Raptor It’s not about the fracking engine so leave us alone- Ford.

[jpd80]

Trust me, if there was a snowballs chance in hell of getting the 4.0 1-6 into The T6 project, FAPA (Lot of ex-Ford Aus staff) they would have done it, getting the 3.2 1-5 to fit was a big enough concession

Speaking of I-5s, how about an I-5 off the 2.3EB?

Edited February 15, 2018 by jpd80

[Stray Kat]

I agree an inline longitudinal 6 or 8 cylinder engine should be in every luxury car manufacturer's cadre.

 

To tell you the truth Volkswagen has a pretty decent idea with their 15 degree offset inline engine architecture.

 

Imagine a semi straight 8 with the packaging and weight of a compact inline 6 cylinder. Hmmmm.....

[blksn8k2]

Personally I'm getting tired of V6s. Let's see a new inline six platform designed as a flexible high volume powertrain. Something in the 2.7L-3.3L range. This new platform could come in 2-3 different displacements and be the base engine in Ranger/F150/Bronco/Everest/mustang and the new CD6 models as well since they'll be set up for longitudinal drivetrains. Then do an ecoboost version or two to replace the current 2.7 and 3.5 V6s in F150 and Expedition as well as high trim/raptor versions of Ranger/Bronco.

 

No reason to continue with the compromised vee block since all the transverse drivetrain stuff will soon be small enough to be fully served by the 4 cyl ecoboost engines once CD6 gets here. Turbo packaging is also so much better on an inline block and would probably allow for the cost savings of a single turbo vs two on the ecoboost engines. Also the natural smoothness of an inline six would be a great compliment to Lincoln's "quiet luxury" image (not that the current V6s aren't smooth, just that an inline six doesn't have to deal with the balance issues a V6 does from a design standpoint).

 

 

Great minds think alike. Here's my post from Feb 12 on page 2 in the other Ranger Raptor thread:

 

 

Looking at the history of the T6 and the fact that it has never had any other engine type than an inline since its inception I'm wondering what the best engine choice would have been if Ford had the ability to design something from scratch rather than rely on existing designs.

This might sound a little off the wall but if V-type engines are not an option why not consider an inline six of somewhere between 2.5 and 3.0 liters?

An inline six is a more naturally balanced design compared to either an inline four or five cylinder engine. An inline six also has the ability to produce more torque at lower rpm's than a similar displacement V6. Seems like a natural fit for a truck or SUV.

They could offer it in both NA and EB versions with the EB reserved for the higher trim levels of the Ranger and Bronco. It would need to have relatively small bores and bore spacing to keep the block compact enough to fit longitudinally in the Ranger engine bay.

It would have a 4-valve aluminum DOHC cylinder head with TiVCT and a CGI block for strength. It would also have dual port/direct fuel injection and auto stop/start.

If they need help designing it they could probably hire a couple of retired BMW engineers, or better yet, just let the boys in OZ use what they know about inline sixes.

[jpd80]

Take all that you're imagining now and look to the next Gen T6 (CY2021), now that America is on board at the kick off,

that project and offering will be sensational with much expanded offerings and a strong desire to dominate

Mid sized truck and SUV with best in class.

[Sevensecondsuv]

And the longitudinal drivetrain CD6 coming along would actually make it viable as a high volume cornerstone of Ford's internal combustion powertrain offerings. Explorer plus 2/3 of f150 is a lot of engines (let alone T6, full-size SUVs and Lincoln Sedans).

[atomcat68]

Personally I'm getting tired of V6s. Let's see a new inline six platform designed as a flexible high volume powertrain. Something in the 2.7L-3.3L range. This new platform could come in 2-3 different displacements and be the base engine in Ranger/F150/Bronco/Everest/mustang and the new CD6 models as well since they'll be set up for longitudinal drivetrains. Then do an ecoboost version or two to replace the current 2.7 and 3.5 V6s in F150 and Expedition as well as high trim/raptor versions of Ranger/Bronco.

 

No reason to continue with the compromised vee block since all the transverse drivetrain stuff will soon be small enough to be fully served by the 4 cyl ecoboost engines once CD6 gets here. Turbo packaging is also so much better on an inline block and would probably allow for the cost savings of a single turbo vs two on the ecoboost engines. Also the natural smoothness of an inline six would be a great compliment to Lincoln's "quiet luxury" image (not that the current V6s aren't smooth, just that an inline six doesn't have to deal with the balance issues a V6 does from a design standpoint).

