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.
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.
