2003 Ford Excursion 5.4 L "all Original" on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Ford investing $500M in engine plant for 2.7L EcoBoost production

Ohio is a hot area for Ford at the moment with the announcement just a few weeks ago that production of the next-generation F-650/F-750 medium-duty trucks would move from Mexico to the Ohio Assembly Plant in Avon Lake, Ohio. Now, Ford is investing $500 million to hire 300 workers at its Lima Engine Plant in Lima, Ohio, to add production of the twin-turbo 2.7-liter EcoBoost V6 for the 2015 F-150.
The latest investment will be used to add a new flexible engine assembly system and renovate 700,000 square feet of the plant for machining and assembly areas. The Lima factory already builds Ford's 3.5-liter and 3.7-liter Duratec V6 engines. The plant opened in 1957, and it's on track to build its 40 millionth engine later this year.
Ford claims that the 2.7-liter EcoBoost will offer V8 performance with better efficiency in the F-150. It comes standard with intelligent stop/start that doesn't activate when the truck is towing or in four-wheel drive, and it's made from a combination of compacted graphite iron and aluminum for low weight and high strength. The company says that V6 engines have already proven popular in the F-150 with 57 percent of trucks in 2014 being equipped with either the naturally aspirated 3.7-liter or turbocharged 3.5-liter EcoBoost engines.

Ward's calls out Ford's EcoBoost engines for their crummy fuel economy

With a name like EcoBoost, one might expect Ford's line of turbocharged engines to be somewhat, um, economical. In other words, replacing displacement with a turbocharger is supposed to deliver better fuel economy. Based on the experience time and time again of multiple Autoblog editors, your author included, this is simply not the case. Now, Ward's is calling out the cruddy efficiency numbers of Ford's EcoBoost line of engines. The column dresses down not just the new 2.7-liter V6 of the 2015 F-150, but also the 2.3-liter of the Mustang, the 1.5-liter from the Fusion and the 3.2-liter PowerStroke diesel found in the Transit, while also explaining why just one Ford engine was named to Ward's 10 Best Engines list. In its testing of all four engines, Ward's editors never came even remotely close to matching the 2.7's claimed 26 miles per gallon (for two-wheel-drive models), with the truck's computer indicating between 17.6 and 19 mpg over a 250-odd-mile run. Calculating the fuel economy manually revealed an even more depressing 15.6 miles per gallon. Criticisms with the 2.3-liter four-cylinder focused on its strange soundtrack, although it was business as usual with the 1.5-liter and 3.2 diesel, with Ward's criticizing the fuel economy of both engines. The 1.5, which Ward's claims is sold as a hybrid alternative, failed to get over 30 miles per gallon, while the five-cylinder turbodiesel's figures couldn't stand up against FCA's 3.0-liter EcoDiesel. The entire column really is worth a read, especially if you were disappointed in Ward's decision to only salute Ford's three-cylinder EcoBoost while shunning the rest of the company's new turbocharged mills.

Nuclear-powered concept cars from the Atomic Age

In the 1950s and early 60s, the dawn of nuclear power was supposed to lead to a limitless consumer culture, a world of flying cars and autonomous kitchens all powered by clean energy. In Europe, it offered the then-limping continent a cheap, inexhaustible supply of power after years of rationing and infrastructure damage brought on by two World Wars.
The development of nuclear-powered submarines and ships during the 1940s and 50s led car designers to begin conceptualizing atomic vehicles. Fueled by a consistent reaction, these cars would theoretically produce no harmful byproducts and rarely need to refuel. Combining these vehicles with the new interstate system presented amazing potential for American mobility.
But the fantasy soon faded. There were just too many problems with the realities of nuclear power. For starters, the powerplant would be too small to attain a reaction unless the car contained weapons-grade atomic materials. Doing so would mean every fender-bender could result in a minor nuclear holocaust. Additionally, many of the designers assumed a lightweight shielding material or even forcefields would eventually be invented (they still haven't) to protect passengers from harmful radiation. Analyses of the atomic car concept at the time determined that a 50-ton lead barrier would be necessary to prevent exposure.