Ford will replace Falcon's I6 with an imported V6 within 2 years

[igor]

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mellor.nsf...A257315000E36BE

 

The Australians do not seem to thrilled about their awesome I6 being replaced with "inherently unbalanced" V6.. especially since the new engine will not be locally produced.

 

However for us following the whole FoMoCo this is exciting, as the engine incompatibility between OZ RWD and NA RWD programs was one of the key reasons why they could not merge.

 

So what does this mean?

1) nothing beyond the stated - Ford is unifying their engine offerings similarly to what Gm has been doing lately.

2) The rumored Huntsmen which is the NEXT (read after Orion) Falcon program was made much more serious and possible pulled forward with 2010 launch. The importance of Huntsmen is that it will be a ground up redesign, and as such I cannot imagine it resulting in anything less scalable and "globalizable" than GM's ZETA.

 

I sure hope for the latter.

 

JPD80 .. do your Australian sources have any insight?

 

Igor

[Hemiman]

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mellor.nsf...A257315000E36BE

 

The Australians do not seem to thrilled about their awesome I6 being replaced with "inherently unbalanced" V6.. especially since the new engine will not be locally produced.

 

However for us following the whole FoMoCo this is exciting, as the engine incompatibility between OZ RWD and NA RWD programs was one of the key reasons why they could not merge.

 

So what does this mean?

1) nothing beyond the stated - Ford is unifying their engine offerings similarly to what Gm has been doing lately.

2) The rumored Huntsmen which is the NEXT (read after Orion) Falcon program was made much more serious and possible pulled forward with 2010 launch. The importance of Huntsmen is that it will be a ground up redesign, and as such I cannot imagine it resulting in anything less scalable and "globalizable" than GM's ZETA.

 

I sure hope for the latter.

 

JPD80 .. do your Australian sources have any insight?

 

Igor

 

 

Now if GM is smart, they'll do what it takes to get the Vortec 4.2 I-6 in the Holden line up. The AU folks like their inline sixes almost as much as we like our V-8's.

 

More "Stupid Ford Tricks"

[igor]

Now if GM is smart, they'll do what it takes to get the Vortec 4.2 I-6 in the Holden line up. The AU folks like their inline sixes almost as much as we like our V-8's.

 

More "Stupid Ford Tricks"

 

you do know that Holden DID HAVE an I6, but in the Zeta, GM replaced it with their corporate "HF" 3.6l V6 that you see in everything from the Vue, to the Lambdas to the STS?

 

Ford is basically following Gm;s steps ...

 

GM does let Holden assemble the engine in Australia, preserving some of the jobs, but the new VE Commodore and the rest of the Zeta Holdens are designed for the V6, not I6 - one of the reasons why the front can be so short.

 

Igor

[jpd80]

you do know that Holden DID HAVE an I6, but in the Zeta, GM replaced it with their corporate "HF" 3.6l V6 that you see in everything from the Vue, to the Lambdas to the STS?

 

Ford is basically following Gm;s steps ...

 

GM does let Holden assemble the engine in Australia, preserving some of the jobs, but the new VE Commodore and the rest of the Zeta Holdens are designed for the V6, not I6 - one of the reasons why the front can be so short.

 

Igor

 

Quick GM Australia History lesson.

The old Holden 6 was dropped back in 1985, we swithced to ULP and Cats in 1986,

so Holden used the Skyline 3.0 and 3.0 Turbo Inline 6 for two years before settling on the Buick 3.8 until 2005.

At that Time Holden's new HFV6 engine plant came on line.

 

As to the Falcon, there's a bit of annoyance because Ford hasn't officially said it's discontinuing the 4.0 litre.

The enggine or more correctly its bore spacing is th last remaining original hard point.

The inference is drawn because of our new emission rules - Euro IV, the implenentation begins as of July 2008.

Any models released after that must comply from get go, existing models have until 2010.

Ford is launching the Orion in March next year, so the longest the Inline 6 can go without Euro IV compliance is July 2010.

