Ecoboost 4 cyl coming to Mustang

[RickB]

I didn't want to start a war but all over the internet are reviews of the Escape saying the exact same thing. In fact most of the small Ford ecoboost engines are reportedly falling short of their EPA mileage numbers.

You didn't start a war. It's called a different opinion. In fact, we have two real world examples that happen to differ. Not really a national emergency. We are back home now and my complete trip mileage was 26.4. I'm happy. The on-board mileage is much lower at 75 than at 55. I can accept that because I'm not very likely to drive 55 when the limit is 65 or 70; my choice.
The Escape's computer will tell the driver whether his driving style is condusive to getting better mileage. Mine just happens to be. Can't say about the habits of those who aren't happy with their results, but the answer COULD be part of the descrepancy.

My numbers are tainted somewhat by sitting in traffic for a total of 1 hr in Norfolk, VA and on the Jersey Turnpike as well as driving 75-80 on I-287 and US 17. Neither practice is part of the EPA 'highway mileage' analysis, I'll bet.

 

[s219]

I didn't want to start a war but all over the internet are reviews of the Escape saying the exact same thing. In fact most of the small Ford ecoboost engines are reportedly falling short of their EPA mileage numbers.

Turbos only give you better fuel economy if driven sensibly. If you dip into the throttle, the see-saw tips dramatically. I've run into this with countless turbo motors over the years, and it's one of the reasons I am not a believer in their "economy" claims unless the driver is sensible about the throttle -- in which case you lose the power benefit. Most drivers/consumers think they can have their cake and eat it too, but that is never the case.

 

[RickB]

Turbos only give you better fuel economy if driven sensibly. If you dip into the throttle, the see-saw tips dramatically. I've run into this with countless turbo motors over the years, and it's one of the reasons I am not a believer in their "economy" claims unless the driver is sensible about the throttle -- in which case you lose the power benefit. Most drivers/consumers think they can have their cake and eat it too, but that is never the case.

Completely correct. I'd add that the same hold for NA engines as well. Give them the boots, they will all use more fuel than when driven with descretion. HP ratings are obviously at full power; that means somebody has to have their foot in it. Been true since guys punched the pedal to open the secondaries on their 4 barrel of choice.

 

[ericher69]

Completely correct. I'd add that the same hold for NA engines as well. Give them the boots, they will all use more fuel than when driven with descretion. HP ratings are obviously at full power; that means somebody has to have their foot in it. Been true since guys punched the pedal to open the secondaries on their 4 barrel of choice.

Seems to be much harder to do on a TC engine!

Only my experience.

 

[CLinton_in_FL]

There is also rumors that they will bring the 3 cyl turbo to the Ford Fusion in the US that is already available to the European market.

 

[crazyal]

Turbos only give you better fuel economy if driven sensibly. If you dip into the throttle, the see-saw tips dramatically. I've run into this with countless turbo motors over the years, and it's one of the reasons I am not a believer in their "economy" claims unless the driver is sensible about the throttle -- in which case you lose the power benefit. Most drivers/consumers think they can have their cake and eat it too, but that is never the case.

For a larger motor that has enough power in reserve keeping out of the turbo is much easier than smaller 4 cylinder engines. By nature they like to rev higher when driving, that's at odds with trying to not use the turbo unless needed. Of course the boost once the turbo kicks in doesn't help not pushing down on the skinny pedal.

 

[crazyal]

There is also rumors that they will bring the 3 cyl turbo to the Ford Fusion in the US that is already available to the European market.

I heard that Ford wants to get the title "most fuel efficient mid sized car" back. The 1.6 ecoboost couldn't do it so Ford is going to try the 1.5. They better hurry since Mazda is going release the 6 with a diesel later this year with EPA numbers that a gas engine can't touch.

 

[VitaBene]

Reminds me of the old svo mustangs and turbo t-birds. For their time, those cars were reasonably quick. I like this idea. I was a huge Grand National fan, take the logos off and you had a good sleeper.

Deere, Buick did that. My wife had a light blue 86 T-Type. Turned up a bit, fatter tires and intake/exhaust. I surprised many, many people with that car including a 911 Porsche and numerous late 60s era musclecars (including my own 70 442)! I would like that car back but sold it to buy my first business truck!

 

[deerefan]

Deere, Buick did that. My wife had a light blue 86 T-Type. Turned up a bit, fatter tires and intake/exhaust. I surprised many, many people with that car including a 911 Porsche and numerous late 60s era musclecars (including my own 70 442)! I would like that car back but sold it to buy my first business truck!

Thats right. I forgot about the T-Type.