New Fusion without a V6?

[Biker16]

The thing your forgetting is that 20% number is from downsizing from a 8 to a 6 Ecoboost or a 6 to 4 ecoboost engine...the current 2.5L in the Fusion only gets 22/31 (or 22/32 int he Fusion S stripper model) MPG.

 

I could see those numbers improve a bit, but no way in hell is a Fusion going to get Focus like MPG numbers with a highend/high performance I4 engine....even the Sonata only gets 33 highway with a turbo I4 in it....barely better then the regular I4

 

Absolutely, Ecoboost 2.0 is the gun engine for Ford, performance and efficiency along with 100 lbs less than a V6 will see it win out in the end.

If Fusion is anything like mondeo, the EB20 will give a 20% increase in combined fuel economy over the 2.5 I-4

and that's before we even start talking about the extra power...

 

 

the EB 2.0 is still a 2.0 liter engine. my 20% number was taken from the post above.

 

the Mondeos's EB uses a DCT as well.

 

even if it isn't a 20% improvement it will still be better than a the larger 2.5, and the torque characteristics will allow for much taller gearing than the current I4's 3.86, for better highway numbers.

 

If you changed the EB2.0s to be 20% better than the 3.0. it would get 22/34, which I believe is too low, due to the 3.0's 3.46 final drive vs the 3.5's 3.16. the EB would likely use the 3.16.

[Biker16]

Because the V6 still offers a great balance between fuel economy, torque and power thanks to 6-speed auto transmissions. The spread of power is more than acceptable to most buyers.

 

Ecoboost I-4 is for the next generation of buyer who is willing to try something new,

just like the buyers who tried V6 and 6-speed auto after giving up their V8s.

 

I agree with you to an extent, buyers will always gravitate towards more cylinders.

 

that is untill theyare given a better alternative.

 

have you driven a Ecoboost powered car yet?

 

the numbers say that the buyer should like the ecoboost engine better.

 

the wild card is fuel price, they can force buyers to change there habits, and this is where the V6 will lose its appeal.

[RichardJensen]

OMG, Biker, would you let this die. CD4 will be V6 capable, therefore odds are pretty strong there will be a V6 in the Fusion because it's dang near a zero cost add.

[Biker16]

OMG, Biker, would you let this die. CD4 will be V6 capable, therefore odds are pretty strong there will be a V6 in the Fusion because it's dang near a zero cost add.

 

Ok, I'll let it go.

 

My feeling is that the market will eventually doom the V6 not the makers.

 

Richard, if Lincoln uses a exclusive engine, it will not be as simple as you think.

[RichardJensen]

the market will eventually doom the V6

Yeah. And this was the last American convertible:

 

http://automotivemileposts.com/eldorado/eldo1976lastconvertible.html

[lfeg]

Yeah. And this was the lastReally big American convertible:

 

http://automotivemileposts.com/eldorado/eldo1976lastconvertible.html

Edited April 7, 2011 by lfeg

[lfeg]

I can see no V6 in a future Fusion, even if the platform will take one.

 

Several reasons:

Lincoln exclusivity - if you want a V6 in this size FMC car, you must buy a Lincoln.

CAFE and market demand - Higher mpg requirements play to 4 cyl and EB 4 cyl.

Cost - Eliminating an engine choice reduces costs on several levels, and if only Lincoln offers the V6, a higher price vehicle can support higher price options.

 

Remember, not all models have to play to the enthusiast.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Given that the Lincoln MKZ (or whatever it's called in the future) will have higher diffeentiation from the Fusion in the future, it's also plausible that it will be build elsewhere. This would greatly simplify hermisilo as it would only handle I4s (turbo, NA and hybrid) in the engine bays of the cars it produces. This can also mean that the Fusion can have some beef taken out of the front end as it won't have to hold the mass of a V6, which can result in a weight reduction and higher efficiency numbers. That's like Charlie Sheen, bi-winning.

[RichardJensen]

I don't see the 'cost' aspect at all..... If anything V6 program costs would be spread across a broader base with a Fusion V6.

 

And the problem with CAFE is exactly the problem that auto executives have had with CAFE for years--it is strictly a supply-side fix.

