It's a turbo motor tuned for fuel efficiency. Plenty of pep for their size, but most vehicles they come in are plagued with vague electric power steering, shitty visibility, and a god-awful touchscreen infotainment system.
>>14328866 depends on the model you're looking at and each one.
Typically your 1.6L Ecoboost Fusions and 1.4L Turbo Cruzes are piles of shit because you need the boost to get off the red light line, and you thrash your city mileage.
But the 3.5L Ecoboost has proven to be bretty gud, the 2.3L in the Moostang isn't bad and the 2.7L is fucking awesome since it was built ground up to be tarboed.
Generally the 2.0L Turbo fare that Ferd, GM, and Hyundai offer is decent, but not really a replacement for the V6s that used to be offered. It's sufficient and people like it for their low end peppyness.
The redpill is that if you enjoy using the low end torque at all, you'll never enjoy the mileage fruits. High highway use will be the best for mileage in these things. For instance, people bitch about the mileage in the F150 with the 3.5TT. These same people will give it the fuck at every red light and briskly get to speed. You give them a slow-revving small block chevy, and they'll accelerate from the light like a dead man jerking off. Then they wonder why they get the same mileage in both.
>>14328883 >ford >technology Nope First off. Mazda made fords turbo engines Ford just ruined the fuck outta them after mazda handed them over. Second off Its not new technology Turbo's have been around for decades son. Ford has never invented anything ever. Ecoboost is just a made up word that gets idiots (you) to buy shit.
>>14329035 >ford used mazda engines in quite a few cars >ford was never goat >ford has been supported by mazda since 1979 >ford couldnt come up with any engines other than V8's so they asked mazda to help them. >ford ecoshit mustang has mazda designed engine >ford focus and fiesta ST's use mazda designed engines >70%+ of fords vehicles wouldnt be possible without mazda but yeah... they totally saved mazda while contributing NOTHING to mazda other than PAYING MAZDA to build everything for them.
>>14328988 >the F150 with the 3.5TT. These same people will give it the fuck at every red light and briskly get to speed. You give them a slow-revving small block chevy, and they'll accelerate from the light like a dead man Because it's all about the sound
>>14328997 Jesus Mazdacucks are fucking delusional retards.
You know literally nothing about Ford motors.
Explain exactly what part Mazda had in the 3.5 or 2.7
That's right, nothing.
In fact the only EB motors that are from Mazda are the 2.0 and 2.3 EB motors. The rest are completley Ford designed and manufacturers motors using Ford tech.
>b-but muh 2 shitbox motors No one cares faggot. Ford did the smart thing and just grabbed whatever small 4 cylinder tech they had access to instead of wasting capital developing their own motors for a segment aimed towards people who use cars as appliances. Then they took that R&D money and put it towards actual good motors like the Coyote, the 2.7EB, and the 3.5EB.
Stop being butthurt that Mazda makes nothing but shitboxes and it makes you buttflustered that Ford just used those shitbox motors for their own shitboxes.
>>14329576 yeah this is true. I removed the silencer/snorkle thing on my 5.4 Expedition and it picked up top end HP. Modifying your stock intake is the best way to get a real "cold air" intake, but a K&N or whatever is fine.
>>14329670 You are factually incorrect. There are only two ecoboost engines based on the Mazda L series. The vast majority (and the best ones) are based on preexisting Ford engines from the Ford Duratec V6 and Sigma I4 lines, designed and built by Ford.
You are wrong and everything you've said is bullshit.
Ecoboost Engines have always confused me and its a bit hard to understand what engine came from what or who designed what considering ford is such a huge company who's badge is on cars that may or may not be designed by completely different countries unlike GM who's cars badge change to Opel (germany) Holden (australia) and daewoo (korea) it also doesn't help that people commonly argue over who designed what in terms of the Ecoboost engines just makes them even more of an enigma.
Considering the 3.5L ecoboost is not Mazda i take it the engine in the Ford GT is Ford's own and not shared with Mazda like i had initially suspected.
>Also the Zeta engines are actually mazda BP engines. Fucking wrong. THe Zeta was a pure ford design too. The only thing Mazda had to do with the Zeta is that they rebranded the Ford Escape which usez the Zeta as the Mazda Tribute.
