Jump to content
Blue Oval Forums





Sign in to follow this  
Broncofan7

Potential Future F-150 Engine Development?

Recommended Posts

Sounds interesting.  I'm curious why an inline?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting to see what kind of horsepower it will make. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it’s a bit late in the game to be developing new ICE engines, electrification is fast approaching and hybrid technology takes a lot of the development load away from ICEs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No reason to put all the eggs in one basket.  Also there's millions of ICE trucks to sell for many, many years before EV (and that's still a big IF) completely replaces ICE.  So it makes sense to continue investing in ICE tech that has the potential to be a game changer.

 

I am glad to hear it's an inline.  No reason for V6 any more now that they aren't using six cylinders in FWD platforms.  Inline is smoother and easier packaging turbos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like this isn't the first we've heard of an I6 rumor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Maybe Ford is listening to us discuss all our engine fantasies.

 

The article I read stated that it was for cost reduction.  Nothing to do with smoothness.  From what I recall, I6 vs 60 degree v6 doesn’t make much difference for smoothness, each has a trade off in the imbalance.  It is what you prefer.  90 degree v6s are a different matter.  A 60 degree v12 is what you want for smoothness as that takes the best attributes of the v6 and I6 and combines them without each of their shortfalls.

 

Provided there is room to handle the length (nano is 95mm, coyote 100mm...same as BMW), an I6 would be a real winner in the Explorer,aviator,f150,expedition and navigator.  Perceived superiority over a v6 and lower cost.  Particularly if Ford offered a single turbo version as BMW does.  

Edited by slemke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, 92merc said:

Sounds interesting.  I'm curious why an inline?

 

16 hours ago, twintornados said:

Inline 6 motors are much smoother than their V6 counterparts...

Better harmonic balancing and my layman's guess is the head is wider or larger for the prechambers, which might cause packaging problems for a Vee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happened to Hackett's dictate of "no more investment in i/c engines". Yet another failed leadership directive from him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggested ford look at I6 in the Explorer thread some time ago.

It could be a six cylinder version of the 2.0/2.3 I4. 
This could provide cost reduction opportunities for ford on all longitudinal vehicle platforms/rear wheel drive based platforms.

I understand that Mazda is coming out with a six cylinder I6 for a new CX9 which will be rear wheel drive based.

In the past, ford and Mazda cooperated in the design of the 2.0, 3.5V6 engines and there is sufficient reason to cooperate on a 3.0/3.X version of an I6 in today’s environment.

Comparing the 3.5 , 2.7/3.0 ecoboost to a new in line six ecoboost over Explorer/F150 volumes, a major cost savings opportunity may exist.

Remember, ford prices for the added costs of ecoboost but the market determines what they are actually going to get!

edselford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thought process on the part of Ford here. I would imagine that it might eventually make its way into the Bronco/Ranger as well, at least in some form,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, edselford said:

I suggested ford look at I6 in the Explorer thread some time ago.

It could be a six cylinder version of the 2.0/2.3 I4. 
This could provide cost reduction opportunities for ford on all longitudinal vehicle platforms/rear wheel drive based platforms.

I understand that Mazda is coming out with a six cylinder I6 for a new CX9 which will be rear wheel drive based.

In the past, ford and Mazda cooperated in the design of the 2.0, 3.5V6 engines and there is sufficient reason to cooperate on a 3.0/3.X version of an I6 in today’s environment.

Comparing the 3.5 , 2.7/3.0 ecoboost to a new in line six ecoboost over Explorer/F150 volumes, a major cost savings opportunity may exist.

Remember, ford prices for the added costs of ecoboost but the market determines what they are actually going to get!

edselford

 

That was when Mazda was a Ford brand.  Mazda is now tied up with Toyota, so I doubt we'll see any cooperation like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, slemke said:

Maybe Ford is listening to us discuss all our engine fantasies.

 

The article I read stated that it was for cost reduction.  Nothing to do with smoothness.  From what I recall, I6 vs 60 degree v6 doesn’t make much difference for smoothness, each has a trade off in the imbalance.  It is what you prefer.  90 degree v6s are a different matter.  A 60 degree v12 is what you want for smoothness as that takes the best attributes of the v6 and I6 and combines them without each of their shortfalls.

 

Provided their is room to handle the length (nano is 95mm, coyote 100mm...same as BMW), an I6 would be a real winner in the Explorer,aviator,f150,expedition and navigator.  Perceived superiority over a v6 and lower cost.  Particularly if Ford offered a single turbo version as BMW does.  

Ford had the Aussie   Barra 4.0 DOHC I-6 and threw it away because they didn’t need it.

The turbo six arrived years in advance of Ecoboost and should have been a no brainer

for F150, Expedition and Explorer........the Aussie Territory was basically the forerunner

to a RWD 3-row Edge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

Ford had the Aussie   Barra 4.0 DOHC I-6 and threw it away because they didn’t need it.

