THE ECOBOOST ENGINE: COMBINING VARIABLE VALVE TIMING ...

Conference Section A7
Paper # 3026
THE ECOBOOST ENGINE: COMBINING VARIABLE VALVE TIMING,
DIRECT INJECTING, AND TURBOCHARGING TO IMPROVE ENGINE
EFFICIENCY
Neil Debski (nad61@pitt.edu, Budny 10:00), Seth Kahanov (slk75@pitt.edu, Budny 10:00)
Abstract–With today’s demand for oil, car owners need an
affordable, fuel efficient engine that allows them to make
fewer trips to the gas station. Ford Motor Company, a
pioneer of the first internal combustion engine, recently
unveiled steps towards better engine efficiency by
introducing their EcoBoost engine. The EcoBoost engine
improves the typical standard internal combustion engine,
which is only twenty-five to thirty percent efficient, using
about a quarter of the fuel’s energy to power the car [1].
This paper explains how the EcoBoost engine utilizes the
three components of gasoline direct injection, variable valve
timing, and turbocharging to increase efficiency and boost
fuel economy. These three results benefit the consumer by
improving power, fuel economy, and lowering emissions.
This paper explains how the components of the engine
function together to increase engine efficiency. We will
include detailed and annotated diagrams of the EcoBoost
engine and compare it to competitor internal combustion
engines. EcoBoost engine’s designers analyze how the
engine has made a decrease in size and efficient use of
crucial space in comparison to other engines on the market.
The new technology and transition from a six cylinder to a
four cylinder model has led to a loss of forty-five pounds
from other conventional engines [2]. This paper will also
address how the Ecoboost engine’s cost of a thousand
dollars makes it available to new car buyers. Ninety percent
of Ford vehicles in North America will be available with
EcoBoost by 2013 [3]. The cost availability of the engine
combined with its improved efficiency allows car owners to
makes less trips to the gas pump.
Key Words–Direct Fuel Injection, Fuel Economy, Fuel
Efficiency, Turbo-charging, Variable Valve Timing
THE NEED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPROVEMENT
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
acknowledged the harmful designs of conventional
automotive engines despite the designers’ beneficial
intentions. According to the EPA’s 1998 studies, “heavy
duty diesel truck engines run cleanly during the agency’s
mandatory performance tests but give off much more
pollution in normal highway use” [4]. This suggests that the
conventional engine designs of the past were most
concerned with what engine would sell the best.
Advertisements for these engines consist of successful
results of regulatory tests, and not successful performance in
everyday use. This disregard for realistic engine
performance displays how companies have not considered
the long term effects that their engines have on the
consumer’s economy and environment. Despite major
automotive companies’ good intentions, “state officials . . .
say the truck engines are fitted with computer chips that
control fuel injection systems, but the systems perform
differently during the EPA’s certification tests than cruising
on highways” [4]. This computerized fuel injection is an
example of poor communication between parts of the engine
that wastes valuable space and does not respond to the
driver’s controls. The immediate effect that this poor design
has is that the engines “routinely exceed the pollution
standards” [4].
However, since these engines have been meeting the
EPA’s standards, automotive companies do not see where
they are at fault. Chief Executive Officer of Cummins
Engine Company, James A. Henderson, has claimed that his
company is “‘cooperating fully and [they] believe [they]
have consistently designed and built engines that comply in
every way with the EPA regulations’” [4]. This thought
process has lead to less efficient engines being sold on the
market. Solutions have been proposed in the past, which
include “increasing the power-volume ratio, extending the
valve overlap, increasing the crank-shaft speed, and
improving the resistance of engine parts to high combustion
temperatures” [5]. These modifications only have improved
the engine performance in extreme conditions, but have also
“contributed to contamination” [5].
The popular mindset of the past towards a solution to
engines’ environmental harms was to “go back to much
larger engines with lower compression ratios and
deliberately design them to run at about one-half present
peak mean effective pressures and camshaft speeds” [5].
This would have decreased the engine’s harmful emissions,
but this large design would also decrease the performance of
the engine as a whole. Overall, this decrease in performance
would be made in order to only resolve the problem of
emissions. As a result of these realizations of the past,
further research has been done in order to maximize engine
efficiency, fuel economy, and environmental benefits. The
first step in this process was improving the communication
within the engine in order include the commands of the
driver during the driving experience. In addition, the direct
injection of fuel was focused on in order to decrease waste.
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering April 13, 2013
1

Neil Debski
Seth Kahanov
However, before direct fuel application was emphasized,
engine design went through a period of inefficient processes
and performances.
