New Ford Product Investments

[jpd80]

4 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Was not aware of Germans developing technology, but have seen mention of Mazda and GM.  Isn’t latest Mazda Skyactiv technology a version of HCCL?
 

The Maserati system mentioned for possible future F-150 sounds a bit different to me, but I didn’t read articles closely.  In any case, I think features of the mentioned F-150 engine could be developed and implemented without the entire broader scope.  For example, the new engine is reported to target significant weight reduction, and that may be possible without the pre-chamber design (in case that part doesn’t work out).

1. No the Mazda Skyactiv G is basically high compression spark ignition with knock controlled by residual exhaust gas in the chamber.

 

2. The original dual injection on the Ford system was to provide E85 through the DI injectors as detonation control to generate 600 lb ft in turbo 3.6 v6 engine, I think the MIT mule was a GM V6 but the principle is the same. It was all about replacing diesels with high boost gasoline engines but Ford and MIT had a falling out over patents, that’s why Ford went with single fuel.

 

 

Quote

 

Also different than present engines is the very long proposed stroke-to-bore ratio of 4:3, which could also be implemented separately.  Present V6s are close to square and can’t be stroked that much.  The new Mustang 2.3L EB on the other hand already has very long stroke-to-bore ratio, which is why I have speculated that if there is a new I-6, it may be a 3.4L inline-6 based on newest Mustang 2.3L EB.

Changes to 2.3 were to standardise combustion chamber design and to add internal EGR which is much easier to control than external hoses. The only reason auto companies went with long stroke engines was to get better surface to volume ratio for lowering emissions, modern engines no longer require that as lighter reciprocating parts are preferred with DOHC engines.

 

While an I-6 is an interesting idea for F150 and Large SUVs, it could be offered as an extension to the 2.3 production line, mainly as a means for doing away with 3.5 V6 production. The only rub with that is the UAW and Ford  an agreement not to close any plants in the next four years…so there’s that.

[Rick73]

9 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

With the sports coupe market in decline, it would be hard to justify the development of an entirely new engine. There were some rumors of an inline 6 some time ago. Perhaps Ford could develop that engine for a next gen f-150, and punch up the performance for a mustang, but I don't see that happening. 

I wasn’t thinking “sports coupe market” as much as all other RWD vehicles.  For me personally, Ford would have best chance to sell me such an engine if in a hybrid Transit that got better fuel economy than present-day Transit.  All-out performance like Stellantis went after with new inline-6 would be a complete waste of effort on me, and I expect many others.  I don’t see many buyers actually wanting to pay extra up front and additionally take MPG hit to own an SUV or van with 500 HP.  No doubt there are some who always want more power, but I feel economy-biased hybrids as an alternate to BEV electrification has greater market potential.

[Rick73]

7 hours ago, jpd80 said:

The only reason auto companies went with long stroke engines was to get better surface to volume ratio for lowering emissions, modern engines no longer require that as lighter reciprocating parts are preferred with DOHC engines.

Not following what you mean.  On average newest engines are going to longer stroke-to-bore ratios.  Ratio of 1.2 now common with some as high as +/- 1.3.  New Mustang 2.3L EB increased to just over 1.21.  That’s quite a departure from current/older Ford V6 and V8 in North America.

 

Also not following lighter reciprocating parts in context of lowering total engine weight; other than obvious minor weight/mass savings from parts themselves.  The article implied an inline-6 can be lighter than similar V6 due to overall simpler design and fewer parts.  Historically I’m not sure there is a big difference in weight between I-6 and V-6.  Mostly I think I-6 would be cheaper to build and smoother in operation.  Added length is only major drawback.  I don’t expect Ford to come out with new I-6 this late in the ICE game, but it would be a welcomed surprise.

[DeluxeStang]

3 hours ago, Rick73 said:

I wasn’t thinking “sports coupe market” as much as all other RWD vehicles.  For me personally, Ford would have best chance to sell me such an engine if in a hybrid Transit that got better fuel economy than present-day Transit.  All-out performance like Stellantis went after with new inline-6 would be a complete waste of effort on me, and I expect many others.  I don’t see many buyers actually wanting to pay extra up front and additionally take MPG hit to own an SUV or van with 500 HP.  No doubt there are some who always want more power, but I feel economy-biased hybrids as an alternate to BEV electrification has greater market potential.

