Falcon Ecoboost I-4 decision made on based on computer simulations

[jpd80]

 

LINK

Ford has based the future of the Falcon on computer simulations

Ford Asia-Pacific's chief vehicle engineer, Rob Connor, today admitted that Falcon's future is still based on computer simulations.

 

Where most would assume the Australian arm of the Blue Oval would have tested four-cylinder-engined mules of Falcon, the decision to add a four-cylinder line to the Aussie large rear-wheel drive icon, has been based purely on unreal-world calculations.

 

"It's all computer simulations, so pretty much every aspect of how the car's going to drive, what the acceleration's going to be like, fuel economy... How loud it's going to be... is all simulated up front..." said Connor.

 

Ford in the US has published figures of 205kW of power and 380Nm of torque for the new engine, so it appears that the new engine has the legs -- on paper.

 

"We're about two weeks away from being able to have a drive… I'm looking forward to that…" said Connor, when asked what progress had been made with real-world testing.

 

Whilst it's common now to undertake extensive virtual testing of crash structures and the like, it is nonetheless still unusual that such a ground-breaking decision would be announced ahead of engineering evaluation vehicles even turning a wheel.

 

 

Guty move announcing something this controvertial before acquiring real world data.

Most engineers like to see factual information before they put their head in a noose,

let's hope it all works out for them.....

[Blue II]

Guty move announcing something this controvertial before acquiring real world data.

Most engineers like to see factual information before they put their head in a noose,

let's hope it all works out for them.....

 

Computer also thinks that bird of prey will like a Coyote as well.

[theoldwizard]

... bird of prey will like a Coyote as well.

Raptor ?

 

Thunderbird ?

 

Blue II speaking in riddle again !

[sullynd]

Blue II speaking in riddle again !

 

Falcons are also "bird of prey"

[battyr]

Information technology (Computer) and Nano technology are improving in performance at the rate of 50% per year. The company that can benefit from this technology will achieve huge improvements a very little cost. The companies who can't, will die. It is not a cost of acquiring the technology. It is getting cheaper every year. It is the willingness to use it.

[TomServo92]

Falcons are also "bird of prey"

 

"Falcon" was what I got from his riddle.

[twintornados]

Computer also thinks that bird of prey will like a Coyote as well.

hmmmm.....Road Runner returning as a Ford product?? No...wait....Road Runners aren't birds of prey...and they are also of a defunct car marque

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Well, with the Coyote replacing all but the most exotic MODs in the US, and Ford striving for commonality, it wouldn't surprise me at all for The coyote to cross the pond and find a nice cradle in the bird of prey. I think that that's win-win for everyone. One question, are the 5.4 MOD mills that the bird of prey uses now made in the US and shipped, made down there, or some combination of blocks here and top ends there? Would the coyote be made here and shipped there, or just made there?

[jpd80]

Here's a few interesting thoughts:

If the EB 2.0 does indeed return the claimed 20% fuel economy gains in Falcon (and Taurus), it will

mean that Ford has large vehicles capable of taking on competitors large D size cars and beating them.

 

Also, what if the 2.0 EB is not the weakling some people think?

What if it's more than capable of keeping up with Ford's current V6 and I-6 engines?

 

Ecoboost trials are obviously well under way in Australia and it will be interesting to see if

that 2011 timetable doesn't in fact come forward a little to align with North America.......

[atomaro]

I doubt Raptor is included...even though the closest descendants of dinosaurs are birds.

[nelsonlu]

Guty move announcing something this controvertial before acquiring real world data.

Most engineers like to see factual information before they put their head in a noose,

let's hope it all works out for them.....

 

Mulally's old company (Boeing) does this all the time. Of course, it's kind of hard to build an airplane, even as an experimental model, for testing before you actually invest the money to produce its fuselage...

[battyr]

Mulally's old company (Boeing) does this all the time. Of course, it's kind of hard to build an airplane, even as an experimental model, for testing before you actually invest the money to produce its fuselage...

 

You always need to build a model to test the theory. But the fewer models made, the faster the design process.

[jpd80]

Why would an EB I-4 Falcon be a worry if Ford is looking at using it in the much heavier Explorer?

 

You get the feeling that Ford Australia is sandbagging.....

[Ralph Greene]

I've learned a lot about how much power you need in a large car while driving my wife's 2005 Montego with 203 HP 3.0. While some people claim it is under powered, I've come to appreciate it's adequate power and terrific fuel economy. 22-23 around rown and 29-30 when cruising at speed limits. And I'm a guy who usually supercharges his Mustangs.

 

But after living with this vehicle for 41,000 miles, I've decided it's about "right" powered for our use, or for most large people mover type sedans, especially when pared with an extremely well programed 6 speed Aisin transmission. It is underpowered if you live in a mountainous area and/or haul a full load, but we live in the flat lands. It is underpowered if you are expecting a sporty performance sedan, but that's not it's purpose in life....for us.

 

And now to my point. This same size car with an even more powerful EB 2.0, with much more tq at low RPM, and with a smart transmission would solve the short comings of a car like this, and give even more impressive fuel economy. I have learned not every vehicle has to be a performance vehicle to give satisfying performance. People movers don't need to do 13-14 second quarters. But they do need enough TQ to go up a long steep hill without straining or turning 5000 RPM. I believe the time has come for folks buy performace vehicles for their performance needs, and to concentrate on buying efficient vehicles for their hauling and people mover needs. Choose your vehicle sorta the way a transportation company specs out their trucks....based on it's intended use with an eye toward economy and efficiency.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Ralph Greene

[old_fairmont_wagon]

How does the expected power levels of this engine compare to the engine options already available in the existing Falcon? What are the existing engine choices? I am aware of the Turbo I-6 4.0L and the DOHC 5.4L V8. Am I correct in assuming that there is a base option which has a N/A 4.0L I-6 as well? What are its power numbers and fuel economy figures?

