Upcoming Ford Powertrains

[ausrutherford]

Actually there was an article out earlier this year that said Ford was "evaluating" a smaller version of the 3.5L (non-EcoBoost).

 

EcoBoost engines will be considered "premium" engines in most application and you will pay a premium price for them. Ford will likely offer non-EcoBoost engines along side EcoBoost in almost all applications.

 

Adding a 2.7-3.2L V6 (based off of the 3.5/3.7L) when the current 3.0L Duratec "retires" would be a logical thing to do and may be more cost effective than a 2.5L EcoBoost. Remember the 3.5L engine is less expensive than the 3.0L due to DAMB vs. RFF and a die cast block.

 

I believe Ward said it was a 2.7.

[calypsocoral]

I believe Ward said it was a 2.7.

 

Ford should learn from Chrysler and Kia as to why such a small-displacement V6 is a BAD IDEA...

 

The extra weight from the V6 block will nearly off-set any performance gain (only ~20hp or so) over the 2.5L 4-banger...

[joihan777]

If Ford thickened the inside of the 3.5L Cyclone down to a 3.2L and EcoBossted that 3.2, would the 3.2L EB last longer than an EB 3.5?

 

And would customers mind losing a little extra hp while gaining some economy & increased durability? I think they would.. in some applications.

[battyr]

As for higher power from the I4 EcoBoost.

 

The EcoBoost V6 has to compete against some very fine V8's. It has more than enough power, but needs torq at a very low rpm. This is achieved with smaller turbos. The result is more torque at a very low rpm and less power at a high rpm.

 

The EcoBoost I4 needs more power but does not need the same torque quality of the v6. I would assume that it would have more power (for the same size of engine) at a higher rpm an less torque a low rpm. It could use a slightly larger turbo for more power and still have impressive low end torque.

[battyr]

If Ford thickened the inside of the 3.5L Cyclone down to a 3.2L and EcoBossted that 3.2, would the 3.2L EB last longer than an EB 3.5?

 

And would customers mind losing a little extra hp while gaining some economy & increased durability? I think they would.. in some applications.

 

That is why the EcoBoost is on the 3.5L and not the 3.7L. With quality parts, the 3.5L should does just fine.

[battyr]

Actually there was an article out earlier this year that said Ford was "evaluating" a smaller version of the 3.5L (non-EcoBoost).

 

EcoBoost engines will be considered "premium" engines in most application and you will pay a premium price for them. Ford will likely offer non-EcoBoost engines along side EcoBoost in almost all applications.

 

Adding a 2.7-3.2L V6 (based off of the 3.5/3.7L) when the current 3.0L Duratec "retires" would be a logical thing to do and may be more cost effective than a 2.5L EcoBoost. Remember the 3.5L engine is less expensive than the 3.0L due to DAMB vs. RFF and a die cast block.

 

Ford need a new engine between the 2.3L and 2.8L range. Now should it be just a 2.5L I4 or a 2.7L V6. Should it be only one engine or both these engines? Should it or something completely different?

 

Europe would want a small luxury 6. America want big 6's so you would be talking about an I4 in this size range.

 

The EcoBoost makes the engines more flexible. You don't need a 3.0L NA engine when a 2.0L EcoBoost producing the same power. An EcoBoost is economic if you can reduce the number of cylinders. Ford could do it by producing a 2.5L I4 as a low cost engine for America only. Then add a 2.0L EcoBoost to replace the 3.0L Then keep the 3.5L v6 for a cheap engine that runs smoother than a 4 with better torque. A good base engine for the F-150. The 3.5L EcoBoost v6 for v8 power.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Instead of reinventing the wheel, or doing major work on the 3.5L, why no a GDI version of the 2.5L I4? Currently, the engine makes about 175 horsepower and 160+ lbs of torque. A GDI, non-turbo, dual CVT 2.5L should be capable of producing 200 hp and 180 lbs of torque. That gives Ford an engine family that would look like this...