 

The reason why they've been so common is that a good sized V6 fits into FWD and RWD engine bays easier, and it is impractical to have two similar engine line ups of similar horsepower/ fuel economy figures when one covers everything. I'd imagine it would be difficult to get an I6 into a Fusion engine bay if it must be mounted sideways.

[Sevensecondsuv]

That's my point though: with CD6 coming, Ford will no longer have any vehicle that needs a six cylinder mounted sideways. Only the Fusion Sport uses a V6 currently and it's power output is actually eclipsed by some versions of the 2.3eb. If next gen fusion ends up being a stretched Focus, that's even more reason why the 4 cylinder ecoboosts would be plenty of engine for all trims.

 

At that point, the only relatively large/heavy, transverse powertrain model left would be the Edge. In something of that weight class, the 2.7L V6 does start to provide an advantage over a 2.3 four, even if the power numbers are equal. However there's no reason they couldn't bump the 2.3 to 2.5L for a boost in torque. They already did it with the non-ecoboost version so we know the engine architecture will support that displacement.

 

Then anything larger than fusion/edge has a longitudinal powertrain which can accommodate an inline six with relative ease.

 

Hmmm, I wish I could make this presentation to Ford management, haha!

Edited February 16, 2018 by Sevensecondsuv

[Deanh]

I would hedge to bet in the fusion the 2.7 is deliberately de-tuned due to inherant risk to the FWD based powertrain.....

[jpd80]

I would hedge to bet in the fusion the 2.7 is deliberately de-tuned due to inherant risk to the FWD based powertrain.....

And the 3.5 EB in the Taurus SHO is also limited to protect the 6-speed auto

so I wonder if the 8-speed auto has a similar limitation.

Edited February 17, 2018 by jpd80

[akirby]

And the 3.5 EB in the Taurus SHO is also limited to protect the 6-speed auto

so I wonder if the 8-speed auto has a similar limitation.

My guess is you won’t see anything larger than the 2.7EB in transverse applications and I bet the new 8 speed will handle that torque. However, I think they’re protecting more than just the transmission with torque management.

[Harley Lover]

The problem with the I6 dreaming is that Ford (Hackett) have said that investment in ICE is being curtailed; I think they announced that half a billion $ were diverted from ICE development to electric or autonomous research or whatever. Bottom line, Ford isn't going to be putting serious R&D into ICE's under Hackett.

[Sevensecondsuv]

They're going to have to sooner or later. We're decades away from widespread acceptance of cars that have no need of gasoline.

[RadicalX]

raptor will have the twin turbo engine V6 2.7 from edge ST

[fuzzymoomoo]

What if they surprised us with a 2.5L EcoBoost I4?

[akirby]

raptor will have the twin turbo engine V6 2.7 from edge ST

Theyre going to turn it sideways? The one from the F150 will fit better.

Edited February 18, 2018 by akirby

[akirby]

They're going to have to sooner or later. We're decades away from widespread acceptance of cars that have no need of gasoline.

Umm.....they’ve BEEN doing ICE development for the last decade. New 5.0L Coyote. New FPC 5.2L. New supercharged 5.2L. New 7.3L. All the ecoboost engines are new within the last decade. New 3.3L Duratec. New 2.0 and 3.0 diesels.

 

They’ve got all the ICEs they need for the next decade at least.

[Sevensecondsuv]

Oh I'm not saying they haven't, just that it's foolish and naive to think that "oh electrics are just a few years away from dominance, looks like we can forget about further ICE developent." They've got to be thinking about the next generation of six cylinders (the 3.5 family has been around for about 10 years now) and I'm saying the platforms that will use a six cylinder going forward would be well served by an inline configuration.

 

I don't count the 3.7 and 3.3 V6 as "new". It doesn't take a whole lot of effort to adjust the stroke a little to vary displacement.

 

I am kinda surprised they bothered developing the 2.7L. Seems like it would have been easier/cheaper to do a 2.5 or 2.6 on the standard 4 cylinder block and use the existing lines. Make it a closed deck CGI block if needed for durability. Musta been the F150 application; they figured the world wasn't ready for a 4 popper F150.

Edited February 18, 2018 by Sevensecondsuv

[silvrsvt]

Oh I'm not saying they haven't, just that it's foolish and naive to think that "oh electrics are just a few years away from dominance, looks like we can forget about further ICE developent." They've got to be thinking about the next generation of six cylinders (the 3.5 family has been around for about 10 years now) and I'm saying the platforms that will use a six cylinder going forward would be well served by an inline configuration.

 

I don't count the 3.7 and 3.3 V6 as "new". It doesn't take a whole lot of effort to adjust the stroke a little to vary displacement.