They could try it, the transit already has v6 options, so we know it can fit that kind of engine. But there's no way they'd be able to package an inline 6 in a transit.

[jpd80]

5 hours ago, Rick73 said:

Not following what you mean.  On average newest engines are going to longer stroke-to-bore ratios.  Ratio of 1.2 now common with some as high as +/- 1.3.  New Mustang 2.3L EB increased to just over 1.21.  That’s quite a departure from current/older Ford V6 and V8 in North America.

 

Also not following lighter reciprocating parts in context of lowering total engine weight; other than obvious minor weight/mass savings from parts themselves.  The article implied an inline-6 can be lighter than similar V6 due to overall simpler design and fewer parts.  Historically I’m not sure there is a big difference in weight between I-6 and V-6.  Mostly I think I-6 would be cheaper to build and smoother in operation.  Added length is only major drawback.  I don’t expect Ford to come out with new I-6 this late in the ICE game, but it would be a welcomed surprise.

The 2.3 change was to adopt a common combustion chamber shared with other engines (was part of combustion chamber research started in the twenty teens). It has less to do about the stroke to bore ratio which was a consequence of going to a slightly smaller bore.

 

Quote

https://www.motortrend.com/news/2024-ford-mustang-engine-ecoboost-v-8-deep-dive/
 

Oh, and that MPC stands for Modular Power Cylinder, which refers to the combustion chamber shape, valve and injector orientation, piston dome, etc., all of which get engineered and optimized once and applied to a family of engines (in this case, inline three- and four-cylinders). 

 

 

An I -6 is an interesting idea if shared with an I-4 plant so that the current V6 plant can be closed down. Other than that, it makes no sense for Ford to change from current V6 Ecoboost plans s the weight savings is a nonsense in F150 or large SUVs.

 

The other thing that stops an I-6 replacing Ford’s V6 is the UAW agreement not to close any plants in the next four years.

Edited November 6, 2023 by jpd80

[jpd80]

3 hours ago, DeluxeStang said:

They could try it, the transit already has v6 options, so we know it can fit that kind of engine. But there's no way they'd be able to package an inline 6 in a transit.

The I-6 is an engine that few to none of Ford’s current products could support and that’s before we talk about redesigning all those front crash protection cells. There’s a lot of tear up and redo that Ford can avoid by continued use of existing engines and variations…

 

Also the primary focus on Electrification using hybrids and BEVs has probably sucked a lot of oxygen out of the room for more advanced engine development - there’s no need if electric power can be used to lower emissions and provide an I-4 where a V6 would normally be used. Besides, downsizing and turbocharging has been a part of Ford’s DNA for at least 15 years now.

Edited November 6, 2023 by jpd80

[twintornados]

59 minutes ago, jpd80 said:

The I-6 is an engine that few to none of Ford’s current products could support and that’s before we talk about redesigning all those front crash protection cells. There’s a lot of tear up and redo that Ford can avoid by continued use of existing engines and variations…

 

Also the primary focus on Electrification using hybrids and BEVs has probably sucked a lot of oxygen out of the room for more advanced engine development - there’s no need if electric power can be used to lower emissions and provide an I-4 where a V6 would normally be used. Besides, downsizing and turbocharging has been a part of Ford’s DNA for at least 15 years now.

 

I am sure a modern I-6 will fit in Ford F-Series just fine as well as Expedition and Navigator....Explorer and Aviator would need some massaging of CD6 front structure.

[GearheadGrrrl]

An Inline 6 in 2023 begs the question... Why?

[Rick73]

4 hours ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

An Inline 6 in 2023 begs the question... Why?

As long as added length is not an issue, an inline-six is considered a better engine.  Mazda and Stellantis just introduced inline-6s, so they must have had a reason versus designing new V-6s.  Of course BMW and Mercedes have had I-6s for years, and GM an I-6 diesel.  On the other hand Toyota has fairly new V-6, but perhaps that’s so variant can be used in transverse FWD applications.

 

It’s interesting to note that with newest engines having much smaller bore and longer stroke, the engine can be much shorter than what we are used to with traditional inline sixes.  Also, when engines are used in hybrid applications, the length can be reduced further by eliminating belt-driven accessories.  That’s how Mercedes Benz made their hybrid engine shorter.