 

1.6L EB ~175 HP

2.0L NA ~145 HP

2.5L NA ~175 HP

2.5L GDI ~200 HP

2.0L EB ~250 HP

3.5L NA ~250 HP

3.7L NA ~270 HP

3.5L EB ~345 HP

5.0L NA (truck/sports) ~375 HP

6.2L NA ~400 HP

 

The question is, what would be more cost effective? Would a detuned 3.5L with CAMs setup for efficiency be more economical (production cost vs. efficiency gains) than a destroked 3.2L cyclone? Would a GDI NA 2.5L I4 be more expensive to produce then a destroked 3.2L cyclone? I know that the GDI gear is currently very pricey. This will come down over time, especially as EB volume picks up. Ford still still have a hole at around 300 HP. That could be filled perfectly by a GDI dual VCT 3.7L cyclone. It should be able to stand toe to toe with the similar V6s from toyota and nissan.

[battyr]

Instead of reinventing the wheel, or doing major work on the 3.5L, why no a GDI version of the 2.5L I4? Currently, the engine makes about 175 horsepower and 160+ lbs of torque. A GDI, non-turbo, dual CVT 2.5L should be capable of producing 200 hp and 180 lbs of torque. That gives Ford an engine family that would look like this...

 

1.6L EB ~175 HP

2.0L NA ~145 HP

2.5L NA ~175 HP

2.5L GDI ~200 HP

2.0L EB ~250 HP

3.5L NA ~250 HP

3.7L NA ~270 HP

3.5L EB ~345 HP

5.0L NA (truck/sports) ~375 HP

6.2L NA ~400 HP

 

The question is, what would be more cost effective? Would a detuned 3.5L with CAMs setup for efficiency be more economical (production cost vs. efficiency gains) than a destroked 3.2L cyclone? Would a GDI NA 2.5L I4 be more expensive to produce then a destroked 3.2L cyclone? I know that the GDI gear is currently very pricey. This will come down over time, especially as EB volume picks up. Ford still still have a hole at around 300 HP. That could be filled perfectly by a GDI dual VCT 3.7L cyclone. It should be able to stand toe to toe with the similar V6s from toyota and nissan.

 

I think you are on the right track on this. Ford want to avoid the use of DI because of cost. But it could be much cheaper in 5 years.

 

Add a 2.0L GDI for Europe with 165 hp. In Europe the power would be more. I think they are already building it?

 

The 2.5L GDI I4 should be economical with the V6. The cost of DI is offset by the savings of 2 pistons, 2 injectors and 8 valves. The only question is that would the consumer prefer, an I4 or V6 at todays fuel prices.

[battyr]

I would argue to build a low cost 2.4L I-6 GDI with optional EcoBoost for the European market only. Replace the Volvo 2.5L I-5 and 3.0L I-6 with it.

 

If in 5 years Americans demand 6s over 4s, then the cost of DI would be down. With 200 hp and 300 hp they have an option to bring it to the US.

[battyr]

How about engines for hybids.

 

If you are using it with a full hybrid, I would say 2 and 3 cylinder EcoBoost. 4 cylinder EcoBoost for big cars.

 

The engines seem undersized, but for the best efficiency you want to get the most out of the electric end and use the gas end as a range extender. As the electric end gets cheaper you will use bigger motors and batteries. Then you can save money by using smaller engines.

[StevenCaylor]

How about engines for hybids.

 

If you are using it with a full hybrid, I would say 2 and 3 cylinder EcoBoost. 4 cylinder EcoBoost for big cars.

 

The engines seem undersized, but for the best efficiency you want to get the most out of the electric end and use the gas end as a range extender. As the electric end gets cheaper you will use bigger motors and batteries. Then you can save money by using smaller engines.

 

You could replace the N/A 2.5L Atkinson cycle engine with an EcoBoost 1.6L Miller cycle engine.

