What about Volvo's 3.2L Inline-6?

[calypsocoral]

Just two years back, Volvo and the rest of then-PAG developed an inline-6 engine, currently used in the S80 full-size sedan. It displaces 3.2L, generates 235 hp and 238 lb-ft of torque-- right in line with Audi's 3.2L DI V6.

 

I was just wondering why Ford hasn't considered expanding this engine's application, since it is actually SMALLER than the 2.5L 5-cylinder that it is slated to replace. Because it is narrower than a typical 60-degree V6 should help it in frontal crash collisions, which is why Volvo is so insistent on inline-cylinder engines (with the one notable exception of the 4.4L V8 in the top-level S80).

 

Since Alan Mullaly wants to bring global platforms to the US, notably EUCD, I would think that using an inline-6, instead of a V6, should help with the development cost, as I am under the impression that EUCD, in its current, basic incarnation, was not engineered to house a V-cylinder engine.

 

Is this engine simply too expensive to produce? Or is Ford too deep in the development cost of the Duratec 35 to turn back now? Or does Volvo somehow own the rights to this engine?

 

I'd like to hear from some of the resident engineers on this issue, if possible...

[OHV 16V]

Good point, I wondered why they never used it elsewhere as well.

 

But, not to be an ass or anything, but that I-6 has a little ways to go before it touches Audi's DI 3.2. That motor is 30 hp stronger. (5 lb.-ft. as well)

[RichardJensen]

I think it's too expensive. According to Austin, it ends up being the same size as a 5-cylinder because the power take-off for the accessories is in the middle of the engine, not at the front.

[rkisler]

Just two years back, Volvo and the rest of then-PAG developed an inline-6 engine, currently used in the S80 full-size sedan. It displaces 3.2L, generates 235 hp and 238 lb-ft of torque-- right in line with Audi's 3.2L DI V6.

 

I was just wondering why Ford hasn't considered expanding this engine's application, since it is actually SMALLER than the 2.5L 5-cylinder that it is slated to replace. Because it is narrower than a typical 60-degree V6 should help it in frontal crash collisions, which is why Volvo is so insistent on inline-cylinder engines (with the one notable exception of the 4.4L V8 in the top-level S80).

 

Since Alan Mullaly wants to bring global platforms to the US, notably EUCD, I would think that using an inline-6, instead of a V6, should help with the development cost, as I am under the impression that EUCD, in its current, basic incarnation, was not engineered to house a V-cylinder engine.

 

Is this engine simply too expensive to produce? Or is Ford too deep in the development cost of the Duratec 35 to turn back now? Or does Volvo somehow own the rights to this engine?

 

I'd like to hear from some of the resident engineers on this issue, if possible...

 

Well, I'm not a resident engineer, but...

 

This has actually come up a couple of times in recent posts, particularly on the C/D discussion.

 

Some of your points are valid. The I6 was chosen because it gave Volvo the I configuration they were familiar with for engineering the front of their vehicles. It's used in Volvo and LR, but not in Jag, although it was considered for the XF.

 

However, I can see a few reasons why this won't become a mainstream engine for NA IMO.

 

1. It is expensive. To get the shorter length, Volvo used a Yamaha proposal to power the accessories from a gear drive off of the crankshaft which does add cost vs. a more conventional arrangement at the end of the engine. I assume there could be other items that add to cost, but there is always some offset with an I engine in one head vs. two. Nevertheless, with the 3.5l being produced in huge quantities, it would be very difficult for any other 6-cylinder to come in at lower cost.

2. If Ford wanted to introduce this powertrain in NA, it would require an all new production line which would be very investment intensive during a time period when Ford is short of cash.

3. Ford's NA strategy seems to be totally focused around the normally aspirated and EB versions of the 3.5l V6 and I4's (I'm assuming the PIP 3.0l is short term in nature). It would be very difficult for Ford to give up on the 3.5l V6 engine in mid-sized cars because the primary Japanese competition isn't letting up. In addition, Ford needs a large V6 for the Lincoln MKZ. And Ford will be able to generate hp numbers from EB I4's that will beat the I6 for other applications.