 

I doubt Ford will replace V6s, but if they did, my best guess is that 3.0 ~ 3.4 liter I-6 would be no longer than 3.2L I-5 Diesel that was installed in Transit and Ranger.  Just my opinion though.

 

 

[jpd80]

9 hours ago, twintornados said:

 

I am sure a modern I-6 will fit in Ford F-Series just fine as well as Expedition and Navigator....Explorer and Aviator would need some massaging of CD6 front structure.

But why do that when the V6s are doing the job fine, plus you have the one engine bay set up  for both the V6 and V8 engines.

Not saying it can’t be done for very good reasons but is there a burning need beyond  Stellantis doing it?

[Rick73]

6 hours ago, jpd80 said:

But why do that when the V6s are doing the job fine, plus you have the one engine bay set up  for both the V6 and V8 engines.

Not saying it can’t be done for very good reasons but is there a burning need beyond  Stellantis doing it?

Best reason I can think of is to have a larger-displacement more-powerful Atkinson engine for hybrids.  A new engine larger than existing 2.5L used in Maverick would be needed for heavier vehicles like Explorer.  The difference between 3.4L and 2.5L would compensate for a vehicle roughly 1,000 pounds heavier or more.  It’s not likely though because like Stellantis, Ford would go after twin-turbo power instead of Atkinson, making incremental improvement over 3.5L EB not worth the effort and cost.  On the other hand I don’t see Ford building a dedicated Atkinson inline-6 engine for larger hybrids either.  As I said before, this late in ICE game it seems highly improbable unless Ford plan to go all in on hybrids.

[GearheadGrrrl]

The only advantage I can see is cost- one less cylinder head, one less set of cams. etc.. With the difficulty of packaging an inline 6 in transverse applications and the V6s left to die, it would doom Ford to future totally dependent on longitudal front engine vehicles- Not a good product mix to be locked in to as buyers shift to smaller vehicles.

[Rick73]

34 minutes ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

The only advantage I can see is cost- one less cylinder head, one less set of cams. etc.. With the difficulty of packaging an inline 6 in transverse applications and the V6s left to die, it would doom Ford to future totally dependent on longitudal front engine vehicles- Not a good product mix to be locked in to as buyers shift to smaller vehicles.

Smaller vehicles, which are lighter, could be powered by 4-cylinder engines as at present, so I don’t see a need to install an inline-6 transversely.  I can imagine a modular approach with a new 2.3L I-4 Atkinson for smaller FWD vehicles and 3.4L I-6 Atkinson for RWD heavier vehicles.

 

By the way, just guessing at displacement based on latest Ford engine, the 2.3L for Mustang.  I happen to read a lot into that engine which may or may not be a good idea.

[silvrsvt]

1 hour ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

The only advantage I can see is cost- one less cylinder head, one less set of cams. etc.. With the difficulty of packaging an inline 6 in transverse applications and the V6s left to die, it would doom Ford to future totally dependent on longitudal front engine vehicles- Not a good product mix to be locked in to as buyers shift to smaller vehicles.

 

Sigh...Ford isn't going to invest in a new gen ICE product...it makes no sense when current platforms with updates can last till the middle of next decade.

 

They already made their bed with no more traverse mounted vehicles that need V6s in them-they can share a single powertrain in an F-150, Explorer, Bronco, Ranger and their Lincoln equivalents. The 2.3L I4 is plenty powerful enough for FWD applications that might need a V6 in it. 

 

And where are you getting this data on smaller vehicles? There is no shift to smaller cars or sedans. The fuel savings isn't worth it to the average US consumer. The difference between say an Escape (1.5L I3) vs an Explorer (2.3L RWD) in yearly fuel costs is about $600 a year or $11.53 a week more in gas at $5 bucks a gallon driving 15000 miles a year. 

[Rick73]

24 minutes ago, silvrsvt said:

Sigh...Ford isn't going to invest in a new gen ICE product...it makes no sense when current platforms with updates can last till the middle of next decade.

 

How do you explain the “all new” (that’s per Ford statement) 2.3L EB for 2024 Mustang?  Why not keep previous 2.3L EB?

[silvrsvt]

13 minutes ago, Rick73 said:

How do you explain the “all new” (that’s per Ford statement) 2.3L EB for 2024 Mustang?  Why not keep previous 2.3L EB?

