What the hell is the "Dragon" family of engines @ FoMoCo Europe??

[twintornados]

Saw this while digging for information about something else....any ideas?? It is on the Ford Bridgend Engine Plant Wikipedia page....

 

In March 2018, Ford of Europe made the recommendation to Ford HQ in Detroit to build the new "Dragon" designed petrol engines at Bridgend, after a review of options across plants in: Valencia, Spain; Cologne, Germany; and Craiova, Romania. The required investment is being backed with an additional £15M investment grant by the Welsh Government.^[8]

 

[Edstock]

http://www.indiancarsbikes.in/cars/india-new-engine-sourcing-hub-ford-nissan-81710/

 

"Ford’s Dragon engines may be ready by 2016-17,and the American car maker plans to produce 1.5 million units of the 1.2 and 1.5-litre engines a year globally, according to a source."

[jpd80]

According to a report on the Economic Times, Ford plans to source a new family of engines called the ‘Dragon.’ The report quotes ‘a person of knowledge’ who says that the Dragon engines are for Ford’s models from 2016-17 and that the company plans to source 1.5 million units per year of 1.2- and 1.5-liter capacities.

The report says that Ford’s upcoming plant in Sanand will be the lead producer of the Dragon engines and that it will be made in Europe, Russia, Brazil and China. Ford had previously commented that making India an export base for manufacturing would help deliver global projects and design at an affordable cost to local consumers.

Read more: http://indianautosblog.com/2014/01/ford-and-renault-plan-to-make-india-an-engine-hub-114467#ixzz3Z0me2mrJ

Follow us: @indianautos on Twitter | IndianAutosBlog on Facebook

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apparently more efficient than today's 1.5 engine but no increase in expense to produce..

Edited May 2, 2015 by jpd80

[YT90SC]

Anything has to be better than the current Sigmas.

[92merc]

The 1.2EB will be a good replacement for the 2.0 NA engine.

[jpd80]

The 1.2EB will be a good replacement for the 2.0 NA engine.

I can see that engine having broad application in C1 products or their successors.

Where the 1.0 EB may be a little small for North America, I see this engine as a much better fit..

Where the 2.0 struggles to get 36-38 mpg, the 1.2 EB maybe gets 40-42 mpg and a delight to drive.

Edited May 4, 2015 by jpd80

[03 LS]

I can see that engine having broad application in C1 products or their successors.

Where the 1.0 EB may be a little small for North America, I see this engine as a much better fit..

Where the 2.0 struggles to get 36-38 mpg, the 1.2 EB maybe gets 40-42 mpg and a delight to drive.

The EU Focus has the 1.5EB as top gas engine right now, doesn't it?

FNA has that engine in Fusion, and the 2.0DI for Focus (2.0EB for ST). Should NA also swap out 2.0DI with 1.5EB for Focus?

[Hugh]

The EU Focus has the 1.5EB as top gas engine right now, doesn't it?

FNA has that engine in Fusion, and the 2.0DI for Focus (2.0EB for ST). Should NA also swap out 2.0DI with 1.5EB for Focus?

I would like to see the EB15 at least an option in SE Sport and Titanium. ST Lite as it were.

[bzcat]

Sounds like new generation of Sigma (or all new engine?)

[Biker16]

Sounds like new generation of Sigma (or all new engine?)

It makes sense

The 1.2 making up to 160hp and the 1.5 making up to 200hp.

 

both built in Mexico and mated to a new generation of Dual-clutch transmissions.

 

 

http://www.getrag.com/en/company/press/press_detail_11713.html

Efficient 7DCT300 dual-clutch transmission launched in Europe

Untergruppenbach,

 

13/02/2015

The third generation of dual-clutch transmissions offers further increases in efficiency equivalent to up to 3.5% compared with the second generation

On 11 February, Getrag started production of the new 7DCT300 dual-clutch transmission. The company, which is a specialist in passenger car transmissions, supplies European customers with the new transmission from its plant in Neuenstein, Germany. For the Asian market, the transmission will also be produced in China starting in 2017. Initially, the modern automated transmission will be used in the new Renault Espace, and further models and brands will follow.

Bernd Eckl, Getrag Executive Vice President for Sales, emphasises the importance of the new transmission: “The launch of the 7DCT300 for the Renault Espace is only the beginning. With already over 100 planned applications, the 7DCT300 has the greatest potential in our company's history. We are very happy that this initial launch is running so smoothly and completely to plan.”

In the medium term, Getrag plans to complement the DCT300 platform with the compact 6DCT150. Based on a new, modular platform, the 7DCT300 is designed for a maximum torque of 300Nm. Smart Actuation, an intelligent power-on-demand actuation system, adds to the high efficiency of the 7DCT300. Its use enables power consumption of about 30W to be achieved with the 7DCT300 – less energy than a light bulb and 3.5% more efficient than second generation DCTs. This further consolidates Getrag's “best in class” position.

