3.0l in a taurus

[blazerdude20]

with the 3.0l v6 getting some good updates and now having 240hp does anyone think this engine could be the base engine in the new taurus?

 

i remember reading a while back that the whole reason the 3l was saved was because it has a little better FE then the 3.5, perhaps 30mpg if the taurus gets it?

[battyr]

with the 3.0l v6 getting some good updates and now having 240hp does anyone think this engine could be the base engine in the new taurus?

 

i remember reading a while back that the whole reason the 3l was saved was because it has a little better FE then the 3.5, perhaps 30mpg if the taurus gets it?

 

I would think the new 3 L would be perfect in the Taurus. Problem is that people remember that the 3.0 L was under powered in the old Ford 500.

 

You want people to pay a premium price for the Taurus, so you have to have a premium engine.

[Ralph Greene]

with the 3.0l v6 getting some good updates and now having 240hp does anyone think this engine could be the base engine in the new taurus?

 

i remember reading a while back that the whole reason the 3l was saved was because it has a little better FE then the 3.5, perhaps 30mpg if the taurus gets it?

 

I see no reason why that engine would not be a fine engine for that use.....for some people in some locations.

 

We have a 2005 Montego with the old 200 HP DOHC 3.0....and 6 speed Aisin auto. 0-60 in mid-high 8's according to mags at that time....and Ford said the same. Some think this engine is too weak for this use. But I've come to think it's very adequate for our use of this car. Sure....it lacks TQ at low RPM. Sure it has to downshift (sometimes) on long steep climps at 65-75 MPH. (6th downshift to 5th is about 400 RPM....seemless and hardly noticeable).

 

It also will get between 30 and 31 MPG tank after tank on a trip at speed limit in cruise control. 22-23 around town in urban driving. If we lived in mountainous terrain, or hauled a big load, I might would prefer the 3.5, but otherwise don't mind the 3.0. It's the 6 speed auto that makes all the difference. With 6 speed auto, you can use a lower HP/TQ engine for people mover use. Those that knock these relatively low HP large vehicles either haven't driven one much, or look to these people movers to be performance machines, which even the 3.5 does not make them.

 

And just in case you think I'm an always slow driver, I've supercharged my share of Mustangs for performance. But I've come to believe a people mover only needs adequate performance. 4 cylinder Fusiion/Milan performance is fine with me for a people mover sedan. It's all about the transmission and how well it's programed to anticipate your right foot I think. The upgraded 3.0 would suit me fine here in Florida in a Taurus.

Edited December 26, 2008 by Ralph Greene

[2b2]

with the 3.0l v6 getting some good updates and now having 240hp does anyone think this engine could be the base engine in the new taurus? ...

 

No, actually I don't think it'd work out for Ford

they blew it with the 500 not having an optional engine

 

Now a different Brand might just have a chance...

...if they could really make a reputation for the 3.0 in another vehicle first

like

maybe by also offering a forced induction version

&

having those 2 engines be the only engines for that vehicle

(maybe have some light-materials body panels to enhance the effect)

then

also use some of those light-materials in the D3 to keep the glow of the halo going...

 

yup

no doubt about

before intro'ing the new MARQUIS 3.0

(based off the much-shorter-overhangs unibody Explorer!)

ya

gotta

have

the

C O U G A R

 

:D

Edited December 27, 2008 by 2b2

[rmc523]

No, actually I don't think it'd work out for Ford

they blew it with the 500 not having an optional engine

 

Now a different Brand might just have a chance...

...if they could really make a reputation for the 3.0 in another vehicle first

like

maybe by also offering a forced induction version

&

having those 2 engines be the only engines for that vehicle

(maybe have some light-materials body panels to enhance the effect)

then

also use some of those light-materials in the D3 to keep the glow of the halo going...

 

yup

no doubt about

before intro'ing the new MARQUIS 3.0

(based off the much-shorter-overhangs unibody Explorer!)

ya

gotta

have

the

C O U G A R

 

:D

 

LOL, anything to give something to Mercury.....I like that......hey we need to ahhh, "test" this engine....ship it to Mercury. :reading:

[jpd80]

The new 3.0 V6 with 240 hp and 223 lbft sure is a step up from the old Fivehundred version.

I think it would make an excellent base model and may be an affordable "green" large car.

 

DI on the 3.0?

Now, theoldwizard has already said Ford chiefs have nixed DI on naturally aspirated engines but,

a DI 3.0 V6 with the same power and torque as a 3.5 might pique interest - I wonder if they might....

Ford may have to do some "queer ducks" to get government approval for the $9 billion line of credit.

Edited December 27, 2008 by jpd80

[theoldwizard]

DI on the (PIP) 3.0?

