Jump to content

Custom Search





2019 Lincoln Aviator Introduced Here !


Welcome to Blue Oval Forums


Sign In  Log in with Facebook

Create Account
Welcome to Blue Oval Forums.  You must first register to create topics and post replies. Registration is a quick and easy process and only takes a minute.  Be apart of Blue Oval Forums by signing in or creating an account.
  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members
  • Create a photo album and post images
  • Use the Shout feature and more. . .
Click here to create an account now.
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

New straight six engine architecture from FCA?


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 ONLINE   Sevensecondsuv

Sevensecondsuv

    Blue Oval Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Joined 14-June 07

Posted 16 September 2018 - 01:28 PM

https://www.allpar.c...lants-42007/amp

Ford should be the one doing a new straight six since everything larger than focus is going to be on the new platform that supports longitudinal engine mounting. GM is doing their new 3.0L diesel as a straight six. The Germans are also reportedly investing in new straight six designs. Now this from FCA. Looks like Ford is going to get caught sleeping again unless they're working on stuff we know nothing about.







Lose this advertisement by becoming a member. Click here to create a free account.


#2 OFFLINE   fuzzymoomoo

fuzzymoomoo

    Blue Oval Enthusiast

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,589 posts
  • Joined 18-February 14
  • Region:Decline
  • Location:Southeast Michigan
  • Current Vehicle:2008 Focus, 2018 Fusion

Posted 16 September 2018 - 01:36 PM

Ford put all of their eggs in the turbocharging basket
Officially a disgruntled Ford Employee

#3 ONLINE   Sevensecondsuv

Sevensecondsuv

    Blue Oval Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Joined 14-June 07

Posted 16 September 2018 - 03:48 PM

It sounds like FCA is planning to boost these new engines as well.

There's no reason Ford would have to abandon ecoboost; just replace the V6 with an equivalent size I6. Turbo packaging is much better on an inline. I understand why the 3.5 is a Vee given its roots as the midsize corporate V6 from a previous era, but the 2.7 should have been an inline config. Seriously, how many 2.7L Fusion and Edge does Ford sell relative to 2.7L F-150? And now fusion is a dead man walking and Edge is moving to CD6 where an I6 would fit no problem. The 2.7 as a Vee was short-sighted, although it certainly wasn't the only thing during Field's tenure.

Edited by Sevensecondsuv, 16 September 2018 - 03:51 PM.


#4 OFFLINE   MY93SHO

MY93SHO

    Blue Oval Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 998 posts
  • Joined 12-February 09

Posted 17 September 2018 - 05:08 AM

It sounds like FCA is planning to boost these new engines as well.

There's no reason Ford would have to abandon ecoboost; just replace the V6 with an equivalent size I6. Turbo packaging is much better on an inline. I understand why the 3.5 is a Vee given its roots as the midsize corporate V6 from a previous era, but the 2.7 should have been an inline config. Seriously, how many 2.7L Fusion and Edge does Ford sell relative to 2.7L F-150? And now fusion is a dead man walking and Edge is moving to CD6 where an I6 would fit no problem. The 2.7 as a Vee was short-sighted, although it certainly wasn't the only thing during Field's tenure.

Yeah, that 2.7 is a real turd. (sarcasm)

 



#5 ONLINE   Sevensecondsuv

Sevensecondsuv

    Blue Oval Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Joined 14-June 07

Posted 17 September 2018 - 08:21 AM

The 2.7 isn't a turd, it would just be better as an inline. This has nothing to do with output. It has everything to do with smoothness, exhaust note, and turbo packaging.

#6 OFFLINE   theoldwizard

theoldwizard

    Retired

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,399 posts
  • Joined 06-February 03
  • Location:SE MI
  • Current Vehicle:'98 E150

Posted 17 September 2018 - 09:15 AM

Ford put all of their eggs in the turbocharging basket

Many, MANY years ago, I worked with some guys who did a one off, turbo charged, prototype of an Aussie OHC "alloy head" 6 cylinder (somewhat based on the old 250 pushrod 6).  It was in a FOA Falcon (?).  The guys would drive around Dearborn and "blow off" souped up Mustangs and anything else on the road !

 

From a rolling start, so that the turbo was spooled up, up to about 80 MPH, nothing could touch it !  This cobble together and had a very rough 'tune".



