Is Ford going to Turbos?

[robertlane]

Spoke with a good source about the MKS and Fusion. Roush does have a 3.5L twin-turbo V6 in a Five Hundred. They also have (no surprise) a Fusion Turbo.

 

Maybe Ford (exception Mustang) is banking on smaller displacement engines with turbos?

[Drake]

A turbo v6 awd Fusion would be very nice.

[igor]

I would love that ... Tubos are a great way to get attention in the younger crowd.

 

any more details on the Fusion turbo? is it the TT or a different setup?

 

Igor

[waymondospiff]

Personally, I'd love to see good turbos brought back. The car I passed my drivers test in was a Chrysler LeBaron Turbo and I loved that car. Well, any car that can talk is okay by me. Anyway, I love the 2.2L Turbo because it was subtle. The VW 1.8L Turbo was awful - way too sensitive and prone to give riders whiplash.

 

So, if Ford wants to go turbo, I hope they can smooth out the "turbo lag" issue. And frankly, with 3.5L, the 3.5 TT shouldn't be all that lacking in low rpm torque anyway. The issue then becomes efficiency. In the early 1980s when the turbo 4 cylinders could put out as much horsepower as the heavily restricted V8s the turbos made sense because they were more efficient. Today, most turbocharged engines tilt more towards performance and consequently the fuel economy results are no better than larger displacement naturally aspirated (NA) engines.

 

If Ford can make a powerful, smooth, and efficient turbocharged V6 to replace V8s I wish them luck. I believe they'll need a marked improvement in fuel efficiency while matching the characteristics of the larger V8s to make a persuasive argument to the buying public. But if they can do all of that - then go for it!

 

Scott

[silvrsvt]

Its a cheap/fast way to add power, but yet why are they going back to turbocharging after spending the past 15 years or so supercharging their engines? I think thats a little more telling...

[old_fairmont_wagon]

Simply put, efficiency. Turbos are more efficient at delivering power than superchargers. If you're facing ever greater requirements for mpg, then turbos are a natural progression.

[one2gamble]

So, if Ford wants to go turbo, I hope they can smooth out the "turbo lag" issue

 

Turbo lag is largely a non issue, my s4 has little to none

[OAC_Sparky]

Turbos make more sense in a FWD car because you can eliminate the extra 3"-4" at the drive pulley end and keep the engine package shorter.

 

Turbos also tend to be more reliable; if a turbo fails, the engine loses boost and power; but when a supercharger fails, more often the engine also stalls.

 

Most of the aftermarket supercharger packages for ie. the Focus gain a bit of lower end, but the true advantage is that for the most part the SC is CARB legal because, unlike a turbo, you do not have to move/remove emission control devices like catalytic convertors to install it.

[waymondospiff]

Maybe Ford (exception Mustang) is banking on smaller displacement engines with turbos?

 

Here's an idea: could Ford do a turbo- super-charged motor like the VW "Twincharger?" That'd be a way to increase mileage. And Ford would definetely win headlines. No more thoughts of old, outdated American cars.

 

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti.../FREE/510240718

 

170 hp and 177 lb-ft torque - 1.4L 4cyl...not too shabby.

 

Scott

[Hemiman]

Could be more explotation of the Volvo purchase. Volvo has been doing turbos right since the 80's. Ford has also learned a lot with the PSD program.

 

I'd like to see Ford offer a low boost high compression 1.6 - 1.8 L 4cyl. This would offer high fuel economy with acceptable power.

 

I would alsolike to see a TT Hurricane V-8!

 

Always been a big fan of Turbo charging.

[range]

The 3.5L was designed from the beginning to accomodate a twin turbo and DI.

I don't think there is any wondering if, the only question is when.

[RichardJensen]

I think Variable vane or Variable geometry turbochargers have mostly eliminated turbo-lag.

 

IIRC, the two advantages of a super charger are that it works from idle onward, and that it adds boost progressively. The main disadvantage is that it takes power from the crankshaft.

 

A VGT, however, should have a fairly progressive boost curve, which should keep you from the unpleasant (for luxury customers, at least), 2500 rpm WHAP in the back of the neck when the turbo kicks in.

[mrballsonya]

Turbo lag is largely a non issue, my s4 has little to none

 

Thats because the K03 turbos on that thing are soooo tiny, they do spool up quick but also become pretty inefficient at higher boost levels. It's still an awesome car though, I loved my black on black 2000 with an apr chip.

 

As for ford going with Turbos on the 3.5...... I SAY I love Turbo cars. I've owned about 14 turbo cars in my lifetime, and can honestly say I probably wouldn't buy a car without one. The bang for the buck tuning potential and performance upside just can't be matched by normally aspirated vehicles. I don't think I've ever had a turbo car that couldn't gain a minimum of about 25% more power for under $1000.