THE INEFFICIENT WORLD OF
ENGINES BEFORE THE ECOBOOST
Before the technology of the EcoBoost engine was
introduced to the automotive market by Ford, engine
efficiency always compromised either the fuel economy or
fuel efficiency of the engine. The internal combustion of
conventional engines consisted of a less controlled fuel
application to the engine. This resulted in a greater demand
of fuel for the engine since most of the fuel was being
wasted and not applied to crucial parts of the engine. Every
engine design is based off of a translation of the standard
Otto cycle, as seen in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1
Process of the Otto Cycle [6]
The Otto cycle begins after the engine has taken in both
fuel and air and is then adiabatically compressed (without
any heat gain or loss [7] [8]. After this compression, the
temperature and pressure are increased at a constant volume
[8]. The piston with which the compression was applied is
then quickly removed from the resources, which causes
adiabatic expansion. At this point, the exhaust valve within
the engine is opened, which reduces the pressure of the
system back to atmospheric pressure [8]. The piston then
eliminates the exhaust gasses in the system in order for the
Otto cycle to complete and begin again [8]. Steps within this
cycle have become very harmful when dealt with in an
unbalanced manner. When the compression of the air and
fuel is not done within a precise area, a large amount of fuel
is spread out within the engine and not compressed with the
air. This fuel is eventually not included in the engine’s
usable energy and is then swept out of the engine in a later
step of the Otto cycle with other exhaust gasses. What was
once fuel with the potential to better the function of a car is
now a harmful pollutant that only serves to worsen the
environment in which it is released. This unbalance of
concerns regarding fuel injection and fuel application has
been a downfall of several engines of the past, including the
majority of conventional four-stroke engines.
A major disadvantage in standard four-stroke cylinders
has been “the inability to over-rev [perform despite demands
from the driver that exceed the engine’s abilities]. A low
cost poppet valve train typically [lost] control around 12000
rpm or less” [9]. This results in drivers not being able to
control the type of engine performance they need for
different types of travel they could need at any time. Another
drawback from previous two-stroke and four-stroke engines
is that they were “unsuitable for heavy fuel operation due to
difficulties in starting, low power, detonation sensitivity and
carbonization” [9]. These flaws in engine efficiency have led
to high levels of fuel waste. This waste of gasoline makes
the driving experience increasingly expensive. Recent
studies have concluded that more emphasis needs to be put
on the fuel injection design. Early improvements to more
precise injection, done in the MinDwell design, the first
engine design which focused on a new, direct fuel injection,
proved that “application of the MinDwell injection strategies
yielded a reduction in emissions, fuel consumption and
combustion noise” [9] This application of injection precision
led to the engine running “extremely well on heavy fuels . . .
which is a unique capability for an Otto cycle spark ignition
engine without resorting to high pressure injection
technology” [9]. Since the Otto cycle leads to flaws when
one step is done inefficiently, the entire cycle becomes more
productive when the first step is handled with more precise
fuel injection. This improvement of the engine’s Otto cycle
allowed the engine to be more beneficial to both the driver
and the environment. This realization was displayed in
Ford’s design of the EcoBoost engine, which Ford chairman
John Fleming referred to as “a key element of Ford Motor
Company’s global blueprint for sustainability” [10].
THE NECESSITY OF DIRECT
INJECTION
Direct injection engines are becoming more common in
automobile manufacturing to improve fuel efficiency and
horsepower in engines. Ford Motor Company uses spark
ignited direct injection (SIDI) technology in its EcoBoost
engine. SIDI engines inject gasoline directly into the air in
the cylinder where the resulting mixture is then ignited by a
spark plug [11]. In SIDI, the fuel is injected at a high
pressure of 2,176 psi as it is injected into the combustion
chamber and not the manifold like in port injection. Benefits
of SIDI include lower emissions especially at startup, higher
compression, better fuel economy on turbocharged engines,
and increased horsepower when compared to port injection
in Figure 2. [11].
2

Neil Debski
Seth Kahanov
FIGURE 2
Port Injection vs. Direct Injection [12]
All gasoline engines depend on atomizing the fuel before
combustion. Unfortunately, with carburetors, throttle bodies,
and even port injection, the atomization takes place at a
distance from the combustion chamber. By the time the
atomized fuel and air reach the combustion chamber, some
of the fuel has separated out and collects on intake.
However, when fuel atomizes and the air and fuel mixture
are cooled in the combustion chamber, a higher compression
ratio is produced thus eliminating the problem. Better
atomization contributes to a reduction in pre-ignition and
detonation, which is why the SIDI engine can operate at a
higher compression ratio and consume less fuel [12]. SIDI
allows the engine to run on a leaner mixture (more air, less
fuel) which allows for better fuel economy at part and full
throttle [12]. The fuel delivery in a SIDI engine comprises of
two components. The low side works with a fuel pump at 60
psi to deliver fuel from the tank to the engine compartment.
The high side, which is located by the cylinder head, is
driven by lobes on the camshaft and delivers fuel at 2,176
psi [12]. The high side, high pressure pump utilizes the fuel
rail’s pressure with an engine control module. This allows
more accurate control over fuel metering (the amount of fuel
injected), and injection timing (exactly when the fuel is
introduced into the cylinder).