 

I am kinda surprised they bothered developing the 2.7L. Seems like it would have been easier/cheaper to do a 2.5 or 2.6 on the standard 4 cylinder block and use the existing lines. Make it a closed deck CGI block if needed for durability. Musta been the F150 application; they figured the world wasn't ready for a 4 popper F150.

 

Why spend money on a program that will only have a lifespan of 10-15 years? Do keep in mind that we will be seeing more hybrid applications of existing engines like the 3.0L Ecoboost etc....

 

The current engine lineup with updates/hybrids can last at least 20 years or so, when full electric cars will be large percentage of the market.

[akirby]

They didn’t say they were NEVER going to do more ICE development, just not in the short term and for the reasons I just specified - they’ve already updated all the IC engines.

 

I thought the new 3.3 had a lot more changes than just displacement. And the ecoboost engines are completely different animals - they didn’t just put a turbo on Duratec.

 

You do realize the 2.7L ecoboost is a V6 not an I4 like the 2.5L Mazda L?

[Sevensecondsuv]

You do realize the 2.7L ecoboost is a V6 not an I4 like the 2.5L Mazda L?

Yes, of course. That was my point though. What made them decide an additional all-new V6 architecture was justified when they could have pretty easily accomplished the same results with a bored/stroked 2.3eb?

 

Also the ecoboost versions are still very related to the duratec versions. Yes they use a substantial number of different parts, but all the key dimensions are the same. For that reason, I consider them to be of a common architecture.

Edited February 18, 2018 by Sevensecondsuv

[jpd80]

I can think of at at least 900,000 reasons why Ford won't be jumping ship on F Series any time soon...

or is that ($) 9 Billion reasons........

Edited February 18, 2018 by jpd80

[akirby]

Yes, of course. That was my point though. What made them decide an additional all-new V6 architecture was justified when they could have pretty easily accomplished the same results with a bored/stroked 2.3eb?

Also the ecoboost versions are still very related to the duratec versions. Yes they use a substantial number of different parts, but all the key dimensions are the same. For that reason, I consider them to be of a common architecture.

It’s the same engine as the 3.0TT and 6 > 4.

 

The blocks may be the same but the heads, intake and everything else is unique. They didn’t just add a turbocharger.

[jpd80]

Yes, of course. That was my point though. What made them decide an additional all-new V6 architecture was justified when they could have pretty easily accomplished the same results with a bored/stroked 2.3eb?

 

Also the ecoboost versions are still very related to the duratec versions. Yes they use a substantial number of different parts, but all the key dimensions are the same. For that reason, I consider them to be of a common architecture.

the 2.3 EB is about as far as they could reliably go on that I-4 Architecture...around 350 HP / 350 lb ft.

 

The latest 2.7 EB with PFDI in F150 is putting out 400 lb ft which is magnificent IMO,

the Lincoln 3.0 TTV6 has not yet been upgraded with PFDI but it could put out as much

as 440 HP/ 440 lb ft....these are simply sensational figures for small compact V6s.

[Sevensecondsuv]

Well we already know the 2.3 platform will support 2.5L because they've been building them for 10 years now.

 

I have no doubt the platform could support 400+ lb-ft if they went to a closed-deck CGI block and beefed up the mains. Even doing all that would have been magnitudes cheaper than a new architecture and engine line. Heck even the old 2.3L SOHC Lima motors are pretty reliable at 400-500 hp and those are just standard grey iron blocks.

 

I get that there was a reason to go to 6 cylinders for smoothness and exhaust sound in the important F150 and Lincoln products. I'm just pondering that they could have done a 2.5eb 4 banger as a bridging strategy for the front-drive stuff until CD6 was ready, then spent the money on an even smoother and torqier inline six to cover the 2.7L-3.5L range which would have debuted in the F-150 and then found it's way into CD6 and even Mustang.

 

Come to think of it, an inline six would be an easier sell as the flagship engine in f150 than a V6 is given the legacy of the old 300 that still lives large in many buyers minds. Not that Ford had had any trouble selling the V6s, but still...

Edited February 18, 2018 by Sevensecondsuv

[fuzzymoomoo]

Come to think of it, an inline six would be an easier sell as the flagship engine in f150 than a V6 is given the legacy of the old 300 that still lives large in many buyers minds. Not that Ford had had any trouble selling the V6s, but still...

I question the cost effectiveness of an I6, even in a profit rich F-series. They have a couple of V6 platforms to use as a starting point for new engines right now and none for any inline engine bigger than a 4 cylinder. They probably figured it would save more on tooling to keep going with V6s.