Now, theoldwizard has already said Ford chiefs have nixed DI on naturally aspirated engines but,

a DI 3.0 V6 with the same power and torque as a 3.5 might pique interest ...

cost, Cost COST ! How many times do I have to say it ! Alan and Mark have given up their jets. There is another 10% white collar cut coming within less than 60 days.

 

There are 2 "all new" V8s going to launched in the next 2 years.

 

Do you really think Ford is going to spend the money to redesign/retool the D30 head for DI when they already have a running D35 ?

[jpd80]

Do you really think Ford is going to spend the money to redesign/retool the D30 head for DI when they already have a running D35 ?

Of course not, I mentioned it as a possible dog and pony show for the politicians......

 

The money would be better spent developing an EB 2.7 V6

 

 

Edit,

If Ford decides to use the 3.0 V6 in the Taurus, it will be great as is.

Edited December 27, 2008 by jpd80

[BORG]

The D30 may not increase fuel economy in the Taurus since the car is considerably larger and heavier than the Escape and Fusion. In certain situations, a larger displacement engine will achieve better reletive economy in cars that require more off-the-line torque.

[Ralph Greene]

While, as many of you say, the economic situation will probably determine the outcome of this question, it is an interesting idea.

 

The idea that just, perhaps, the tide is turning on this idea that each new model must have more HP than the last one.

 

I believe certain models are what they are because of their engines. A Mustang is a Muscle car, in it's image anyway, and needs to have a muscle car engine available. But....how much power does a stylish economical people mover need? Why does a 3500 lb 4 door sedan, need an engine making 250 or more HP at 6000 RPM. Why not a smaller engine making 150 HP, tuned for TQ at a lower RPM? With a smart 6 or 7 speed transmission? Is there a chance we are moving in that direction?

 

I find it amusing how the press and some of you think the 200 HP 3.0 engine in my wife people mover Montego is not powerful enough for the job. Even though 0-60 numbers are less than 9 seconds, and many vehicles thought to be adequately powered, cannot get to 60 that quickly. It was all about perception that somehow 200 HP was too little for a 3600 LB vehicle. Never mind that it made more TQ at lower RPM than the 221 HP 3.0 used in the Fusion/Milan. And that it has a very smart 6 speed auto transmission. It just didn't advertise enough HP. So the press killed it, and people who didn't understand how well the small engine 6 speed auto works....who never even drove one....killed it. (or maybe the rental car like crude CVT versions killed it). It won't pull a steep hill in 6th without downshifting, like a larger V6 or V 8 will. But you don't have to feed it much when it's loafing either.

 

Is there a chance this tide is turning? That we will purchase vehicles powered for their intended use? Like a company does when it orders a truck? If I buy another Mustang, I hope a 400 HP 5.0 is available, but in our next people mover family sedan, just give me adequate power with terrific economy. I don't mind if the transmission makes up for lower power with more gears. I probably won't buy another Honda Accord, especially with Fusion/ Milan available, but our 4 cylinder Honda Accord is powered just right I think for it's use.

Edited December 27, 2008 by Ralph Greene

[92merc]

The D30 may not increase fuel economy in the Taurus since the car is considerably larger and heavier than the Escape and Fusion. In certain situations, a larger displacement engine will achieve better reletive economy in cars that require more off-the-line torque.

That was my basic thoughts as well. The 3.5L was getting 1MPG better than the 3.0L. And that was also AFTER the EPA changed it's mpg measuring standards. So it's probably more like 2mpg better.

 

Personally, I'd rather Ford optioned for 2.0 and 2.5L Ecoboosted Taurus's than a 3.0 NA engine. 2.0 EB would be basically a replacement for the 3.0NA while getting decent mileage. 2.5L if you want some pep and fun. However, I seriously doubt anything but the 2.5 EB would make it into the Taurus outside of the 3.5 L NA. Just not worth the money to invest at this moment.

[Hugh]

IIRC, D30 is being built on only one line. Once the Escape replacement and 2nd Gen CD3 is out, it will be gone.

[Ralph Greene]

That was my basic thoughts as well. The 3.5L was getting 1MPG better than the 3.0L. And that was also AFTER the EPA changed it's mpg measuring standards. So it's probably more like 2mpg better.

 

Personally, I'd rather Ford optioned for 2.0 and 2.5L Ecoboosted Taurus's than a 3.0 NA engine. 2.0 EB would be basically a replacement for the 3.0NA while getting decent mileage. 2.5L if you want some pep and fun. However, I seriously doubt anything but the 2.5 EB would make it into the Taurus outside of the 3.5 L NA. Just not worth the money to invest at this moment.