Engine knocking is the premature fuel combustion that
can result in power loss of the engine. Engine knocking is
compression detonation or pre-ignition of fuel in the power
stroke of the engine. Knock is a function of heat and
pressure. The fix for engine knock until now has been to
reduce the compression ratio of turbocharged engines. The
compression ratio is the ratio between the cylinder's
maximum and minimum volumes, when the piston is at the
bottom of its stroke versus the top [13]. With direct
injection, the spray of fuel during the compression stroke
helps keep the cylinder cooler, reducing the possibility of
knocking [13]. Like the spray from an atomizer bottle one
might use to keep cool in the summer, the fine mist
generated by each solenoid-controlled injector’s six tiny
outlet holes helps to create a well-mixed air-fuel mixture. It
also cools the incoming air, helping to reduce the potential
for engine knock. This allows for higher compression ratios
which can boost fuel efficiency by a few percent. When
coupled with sophisticated electronic control of how much
fuel to add with the turbo, the end result can be up to a 20
percent increase in fuel efficiency [11]. Better atomization
contributes to a reduction in pre-ignition and detonation,
which is why the spark ignition direct injection engine can
operate at a higher compression ratio and consume less fuel.
The EcoBoost engine has both more peak torque and lower
end torque, meaning direct injection produces a remarkable
flat torque curve. The EcoBoost engine produces 90 percent
of its peak torque between 1,550 and 5,500 rpm. About 98
percent of all driving is between 1,000 and 3,000 rpm [14].
THE CRUCIAL TIMING OF VARIABLE
VALVE ACTIVITY
The next aspect of the EcoBoost engine that is crucial to
its design is its variable valve timing. This section will
explain how the EcoBoost’s use of variable valve timing
makes the engine fuel efficient as it works along with the
direct fuel injection. We will define variable valve timing by
describing how less overlap between intake and exhaust
strokes allows for better efficiency at low and high speeds
alike. Valve overlap is the time when both intake and
exhaust valves are open, giving an opportunity for exhaust
gas flow and intake flow to influence each other. For
maximum efficiency, valve overlap should allow exiting
exhaust gas to draw an intake charge into the cylinder
without intake gas passing straight to the exhaust system
[15]. At high speeds and torque, output is improved due to
the aided intake of fresh charge due to increased valve
timing. At low speed, the effect of valve overlap is to reintroduce
exhaust gasses into the combustion chamber
[15]. This is known as generating internal exhaust gas recirculation
or internal EGR. Exhaust gas recirculation also
reduces hydrocarbon and NOX emissions by the recirculation
of un-burnt exhaust gasses [15]. The retained
exhaust gasses tend to be very rich in un-burnt
hydrocarbons, as they typically come from the end of the
exhaust stroke. This strategy can therefore be quite effective
at reducing emissions. Each of the three implementations of
variable valve timing uses a cam phaser to adjust the
camshaft angular position relative to the crankshaft position,
referred to as camshaft phasing [15]. A camshaft is a rotating
cylindrical shaft used to regulate the injection of vaporized
fuel in an internal combustion engine, as seen in Figure 3.
The crankshaft is located in the engine of a vehicle and
converts the force created by the engine's pistons moving up
and down into a force that moves the wheels in a circular
motion so the car can go forward.
3

Neil Debski
Seth Kahanov
FIGURE 3
Visual of a Camshaft [16]
The phase adjustment results in a change to the pump
work required by the engine to accomplish the gas exchange
process [12]. The majority of current cam phaser
applications use hydraulically-actuated units, powered by
engine oil pressure and managed by a solenoid that controls
the oil pressure supplied to the phaser [15]. Concentric
camshafts allow for two independent variable valve timing
on a single camshaft. Intake and exhaust centerline timings
are controlled to give prime engine performance over the all
operating ranges. A benefit from the twin independent
variable camshaft timing is a reduction in emissions when
the throttle, that controls the flow of fuel to the engine is
partially open [15]. Lower emission, combined with control
of nitrous oxides and hydrocarbons at all engine speeds,
reduces atmospheric pollution. From a physics standpoint,
variable valve timing can also be used to reduce the work
required by the piston to pump the combustion gasses into
and out of the combustion chamber. At any specific speed
and load, increasing the intake of air into the combustion
chamber allows the engine to burn more fuel, thus resulting
in more power being produced. Concentric camshafts allow
for a 5% increase in fuel economy as well as a 10% increase
of mean torque [15]. This is measured in terms of an
engine’s volumetric efficiency (the actual volume induced
divided by the static cylinder volume). Variable camshaft
timing is electronically controlled by hydraulic valves that
direct high pressure engine oil into the camshaft phaser
cavity. Gasoline direct injection engines are combined with
variable valve timing to create a large improvement in part
load economy due to the reduction in pumping losses. This
improvement stems from the homogeneous mixture of air
and fuel at all engine speeds and loads causing a stratified
charge. Stratified processes allow for a smaller dependence
on a throttle in the intake system as small quantities of fuel
can be added to excess air [15]. The final component that
increases the EcoBoost’s benefits will be described in the
next section with turbocharging.