[RichardJensen]

Given that the Lincoln MKZ (or whatever it's called in the future) will have higher diffeentiation from the Fusion in the future, it's also plausible that it will be build elsewhere. This would greatly simplify hermisilo as it would only handle I4s (turbo, NA and hybrid) in the engine bays of the cars it produces. This can also mean that the Fusion can have some beef taken out of the front end as it won't have to hold the mass of a V6, which can result in a weight reduction and higher efficiency numbers. That's like Charlie Sheen, bi-winning.

Except that the V6 Fusion is quite popular in Brazil--probably in no small part due to the tariff treaty between Mexico & Brazil.

[stpatrick90]

Except that the V6 Fusion is quite popular in Brazil--probably in no small part due to the tariff treaty between Mexico & Brazil.

 

I believe that can be attributed to the fact that the 3.0L is both E85 capable (huge in Brazil) and is also available with AWD.

Also they don't offer the 3.5L there and that probably most simply can be attributed to the fact that it isn't E85 capable.

If the 2.5L (or whatever 4 cylinder a future Fusion may have) could be made to run E85 and sold there it would easily be more popular than the 3.0L.

[F250]

You are an idiot. The exact opposite is true is every case you have mentioned.

 

Why do you insist on insulting people.

 

And your first post about Honda taking the sales lead in the early 90's is wrong. The 3.0L V6 Taurus was the U.S. sales leader until Ford ruined the styling with the 3rd generation in '96, at that point it became a fleet rental special. In '97 Toyota Camry took the title, not Accord.

 

In the 90's the Taurus 3.0L all-iron pushrod V6 made slightly more hp and torque than Camry's high RPM OHC 4 cyl and both cars achieved near equal MPG. The difference was Taurus' low RPM torque made acceleration smooth and quiet even when fully loaded as opposed to Camry's high RPM thrashing trying to get up to its powerband. And in the world of family sedan transportation the low RPM, low stress Taurus Vulcan V6 was known to be durable...Camrys high RPM engines would sludge up without careful maintenance, and they had the added expense of timing belts.

 

That said the Fusion could do without the V6 because today Ford has 4-cylinder engines that provide the power required...just as the old Vulcan V6 made power that was equal to the carbureted V8 in the previous Fairmont. The V6 could be reserved for Lincoln MKZ, If the buyer can pay more for a Lincoln he can pay more for fuel.

Edited April 10, 2011 by F250

[mettech]

Ford's Barb Samardzich, the Vice President of Global Product Programs basically said " Our engines will be smaller in the next Fusion and no V-6."

 

 

Autonline After Hours #99 22 April

Edited April 22, 2011 by mettech

[aneekr]

Ford's Barb Samardzich, the Vice President of Global Product Programs basically said " Our engines will be smaller in the next Fusion and no V-6."

 

 

Autonline After Hours #99 22 April

:happy feet:

Good find mettech!

[silvrsvt]

I have no problem with Ford replacing the current I4 and 3L V6 with Ecoboost engines, but I still want a 265+ HP model to buy if I go the Fusion route..which might be a bridge too far for a ecoboost engine.

[StevenCaylor]

I have no problem with Ford replacing the current I4 and 3L V6 with Ecoboost engines, but I still want a 265+ HP model to buy if I go the Fusion route..which might be a bridge too far for a ecoboost engine.

 

How about a standard N/A 2.5 for the inexpensive model, a 2.0 EB for the mainstream and a 2.5 EB for the performance model. All with GDI. So figure 200 hp, 237 hp, 296 hp.

[RichardJensen]

Is there even going to be a 2.5L EB?

[StevenCaylor]

Is there even going to be a 2.5L EB?

 

Probably not. IMHO, Ford will need a sport version of the Fusion with more than 237 hp. Perhaps an HO version of the 2.0 EB. If they stay with the 3.5 V6 for the sport, there goes the weight savings of an all I4 setup.

[mettech]

I will be surprised to see a V-8 in a truck or Mustang 11 years from now.

 

But as we all know, as weight goes down, so does HP needs.

 

Now don't fore get, "Wants" are a different issue

[Edstock]

Is there even going to be a 2.5L EB?

Might be useful for vehicles that are a little bigger and heavier like Edge or Explorer?

