jon_the_limey

The Daily Wail is at it again! It's just the usual toothless BS that comes out of Notting-Hill/Islington Set think-tanks and then gets completely blown out of proportion by the media on a slow news day. Yes we have to keep an eye on these lunatics but we are very far away from this becoming legislation.

No problem! Have you heard the rumour about Falcon getting the Jag 5.0 V8? Really not sure about that one, but if Falcon continues to use the ZF auto I guess it makes some sense.

Very good SAE paper (2001-01-3591) by Ford on this, and basically whilst cylinder deactivation is good for engines with large throttled volumes and low vehicle mass (fuel economy being poor through high pumping losses), an engine that is right sized for the vehicle with suitable transmission ratios will get considerably less benefit. Not to mention the vibration issues and extra cost and complexity of cylinder deac.

Explain.

Nice post! I agree that JLR could have some expensive retooling coming up (certainly to lighten the big Land Rovers) and it would affect the valuation of the companies. The thing I mostly question is that JLR will need several billions in up-front capital to do it. The XJ aluminium chassis did indeed follow similar construction principles as the DEW platform, and there are some huge difficulties in pressing large aluminium panels as you've pointed out (although pressing large steel panels is hardly a walk in the park!) However in a bid to reduce tooling costs on the XK they used many more cast aluminium nodes and extrusions. I believe that any Land Rover would be able to use these methods (and actually are probably more suitable for it given their brickshit house construction!) They will have to pay the price in piece cost, not least because aluminum is expensive but also because any machining and extra assembly operations in riveting and bonding. There are some advantages you can gain with casting and that is you can integrate many more features into a machined casting without having to do add extra pressings that require extra welding and other operations to get the same feature content. Also above I mentioned that I have designed two oilpans, one PDC aluminium and the other pressed steel, both roughly the same size and the aluminium one with loads of integrated features. Unassembled piece cost didn't even compare (I think a quarter but then the steel one was quite elementary) the aluminium was much more expensive but the tooling despite the complexity was just under half for the pressed and the pressed needed lots of others bits assembliing (oil pickup pipe being one). Now I know this is quite an arbitrary example but there is some merit in this. The general jist of what I'm saying is that if done well the capital costs for aluminium construction car can be lower than a pressed steel one, but you'll pay the price in unit cost. However as we are talking about high-value and low-volume vehicles here, they probably lend themselves better to these methods. Yes the DEW/D2 platform is knocking on a bit, but the biggest issue I see with it is that it is quite heavy. All other aspects seem pretty top-notch, could it not be developed with UHT steels and composite panels? I think that the X-type is walking dead at the moment, I bet when EU5 comes in it will die then.

Yes it was an arrogant comment, but only said because I do have a fair amount of experience in component design but none of you know this and my comments can be construed badly. I apologise for that. Examples of stuff that I have worked on, a few years back I spent several months designing a large high-feature semi-structural oilpan that was aluminium pressure-die-cast and made with 6-way core (and multiple internal slide) tooling. Also prior to that I spent a long time designing a deep draw pressed oilpan made out of laminated steel, which is a bitch to press accurately. Now I designed the little hollow bits in the middle, there were dozens of others working on it doing some very clever analysis and development of the tooling to ensure the finished article in the middle was upto the job that I only have the vaguest clue about. You do seem to have this idea that JLR engineers are smug and arrogant and operate JLR like a feifdom (do you think Volvo is any different?) My question to you would be "Do you have first hand experience with dealing with them?" I mean there are several hundred engineer's working on several different program, are they ALL like that? Also how do you know what the structural and build problems of the L322 chassis and T5 chassis are, and how do you know what Ford's thoughts are (considering "Ford" itself is made up of several thousand individuals). Also I'm guessing that most Jaguar engineer's working on the aluminium XJ and XK would have been grateful for all the work that Ford Research Labs did to help them put it in production, why would they be implying that Ford knows nothing about building lightweight vehicles? Also how do you know what Ford's chiefs (again there are loads of them!) think of JLR's engineering division. I briefly saw your post before you edited it, and you appear to have quite a seething attitude to JLR and I don't think it's entirely down to the companies. So what is it?

The D30 DAMB has very little in common with the D30 RFF, the narrower included valve angle and higher engine speeds put paid to that. The Volvo SI6 is a very package constrained engine design that has severely reduced it's ability to make high specific output. I mean it has intake VCT, INA cam-profile switchable bucket tappets, variable length manifold, 10.8 compression ratio etc and still only makes ~73bhp/litre at a relatively heady 6200rpm. The D30 DAMB and D35 make better numbers.