THE ECOBOOST’S EFFICIENT TURBO-
CHARGING
The final aspect that makes the EcoBoost engine
efficient is its turbocharger. A turbocharger is a compressor
that forces a greater quantity of the fuel and air mixture into
the engine’s intake and pistons. The compressor wheel is
spun by an attached turbine wheel, which utilizes exhaust
coming from the engine. The spinning wheel of the turbine
has fan blades that compress the air that forces its way to the
cylinder intake, as seen in Figure 4. Due to the increased
mass of airborne gasoline in the cylinder, the combustion
forces the piston down at a higher speed increasing torque. A
turbocharger can decrease the engine’s specific fuel
consumption by as much as 14% [17].
FIGURE 4
Processes of a Turbo-charge [17]
The EcoBoost engine uses two Honeywell GT15
turbochargers with water-cooled bearings. These watercooled
and oil-cooled turbos are quite unlike the turbos from
the 1980s that were cooled only by engine oil. The EcoBoost
turbo bearings are water-cooled in the same coolant loop as
the engine to bring turbo temperatures down. A general rule
for turbocharging is to use the smallest turbocharger possible
that provides the desired performance. This is done to
minimize turbo lag. Turbo lag is caused by the short time
lapse between the moment the accelerator is depressed and
the turbocharger response from the exhaust fumes. As stated,
a turbocharger must have exhaust fumes to fill the turbine
housing in order for the turbocharger to spin and perform its
job. This problem is minimized with a small turbocharger
because it takes less exhaust pressure to spin a smaller
turbine. However, at faster speeds, a larger turbocharger is
capable of providing a greater power boost to the engine
[17]. Since turbochargers give engines lower specific fuel
consumption, the engines output more overall power for less
fuel burned. Manufacturers like Ford are looking at benefits
that are not simply related to improving a car's speed. A
turbocharger on a smaller engine can output the same power
as a larger engine for less fuel. Furthermore, because the car
will weigh less with a smaller engine, the smaller
turbocharged engine will have better performance than the
original large engine without a turbocharger [17]. Direct
injection uses a much higher pressure system (up to 3000
PSI vs. 100 PSI for normal fuel injection) and sprays the fuel
into each cylinder during the compression stroke [13]. Direct
injection allows for a better fuel-air mixture inside the
cylinder, but it has some other benefits as well, especially
with turbocharged engines. For instance, if the air and fuel
4

Neil Debski
Seth Kahanov
mixture gets too hot, it can prematurely detonate “knock” in
the cylinder during the compression stroke and before the
spark plugs fire. Preventing this knocking is why additives
like lead (and more recently MTBE) are added to gas
[13]. Forcing additional air into an engine’s combustion
chambers with a turbocharger definitely boosts power. As
stated, in order to avoid harmful detonation, turbocharged
engines needed lower compression ratios, which
compromised efficiency. Direct fuel injection helps solve
this problem by cooling the intake charge to minimize
detonation. Second, if the variable valve timing extends the
time when both the intake and the exhaust valves are open,
the turbocharger can blow fresh air through the cylinder to
completely remove the hot leftover gases from the previous
combustion cycle. Since the injectors squirt fuel only after
the valves close, none of it escapes through the exhaust
valve, improving efficiency and temperature.
This turbocharger maximizes the engine’s performance
when it is working seamlessly with the engine’s direct fuel
injection and variable valve timing. The EcoBoost engine
uses two turbos, one per bank. These fixed vane turbos
operate in parallel, meaning they operate independently of
one another. Smaller turbos enable faster spool-up, allowing
for faster peak torque, and reduction in turbo lag. By being
mounted close to the cylinder heads, the NVH (noise,
vibration, harshness) of the turbo operation is improved
compared to older systems, and reduce under hood heat.
These smaller turbos spin up faster, kick in at lower engine
rpms, operate at higher turbine rpms, and are fully connected
to modern powertrain controllers [14]. A turbocharger
utilizes forced induction in order to allow more power to be
produced for an engine. The turbine wheel is coupled to a
compressor that pressurizes air coming into the engine —
this is called “boost” and allows the engine to breathe in air
as if it were larger in displacement since more air is “forced”
into the intake [14]. Fortunately, internal combustion
engines have an abundant source of energy that normally
goes to waste right out the exhaust pipe. Turbochargers
harness the thermal and kinetic energy in the exhaust gases
to drive turbines and compressors that force more air into the
engine for a big increase in power [14]. The more air an
engine intakes, the more power it generates. Engine coolant
is responsible for about 60 percent of the engine cooling,
while engine oil handles about 40 percent of the cooling
[14]. Ford has a unique twist on this. The EcoBoost engine
delivers a short spray of oil to the underside of each piston.
