The 2009 Lincoln MKS a new fuel-efficient 3.7-liter V-6 engine. (Photo courtesy of Ford)
Posted on 01/09/2008 9:50:29 AM PST by Incorrigible
The 2009 Lincoln MKS a new fuel-efficient 3.7-liter V-6 engine. (Photo courtesy of Ford) |
|
Derrick Kuzak's vision of the future could scare some gearheads.
Big pickups would use four-cylinder engines, luxury sedans would come with V-6s instead of V-8s. The venerable V-8 engine would be found only on big commercial trucks.
Ford Motor Co.'s vice president of global product design sees engine downsizing as the clearest way to meet new federal fuel economy standards. The trick will be doing it without slashing power.
"We know our customers want better fuel economy," Kuzak said. "We know how to deliver that near-term."
Starting with the launch of the 2009 Lincoln MKS sedan later this year, Ford will begin a multiyear push to cut the size of its engines.
The MKS will replace the Lincoln Town Car as the flagship of Ford's luxury lineup. Unlike the V8-powered Town Car, the MKS will use a six-cylinder engine.
To make up for its size, the new engine swipes two technologies from the hot-rod world — turbo-charging and direct fuel injection.
The result is a V-6 that provides 13 percent more horsepower than the Town Car's V-8 and increases fuel economy.
Work on the MKS' engine has already begun at Ford's plant in Lima, Ohio. The MKS uses a modified version of the 3.5-liter V-6 built there. Later this year, 3.5-liter work will start up at Ford's Brook Park, Ohio, campus.
Despite big power numbers, convincing buyers that a six-cylinder engine can do the work of a V-8 will be a tough sell.
"After decades of selling power, and power being defined as having more cylinders or bigger displacement, you have to completely redefine" engine marketing, said Brett Smith, assistant director of the manufacturing, engineering and technology group at the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich.
Car buyers may say they want more fuel-efficient vehicles, but Smith said brawny consistently outsells thrifty.
That's why whenever an automaker releases a redesigned car or truck, it tends to be more powerful than the one it replaces.
The 2007 Toyota Camry? Even the 158-horsepower four-cylinder model is 26.4 percent beefier than it was in 1996. The V-6 gained 42.6 percent on its climb to 268 horses.
In 2004, General Motors released the Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon small trucks, powered by either a four-cylinder or a five-cylinder engine.
Smith said Ford dealers responded by telling potential buyers that the Colorado was a cylinder short, even though its power numbers were higher than the V- 6 available on Ford's Ranger.
It's a marketing strategy that can't survive new federal mandates of 35 mile-per-gallon fuel efficiency by 2020.
"Everyone's in this together. One company isn't going to be able to sell a bunch of V-8s in a segment where others are selling V-6s. It just won't be possible with these new rules," Smith said.
He added that Ford's chosen technologies, turbo-charging and direct injection, could make small engines powerful enough to allow the company to cut sizes.
Turbo-charging is the practice of forcing more air into an engine cylinder, boosting the power briefly when needed.
Direct injection means injecting fuel directly into those engine cylinders instead of in a port or manifold. The fuel used burns more completely, creating more power with lower emissions. But it's a complex system that requires lots of computer controls.
Combined, the technologies can add thousands to the price of an engine, a cost that Ford's Kuzak said can be reclaimed in less than three years from lower gasoline bills.
There are a handful of cars on the road today that use both technologies, but they tend to be specialty, hot-rod models.
Mazda uses the system in its Speed6. It gets 270 horsepower, 27 percent more than the V-6 Mazda 6 sedan and it costs nearly $7,000 more.
General Motors uses turbo-direct-injection in hot-rod versions of the Saturn Sky and Pontiac Solstice two-door roadsters.
The Saturn Sky Redline uses a 2-liter, four-cylinder engine that gets 50 percent more power than the standard version of the car with a 2.4-liter engine. And it gets 28 miles per gallon on the highway, up from 25 miles on the base Sky.
"These technologies are still marketed as performance add-ons," Smith said. "It's not looked on as a fuel-economy enhancement."
He added that all major automakers are looking at turbo-direct-injection to aid fuel economy, but none has yet mastered it.
Even Ford, the biggest proponent of the technology, plans only 500,000 units by 2012 or about 100,000 engines per year — about 5 percent of its vehicle output.
Kuzak said after 2012, nearly all of Ford's new vehicles will use either that technology or diesel engines.
"I cannot say that we have all of our plans (to get to 35 miles per gallon) buttoned up to 2020. We have our plans through 2012," Kuzak said.
(Robert Schoenberger is a reporter for The Plain Dealer of Cleveland. He can be contacted at rschoenb(at)plaind.com.)
Not for commercial use. For educational and discussion purposes only.
Mazda uses the system in its Speed6. It gets 270 horsepower, 27 percent more than the V-6 Mazda 6 sedan and it costs nearly $7,000 more.
Very nice car but Mazda is discontinuing for 2008 due to lack of interest.
They did this in 1976; Jimmah Carter era.
I think we had a Chevy Impala with 4 or 6 that produced something like 95hp.