Hybrid versions of this transmission can be used in vehicles without major changes in installation space, starting in 2018. OEMs can therefore produce conventionally powered and hybrid vehicles on the same production line. Applications extend from 48V mild hybrids up to 360V plug-in hybrids.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Biker16

[theoldwizard]

My "gut" tells me that the current 2.0L non-EcoBoost GDI in the Focus is not long for this world. DISI is expensive and provides very little benefits, unless of course you can do lean-cruise (which you can not in the US).

 

I have heard very little about the new turbo 2.3L in the Mustang. It was supposed to be "all new" and not another take-off of the Mazda L engne.

[jpd80]

The Mazda 3 Version uses even higher compression to enable more dynamic compression

when it goes into fake Atkinson mode. Maybe this is where Ford's 2.0 DI falls down a little.

 

The 1.5 Ecoboost used in European Focus versus our Asian 2.0 DI Focus is chalk and cheese

The 1.5 EB is better everywher on urban, Extra urban and combined. I just get the sense that

an efficient 1.2 EB gets the real economy the 2.0 misses out while sacrificing torque.

 

It's about time that Ford's underperforming EB I-4s became a lot more efficient.

[Biker16]

My "gut" tells me that the current 2.0L non-EcoBoost GDI in the Focus is not long for this world. DISI is expensive and provides very little benefits, unless of course you can do lean-cruise (which you can not in the US).

 

I have heard very little about the new turbo 2.3L in the Mustang. It was supposed to be "all new" and not another take-off of the Mazda L engne.

 

This ALL NEW engine stuff is a bunch of crap. like the new Eco-boost.2.0 from Cleveland is a clean sheet design with the exact same bore and stroke as the old Eco-boost 2.0.

 

I remember that the original Duratec inlines had the Cosworth gravity cast engine block, while the newer engine are using die cast block, the manufacturing Changes have become so frequent, that it is hard to keep track of them, but that doesn't mean they magically become new engines.

 

The original 2.3 like today's 2.3 is a Stroked version of the 2.0, using the same bore and the same heads.

[Edstock]

"with the exact same bore and stroke as the old Eco-boost 2.0." And what's wrong with that? Why change it?

[Biker16]

"with the exact same bore and stroke as the old Eco-boost 2.0." And what's wrong with that? Why change it?

 

The 2.0 is undersquare, most Mfr are moving to an over square design where the stroke is larger than the bore, for GTDI engine the longer stroke allows for lower cylinder temperatures, even at the expense of a lower Redline, which is moot for GTDI engines anyway.

 

my point is they kept so muich the same to keep cost down, not to make a better engine.

[jpd80]

Funny how we look at an engine and see the bore stroke is unchanged from the old and conclude that Ford did nothing..

While keping those dimensions saves quite a bit of money, the fact that Ford uses a lot more turbocharging may sway

the argument back towards using less stroke than an NA engine, just my guess but the changes needed for Ecoboost

are now e subtle improvements on already good engine packages, so perhaps the refinements are small but significant

changes to the engines cooling systems, port shaping, changes to NVH ect..

 

The answer is probably cost savings and improved engines...

 

LINK

Global teams from Product Development, Finance, Purchasing and Cost Estimating, with participation from Europe, America, Brazil, India and China,

developed a global sourcing strategy for every component. After extensive pre-work, the teams were invited to a three-day workshop in England that was

attended and facilitated by vice presidents and directors from all functions and regions, including a team of Joint Venture partners from Changan Ford.

Months later, after the agreed strategies were implemented and the quoting process completed, the teams were invited back to England with the same

leadership team to build consensus on the final global recommendations. The teams left with a plan for every region that was supported and owned by

all stakeholders.

The pre-work and face-to-face collaboration between regional teams allowed optimized strategies for each region that resulted in

a new engine with better fuel economy and substantially improved performance at the same cost as the outgoing engine. Global

collaboration reduced the team’s initial status by roughly 50 engines, resulting in a $20 million improvement in India, $31 million

improvement in China and a potential $67 million around the world as the later localization actions are launched.

Each of the regions and Joint Venture partners were left with a sense of inclusion and ownership, and numerous opportunities were realized that would

never have happened under the previous processes. This new sourcing approach is a key part of Purchasing’s ABF model (ABF 2.0). Additionally, the

impact of the Dragon team results has senior management support applying process learnings across the business.

The Dragon sourcing workshops were attended by more than 120 people from five countries and included our JV partners for

the first time in a transparent process. This process impacted 2.4 million engines per year; with an annual spend of $2.2 billion.

Cost avoidance facilitated by the process could total $150 million once all regions are finalized. These results were achieved

in a positive, collaborative process that left each region feeling included and represented.

 

Edited May 5, 2015 by jpd80

[theoldwizard]

I predict, no GDI (non-turbo DISI) engines in the US !

[theoldwizard]

The original 2.3 like today's 2.3 is a Stroked version of the 2.0, using the same bore and the same heads.

