ANTAUS Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 http://www.autoblog.com/2013/08/28/next-lincoln-mks-to-get-2-9l-ecoboost-nine-speed-transmission/ 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 Rehash of the C&D article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader 10 Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 It amazes me that C&D would think that a 2.9 EB would only produce 300hp. That motor will more than likely make at least as much power as the current 3.5 EB. I don't think the 3.5 EB will be offered in the new MKS - it looks like the 3.5/3.7 engines are replaced by the nano V-6"'s for car and SUV applications with the possible exception of the new Mustang. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 It amazes me that C&D would think that a 2.9 EB would only produce 300hp. That motor will more than likely make at least as much power as the current 3.5 EB. I don't think the 3.5 EB will be offered in the new MKS - it looks like the 3.5/3.7 engines are replaced by the nano V-6"'s for car and SUV applications with the possible exception of the new Mustang. I think the new Nano engines are going to be hard pressed to meet the power that the 3.5L EB engine can put out. Its most likely going to be the performance option and the 2.9 V6 Nano will be the mainstream engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpvbs Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 Of the current EB engines, the 3.5 has the lowest output per liter at just over 100hp/l. If the 2.9 matchs the lowest output EB, it should make 300hp. I'd hope a new engine would do better. If they match the 2.0EB output per liter, it would make numbers similar to the current 3.5EB. If they match Kia's 2.0 turbo, they could make 400hp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 Of the current EB engines, the 3.5 has the lowest output per liter at just over 100hp/l. If the 2.9 matchs the lowest output EB, it should make 300hp. I'd hope a new engine would do better. If they match the 2.0EB output per liter, it would make numbers similar to the current 3.5EB. If they match Kia's 2.0 turbo, they could make 400hp. But also keep in mind the car is tuned for economy, not performance for the most part...a co-worker of mine has a Kia Optima and he commutes mostly highway to work and I saw he was getting 23 MPG... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullynd Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 Wonder if the MkS will get a Hybrid... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 Wonder if the MkS will get a Hybrid... If/when it moves to CD4, it's possible; until then, I figure they'll stick with EB for the "fuel efficient" variant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 Of the current EB engines, the 3.5 has the lowest output per liter at just over 100hp/l. If the 2.9 matchs the lowest output EB, it should make 300hp. I'd hope a new engine would do better. If they match the 2.0EB output per liter, it would make numbers similar to the current 3.5EB. If they match Kia's 2.0 turbo, they could make 400hp. I personally think you will see 125hp per liter..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 (edited) I personally think you will see 125hp per liter..... I Agree and you only have to look at the current 2.0 EB to see that a 2.9/3.0 V6 EB which is 50% larger should be around 360 hp and 405 lb ft which effectively replaces the existing EB 35 in that respect. I do hasten to add that we already know the EB 35 is soft because of transmission issues, something Ford would be looking to correct in the near future.. The interesting part for me will be the role of the future 2.3 EB which may have a greater impact across a wider range of vehicles. Edited August 30, 2013 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted August 30, 2013 Share Posted August 30, 2013 I Agree and you only have to look at the current 2.0 EB to see that a 2.9/3.0 V6 EB which is 50% largershould be around 360 hp and 405 lb ft which effectively replaces the existing EB 35 in that respect. I do hasten to add that we already know the EB 35 is soft because of transmission issues, something Ford would be looking to correct in the near future.. The interesting part for me will be the role of the future 2.3 EB which may have a greater impact across a wider range of vehicles. and the numbers being thrown around regarding the 2.3 are 350hp...... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 and the numbers being thrown around regarding the 2.3 are 350hp...... And even if we stayed conservative at say, 270-280 HP, it's the torque that really matters more. I have a feeling that around 310 lb ft is more than likely which approximates an early 4.6 2V.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevys Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 and the numbers being thrown around regarding the 2.3 are 350hp...... We will see about that in due time. I cant get through my head what the big advantage is over the 3.7. Weight? Bet its not cost. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader 10 Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 I think the base engine for the Taurus will be the 2.3 EB , about 280 HP with an optional N/A Nano of about 300 - 315 HP and the EB Nano , about 375 HP. MKS will probably be Nano's only. It looks like the 9 speed may not be ready for the 2015 models. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moosetang Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Are you.....whispering? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader 10 Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 Whoops - a screw up with the italics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 We will see about that in due time. I cant get through my head what the big advantage is over the 3.7. Weight? Bet its not cost. Currently, an I-4 turbo is approximately 100 lbs lighter than the V6 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EBFlex Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 (edited) and the numbers being thrown around regarding the 2.3 are 350hp...... 350HP out of 2.3 liters? I'll believe it when I see it. I wouldn't touch that with a 20' pole if that's the case. Talk about a high-strung hummingbird engine. Props if that can be made reliable though, that would be a feat. Edited August 31, 2013 by EBFlex 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevys Posted August 31, 2013 Share Posted August 31, 2013 (edited) And even if we stayed conservative at say, 270-280 HP, it's the torque that really matters more.I have a feeling that around 310 lb ft is more than likely which approximates an early 4.6 2V.... I am thinking this is much more realistic. I cannot see even a turbo 4 being and upgrade to the 3.7 in the Mustang and we know the 4 is coming. I just wonder if there is any place for this engine in the F series if it really does lose the weight that is rumored. Edit: probably not but I was thinking it may get you by in a rcsb 2wd. Edited September 1, 2013 by chevys 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 I am thinking this is much more realistic. I cannot see even a turbo 4 being and upgrade to the 3.7 in the Mustang and we know the 4 is coming. I just wonder if there is any place for this engine in the F series if it really does lose the weight that is rumored. Edit: probably not but I was thinking it may get you by in a rcsb 2wd. Part of the 2.3 EB's mission is to replace 3.5/3.7 V6 and give up to 20% better fuel economy....LINK Concept Evaluation *Selected a 2.3L I4 high expansion ratio engine architecture to “right size” the engine with future North American, high volume, CD size (i.e. mid size) vehicle applications. *Developed top level engine attribute assumptions, architecture assumptions, and systems assumptions to support program targets. *Developed detailed fuel economy, emissions, performance, and NVH targets to support top level assumptions. *Developed individual component assumptions to support detailed targets, as well as to guide combustion system, single * cylinder engine, and multi cylinder engine design and development. * Completed detailed, cycle based CAE analysis of fuel economy contribution of critical technologies to ensure vehicle demonstrates 25% weighted city / highway fuel economy improvement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted September 1, 2013 Share Posted September 1, 2013 (edited) I forgot to add, an important advance in ecoboost is the "Micro-Stratified charge" cycle: “Micro” Stratified Charge = - Overall Lean Homogeneous - Early Primary Injection - Air / Fuel ~ 20-30:1 + - Locally Rich Stratified - Late Secondary Injection - “Micro” Second Pulsewidth Advantages of “micro” stratified charge capability - Good fuel economy - Practical controls - Low NOx emissions - Acceptable NVH - Low PM emissions - Good stability - Extends lean combustion capability to region of good after treatment efficiency, hereby enabling a cost effective LNT / SCR system Edited September 1, 2013 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.