Ford Ecoboost (Autospeed)

[PlasmaBomb]

http://autospeed.com/cms/A_111422/article.html?popularArticle

Interesting article.

To validate their water-cooled turbo design choice, Ford engineers put EcoBoost through a special turbocharger test.

The test ran EcoBoost at maximum boost flat out for a 10-minute period. Then the engine and all cooling were abruptly shut down and the turbo was left to “bake” after this high-speed operation. This process was then repeated 1,500 times without an oil change. After the 1,500 cycles, the turbos were cut open for detailed technical examination and proved to be fine.

😱

Google Cache

 

[CptCrunch]

jebus, now put a decent transmission that can handle the power that engine can really deliver and put it into EVERY VEHICLE NOW

 

[PricklyPete]

Fantastic engine.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

jebus, now put a decent transmission that can handle the power that engine can really deliver and put it into EVERY VEHICLE NOW

They are going to use the 6F-55 SelectShift for the Ecoboost models, there is a bit of info at the end of the article and more here

 

[mb]

I for one am looking forward to the ecoboost 4 cylinder engines. One of them in the Fusion or MKZ would be win.

 

[StageLeft]

Damn that is some good engineering by the sounds of it.

 

[CptCrunch]

They are going to use the 6F-55 SelectShift for the Ecoboost models, there is a bit of info at the end of the article and more here

Will it allow more than 350lb ft of torque? Looking at that the torque chart on that article, it appears there is something, *software limiting* that stops the engine from producing more than 350lb ft of torque. i've never seen a torque curve that just goes flat like that for so long

 

[vshah]

awesome!
reminds me of the forum post where some guy thought that since the s2k developed power way up high, he had to drive at that rpm all the time, and drove 40k miles or something at or near redline before it blew up.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Will it allow more than 350lb ft of torque? Looking at that the torque chart on that article, it appears there is something, *software limiting* that stops the engine from producing more than 350lb ft of torque. i've never seen a torque curve that just goes flat like that for so long

I think that is just a graph prepared from the data available...

SEMA has a hotrod with a 3.5l ecoboost putting out 400 bhp, so I guess so...

 

[LordMorpheus]

I think that is just a graph prepared from the data available...

SEMA has a hotrod with a 3.5l ecoboost putting out 400 bhp, so I guess so...

Put it on a dyno and it probably won't be that perfect but it will be damn close.

The ECU is set up to give you that torque curve, there's plenty more available, but then the engine wouldn't be as economical and you'd be able to tell you were driving a turbo car, which is something Ford has been trying to avoid.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Put it on a dyno and it probably won't be that perfect but it will be damn close.

The ECU is set up to give you that torque curve, there's plenty more available, but then the engine wouldn't be as economical and you'd be able to tell you were driving a turbo car, which is something Ford has been trying to avoid.

I was agreeing that the ECU was limiting it, hence the bold. I can't find any real dyno runs though 🙁

 

[exdeath]

😵

Good to see SVT's extreme/abusive validation methodology is still in use at Ford.

Not Ecoboost related, but a good read for anyone who likes this kind of rigorous testing and would like to see more, esp. seeing that it's nothing new for a domestic auto maker:

http://www.amazon.com/Iron-Fist-Lead.../dp/0595409709

The book is the biography of the 03-04 Cobra, but some examples of the crazy testing are:

-Engines run on an engine dyno under full boost, alternating RPM between peak torque and max power continuously for 300 hours (almost two weeks day and night) non stop. The last weak link after exhaustive engineering efforts that was still causing exploded engines were the rods, and the engine successfully passed after the installation of Manley H beam rods.

-Suspension and braking validated by lapping the car non stop at FIR's road race course 8 hours a day until the only thing that wore out or broke were the brake pads and tires. SVT was dissatisfied with steering response and wanted something crisper and faster and less numb, but no manufacturer was willing to build a low volume run of custom racks. So they reluctantly stuck with a production GT steering rack. The bushings they spent all that time tuning for performance were thrown out and replaced with something softer by request of PR/Marketing.

-Clutch and driveline tests by parking the car against a wall and revving the engine to redline and dumping/stalling the clutch 1000s of times. (Those cars were subsequently destroyed after the project, as the smell of burnt clutch would never be possible to remove)

 

[c3p0]

I was agreeing that the ECU was limiting it, hence the bold. I can't find any real dyno runs though

I would love to, but then I would lose my job.

c3p0

 

[Fenixgoon]

😵

Good to see SVT's extreme/abusive validation methodology is still in use at Ford.

Not Ecoboost related, but a good read for anyone who likes this kind of rigorous testing and would like to see more, esp. seeing that it's nothing new for a domestic auto maker:

http://www.amazon.com/Iron-Fist-Lead.../dp/0595409709

The book is the biography of the 03-04 Cobra, but some examples of the crazy testing are:

-Engines run on an engine dyno under full boost, alternating RPM between peak torque and max power continuously for 300 hours (almost two weeks day and night) non stop. The last weak link after exhaustive engineering efforts that was still causing exploded engines were the rods, and the engine successfully passed after the installation of Manley H beam rods.