#7 OFFLINE   itguy09

itguy09

    New BON Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • Pip
  • 197 posts
  • Joined 09-February 09

Posted 17 September 2018 - 09:47 AM

The 2.7 isn't a turd, it would just be better as an inline. This has nothing to do with output. It has everything to do with smoothness, exhaust note, and turbo packaging.

Doubtful it would be better.  Both the 2.7 and 3.5 are stellar engines, very smooth and powerful.  Inlines do need more space longitudinally which can be an issue.



#8 OFFLINE   92merc

92merc

    Blue Oval Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 1,845 posts
  • Joined 19-October 05
  • Region:Decline
  • Location:Bismarck, ND
  • Current Vehicle:2007Mercury Montego : 2003 F150 SuperCrew

Posted 17 September 2018 - 09:54 AM

I think Ford has wanted to put the 2.7 in more than just longitude mount.  Take the new Ranger.  Odds are when it gets a redesign, it'll be harder to fit an inline 6 in than the V6.

 

I just don't see the need for an inline 6 in "most" of Ford's lineup.  The V6 has worked well.  I loved the old 300 inline 6 in my father's '84 F150.  But this isn't 1984 anymore.


  • twintornados likes this

#9 ONLINE   Sevensecondsuv

Sevensecondsuv

    Blue Oval Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Joined 14-June 07

Posted 17 September 2018 - 10:27 AM

My point in the original post is that most of the rest of the industry is going back to inline sixes because they're generally considered to be superior to V6s in most aspects besides length. Now that most platforms that require six cylinders aren't transverse, the only downside to a straight six isn't an issue. Ford is going to be left out in the cold with their Vee designs here soon.

And FWIW, they already fit a 3.2L inline-5 turbo diesel in the global ranger. A small displacement I-6 wouldn't be much of a stretch.

Also, while the 300 was the last inline 6 Ford sold in the US, it has about as much relavance to new generation inline sixes as the flathead V8 does to the coyote. They would share a cylinder configuration and maybe a firing order. That's about it.

Edited by Sevensecondsuv, 17 September 2018 - 10:32 AM.


#10 OFFLINE   92merc

92merc

    Blue Oval Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 1,845 posts
  • Joined 19-October 05
  • Region:Decline
  • Location:Bismarck, ND
  • Current Vehicle:2007Mercury Montego : 2003 F150 SuperCrew

Posted 17 September 2018 - 10:58 AM

You're still failing to point out where the current V6 is lacking compared to an inline.

 

The 3.5EB trounces everything Chevy and RAM has torque wise.  Even the lowly 2.7EB easily competes with the 5.3 Chebbie.  It has a lot more torque than the new Chebbie 2.7 inline 4.  I'm failing to see where the V6 is lacking.


  • itguy09 and MY93SHO like this

#11 OFFLINE   Anthony

Anthony

    Voice of reason

  • Moderator
  • 5,525 posts
  • Joined 08-May 01
  • Region:U.S. Northeast
  • Location:CT
  • Current Vehicle:2014 Focus Hatch

Posted 17 September 2018 - 11:16 AM

An inline 6 is inherently cheaper to design & build and is naturally smoother running.

 

A V6 fits in more vehicles which could make vehicle R&D cheaper.

 

Here's a good breakdown of the pros and cons of each:  https://www.carthrot...-pros-and-cons/


Edited by Anthony, 17 September 2018 - 11:17 AM.

  • MY93SHO and rperez817 like this

#12 OFFLINE   rperez817

rperez817

    Blue Oval Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 784 posts
  • Joined 03-October 16
  • Region:U.S. Southern Plains
  • Location:Fort Worth
  • Current Vehicle:'17 Jaguar XF 20d; '04 Ford Ranger

Posted 17 September 2018 - 12:48 PM

An inline 6 is inherently cheaper to design & build and is naturally smoother running.

 

A V6 fits in more vehicles which could make vehicle R&D cheaper.

 

Here's a good breakdown of the pros and cons of each:  https://www.carthrot...-pros-and-cons/

 

Thanks for sharing Anthony sir. JLR may introduce a new inline six for its Ingenium engine family with electric turbocharger.

