Biker16 Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 (edited) the focus St is the first variant of the Ecoboost 2.0 to use the same integrated exhaust manifold that the Ecoboost 1.0 uses 1.5 vs 1.0 It does not use the vertical injector that the 1.0 and the 1.6 use, but integrating the manifold into the head provides more cooling to the exhaust charge for better emission and better economy without sacrificing power. the new head will also be useful in non Turbocharged engine like the 2.0GDi in the focus. should help boost fuel economy. FYI the Focus ST is getting 42mpg in the EU extra urban testing. should average 29mpg combined in US testing. Edited July 7, 2012 by Biker16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 Thanks for the info! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 Increased use of cooled EGR on future Ecoboost generations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transitman Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 This may be a bit off topic and I don't mean to hijack the thread, but it's something I've been thinking about and I don't think it warrants a new topic. My new Escape will be my first (2.0) turbo. I know to expect more torque, better passing acceleration and good pick up off the line, but I have couple of questions. Is it true that turbos run considerably hotter than naturally aspirated engines, and if that's the case, is it better to run a full synthetic than a syn blend to provide greater protection? (I decided not to switch over to full synthetic in my Focus for various reasons I won't go into). Second, are there any tricks to improving mpg's other than the obvious, light acceleration from stops, coasting to stops, keeping freeway speeds reasonable etc, etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 Is it true that turbos run considerably hotter than naturally aspirated engines Not for long, when that happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 (edited) the focus St is the first variant of the Ecoboost 2.0 to use the same integrated exhaust manifold that the Ecoboost 1.0 uses How come reports on both the Ecoboost Edge and Explorer have been quoting Integral exhaust manifold cast into the head, have they been wrong? I'm sure that a lot of people have also noticed this often referred to feature of the 2.0 Ecoboost engines in US articles. Edited July 8, 2012 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted July 8, 2012 Author Share Posted July 8, 2012 How come reports on both the Ecoboost Edge and Explorer have been quoting Integral exhaust manifold cast into the head, have they been wrong? I'm sure that a lot of people have also noticed this often referred to feature of the 2.0 Ecoboost engines in US articles. dude I am not sure, when they were having issues with the 2.0 in the edge and explorer meeting emissions, they made changes to the engine. If the photos are right the escape doesn't have the same head that the Edge uses. the 1.6 and the 3.5 do not utilize this technology. the 2.0 and the 1.0 are the only EcoBoost engine to boast 125hp per liter. It could be that they are using the new head only in application they have to. there is still a lot of economies of scale with the NA 2.0 GDI something to consider is that the escape EB20 needs premium for 240hp while the Explorer does not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenCaylor Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 This may be a bit off topic and I don't mean to hijack the thread, but it's something I've been thinking about and I don't think it warrants a new topic. My new Escape will be my first (2.0) turbo. I know to expect more torque, better passing acceleration and good pick up off the line, but I have couple of questions. Is it true that turbos run considerably hotter than naturally aspirated engines, and if that's the case, is it better to run a full synthetic than a syn blend to provide greater protection? (I decided not to switch over to full synthetic in my Focus for various reasons I won't go into). Second, are there any tricks to improving mpg's other than the obvious, light acceleration from stops, coasting to stops, keeping freeway speeds reasonable etc, etc... The only turbo car I've owned was an 87 Thunderbird. I used full synthetic mainly because of the turbo bearings and the possibility of coking when shutting the engine off when it is hot. When I sold the car in 99 when I bought my current 2000 Mustang, the T-Bird had 250,000 miles, all with the original turbo charger. It still passed the strict California bi-annual smog inspections, too. In fact, the only problem I ever had with the drivetrain was to replace the rubber boot between the intake manifold and the intercooler. When my Mustang was broken in, I did a complete changeover to synthetics with Royal Purple synthetic power steering fluid, Royal Purple ATF in the manual trans and Royal Purple synthetic gear oil in the differential. I use Mobil 1 0-20 in the engine. Every little bit of friction you can reduce in the drivetrain will give you extra MPGs. Also, you can pump your tires up from 5 to 10 pounds over what's recommended on the doorjam (provided you don't go over the max pressure that's on the tire sidewall). When it comes time to replace your tires, look for ones that have relatively low rolling resistence.