aneekr Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 - Competitors are now starting to copy Ford's Ecoboost turbocharged engines. - Ford uses Ecoboost and 6-speed transmissions where competitors are going to 8 & 9-speed gearboxes. Competitors that offer spark ignition direct injection turbocharged engines on their passenger cars and light trucks aren't "copying" Ford; all of them have offered such powertrains for several years. And many others have been successful in optimizing conventional, naturally aspirated engines and reducing mass of body in white structures. Mazda is a noteworthy example of the latter. Ford's Ecoboost engines and automatic transmissions are mediocre at best when it comes to real world performance, fuel efficiency, and refinement. Why would others want to emulate that? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 aren't "copying" Ford At the very least they are following Ford. Ford was the first manufacturer to make GTDI engines broadly available---that is, these engines were not limited to luxury brands or performance editions. Are you going to deny the impact of the assembly line as implemented by Ford because they were not the first company to use it? Would you make a similar claim regarding the monoblock V8? Because you know Ford wasn't the first company to make one of those either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Ford's Ecoboost engines and automatic transmissions are mediocre at best when it comes to real world performance, fuel efficiency, and refinement. Why would others want to emulate that? It's already been happening, as almost all companies are reducing cylinder count or displacement and adding forced induction to make up that power... interestingly, after Ford introduced the 365-hp D35EB. This includes the German luxury marques as well: Audi uses a 4.0L V8TT in everything high-powered (including as a base engine in the Bentley Continental/Flying Spur), and MB now uses a V6TT to take the place of the non-AMG V8 line in the E-Class. All of these introductions, as I reiterate and if I recall correctly, have been after the Taurus SHO debuted for MY '10. So, about emulating (or as Richard puts it, "following") Ford... yeah, why would anyone want to do that?. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pictor Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 The so called wonder engines from Mazda can't tow worth sh*t, the properly equipped Ecoboost Escape, 3500 lbs, Mada CX5, 2000 lbs. No contest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 The thing about EcoBoost & 1st Gen. Sync is that *both* were more or less off-the-shelf systems that their respective manufacturers (Bosch & Microsoft) were shopping around to *every* manufacturer. In both instances, Ford was the only company that saw the potential there. Did they produce, on their first attempt, the best possible solution? Of course not. But neither have they allowed grass to grow under their feet, as it were. Iterative improvement is far more important than getting it right the first time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) Biker, where are you coming up with this crap...SERIOUSLY...a car that weighs 100lbs less than another does NOT guarantee better mileage,and lowering displacement isnt a guarantee either...stop $hit stirring and acting like an ............ Bottom line, if you think light weight is the holy grail you are extremely sadly mistaken,,,, Edited April 13, 2015 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Let's watch the name calling please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Biker, where are you coming up with this crap...SERIOUSLY...a car that weighs 100lbs less than another does NOT guarantee better mileage,and lowering displacement isnt a guarantee either...stop $hit stirring and acting like an ............ Bottom line, if you think light weight is the holy grail you are extremely sadly mistaken,,,, Please Tell Ford the the alloy F150 isn't "the holy grail" of .... You don't understand modern engines, the more load the worse the efficiency, they operate on a razors edge between gas hog and hyper-miler. 100 extra pounds could be the difference between using more Boost, or being able to operate for a longer period in Quasi-lean burn Atkinson cycle mode, which has huge effect on real world economy. If the old saying is true if 100lbs = 10hp that means the engine can save fuel by not producing 10 extra HP. that could be the difference between boost and quasi-lean burn Atkinson cycle mode. since you are getting so prickly about this. I digress. Again, the CD4 platform is not a light one; EUCD was not light and its incrementally improved successor platform is also not light. There's little Ford can do about this right now. When you talk about the Mustang, it's worth noting that the next Camaro is expected to be roughly the same size and roughly the same weight as the Mustang. It's also worth noting that the Mustang is significantly lighter than both the Challenger and the Zeta Camaro. It is not as though *all* Ford products are heavier than their competitors. Trying to take weight out *after* the platform has been engineered is not a good idea. http://www.volvocars.com/us/all-cars/volvo-s80/specs-features/Pages/specs-features.aspx FWD Volvo S80 is 3545lbs EB20 powered. http://www.volvocars.com/us/all-cars/volvo-s60/specs-features/Pages/specs-features.aspx FWD Volvo S60 is 3433 lbs. EB20 powered. Both EUCD based, and meet or exceed US crash standards. 2013 Ford fusion EB20 3,526lbs https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/asset.download.document.pdf.html/content/dam/fordmedia/North%20America/US/2013_Specs/2013_Fusion_Specs.