The turbo six arrived years in advance of Ecoboost and should have been a no brainer

for F150, Expedition and Explorer........the Aussie Territory was basically the forerunner

to a RWD 3-row Edge.

 

I think that could've been a factor of the globalization and putting most of the worldwide lineups on FWD platforms that they also wanted higher power 6 cylinders for, so you're stuck with a V6 because of width/size limitations.

 

Now that we've seen that decoupled because of C2 applying to midsize and lower (needing lower power outputs), Explorer/Aviator being RWD, and BEVs for almost everything else going forward, that opens the door for an I6 more tailored to specific uses (as long as they can justify the expense of developing it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

I think that could've been a factor of the globalization and putting most of the worldwide lineups on FWD platforms that they also wanted higher power 6 cylinders for, so you're stuck with a V6 because of width/size limitations.

 

Now that we've seen that decoupled because of C2 applying to midsize and lower (needing lower power outputs), Explorer/Aviator being RWD, and BEVs for almost everything else going forward, that opens the door for an I6 more tailored to specific uses (as long as they can justify the expense of developing it).

I think that is it.  Ford needed the v6 for the MKS.  The Taurus sho and flex additional volume.  Then someone decided it might work in the F150 and the rest is history.  Explorer sport was an easy addition since the engine already existed.  The nano has an even tighter bore spacing for a more compact engine.  V6 was the correct choice for the products Ford had at the time.  Now the volume is there for an I6 and the compact length of a v6 isn’t necessary.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/2/2021 at 10:27 PM, jpd80 said:

I think it’s a bit late in the game to be developing new ICE engines, electrification is fast approaching and hybrid technology takes a lot of the development load away from ICEs.

Possibly.  Depends on how far along development is.  There is still plenty of time to sell ice.  Additionally, hybrids still require a good ice at its core.  Nissan has announced an ice hybrid with 50% thermal efficiency.  The bar keeps rising and Ford needs to keep up.  BEV volume isn’t high enough at this point to rely solely on it and let ice ride.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, slemke said:

Possibly.  Depends on how far along development is.  There is still plenty of time to sell ice.  Additionally, hybrids still require a good ice at its core.  Nissan has announced an ice hybrid with 50% thermal efficiency.  The bar keeps rising and Ford needs to keep up.  BEV volume isn’t high enough at this point to rely solely on it and let ice ride.

I’ve been following this for a couple of years, it originally started as a project looking at pr-chamber combustion of LNG which sort of went nowhere once the original $3M funding was used up.

Edited by jpd80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/3/2021 at 7:59 PM, slemke said:

I think that is it.  Ford needed the v6 for the MKS.  The Taurus sho and flex additional volume.  Then someone decided it might work in the F150 and the rest is history.  Explorer sport was an easy addition since the engine already existed.  The nano has an even tighter bore spacing for a more compact engine.  V6 was the correct choice for the products Ford had at the time.  Now the volume is there for an I6 and the compact length of a v6 isn’t necessary.

 

 

That was exactly the reason... V6 made more sense for Ford in the mid 2000s because it can be used in both transverse and longitude applications.

 

With C2 not needing anything more than I4 going forward, the rationale for V6 is gone. For Ford's larger models, longitude drivetrain is now totally harmonized with same transmission and PHEV modules and there is enough volume on worldwide basis to continue investment. So I6 is definitely back on the table as an option.

 

I6 also has added benefit of being able to share with more components with I3 and I4. The standard 500cc cylinder conveniently produce 1.5 I3, 2.0 I4, and 3.0 I6 - ideal displacements for their applications. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just question if a I6 will fit in the Explorer.  Without the Explorer/Aviator, it's just down to F150 and Expi sales basically.

 

I'm not anti-inline.  The 300 I6 is one of my favorite engines from Ford.  Those things ran forever, at a time engines didn't typically go over 100k miles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Mercedes Benz has been selling an I-6  (M256) with a small electric compressor for a few years on some of its cars and SUVs. The output for a 3.0L engine isn't too shabby, in the GLE53 it makes 429 hp.  I'm guessing and Ecoboost I-6 could get similar numbers. 

Edited by Donaldo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 92merc said:

I just question if a I6 will fit in the Explorer.  Without the Explorer/Aviator, it's just down to F150 and Expi sales basically.

 

I'm not anti-inline.  The 300 I6 is one of my favorite engines from Ford.  Those things ran forever, at a time engines didn't typically go over 100k miles.

 

I6 should fit in CD6 without a sweat but it will require a new front subframe which is not difficult to do if you are talking about a mid cycle update or next gen model. 

 

But you are totally underestimating the volume. I6 will also fit in Mustang, Ranger, Everest, and Bronco. And most likely RWD Transit and E-series and whatever Ford decided to replace it. If Ford can get the 3.0 I6 to sip fuel like the 2.3 I4, it can also replace that one, in addition to 2.7, 3.0, and 3.5 V6. But yes, F-150 pays the bill for everyone else. Same situation as the 10 speed auto. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×