I am pretty certain that the 2.3L EcoBoost in the Mustang uses a integrally cast head and exhaust manifold, something no other Ford I4 currently has.

[92merc]

I am pretty certain that the 2.3L EcoBoost in the Mustang uses a integrally cast head and exhaust manifold, something no other Ford I4 currently has.

Isn't the Edge that just released have the "new" 2.0EB?

[bzcat]

My "gut" tells me that the current 2.0L non-EcoBoost GDI in the Focus is not long for this world. DISI is expensive and provides very little benefits, unless of course you can do lean-cruise (which you can not in the US).

 

 

I think the only reason it is still around is because Ford can't make enough 1.5 EB now to meet worldwide demand (hence the new engine plant in Mexico).

[Biker16]

I am pretty certain that the 2.3L EcoBoost in the Mustang uses a integrally cast head and exhaust manifold, something no other Ford I4 currently has.

 

the EB20 in the Explorer had an integrated Exhaust manifold too.

 

Honda has been using integrated exhaust manifolds for about 10 years.

 

i would not be surprised if the original EB20 and the 2.0 GDI shared heads, and injection systems, to reduce the costs of introducing the EB2.0

 

 

I think the only reason it is still around is because Ford can't make enough 1.5 EB now to meet worldwide demand (hence the new engine plant in Mexico).

 

think about the extra cost of Ecoboost

 

the intercooler

the turbo

the extra plumbing

 

All that is extra cost for Ford on a low margin product. the 2.0 GDI is the Value engine for Ford.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Biker16

[jpd80]

 

the EB20 in the Explorer had an integrated Exhaust manifold too.

 

Honda has been using integrated exhaust manifolds for about 10 years.

 

i would not be surprised if the original EB20 and the 2.0 GDI shared heads, and injection systems, to reduce the costs of introducing the EB2.0

 

 

think about the extra cost of Ecoboost

 

the intercooler

the turbo

the extra plumbing

 

All that is extra cost for Ford on a low margin product. the 2.0 GDI is the Value engine for Ford.

That could change if Ford needs those extra 2.0 DI production for creating more 2.0 Ecoboost

.

Outside Europe and USA, the base engine was /is the 1.5 TiVCT with the 2.0 DIon mid an upper versions.

the inclusion of the 1.5 EB in lieu of the 2.0 is a natural progression of the engine application used in the EU.

Scales of economy may se both a 1.2 EB and 1.5 EB replace the 2.0 DI while turning a tidy profit on increased sales.

Edited May 8, 2015 by jpd80

[theoldwizard]

i would not be surprised if the original EB20 and the 2.0 GDI shared heads, and injection systems, to reduce the costs of introducing the EB2.0

Good theory, but how many non-turbo engines have been built versus EB ? So everyone looking for a basic car has to pay a penalty for those how want to go fast ?

 

It turned into a pissing contest between FOE and Dearborn. EU won despite the fact that Dearborn proved almost zero fuel economy improvement under CARB/EPA test condition. Those direct injectors and high pressure fuel pump are not cheap.

 

EU has made a couple of mis-steps simply because they would not accept input from Dearborn. Let's hope those days are gone.

[jpd80]

Good theory, but how many non-turbo engines have been built versus EB ? So everyone looking for a basic car has to pay a penalty for those how want to go fast ?

 

It turned into a pissing contest between FOE and Dearborn. EU won despite the fact that Dearborn proved almost zero fuel economy improvement under CARB/EPA test condition. Those direct injectors and high pressure fuel pump are not cheap.

 

EU has made a couple of mis-steps simply because they would not accept input from Dearborn. Let's hope those days are gone.

Or, was the 2.0 DI for US and global Focus a way of helping to amortize the then new Atkinson cycle 2.0 DI used in hybrid Fords?

 

I have a feeling that there was a hook up between 2.0EB, 2.0 DI and 2.0 DI Hybrid where scales of economy from design and parts

played a huge part in Focus amortizing costs of the 2.0 versus simply expanding the 1.6 EB used in European Focus where 2.0 DI

most likely put CO2 levels (road taxes) in the too hard basket.

 

With regards Direct Injection costs, it's no longer the 2000s, the wide use of DI has brought down the cost of parts to OEMs

even though we, the consumers still get murdered on replacement parts prices...

 

Also makes me wonder if those revised "coast down" factors were a result of early fuel economy work trying to maximize

fuel economy of 2.0 DI, 2.0 Hybrids......

 

Maybe the truth lies somewhere in between that an affordable engine did not quite live up to optimistic / high expectations

forcing Ford to review its data....

Edited May 9, 2015 by jpd80

[fuzzymoomoo]

Doesn't the 2.0DI trace its roots back to the 80s?

 

If so, there's your answer why it's still around. It's cheap and reliable as hell. Mine has 171k miles on it and showing no signs of slowing down yet (except for the clutch self destructing a few days ago)