4. I don't believe the next generation C/D for Fusion/Mondeo et all will be pure EUCD, but will have to have structural changes for V6 engine package, crash, hybrid package, and other changes. There is really no advantage of EUCD over CD3 other than perhaps lower cost due to cheaper suspension components (I'm not counting styling which is subjective). But you might be able to use those components on a modified platform. In other words, the structural sheetmetal is going to have to change anyway, so packaging the I6 wouldn't save Ford from having to redo it (IMO). And, you have to create new stamping tools for Hermosillo anyway...

 

That's my 2 cents worth.

Edited January 21, 2009 by Austin

[rkisler]

I think it's too expensive. According to Austin, it ends up being the same size as a 5-cylinder because the power take-off for the accessories is in the middle of the engine, not at the front.

 

I've been looking for a picture, but just found words:

 

"The engine compactness has been achieved by locating the ancillaries, such as the Power Assisted Steering Pump and Air Conditioning Compressor, behind the engine in the space above the gearbox. Consequently, there is no front-end drive of the ancillaries - instead, they are driven via gears by the rear end of the crankshaft. This engineering solution is known as READ – Rear End Ancillary Drive. The alternator is direct-driven and installed on the engine block. This solution means that the entire engine and transmission package takes up minimum space, particularly in the longitudinal direction of the car.

 

By designing the drive system in the form of a small gearbox with an intermediate shaft inside the driveshaft – known as a Shaft-in-Shaft design – it was possible to ensure a very short package. The two shafts are driven by different gears that give them different speeds (one speed for camshaft drive and one speed for the ancillaries). The new engine is less than 25 inches long – about the same length as the Volvo in-line 5-cylinder engine.

 

“It’s a particularly compact solution that is the result of highly-advanced development work,” says Crabb.

 

The compact nature of both engines, and their transverse mounting architecture, contributes to the safety of the all new S80. The smaller overall engine size has left engineers more room to design controlled deformation space in the case of a collision. “The fact that the engine’s design also helps enhance safety isn’t something the customer usually thinks about but it is naturally a key element in a Volvo product concept,” Crabb adds.

Edited January 21, 2009 by Austin

[OHV 16V]

I imagine that the 3.0-liter turbo version only adds to both the expense & size problems. It certainly didn't help in the fuel economy.

[jpd80]

Far easier for Ford to think of simpler alternatives at home in the USA.

V6 is obvious but another would be a 2.8/3.2 liter I-5 off the I-4s, same engine plant and no fussy drives.

That would nett a 300 hp Ecoboost engine - not too shabby at all!!!

 

V6 does look like the simple logical step, all others involve too much mucking about.

[jon_the_limey]

Here are some pictures for the Volvo SI6:

 

 

 

 

Very impressive achievement in terms of packaging, but in my opinion it compromises the base engine too much in terms of cost, power and fuel economy. Also the design, as it is with the rear chaindrive and accessory drive overhanging the gearbox, makes it very unsuitable for longitudinal applications. Jaguar might have considered it for the XF for all of about 15 mins considering the engine it was to replace (the DAMB V6 3.0) is more powerful and probably cheaper! I thought it was Ricardo that helped with this engine, but the gear power take off idea is very bike-engine like so the idea may have come from Yamaha.

[theoldwizard]

4. I don't believe the next generation C/D for Fusion/Mondeo et all will be pure EUCD, but will have to have structural changes for V6 engine package, crash, hybrid package, and other changes. There is really no advantage of EUCD over CD3 other than perhaps lower cost due to cheaper suspension components (I'm not counting styling which is subjective). But you might be able to use those components on a modified platform. In other words, the structural sheetmetal is going to have to change anyway, so packaging the I6 wouldn't save Ford from having to redo it (IMO). And, you have to create new stamping tools for Hermosillo anyway...

Actually, from what I have heard the EUCD is "more expensive" than a CD3 !

 

CD4 will "blend" the best of CD3 and EUCD, but likely will not accommodate either the I5 or I6.

 

Volvo favored the inline engines because they provide more "crush space" in front collisions. The traditional solution for FWD Vee engine vehicles is to design "weak points" in the front "cradle" such that during a front impact the engine and transmission is pushed down and under the passenger compartment.