 

There's a lot of discussions going on at FoA at the moment, nothing has been agreed but for longevity and unification

I think the Duratec 35/37 will get the nod. Knowing Ford Australia, they'll want a different size to keep the

low end torque characteristics of the current engine. For the record, the 4.0 DOHC Inline 6 is actually more advanced than the

Duratec 35, it already has independant variable cam timing and dual inlet runner manifold.

The thing produces 285 lbft @ 2000 and 253 HP @ 5200 so it's got gobs of torque all the way through,

that's the big worry with a Duratec 35, the curent 6-speed autos go 0-100 KPH (62mph) in 5.2 seconds so

the next engine musn't be seen as a retrograde step. The GM 3.6 litre HFV6 is similar to the Duratec 35 and it is gutless

down low compared to the lusty 4.0 I6. Convincing the Falcon buyers that the V6 is just as good, that's the challenge.

 

With the Inline 6 carrying through to 2010, that will be 50 years of continued manufacturing of Falcon and Inline 6.

If that isn't a magnificent effort and a total demonstration of continued evolution, then I'm not here.

From the Bay of Pigs to the current Iraq/Afganistan conflict, from JFK in 1960 to George W Bush, the Falcon has been there.

A CGI of 2008 FPV Typhoon

All images courtesy of: http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/stor...5001021,00.html

 

John

Edited July 13, 2007 by jpd80

[Blue II]

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mellor.nsf...A257315000E36BE

 

The Australians do not seem to thrilled about their awesome I6 being replaced with "inherently unbalanced" V6.. especially since the new engine will not be locally produced.

 

However for us following the whole FoMoCo this is exciting, as the engine incompatibility between OZ RWD and NA RWD programs was one of the key reasons why they could not merge.

 

So what does this mean?

1) nothing beyond the stated - Ford is unifying their engine offerings similarly to what Gm has been doing lately.

2) The rumored Huntsmen which is the NEXT (read after Orion) Falcon program was made much more serious and possible pulled forward with 2010 launch. The importance of Huntsmen is that it will be a ground up redesign, and as such I cannot imagine it resulting in anything less scalable and "globalizable" than GM's ZETA.

 

I sure hope for the latter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

A 60° V-6 such as the D35 Cyclone does not have balance issues.

Edited July 13, 2007 by Blue II

[Blue II]

Quick GM Australia History lesson.

The old Holden 6 was dropped back in 1985, we swithced to ULP and Cats in 1986,

so Holden used the Skyline 3.0 and 3.0 Turbo Inline 6 for two years before settling on the Buick 3.8 until 2005.

At that Time Holden's new HFV6 engine plant came on line.

 

As to the Falcon, there's a bit of annoyance because Ford hasn't officially said it's discontinuing the 4.0 litre.

The enggine or more correctly its bore spacing is th last remaining original hard point.

The inference is drawn because of our new emission rules - Euro IV, the implenentation begins as of July 2008.

Any models released after that must comply from get go, existing models have until 2010.

Ford is launching the Orion in March next year, so the longest the Inline 6 can go without Euro IV compliance is July 2010.

 

There's a lot of discussions going on at FoA at the moment, nothing has been agreed but for longevity and unification

I think the Duratec 35/37 will get the nod. Knowing Ford Australia, they'll want a different size to keep the

low end torque characteristics of the current engine. For the record, the 4.0 DOHC Inline 6 is actually more advanced than the

Duratec 35, it already has independant variable cam timing and dual inlet runner manifold.

The thing produces 285 lbft @ 2000 and 253 HP @ 5200 so it's got gobs of torque all the way through,

that's the big worry with a Duratec 35, the curent 6-speed autos go 0-100 KPH (62mph) in 5.2 seconds so

the next engine musn't be seen as a retrograde step. The GM 3.6 litre HFV6 is similar to the Duratec 35 and it is gutless

down low compared to the lusty 4.0 I6. Convincing the Falcon buyers that the V6 is just as good, that's the challenge.

 

With the Inline 6 carrying through to 2010, that will be 50 years of continued manufacturing of Falcon and Inline 6.

If that isn't a magnificent effort and a total demonstration of continued evolution, then I'm not here.

