Thinking about a new car. Redpill me on these motors. Seem

>>14328866
Yep, I drive a nissan ecoboost, one of the many ecoboosts that are available. It's great.

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.

It's a branded buzzword for the motor being turbocharged

Every manufacturer offers turbocharged motors and direct injection, it is not just Ford wizardry

>>14328872
Ecoboost is ford technology, idiot

>Thinking about getting a new car

How about I redpill you on why that's fucking stupid.

>>14328902
Ok

>>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
nah man, these engines are everywhere these days. my sister just bought an ecoboost miata

>>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.

>>14328997
You sound Japanese faggot

>>14328997
nah, ford was goat before they used mazduh tech. They where saved by ford and now they have to deal with shitty engines no one cares about, no wonder rotary went to shit because its turd.

Mazda never made a good engine, they should just rename themselves as shitty honda.

>>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.

>>14329060
>he doesnt know mazda history
Mazda was beggar tier initially, then ford lend them a hand.

Now they have to deal with mazdas shitty engine and we suffer, Im just glad they broke ties with such shitty company that only makes slow hairdresser cars

>>14329097
>doesnt know ford history
Nigger you dont know what you're talking about.
I know this because you said mazda engines are shitty.
Which they arent.

>>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

>>14329137
yes they are, note that no one except you said anything good about their engine in this board

>>14329221
>implying

I want to do a Model A build with a 1.6 EcoBoost.

>>14328997
You're a retard. The 3.5 ecoboost is based on the Duratec V6. An engine of completely Ford origin and design.

Stop talking about shit you don't know about.

>>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.

>>14328866
>intake
>downpipe
>tune
no matter which one it is, its gonna make power

>>14329562
This.

Although an intake is unessesary.

Ford Edges and Fusions can get into the 12's with a DP and a tune.

The stock airboxes with snorkel removal are good for 500+hp.

>>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.

>2.7
>1.0

The only ecoboosts worth a damn. The ST engines have power but MPG is rek't. The EcoBoost Mustang is better than the N/A V6, but if you're gonna buy a Mustang you should...you know, buy a Mustang.

You'd have to be retarded not the get the 2.7 in the F-150 unless you're hauling some serious shit, but even then there's better trucks.

>>14329543
>trying to spin and twist the truth to be in fords favor
BRAIN DAMAGE

>>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.

>>14329692
SSSSUUUUURRRREEE
whatever you need to tell yourself

>>14329706
Your trolling is piss poor

>>14329709
I'm not trolling.
You havent provided any facts to back up your ridiculous statements

File: FORD_LE_MANS_3-685x513.jpg (47KB, 685x513px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 685x513px

>>14329431
>>14329543
>>14329670
>>14329692
>>14329706
>>14329709
>>14329720


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.

File: ferdbtfomazder.png (33KB, 652x376px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 652x376px

>>14329720
You are literally too stupid to do a 3 second google search.

>>14329730
The turbo technology they are using is from mazda. As well as their direct injection.
and block designs
and head designs

Its sad really

Also ford doesnt even make most of its own chassis.
THANKS VOLVO!!

>>14329738
All the design came from mazda you moron.
ford is KNOWN for taking others designs because they suck at everything (except marketing to morons)

>>14329739
>The turbo technology they are using is from mazda. As well as their direct injection.
>and block designs
>and head designs

All of this is literally bullshit.
Notice the complete lack of citations and how he'll refuse to actually provide citations because there are none to back up this bullshit.

>>14329746
Again, complete bullshit.

The Ford Sigma, Ford Duratec, and Ford Nano lines of motors were designed and built by Ford initially and currently. In fact Mazda has used these Ford engines in their own cars.

You cannot provide a shred of evidence to back up your bullshit claims.

>>14329757
lol how delusional can you get?
holy fuck you're an absolute madman

>>14329762
Still no citations, just like I said.

Your bullshit is not founded in reality and you have no means to prove otherwise faggot.

Try again.

File: MAZDAISGOD.jpg (177KB, 720x636px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 720x636px

>>14329772
Youre a fucking tard

>>14329785
See all those shitty engines?
The ones not made by mazda?
Yup... ford a shit

>>14329785
Like I said here:
>>14329692

>There are only two Ecoboost engines based on the Mazda L series.

Yes there were Duratec branded L series motors but literally none of them were V6's. Only the 2.0 and 2.3 fed through to the EB series.

Your claim that Ford Ecoboost motors are all Mazda derived or based on Mazda technology is complete bullshit.

>>14329785
Also the Zeta engines are actually mazda BP engines.
And the V6's are derived from the MAZDA "K"

>>14329810
>back pedaling
Ok so they stole the other engine from volvo
ford had to use a fucking volvo engine to even think about making a good car.
fucking ford fags are delusional

>>14328866

"I love my turbocharged nippon shitbox, but rage when Americans do it."

-/o/

>>14329812

>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.

>>14329901
Cool complete lack of citations fag. Keep trying to make shit up, It's hilarious.

Don't get butthurt your bullshit's getting swatted and you're getting schooled.

Try actually posting come citations next time.

>>14328872
>>14328997

>>14329137
>>14329739
>>14329762

See:
>>14329873


>>14329060
I have no words.

But seriously though, if they were financially responsible for R&D, are they not supposed to use their investments?

What is this SVO shit people keep forgetting about?

>>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

Translation:

>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.

>>14330016
You're trying to muddy the waters.

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.

>>14330075
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Duratec_V6_engine
>Predecessor
>Mazda K series

>>14330103
>predecessor

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.

>>14330151
Your claims that Ford motors are based off of Mazda motors or Mazda technology are complete bullshit and have no factual basis. Don't get upset, you're just wrong.

>>14330178
I thought it was short for "Ecology" because of the leaf, and the fact that turbo engines use more fuel so it couldn't be "economy".

>>14330227
>and have no factual basis
except they do and its completely obvious
stop being stupid

>>14330268
[Citation needed]

Because you really want it to be true is not a citation.

>>14330268
I had a Mazda B4000. It had a Ford engine in it.

>>14330273
>I had a Ford Ranger with a Mazda grill

ifty

>>14330233
I think turbocharged engines are more fuel efficient because turbochargers have a low parasitic loss, and you can use a smaller engine to make similar power.

>>14330359
So it is "economy".

>>14330359
Nah. It's a gimmick. Take the same engines, put a turbo on one and leave the other n/a. The n/a engine will ALWAYS get better fuel economy.

V6 twin tarbos are blowing head gaskets and chugging their own coolant.

>>14330385

Proof/Source please.

>>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.

>>14331258
About a decade after the rest of the world.

>>14328997
>Ford has never invented anything ever.
yeah except the car itself you fucking dipshit

>>14331547
Lrn2history fool. Ford made mass production of the automobile profitable. 20-40 years after the motor carriage was invented.

>>14331212
>>14330385
Own one. Turbochargers are more efficient up to the moment power is demanded.

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.

File: 20150510_222012.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>14334335
>25mpg
Damn nigga, that's hardly better than my gfs 2.0L EB Escape, is your Fusion AWD too?

ford made a turbo that uses less fuel than most other turbos so they put the word eco on it.

I have the 3.5L EcoBoost Explorer and I get 14-15 MPG in the city. It's meh for MPG but you can tune that bitch and get great numbers.

>>14334663
>Damn nigga, that's hardly better than my gfs 2.0L EB Escape, is your Fusion AWD too?
yep, tipping the scales at 3700lbs curb weight

>>14328997
fuck off back to hiroshima you little faggot