What the hell is the "Dragon" family of engines @ FoMoCo Europe??

[Pioneer]

Yikes. I hate hearing about your clutch, especially since my '09 passed 145k this week.

[twintornados]

Doesn't the 2.0DI trace its roots back to the 80s?

 

If so, there's your answer why it's still around. It's cheap and reliable as hell. Mine has 171k miles on it and showing no signs of slowing down yet (except for the clutch self destructing a few days ago)

 

Ford worked on the PROCO (PROgrammed COmbustion) engine design in the late 70's....discontinued due to cost and equipment constraints...

 

From the Wikipedia Gasoline direct injection page.

 

The Ford Motor Company developed a stratified-charge engine in the late 1970s called "PROCO" (programmed combustion)^[11][12] using a unique high-pressure pump and direct injectors. At least one hundred and fifteen (115) Crown Victoria cars were built at Ford's Atlanta Assembly in Hapeville, Georgia using a PROCO V8 engine. The project was canceled for several reasons: electronic controls, a key element, were in their infancy; pump and injector costs were extremely high; and lean combustion produced nitrogen oxides in excess of near future United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) limits.^[13] Also, the PROCO system was being launched in the late 1970s, a time of the second "gas crisis" in the US, which drove fuel costs higher. PROCO had been initially developed for Ford's 460 Cubic inch V8 engine line, later applied to the 351, and eventually the 302. Because the extreme fuel cost spike, Ford was unsure of the future market for V8 engines, and chose not to commit to such an expensive technology in unstable times.

[jpd80]

Most of today's tech came for Ford europe developing Ecoboost from basic Bosch GDIT systems and then developing

its own software. Modern combustion studies revealed sweet spots for Ecoboost cylinder capacity range and

optimum bore stroke ratios which differ to that required for NA DI engines.

 

The common theme through Ford tech developments is cost savings where ever possible which is probably

why performance and fuel economy outcomes of early series Ecoboost were never quite as good as the

upper management were lead to believe. A lot of good work was done by FNA to ensure that next gen

Ecoboost actually won over customers and replaced traditional large capacity V6 and V8 engines.

 

The challenge for ecoboost is to stay in front of developments with larger capacity NA engines

that are supplied with DI, VCT and variable capacity functions either by cylinder deactivation

or by varying inlet valve closing time.. The promise of increased of "lean boost" range using

Ecoboost is what's spurring Ford on. It will be interesting to see if Ford can bring their hopes

to fruition. A lot of companies will be looking on at the strategies employed to make it happen.

Edited May 10, 2015 by jpd80

[Biker16]

O

 

Most of today's tech came for Ford europe developing Ecoboost from basic Bosch GDIT systems and then developing

its own software. Modern combustion studies revealed sweet spots for Ecoboost cylinder capacity range and

optimum bore stroke ratios which differ to that required for NA DI engines.

 

The common theme through Ford tech developments is cost savings where ever possible which is probably

why performance and fuel economy outcomes of early series Ecoboost were never quite as good as the

upper management were lead to believe. A lot of good work was done by FNA to ensure that next gen

Ecoboost actually won over customers and replaced traditional large capacity V6 and V8 engines.

 

The challenge for ecoboost is to stay in front of developments with larger capacity NA engines

that are supplied with DI, VCT and variable capacity functions either by cylinder deactivation

or by varying inlet valve closing time.. The promise of increased of "lean boost" range using

Ecoboost is what's spurring Ford on. It will be interesting to see if Ford can bring their hopes

to fruition. A lot of companies will be looking on at the strategies employed to make it happen.

 

the goal posts may have been moved.

 

remember the miller cycle engine?

 

http://blog.caranddriver.com/next-audi-a4-to-revive-an-old-engine-technology-to-achieve-near-diesel-economy/

 

 

 

Next Audi A4 to Revive an Old Engine Technology to Achieve Near-Diesel Economy

An almost forgotten piece of engine technology will help Audi’s next gasoline-powered A4 to slash its fuel consumption to near diesel figures while boosting power and acceleration. While Audi is couching it in different terminology—calling it a “new combustion method,” which it really isn’t—the German premium brand is essentially adapting Miller-cycle breathing technology to its ubiquitous EA888 four-cylinder powerplant.

