andrew M, they really are deluded LOL. So Simon you have met her, I mean God? Anyone enough with the fiction, I`m more of a non fiction man myself. But back to the Mondeo I have always thought it wasn`t a bad car. I`m not sure I would ever buy one, but still a well made car.
Andrew M

Well I think it is disrespectful if you heavily critisise the thoughts/beliefs of others.

Also it must have been a sad childhood for you with no dreams or fiction
noj

No Andrew I loved fiction when I was a CHILD. But seeings that I am no longer a child, these days I am a realist. No more fairy tales for me those days are long over.

Baddass

Well, I can confidently say it is better than SIDI Shak…

Shak

How so, have you tried it yet? Just because some figures have been released does not show how it will perform under the bonnet of our Local offerings. SIDI delivered what it promised.
fourl6

“SIDI delivered what it promised.” a shiny badge and another marketing gimmick
Shak

They said they would acheinve best in class consumption for a Commodore and they did.
Simon

“OOOOOOO……….AAAAHHHHHHHHH”

The gallery goes wild!

Acfsambo

The 3.5L V6 has 272 kw @ 5500rpm and 475nm @ 1500-5250rpm, what are current 3.5-4.0L 6 cylinder engines producing? about 200kw and up to about 400nm. so 10% is actually a fair effort (though more like 25% for kw and about 20% for nm) with a 25% increase in fuel economy.

The 2L 4 has 149kw @ 5500rpm and 300nm @ 1750-4500rpm, as much torque as the 3.0L SIDI Holden V6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_ecoboost for figures.

Heater

Shak…..Holden achieved no fuel economy improvement with DI, in fact the non DI 4 litre I6 Falcon gets better real world economy so 10% gain is way better than nothing.

Shak

What do you see as real world economy. Just because the Falcon performed better at Bathurst in one single test does not mean it has better real world consumption. What if we tested the Calais against a G6E with a five speeder on a highway? The Calais would perform better but just because the consitions suited it. Consumption will always depend on driver and environement.

Baddass

“Just because the Falcon performed better at Bathurst in one single test does not mean it has better real world consumption.”

That’s right Shak, it doesn’t mean that. In fact, the Falcon V8 Supercar shares most nothing with the road going G6E, so I don’t know why you brought that up.

Shak

I thought you were referring to the test that Carsales did at Bathurst.

jp

you wont be able to buy a g6e with a five speed anyway i thought? aren’t they standard with zf now?

Simon

Perhaps I’m wrong but I thought the G6E always had a 6 speed ZF. The G6 had a 5 speed with ZF as an option.
Can anyone clarify?

Me

That is correct.

Deco

The I6 has NEVER, and I repeat never had better fel consumption than the 3.6l SIDI engine in any test ever done.

J

Well, yes it has during most tests I’ve seen – by car editors (Drive), manufacturers (9.9 l/100km vs 10.1 l/100km) and my own experiences (not to mention others on this site and around the place).

To be honest, I think that both have such close fuel economy figures that it really doesn’t amtter who wins. The point is the I6 has higher average power due to significantly more torque thus makes it all the more impressive that 10% more engine capactiy can deliver same fuel efficiency.

Your statement is highly exaggerated and, due to this, it sounds like an axe grinding…
Muse

That’s just plain incorrect. Do you actually read any of these reviews?
Try this – go to the drive website, click to ‘News & Reviews’ search for ‘Bathurst 1000 with a twist’

Shak

If you rememebr that was the 3.0 litre SIDI ,and not the 3.6 litre SIDI.

Al Juraj

Ford have been doing very well with their engines, better than those GM donks in performance and economy. The Coyote is also legendary, with M3-like power from the Mustang’s 5.0. Although we won’t get that car here, an FG with the same engine should be a consolation prize.

Now if they can only improve on marketing…
Joe

Just to avoid any confusion, Ford are saying that the Ecoboost 2.0 4 cyl. offers V6 levels of power and torque with a 10% decrease in fuel consumption over a regular 2.0 4 cyl. The figures that are being quoted around town for the Ecoboost 2.0 Falcon for 2011 are somewhere around 170kw @ 6000RPM & 320nm @ 1600RPM and 8.0 l/100km.

Compare these numbers with the current Holden SIDI 3.0 @ 190KW @ 6900RPM & 290NM @ 2900RPM & 9.3 L/100KM and you can see why Holden fans are in a panic. Obviously the Ford numbers are yet to be confirmed but very rarely do Ford overstate these type of numbers.

The Ecoboost numbers compare almost exactly with the current Mondeo XR5 @ 162kw @ 5000rpm & 320nm @ 1500-4800rpm & 9.5L/100KM so they are very believable. The main area where the Ecoboost is in front is in fuel economy and probably emmissions etc.

As far as real world driving goes, anyone who actually drives in the real world will appreciate that low down torque(when things like weight,gearbox etc. are equal)is the main factor in achieving good fuel economy. Currently the torque figures between the Falcon 4.0 lt VS Commodore 3.6 SIDI are 391NM @ 3250RPM VS 350NM @ 2900RPM.

Whilst these numbers are very close and their weights are also very close the Falcons better spread of low down torque is the real world reason for the better fuel economy. Bye the way Ford quote 9.9l/100km(6 spd) and Holden quote 10.1 l/100km.
SSV

Why dont you ask people who own a 3 litre SIDI …….they get nowhere near the figures Holden claim…….typical. I work with a builder and his 3 liter SIDI averages 11.7 l\100 and he gets better economy in his FG ute!! HE also said the lack of low down forque was a real problem on hills with his family on board, also he has to be careful overtaking as the acceleration is pathetic.