What a P.O.S.
I have a Sky Redline (at least for now).
The engine is amazing. 260HP and about the same torque out of a 2.0 liter four cylinder.
Its scary fast (of course it doesn’t weigh all that much either).
They can have my 400+ HP Z06 Corvette when they pry it from my cold, dead hands!
And the tree you wrap it around. :)
My contention with squeezing lots of HP out of little motors has always been durability. Let’s face it, the more stress you subject machines to, the quicker they wear out. The alternative is to use expensive alloys and polymers to resist the additional wear and tear. So far, to the best of my knowledge, the racing industry and high performance aftermarket autos are the only place these very pricy motors are used.
So, in 2010 when Ford wants me to by a 350 hp, F-150 with a V-6 in it, I will search around for the 300 hp V-8 and have confidence that I will still get 200,000+ miles out of it over 10 to 15 years.
Most “slashing” power is needed only in short bursts. Given the current state of the laws (yuck), the engine coupled with a fast response, “power bursting” technology will go a long way in the market. Currently there are not too many options:
turbo boost - usually a noticeable delay in the boost
battery assist - takes lots of batteries and adds considerable weight
ultra capacitor - new technology and still adds weight but not as much as battery assist
flywheel - old technology that could be improved but it too adds weight and can cause handling problems if not engineered properly.
Alternatively, you can reduce the mass of the vehicle. This will require expensive new materials and new designs that are not yet tested. These new designs may cause an increase in the number of highway deaths.
So, Congress either wants you to have less fun or is willing to sacrifice the lives of it’s citizens.
I have never been impressed with the Ford V8, having driven two vehicles with them. The third Ford I drove was a Mustang with a V6 that had better pick-up and responsiveness than both V8s. That’s more likely a weight issue. But then again, I drove the Lincoln LS with a 6 cylinder, also better than a V8.
Don’t you mean if they can catch you and pry your foot off the gas pedal? ;-)
BTW, I’m invoking the picture rule. Let’s see that bad boy!
Turbo and super-charging are the way to go. They should have been producing them for the last 30 years in all vehicles.
History repeating itself - it’s the 1980’s all over again. How will those things tow a boat through hilly northern Michigan?
(Not that there are too many people left here)
The Vette isn’t likely to face the axe, since it’s more of a halo car, plus it gets decent mpg. Chevy will just wring a couple more mpg out of the Aveo to make up for it.
SOLUTION: PUT DIESELS IN ‘EM!!
More bang per cylinder.
The white C4 is my wifes (by the way, I get over 30 MPH on the highway if I keep my foot out of it!)
http://www.ah6le.net/corvette
Unfortunately, Ford is confusing power with torque, and most V8 buyers buy V8s for the low-end grunt they deliver. It ain’t the same with a V6 or — heaven forbid — a four, even if it does produce 300 hp. Yet another reason not to buy a Ford...
....besides, you ever hear what those overjuiced squeaker motors sound like? Imagine pulling 4,000 lbs for 3 hours with the turbo whining to get every drop out of 3.3 litres of displacement.
A sedate-looking real-wheel-drive monster with a 4.0 liter, 290hp V8. It looks like you're obeying the speed limit when The Law is around, but it'll deliver 0-60mph in 6.6 seconds. And, it's built by Toyota, so it'll run forever.
Come to West Texas and join me in the open-road race we have out here.
They close like 150 miles of highway and let you at it (timed for some seperation, not in a group, so you don’t really have to worry about other drivers).
Only one of the Ferraris in the race ended up being carted away in pieces . . . . Several ZVettes and Porsches didn’t make it . . .
LOL, yeah, well, get ready to see your truck division go bust, pal.
I don’t suppose this bodes well for the V-10s like my wife and I have in our F250 and Excursion.
Auto enthusiasts really need an NRA type organization. Anyone know of anything close?
Very nice. I especially like the one with the Mustang for sale in the background!
I think Ford’s best to motors ever were the last generation of the 302 and the 300ci In-Line 6.
But I drive pick ups.
As a Mazda6/626 owner since 1985, I’m glad to see what the 2009 Mazda6 will look like...
(I’m always tickled to think about all the $30K+ Fords and Lincolns that are based on my $15K (after dickering) Mazda6!)
My mom just sold her Lotus with a four cylinder that had a second gear beyond belief. Of course the cylinders were the diameter of an old steamship engine but man could that thing go.
Yea, the ‘stang was my ride before I bought the Z06!
(sold it at a loss just to get rid of it. A ‘stang ain’t no Vette!)
Think the F150 counts as a “big commercial truck”? If not my dad will be switching brands. He’s had 3 F150’s so far but won’t get rid of his V8 engine to stay in the Ford family.
LOL!
I think not.
Again Audi, VW and Porsche are essentially doing the same thing with turbo and FSI and no one complains.
Oops!
I meant “an extra 27 percent horsepower”, not “27 extra horsepower”
in my post 30 above.
Off-topic comment: Why does the Lincoln MKS look like a Pontiac? What were they thinking with that grille design???