The new engine was announced at Vienna’s annual Motor Symposium, and the technology will first be applied to a 2.0-liter, turbocharged, direct-injected gas unit making 188 horsepower and 236 lb-ft of torque and installed in the next Audi A4. Due on sale before the end of the year, the all-new A4 will slash the consumption figures of its predecessors—and, critically, undercut its competitors from Mercedes-Benz, BMW, and new class contender Jaguar—with a Euro-cycle combined fuel-economy figure of 47 mpg. By comparison, the BMW 320i, with a similar engine size, has a quoted European-cycle consumption figure of roughly 39 mpg (the more frugal 316i pulls that up by 1 mpg) and the best of the C-class Mercedes-Benz range, the C250, is at 44 mpg.

While refusing to stick the Miller-cycle tag onto its new engine, Ulrich Hackenberg, Audi’s board member for technical development, admitted “at its core, its principle is comparable to the Miller cycle. We are now taking a crucial step further with right-sizing,” he insisted. “Right-sizing involves the optimal interplay of vehicle class, displacement, output, torque, and efficiency characteristics under everyday conditions.”

Our artist’s impression of the next Audi A4, which is due to be unveiled soon.

The Miller-cycle system was most famously used in production by Mazda’s Millenia, with its KZ-JEM 2.3-liter V-6, which ceased production in 2004. Mazda has kept an eye on the technology, though, and applied it recently on the Mazda 2. The system was the brainchild of American engineer Ralph Miller, who earned a patent for it on Christmas Eve, 1957. It works with both gas and diesel fuels and with two- and four-stroke cycles.

Typically, a Miller-cycle engine leaves the intake valve open on the compression phase longer than a normal engine. It operates in a similar fashion to the Atkinson-cycle engine, but uses forced induction (usually, but not always, a supercharger) to make up for the fuel-air mix forced out of the cylinder and through the open valve by the rising piston. The turbocharger helps the Miller-cycle engine to avoid power losses, even as it slashes fuel consumption by increasing the fuel-air mix in the cylinder after the intake valve closes.

For the EA888 engine, Audi has heavily changed the traditional intake period, shortening the duration from around 190 or 200 crankshaft degrees down to just 140 degrees. It also closes the intake valves later than normal, well after the bottom dead center. The expansion portion of the cycle is much longer than the compression phase to extract maximum work from every fuel-air mix.

The engine will capitalize on existing technologies to push the Miller-cycle philosophy even further, making use of the combination of direct and indirect (in the intake manifold) fuel injection and variable valve timing and lift already fitted to the EA888.

When the engine runs at part-throttle or low loads, Audi says it will deliver an extra fuel-injection burst from its indirect fuel-injection system before the air-fuel mixture even reaches the combustion chamber. It will then flesh this out with its existing systems. It also uses its existing variable valve lift to give the engine a short intake time on part throttle and up to 170 degrees of intake timing on full throttle or in heavy load situations.

• The Resignation of VWs Piëch: What Happened Behind the Scenes
• Why 0.5-Liter Cylinders Soon Will Dominate Automotive Engine Design
• VW Coverage: Pricing, Reviews, Build Your Own for Every Model

This has helped broaden the spread of torque from the 2.0-liter TFSI four, with its 236 lb-ft peaking at 1450 rpm and holding steady until 4400 rpm. The 1984-cc, 309-pound engine also has its exhaust manifold cast integrally with its cylinder head and uses a very low-viscosity oil (0W-20) to minimize windage losses.

“Thanks to this right-sizing approach, the new engine enjoys the consumption benefits of a downsized engine in partial-load operation, while at higher loads it has the advantages of a large-displacement engine,” said Audi head of engine development Stefan Knirsch. “The result is optimal efficiency and performance characteristics across the entire engine-speed range.”

[Biker16]

Or, was the 2.0 DI for US and global Focus a way of helping to amortize the then new Atkinson cycle 2.0 DI used in hybrid Fords?

The hybrid doesn't use direct injection.

 

understand the globoal inline engine was developed by mazda.

 

the basic archtecture has a 1.8l

 

Bore/Stroke

1.8liter (square design)

 

83.1x83.1mm

 

2.0L (under square)

 

87.3x83.1mm

 

2.3L (over square)

 

87.3/94.1mm

 

so....

 

for parts commonality

 

The 2.0 is a bored out 1.8.

 

The 1.8 had a different head (smaller valves for Smaller bore.

 

The 1.8 and the 2.0 shared connecting rods, crankshafts and blocks.

 

The 2.3 is a bored out and decked 1.8. With a 11mm higher deck for a 11mm longer stroke over the 2.0.

 

The 2.0 and the 2.3 share heads, allowing ford the use the same improvements on the 2.3 with the 2.0 GTDI.

