How exactly is the ecoboost revolutionary when GM did the same with Regal back in the 80's?

Doesn't GM usually follow Ford' footsteps? Now Ford copied the GM

Ford hasn't copied GM. Their cars aren't recalled every two weeks.

Hi so as usual ford is behind in it's development of the rest with this one giving something the others have just calling it something else. MyToyota land cruiser uses a similar idea with direct injection and a turbo charger diesel engine. Gives 30 mpg with a 3 litre engine. What ford now need to do is get away from using short stroke engines then i will not be able to leave a Range Rover sport behind on a long hill climb.

Engine tech has progressed a long way since the 80s, though bon some American cars this is not easily noticed, so whatever Ford are doing it will be significantly different.

Are you saying that slapping a turbo on a 3.8 liter engine is comparable to a modern ecoboost?

Ecoboost = Direct fuel injection and turbocharging. Granted it's not anything new or revolutionary, but the turbo regals of the 80's didn't have direct injection and they only had one turbocharger, whereas the V6 Ecoboost variants have two.

Are you forgetting the SVO and Turbo Coupe with their FI Turbos? Or the Pontiac v8 Turbo in '80 or the Mustang turbo in '78?

There's nothing revolutionary about it. Revolutionary means a radically implemented idea that changes the game entirely. Turbos and direct injection have been around since almost as long as the internal combustion engine has been in existence. Ford just took two long standing concepts and combined them into one running system and then slapped the name "ecoboost" on it. This in no way changes anything when it comes to the arbitrary operation of a vehicle's power plant because overall you still get the same outcome. Point A to Point B albeit a little faster because turbos. Nothing really spectacular about it.