[theoldwizard]

Also the design, as it is with the rear chaindrive and accessory drive overhanging the gearbox, makes it very unsuitable for longitudinal applications.

While the US 3.5/3.7L was specifically designed for both FWD and RWD installations !

[rkisler]

Very impressive achievement in terms of packaging, but in my opinion it compromises the base engine too much in terms of cost, power and fuel economy. Also the design, as it is with the rear chaindrive and accessory drive overhanging the gearbox, makes it very unsuitable for longitudinal applications. Jaguar might have considered it for the XF for all of about 15 mins considering the engine it was to replace (the DAMB V6 3.0) is more powerful and probably cheaper! I thought it was Ricardo that helped with this engine, but the gear power take off idea is very bike-engine like so the idea may have come from Yamaha.

 

jon, I knew we could rely on you for pretty pictures!

 

Yes, nice package. But lots of shafts and gears, which means lots of $$ (or pounds or Euros).

 

Might have been Ricardo. I was assuming Yamaha because they always had several proposals on the table and this type of accessory drive was one of them; but it was only based on a guess, not certainty. Of course Yamaha was always trying to get us to do a 5-valve head also which works pretty well on bikes and they thought would make a dynamite Cobra Mustang! Unfortunately, couldn't afford it...

[ANTAUS]

So of many of those accessory items are behind the engine, wouldnt that make it even harder to replace them when they fail ?

[battyr]

The I-6 is more expensive to make because it was designed by volvo. A new I-6 designed by Ford to be mass produced using technology from the 3.5L V-6 could be much cheaper.

 

I don't think the power take-off for the accessories in the middle of the engine will add that much to the cost of the engine. Essentially they are just adding a couple of extra gears and and a couple of berrings. With EcoBoost, the engine could be down sized to between 2.0L and 2.6L, then you could get rid of the middle of engine PTO all to gether, and the engine will still fit in the EUCD.

 

As an I-6, the engine does not require balance shafts like a large 4 or 5 cylinder needs. Compared to a V-6, it requires half the number of CAM shafts, mech. for valve timing and fuel rails.

[battyr]

Actually, from what I have heard the EUCD is "more expensive" than a CD3 !

 

CD4 will "blend" the best of CD3 and EUCD, but likely will not accommodate either the I5 or I6.

 

Volvo favored the inline engines because they provide more "crush space" in front collisions. The traditional solution for FWD Vee engine vehicles is to design "weak points" in the front "cradle" such that during a front impact the engine and transmission is pushed down and under the passenger compartment.

 

The "more expensive" Comes from being more flexible, more solid and having a higher quality interior. I would think the actual cost of the platform would depend on the level of quality that you want to sell to the customer. As Ford becomes a quality leader, I think they can get the money for a more expensive platform. Note when I refer to quality, I am not talking about things gone wrong. That is more a manufacturing and supplier issue. I am talking more about being solid with good fit and finish.

 

The CD4 may not use the I5 or I6, but unless they use a SLA suspension, it will be able to use it. I would think they would get the best results using revoknuckle.

[jpd80]

Hey guys, wanna see something spooky?

 

In 1990, Ford Geelong and Dearborn worked together on a project called "T-Drive" and

one of the pictures in the link shows a modified SOHC 3.2 Falcon I-6 in a FOX-chassis T-Bird.

The donor engine uses the same block as a 4.0 liter but modified for T-Drive.

 

LINK

 

I know the engine was Transversely mounted but which way was the gearbox mounted?

[lfeg]

The T Drive was toyed around with for a while. One concept was a straight 8, transversly mounted in a 90s Taurus. The power was taken off the center of the crank, between cyls 4 and 5. That would have been one smooth, short engine.

[NickF1011]

So of many of those accessory items are behind the engine, wouldnt that make it even harder to replace them when they fail ?

 

I hate transverse engines. Replacing a PCV valve on my Mazda turned into a 30 minute job because the dang thing is on the back of the engine, next to a few vacuum hoses and partially below the intake manifold. PCV valve replacement on my Mustang takes about 30 seconds. I would hate to have to do spark plugs on that thing!!