 

 

I have a feeling that there was a hook up between 2.0EB, 2.0 DI and 2.0 DI Hybrid where scales of economy from design and parts

played a huge part in Focus amortizing costs of the 2.0 versus simply expanding the 1.6 EB used in European Focus where 2.0 DI

most likely put CO2 levels (road taxes) in the too hard basket.

I don't think ford was thinking that far ahead when they developed the 2.0GDI.

 

Direct injection was able to produce more power and torque than port injection while offering E85 capablity.

 

 

With regards Direct Injection costs, it's no longer the 2000s, the wide use of DI has brought down the cost of parts to OEMs

even though we, the consumers still get murdered on replacement parts prices...

 

Ford fist production direct injection engine was the Duratec SCi was announced in 2003

 

Used the same camshaft Driven Fuel pump design used on all I-4 Ecoboost engines today

 

see me posting on this engine 12 years ago.

 

http://forums.focaljet.com/showthread.php/403245-FORD-INTRODUCES-NEW-DURATEC-SCI-ENGINE

 

the problem with your contention that price fall for every technology is flawed.

 

with DI or GTDI you are adding more parts, more content to the vehicle, so no matter how much you reduce the cost of an Direct injector you still are only going to reach parity with a indirect injection injector, why because every reduction in the cost of direct injector will result in a reduction in cost of a indirect injector.

 

beyond the injector, you have the high pressure fuel pump, which is in Addition to the fuel pump the an port fuel injection engine would already have. You cannot reach parity because the same improvements in cost can and will be shared to reduce the cost of all fuel injectors.

 

You See Reductions in cost when the technology can reduce the complexity of the engine itself, things like Drive by wire reduce cost because it replaces the throttle cable, and reduces the cost of Cruise control, pedals, and eliminates parts and Steps in production. Direct injection doesn't have the same affect.

 

 

Also makes me wonder if those revised "coast down" factors were a result of early fuel economy work trying to maximize

fuel economy of 2.0 DI, 2.0 Hybrids......

 

Maybe the truth lies somewhere in between that an affordable engine did not quite live up to optimistic / high expectations

forcing Ford to review its data....

 

i'd say that the 2.0 DI was more inline with FE expectation than the GTDI engines.

 

the US emmisions standards are really tough on engines like these.

Edited May 12, 2015 by Biker16

[jpd80]

You See Reductions in cost when the technology can reduce the complexity of the engine itself, things like Drive by wire reduce cost because it replaces the throttle cable, and reduces the cost of Cruise control, pedals, and eliminates parts and Steps in production. Direct injection doesn't have the same affect.

When you buy in bulk, the scales of economy bring prices down, you need to get over the idea of fixed costs.

The cost today is not necessarily anything like it was 12 years ago when you first posted.

 

heck,the whole basis for this thread is on Dragon and the procurement process that saved millions

in parts cost as well as avoiding building more engine variations than necessary

Edited May 13, 2015 by jpd80

[twintornados]

I am pretty certain that the 2.3L EcoBoost in the Mustang uses a integrally cast head and exhaust manifold, something no other Ford I4 currently has.

The 1.5L Ecoboost also has an integral exhaust manifold.

[Biker16]

When you buy in bulk, the scales of economy bring prices down, you need to get over the idea of fixed costs.

The cost today is not necessarily anything like it was 12 years ago when you first posted.

 

heck,the whole basis for this thread is on Dragon and the procurement process that saved millions

in parts cost as well as avoiding building more engine variations than necessary

 

This isn't an absolute. you can't add more parts and expect just because you made alot of them the cost of the parts equals a price less than not having those parts at all.

 

Thus a simpler engine like a Port injected I-4 will be cheaper to build than a GTDI Engine, no matter how many GTDI engines you build.

 

while it is true New GTDI engine will be cheaper than older GTDI engines, engine without the extra plumbing and corresponding part count will be cheaper to produce.

[jpd80]

 

This isn't an absolute. you can't add more parts and expect just because you made alot of them the cost of the parts equals a price less than not having those parts at all.

 

Thus a simpler engine like a Port injected I-4 will be cheaper to build than a GTDI Engine, no matter how many GTDI engines you build.

 

while it is true New GTDI engine will be cheaper than older GTDI engines, engine without the extra plumbing and corresponding part count will be cheaper to produce.

Nowhere have i said that DI engine will cost the same as a PFI engine. simply that the

price difference between the two is much less today than compared to the early 2000s.

