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

[akirby]

There must be a reason nobody else is doing 2.5L turbo engines - 2.3 seems to be the limit.

 

Given the need for a 3.0T the 2.7T nano is a better solution than a maxed out I4.

 

I think you’re reaching a bit trying to justify an I6.

[ZanatWork]

"It's a performance vehicle, so it's always partially about the engine"- Reality

I would like to see the NA version with the 2.7, though.

[Sevensecondsuv]

There must be a reason nobody else is doing 2.5L turbo engines - 2.3 seems to be the limit.

 

Given the need for a 3.0T the 2.7T nano is a better solution than a maxed out I4.

 

I think youre reaching a bit trying to justify an I6.

Perhaps, it's an interesting thought though. There's just something special about inline sixes that's worth justifying.

 

Also the Lincoln 3.0L could have just as easily been derived from the standard 3.5L platform. Not saying it should have, just that it could have in my imagined scenario.

Edited February 18, 2018 by Sevensecondsuv

[jpd80]

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...

You already have gasket sealing issues with the 2.3 EB, admittedly wrong gaskets but still the

space between cylinder bore in the 2.5 vs 2.3 will not support sealing at the boost levels anticipated

while maintaining factory reliability.

 

The motto with the Nano V6 was definitely give customers what thye want and a 2.7 EB at the time was

far less stressed at making low end torque than the 2.3 EB

 

Ford has an Inline six with DOHC, VCT and turbocharging up until 2016 but chose to throw it and the Falcon away

why manufacturers do and dont do things is always a point of conjecture but if Ford had committed to a suite of large

RWD trucks and SUVs years ago then there would have been a case of I-6, the Aussie I-6 was actually offered to

Ford NA but knocked back in favor of building V6s for RWD and FWD.

[Sevensecondsuv]

You already have gasket sealing issues with the 2.3 EB, admittedly wrong gaskets but still the

space between cylinder bore in the 2.5 vs 2.3 will not support sealing at the boost levels anticipated

while maintaining factory reliability.

 

The motto with the Nano V6 was definitely give customers what thye want and a 2.7 EB at the time was

far less stressed at making low end torque than the 2.3 EB

 

Ford has an Inline six with DOHC, VCT and turbocharging up until 2016 but chose to throw it and the Falcon away

why manufacturers do and dont do things is always a point of conjecture but if Ford had committed to a suite of large

RWD trucks and SUVs years ago then there would have been a case of I-6, the Aussie I-6 was actually offered to

Ford NA but knocked back in favor of building V6s for RWD and FWD.

As currently offered, the 2.3 has an open deck design on an aluminum block. That it has sealing issues at 350 HP is not entirely surprising. A closed deck block of CGI, possibly with larger/more head bolts if necessary, could easily be designed to hold 500 hp. Also the 2.5L could be done with same bore as the 2.3L most likely. I get that Ford had reasons for doing the 2.7L as a V6, but it's not because they couldn't have gotten the same output out of a similar displacement 4 cylinder with equal reliability.

 

To be fair, the Aussie I-6 for all its glory was still based on a 50 year old block. I can't blame Ford too much for moving on.

 

My point in all of this is that regardless of why the decision to go V6 was made in the past, CD6 makes the case for an inline six a lot stronger. Between F150, Expedition, Explorer, Mustang, and the various Lincolns, there will be millions of Ford six cylinders sold every year for the foreseeable future. That could easily support the investment needed for an inline six. The benefits of a inline over a vee would be very apparent and appreciated in trucks and "quiet luxury" Lincolns. And nobody would complain about it in Explorer or as the base Mustang engine either.

Edited February 18, 2018 by Sevensecondsuv

[jpd80]

In the end changing things that are already in production and amortized is going to be hard,

especially if they are "nice to see" but not essential...

[bluetoy]

As currently offered, the 2.3 has an open deck design on an aluminum block. That it has sealing issues at 350 HP is not entirely surprising. A closed deck block of CGI, possibly with larger/more head bolts if necessary, could easily be designed to hold 500 hp. Also the 2.5L could be done with same bore as the 2.3L most likely. I get that Ford had reasons for doing the 2.7L as a V6, but it's not because they couldn't have gotten the same output out of a similar displacement 4 cylinder with equal reliability.

 

To be fair, the Aussie I-6 for all its glory was still based on a 50 year old block. I can't blame Ford too much for moving on.

 

My point in all of this is that regardless of why the decision to go V6 was made in the past, CD6 makes the case for an inline six a lot stronger. Between F150, Expedition, Explorer, Mustang, and the various Lincolns, there will be millions of Ford six cylinders sold every year for the foreseeable future. That could easily support the investment needed for an inline six. The benefits of a inline over a vee would be very apparent and appreciated in trucks and "quiet luxury" Lincolns. And nobody would complain about it in Explorer or as the base Mustang engine either.

 

Exactly true. The 2.3 could easily be upgraded to handle way more power. Closed deck with more clamping force on the head and a couple of more psi and you are easily at 400 hp. Remember Ford doesn't want the baby Raptor stepping on the toes of the much more profitable F150 Raptor. After all the F150 Raptor here in Canada is 90K. Lots of profit in there.

[blksn8k2]

As currently offered, the 2.3 has an open deck design on an aluminum block. That it has sealing issues at 350 HP is not entirely surprising. A closed deck block of CGI, possibly with larger/more head bolts if necessary, could easily be designed to hold 500 hp. Also the 2.5L could be done with same bore as the 2.3L most likely. I get that Ford had reasons for doing the 2.7L as a V6, but it's not because they couldn't have gotten the same output out of a similar displacement 4 cylinder with equal reliability.

 

Livernois makes a billet aluminum upper block support that is inserted into the water jacket to stabilize the cylinder walls of the 2.3L EB.

 

[silvrsvt]

Speaking of Spark engine development

 

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2018/02/ford-s-patent-proves-it-s-not-giving-up-on-the-combustion-engine.html?utm_source=forum&utm_medium=masspost&utm_campaign=mp-feb2018