New Fusion without a V6?

[battyr]

How about a new I5 Ecoboost engine in the 2.7-3.3 liter range for MKZ. 275-300 HP should be an easy target.

 

I have driven the VW I5. I find them rough running and they make an odd sound. I have driven many big I4's and I could not tell that they were not a V6. I would rather have a big I4.

[twintornados]

The five-cylinder engine's advantage over a comparable four-cylinder engine is best understood by considering power strokes and their frequency. A four-stroke cycle engine fires its cylinders once every 720 degrees — the crankshaft makes two complete rotations. If we assume an even firing engine, we can divide 720 degrees by the number of cylinders to determine how often a power stroke occurs. For a four-cylinder engine, 720° ÷ 4 = 180° so there is a power stroke every 180 degrees, which is two power strokes per revolution of the crankshaft. A V8 engine gets a power stroke every 90 degrees: 720° ÷ 8 = 90°, which is four power stokes for each revolution of the crankshaft.

 

A given power stroke can last no more than 180 degrees of crankshaft rotation, so the power strokes of a four-cylinder engine are sequential, with no overlap. At the end of one cylinder's power stroke another cylinder fires.

 

In a one-, two-, or three-cylinder engine there are times when no power stroke is occurring. In a three-cylinder engine a power stroke occurs every 240 degrees (720° ÷ 3 = 240°). Since a power stroke cannot last longer than 180 degrees, this means that a three-cylinder engine has 60 degrees of "silence" when no power stroke takes place.

 

A five-cylinder engine gets a power stroke every 144 degrees (720° ÷ 5 = 144°). Since each power stroke lasts 180 degrees, this means that a power stroke is always in effect. Because of uneven levels of torque during the expansion strokes divided among the five cylinders, there is increased secondary-order vibrations. At higher engine speeds, there is an uneven third-order vibration from the crankshaft which occurs every 144 degrees. Because the power strokes have some overlap, a five-cylinder engine may run more smoothly than a non-overlapping four-cylinder engine, but only at limited mid-range speeds where second and third-order vibrations are lower.

 

Every cylinder added beyond five increases the overlap of firing strokes and makes for less primary order vibration. An inline-six gets a power stroke every 120 degrees. So there is more overlap (180° - 120° = 60°) than in a five-cylinder engine (180° - 144° = 36°). However, this increase in smoothness of a six-cylinder engine over a five-cylinder engine is not as pronounced as that of a five-cylinder engine over a four-cylinder engine. The inline-five loses less power to friction as compared to an inline-six. It also uses fewer parts, and it is physically shorter, so it requires less room in the engine bay, allowing for transverse mounting.

 

A five-cylinder engine is longer and more expensive to manufacture than a comparable four-cylinder engine, but some manufacturers feel these costs are outweighed by its greater capacity in a smaller space than a six-cylinder.

 

From the standpoint of driving experience, five-cylinder engines are noted for combining the best aspects of four and six cylinder engines. They generate more power and torque than four cylinder engines, while maintaining the fuel economy and "pep" of smaller four cylinder engines. Five cylinder turbos have been used on more than one occasion in sport and racing applications for their balance of performance qualities. The Volvo S60 R (racing edition) has a 2.5 litre turbocharged inline five-cylinder engine which is capable of generating 300 brake horsepower (224 kW) and 295 lbf·ft (400 N·m) of torque across a large amount of its rpm ranges. The new Ford Focus RS performance car uses the same Volvo 5-cylinder engine, developed (by Ford) to very similar power levels, and is one of the most powerful FWD production cars ever created.