 

When you think about it, that's also the reason why Ford can now offer a 2.0 DI on Focus over the previous

model's 2.0 TiVCT. Sure, the 1.6 Ecoboost was probably too expensive for Focus price point in North America

at that time but now that American buyers are wanting better appointed, higher trim levels. We may be approaching

a time when Ecoboost engine becomes standard or a low cost option (like F150's 2.7 EB $595 over 3.5 V6)

Edited May 14, 2015 by jpd80

[theoldwizard]

Doesn't the 2.0DI trace its roots back to the 80s?

 

Ford worked on the PROCO (PROgrammed COmbustion) engine design in the late 70's....discontinued due to cost and equipment constraints...

Been there, done that, got the T shirt (both of them) !

 

Bosch resurrected DI. No one in FoE ever heard of PROCO and there were very few people left in Dearborn who had actually worked on the project. To the best of my knowledge, no "knowledge" from PROCO was carried forward.

Edited May 14, 2015 by theoldwizard

[theoldwizard]

Most of today's tech came for Ford europe developing Ecoboost from basic Bosch GDIT systems and then developing its own software. Modern combustion studies revealed sweet spots for Ecoboost cylinder capacity range and optimum bore stroke ratios which differ to that required for NA DI engines.

Basically correct. The Gen 1 FoE EcoBoost (1.6L/2.0L ?) was pretty much 100% Bosch. The Gen 1 US EcoBoost was a joint effort between Bosch and Ford. (Bosch had never done any joint software development and were very reluctant to partake in the process.)

The common theme through Ford tech developments is cost savings where ever possible which is probably

why performance and fuel economy outcomes of early series Ecoboost were never quite as good as the

upper management were lead to believe.

While you will never find this documented anywhere, I know a couple of engineers (actually Senior Technical Specialists) who never believed the fuel economy claims that Bosch made to upper management. After about 12 months of work on Ford dynamometers, they could not reproduce Bosch's data. That is when Bosch admitted that their number were obtained using European emission standards (which they never told Ford Management) and For was using US emission standards.

A lot of good work was done by FNA to ensure that next gen Ecoboost actually won over customers and replaced traditional large capacity V6 and V8 engines.

The US customers were sold after Gen 1 (Taurus SHO). The big sell was to the F150 people !

 

The primary goal for Gen 2 EcoBoost was cost reduction. The Gen 1 system used almost 100% Bosch sensors and actuators, Gen 2 used sensors and actuators from various supplier. The second "big win" was was moving to 100% Ford (Dearborn) developed software. The previous joint development caused delays/overtime in the Ford development.certification process.

Edited May 14, 2015 by theoldwizard

[theoldwizard]

Nowhere have i said that DI engine will cost the same as a PFI engine. simply that the

price difference between the two is much less today than compared to the early 2000s.

A big part of that is using component from suppliers other than Bosch.

[Biker16]

Nowhere have i said that DI engine will cost the same as a PFI engine. simply that the

price difference between the two is much less today than compared to the early 2000s.

The vibe i am getting for your recent posts is that adding DI, GTDI, or hybrid becomes a zero cost item over time. which it doesn't.

 

If you compare Mazda, Toyota and Nissan's strategy vs Ford's with Ecoboost. there is no way ford isnt paying more per vehicle than they are with their larger displacement NA engines.

 

When you think about it, that's also the reason why Ford can now offer a 2.0 DI on Focus over the previous

model's 2.0 TiVCT. Sure, the 1.6 Ecoboost was probably too expensive for Focus price point in North America

at that time but now that American buyers are wanting better appointed, higher trim levels. We may be approaching

a time when Ecoboost engine becomes standard or a low cost option (like F150's 2.7 EB $595 over 3.5 V6)

 

The previous US focus didn't have TiVCT.

 

Ford for other reasons offered the 2.0 GDI over the previous engine PFI engine.

 

I can see ford replacing the 2.0 with the EB 1.2 but i can Still see them keeping a Low cost engine around even if that is a EB 1.0.

[bzcat]

Tangentially related to this discussion... Ford China just announced 2.0 DI Focus will be phased out and replaced by 1.5 Ecoboost when the facelift model goes on sale in September 2015. China was the other market besides North America where 2.0 DI was used in a volume product.

 

2016 Focus Chinese market specs:

 

1.6 Ti-VCT (128hp) 5MT or 6DCT

1.0 Ecoboost (128hp) 5MT or 6DCT

1.5 Ecoboost (184hp) 6MT or 6F35

 

2.0 Ti-VCT (170hp) 5MT or 6DCT cancelled

[Biker16]

Tangentially related to this discussion... Ford China just announced 2.0 DI Focus will be phased out and replaced by 1.5 Ecoboost when the facelift model goes on sale in September 2015. China was the other market besides North America where 2.0 DI was used in a volume product.