Squirt jets deliver a 25 psi dose of oil on each piston stroke.
This does two things. On a cold start, this helps to quickly
warm the oil to operating temperatures, which lowers
internal friction and improves fuel economy. Under normal
operating conditions, of course, the oil squirt keeps the
piston temperatures under cooler levels.
ECONOMIC ETHICS
The EcoBoost’s decrease in fuel waste has led to a more
beneficial fuel economy compared to other engine
technologies. The initial problem when facing the fuel
economy of conventional engines was balancing the
necessary decrease in fuel consumption, while still using
enough fuel to increase the performance of the engine. Most
automotive companies have initially been reluctant to
decrease their fuel consumption because it would
“compromise the present performance, reliability, and speed
flexibility” [5]. This problem only lead to a compromise
before the focus of new designs was direct fuel injection.
With this new decrease in fuel waste, Ford did not have to
compromise their engine’s performance since their engine
utilized the majority of its fuel to increase its efficiency. This
is why Ford has improved their fuel economy, because they
provided better performance with less fuel consumption than
the conventional diesel engine.
In comparison to standard diesel engines, the EcoBoost
“achieves 365 horsepower at 5,000 rpm and 420 foot-pounds
of torque at just 2,500 rpm” [3]. This allows the EcoBoost to
continue to perform with high quality at high speeds while
diesel engines “run out of steam at higher engine speeds”
[3]. This improvement in technology has solved a very large
problem that is faced by drivers on a day to day basis. As
peoples’ need for efficient transportation increases, they do
not have the time or money to waste during constant trips to
the gas station. However, this is what happened in the past
with regular diesel technology, when higher speeds led to a
bigger waste of fuel and less efficient performance.
However, with the EcoBoost’s compact design that
minimizes fuel waste, less money is spent on gas since the
fuel is being utilized in the engine instead of released into
the environment. With the EcoBoost’s direct injection
technology, the engine is able to use all of the fuel that is
applied to it to have the entire engine function for a longer
period of time, which results in a better fuel economy. This
efficient fuel economy is due the EcoBoost engine’s use of
“half the cylinders of the outgoing V-8 with about 237
horsepower” [3]. Economic benefits such as these,
“combined with advanced transmissions, electric power
steering, weight reductions and aerodynamic improvements
are a part of Ford Motors Company’s vehicle sustainability
strategy” [18]. This strategy proves to succeed after
evaluating the economic ethics of the EcoBoost, since the
engine’s decrease in fuel waste makes its performance more
sustainable future use.
Of course, this advanced technology does not come
without an advanced price. However, the EcoBoost’s better
fuel economy eventually leads to a manageable cost-benefit
analysis for the consumer. Regarding most conventional
engines without the EcoBoost’s innovative technology, the
“typical cost is $800” without including the later cost of fuel
[19]. The EcoBoost engine is more expensive than these
engines, with a starting price of “$995,” however this
initially steep price is paying for technology that will
decrease amounts of gas consumption [3]. With these high
5

Neil Debski
Seth Kahanov
levels of torque at low levels of consumption, the engine will
perform at higher efficiency by using less fuel. Economic
analysis has proven that “drivers will recover the additional
initial cost of the [EcoBoost] in an estimated 30 months,
which is significantly shorter than the estimated seven years
for diesel engines and 12 years for hybrid engines” [17].
Despite its high initial price, the EcoBoost will allow the
driver to earn back their initial investment in gas savings
quicker than they would with another engine model.
ECOBOOST PUT TO THE TEST
To prove the EcoBoost engine is a viable option in the
engine market, it has been compared to other competing
engines, and proves to have the highest efficiency. Ford has
not been the only automotive company with the idea to
better their engines fuel economy. The models for “Hyundai
. . . BMW . . . [and] Chrysler’s 2013 Ram 1500 pickup” high
end cars all have added the feature of “eight-speed
transmission” in order to improve the fuel economy of the
car [20]. However these models have only considered the
economic benefit for the customer, and have not touched
upon the environmental impact that the efficiency of the
engine will have. The result of these other companies’
efforts has been that their models with “transmissions with
more gears aren’t as fuel efficient as some of the other
systems [that consider their environmental and economic
impact, such as the EcoBoost] being offered by automakers”
[20]. These competitors for the Ford EcoBoost have not
combined the same technology that Ford has in order to
improve both the environment and economy that their
engine must live in. Only Ford’s combination of direct fuel
injection, variable valve timing, and turbocharging is able to
benefit the engine’s fuel economy and the driver’s
environment. The companies that Ford is now competing
with are the same companies that, upon the realization of
their loophole around the EPA’s approval, were forced to
“disclose any features on their engines that they know would
increase actual pollution” [4]. The fact that these companies
continued to manufacture an engine that they knew would
not decrease emissions compared to their previous models
proves that the Ford EcoBoost engine has been kept up to
date on the necessities of the society in which it functions.