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 dude I am not sure, when they were having issues with the 2.0 in the edge and explorer meeting emissions, they made changes to the engine. If the photos are right the escape doesn't have the same head that the Edge uses. the 1.6 and the 3.5 do not utilize this technology. the 2.0 and the 1.0 are the only EcoBoost engine to boast 125hp per liter. It could be that they are using the new head only in application they have to. there is still a lot of economies of scale with the NA 2.0 GDI something to consider is that the escape EB20 needs premium for 240hp while the Explorer does not. I see what you mean and it could be a rolling change made to production which will filter through all 2.0 Ecoboost vehicles in the near future. Cooled EGR is a key part to Ford's future strategy with Ecoboost power levels increasing without hurting economy or reliability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 I see what you mean and it could be a rolling change made to production which will filter through all 2.0 Ecoboost vehicles in the near future. Cooled EGR is a key part to Ford's future strategy with Ecoboost power levels increasing without hurting economy or reliability. I rolling change would be nice for the EB however, I haven't seen rolling changes to other plants in the past. D25 and D35 for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 The only turbo car I've owned was an 87 Thunderbird. I used full synthetic mainly because of the turbo bearings and the possibility of coking when shutting the engine off when it is hot. When I sold the car in 99 when I bought my current 2000 Mustang, the T-Bird had 250,000 miles, all with the original turbo charger. It still passed the strict California bi-annual smog inspections, too. In fact, the only problem I ever had with the drivetrain was to replace the rubber boot between the intake manifold and the intercooler. When my Mustang was broken in, I did a complete changeover to synthetics with Royal Purple synthetic power steering fluid, Royal Purple ATF in the manual trans and Royal Purple synthetic gear oil in the differential. I use Mobil 1 0-20 in the engine. Every little bit of friction you can reduce in the drivetrain will give you extra MPGs. Also, you can pump your tires up from 5 to 10 pounds over what's recommended on the doorjam (provided you don't go over the max pressure that's on the tire sidewall). When it comes time to replace your tires, look for ones that have relatively low rolling resistence.. Low rolling resistance tires are inherently dangerous. I would't recommend them in any situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenCaylor Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 Low rolling resistance tires are inherently dangerous. I would't recommend them in any situation. That's why I said relatively low rolling resistance tires. You're aware that all of Ford's SFE cars come with low rolling resistance tires. Havn't heard any complaints about them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transitman Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 (edited) ...Every little bit of friction you can reduce in the drivetrain will give you extra MPGs. Also, you can pump your tires up from 5 to 10 pounds over what's recommended on the doorjam (provided you don't go over the max pressure that's on the tire sidewall). When it comes time to replace your tires, look for ones that have relatively low rolling resistence.. After doing some additional research, and after at least one syn blend oil change, I am definitely changing to Mobil 1 Extended Performance. StevenCaylor, thanks for the suggestions. I know pumping up your tire pressure can improve mpg's and a few pounds probably won't affect the handling. The only issue I have with doing that is, people much smarter than me determined that xx lbs. of pressure is the correct level for the proper handling and control for the vehicle. Maybe it's the paranoid skeptic in me that thinks this, but, if I were ever in a collision and the tires or rims were the cause, some fancy three piece Lawyer would bring up the fact that my tires were over inflated and that "may" have contributed to the failure and bang, I lose. Living in Minnesota, I keep a close watch on my tire pressure due to seasonal ambient temperature changes in spring and fall and keep them at the recommended psi. I also don't think low rolling resistance tires would be well suited for the Escape or any CUV. I believe handling, especially in the winter and safety would suffer due to the weight, height and purpose of the car. I guess I will have to "learn" how to drive this vehicle (vs. my Focus) to optimize fuel economy. Edited July 8, 2012 by transitman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 (edited) After doing some additional research, and after at least one syn blend oil change, I am definitely changing to Mobil 1 Extended Performance. StevenCaylor, thanks for the suggestions. I know pumping up your tire pressure can improve mpg's and a few pounds probably won't affect the handling. The only issue I have with doing that is, people much smarter than me determined that xx lbs. of pressure is the correct level for the proper handling and control for the vehicle. Maybe it's the paranoid skeptic in me that thinks this, but, if I were ever in a collision and the tires or rims were the cause, some fancy three piece Lawyer would bring up the fact that my tires were over inflated and that "may" have contributed to the failure and bang, I lose. Living in Minnesota, I keep a close watch on my tire pressure due to seasonal ambient temperature changes in spring and fall and keep them at the recommended psi. I also don't think low rolling resistance tires would be well suited for the Escape or any CUV. I believe handling, especially in the winter and safety would suffer due to the weight, height and purpose of the car. I guess I will have to "learn" how to drive this vehicle (vs. my Focus) to optimize fuel economy. You are spot on. Using low rolling resistance tires doesn't actually increase the efficiency of anything. They simply reduce the contact patch, which results in less rolling resistence. Overinflating tires does essentially the same thing. Either way, you are intentionally reducing traction, which is asinine IMO. StevenCaylor, I could care less what opinion the public has of low rolling resistance tires. 