 

2016 Focus Chinese market specs:

 

1.6 Ti-VCT (128hp) 5MT or 6DCT

1.0 Ecoboost (128hp) 5MT or 6DCT

1.5 Ecoboost (184hp) 6MT or 6F35

 

2.0 Ti-VCT (170hp) 5MT or 6DCT cancelled

 

interesting.

 

the 2.0Di was also sold in Russia and Australia. those engines were sourced from Spain.

[fuzzymoomoo]

I still don't think we will see the 1.5 EB as the main volume engine in the Focus. I hear so many people say the Focus is too expensive as it is and forcing the more expensive ecoboost engine as the main volume engine is going to end horribly.

[akirby]

But how much will they save by killing the 2.0L altogether?

[fuzzymoomoo]

But how much will they save by killing the 2.0L altogether?

I don't have an answer for that

 

It's not like they can't add capacity for the additional volume. They could use the vacated line at dearborn engine for the 1.5EB. I just don't think you are going to be able to get the premium that Ford wants to charge for the EB engines at a high volume for the Focus.

[Biker16]

But how much will they save by killing the 2.0L altogether?

Nothing

[Biker16]

I don't have an answer for that

 

It's not like they can't add capacity for the additional volume. They could use the vacated line at dearborn engine for the 1.5EB. I just don't think you are going to be able to get the premium that Ford wants to charge for the EB engines at a high volume for the Focus.

 

what! They vacated all of dearborn engine?

[akirby]

Nothing

I meant eliminating it altogether across th board.

Edited May 14, 2015 by akirby

[fuzzymoomoo]

 

what! They vacated all of dearborn engine?

No they didn't, calm down! I meant that if they get rid of the 2.0, they will have a vacant line there.

[Biker16]

I meant eliminating it altogether across th board.

If you close DEP where the engie is made you save money but it also built alongside the EB 2.0 in Spain.

 

For the focus without the 2.0 you lose a value option.

 

I am not saying that I wouldn't favor repacing the 2.0 it just it could have an negative effect on profitability of the focus.

 

There is hope the Mexican sourcing will offset some of that cost.

 

 

Oh yeah.

 

EB 1.2 all the way with the 1.0 as the base engine and the 1.5 as the premium engine.

[jpd80]

The vibe i am getting for your recent posts is that adding DI, GTDI, or hybrid becomes a zero cost item over time. which it doesn't.

No, you're assuming somehting I wasn't implying. What Ford is doing is bring down the cost to consumers

 

and making the technology affordable but when you look at cars like Fusion, you see a pattern that the higher the trim level,

the more Ford throws in at no extra cost - 2.0 EB Vs hybrid as an example, even though at lower trim levels, the EB is more

expensive than the NA 2.5 I-4....... It's all perception to the buyer which can be different in actuality.

 

 

 

 

 

The previous US focus didn't have TiVCT.

The global C1 did.

 

Ford for other reasons offered the 2.0 GDI over the previous engine PFI engine.

It as simply a lower cost alternative to Europe's 1.6 Ecoboost, an option not offered anywhere else.

 

I can see ford replacing the 2.0 with the EB 1.2 but i can Still see them keeping a Low cost engine around even if that is a EB 1.0

.In other markets, we have the 1.6/1.5 TiVCT as the base (Ambiente/Studio) version while the 2.0 DI is reserved for mid and upper trim levels.

The 1.0 EB will be used as the 1.6/1.5 TiVCT replacement which will see the needed fuele conomy in base but yeah, the 1.2 EB for mid range.

Maybe 1.2 EB sees more use in Fiesta and Ecosport...

[Biker16]

No, you're assuming somehting I wasn't implying. What Ford is doing is bring down the cost to consumers

 

and making the technology affordable but when you look at cars like Fusion, you see a pattern that the higher the trim level,

the more Ford throws in at no extra cost - 2.0 EB Vs hybrid as an example, even though at lower trim levels, the EB is more

expensive than the NA 2.5 I-4....... It's all perception to the buyer which can be different in actuality.

 

 

 

 

 

The global C1 did.

 

It as simply a lower cost alternative to Europe's 1.6 Ecoboost, an option not offered anywhere else.

 

.In other markets, we have the 1.6/1.5 TiVCT as the base (Ambiente/Studio) version while the 2.0 DI is reserved for mid and upper trim levels.

The 1.0 EB will be used as the 1.6/1.5 TiVCT replacement which will see the needed fuele conomy in base but yeah, the 1.2 EB for mid range.

Maybe 1.2 EB sees more use in Fiesta and Ecosport...

I agree.