[jpd80]

The T Drive was toyed around with for a while. One concept was a straight 8, transversly mounted in a 90s Taurus. The power was taken off the center of the crank, between cyls 4 and 5. That would have been one smooth, short engine.

It was actually a Tempo, there's a photo of it and the engine in the link I supplied above.

 

And yes I agree with you, that smooth 4.0 straight 8 in a light Tempo would have gone like a cut cat!!!

 

 

1990s Falcon engine in a Thunderbird:

Edited January 22, 2009 by jpd80

[rkisler]

The T Drive was toyed around with for a while. One concept was a straight 8, transversly mounted in a 90s Taurus. The power was taken off the center of the crank, between cyls 4 and 5. That would have been one smooth, short engine.

 

You are correct. If I remember correctly, Ford had this as part of the package in an internal model which was to replace the Taurus. It had extreme cab forward with the windshield actually coming partially over the driver/passenger. The T-drive was one of the solutions to get you there. The total package was too expensive and, along with controversial styling, obviously never went into production.

 

Instead, we got the oh-so-beautiful oval Taurus.

[theoldwizard]

The T Drive was toyed around with for a while. One concept was a straight 8, transversly mounted in a 90s Taurus. The power was taken off the center of the crank, between cyls 4 and 5. That would have been one smooth, short engine.

Smooth yes, short, well front to rear of the engine compartment, yes. It took the whole engine compartment left to right.

 

The biggest problem was the drive gear lash to the transmission torque converter. I had a good friend who worked on just that problem for almost a year before the project was killed. I think only 1 prototype was built.

[jpd80]

Smooth yes, short, well front to rear of the engine compartment, yes. It took the whole engine compartment left to right.

 

The biggest problem was the drive gear lash to the transmission torque converter. I had a good friend who worked on just that problem for almost a year before the project was killed. I think only 1 prototype was built.

Can you please tell me whether they used gear drive or chain drive to link the engine and transmission?

I have a vague memory of more conventional FWDs set up with chain drive.

[aneekr]

As an I-6, the engine does not require balance shafts like a large 4 or 5 cylinder needs. Compared to a V-6, it requires half the number of CAM shafts, mech. for valve timing and fuel rails.

I noticed that a Volvo V70 I rented with the 3.2L I6 did not exhibit any of the noise, vibration, and harshness that characterizes many Ford vehicles with 3.0L, 3.5L, and 3.7L Duratec V6 engines.

 

Is the I6 configuration inherently smoother because of the reduced part count? Also, do 60° V6 engines typically come equipped with balance shafts (I thought this was limited to 90° V6s)?

[old_fairmont_wagon]

In-line engines with eve numbers of cylinders are inherently balanced (assuming proper crank setup). The cylinder pulses exert pressure on a single plain (somewhat over simplified, but, basically speaking, yes) which can be damped by having another piston in an opposing position. V-engines are less inherently balanced, especially in smaller cylinder counts, than in-line engines. There are V-angles that work better for specific numbers of cylinders. 60 degrees is best for production v-6s, 90 degrees for V-8s, I read once that there is an angle that works best for V-10s that is different than V8s, but I don't remember it. Once you get to a V-12, you treat it like a V6 with twice the cylinders, same for a V-16. Odd number cylinder in-line engines are supposedly more in balance than even number V-engines, but, there's a good case for a balance shaft there given the crank arrangement. Balance shafts in 90 degree V-6s were almost a neccessity. A 60 degree V-6, as far as I know, doesn't need one as it is relatively balanced, but, can still use one to damp down some vibrations. Think of the V-6 as a pair of mated inline 3 engines. The inline 3 cylinder is definitely not a fundamentally balanced design to begin with, and can use a shaft to help reduce vibration. Making that into a V-6 brings all of those odd harmonics together with another I-3. If you do the crank right, you can damp most of that out, but, there is still going to be a little that is left over even under ideal situations.

