Jump to content

Some tutorials on the new software have been pinned here.

  • Custom Search


Sign in to follow this  
Sevensecondsuv

New straight six engine architecture from FCA?

Recommended Posts

https://www.allpar.com/news/2018/09/making-fours-and-sixes-engine-plans-and-plants-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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ford put all of their eggs in the turbocharging basket

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.carthrottle.com/post/v6-vs-straight-six-the-pros-and-cons/

Edited by Anthony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.carthrottle.com/post/v6-vs-straight-six-the-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.com/article/20171024/BLOG06/171029886/six-cylinder-inline-engine-jaguarlandrover-ford

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/every-jaguar-land-rover-be-renewed-2024

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys should look into the Ford Barra 6.

 

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Maybe not Ranger but Bronco (if it's going to be more of a rock crawler). The torquiness of the I6 would be great for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not just do a whole new family of inline engines? You could start with a I3 1.5L and wind up a with a I3 3L engine-then come out with a tall deck variant..you can do an I4 and I5 and maybe a diesel out of it if you used a CGI block

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×