From the Bay of Pigs to the current Iraq/Afganistan conflict, from JFK in 1960 to George W Bush, the Falcon has been there.

A CGI of 2008 FPV Typhoon

All images courtesy of: http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/stor...5001021,00.html

 

John

 

Switching to the D35 may be the prelude to the Global RWD platform? You guys should ask for the Twin Force and Boss.

Edited July 13, 2007 by Blue II

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Current D35 produces 245 lbs of torque and ~265 hp.

 

A bump in displacement to 3.7L should bring torque up to a healthier 260 to 270 lbs depending on tuning. HP should rise to 275 or so.

 

Then, slap on direct gasoline injection and you have about a 10% increase in torque and a comensurate increase in HP. That gives you a ballpark figure of 285 to 295 lbs of torque and a HP rating of just about 300 or so. And those figures are based on US 87 octane pump regular gas.

 

If you tune it for 93 octane pump premium, that's about another 10% increase in power. That will give you a torque rating of around 300-315 lbs and hp of around 320 to 330 hp.

 

Something tells me that you won't be disappointed in the GDI 3.7L v6 that you're likely to get as a replacement for the DOHC 4.0L I6. It will also allow them to shorten the front of the falcon, shaving some weight, tightening up the handling a bit, and offering up more ability for innovation in the design progression. Technically speaking, I believe that the D37 may be a little lighter than the 4.0L I6, and, will likely be even more eager to rev. And, get this, it does this without variable exhaust cam timing, so you have further room to innovate.

 

So, yeah, the I6 has had a magnificent history and a long list of satisfied customers, but, in the name of making things take advantage of the economies of scale that are available, things like this must be done. I think this will allow for increased investment in the whole falcon platform as the money doesn't need to be dumped into a limited production engine. This will allow for a better falcon and perhaps a version for the North American market.

[BlackHorse]

Pound for pound an inline 6 is typically gong to generate more torque then a V motor just by virtue of having a longer crank shaft. One of the biggest torque monsters Ford ever made was the old 300 cubic inch inline 6 motor. If set up properly that thing would rip patches of asphalt off the street and you couldn't kill it with anything less than a direct hit from a nuclear blast. lol So I understand the hesitation on the part of our Aussie friends about switching to a V6. Odds are it will not have the low end torque the inline motor does. However, modern tuning technology being what it is, they still might be able to make the car equally as fast in the numbers department, even if you don't feel the set you back in the seat torque.

[Edstock]

Pound for pound an inline 6 is typically gong to generate more torque then a V motor just by virtue of having a longer crank shaft.

 

Why?

[BlackHorse]

Why?

 

I'm no technical expert but basically the longer your crankshaft the more force you have to apply to keep it spinning is the simple answer. I'm sure some of our more technically oriented posters could give you a more definitive answer

[SVT_MAN]

I can't explain technically why an inline 6 generates so much torque. I can tell you, from personal experience, that the torque of our 1996 Jaguar XJ6 with the faithful 4L inline 6 is phenomonal though. I mean, the thing PULLS HARD from a stop and the power is smooth. The thing is, you don't really feel the "VTEC effect" with that engine. I'm not saying that's bad or good, but I like it. The car pulls insanely hard from a dead stop and never lets up right up to 6,000 RPMs or so (whenever it decides to shift).

 

It's a dramatic difference from our 2000 XJ8 L which has the 4L AJ V8. That engine is GREAT, awesome engine. But in a way, the 4L I6 is almost a better engine. The AJ V8 has an awesome tune if you are a lead foot, but around town it seems rather sedate. The inline 6 on the other hand, always seems at the ready, no matter what gear and it's just ready to pounce. Of course, our L suffers a slight weight disadvantage given its extended wheelbase, but the inline in the XJ6 has an inherently sublime quality about it that makes it feel almost more Jaguar than the V8 our of XJ8L, even though I love the XJ8 and its V8 sounds. In a way, the XJ8 is stil not quite as .. pure though .. so I can see why they might object.

 

Plus, has anybody here heard a big-bore inline 6? Great sound. And, again, this is speaking from experience. When my dad starts the motor in the morning, I can hear it beneath me. I live in the room above our garage. What a sound. It sounds as if a freight train is roaring through. It's awesome.