 

A disadvantage of a straight-five over a straight-six engine is that a straight-five engine is not inherently balanced. A straight-five design has free moments (vibrations) of the first and second order, while a straight-six has zero free moments. This means that no additional balance shafts are needed in a straight-six. By comparison an inline-four engine has no free moments of the first or second order, but it does have a large free force of the second order which contributes to the vibration found in unbalanced straight-four designs.[1]

 

The use of straight-five petrol engines in mass production cars only became truly viable with the advent of reliable fuel injection. A five-cylinder engine using a carburetor fuel system has an unavoidable problem in that the length of the inlet manifold between the carburetor varies too greatly between cylinders at the ends of the engine and those nearer the carburetor for reliable and consistent fuel delivery. Using multiple carburetors (two or three) always results in one carburetor feeding more cylinders than the other which also produces running and tuning problems. In theory individual carburetors could be used for each cylinder but this approach is expensive and still brings with it the attendant difficulties in balancing the multiple carbs. Multi-point fuel injection circumvents all the above problems by feeding each cylinder individually from a central, single pump. This fuelling issue was never present in diesel engines which used direct injection from the very start which is why large five-cylinder diesels were commonly seen decades before the type's adoption for automotive use.

From wikipedia straight five engine

[Biker16]

We could also see ALL Lincolns becoming hybrids; Which could blunt the need for more powerful engines.

 

there is the wild card of GRWD, ford hs nnot developed a RWD hybrid archtecture. There could be synergies with developing a hybrid drive train to be used on both RWD trucks and cars.

 

 

the only way to get large car city economy up is to use hybrid technology. without it the fundamental decider of city economy will be mass.

[jpd80]

I have driven the VW I5. I find them rough running and they make an odd sound. I have driven many big I4's and I could not tell that they were not a V6. I would rather have a big I4.

I have driven a couple of I-5 Turbos in Focus and Mondeo,

they are a hoot and have a meaty growl when the revs get up...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hh-vYoaR1NY&feature=related

Edited April 3, 2011 by jpd80

[twintornados]

I have driven the VW I5.....

That was your first mistake....

[Biker16]

I figure if the Fusion will have an I-4 only drivetrain, that 2.0L EB better pony up a bit more than 250HP, the competition is already at 270 (Sonata), so in 2 years, I figure 290HP will be the norm.

 

the mark has been at 270hp for a long time now.

 

I think 250hp, and excellent drivability should be enough.

 

I think the C/D class is where we begin to dial back max horsepower, the bragging right are now in economy not in HP. at least in the very practical mid size segment.

[RichardJensen]

We could also see ALL Lincolns becoming hybrids; Which could blunt the need for more powerful engines.

 

there is the wild card of GRWD, ford hs nnot developed a RWD hybrid archtecture. There could be synergies with developing a hybrid drive train to be used on both RWD trucks and cars.

 

 

the only way to get large car city economy up is to use hybrid technology. without it the fundamental decider of city economy will be mass.

I think these scenarios are fundamentally less plausible than reworking the EUCD front subframe to accommodate a V6.

 

You will still have large CUVs based on CD4, these will still need V6 options. And making Lincoln all hybrid is as likely as making it all AWD. There are customers that do not want the complexity of these systems.

 

Further, I have serious doubts about GRWD--especially AWD capable GRWD. I consider the platform requirements to be fundamentally incompatible with cost-effective execution.

[jpd80]

Surely, FNA is aware of the S80 and the changes needed to modify the current Mondeo to accept a V6 engine and AWD,

it is therefore highly likely that Ford has most contingencies for Europe and North America covered in Fusion and Mondeo.

What will be interesting is the final size, will it approximate the same interior dimensions as the 2006 Taurus?

That would make it extremely versatile as a front line vehicle in a lot of countries around the globe, giving FNA and FoA

the opportunity to either continue their own large vehicle programs or develop a combined large car for each market...

Interesting times ahead....

Edited April 3, 2011 by jpd80

[RichardJensen]

EUCD was a JV---platform partners got to pick and choose what they took from it.

 

Volvo did not take the EUCD rear end. IIRC, they adapted the P2 rear end.

[Biker16]

I think these scenarios are fundamentally less plausible than reworking the EUCD front subframe to accommodate a V6.

 

You will still have large CUVs based on CD4, these will still need V6 options. And making Lincoln all hybrid is as likely as making it all AWD. There are customers that do not want the complexity of these systems.