Ford has chosen to grow with its surroundings, instead of
fight them the way that their competitors have.
One of the original Ford models with the EcoBoost
engine, the 2010 Lincoln MKT, was tested against Audi Q7
SUV. The comparison proved that the Lincoln’s “3.5 liter
twin-turbo V6 cranks out 355 horsepower – more than many
larger V8s, including the Audi Q7 SUV” [21]. This proves
that the EcoBoost engine can perform more efficiently than
other engines in a more manageable size. This smaller
engine size demonstrates how the EcoBoost engine does not
waste the space it occupies within a vehicle and optimizes
the amount of work it does in the space it is provided. In the
same test, after speeding from zero to sixty miles per hour
faster than the V8 Audi, “The Lincoln [delivered] roughly
twenty-five percent better mileage than the Audi, at an EPAestimated
16/22 mpg in city and highway” [21]. The
Environmental Protection Agency has approved the
impressive performance of the EcoBoost engine, which was
initially designed to better the environment. This
performance has also proved more cost efficient compared
to other engines, given its better mileage.
Other than its more efficient conventional performance,
the EcoBoost proves to have the best environmental effects
compared to other companies’ efforts to reach the same goal.
Provided General Motors’ “eAssist” technology, Mazda’s
“Skyactiv” approach and BMW’s “Efficient Dynamics”, the
Ford EcoBoost has “delivered the [environmental] benefits .
. . consistently across a broad product line-up . . . and
managed to create a salient sub-brand that showcases the
benefits of the technology” [22]. After the environmental
effects of these top competitors’ efforts to better the
environment were compared, the EcoBoost proved more
beneficial than any other model in the running.
Designs of other engines are made unique to one specific
automobile, which requires automakers to design new
engines for new cars without utilizing the benefits from past
successful designs. However, the EcoBoost engine has
proven to “deliver better fuel economy and performance on a
full range of vehicles, from small cars to large trucks” [19].
The wide range of applicable automobiles for the EcoBoost
engine has demonstrated that the design is much more
sustainable than other engine designs in terms of applying
the engine to any car that needs a better fuel economy or
environmental impact. The versatility of the engines
applications prove that the EcoBoost engine can be sustained
for automobile designs for years to come.
SUSTAINING ECOBOOST BENEFITS
FOR THE FUTURE
In order to entice drivers to choose the EcoBoost engine,
they must be ensured that the style of the car they enjoy is
still providing the benefits they desire in a vehicle. With gas
prices in the United States averaging four dollars a gallon,
the EcoBoost engine is a step towards a more fuel efficient
engine. Ford Motor Company increases efficiency and fuel
economy while not sacrificing the horsepower of the engine,
proving to be a lucrative benefit to many consumers. Truck
owners especially have taken a fancy to the EcoBoost and its
powerful yet smaller engine. "People are amazed at the
power," the owner of a car dealership in South Carolina
explained. “Several customers traded in diesel-powered
Super Duty pickups--used mainly for transportation instead
of towing--for the F-150 EcoBoost. They are pleased with
the fuel economy and the power.” [23]. Ford’s numbers
show that the 3.5-liter EcoBoost V6 available in the F-150
exceeded 100,000 sales in less than one year on the market.
6

Neil Debski
Seth Kahanov
EcoBoost-equipped F-150s now account for more than 40
percent of F-150 retail sales. [24]. However, the EcoBoost
engine is not only limited to trucks. Standard four door
sedans such as the Ford Focus, Taurus, and Explorer allow
for the fuel saving technology to be available to consumers
of all car preferences for just a small increase in cost. Even
sports cars such as the iconic Ford Mustang will be getting a
green makeover. Ford executives have confirmed the
adoption of EcoBoost engines for the next generation
Mustang in 2015 [25]. Ford has committed to making
EcoBoost available to 90 percent of its nameplates by 2013,
and adding in the Mustang will take that figure closer to 100
percent [25]. Ecoboost owners who drive 15,000 miles per
year will save a little less than $200 annually at the pump
(with gas at $3.23 a gallon) [26]. The cost of an EcoBoost
upgrade option, depending on the vehicle type, ranges from
$900 to $1500. With an average car lasting around 150,000
miles before resale or scrapping, the EcoBoost engine pays
for itself. These statistics show that the EcoBoost is an
ethical step in the right direction as a fuel saving, pollution
reducing, money saving engine that is suitable in price to
most new car buyers. For this reason, the Ford Motor
Company should continue to improve their line of EcoBoost
Engines. In regards to modern car owners, Ford Vice
President of Powertrain Engineering Joe Bakaj explains,
“Many customers would like the fuel efficiency of a modern
diesel or a hybrid, but can’t stretch their budgets to cover the
cost premium. That’s where the EcoBoost fits in. It will
offer a highly fuel-efficient alternative at a lower cost,” [27].
