What about Volvo's 3.2L Inline-6?

[RichardJensen]

What EU Ford product has an I5 in it today ?

Mondeo.

[Deanh]

Mondeo.

watch it Mr Richard Jelly, any more :beatdeadhorse: like that and you'll be put on holiday

[battyr]

For most cars, I see only 2 main engine families and 2 or 3 sub families. For the main family they need a 4 cylinder and a 6 cylinder. IMHO the Volvo I-6 is not one of them. The 3.5L V-6 is. I do see value in a new I-6 that is based off, and built in the same plant, using the same parts as the 4 cylinder. This engine can not be the same size as the 3.5L V-6. Unless it is significanly smaller and a little cheaper than there is little point in having it.

 

The sub families are 1. an even smaller 3 and 4 cylinder for small cars, 2. a large I-6 for trucks and 3. a V-8 for large trucks. Trackor trailors use huge I-6's just because they are efficient. If you want power with efficiency, a huge I-6 is what you want. If you are going to use EcoBoost technology, then a 5.0 L V-8 should be good for all V-8 applications.

[rkisler]

What EU Ford product has an I5 in it today ?

 

Rumor is that the 2.3/2.5L was also drawn up as an I5, but no prototypes were ever built.

 

Wiz, I believe that the 2.5l Duratec is the 5 cylinder.

 

Found in Mondeo and S-Max.

 

And the Focus RS is 5 cylinder.

[Edstock]

And production started Monday! :happy feet:

[battyr]

Wiz, I believe that the 2.5l Duratec is the 5 cylinder.

 

Found in Mondeo and S-Max.

 

And the Focus RS is 5 cylinder.

 

I was under the impression that the Mazda I-5 was never used and was replaced with the Volvo I-5. Shame, because the Mazda I-5 should share parts with the 4 cylinder and save some cost.

 

At the same time Volvo brought out a new I-5, so it could have been the Mazda I-5, re-engineered by Volvo.

[Deanh]

And production started Monday! :happy feet:

torque steer...saved by Revo?

[battyr]

In-line engines with eve numbers of cylinders are inherently balanced (assuming proper crank setup). The cylinder pulses exert pressure on a single plain (somewhat over simplified, but, basically speaking, yes) which can be damped by having another piston in an opposing position. V-engines are less inherently balanced, especially in smaller cylinder counts, than in-line engines. There are V-angles that work better for specific numbers of cylinders. 60 degrees is best for production v-6s, 90 degrees for V-8s, I read once that there is an angle that works best for V-10s that is different than V8s, but I don't remember it. Once you get to a V-12, you treat it like a V6 with twice the cylinders, same for a V-16. Odd number cylinder in-line engines are supposedly more in balance than even number V-engines, but, there's a good case for a balance shaft there given the crank arrangement. Balance shafts in 90 degree V-6s were almost a neccessity. A 60 degree V-6, as far as I know, doesn't need one as it is relatively balanced, but, can still use one to damp down some vibrations. Think of the V-6 as a pair of mated inline 3 engines. The inline 3 cylinder is definitely not a fundamentally balanced design to begin with, and can use a shaft to help reduce vibration. Making that into a V-6 brings all of those odd harmonics together with another I-3. If you do the crank right, you can damp most of that out, but, there is still going to be a little that is left over even under ideal situations.

 

So, the I-6 is smoother due to it being a single plane design with an even number of cylinders. Its quieter, IMHO, than a V6 of equivalent tech due to having only one cam instead of two (when you speak strictly of machinery noise). What makes the Volvo I-6 special is the PTO point off the center of the crank for accessory drive uses, its rather long stroke to bore ratio and its overall lack of length in general. Its specific power output per liter is lower than the PIP D30, though it does have a slight torque advantage (on paper, in real life, its negligable). Where it betters the PIP D30 is in weight (it weighs less) physical dimensions (it is a smaller engine in total volume) and in the designed in ability to take forced induction by the bucket load. If you want to know what driving a car with the volvo I-6 in it would be like here in the US, and don't have a volvo dealership nearby, do take a Fusion PIP D30 car out for a test drive and put a little bit of cotton in your ears. You've got the acuostics and power feel down then. Now, imagine that the engine was a tiny bit smoother and you've got the whole experience. If you want the purchasing experience of buying that I6 in the fusion, go ahead an buy that PIP D30 fusion, add an extra $1000 or so to the price, open up the airbox and throw some dirt on the air filter to reduce your power by about 7 ponies and go drive off. That's about the sum total of difference you'd really experience. Well, the I-6 might be a bit smoother at redline, but, since most of our driving isn't at redline, you likely won't really notice.

 

Good post.

 

Many of the upgrades to the PIP D30 should be applied to the I6 giving it more power. If Volvo can't do this, then Ford should get rid of them.

[theoldwizard]

Can you please tell me whether they used gear drive or chain drive to link the engine and transmission?

The T Drive used a gear drive, similar to a ring and pinion.