 

Further, I have serious doubts about GRWD--especially AWD capable GRWD. I consider the platform requirements to be fundamentally incompatible with cost-effective execution.

 

EUCD Can fit a V6 right now, the most expensive part of an architecture to develop is the frontal crash structure. it is just that there was no need to fit a V6 to it, if it can fit a 60 degree V8 it should fit a 60 V6.

 

the question is not if it can but what engine the market would want.

Edited April 3, 2011 by Biker16

[RichardJensen]

what engine the market would want.

For midsize CUVs and entry-lux V6 has to be on the table.

 

And the volume provided by these models would more than accommodate the cost of re-engineering the front subframe.

[Biker16]

For midsize CUVs and entry-lux V6 has to be on the table.

 

And the volume provided by these models would more than accommodate the cost of re-engineering the front subframe.

 

I agree the architecture should be V6 capable. Just because we can fit a V6, it does not mean, we should put it in everything.

 

Another truth is we are putting an Ecoboost engine in our explorer. this will test the consumer's appetite for turbo'd I4s in large vehicles.

 

If it does take off, we could see what happened in the midsized car market, people will choose the I4 over the V6, and the V6 could be removed.

[jpd80]

EUCD was a JV---platform partners got to pick and choose what they took from it.

 

Volvo did not take the EUCD rear end. IIRC, they adapted the P2 rear end.

You're right about that, Volvo's P24 was a replacement for their P2 (D3 originator) so it stands to reason that some parts or engineering had to be re used. i have a feeling that the front and rear modules on their P24 were actually reworked version from the previous P2 vehicles and that was the big difference between Volvo P24 and Ford EUCD.

 

I wonder if CD4 is actually Ford's way of converting EUCD into a Ford version of P24 and being able to share common design of front and rear suspension / framing...

That would then give Ford a versatile sedan platform that still shares much with D3 but sheds significant weight and the higher H Point common with D3 vehicles.

Not sure about the IRS and commonality with D3, maybe CD4 goes CB and makes the move cost effective for D3 as well...

[RichardJensen]

I agree the architecture should be V6 capable. Just because we can fit a V6, it does not mean, we should put it in everything.

Why not offer it?

 

Additional volume will reduce the unit cost of keeping the engine competitive and class-leading.

[RichardJensen]

maybe CD4 goes CB and makes the move cost effective for D3 as well...

D3 already uses a control blade style setup.

[2b2]

You're right about that, Volvo's P24 was a replacement for their P2 (D3 originator) so it stands to reason that some parts or engineering had to be re used. i have a feeling that the front and rear modules on their P24 were actually reworked version from the previous P2 vehicles and that was the big difference between Volvo P24 and Ford EUCD.

 

I wonder if CD4 is actually Ford's way of converting EUCD into a Ford version of P24 and being able to share common design of front and rear suspension / framing...

That would then give Ford a versatile sedan platform that still shares much with D3 but sheds significant weight and the higher H Point common with D3 vehicles.

Not sure about the IRS and commonality with D3, maybe CD4 goes CB and makes the move cost effective for D3 as well...

interesting explanation, THANKS Jpd!

 

 

& just a thought

the S-Max has a 202hp 2.0EB and the Mondeo has one with 237hp;

what if

the Fusion has both versions, mid and up-trim (in addition to base non-EB & the hybrid)

tho thinking the up-trim might be 250+hp like we heard some time ago for the Explorer/Edge

[Biker16]

Why not offer it?

 

Additional volume will reduce the unit cost of keeping the engine competitive and class-leading.

 

If the "class" does not care, why bother?

[RichardJensen]

If the "class" does not care, why bother?

 

Because there will always be *some* demand and it will cost Ford very little to serve it.

[BORG]

Most car shoppers are not that savvy, it comes down to very basic keywords for people. If you have a shopper looking for a V6 because it's a V6...then you better make sure you can supply that to them or you lost a sale. That's a mistake Chevy is going to make with the Malibu I think. Of course, you and I know that an I4 can do the job VERY well, but how much money is it going to take to sell that V6 shopper on the idea that an I4 is just as smooth and robust as the V6? It's one reason why Lincoln has a 3.7V6 instead of 3.5V6, the power difference isn't that great...but those numbers are important for sales and one reason Ford is pushing like mad to sell people on the idea of a 3.5EcoBoost engine...the numbers look fishy to those customers.