-Suspension and braking validated by lapping the car non stop at FIR's road race course 8 hours a day until the only thing that wore out or broke were the brake pads and tires. SVT was dissatisfied with steering response and wanted something crisper and faster and less numb, but no manufacturer was willing to build a low volume run of custom racks. So they reluctantly stuck with a production GT steering rack. The bushings they spent all that time tuning for performance were thrown out and replaced with something softer by request of PR/Marketing.

-Clutch and driveline tests by parking the car against a wall and revving the engine to redline and dumping/stalling the clutch 1000s of times. (Those cars were subsequently destroyed after the project, as the smell of burnt clutch would never be possible to remove)

the only thing i can think of to improve that testing is varying the engine speeds much more significantly.

in materials fatigue testing, the change in stress is often much more critical to promoting cracking than the actual stress level, so depending on where max HP and max TQ occur, it may be more beneficial to widen the RPM range.

regardless, that is one hell of a stress test.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

the only thing i can think of to improve that testing is varying the engine speeds much more significantly.

in materials fatigue testing, the change in stress is often much more critical to promoting cracking than the actual stress level, so depending on where max HP and max TQ occur, it may be more beneficial to widen the RPM range.

regardless, that is one hell of a stress test.

For the Ecoboost Peak torque is available from ~1750 rpm peak power is ~ 5750 rpm, although the tested differently-

EcoBoost also endured Ford’s standard engine durability test signoff. Back in the dynamometer lab, the 3.5-litre EcoBoost V6 went back up to full revs – and maximum turbo boost – for a real endurance test. This time it stayed at full throttle for 362 hours.

For the turbos, the test is 150 hours long. Every 10 minutes the test alternates between peak power at max exhaust temperature and completely cold motoring. The goal is to verify that the turbochargers can withstand extreme thermal cycling without affecting their performance. It’s pretty brutal and extreme but it’s important to prove out durability.

Remind me not to piss off Mr Keith Plagens...

 

[exdeath]

the only thing i can think of to improve that testing is varying the engine speeds much more significantly.

in materials fatigue testing, the change in stress is often much more critical to promoting cracking than the actual stress level, so depending on where max HP and max TQ occur, it may be more beneficial to widen the RPM range.

regardless, that is one hell of a stress test.

Official published values were 390 hp @ 6000 rpm and torque 390 lbs.-ft. @ 3500 rpm, so at the very least it was alternating between 3500 and 6000. Redline is 6500 and 90% of peak torque just off idle so yeah it could have been wider.

But yeah some crazy testing. Stuff like that, and the OP post, and PlasmaBomb's post above this one, is why I nerd rage when an ignoramus who has never even changed a tire starts spouting off about lack of "advanced technology" and "superior engineering", in the context of American autos.

They have no effing clue what engineering really is, unlike the people destroying engines day in and day out.

 

[EightySix Four]

Put it on a dyno and it probably won't be that perfect but it will be damn close.

The ECU is set up to give you that torque curve, there's plenty more available, but then the engine wouldn't be as economical and you'd be able to tell you were driving a turbo car, which is something Ford has been trying to avoid.

Yes, almost all manufacturers do this with their turbocharged vehicles. GM's Ecotec LNF, Ford's Ecoboost, all the turbo'd BMW engines, VW/Audi... In fact I can't think of any who don't do it.

While the flat torque curve is nice, it means car enthusiasts can get a hold of reasonably priced tunes that make anywhere from 30 to 80rwhp more, and usually even more torque.

 

[Bignate603]

the only thing i can think of to improve that testing is varying the engine speeds much more significantly.

in materials fatigue testing, the change in stress is often much more critical to promoting cracking than the actual stress level, so depending on where max HP and max TQ occur, it may be more beneficial to widen the RPM range.

regardless, that is one hell of a stress test.

I can't speak for fatigue in the compressor, shafting or turbine which will be cycled up and down in speed. However for the bearings which will have high contact stresses at the contact point between balls and the races the worst case for fatigue is to run it for long periods at full speed. Each time a ball runs over a spot on the raceway it's one cycle. The faster you go the more cycles per minute the bearing will endure. To compound the problem, at higher speeds there will be a higher load per cycle due to increased centrifugal loading. Depending on how the rotating group was designed to manage its vibration there may be higher loads at the high speeds (look up rotordynamics if you're interested in it).

 

[Pulsar]

the only thing i can think of to improve that testing is varying the engine speeds much more significantly.

in materials fatigue testing, the change in stress is often much more critical to promoting cracking than the actual stress level, so depending on where max HP and max TQ occur, it may be more beneficial to widen the RPM range.

regardless, that is one hell of a stress test.

Ford handles that with a different test. Think running full throttle until at max temp, then killing the engine and swapping coolant over to super-chilled antifreeze. Repeatedly. Ad nauseum. That's what we do. Called thermal shock - for obvious reasons.

 

[yh125d]

I also cant wait for the turbo 4's (surely an option in the fusion). My last car was a 230hp turbo 4 saab 9-5 and it was brilliant. I was kinda hoping ford would be able to snag volvo's turbo 5 for their newer vehicles but it was not meant to be