 

The old Tornado used a chain and gears, IIRC.

[rkisler]

I was under the impression that the Mazda I-5 was never used and was replaced with the Volvo I-5. Shame, because the Mazda I-5 should share parts with the 4 cylinder and save some cost.

 

At the same time Volvo brought out a new I-5, so it could have been the Mazda I-5, re-engineered by Volvo.

 

Sorry, I am not aware that there was any Mazda I5.

 

The I5 used by FoE is the Volvo engine as far as I know (built in Sweden). I am not sure of the design heritage, but Volvo has been using I5's for over 15 years IIRC.

[RichardJensen]

The old Tornado used a chain and gears, IIRC.

The old Toronado used a Ford patented system, IIRC

[battyr]

Sorry, I am not aware that there was any Mazda I5.

 

The I5 used by FoE is the Volvo engine as far as I know (built in Sweden). I am not sure of the design heritage, but Volvo has been using I5's for over 15 years IIRC.

 

Mazda was said to have developed an I-5 based off their I-4. It was never built.

[Edstock]

The wide drive-chain was made by Morse, IIRC.

[RichardJensen]

I would hate to have to do spark plugs on that thing!!

I've changed the spark plugs on two Vulcan engined vehicles.

 

It's ................................................ interesting.

 

This last time around, in order to get my wrist at the proper angle, I found myself actually sitting on top of the engine and front fender.

 

Surprisingly the middle rear cylinder wasn't the hard one, it was the left rear. That one was one tough son of a gun to get at. I had the thing jacked up and was trying to get at it from underneath, but the exhaust pipes were in the way.

 

Why was I doing it myself? Because I was also having beers and discussing the Vikings and life in general with a friend of mine in his garage.

[lfeg]

I've changed the spark plugs on two Vulcan engined vehicles.

 

It's ................................................ interesting.

 

This last time around, in order to get my wrist at the proper angle, I found myself actually sitting on top of the engine and front fender.

 

Surprisingly the middle rear cylinder wasn't the hard one, it was the left rear. That one was one tough son of a gun to get at. I had the thing jacked up and was trying to get at it from underneath, but the exhaust pipes were in the way.

 

Why was I doing it myself? Because I was also having beers and discussing the Vikings and life in general with a friend of mine in his garage.

You needed more u-joints and/or what is called a "clicker" ratchet. With these it was easy to change the rear bank when in a Taurus, or either bank in an Aerostar. Also, just close your eyes and do it by feel only.

[MKII]

Many of the upgrades to the PIP D30 should be applied to the I6 giving it more power. If Volvo can't do this, then Ford should get rid of them.

????

 

Volvo SI6 engine is offered in two displacements — a 3.0 L turbocharged version and a 3.2 L naturally aspirated version.

The 3.0 L turbocharged engine is available in two versions: light-pressure (LPT)285 hp 295 ft·lb or high-pressure (HPT)350 hp 332 ft·lb .

 

The naturally-aspirated 3.2 L engine produces 235 hp at 6200 rpm and 236 ft·lb of torque at 3200

 

Volvo's B5254T3 5 cylinder, 2.5L or T5 is used in EU Focus ST, Mondeo, S-Max, and Focus RS

[old_fairmont_wagon]

The mazda developed 2.0/2.3L I-4 was indeed originally supposed to spin off a 2.5-2.8L I-5 for use in light trucks and CUVs. It was, AFAIK, never prototyped and only ever existed as a CAD design. F of NA was considering it for a replacement engine for the Vulcan 3.0L V6 for the ranger and possible use in a CUV (Escape or Edge?) as a base engine. The problem with I-5s as they would need to be tuned for use in the north american market, they are no more efficient than a small V6 at making power. So, unless you have a specific packaging need for an I-5, or, as is GMs case, already have in production related I-4 and I-6 engines that can share parts, you have no real incentive to use an I-5. Look closely at GMs 3.5-3.7L I-5 in the Colorado/Canyon. It gets V6 gas mileage and produces less than V6 power. Not an impressive engine in any book. The 2.9L I-4 is decent for a 4 banger, but, at that displacement, you'd expect no less.

 

As has been said many times over, Volvo liked the I-5 because it was narrow and fit well within the crush zones up front that they wanted. With a turbo, it produced decent power. Where it was deficient was in NVH (though, I believe they balance shaft the heck out of the thing to deal with that) and fuel economy. HEck, look at volvo's now out of production I-6, the 2.9L. They did everything possible to it back in the day to get it short. IIRC, it had a very long stroke to bore ratio as well. Needless to say, it left a lot to be desired as I-6s went.