[RichardJensen]

Thing is, GM and Ford do not have isomorphic CUV/luxury strategies.

 

The Epsilon II CUVs are small enough to get by with 4-cylinders and they don't use Epsilon II to underpin their entry level Cadillac, therefore they can limit Epsilon II to 4-cylinder powertrains and save money---at the expense (IMO) of profitable high end business.

[PREMiERdrum]

Thing is, GM and Ford do not have isomorphic CUV/luxury strategies.

 

The Epsilon II CUVs are small enough to get by with 4-cylinders and they don't use Epsilon II to underpin their entry level Cadillac, therefore they can limit Epsilon II to 4-cylinder powertrains and save money---at the expense (IMO) of profitable high end business.

 

Splitting hairs, but the Caddy/Saab CUVs are based on Theta "Premium" (admittedly using some Epsilon components), not Epsilon II.

 

Epsilon II underpins Regal (Insignia), the next Malibu and Lacrosse.

[RichardJensen]

Splitting hairs, but the Caddy/Saab CUVs are based on Theta "Premium" (admittedly using some Epsilon components), not Epsilon II.

And they've got V6s. The whatsit? Terrain? and Equinox are 4 cylinder only, IIRC.

[PREMiERdrum]

And they've got V6s. The whatsit? Terrain? and Equinox are 4 cylinder only, IIRC.

 

That's a negative, Ghostrider. 2.4L I4 or 3.0L V6 available on the Equinox or Terrain. The 3.0L is the only engine currently available in the SRX, but that changes next model year.

[BORG]

Thing is, GM and Ford do not have isomorphic CUV/luxury strategies.

 

The Epsilon II CUVs are small enough to get by with 4-cylinders and they don't use Epsilon II to underpin their entry level Cadillac, therefore they can limit Epsilon II to 4-cylinder powertrains and save money---at the expense (IMO) of profitable high end business.

 

This is where Chevy and Ford have really diverged in product strategy. GM is still treating Chevy as the bargain volume brand and Ford is positioning itself as a near premium brand, lower volumes but higher profits and those customers are looking for different things. GM apparently thinks keeping Buick, GMC, and Cadillac fed with the better platforms and product is a better strategy. In the meantime, Ford brand has consumed their marketshare. GM is doing amazing work over there, but they are still not fully exploiting Chevy's potential.

 

Most of the time Chevy and Ford are toe to toe, but both are treating the center of the CUV universe very differently, Escape/Edge vs Equinox...Ford has far more volume between those two vehicles than Chevy has with Equinox. I'm surprised nobody has matched Ford's strategy there.

Edited April 4, 2011 by BORG

[PREMiERdrum]

This is where Chevy and Ford have really diverged in product strategy. GM is still treating Chevy as the bargain volume brand and Ford is positioning itself as a near premium brand, lower volumes but higher profits and those customers are looking for different things. GM apparently thinks keeping Buick, GMC, and Cadillac fed with the better platforms and product is a better strategy. In the meantime, Ford brand has consumed their marketshare. GM is doing amazing work over there, but they are still not fully exploiting Chevy's potential.

 

Most of the time Chevy and Ford are toe to toe, but both are treating the center of the CUV universe very differently, Escape/Edge vs Equinox...Ford has far more volume between those two vehicles than Chevy has with Equinox. I'm surprised nobody has matched Ford's strategy there.

 

The next Equinox is reportedly going to global Delta, so it should shrink considerably. This will leave a big hole between the little Equinox and the mammoth Traverse, but there hasn't been any scuttlebutt about a product to slot between them. The Gamma II-based CUV's (GMC Granite and perhaps Buick Encore) will add crossover models at the smallest end, but the midsize segment looks like it will remain ignored.