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) the outlines of the Aluminum F-150 have been outlined NUMEROUS times for you, you may wish to write these words down...TOWING/ PAYLOAD...mileage gains are trivial.... weight savings have significant benefits to GVW's and GVWRS...now do us ALL a favor and let us know how lighening a SEDAN helps ITS towing and payload....so, call ford yourself, your argument is fundamentaly flawed and all you are doing is scab picking and pot stirring...and ask yourself THIS question, whats more beneficial in a sedan, saving ( 100-200lbs ) or adding a 10 speed transmission?...... Edited April 13, 2015 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Lightweight is not free. Which of these should Ford compromise in order to save a couple hundred pounds on the Fusion? Interior space Quietness Cost Durability Performance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 don't forget, using the Volvo that Biker used as an example, , which is 90 pounds lighter, just shows what apparently superior engineers can achieve when the REALLY put their heads together.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 @akirby...ALL of the above, and Voila, The Alfa 4c Fusion..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 don't forget, using the Volvo that Biker used as an example, , which is 90 pounds lighter, just shows what apparently superior engineers can achieve when the REALLY put their heads together.... "Build a smaller car, and it will be lighter than a bigger car?" The Fusion is a tiny bit bigger than the S80 and therefore quite a bit bigger than the S60. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 don't forget $1800 in OZ wheels to save 10 or so pounds per corner.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 it would seem as if Biker wants Ford to build its cars using super expensive and hard to mass-produce carbon fiber then watch car prices soar overnight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) FWD Volvo S80 is 3545lbs EB20 powered. http://www.volvocars.com/us/all-cars/volvo-s60/specs-features/Pages/specs-features.aspx 2013 Ford fusion EB20 3,526lbs https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/asset.download.document.pdf.html/content/dam/fordmedia/North%20America/US/2013_Specs/2013_Fusion_Specs.pdf S80: 191x73.9x58.8 98 cu. ft. x 14.9 cu. ft. Fusion: 191.7x72.9x58.1 103 cu. ft. x 16 cu. ft. Fusion footprint is less than 1sf smaller than the S80. Both sets of numbers from Cars.com Edited April 13, 2015 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Also, I don't think Volvo uses Ford engines, at least not anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Lightweight is not free. Which of these should Ford compromise in order to save a couple hundred pounds on the Fusion? Interior space Quietness Cost Durability Performance For the next generation Fusion, it should not necessary make compromises related to any of those characteristics. To the contrary, a well thought out "light-weighing" strategy can result in significant improvements to each. After all, the current generation Fusion doesn't stand out in any of those areas, and on the 'performance' metric non-hybrid Fusion is at or near the bottom of its class. The underlying issue is the CD4 platform's inherent weaknesses when it comes to mass optimization. As RichardJensen mentioned in post #223, there's not much Ford can do about it now. Here's hoping the next generation Fusion isn't as porky as the current model. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 (edited) @aneeker....just m,e or has everyone seemingly forgotten that 3500lbs is normal curbweight for a 4 door mid sized sedan....google BMW, jaguar, even "higher end " cars all tip the scales at similar amounts, even WITH more lightweight tech than our "lowly" Fusion....theres NO way around the constantly moving target of "safety". its why I always chuckle when someone screams obesity then utilizes a 10-15 year old vehicle for comparison purposes.... Edited April 13, 2015 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 You simply can't lose weight without doing one of 4 things (or some combinations): Make it smaller. Use less material (thinner sheet metal, less insulation, weaker structure) Use lighter but more expensive exotic materials Remove heavy features These aren't sports cars - they're family sedans and things like NVH control and features are far more important than a few tenths of a second 0-60 or 1 mpg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 @akirby.....wonder what explains the fact that several cars that are HEAVIER than the fusion get better mileage at the same speed....fact is once a car is moving weight is the least of the issues... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 Transmissions, fuel management, etc. Not just weight for sure unless you're talking about several hundred pounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 For the next generation Fusion, it should not necessary make compromises related to any of those characteristics. To the contrary, a well thought out "light-weighing" strategy can result in significant improvements to each. After all, the current generation Fusion doesn't stand out in any of those areas, and on the 'performance' metric non-hybrid Fusion is at or near the bottom of its class. The underlying issue is the CD4 platform's inherent weaknesses when it comes to mass optimization. As RichardJensen mentioned in post #223, there's not much Ford can do about it now. Here's hoping the next generation Fusion isn't as porky as the current model. You can improve some, but you're not gonna improve them all. Adding lightness while improving interior space, quietness, durability, and performance is certainly going to increase the cost as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 You can improve some, but you're not gonna improve them all. Adding lightness while improving interior space, quietness, durability, and performance is certainly going to increase the cost as well. No, no, no. You don't understand. All you have to do is wave a magic wand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted April 13, 2015 Share Posted April 13, 2015 @akirby.....wonder what explains the fact that several cars that are HEAVIER than the fusion get better mileage at the same speed....fact is once a car is moving weight is the least of the issues... Horsepower? While Fusion's most powerful engine leads the pack in torque, it's dead last in HP. 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.