Ford Aims To Exceed Fed Fuel Requirements

[ANTAUS]

LINK-Wardsauto.com

[94bronco]

I say Ford and GM just boycott CAFE ratings and tell the government to fuck off and let the people decide what they want.

[suv_guy_19]

I say Ford and GM just boycott CAFE ratings and tell the government to fuck off and let the people decide what they want.

 

Fuel economy needs to be improved. We can't count on cheap oil and we can't count on reliable supplies. We need to kick the addiction over time and it has to start now.

[ANTAUS]

Some interesting stuff in there...

 

"Ford has been looking at ways to expand its range of fuel-efficient engines, including a 2.7L V-6 based on the 3.5L architecture, Samardzich says. But there may not be much to be gained by the smaller V-6.

 

“I’m struggling with the advantage you get with a turbocharged I-4 compared to a 2.7L V-6,” she says. “But we’re looking at those studies all the time.”

 

A bit of redundancy, just stick with the damn Egoboost I4s.

 

"Gioia says they will better the Toyota Camry hybrid by at least 5 mpg (2.1 km/L) in the city.

The Camry Hybrid achieves 43/37 mpg (5.4-6.4L/100 km) city/highway."

 

That would be impressive if it did....

[94bronco]

Fuel economy needs to be improved. We can't count on cheap oil and we can't count on reliable supplies. We need to kick the addiction over time and it has to start now.

If someone feels it needs to be improved they can make that decision for themselves and go buy a Hybrid, However by putting regulations in place it limits the amount of vehicles that may fit my criteria in the future which is a bunch of crap. The government needs to get their noses out of this shit and just let us the people make our own decision regarding what we want to drive.

[rmc523]

I don't feel like reseraching it, but Camry Hybrid doesn't get 43 city mpgs does it? Is it 34 perhaps?

[RichardJensen]

“I’m struggling with the advantage you get with a turbocharged I-4 compared to a 2.7L V-6,” she says. “But we’re looking at those studies all the time.”

 

A bit of redundancy, just stick with the damn Egoboost I4s.

Meh. Got to look at stuff all the time. Nobody's saying throw millions at a 2.7L V6 and then abandon it weeks before launch.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Unless they come up with a new block that dimensionally shrinks the D35's measurements and weight proportionately to the displacement, it just doesn't make sense. A 2.7L V6 with GDI can make 210/200 hp/tq and return excellent fuel economy while also achieving the smoothness of a v6. But, to saddle a 2.7L with the size and weight of a 3.5L v6, and you loose most of the advantage.

[TomServo92]

I don't feel like reseraching it, but Camry Hybrid doesn't get 43 city mpgs does it? Is it 34 perhaps?

 

Per FuelEconomy.gov, the Camry hybrid gets 33 city/34 highway.

[2b2]

I don't feel like reseraching it, but Camry Hybrid doesn't get 43 city mpgs does it? Is it 34 perhaps?

 

I made the supreme sacrifice and went here

 

that "T brand", itself says 33/34

[theoldwizard]

“I’m struggling with the advantage you get with a turbocharged I-4 compared to a 2.7L V-6,” she says. “But we’re looking at those studies all the time.”

 

A bit of redundancy, just stick with the damn Egoboost I4s.

While not stated, I'm betting that is a NA PFI 2.7L V6. The obvious reason they are even considering it is COST :rolleyes: !

 

Gee, those DI injectors and that special high pressure fuel pump plus that US built turbo must cost lots of Euros and $$$ if a V6 would be more cost effective. Maybe down a bit on power, but you have to compete first on cost.

[wolfpack219]

As a stockholder in this company and a huge fan......This information makes me smile as I know they will be back to life coming out with new quality products such as these hybrids and Raptors even!

[rmc523]

Per FuelEconomy.gov, the Camry hybrid gets 33 city/34 highway.

 

 

I made the supreme sacrifice and went here

 

that "T brand", itself says 33/34

 

Yeah, I knew those numbers (in the article) were wrong for the Camry Hybrid.

[RichardJensen]

While not stated, I'm betting that is a NA PFI 2.7L V6. The obvious reason they are even considering it is COST :rolleyes: !

 

Gee, those DI injectors and that special high pressure fuel pump plus that US built turbo must cost lots of Euros and $$$ if a V6 would be more cost effective. Maybe down a bit on power, but you have to compete first on cost.

Which would lead to this conclusion: Ecoboost ain't gonna be a base engine anywhere....

