Plus their are tax rebates available for "eco" engines.

 

I would imagine marketing. Much like calling the truck modulars "Tritons".

 

Not to mention "Cobrajet", "Thunderjet", and "Boss". They're all names to use for marketing the product and have no other real meaning. I will say that I am curious about this new engine technology, and I will check it out when Ford starts installing them behind the Blue Oval.

 

Ford makes it, it's going to kick ***. New tecnology has to have a catchy short name for the morons to name out when bragging to friends. God knows they could never actually understand what it is or how it works

 

I wish it was that simple... it's really not...

But, none the less, I do concur that the marketing folks will always grab a hold of something that is in the pipe line, mold it to make it 'user friendly' or 'catchy' and then push it further down the pipe. That's the way it's always worked in our society.

We'll see what Ecoboost does for us 'Joes'... I'll assess it once it's been tried and true...

 

Would these be the same morons that are buying the Fords that your so proud of? Ecoboost is a marketing tool and nothing more, it makes the technology sound "green". You could attach "Eco" to just about anything and it makes it sound like if you have enough of them it'll turn the desert into a rain forest.

 

From now on, the 6.4l Powerstroke V8 is now deemed a 6.4l EcoBoost V8!

Makes that engine sound oh, so weak.

 

it used to be called Twin Force, but marketing changed it because people thought it sounded powerful and most people who know nothing about engines think more powerful engines are less economical....but that is what these EcoBoost engines are for....

BTW I hate the name

 

I wonder how the aftermarket will embrace this "Ecoboost" technology.

Bigger Ecoboosters perhaps?

 

Some will think adding a turbo to a gas engine is the world over.

Some will believe that their little 2.0l ecoboost putting out 300 hp / 300 ft lbs torque is running on fuel cell technology.

The gear heads that know how engines work will be the only people that know the little "secret"... that an ecobooster is just a turbocharger.

 

Yes, logically, 50hp won't automatically get 25mpg. No disagreement there.

Why can my father in-law get 25+ out of his Hemi powered 300C and most can't EASILY get 15 out of an F-150? I pulled 17-19 out of my 2005 and 2007 upercrew's, but that'sthe exception. Yes, I know they weigh different than each other, but isn't 22mpg in an F-150 an easily obtainable goal? The Chebbies get over 20... supposedly.

In college, my 1970's Cutlass could easily get 22mpg on the highway with a 350 and a 350 tranny. That car had some serious weight compared to today's cars. It was all in the gearing I guess. She was a pig out of the hole, but once she was moving, I could dust my roommate's 302 V-8 1986 Berlinetta Camaro very easily. Go figure... mine was a grandma 4-door car. His was all sport.

 

I though Ecoboost was the fart after eating a salad.

 

I'm guessing that 300C has MDS correct? That's the difference right there, when your father-in-law is cruising on the highway he's driving a 4 cylinder, that's where his MPG is coming from. My point was, when you give someone more HP they'll drive more aggressively. This means they won't get the advertised mileage.

 

Very true. I can make my F150 get 22 mpg... but I can easily make it get 13 mpg.

Again, no where's near the advertised mileage. Then again, correct me if I'm wrong, but the EPA mileage is an estimated mileage? So if that were to hold up, then I'm right in my ball park. Maybe?

Anyone wanna take a stab at this?

 

The government numbers are VERY optimistic. The government rating for my '04 is 17 city/24 highway, I've never done much better then 14 city/21 highway. They're general numbers that reflect optimal conditions, something the average vehicle never sees.