 

Sorry....In real world driving....the old 3.0 and 6 speed in FWD cars gets at least a couple MPG better than the 3.5. Our Montego will deliver 30-31 MPG tank after tank after tank cruising at 65-75 MPH....that's measuring gas pumped. 22-23 in urban driving. Many on here report the same thing, not just me. No one reports anywhere near that mileage with 3.5. That's why some of us think the newer 3.0 would be fine, if available.

 

But 3.5 is more powerful and more refined. It's a very modern engine. So most would probably prefer that.

 

Actually I would prefer the 3.5 myself. I defend the older engine/6 speed auto because non one understands what a fine piece of engineering it was when it first came out. The first low HP, adequate performance, 6 speed trans, terrific MPG model. 6 speed trans with low first gear, makes up for a lot in acceleration and getting car moving. I also think the CVT (mostly AWD models as I recall) version was very crude sounding. I notice we don't see the CVT trans in these cars now.

Edited December 27, 2008 by Ralph Greene

[White99GT]

There was nothing crude sounding about the CVT whatsoever, no more so that the 6-speed. Drive the CVT aggressively, you get high rpms. Drive it gently (as you would typically) and it is very smooth. The 3.0L is very smooth and quiet below 2K, it does drone a bit in the 2.5K-3K range, but it drones exactly the same in front of either trans.

 

What was great about the CVT, no downshifts. No drama in the hills...

 

The CVT's problem is that it could only handle 221 lb-ft, it wouldn't hold the 3.5.

[OldZephyr]

Sorry....In real world driving....the old 3.0 and 6 speed in FWD cars gets at least a couple MPG better than the 3.5. Our Montego will deliver 30-31 MPG tank after tank after tank cruising at 65-75 MPH....that's measuring gas pumped. 22-23 in urban driving. Many on here report the same thing, not just me. No one reports anywhere near that mileage with 3.5.

 

 

We've gotten over 30+ MPG frequently with the '08 Taurus SEL on the highway at 60-65 MPH. Well, at least during warm weather. Winter weather here in MN causes mileage to slump -- we got just under 28 MPG on a 350 mile trip today (mainly limited access), and during a recent cold snap when it got well below zero our mileage was down to 25-26 MPG.

Edited December 29, 2008 by OldZephyr

[92merc]

Sorry....In real world driving....the old 3.0 and 6 speed in FWD cars gets at least a couple MPG better than the 3.5. Our Montego will deliver 30-31 MPG tank after tank after tank cruising at 65-75 MPH....that's measuring gas pumped. 22-23 in urban driving. Many on here report the same thing, not just me. No one reports anywhere near that mileage with 3.5. That's why some of us think the newer 3.0 would be fine, if available.

 

The best I've gotten out of my Montego is 27. Never over that in "perfect" driving conditions. FWD to boot. I live about 5 miles out of town, and I get about that 22 in mixed driving. But I don't get near that 30, that's for sure.

[Ralph Greene]

The best I've gotten out of my Montego is 27. Never over that in "perfect" driving conditions. FWD to boot. I live about 5 miles out of town, and I get about that 22 in mixed driving. But I don't get near that 30, that's for sure.

 

My trips every few months are usually on I 95, from Florida to Virginia and back. Flat ideal driving conditions. Under those ideal conditions, this Montego gets amazing mileage on cruise at indicated speed limit. I think it's a good people mover engine/trans combination....especially for it's time.

 

But time moves on, and I imagine I'll enjoy 3.5 in next one.

Edited December 29, 2008 by Ralph Greene

[J-150]

My trips every few months are usually on I 95, from Florida to Virginia and back. Flat ideal driving conditions. Under those ideal conditions, this Montego gets amazing mileage on cruise at indicated speed limit. I think it's a good people mover engine/trans combination....especially for it's time.

 

But time moves on, and I imagine I'll enjoy 3.5 in next one.

 

 

Agreed. I don't know too many 500/Montego/Freestyle drivers that hate the 3.0 with or without the CVT

 

Go to those owners forums and you will see that most of the owners of these cars love them.

 

And the people that pan them would never buy one anyway (even it it returned 500 hp at 75mpg)

Edited December 29, 2008 by J-150

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Technically speaking, on paper, the D30 PIP coupled with the current Ford 6AT would be a good base engine for the 2WD Taurus. It has roughly 40 more HP and 20 more lbs of torque than the D30 that was in the old 500. That alone represents 10% more TQ and 20% more HP. With its efficiency improvments as well, it would be a stellar automotive appliance application.

 

Problem is, that engine is on the way out. The D35 is also, supposedly, cheaper to build than the D30. That right there makes it moot. I'd rather there be an EB 2.0L I4 as a base engine option one day. I think that would do very well.