non-EB DI engines

[jpvbs]

Hello all!

 

I'm a long time reader (Ford World News anyone?), first time poster...

 

Anyway, there has been plenty of discussion about the upcoming EcoBoost direct injected engines coming (the 3.5 V6 at least). I have a feeling that the general population will be somewhat disappointed when they finally release the turbo cars but they return EPA numbers that are about the same as the current non-turbo (and non-DI) cars. I understand that the mpg numbers might look good if they apply the logic of "it could've had a V8", but to the typical consumer, won't the ECO part be a hard sell if it gets the same (or only slighty improved) mileage as the base engine? Is it effective marketing to compare it to something that doesn't exist? Or will DI make that significant of an improvement in efficiency?

 

What I am really interested in though are the plans for using DI on the base non-turbo engines. Has anyone heard what Ford's plans are for this? GM is already starting to mainstream their DI V6.

[NickF1011]

I'm hoping we'll see some naturally-aspirated DI versions of the EB engines also. Haven't heard anything definitive though.

 

As for the fuel economy concerns, well, I wouldn't say they are comparing the numbers to engines that don't exist. Consumers will be able to compare them to vehicles from competitors, which I think is what Ford wants them to do. Consumers can look at the power the Ford EB vehicle makes, note its fuel economy, and then compare it to a competitor who might be offering a vehicle with similar power from a larger engine, and note the fuel economy difference. Hopefully the differences will be substantial enough to make people take note.

 

I don't think anyone would be expecting a more powerful optional motor to get better fuel economy than the less-powerful base engine. That's rarely ever been the case for any automakers in the past, so I don't think there's much need for concern there.

[Devodev]

It seems to me that right now Ford is making it look like a 1:1 DI-to-turbo ratio. However I agree with your thinking as GM is showing a bit more flexibility with just the DI like in the CTS and I think Ford may follow suit in the future. It would've been nice to see the MKS debut with a 3.7L DI and then drop a 3.5L twin-turbo instead of making everyone wait for the main attraction.

[blazerdude20]

Hello all!

 

I'm a long time reader (Ford World News anyone?), first time poster...

 

Anyway, there has been plenty of discussion about the upcoming EcoBoost direct injected engines coming (the 3.5 V6 at least). I have a feeling that the general population will be somewhat disappointed when they finally release the turbo cars but they return EPA numbers that are about the same as the current non-turbo (and non-DI) cars. I understand that the mpg numbers might look good if they apply the logic of "it could've had a V8", but to the typical consumer, won't the ECO part be a hard sell if it gets the same (or only slighty improved) mileage as the base engine? Is it effective marketing to compare it to something that doesn't exist? Or will DI make that significant of an improvement in efficiency?

 

What I am really interested in though are the plans for using DI on the base non-turbo engines. Has anyone heard what Ford's plans are for this? GM is already starting to mainstream their DI V6.

 

heres the thing the eb 3.5 wont get much better mpg then the regular 3.5l, but the turbo and DI allow smaller engines to make similar power to the bigger engines.

 

so a 2.5l is making similar power to the 3.5l in say an edge but is getting much better mileage then the v6.

 

the current edge gets 24 hwy, so with the expected 25% improvement a2.5l EB edge should be able to get around 30 hwy or 20+city.

 

disclaimer: i could very well be wrong but this is my understanding of the situation

Edited September 26, 2008 by blazerdude20

[Devodev]

I'm hoping we'll see some naturally-aspirated DI versions of the EB engines also. Haven't heard anything definitive though.

 

I don't think anyone would be expecting a more powerful optional motor to get better fuel economy than the less-powerful base engine. That's rarely ever been the case for any automakers in the past, so I don't think there's much need for concern there.

 

 

I think that's a great point. Ford is building up excitement like EB will be the main powertrain for all of their vehicles...which is smart from a marketing point of view. But when you look at actual projected numbers, it has to be an optional upgrade like we've always had, the engine just may have less/same displacement and more technology than decades past.

[DTP Body Door Hang]

Hello all!

 

I'm a long time reader (Ford World News anyone?), first time poster...

 

Anyway, there has been plenty of discussion about the upcoming EcoBoost direct injected engines coming (the 3.5 V6 at least). I have a feeling that the general population will be somewhat disappointed when they finally release the turbo cars but they return EPA numbers that are about the same as the current non-turbo (and non-DI) cars. I understand that the mpg numbers might look good if they apply the logic of "it could've had a V8", but to the typical consumer, won't the ECO part be a hard sell if it gets the same (or only slighty improved) mileage as the base engine? Is it effective marketing to compare it to something that doesn't exist? Or will DI make that significant of an improvement in efficiency?

 

What I am really interested in though are the plans for using DI on the base non-turbo engines. Has anyone heard what Ford's plans are for this? GM is already starting to mainstream their DI V6.

 

We were told at a meeting that next year DEP is supposed to start running the 2.0 DI late next year.

[jpvbs]

I think here, we all understand the efficiency advantage of the EcoBoost, but my concern is that in today's market, where fuel efficiency is becoming so important, there might be some backlash against "ECO" boost if it isn't really significantly more efficient than the base engine that it will inevitably be compared to. If Ford can sell a turbo direct injected engine for only $700 more then why not just drop the base engine entirely - at least in higher priced models where that amount isn't a deal breaker.

 

Or just drop the turbos and keep the DI for the base engines and call them EcoInjected and call the turbo one hurricanes :happy feet:

[battyr]

I once thought that Ford needs to put DI in everything. The trueth is that Ford is limited by resources. Also people who buy smaller cars care more about the cost of the car than the actual fuel efficiency. I am now thinking that Ford need to put everything into getting the EB onto the market fast. Once that is done, then they can worry about NA DI.