Not only has this engine made the driving experience user
friendly, its initial benefits are sustainable to hold true no
matter how the rest of the vehicle’s design has been
modified .
ECOBOOST: AN IRREFUTABLE
OPTION
Drivers have several choices regarding what type of
engine and vehicle to use on a day to day basis. Considering
how often a driver needs to have easy access to a
manageable ride, this choice should be made regarding
impacts that the car will make that will affect them the most.
These effects that engine designs have are on the economy
and environment that the driver is living in. These have
always been concerns of mechanics while designing engines,
but have never been dealt with in such a balanced and
efficient way as the Ford EcoBoost engine. Previous
attempts to better the fuel economy and environment have
involved increasing the size of the engine and lowering the
compression ratio [5]. This would better the environment,
but decrease the performance of the engine overall. The later
realization of why fuel is being wasted was explored in the
MinDwell design, which made the injection site within the
engine more controlled [9]. This decrease in fuel waste
sparked the emphasis on direct fuel injection for all engine
mechanics, and allowed Ford to design the entire EcoBoost
engine around it.
The direct injection involved in the EcoBoost engine uses
spark ignited direct injection technology, which allows the
engine to inject the fuel in the air in the cylinder and then
ignite the mixture with a spark plug [11]. This enables the
engine to use more of the fuel that is applied to it without
having to release it into the atmosphere during the Otto
cycle. The following crucial technology is the EcoBoost’s
unique variable valve timing which reduces emissions by
controlling the fuel flow to the engine even while the throttle
is slightly open [13]. This is essential to benefitting the fuel
economy of the engine, since the driver will not have to pay
for as much gas, if the gas they initially put in their engine is
being used completely to help the function of the engine.
Another important aspect of the EcoBoost engine is its
efficient turbocharging. The EcoBoost’s turbocharging helps
give the engine the boost that it needs to continue through
the Otto cycle, while cooling the system to both ease starting
ignition and prevent harm or damage to the engine [28]. This
cooling and charging allows the engine to perform at high
quality for long periods of time without the need to stop for
more fuel.
Given all of the EcoBoost’s innovative technology, the
choice to commit to the engine’s benefits comes from its
economic and environmental benefits. The EcoBoost’s
optimization of fuel allows the engine to achieve higher
horsepower at lower rpm, which continues to decrease the
constant need for fuel [3]. This high performance with low
levels of fuel decreases the total amount of money the driver
needs to spend on gasoline, making the cost benefit analysis
favor the initial purchase of the engine. There are several
other companies producing what they believe are highly
efficient engines, but their comparison to the EcoBoost
leaves them flawed. Despite other automotive companies
being able to increase the performance efficiency of their
engines, they are not able to better the fuel economy to the
extent that the EcoBoost engine does [20]. The EcoBoost
engine minimizes the space it occupies within the vehicle,
which in turn gives opportunity for precise direct injection of
fuel. This improvement wastes less fuel, solving both
economic and environmental problems at once. Considering
how long society has had these problems, it is odd to think
of why this innovative technology was not released sooner.
REFERENCES
[1] (2012) “Fuel Efficiency Takes Baby Steps in the Auto
Industry.” New York Times. (Newspaper).
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/business/global/fuelefficiency-takes-baby-steps-in-the-autoindustry.html?pagewanted=all
[2] (2012) “Ford Puts the Pedal to Its EcoBoost Engine-Tech
Brand.” Forbes. (Online Periodical).
7

Neil Debski
Seth Kahanov
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dalebuss/2012/06/03/ford-gunsecoboost-engine-tech-brand-and-it-races-past-sync/3/
[3] B.Wojdyla. (2013). “The Extraordinary EcoBoost.” My
Ford Magazine. (Online Article).
http://www.myfordmag.com/innovation/ecoboosttechnology
[4] J.H. Cuchman Jr. (1998). “Diesel engine pollution
Investigated” New York Times. (Online Article).
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/?verb=sr&
csi=152787&sr=HLEAD(Diesel+engine+pollution+investig
ated)+and+date+is+February+11%2C+1998
[5] I. Katz. (1968). “Automobile Engines: Pollution and
Power” American Association for the Advancement of
Science. (Online Article).
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1724739
[6] (2006). “The Otto Cycle” RollsPoyce Enthusiasts Club.
(Diagram).
http://www.rrec.org.uk/Cars/How_A_Car_Works.php
[7] S. Hou (2007). “Comparison of performances of air
standard Atkinson and Otto cycles with heat transfer
considerations.” Energy Conservation and Management.
(Online Technical Report).
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S01968904
0600344X
[8] (2011). “Otto cycle” The Penguin Dictionary of Physics.