Not a worry! Just give a load of vehicle calibration guys in FoE L1 visas and get them over there. There would be quite a few happy to do it especialy with all the ISE perks and benefits. And they are amongst the best in the world for testcycle frigging, just look at the ultra-low CO2 emissions Focus at 115g/km.

What a load of bollocks!

We shall indeed see in a few years. But isn't that a rather large assumption that LR would have to spend billions to develop a "from-scratch" chassis. Why can't they carry over key subsytems from the current T5 chassis? Also what about the amortization differences in Tooling/Piece-Cost volume trade offs with pressed/welded steel components versus Aluminium cast/extruded components? (People, please only respond to this part if you have an engineering degree and several years experience engineering/manufacturing such components) Yes there is a lot of noise from the green-lobby in "Europe" about effectively taxing (or even completely outlawing) them off the roads. But just how much this extra draconian legislation been passed yet? Also does anyone seriously believe that the still politically very powerful German Automotive Industry is about to bendover and take any legislation that seriously threatens the their highest margin vehicles? Have you ever actually worked in the automotive industry? Have you any idea just how gargantuan and unwieldy it is. What makes you think that much of this "inside-information" privy to these analysts is accurate, and I'm not necessarily suggesting deliberate deception from these sources. I've heard of these low valuation figures for the JLR entity. Were they not included in assets that have been used to secure this huge loan. If so who's decision was that, was it Ford's or was it the collection of lenders? Did the lenders demand that JLR be sold? If you were trying to secure the best terms for a loan would you not try and maximise the value of the assets that you have secured upon? How much debt (if any?) did JLR have prior to this parent company loan? And finally what scope would there be for the not entirely eradicated practice of Transfer Pricing with large chunks of JLR's sub-systems being made (or indeed even engineered!) in Ford facilities.

Has anyone got any REAL proof that Land Rover has indeed guzzled cash from Ford with no payback, or that Jaguar has cost as much as those always incredibly accurate 3rd party "Automotive Analyst" quotes that get regurgitated ad-infinitum in the Auto-press? Probably not! But I'm willing to hear. If you'll indulge me, then I'll counter with some unsubstantiated rumours of my own: I've heard that the primary reason (among other more philosphical arguments) that JLR (and latterly Volvo) is being sold to set up a VEBA trust for hourly paid workers in the US. I also heard that the Range Rover very closely followed by the Range Rover Sport are by far the most profitable vehicles per unit in the Ford empire. How do I know? Well I'm very aware of the phenominal lengths they go to make sure a particular engine gets installed because they are so profitable. However I can't prove this to any of you, so carrying believing what you guys want to believe and I'll believe that the press are FOS in almost all cases.

I hope some are not casting undeserved aspersions about RPJ. I dare say that to get as high as he has done (as with anyone else at his level) these guys have to be very political animals and probably have elements of Machiavellian ruthlessness (not always a bad thing). However by most accounts (that I'm aware of) he has shown himself to be the engineer's manager. Let's put it this way, I seriously doubt the Focus would have had the costly IRS on the Focus if it wasn't for him championing it. Also one of his deputies is Tim Davis (Ford Technical Fellow for Quality Engineering) who I've had a couple of lectures from, appears to really know his shit on the quality side and came across to me as quite a decent chap! http://www.timdavis.co.uk/career.htm Also SG7/8 engineers (or even LL6's) very rarely get the opportunity to even see Group Vice Presidents, let alone speak to them! I'm sorry Fordbuyer, but for me there is too little detail in your account of what this problem was and what was affected, how this suggestion would have improved the component/system in question, how much work would have been required to prove this idea out, and what the possible consequences of implementing this idea would be. My experience of Ford is that their durability DV testing is VERY conservative, mainly derived from commercial vehicle testing. For example one test of cylinder head durability that I know of is ridiculously over the top for light duty engines. The 500 hour Deep Thermal Shock Test basically continuously cycles freezing cold coolant flush through engine, start engine and thrash at full load to get up to temp as quickly as possible, stop engine, then flush freezing cold coolant through again. As the title says deep thermal shock which severely expands & contracts the cylinder head whilst applying full cylinder pressure over the most of the cycle. Over repeated testing this is guaranteed to find every single weak point in the water jacket around the exhaust valve bridge area (and even the less vunerable areas elsewhere), and I know that the likes of Toyota and BMW would never be as severe as this!

Have a look at the TDV8 version of the Range Rover and Range Rover Sport (both 2.7 tonnes, with 6sp auto and aero of a garage) for the figures remembering that a UK gallon are ~1.2 times a US gallon. I would guess around 25-26 US mpg highway and perhaps 20 city. I don't really know how much the EU and US test cycles are comparable. Part load is where diesels always win.