 

Good candidates for NA DI would be truck's and any car with undersized engines. Trucks need DI just because Ford needs to pull any trick that they can do to improve fuel efficiency. Some Ford trucks have smaller engines than GM trucks. They can benefit from DI's power too. If you have any vehicle with an under sized engine, DI might be all you need to fix the problem. Adding DI would be cheaper than designing a bigger engine, or redesigning a car to take a bigger engine.

[Ralph Greene]

I feel the same way. I don't give a toot about a bunch of power in a people mover. Just give me 150 HP in a 3500 lb car, with a decent transmission to get it around, them max out the gas mileage.

 

I'll just keep trading Mustangs every few years for power. My wife's 2005 Montego....with a 3.0 DOHC engine, 203 HP with 6 speed auto will deliver 28-30 MPG in higheway driving tank after tank. 22-23 around town. That's better than the 3.5 in real world use. I would not trade that engine/trans combo for the 3.5....and I've driven a new Sable. It's (3.0) a little weak, but who cares with mileage like that? Just imagine a package like that, with updated 3.0 and DI, getting even better mileage for a people mover. I bet engineers can improve on that by now. DI would be fine.

 

We must stop this fascination with HP in people movers. And put 600 HP in next GT 500.

Edited September 26, 2008 by Ralph Greene

[FordBuyer]

It seems to me that right now Ford is making it look like a 1:1 DI-to-turbo ratio. However I agree with your thinking as GM is showing a bit more flexibility with just the DI like in the CTS and I think Ford may follow suit in the future. It would've been nice to see the MKS debut with a 3.7L DI and then drop a 3.5L twin-turbo instead of making everyone wait for the main attraction.

 

 

I personally am not interested in the turbo, but am interested in DI. So I think the above poster made a good point. Hopefully all Ford engines will get DI and turbo will be option for those who want extra power.

[jpd80]

I feel the same way. I don't give a toot about a bunch of power in a people mover. Just give me 150 HP in a 3500 lb car, with a decent transmission to get it around, them max out the gas mileage.

Can do Ralph,

It's called a 2.2 turbo diesel Mondeo and has 175 hp @4000 and 300 lbft @1800.

On Euro test cycle it gets 7.5 litres/100 klm which is roughly equal to combined 31 US mpg.

[Edstock]

IMHO, it's all about torque and 6-speed transmissions, to keep in the sweet-spot of the torque curve.

 

DI might be a worthwhile option. Base car is port injection.

 

Then again, IIRC, Ford is getting serious with alcohol injection. Whether that will be just for EB or not, who knows?

 

Back in the early-mid 70's, a service manager at a Ford dealer remarked to me that the 400-cube mill gave better mileage than the 351. Torque.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

My feelings on this were and are still that Ford should invest in some DI only engine setups for some of their vehicles.

 

Case in point, it looks like the 3.7L version of the D35 will be the base engine in the F-150 one day. While it will undoubtedly produce more torque and horsepower than the outgoing 4.2L V6 and even out HP the 4.6L 2V, its torque will still be a bit short for the bulk of the vehicle in my book. Using a DI version of said engine and using the standard estimate of 10% torque increase when properly tuned, you'll have a 3.7L v6 that generates just under 300 lbs of torque and with similar HP numbers. That's a phenomenal base truck engine that will get better gas mileage than even the extra fuel mileage 4.6L setup.

 

My targets for the DI tech would be the PIP D30. I believe that if they had gone ahead and planned for the PIP D30 to have DI, it could be capable of producing 235 lbs of torque, 250 hp, and return better gas mileage than the D35 does now in any of its applications, and not just by a little either. The 2.0L I4 would be phenomenal with DI. It produces almost 150 lbs of torque now as it is, with DI, that could be over 165 lbs while still using about the same amount of fuel. That would be a great base engine for the Fusion and get better mpg than most of the competition.

 

GM once commented that DI doesn't really give much of a mpg boost to current engines, that's because their approach was to just try to apply it to existing engines and see where it gets them. You need to think systemic, how much torque do you need for your targeted amount of acceleration? Go for the smallest real displacement you can use with DI to achieve that amount. That where you save fuel, you reduce the size of the engine and as a result, reduce its mass, so there's less to carry around. And, since you're using a smaller displacement to achieve that power, you use less fuel in the process. So, where you currently use a 3.5L engine, a 3.2 will suffice. Where you use a 2.3L, a 2.0L will work. Its not much of a difference on the surface, but, its another step to reducing fuel consumption.

[theoldwizard]

I'm hoping we'll see some naturally-aspirated DI versions of the EB engines also. Haven't heard anything definitive though.

Mot likely , at least in the next 3-5 years.

 

As for the fuel economy concerns, well, I wouldn't say they are comparing the numbers to engines that don't exist.

Well I agree with the original poster.

 

Sure, this is probably not an issue for the MKS/MKT crowd. I'm willing to bet that the "take rate" for EcoBoost on Taurus/Flex/Edge will be less than 25%, maybe even less than 10%.

 

The big win for EcoBoost is when they can truly substitute a 4 cylinder EcoBoost for a V6 (like on future Fusion, Escape and Explorer)

Edited September 26, 2008 by theoldwizard

[NickF1011]

Sure, this is probably not an issue for the MKS/MKT crowd. I'm willing to bet that the "take rate" for EcoBoost on Taurus/Flex/Edge will be less than 25%, maybe even less than 10%.

 

I doubt Ford would expect it to be any higher than that anyway. What was the take rate for the SHO compared to the regular Taurus, maybe 3%? It'll be nice to have the option at least available though...