 

I can't find any pics of the XJ8 L at the moment, but here's our XJ6:

 

Edited July 13, 2007 by SVT_MAN

[BlackHorse]

I believe it was Masserati that used to make a car with an inline 8 cylinder, I don't recall the model name. At any rate, they had to quit making that motor because if you got on the gas to hard and fast the motor could actually generate so much torque that it could warp the crank shaft.

[Ford-150]

i would really like a typhoon, also what does this mean for the turbo inline 6?

[Hemiman]

The length of the I-6 crank has nothing to do with torque. Most of the torque advantage of an I-6 is due to rod length. Additionaly, many times they're less over square than their bent-6 brethren, which can move the torque band down lower in the RPM range. Also, an I-6 has perfect primary & secondary balance. A 60deg V-6 only has perfect primary balance, the crank has counter wieghts to correct for secondary issues.

Edited July 13, 2007 by Hemiman

[Hemiman]

It will also allow them to shorten the front of the falcon,

 

 

More "Short Hood Syndrome" Let's make everything look like a minivan!

[jpd80]

i would really like a typhoon, also what does this mean for the turbo inline 6?

Gone in 2010 too, I'm afraid.

 

All of you have extremly valid points and we will enjoy the 4.0 litre in her twilight years.

Over many years Ford Australia settled on the 4.0 litre engine size because it gave the superior

low end torque needed to shift a big car like the Falcon with the origional 3-speed auto gearbox.

 

With the development of 4-speed auto and now 6-speed auto transmissions, the need for maximum

bottom end torque is not as great, so engines can be tuned for better mid and upper end power.

As evidenced in the Taurus, a 3.5 litre engine would be considered a good entry level engine.

 

Sometimes you have to give up the thing you love to get something better.

With our American friends on board, costs are shared and their impact reduced to manageable.

I look forward to the much anticipated roll out of RWD products at a fraction of the cost GM paid for Zeta.

All of our combined RWD Falcon/Mustang products and derivatives would totally embarrass GM.

I just hope harmonisation comes quickly.

Edited July 13, 2007 by jpd80

[NickF1011]

A CGI of 2008 FPV Typhoon

All images courtesy of: http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/stor...5001021,00.html

 

John

 

 

Other media outlets are reporting that these are REAL DEAL OFFICIAL FORD IMAGES of the Orion. Could it be?? If so, I'm impressed. Of course, I've always liked the FPV variants. I want to see what the plebian base model looks like.

 

Here's a link to some photoshops of the above image: http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52047

 

And link to another article about the original photos: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...5012441,00.html

[Blue II]

More "Short Hood Syndrome" Let's make everything look like a minivan!

 

A Mustang and a V-8 have to fit this platform so it won't be that short.

[NickF1011]

A Mustang and a V-8 have to fit this platform so it won't be that short.

 

Yeah, but even a V8 is shorter than most inline 6's. BMW can manage to stuff a V8 (and ironically enough, an inline 6) under the relatively short hood of the 3-series.

[jpd80]

Other media outlets are reporting that these are REAL DEAL OFFICIAL FORD IMAGES of the Orion. Could it be?? If so, I'm impressed. Of course, I've always liked the FPV variants. I want to see what the plebian base model looks like.

 

Here's a link to some photoshops of the above image: http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52047

 

And link to another article about the original photos: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...5012441,00.html

 

When the guys at Ford Australia Forums looked closely,

they reported them as good chops, the shape of the Ford badge gave it away.

Someone is using a very good 3 D graphics program though.

 

I still feel even the base model will look good and for American tastes,

maybe a chrome 3-bar grille insert between the head lights,

kinda like a mini version of Fusion unit. That would make a world of difference.

[jpd80]

Yeah, but even a V8 is shorter than most inline 6's. BMW can manage to stuff a V8 (and ironically enough, an inline 6) under the relatively short hood of the 3-series.

 

Maybe forward of the fire wall stays the same but the front wheels get pushed forward another 4 to 6 ".

It alters the look completely when you do that.