(Online
Dictionary).
http://www.credoreference.com/entry/pendphys/otto_cycle
[9] (2012). “Internal Combustion Engines: Performance,
Fuel Economy and Emissions” Woodhead Publishing.
(Online
Book).
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/pitt/docDetail.action?docID=10641
522
[10] N. McDonald (2009). “Small is green for Ford.” The
Mercury. (Online Newspaper).
http://www.enginetechnologyinternational.com/news.php?N
ewsID=18806
[11] (2009). “Improving Internal Combustion with Direct
Injection.” TechConnect. (Online Magazine).
http://www.acdelcotechconnect.com/pdf/imtn_V16I409.pdf
[12] (2012). “Light-Duty Vehicle Emissions.” EPA. (Online
Article).
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420r12901.pdf
[13] (2012). “The Future Of Fuel Efficiency.” Arstechnica.
(Online Magazine).
http://arstechnica.com/features/2012/10/more-bang-lessbuck-how-car-engines-now-go-further-on-less/3/
[14] (2011) “Police Fleet Manager.” Hendon Publishing.
(Online
Article).
http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/article_archive/results
/details?id=1091
[15] (2012). “Concentric Camshafts – Independent VVT On
A Single Cam.” Mechadyne International. (Online Article).
http://www.mechadyne-int.com/vva-products/concentriccamshafts
[16] A. Cairns. (2012). “A study of mechanical variable
valve operation with gasoline – alcohol fuels in a spark
ignition engine.” Science Direct. (Online Article).
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S00162361
12008381
[17] (2013). “Turbochargers.” Illumin. (Online Magazine).
http://illumin.usc.edu/printer/146/turbochargers/
[18] (2008). “Ford Motor Company; Lincoln Unveils
Ultimate Touring Vehicle Concept; Premium Utility
Features Elegance, Space Efficiency.” Resource Week.
(Online
Article).
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/?verb=sr&
csi=338031&sr=HLEAD(Ford+Motor+Company)+and+date
+is+February+11%2C+2008
[19] (2006). “An Analysis of the Cost-Effectiveness of
Reducing Particulate Matter Emissions from Heavy-Duty
Diesel Engines Through Retrofits”. Environmental
Protection Agency. (Online Analysis).
http://www.epa.gov/cleandiesel/documents/420s06002.pdf
[20] I. Katz. (1968). “Automobile Engines: Pollution and
Power” American Association for the Advancement of
Science. (Online Article).
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1724739
[21] (2009). “Ford EcoBoost Engine Does More With Less.”
Popsci. (Online Article).
http://www.popsci.com/cars/article/2009-09/fords-turbocharged-ecoboost-engine
[22] (2012) “Ford Puts the Pedal to Its EcoBoost Engine-
Tech Brand.” Forbes. (Online Periodical).
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dalebuss/2012/06/03/ford-gunsecoboost-engine-tech-brand-and-it-races-past-sync/3/
[23] R. Kranz. (2011). “Ford Says Optional EcoBoost V6
Engine Popular With F-150 Buyers.” Autoweek. (Online
Article).
http://www.autoweek.com/article/20110428/CARNEWS/11
0429869
[24] N. Johnson. (2012). “Local economy sees boost with
arrival of the EcoBoost Ford Transit Van in 2013.”
Examiner. (Online Article).
http://www.examiner.com/article/local-economy-sees-boostwith-arrival-of-the-ecoboost-ford-transit-van-2013
[25] B. Hill. (2012). “Next Genertion Mustang to Adopt
EcoBoost for Efficiency, Ditch Solid Rear Axle.”
DailyTech. (Online Article).
http://www.dailytech.com/Next+Generation+Mustang+to+A
dopt+EcoBoost+for+Efficiency+Ditch+Solid+Rear+Axle+/a
rticle25527.html
[26] J. Lorio (2012). “Driven: 2012 Ford F150 EcoBoost.”
Automobile. (Online Article).
http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews/driven/1201_2012
_ford_f150_ecoboost/viewall.html
[27] L. Vandezande (2013). “2014 Fiesta Getting 1.0L
EcoBoost Engine.” Autoguide. (Online Article).
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2012/11/2014-fordfiesta-getting-1-0l-ecoboost-engine.html
[28] (2010). “The Future of the Internal-Combustion
Engine” Car and Driver. (Online Magazine).
8

Neil Debski
Seth Kahanov
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-future-of-theinternal-combustion-engine
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank our Chair, Samuel Scalzo, and
our Co-Chair, Brian DeWille, for keeping us on track for our
requirements and deadlines for our Conference Paper, while
keeping us motivated to improve in every step. We are very
grateful for the assistance and guidelines provided by
Professor Beth Newborg for the Conference Paper. We also
could not have been able to improve from earlier portions of
this paper without the strong constructive criticism and face
to face advice from our writing instructor, Dan McMillan.
9