[SVTCobra]

According to the information:

Ford in the US has published figures of 205kW of power and 380Nm of torque for the new engine, so it appears that the new engine has the legs -- on paper.

 

Eco-Boost vs current engine lineup:

 

Eco-Boost I4 (2.0?): 275hp / 280 lb-ft

Base I6 4.0, DI-VCT: 261hp / 288 lb-ft

Turbo I6 4.0, DI-VCT: 362hp / 393 lb-ft

Boss 290 5.4 DOHC: 389hp / 384 lb-ft

[falcman]

How does the expected power levels of this engine compare to the engine options already available in the existing Falcon? What are the existing engine choices? I am aware of the Turbo I-6 4.0L and the DOHC 5.4L V8. Am I correct in assuming that there is a base option which has a N/A 4.0L I-6 as well? What are its power numbers and fuel economy figures?

The n/a 4.0 has the below spec.

 

262hp @ 6000rpm

289Nm @ 3250rpm

24mpg

3750lbs

 

In base spec the EB2.0 has a peak torque figure of 235ft/lb from as little as 1500rpm to 5500rpm. Much unlike the peaky nature of the typical turbocharged 2 litre, it's quite tractable. But it's the DSG that would amplify these numbers.

 

It's competitor, the VE Commodore, will be getting (this September) a 3L V6 as a base motor, with a peak torque of 225ft/lb at 5200rpm.

Edited July 27, 2009 by falcman

[falcman]

hmmmm.....Road Runner returning as a Ford product?? No...wait....Road Runners aren't birds of prey...and they are also of a defunct car marque

Funny how the name of defunct car marque, of no predatory nature, will devour a wild dog.

[jpd80]

The n/a 4.0 has the below spec.

 

262hp @ 6000rpm

289 Lb Ft @ 3250rpm

24mpg

3750lbs

 

In base spec the EB2.0 has a peak torque figure of 235ft/lb from as little as 1500rpm to 5500rpm. Much unlike the peaky nature of the typical turbocharged 2 litre, it's quite tractable. But it's the DSG that would amplify these numbers.

 

It's competitor, the VE Commodore, will be getting (this September) a 3L V6 as a base motor, with a peak torque of 225ft/lb at 5200rpm.

There, I fixed it for you,

I'd hate to drive a Falcon with 289 nm.

Edited July 27, 2009 by jpd80

[jpd80]

According to the information:

 

 

Eco-Boost vs current engine lineup:

 

Eco-Boost I4 (2.0?): 275hp / 280 lb-ft

Base I6 4.0, DI-VCT: 261hp / 288 lb-ft

Turbo I6 4.0, DI-VCT: 362hp / 393 lb-ft

Boss 290 5.4 DOHC: 389hp / 384 lb-ft

See, the thing is that EB I-4 power Torque figure doesn't jibe.

That's equivalent to an EB V6 putting out 480 hp/480 lb ft.

 

Here is the most recent Ford Chart:

[falcman]

There, I fixed it for you,

I'd hate to drive a Falcon with 289 nm.

Haha thanks.

 

Is CGI confirmed for this?

 

To be honest, I'm more excited about this motor getting dropped into a revo knuckled Fiesta!!!

[RichardJensen]

See, the thing is that EB I-4 power Torque figure doesn't jibe.

That's equivalent to an EB V6 putting out 480 hp/480 lb ft.

Well, the 2.0 probably ends up closer to 250 than 275, but recall that the power output on the EB 3.5L is alleged to be capped to protect the transmission. I seem to recall someone saying they were regularly gettting 450hp from the 3.5L in RWD configuration on a bench.

[Deanh]

Well, the 2.0 probably ends up closer to 250 than 275, but recall that the power output on the EB 3.5L is alleged to be capped to protect the transmission. I seem to recall someone saying they were regularly gettting 450hp from the 3.5L in RWD configuration on a bench.

I was told close to 500..YEHAH!

[jpd80]

Well, they've certainly got folks talking down here with opinions ranging from enthusiasm to

disbelief that such a small engine will work in a car like the Falcon. It's really hard to gauge

on a Ford website because this engine changes the image of the Falcon and has the potential

to draw in so many people that would never consider buying it in the first place.

 

I'm cautiously optimistic that people who normally buy Camry, Mazda 6 and Honda Accord will

now seriously consider the Falcon I-4 turbo, it will also be a big hit with Aussie government fleets

that now have a preferential policy for 4 cylinder cars and lowest possible CO2 outputs.

 

Although I would have preferred to see FoA use the 2.7 V6 diesel, I can understand that the EB I-4

is a much cheaper engine to deploy and will make the Falcon as economical as a Focus Auto.

In the end, Ford is catering for a whole range of buyers who don't normally consider the Falcon,

that has to be a good thing.....

Edited July 28, 2009 by jpd80

[jpd80]

Haha thanks.

 

Is CGI confirmed for this?

 

To be honest, I'm more excited about this motor getting dropped into a revo knuckled Fiesta!!!

I believe it's an all alloy engine, a revision of the Duratec I-4 with new cylinder head and center point DI.

I think the biggest engine going in Fiesta will be either EB 1.4 or EB 1.6 but glad to be proved wrong....