They tell us how economical a Captiva deisel when in fact the fuel economy is pathetic. Ho;den are remowned for giving out false figures…….even their distance to empty readings are way off.

J

Agree – and it only takes a few days with a rental car to demonstrate the truth for yourself – FG XR6 used less fuel (4% in my tests) than the 3.6 SIDI on mainly highway driving. Maybe city driving shows better figures for smaller engines?

Shak

As many knowledgeable people have said, Manufacturers cannot claim false figures, the tests conducted are independent by a government department. Just because people cannot achieve them is not the manufacturers fault. Every car goes through the same conditions and same tests, so every car should be able to achieve quoted figures if driven the way the testers did. yes certain cars may be easier to extract results from, but don’t spread lies about Holden.

Baddass

Well, I have read 5 different reviews from 5 different publications between the Falcon G6 and the Commodore 3.0 SIDI, and you guessed it, the Falcon beats the Commodore’s fuel figure in every test. That’s from a litre extra capacity mind, and it’s not advertised as an economy car like the SIDI. So I will take this as proof, rather than the figures of Holden’s advertising department. If a average weight Australian in normal driving conditions (aircon, extra passengers or luggage) cannot get near the advertised fuel economy figures, then what chance will it ever happen in real life? It is most certainly the manufacturer’s fault if the lowest figure recorded is on an economy run, and then becomes the ‘average’ figure for the car!
Simon

I assume you refer to ADR.
In the real world people carry a load, accelerate with traffic and experience hills and traffic lights. All obstacles to fuel efficiency. As some others have stated, this is where a torque advantage is most pronounced. This is why people are experiencing the inconsistency of what Holden suggest, and what they actually get. This is no less true for Ford, but they do seem to be closer to the ADR in real terms.

SSV

oooppppsss……torque.not forque….lol
SSV

Shak…..then tell Obama Holden not to lie in the first place!! Even you should agree that a 3 litre DI engine should get better fuel economy than a 4 litre non DI engine in any conditions if it was any good. The problem is that its a V6 not a straight 6. The best engine in the world is a straight 6……..BMW. And lets face it Holden have never been able to design and build a descent engine. The best engine they ever had was a Nissan engine……and that was a straight 6 !!

The Oracle’s Master!

“And lets face it Holden have never been able to design and build a descent engine.”

That’s a pretty tall statement given they ship their engines all over the world. The problem in the commodore isn’t the engine but rather the weight of the car. It’s obvious you don’t like the brand but please try to keep that one eye of yours open.

If they increased its capacity to 4.0ltrs it would more than match the falcon. Small capacity engines in large cars do not work.

jp

no if they increased the capacity to 4 litres prob wouldn’t… IMO dont think they could achieve same economy/performance compromise as the ford 16. One reason being this motor has been developed by and in the service of Ford Aus for a very long time, hence the refinement of the motor has been extensive (that said it could be refined more??? would love to see the Aussie i6 with DI)
Simon

I’d just like to make an observation. “One eye” suggests you only care for one brand. For the record, I, like many other people here, like many brands. Holden simply isn’t one of them.
I dream for the day they offer something that is a real standout in terms of quality, innovation, value and performance. All I ever see them excel at is performance and that is only in their inefficient V8s. As far as muscle cars go they do alright. I was pleased to see Holden change to SIDI despite the fact it hasn’t held up to the marketing hype. It indicated a willingness to adopt new technology. It’s just a shame they always seem so far behind the ball and this suggests to me that they play on a broad base of brand loyalists.
Here Ford is talking of releasing new tech in their cars which will substantially increase performance and efficiency. This will be accommodated in what is widely regarded as an excellent car, the Mondeo. Quality, innovation, possibly value and performance. Thanks Ford, lets get it on sale already!
Masa

@ The Oracle’s Master, surely you are not so niave as to think that all those GM US designed engines that just happen to be built in Melbourne in any way have any design or development input from your lowley Holden….?

Then again you probably think that all of the Korean designed and built Daewoos (Craptiva, Barina etc) with Holden badges are “Australian” cars as well?
Tony M

Designing an engine and building an engine are 2 different things. Holden exports engines and engine components again 2 different things.

SSV

Oracles master….just because they ship engines all over the world doesnt mean they are good. They sell Daewoo Barinas all over the world too and they are a downright piece of crap. To have all that technology in that vibra tech v6 and still get poor economy shows that GM engineers are a way behind.
BOSSCR

For what it’s worth,

My 08 VE Omega Sportwagon avergaged roughly 12.3L/100Km combined. My current Egas FG Sedan averages around 14.0L/100Km combined (today, a trip to Ballarat and back got me 11.6L/100Km over 320Km mixed driving. At 60c/L for LPG and $1.30L for ULP, I’ll take an Egas Falcon any day. Even if the SIDI 3.0L averages 10L, the E-gas Falcon is still more economical and with more torque. I look forward to seeing the new Ecoboost in the Falcon and Liquid Gas Injection. Hopefully my work will then change their policy on buying Camrys……

daan

The falcon I6 is a big long lump of cast iron to have over the front axles and that is why Holden uses an alloy v6.
I personally think the differece between driving the 2 cars is like chalk and cheese.
If you got 12.3l/100 out of your sprtswagon you are obiously doing something wrong or doing a lot of city driving.

BOSSCR

I carry the same amount of gear and drive in exactly the same style to the same locations. Sure, i’m not paying for the fuel so i’m not that concerned about fuel consumption, but as a car nut, i still pay attention to the figures. Everyone on CA talks about “real world” driving conditions, but not everyone’s “real world” conditions are the same…….