>And the V6's are derived from the MAZDA "K"
This is also fucking wrong. The only thing the Mazda K had to do with Ford was that it was in the Probe, a brand-engineered MX-6.
The original Duratec V6 was a clean sheet design in the early 90's by Ford that Mazda then used in their cars.
>>14329822 >Ok so they stole the other engine from volvo You're grasping at straws so hard it's hilarious.
Ford used a Volvo motor in the old ST. That's it.
>ford had to use a fucking volvo engine to even think about making a good car. Red herring.
>fucking ford fags are delusional The only delusion here is all the bullshit you're spouting without any evidence whatsoever. You're just plain making shit up.
Ford used a handful of Mazda motors because they had a 1/3rd stake in Mazda for a long time. This is not atypical in any regard and is a nromal means to save money. Why develop a new motor when you have access to one that's already been developed?
Mazda did not "save" Ford in any sense. Ford's Ecoboost series of motors are not entirely based on Mazda engines or engine technology. Two ecoboost models (2.0 and 2.3) are based on the Mazda L. That is it.
This is fact, no matter how much bullshit you try to make up to fit your narrative.
>>14329884 You're batshit insane m8 you're literally saying the exact opposite of the truth. And sometimes telling the truth but saying its the opposite of the same exact thing i just said. WTF is wrong i with you Ford sucks. Get over it.
>>14329911 Its hard to post all the links. but follow the CVH into the ZETA and SIGMA. Its all quite obvious they are all mazdas Just because it doesnt flat out say it (which it never will on wiki) doesnt mean you cant see the obvious
>>14329969 >Just because it doesnt flat out say it (which it never will on wiki) doesnt mean you cant see the obvious
>I have no proof to back up my claims but I want you to believe them anyways without any proof
So basically you've admitted you don't know, but you want your bullshit to be true so you've performed some mental gymnastics to convince yourself sans evidence, and you want everyone else to be convinced as well.
The Sigma, Duratec V6, and Zeta motors are all Ford motors, from conception to design to manufacture. Mazda even thought them so good they put them in their own cars much in the same way Ford did with certain L series motors by Mazda.
You cannot call Ford shit for doing literally the exact same thing Mazda did with Ford motors.
>>14329988 just google for two fucking seconds. They are the exact same engines that MAZDA built and ford used. Its so obvious it hurts >mazda wiki says its mazda engines in fords >ford wiki says its ford engines in mazda holy fucking fuck Even the mk4 escort uses B6 and BP engines which are mazda.
Ford Duratec motors are not Mazda K's, or vice versa. They are each independently developed V6's.
The Ford Zeta and Sigma motors are not based on Mazda motors.
In fact the Zeta was developed from the Ford Lima, one of the original great performance 4 cylinder motors. The Lima was developed as an OHC successor to the earlier pushrod HSC/HSO 4 cylinders. The Sigma was Developed from the Ford Kent/HCS 4 cylinder.
Both Mazda and Ford used their respective motors in several of each others cars over the years. This doesn't mean shit.
Meaning the Mazda K was used in similar applications before the Duratec. It doesn't mean the engines are based of each other. And Mazda used the Duratec so they would have used their own K series before the duratec was developed.
It also lists the pushrod Ford Vulcan as a predecessor. The Duratec wasn't based off the Vulcan either.
>>14330138 You're clearly to stupid and stubborn to get it and will find any loophole to try to twist it up in your deluded brain to convince yourself ford actually did something for itself. Which isnt true and hasnt been since they first went into production.
I think of EcoBoost as a buzzword for Ford's smaller displacement, turbocharged, and supposedly more fuel efficient engines (versus the higher displacement engines they replace). Basically they're a good idea in theory.
>>14330385 Take two engines of the same power. The smaller turbocharged one will have better fuel efficiency than the bigger non-turbo version. They are for increasing the power of efficient engines, not the other way around.
>>14331219 Yeah, Ford's obviously done research into this, and done some sort of relationship between displacement, and power, with and without turbochargers, and found that turbocharging is more efficient.
They give power when expected, but for reliability, the mixture is to dump fuel in the turbo. Any non-super gradual acceleration, fuel economy hits the shitter, highway speeds above 55mph and fuel economy hits the shitter.
I take weekly trips of 400 miles - about 300 of those are highway - and I average 25mpg in a 2.0L Ecoboost Ford Fusion. That's fucking sad.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.