 

http://www.autonews....rlandrover-ford

https://www.autocar....be-renewed-2024


Native Texan sent to spread the message, "God Blessed Texas"  :) 


#13 OFFLINE   bzcat

bzcat

    Blue Oval Enthusiast

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,142 posts
  • Joined 13-October 09

Posted 17 September 2018 - 01:08 PM

If Edge switched to CD6, then I would expect Ford to give serious consideration to developing an I6 Ecoboost to replace the 2.7/3.0 and 3.5/3.7 V6 engine families.

 

If Edge is a C2, then Ford will stick with V6 because of the need for transverse applications.

 

Either way, this decision won't be made for a while because Ford's V6 are still very competitive and have a lot of room for further development.

 

More imminent decision has to be made on replacement for I5 diesel in Ranger and Transit. Ford could certainly use an I6 version of its new I4 EcoBlue.


Edited by bzcat, 17 September 2018 - 01:10 PM.


#14 OFFLINE   silvrsvt

silvrsvt

    Bite my Shiny metal ass!

  • Moderator
  • 18,927 posts
  • Joined 03-October 02
  • Region:U.S. Northeast
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Current Vehicle:2017 Escape SE AWD/2013 Taurus SHO

Posted 17 September 2018 - 01:40 PM

I dont see any reason why the Nano V6 will be replaced-at the rate things are going, electric motors should be par for the course 10-15 years down the road when it actually needs to be replaced.

At least in light duty applications-there will be a need for it still in a HD pickup, but who knows.
  • 92merc likes this

"Hell, there are no rules here-- we're trying to accomplish something."
Thomas A. Edison


Ford Products owned though the years:
1986 Escort GT Race Red
1998 Mustang GT Dark Green Satin
2002 SVT Focus Satin Silver
2006 Mustang GT Tungsten Grey

2010 Escape XLT AWD Sport Blue
2013 Taurus SHO Ruby Red

2017 Escape SE AWD Platinum White

Future Fords:
2021 Bronco

20xx Mustang GT350 or the like

 

199923.png
 
photo-thumb-15254.jpg


#15 ONLINE   Stray Kat

Stray Kat

    Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 685 posts
  • Joined 28-July 03

Posted 17 September 2018 - 05:44 PM

You guys should look into the Ford Barra 6.



#16 ONLINE   Sevensecondsuv

Sevensecondsuv

    Blue Oval Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Joined 14-June 07

Posted 17 September 2018 - 09:06 PM

Maybe JPD can hook us up with a supply lol
  • jpd80 likes this

#17 OFFLINE   atomcat68

atomcat68

    Blue Oval Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPip
  • 1,889 posts
  • Joined 02-May 05
  • Location:Weymouth, MA

Posted 18 September 2018 - 04:46 AM

You guys should look into the Ford Barra 6.

 

It was nice of them to name it after GM's CEO...


My latest movie project: https://www.facebook...93579443992689/

 


#18 OFFLINE   jpd80

jpd80

    Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,591 posts
  • Joined 02-June 04
  • Region:Decline
  • Location:My Happy Place
  • Current Vehicle:Falcon 302 V8

Posted 18 September 2018 - 05:14 AM



#19 OFFLINE   J-150

J-150

    Newbie

  • Blue Oval Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,034 posts
  • Joined 13-May 05
  • Location:NYC, Chicago, T.O, Montreal

Posted 18 September 2018 - 06:27 AM

Yes there are pros to a I6... all things being equal.

But that same "all things being equal" would imply that Ford engines should be getting spanked on displacement. But theyre not.
I want a 5.0 equipped Focus

#20 OFFLINE   03 LS

03 LS

    Member

  • Blue Oval Member
  • Pip
  • 398 posts
  • Joined 16-October 03
  • Region:Decline
  • Location:Where FordBuyer is
  • Current Vehicle:'11 MMH

Posted Yesterday, 10:18 AM

The nano engine family has (had) an I5 (2.2L?) version that did not go into production. I would think making a 2.7 I6 shouldn't be that difficult, if the needs are there.
BTW, the 2.2 I5 (NA and EB) would have been perfect for the new Ranger.

Edited by 03 LS, Yesterday, 10:18 AM.









Custom Search


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Privacy Policy Terms of Service | DMCA ·