 

I Recently noticed that the price of used 2003 Mercedes S600's is now in a semi-affordable range , I have since begun my search for a used version of my realistic dream car..... V12 TURBO... 493 HP WITH 590 FT. LBS. OF TORQUE... A 4 door that can run with the big boys...the grocery getter that GETS!!! Now all I have to do is convince my wife

 

I really do hope that Ford does have plans for a turbo version of the 3.5, 350-400 H.P. plus A.W.D. would be awesome. But I'll still WUP' YA' with my S600 :burnout: .

[bri719]

Simply put, efficiency. Turbos are more efficient at delivering power than superchargers. If you're facing ever greater requirements for mpg, then turbos are a natural progression.

 

 

everything old is new again... gas sippers are in, hey it's the mid 1970s and people dont even realize it.

 

luckily car manufacturers are capable of making 300hp cars that get 15-20mpg nowadays or else we'd all be driving unicycles with a 20hp engine

[one2gamble]

Thats because the K03 turbos on that thing are soooo tiny, they do spool up quick but also become pretty inefficient at higher boost levels. It's still an awesome car though, I loved my black on black 2000 with an apr chip.

 

hence the point, a small turbo set up or a dual stage TT (one small one large) set up wouldnt have any noticable lag especially with a relatively large displacement 6cyl motor.

 

Oh yea, K04's are going on when they blow

 

I just want Ford to remember one thing. Theres a place for Turbos and theres a place for displacement. Theres also a place for both. Having one doesnt necessitate or make it a good idea to forgo the other. There are many inherintly bad things about turbos that people dont like, one is upkeep the other is replacement costs.

 

You want to get notice from the younger gen. Build an AWD 6 Spd TT Fusion with a ton of upside HP potential that will hold together with the increased HP. You would have people jumping ship to give the blue oval a try again. Think of it as my car with more hp and 20 grand cheaper

Edited August 29, 2006 by one2gamble

[mrballsonya]

Oh yea, K04's are going on when they blow

 

K04's are definitely the way to go..... Like you said though.. No need to quell all that QUICK SPOOLIN FUN just yet.

 

You want to get notice from the younger gen. Build an AWD 6 Spd TT Fusion with a ton of upside HP potential that will hold together with the increased HP. You would have people jumping ship to give the blue oval a try again. Think of it as my car with more hp and 20 grand cheaper

 

:beerchug: :beerchug: :party2:

 

I couldn't have said it better myself!

[dr511scj]

Here's an idea: could Ford do a turbo- super-charged motor like the VW "Twincharger?" That'd be a way to increase mileage. And Ford would definetely win headlines. No more thoughts of old, outdated American cars.

 

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti.../FREE/510240718

 

170 hp and 177 lb-ft torque - 1.4L 4cyl...not too shabby.

 

Scott

 

Yeah, great idea.

 

Here's a cool link to a schematic.

 

http://forums.carcraft.primediaautomotive....ges?msg=166.229

 

Somehow I doubt Ford's working on such innovations, though.

 

I think Variable vane or Variable geometry turbochargers have mostly eliminated turbo-lag.

 

IIRC, the two advantages of a super charger are that it works from idle onward, and that it adds boost progressively. The main disadvantage is that it takes power from the crankshaft.

 

A VGT, however, should have a fairly progressive boost curve, which should keep you from the unpleasant (for luxury customers, at least), 2500 rpm WHAP in the back of the neck when the turbo kicks in.

 

A Roots blowers and "screw-type" positive displacement superchargers are not very "progressive." Airflow is proportional to RPM once the internal leakage rate no longer becomes a factor and the boost curve is flat until cylinder head flow and cam timing start artificially tailing boost upward at high rpm.

 

Centrifugal superchargers (Paxton, Vortech, ATI) ARE "progressive" in that boost increases dramatically with rpm.

 

Twincharging takes the best of the positive displacement blower and the turbo. The blower pressurizes the intake tract at low rpm where it's reasonably efficient, provides instant boost (fat torque curve) and saps very little power. Then the turbo takes over the heavy lifting at high speeds (when blower efficiency drops dramatically and crankshaft power required to turn it under boost increases dramatically)

[ZanatWork]

The idea of a turbo'd V6 Fusion is certainly a pleasant one...with current technology, the lag that made old turbo motors so unsatisfying is largely a non-issue. If Ford wants to utilize this approach along with awd options in their mainstay fwd vehicles...being an "affordable Audi" isn't a bad thought.