[MKII]

The mazda developed 2.0/2.3L I-4 was indeed originally supposed to spin off a 2.5-2.8L I-5 for use in light trucks and CUVs. It was, AFAIK, never prototyped and only ever existed as a CAD design. F of NA was considering it for a replacement engine for the Vulcan 3.0L V6 for the ranger and possible use in a CUV (Escape or Edge?) as a base engine. The problem with I-5s as they would need to be tuned for use in the north american market, they are no more efficient than a small V6 at making power. So, unless you have a specific packaging need for an I-5, or, as is GMs case, already have in production related I-4 and I-6 engines that can share parts, you have no real incentive to use an I-5. Look closely at GMs 3.5-3.7L I-5 in the Colorado/Canyon. It gets V6 gas mileage and produces less than V6 power. Not an impressive engine in any book. The 2.9L I-4 is decent for a 4 banger, but, at that displacement, you'd expect no less.

 

As has been said many times over, Volvo liked the I-5 because it was narrow and fit well within the crush zones up front that they wanted. With a turbo, it produced decent power. Where it was deficient was in NVH (though, I believe they balance shaft the heck out of the thing to deal with that) and fuel economy. HEck, look at volvo's now out of production I-6, the 2.9L. They did everything possible to it back in the day to get it short. IIRC, it had a very long stroke to bore ratio as well. Needless to say, it left a lot to be desired as I-6s went.

 

Nice offer from Ford UK and the Focus ST I5

Ford UK is offering Focus ST performance upgrades through a special dealer-fit option.

Mountune – the Ford tuning firm better known Stateside as Roush.

The Mountune Performance package consists of a larger intercooler, a high-flow air filter and revised engine calibration. Together, this lifts power output from Ford’s potent 2.5-litre Duratec ST engine from 225PS to 260PS at 5,500rpm and from 320Nm to 400Nm at 2,500rpm.

 

The upgrade reduces the 0-60mph sprint by 0.6sec to 5.9sec, and the 0-100mph time by 1.9sec to 14.1sec

The upgrades carry a minimum of 12 months/12,000-mile dealer warranty up to a maximum of three years/36,000 miles

 

Video of Focus ST Mountune versus Focus Graham Goode Racing Focus ST

 

http://www.drivers-republic.com/dr_tv/inde...amp;area=videos

 

Comment from TopGear on the ST Mountune "That should spell torque-steer galore, but the Mountune is incredibly composed. Yes, flatten the accelerator in the wet, and the front gets a touch squirmy, but for the most part the power all goes where you want it: forwards. Quickly.

 

The Mountune is a full half-second quicker than the stock ST, but it’s the in-gear punch that really impresses. It’s not a revvy little loon like the Mountune Fiesta, but hit the turbo and the Focus piles on speed in a manner that’ll embarrass some seriously expensive machinery. All for just over a grand (plus fitting), and it won’t invalidate your warranty either. Your ST wants it."

[RichardJensen]

You needed more u-joints and/or what is called a "clicker" ratchet. With these it was easy to change the rear bank when in a Taurus, or either bank in an Aerostar. Also, just close your eyes and do it by feel only.

"use the force" :lol:

 

Actually, I did the back ones by feel, but the guy only had one U-joint for his 3/8" drive, which is surprising given the shear magnitude of his ratchet/socket collection (ratchets and attachments take up one whole drawer with sockets filling up one of those 3" deep drawers in his tool chest).

 

Dang. I got to get back up there this weekend. It's been a looooooooong time since we did anything.

[jpd80]

Video of Focus ST Mountune versus Focus Graham Goode Racing Focus ST

 

http://www.drivers-republic.com/dr_tv/inde...amp;area=videos

 

Comment from TopGear on the ST Mountune "That should spell torque-steer galore, but the Mountune is incredibly composed. Yes, flatten the accelerator in the wet, and the front gets a touch squirmy, but for the most part the power all goes where you want it: forwards. Quickly.

 

The Mountune is a full half-second quicker than the stock ST, but it’s the in-gear punch that really impresses. It’s not a revvy little loon like the Mountune Fiesta, but hit the turbo and the Focus piles on speed in a manner that’ll embarrass some seriously expensive machinery. All for just over a grand (plus fitting), and it won’t invalidate your warranty either. Your ST wants it."

That "squirming" of the front wheels is due to the road surface having an imbalance in available traction

and can occur with most FWD cars. A lot of people quite wrongly mislabel this event as torque steer but

genuine torque steer is when the car pulls strongly to the left under full traction and full power.

 

Ford's Revoknuckle may be just the ticket for improving the driving pleasure of performance FWDs.

I don't believe the Focus ST has these yet, they are still limited to the Focus RS but it bodes well if

the USA decides to go Ecoboost 2.3 in the Focus.

 

Good Job Ford!!!

Edited January 23, 2009 by jpd80

[jpd80]

Heres another good point for Aussie Falcon fans:

The Volvo SI6 fits where the Volvo I-5 Turbo does and it's about 100 mm shorter than the Falcon I-6.

The C1 Focus tread width is about 100mm less than the Taurus - the difference needed by the Falcon I-6.

So if Ford Aust were contemplating using the Falcon I-6 in a Taurus it may fit.

 

And if FNA were considering a cheaper I-6 built in the I-4 plant that would also save costs for D3 as well.