I don't know the full reasons behind it and also that press release was a while ago. I have no idea what goes through PR & marketing peoples minds (if anything at all!) but I must admit, before the release of the Lion V6 diesel, Ford did have a negative perception amongst the public (& media especially) for diesel engines with slow & noisy (but actually indestructible) 2.5 Transits and 1.8 Mondeos/Escorts/etc. This reputation was improved imperceptibly in 2002/3 with the release of the excellent common rail version of the 1.8 diesel in the Focus (not part of the PSA JV), however for some reason Ford/Jaguar/LR/PSA decided to play down the Ford role, release it as a "Jaguar" engine and the media automatically assumed that PSA did it because of their history. With some of the comments on this thread and your consistent admiration for all things PSA diesel engined, perhaps the PR people were right! There was a bit of Ford PR fightback with the release of the 3.6 V8, but inertia in the media and journalists general lack of ability to research facts (or possibly the facts are beyond their understanding) still assumed that PSA were involved. Even more ridiculously some thought the V8 was going to go into their FWD cars! Yet to find a transverse transmission that takes 640Nm, even the ZF inline 6HP26 transmission is at the limit and the engine torque curve has to be clipped! Just to add some more background: 2.7 and 3.6 are made in Dagenham. The 2.7 and 3.6 are very closely related in terms of bore, stroke, bore spacing, valvetrain, bearings, combustion and fuel system. But there are some important differences, not least that the V8 is 90deg and the 60deg bank angle. The V6 is not based off any PSA engine and is actually closest in architecture to the Volvo D5 (bore spacing and valvetrain), but even then because of the ultra-high 180bar cylinder pressure the similarites start to end.

Sort of. The Lion 3.6 is a Ford engine that Land Rover exclusively uses.

PLEASE! The Lion V8 is not a part of the Peugeot JV and never has been, it was an entirely Ford developed engine! There is nothing that PSA makes that could take this engine. The Lion V6 is part of the PSA JV, but engineering responsibility was Ford's alone and entirely developed inhouse. I know this first hand! It has exceeded the expectations of many in the industry and this is something Ford has every right to be very proud of. :beerchug:

OK this is last time I'm posting on this. Yes Caterpillar could design and build a small engine for a light duty truck not least because they own Perkins who have a small but highly regarded Engine Consultancy. http://www.perkins.com/cda/components/full...7&id=284060 However Ford are going to go for FORD solution. And if you think Ford can't design it's own diesel engines for trucks then you are talking out of your backside. Ford of Europe have a long history of designing indestructible engines, for example the Transit 2.5 diesel from the 80's. It might have been slow and noisy but it was more than strong enough to take the abuse from even the thickest brickie/plasterer/pikey/etc. (Pikey is sort of a carny.) And there will be no Peugeot assistance, because Ford does not need it.

PSA do make very good diesel engines for cars. And in this particular respect they have well deserved reputation for making engines that are reliable, durable and perhaps most importantly good value. As for being the best in world, well it really depends on what criteria. I believe it is very telling that the Ford designed Puma I4 engines will end up in the Transits and PSA vans and the PSA engines will end up in the cars. Designing a truck or commercial vehicle engine does require a very different mindset. A car engine will be designed for say 150bhp max but it will spend almost all of it's relatively underworked life pootling around at part load. Also for cars, ultimate engine efficiency and maintenance intervals aren't nearly as important as initial cost, engine mass, and underbonnet package size. A very wide and flat torque curve is desirable in car whereas in a truck you would want shitloads of torque-back-up from max power to peak torque for lugging heavy loads as effortlessly as possible. It is very difficult to compare engine efficiency in terms of MPG, because like-for-like chassis installations vary so much. Therefore the best way to compare engine efficiency, is in terms of fuel used per unit energy delivered at the flywheel (usually in terms of g/kWh). Diesel car engines very rarely get peak fuel economy below 200 g/kWh whereas diesel truck engines often get around 185 g/kWh (which is just amazing!) Ford will be aware of this and I'm certain they will adapt any engines that goes into the various duty-cycle guises of the F-series.

Just apportioning credit where it's due, and the media has given PSA far too much credit for the V6 and V8 diesels. Especially when they had absolutely f-all to do with the V8, "superior" PSA technology or otherwise. I mean it's not like either the Lion V6 and V8 are using fuel borne Cerium catalysis based diesel particulate filters.

That 4.4 is a Perkins 1100 series! And great engine that it is for off-highway applications it's far too heavy and slow running for on-highway. Anyway there are quite a few ex-Cat people working on Ford diesels, the engine industry is a very small and incestuous world!

