Comments on: Ford to boost marketing efforts

By: beatusmongous

beatusmongous — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:37:26 +0000

Ah, Johnny, I’m glad to hear that I’m not the only one you have a man crush on. Whew! I was getting a bit worried.

By: fordman

fordman — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 05:53:47 +0000

the only way a ford would look good is if Mike Rowe covered the entire car in the poo he is so proud of!
It’s fitting that the guy that represents ford lives and dreams poo! Could it be fords are nothing but sh!t?

By: fordman

fordman — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 05:50:06 +0000

ford and toyota look so similar now,it’s hard to tell one from the other. Don’t forget,ford buys their hybrid technology from toyota and I heard their dual turbo technology is also from toyota.

By: The Realist

The Realist — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 21:41:56 +0000

What are you talking about? Egoboost costs upwards of $3,000.

And for V8 mileage it returns…it sure is an expensive gimmick.

By: blksn8k

blksn8k — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 14:05:08 +0000

It’s fairly obvious that some people just love to hate a winner and/or stir up crap. Don’t you kids have homework? By the way you write I certainly hope you are still in school. Maybe you will learn something yet.
Seriously, though, the whole point of the EcoBoost engines is that more power is available in a more efficient package that does not come at a premium price (as compared to say a diesel engine). So far, Ford has only offered the 3.5L in it’s more upscale models but when you compare their prices to similar vehicles from other manufacturers they are not out of line. They have already announced that the F150 will get the V6 EcoBoost and there are new models on the way that will use the 1.6L and 2.0L four cylinder EcoBoost engines. Look for them first in the next generations of the Explorer and Focus.
By the way, one of the key features of the EcoBoost engines is that they use direct injection of the fuel into the combustion chamber which allows higher boost levels on regular gas due to the cooling effect of the incoming charge. This also contributes to higher efficiency which helps explain why the Taurus SHO is rated at the same mpg as the non turbo 3.5L V6 AWD model. Comparing the 2009 Grand Marquis to the 2010 Taurus SHO shows the GM 4.6L V8 at 224 hp and 272 ft lbs, 16 city, 24 highway and the 2010 SHO 3.5L V6 Ecoboost at 365 hp, 350 ft lbs, 17 city, 25 highway. Granted, there is only a one mpg difference in fuel mileage but the SHO also has a 145 hp and 78 ft lbs advantage over it’s V8 cousin of similar size and weight.

By: The Realist

The Realist — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 01:14:45 +0000

Ford…please don’t.

Nobody wants to see your ugly, unimaginative appliances…or that sell-out Mike Rowe…on TV.

By: worst 3

worst 3 — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 17:49:04 +0000

Greg said it make more power then most that are larger then 2L just sighting, i was an example of where it makes less hp, and there are smaller v8s too that make more power but there two expensive to mention. my comment was not stating that 10hp is a large big but just that it was there.

It easy to get 100hp/L using forced induction you can get much more then that. and 100hp/l, get 100hp/L is much harder in engines with large displacement per cylinder, tau is on the border that size.
(also has to do with materials used).

also I would not be surprised to see the 5.7l hemi and gm ls3 getting similar mpg in the near future for cars.

again i think it a good engine but i would like to see more real world reviews on it mpg, as i remain skeptical of it real world fuel economy. i believe there 1.4 will be more impressive over all.

By: armstealer

armstealer — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:30:08 +0000

@worst3- 1.3L of difference is an entire 4 banger’s worth of displacement. It’s easy to get 100HP/ liter, normally aspirated; and you state it only adds 10 hp and call it a good thing? I’m confused.

By: worst 3

worst 3 — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 07:48:48 +0000

toyotafan what are you talking about/ smoke? that they want to market there product more. because Toyota dose not have any turbo cars or really any thing that not boring to driven and has bland styling so that what there copying. please elaborate I need to hear this, may be you have an argument but i don’t see it. increasing you marketing is not copying Toyota it is a general business practice that any company uses when the time is right.

By: Toyotafan2009

Toyotafan2009 — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 03:23:58 +0000

All Ford is doing is coping Toyota losers

By: jdasch1

jdasch1 — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:58:58 +0000

I drove a 2010 SHO Taurus AWD and then I ordered one with every option. It just got a VIN in the computer so I guess I will be driving it soon…..I can’t wait!!!!! This car is not only quick, it is very quiet too. I wouldn’t compare it to a Hyundai Genesis because I would never concider Hyundai in my vehicle list. I don’t see any Korean car to date I want to own.