There are turbos now that instead of being driven by exhaust gases are driven by the crankshaft, much less lag than traditional turbos. Couple this with direct injection and you would essentially have a motor that can cruise a car on sub-100HP and burst to 200 plus easily and reliably.
I have a Cummins turbo diesel that is a daily driver at 235HP or so, flip a go button in the cab and it will dyno over 400RWHP and 900+ ft/lbs of torque.
The range of adjustability of an electronically controlled, direct injected, turbo charged engine is incredible.
Ford looks to be in a death spiral. Would you rather have an expensive Turbo6 in your Ford pickup, or a Toyota with a V8? (Hint: higher temperatures and pressures lead to shorter engine lives)
Why don't some of these auto manufacturers simply take their existing engines and add another gear (5th, 6th, or even 7th) to improve fuel economy?
Conversely, the auto industry could push the U.S. government to do one thing that would probably be quite effective in improving overall fuel efficiency: Increase the number of vehicles with manual transmissions on the road. This isn't a bad idea at all . . . if Congress is going to force people to drive certain types of cars to meet these fuel standards, they might as well force them to drive cars that require a driver who -- well, KNOWS HOW TO DRIVE.
God gave us the V-8 to let us know that he loved us, and that everything would be OK.
For example, I am the owner of a 2003 Cobra Mustang: Double over head cam and factory supercharger. It delivers 400 HP to the rear wheels, and on my last long driving trip I registered 28 MPG! Hah! It even has a factory boost meter for the blower. 6-speed standard shift is, well, standard.
I love to hear that blower spool up on the DC beltway.
You're being entirely too close-minded. They could very easily want both!
“There are turbos now that instead of being driven by exhaust gases are driven by the crankshaft, much less lag than traditional turbos.”
Those are not new. They’re called “superchargers.”
The “more power more efficiently” thing will still leave the greenies screaming. They got pissy when a few “hybrids” came out that used the electric drive to boost performance. What they really want is see us forced into Euroweenie beer cans.
More proof that the marketing folks at Ford haven’t a clue. They’ve tried this same thing twice in the past and both times it was a failure.
Once starting in the late 70’s and on into the mid 80’s. Mustangs and T-Birds with 4 cylinders that no one wanted.
Then again later when they designed the “modular engine” that became the current 4.6. Too large, too heavy and too complicated for it’s power output. All because it’s original design displacement was just too small.
Somehow they’ve missed the fact that the vehicles that sold well used a pushrod 302 right up until they no longer made them available.
Too bad about Ford. Another fine old US company taken down by management and labor who have no business in the car business...
Nice....I like those Shelby gt500s....wow
Actually, I do. The F150 has been the best selling truck for a very long time. It has a reputation as being built to be a work truck. They have a reputation of being reliable and durable. The big parts have not historically broke. There have been some off years, however where Ford tried some "value engineering" and paid for it. Ask anyone who owned and F-150 built in 1992-1996. They made the drums and rotors smaller to save weight and you couldn't keep brakes on them. They had a simiar problem with tailgates for a while on older models. They have stayed pretty much on course to cater to their customers of late. But yes, given the declining sales of the F150 and the advance of Toyota on their "turf", it would not surprise me to see Ford try something "bold" to reinvent their product. Quite frankly, I think Toyota is winning lots of appeal because of the advertising. I know I am curious. They have more HP in their LD line and those commercials are awsome. Many F150 owners do not want the bells and whistles that come easier with Chevy trucks but want tough, rugged, durable long lasting machines with low maintenance. Chevys ride nicer and have better creature comforts than most Ford trucks. But F150 has outsold them still. Ford is nervous about losing market share in with their strongest product. It would not surprise me to see them get desparate. Look what happened to the Mustang in the late 70s and 80s. Yikes.
This may be true, but decent metallurgy and not cranking the boost way up compensates for that. I had a 300ZX Turbo that I purposely kept at stock boost most of the time; I sold it at 280,000 miles and when last heard from it was still running around North Texas as a daily driver.
Carolyn
Interesting. One solution for the durability issue, of course, is diesels. But another non-solution is simply to accept the engine's limited lifespan, and balance the cost of replacement and labor against the fuel savings. This is what made American cars different from European cars in the ‘50s and ‘60s. Gas was cheap here, but expensive in Europe, whereas labor was relatively cheaper in Europe than here. The result was smaller high compression European engines that needed major service within 100K. That worked because what the European saved in gas was more than enough to pay Adolph to scrape the head after 60K. When the cars were imported over here, however, it didn’t usually work out to your advantage.
I defer to your greater knowledge of all things Ford, but I can say without fear of contradiction that the 4.4L 296 HP V8 in my BMW X5 is vastly superior to the 3.0L 6 in the same box. Both get crappy mileage with the 6 only a mile or two per gallon ahead of the V8.
The Carter Era gave us the Cadillac V8-6-4.
SEMA, the Speciality Equipment Manufacturer’s Association, has a political action network representing automotive enthusiasts. Free membership, too. I get their newsletters. Surely there are others, but this is one I know of.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