 

You'd want an upcharge to cover those costs, no point in rolling the cost of the turbos, DIs, etc., into the base price, ergo, it would seem the 2.7L is being considered as a base engine

Edited November 5, 2008 by RichardJensen

[wescoent]

2.7L V6, if based on the 3.5L Cyclone with no goodies, would yield about 205hp.

[silvrsvt]

What would be the advantage of having the 2.7L V6 over the current 3L V6?

[RichardJensen]

One block, one set of heads, etc.

[rkisler]

Which would lead to this conclusion: Ecoboost ain't gonna be a base engine anywhere....

 

You'd want an upcharge to cover those costs, no point in rolling the cost of the turbos, DIs, etc., into the base price, ergo, it would seem the 2.7L is being considered as a base engine

 

True....

 

Or maybe the 2.7l is being considered as a more fuel-efficient optional engine.

 

The interview was interesting as it signaled an internal debate is going hot and heavy. As Wizard says, cost is key. So now is the time you start adding up all of the "engine as shipped" costs -- in painful part by part detail. The V6 has volume going for it, but an extra head, pistons, and other bits. I4 has expensive add-ons. I would assume that Ford would be turning even non-turbo powertrains into direct injection during this time period, so we can't be totally sure what the output of a 2.7 V6 would be vs. a turbo I4.

 

Body architecture plays a part. If Ford were to be really bold, they might go to an all I engine lineup on the next gen C/D, like FoE. Then you can tidy up the front end because you don't have to provide so much engine compartment fore/aft space for crash. But...(and this is my opinion) if that action is too risky given the V6 competition in the US and you have to package a V6 anyway, then a smaller V6 comes into play. Might there be some chance that the next-gen C/D platform is the proximate cause of the internal engine debate?

 

And investment plays a part. Capacity vs. requirements of the facilities vs. planned volume. Engine plants are very, very expensive.

 

I will say that I enjoyed Ford's 2.5l Duratec a lot more than the 3.0l Duratec, in both a "normal" Contour and my Contour SVT. It was a lot less harsh.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Ford are going to exceed 35 MPG WOW!

 

Ford of Europe were doing that in the 1950's.

[RichardJensen]

Ford are going to exceed 35 MPG WOW!

 

Ford of Europe were doing that in the 1950's.

Yeah. With tiny tiny cars.

[lfeg]

Ford are going to exceed 35 MPG WOW!

 

Ford of Europe were doing that in the 1950's.

 

 

So? Who would want to give up what the cars have today to drive an old Ford Anglia? By the time you add the safety equipment that is now mandated, along with the emissions control equipment required, you would be better off in a Yugo.

[timmm55]

Fuel economy needs to be improved. We can't count on cheap oil and we can't count on reliable supplies. We need to kick the addiction over time and it has to start now.

 

+1

[ANTAUS]

I can understand the cost of an Egoboost I-4, with turbos and cooling , etc. being more expensive then a 2.7L V7, BUT when you factor in the cost of designing it, retrofitting it to work on specific vehicles, downtime at the factories to change over to the new build, doesnt it end up logistically to be more expensive?

 

I mean as it is, I find the 3.5L/3.7? V6 to be redundant when they make almost the same power. And the new 3.0L is getting up there in power with the 3.5L, so I see it as being too close for comfort amongst those 3. I see Nissan's 3.5/3.7L a bit more logical because you have a "With DI, or without DI?" which is what makes it different have a power spectrum of about 40HP on whatever vehicle they use it.

 

I would figure in Fords case, they would have the I4, WITH, or Without Egoboost. So if you want Egoboost, it can pick up where the 3.0/3.5L left off and just consolidate their engine families a bit. My frustration with the 3.5L was all the development time it got...by the time the 3.5L came out, other automakers (been there, done that) were already moving to 3.7L and 4.0L.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

So? Who would want to give up what the cars have today to drive an old Ford Anglia? By the time you add the safety equipment that is now mandated, along with the emissions control equipment required, you would be better off in a Yugo.

 

Its only 50 years behind Ford of Europe though.

[procyon]

Perhaps what is being considered is a 2.7L V6 Ecoboost? There may be some advantages of doing a twin turbo 2.7L V6 over the 2.5L I4 Ecoboost. Cost would not be one of them though.

 

Don't underestimate the number of new components and tooling that would be required to make a 2.7L Cyclone. The 2.0L Duratec DAMB V6 used in the Jaguar had unique crankshaft, piston, and con rods. It was a short stroke version of the 2.5L DAMB so the block was common. They would have to change bore size going from 3.5L to 2.7L so add unique block and likely cyl. heads to the list too.

Edited November 5, 2008 by procyon