What Ford says and what they actually are doing are two different things. 

 

Its just like saying the 5.0L coyote is so much different then the 4.6L modular engine is-when it is built on the same assembly line using the same tooling.

 

The "new" 2.3L still uses the same casting (as far as we know) as the older 2.3L. Its just an update of the existing engine, until proven otherwise. 

[GearheadGrrrl]

Most of the reasons the full size pickups series are pretty much a North American market oddity is because Rest Of World's garages can't fit them. America with it's millions of huge homes built after WW2 with huge garages could easily house full size pickups, but new housing in NA is now trending to smaller garages, driveways, and just plain apartments. Might explain why the Maverick sells so well...

 

As for the economics, having lived within my means with 40+ MPG cars I'm now comfortably retired and could buy an F150 or three cash, but why waste my garage on three trucks when I can fit four sports cars!

[Chrisgb]

44 minutes ago, GearheadGrrrl said:

As for the economics, having lived within my means with 40+ MPG cars I'm now comfortably retired and could buy an F150 or three cash, but why waste my garage on three trucks when I can fit four sports cars!

You fergot motorcycles...

[GearheadGrrrl]

30 minutes ago, Chrisgb said:

You fergot motorcycles...

Motorcycles sleep in the house!

[Rick73]

3 hours ago, silvrsvt said:

What Ford says and what they actually are doing are two different things. 

 

Its just like saying the 5.0L coyote is so much different then the 4.6L modular engine is-when it is built on the same assembly line using the same tooling.

 

The "new" 2.3L still uses the same casting (as far as we know) as the older 2.3L. Its just an update of the existing engine, until proven otherwise. 

Semantics on what’s considered “new”.  ? 

 

The new Mustang 2.3L EB  has different bore so different block, also has different head, crank, pistons, turbo, fuel injection, etc.  Only major unknown is whether the two 2.3L engines share the same bore spacing, and in big scheme of things, how much does that really matter if everything else is new?

 

Developing a new inline-6 by adding two extra cylinders to an existing I-4 in my opinion is similar to what Ford did to create the 6.8L V-10.  They started with 4.6L V-8, then stroked to make the 5.4L V8 (which required taller block).  Ford then added 2 extra cylinders to 5.4L to make the 6.8L.

[twintornados]

15 hours ago, jpd80 said:

But why do that when the V6s are doing the job fine, plus you have the one engine bay set up  for both the V6 and V8 engines.

Not saying it can’t be done for very good reasons but is there a burning need beyond  Stellantis doing it?

 

I-6 is smoother than a comparable V-6

[CurtisH]

4 hours ago, twintornados said:

 

I-6 is smoother than a comparable V-6

Does that really matter?  The difference is not big.  With the proper engine mounts and subframe isolation, most people probably wouldn’t notice the difference. 

[silvrsvt]

On 11/6/2023 at 8:38 AM, Rick73 said:

All-out performance like Stellantis went after with new inline-6 would be a complete waste of effort on me, and I expect many others.  I don’t see many buyers actually wanting to pay extra up front and additionally take MPG hit to own an SUV or van with 500 HP.  No doubt there are some who always want more power, but I feel economy-biased hybrids as an alternate to BEV electrification has greater market potential.

 

The thing is that no one has proved that "detuning" a modern engine actually makes it get better MPGs...this isn't the 1980s anymore.

 

The reason Stellantis went with a I6 is that their V8s where a dead end with no more potential to get better MPGs (or other products to off set them like Ford has) and the I6 was an easier effort then a brand new V6. The I6 would be going into existing trucks/SUVs (just like Ford is doing with its Ecoboost V6s) and the Challenger/Charger is getting a major overall that would allow it to fit the I6 in it. 

[akirby]

2 hours ago, CurtisH said:

Does that really matter?  The difference is not big.  With the proper engine mounts and subframe isolation, most people probably wouldn’t notice the difference. 

Considering how smooth the current V6s are it’s a complete non issue.  If they were already designing a new 6 cylinder engine from scratch then it might be a factor.

[mackinaw]

3 hours ago, CurtisH said:

Does that really matter?  The difference is not big.  With the proper engine mounts and subframe isolation, most people probably wouldn’t notice the difference. 

 

Don't forget the balance shaft.