[battyr]

You could replace the N/A 2.5L Atkinson cycle engine with an EcoBoost 1.6L Miller cycle engine.

 

The difference is that the Atkinson cycle engine is simple and cheap. It is also week in torque at low rpm. The EcoBoost is expensive. If you need the same power then the Atkinson cycle engine would be cheaper.

 

In fact, the 1.6L EcoBoost would have superior torque at normal operating range. You could get away wilth a smaller engine. If you could use a 1.2L 3 cylinder engine, then you get the cost down and save more fuel.

 

As for an EcoBoost Miller cycle engine. First the Miller cycle engine normally have a supercharger to deliver continuous boost that is required at low rpm. I think this could be resolved by using modern turbos and turning the Miller cycle on and off with variable CAM timing. This was not done in the past because someone had a patent on the uses of variable CAM timing with an Atkinson/Miller cycle engine. This patent expired last year.

 

GMs 2.0L DI turbo Ecotec engine is infact is a mild Miller cycle engine. I believe the EcoBoost uses variable CAM timing to be a mild Miller cycle too. If you want to give up some power at low rpms, it could be made into a stronge Miller cycle. Perfect for hybrid applications. I have looked a many exotic engine designs. None of them can produce the fuel efficiency that the EcoBoost is assumed to have. The only way the EcoBoost can achieve this type of fuel efficiency is by combining DI, turbos, and Millercyle.

[Biker16]

I would like to see Ford launch a Green branding scheme likie FoE's econetic brand, to differnciate our high efficency models from our more pedestrian models.

 

branding a Focus powered by a 1.2l I3 GDI turbo, with up to 54mpg as a Econetic Focus. The same with all non hybrid, econnomy models.

 

The badge would denote "affordable efficency For the masses" the badge would command a premium over non Econetic models. and pay for the premium engines, tires and aerodynamics.

 

The same way we market our perfromance models, we would market our economy models.

[jpd80]

I would argue to build a low cost 2.4L I-6 GDI with optional EcoBoost for the European market only. Replace the Volvo 2.5L I-5 and 3.0L I-6 with it.

.

2.3 Ecoboost engine with 250 hp/250 lb will probably replace the 2.5 I-5.

Besides, FNA are lead engineers on EUCD Fusion/Mondeo and they will fit their own V6s

[battyr]

2.3 Ecoboost engine with 250 hp/250 lb will probably replace the 2.5 I-5.

Besides, FNA are lead engineers on EUCD Fusion/Mondeo and they will fit their own V6s

 

Europe would not want a Mondeo with the 3.5L as their only choice of 6.

[StevenCaylor]

As for an EcoBoost Miller cycle engine. First the Miller cycle engine normally have a supercharger to deliver continuous boost that is required at low rpm.

 

Ah, that's where the hybrid's electric motor would come in.

[Ralph Greene]

Instead of all these complicated and expensive engines....what do you think the chances are that the buying public will just accept a lot less HP and performance in their people mover vehicles? Especially for a huge increase in economy....both fuel economy, engine maintenance, and purchase price. 150-175 HP is more than adequate, with proper gearing in transaxle, for a 3000-3500 lb vehicle. I like simple I 4 engines for basic transportation vehicles. I see no need to try to make a FWD people mover into a performance vehicle.

 

When I bought my wfe's 2005 Montego, who many said is underpowered, it took me a while to get accustomed to how you have to drive it. But it gets the job done, especially in flat country. And with a good 6 speed auto....well gears are how you get up hills. Now.....we would not trade the 30 MPG highway or the 22-23 around town for more power. We could even live with a tad less in a vehicle like this.

 

Just so you don't think I don't like performance cars...I supercharged my 98 Cobra to 570 RWHP, my 03 Mach 1 to 300 RWHP, and am contemplating what to do with our 08 Mustang GT. But my view is save the performance engines for performance cars.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Ralph Greene

[battyr]

As for an EcoBoost Miller cycle engine. First the Miller cycle engine normally have a supercharger to deliver continuous boost that is required at low rpm...