99% of people refer to collisions as accidents. In reality, most are a direct result of aggresive driving or ignorance. Someone [with low rolling resistence tires] is never going to admit that they willingly compromised the safety of their vehicle to save money on gas. When they lose control of their vehicle and kill someone, It will still be an accident in their mind. Ignorance is bliss. It's also a decision. Edited July 8, 2012 by Versa-Tech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transitman Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 I guess this thread is officially hijacked. This is my last post (unless I have to defend my honor) so it can get back on topic. I just checked the Tire Rack website and there are low resistance tires for the 2013 Escape, but not for the 19" rims. Low resistance tires work well on the Focus SFE because it's much lighter and designed for increased fuel economy of which the tires are one aspect of that design. Although the Escape is designed for better fuel economy, it's not an SFE vehicle and tires alone won't significantly increase fuel economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 I guess this thread is officially hijacked. This is my last post (unless I have to defend my honor) so it can get back on topic. I just checked the Tire Rack website and there are low resistance tires for the 2013 Escape, but not for the 19" rims. Low resistance tires work well on the Focus SFE because it's much lighter and designed for increased fuel economy of which the tires are one aspect of that design. Although the Escape is designed for better fuel economy, it's not an SFE vehicle and tires alone won't significantly increase fuel economy. Sorry to hijack it, but I refuse to sit idly by as someone makes such wreckless suggestions. We must always remember that driving is the most dangerous thing we do on a daily basis. When you make wreckless decisions about your vehicle, you're not just endangering yourself, but everyone that crosses your path. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenCaylor Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 Sorry to hijack it, but I refuse to sit idly by as someone makes such wreckless suggestions. We must always remember that driving is the most dangerous thing we do on a daily basis. When you make wreckless decisions about your vehicle, you're not just endangering yourself, but everyone that crosses your path. So, you're saying that every vehicle on the road should have Max Performance Summer Tires (TireRack's definition)? That and other performance tires were the ones I was refering to as an alternative for improved economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gator06 Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 So is this new version in the 2013 Escape? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Reminds me of a neighbor of mine, I call my street "Death tours" because there have been many different deaths throughout the year, like a few suicides, accidents, etc. One of them was a guy who was cutting a big pine tree in his front yard...and he sees its coming his way so afraid it was going to fall on him he runs out of the way, RIGHT into the street as a car is driving by...killed, in front of his whole family. Point being, when it's YOUR time, it's YOUR time. I agree, don't mess with my tires, don't give me low resistance stuff... I want as much rubber as possible, but when it's your turn, its going to happen in a car, in a plane, around a pole, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 (edited) I rolling change would be nice for the EB however, I haven't seen rolling changes to other plants in the past. D25 and D35 for example. The engines are supplied as complete units from Valencia at the moment and it is clear that the newer version is different to the existing version so we could see a change part way through a model year..or maybe cahnges are timed with supply contracts for vehicle lines.. :unsure: Edited July 9, 2012 by jpd80 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svtenthusiast Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 I guess this thread is officially hijacked. This is my last post (unless I have to defend my honor) so it can get back on topic. I just checked the Tire Rack website and there are low resistance tires for the 2013 Escape, but not for the 19" rims. Low resistance tires work well on the Focus SFE because it's much lighter and designed for increased fuel economy of which the tires are one aspect of that design. Although the Escape is designed for better fuel economy, it's not an SFE vehicle and tires alone won't significantly increase fuel economy. The low resistance tires come on the 18" rims for the Escapes that have the 1.6 Ecoboost. Part of the equation why it gets 33 hwy vs. 30 hwy of the 2.0 Ecoboost. They are the same Continental tires, but with less tread sipes, and an "E" behind the model name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.