By: worst 3

worst 3 — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:48:17 +0000

I heard that it was much more in real world driving but it only what i have heard and not really the main point sorry off a bit off topic.. but more to the point i think the fusion is much better car for the masses and just much better over all to put money in to marketing. not to say the Taurus should not get a bit more but i would put more on the fusion and fiesta if it comes out the way the hype is.

By: Perez

Perez — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 23:55:43 +0000

Why would you compare the Flex with the Genesis? when you can compare it to the Lincoln MKS which is rated at 17 city/25 highway with AWD?

Besides, Not even the Tau V8 can’t match the ecoboost flat torque curve, that’s something It’d only dream about.

By: teamfordpartsdotcom

teamfordpartsdotcom — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 23:15:01 +0000

Yes it may be “only” 1.3L, but the engine is heavier which decreases MPG. Not only that, the weight over the front wheels does not help handling. the ECOboost does lose about 1mpg against the NA V-6 which to me is totally worth it. And really 1.3L in some engines is a huge increase. Would you rather have a 4.6L or a 5.9L engine?

Don’t forget that torque curve on the ECOboost, what NA engine has that that? Surely not the Tau V-8. Not only that the ECOboost gets better 1 miles less in the city, and it weighs much more.

Flex : Curb Weight: 4839 lbs.
Genesis Sedan : Curb Weight: 4012 lbs.

By: Perez

Perez — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 22:54:35 +0000

Please, If you’re just going to post worthless crap, you’d better keep it to yourself IDIOT.

By: American_Cars_Crap

American_Cars_Crap — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 22:50:11 +0000

Ford better invest big time money in marketing if it wants to convince people to purchase complete crap!

By: worst 3

worst 3 — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 20:15:18 +0000

the Tau v8 from Hyundai is only 1.3l bigger and produces 10 more hp. and i have read that the the ecobost get less then the NA v6 in real world driving. now I am not saying it a bad engine, just not all the hype. I think there biggest push should be on the fusion and the fusion hybrid being there two most impressive and competitive models.

Turbo engines are MORE efficient but to get that large an increase in power you will need to put more gas in it just physics, it NOT possible to be that much more efficient laws of thermodynamics and practicality. your still going to need to put in similar amounts of gas to get the power thought do to there higher efficiency a bit less.

By: leftwingagenda

leftwingagenda — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:34:50 +0000

the message needs to be fiesta, fiesta, fiesta…

By: greg

greg — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:58:49 +0000

Expect Ford to advertise EcoBoost in a big way and anyone who doesn’t understand the benefits:
- Peak torque at ONLY 1500 rpm – diesel like but at much LOWER cost
- up to 20% better MPG than NA V8 engines w/AWD applications
- up to 15% lower CO2 emissions vs. any V8
- higher HP than most V8’s that are up to 2 Liters bigger in size
- programable ECU for aftermarket enhancements… (Ref. SHO ran 13.1 sec qtr mile at 106 mph)

Just go drive a SHO or MKT, MKS or Flex with EB and see for yourself or read some of the motoring enthusiasts reviews, they are all very impressed with EB… and much more to come…

By: worst 3

worst 3 — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:44:51 +0000

Mike Rowe is baddass the man castrated sheep with his teeth. i feel as if he a fairly good for ford but they need some one better to sell there hybrid like the fusion witch is an impressive car. im not that impresded by the ecobost engines my self, want to see there small 4. I’m not a fan of for really but they have made a few good cars that they need to advertise more.

By: A4

A4 — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:42:02 +0000

Mike Rowe is a badass. It’s just like any other car commercial, only they have an actual celebrity instead of some noname actor… or a cartoon… just incase “Mr. Opportunity” is around, yes you Honda.

By: johnnycanuck

johnnycanuck — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:41:56 +0000

I have a man crush on Eli.

By: vicdub85

vicdub85 — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:29:51 +0000

Hey I like the Dirty Jobs guy….

It’ll probably be more EcoBoost cars going faster then Audis.

By: DenverGuy217

DenverGuy217 — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:24:03 +0000

Does this mean we’ll be bombarded with even more of those horrible Mike Rowe Ford commercials. Between those and all the idiot Manning brother spots, you almost want to keep the TV turned off these days.

By: howsmydriving

howsmydriving — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:15:50 +0000

I recommend that Ford advertise the Mustang Shelby GT500 in magazines such as “Knitting World” and “Ladies Home Journal.”

By: A4

A4 — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 16:14:58 +0000

It’s gonna be hybrid hybrid hybrid and taurus taurus taurus.