Jellymould Peugeot in terms of engineering had very little to do with the Lion V6, it was almost entirely designed and developed by Ford at Dunton. PSA with Jaguar and LR did however largely PAY Ford to develop and manufacture the V6 diesel for them. The current 3.6 V8 diesel is based of the V6 and this was ENTIRELY designed and engineered by Ford and paid for by LR. Peugeot had design and engineering responsibility for DV4 and DV6 1.4 & 1.6 diesel engines, which Ford now uses in their Fiesta and Focus. The other part of the Ford/PSA JV agreement was that the Ford designed 2.0/2.2/2.4 and now 3.2 I5 Puma engines would go in Ford & PSA's commercial vehicles and that the PSA designed DW10/DW12 engines will go in Ford/Volvo/PSA passenger cars. And Blue-II is right the Lion V8 diesel (and it's future variants) are frigging awesome engines. :shades:

Come on! The UK government doesn't give a shit who buys what, and if there's some backhanders and jollies available then all the better! Everything is for sale here, I mean they even sold DERA to form Qinetiq. Absolutely unthinkable anywhere else. For all of Ford's faults, corporate standards & responsibility isn't among them.

Exhaust Gas Recirculation. theoldwizard, Must be confident in the cylinder-to-cylinder variability to only rely on TiVCT system for trapping exhaust gas residuals!

TStag, assuming LR was to undertake yet another expansion (which personally I think they should consolidate and develop what they have for a while), where exactly are LR going to find all these experienced automotive engineers to design all these new vehicles? Plus Volvo's tie-up with FoE is only reason EUCD platform was justifiable, FoE with LR on their own could not have afford it. No EUCD, no LR2/Freelander! (Actually no EUCD then no S-Max/Galaxy and more limited FoE profitability but that's another story)

Thing is though from Volvo's own website they sold ~3.6% less in 2006 than they did in 2005, and actually in turn 2005 was ~2.8% less than 2004. Down from a high of ~456000 in 2004 down to ~427000 last year. Now don't get me wrong I regard Volvo as a well run company, but so well run that they managed their 2 year sales decline with runout & changeover of their high margin S80/V70 models and still make a $0.5billion profit? Yes, as reported in Q3 2006, JLR did have a charge for "prior model warranty accrual adjustments". Of course Don Leclair when asked the question would not reveal how much though, see 2006 Q3 earnings transcript http://seekingalpha.com/article/19023 . Merrill Lynch's estimated value of $1.5bil was made earlier in the year by John Murphy (their Automotive Industry Analyst). How he got this value I do not know, and I cannot find any evidence of Ford opening the books to Merrill Lynch, so how indeed have LR been exposed? Also Merrill Lynch appears to have nothing to do with the (never truly confirmed) Ford appointed banks' review of JLR and their potential sale. This apparently will fall to HSBC, Morgan Stanley & Goldman Sachs instead. You also go on about LR going all coy about their PD costs, and I agree that LR is going to need to develop the existing T5 chassis using lightweight architecture. If it is to be done like the Jags in Aluminium then in my experience of costs for Pressure Die Cast and Extrusion Die tooling, they can cost considerably less than conventional steel stamping tooling. Must admit I'm not sure how expensive the tooling for ally stamping is though. I'm sure that piece costs will be higher than conventional steel, but we're dealing with $50000+ vehicles here and the tooling/volume trade-off have different numbers. Also you said in the past that Ford of Australia is a beacon for resourceful & impecunious evolution of existing architecture, and I'm impressed with FoA acheivements as well (helped by a steady stream of british ex-pats!) However I do not see why with JLR's current line-up they shouldn't be able to do any different. Also JLR don't bring anything to Ford in terms of technology? Well they paid for the V6 & V8 diesels out of their budget and the fruit of this may just get keep FNA's truck division ahead of the game. There is a lot of other stuff that is gagging to be utilised as well. Undoubtedly there is a lot of hostility towards JLR on this website, some of it no doubt further inflamed by my fellow countryman's rather bizarre postings. But I feel that Land Rover's achievements (adjustmenting to 3 very different owners in less than 10 years, recent comprehensive & massive product replacement, successful move upmarket & steady sales increase, perhaps still unacceptable but definitely improving warranty) over the last few years have been too easily dismissed and has received some undeserved prejudice. Q2 2007 PAG numbers should be interesting, especially after LR and Volvo's improvement in H1 sales and Jag's reduction in exposure to Halewood's under-utilisation. Back on topic I don't see Volvo being sold either, they have brought a lot to the mix in terms of electronics and safety tech. FoE have had far more input into C1 and EUCD than Volvo would like to admit though! And Volvo would not want to lose that either.