 

So, the I-6 is smoother due to it being a single plane design with an even number of cylinders. Its quieter, IMHO, than a V6 of equivalent tech due to having only one cam instead of two (when you speak strictly of machinery noise). What makes the Volvo I-6 special is the PTO point off the center of the crank for accessory drive uses, its rather long stroke to bore ratio and its overall lack of length in general. Its specific power output per liter is lower than the PIP D30, though it does have a slight torque advantage (on paper, in real life, its negligable). Where it betters the PIP D30 is in weight (it weighs less) physical dimensions (it is a smaller engine in total volume) and in the designed in ability to take forced induction by the bucket load. If you want to know what driving a car with the volvo I-6 in it would be like here in the US, and don't have a volvo dealership nearby, do take a Fusion PIP D30 car out for a test drive and put a little bit of cotton in your ears. You've got the acuostics and power feel down then. Now, imagine that the engine was a tiny bit smoother and you've got the whole experience. If you want the purchasing experience of buying that I6 in the fusion, go ahead an buy that PIP D30 fusion, add an extra $1000 or so to the price, open up the airbox and throw some dirt on the air filter to reduce your power by about 7 ponies and go drive off. That's about the sum total of difference you'd really experience. Well, the I-6 might be a bit smoother at redline, but, since most of our driving isn't at redline, you likely won't really notice.

[rkisler]

The I-6 is more expensive to make because it was designed by volvo. A new I-6 designed by Ford to be mass produced using technology from the 3.5L V-6 could be much cheaper.

 

I don't think the power take-off for the accessories in the middle of the engine will add that much to the cost of the engine. Essentially they are just adding a couple of extra gears and and a couple of berrings. With EcoBoost, the engine could be down sized to between 2.0L and 2.6L, then you could get rid of the middle of engine PTO all to gether, and the engine will still fit in the EUCD.

 

As an I-6, the engine does not require balance shafts like a large 4 or 5 cylinder needs. Compared to a V-6, it requires half the number of CAM shafts, mech. for valve timing and fuel rails.

 

There is always a lot of debate on engine architecture any time you reach a breakpoint where a new engine is required. For 6-cylinder engines, the debate has been opened in the past to I6 configurations, and also to narrow V6 like VW's 15 degree which uses a single head. But the 60 degree V6 is virtually industry standard for FWD/AWD cars, and the I6 is the odd duck for this application.

 

In the case of FoE, an all "I" strategy works best. The V6 Mondeo was too close in price to the I4 BMW and never sold well. Plus, a 3.5 V6 would be considered huge in Europe. For the US market, the 3.5 V6 was the chosen architecture as it fit a wide variety of vehicles, from FWD/AWD Fusion, Taurus, and crossovers with latitudinal mounting to RWD Mustangs and trucks with longititudinal mounting. And enough stretch was put in the architecture that it could accomodate DI and turbo without major change.

 

The investment in new engine facilities is staggering -- it can be in the billions of dollars if you include all the casting, machining, and assembly. And once you have selected an engine architecture, have built the facilities, and are producing it in the millions, it is very difficult for an alternative engine architecture to mount a successful challenge from a business standpoint. Even costs that you mention, like one head vs. two, are overtaken by the economies of scale of the existing engine and the investment requirements for a new one.

 

And at that point, the engine architecture can drive the vehicle architecture because of the difficulty of change. The standing joke from the vehicle side is "Well we are, after all, the Ford MOTOR Company."

 

There is zero possibility of an I6 replacing the V architecture across US products. So. the next C/D platform will have to accommodate a 3.5 V6 just like the present CD3. And it will have to accommodate the I4/I5's that Europe wants. If FoE wanted a few 3.5's for a very top end car, it would be available, but I don't think they would be interested. If the US were to want I5's, they could have them, but I don't think they will be interested. Based on my experience with Volvos, the I5 idle NVH borders on unacceptable.

[theoldwizard]

There is zero possibility of an I6 replacing the V architecture across US products. So. the next C/D platform will have to accommodate a 3.5 V6 just like the present CD3. And it will have to accommodate the I4/I5's that Europe wants.

What EU Ford product has an I5 in it today ?

 

Rumor is that the 2.3/2.5L was also drawn up as an I5, but no prototypes were ever built.