 

 

Ah, that's where the hybrid's electric motor would come in.

 

Actually power is not the issue. The issue is getting enough air into the engine to support combustion. The miller cycle engine has a late closing intake valve and required forced induction to get enough air into the engine.

[silvrsvt]

Instead of all these complicated and expensive engines....what do you think the chances are that the buying public will just accept a lot less HP and performance in their people mover vehicles? Especially for a huge increase in economy....both fuel economy, engine maintenance, and purchase price. 150-175 HP is more than adequate, with proper gearing in transaxle, for a 3000-3500 lb vehicle. I like simple I 4 engines for basic transportation vehicles. I see no need to try to make a FWD people mover into a performance vehicle.

 

 

The problem is that the competition has already settled that fight...why would you buy a 150HP car when you can get a 265HP V6 instead at the same price with just alittle bit more MPG? Then you'll have auto mags calling your products underpowered etc etc.

[jpd80]

Europe would not want a Mondeo with the 3.5L as their only choice of 6.

Europe is not interested in I-6 or V6, Diesel are the biggest sellers,

[ausrutherford]

I would like to see Ford launch a Green branding scheme likie FoE's econetic brand, to differnciate our high efficency models from our more pedestrian models.

 

branding a Focus powered by a 1.2l I3 GDI turbo, with up to 54mpg as a Econetic Focus. The same with all non hybrid, econnomy models.

 

The badge would denote "affordable efficency For the masses" the badge would command a premium over non Econetic models. and pay for the premium engines, tires and aerodynamics.

 

The same way we market our perfromance models, we would market our economy models.

 

The 2.3 is dead.

[Biker16]

The 2.3 is dead.

 

what does this have to do with my last post.

[joihan777]

Instead of all these complicated and expensive engines....what do you think the chances are that the buying public will just accept a lot less HP and performance in their people mover vehicles? Especially for a huge increase in economy....both fuel economy, engine maintenance, and purchase price. 150-175 HP is more than adequate, with proper gearing in transaxle, for a 3000-3500 lb vehicle. I like simple I 4 engines for basic transportation vehicles. I see no need to try to make a FWD people mover into a performance vehicle.

 

When I bought my wfe's 2005 Montego, who many said is underpowered, it took me a while to get accustomed to how you have to drive it. But it gets the job done, especially in flat country. And with a good 6 speed auto....well gears are how you get up hills. Now.....we would not trade the 30 MPG highway or the 22-23 around town for more power. We could even live with a tad less in a vehicle like this.

 

Just so you don't think I don't like performance cars...I supercharged my 98 Cobra to 570 RWHP, my 03 Mach 1 to 300 RWHP, and am contemplating what to do with our 08 Mustang GT. But my view is save the performance engines for performance cars.

 

I think you have a point in saying many customers would prefer better mileage over high performance. For them, 'good' performance would suffice.

 

But for others, good performance is simply unacceptable.... but they still need something bigger than a performance car. A Mustang won't do for a family car. That's why, at least for me, cars like the Taurus SHO are so tempting.

[joihan777]

I would like to see Ford launch a Green branding scheme likie FoE's econetic brand, to differnciate our high efficency models from our more pedestrian models.

 

branding a Focus powered by a 1.2l I3 GDI turbo, with up to 54mpg as a Econetic Focus. The same with all non hybrid, econnomy models.

 

The badge would denote "affordable efficency For the masses" the badge would command a premium over non Econetic models. and pay for the premium engines, tires and aerodynamics.

 

The same way we market our perfromance models, we would market our economy models.

 

I disagree. Ford doesn't need it's revived image 'splintered'.

 

WHen people consider a Ford, they should know they'll have viable choices for any driving style.

 

The Fusion Hybrid is the epitome of this image. It has the best economy but stills retains great driving characteristics, practicality & style.

[ausrutherford]

what does this have to do with my last post.

 

im saying that to jpd.