[Biker16]

I believe that can be attributed to the fact that the 3.0L is both E85 capable (huge in Brazil) and is also available with AWD.

Also they don't offer the 3.5L there and that probably most simply can be attributed to the fact that it isn't E85 capable.

If the 2.5L (or whatever 4 cylinder a future Fusion may have) could be made to run E85 and sold there it would easily be more popular than the 3.0L.

 

 

Why do you insist on insulting people.

 

And your first post about Honda taking the sales lead in the early 90's is wrong. The 3.0L V6 Taurus was the U.S. sales leader until Ford ruined the styling with the 3rd generation in '96, at that point it became a fleet rental special. In '97 Toyota Camry took the title, not Accord.

 

In the 90's the Taurus 3.0L all-iron pushrod V6 made slightly more hp and torque than Camry's high RPM OHC 4 cyl and both cars achieved near equal MPG. The difference was Taurus' low RPM torque made acceleration smooth and quiet even when fully loaded as opposed to Camry's high RPM thrashing trying to get up to its powerband. And in the world of family sedan transportation the low RPM, low stress Taurus Vulcan V6 was known to be durable...Camrys high RPM engines would sludge up without careful maintenance, and they had the added expense of timing belts.

 

That said the Fusion could do without the V6 because today Ford has 4-cylinder engines that provide the power required...just as the old Vulcan V6 made power that was equal to the carbureted V8 in the previous Fairmont. The V6 could be reserved for Lincoln MKZ, If the buyer can pay more for a Lincoln he can pay more for fuel.

 

I apologize for insulting you.

 

the accord was the best selling car in america in 1990.

 

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/archive/1991_10best_cars-10best_cars/1991_honda_accord_page_4

 

 

Probably not. IMHO, Ford will need a sport version of the Fusion with more than 237 hp. Perhaps an HO version of the 2.0 EB. If they stay with the 3.5 V6 for the sport, there goes the weight savings of an all I4 setup.

I don't think so. I think it will get the engine from the Focus ST, with 250hp not the 240 from the Taurus

 

i been thinking about how to allow for a V6 on some models of the same platform but not on others and being able to cut weight and length while doing it.

 

ford new models use a Bolt on frontal crush structure, this is designed to sacrifice the crash bar and crush boxes, during moderate collisions, and leave the major frame components intact.

 

 

it ought to be possible to design to different bolt on crash beams that maintain crash performance while taking advantage of the shorter overhangs and weight reductions possible by using I4s only.

 

saving the longer crush boxes for the V6 Lincolns, full-size cars and CUVS.

[mettech]

Barb Samardzich gave a small hint that Lincoln will have a car based off of the next Mustang RWD platform, but most of the Lincoln models will be FWD/AWD.

[sullynd]

it ought to be possible to design to different bolt on crash beams that maintain crash performance while taking advantage of the shorter overhangs and weight reductions possible by using I4s only.

 

This is what I've thought as well. If the Taurus goes CD4 it needs a V6. If the Taurus and MkZ share a front end structure to allow for tor a V6 it could make sense.

[RichardJensen]

This is what I've thought as well. If the Taurus goes CD4 it needs a V6. If the Taurus and MkZ share a front end structure to allow for tor a V6 it could make sense.

The Taurus will probably be wider than the MKZ, and the same width as the MKS, so I don't know how much front end structure they could share.

[RichardJensen]

it ought to be possible to design to different bolt on crash beams that maintain crash performance while taking advantage of the shorter overhangs and weight reductions possible by using I4s only.

 

saving the longer crush boxes for the V6 Lincolns, full-size cars and CUVS.

I would think, rather, that they would be welded on, and it's certainly possible.

 

However, I still don't see Ford reducing the high performance engine package in the Fusion. The new CAFE regs are not so strict, nor is the energy situation so dire, IMO, as to make Ford look at stripping the Fusion Sport from the lineup--and a boosted 2.7L V6 would be the same external size as a 3.5EB, give or take.

 

The *next* Fusion--CD5--might be I-4 only, but I don't think we'll see that just yet. Lighter materials and misc. tech improvements could put a 2.0L EB at ~ 3.5L V6 performance, but I don't think they're at that point--or will be at that point when CD4 launches.

Edited April 23, 2011 by RichardJensen