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.
I actually ran into a known eco-wacko-kook from my old job at the gym once. She was spouting the global warming junk and I said she could take my gas guzzling V8 Jeep when she pried my cold dead body from the driver's seat.
Of course, she had best eat a lot of veggies, being the hardcore and sickly looking vegatarian.
Old photo I took during some servicing. If I can ever afford it, I would rather get a long block 360 or 401. They apparently don't have the lifter problems of the 304.
Actually, this type of supercharger technology dates back to WWII. What is relatively new - for a 60 year old fart - is the use of ready to install centrifugal superchargers in streetable cars as power adders in in the upper end of the RPM range of an engine. Which, going back to where this started, you can have a direct injected engine that putts down the highway at 65MPH that is using very little fuel and when it is matted to pass or accelerate can increase it's HP dramatically.
“Considering how our reliance on foreign oil is a national security issue, then Congress is well-within its bounds to mandate “’less fun.’”
Hey, Gweneth Paltrow just pulled up in her Prius.
People have been installing them in cars on a regular basis since the 80s. You probably weren’t paying attention. :D
Nope, they do.
And all the AMC V8s have that wretched oil pump midplate problem. I had to swap the engine in my Jeep out because of that.
I don’t miss that part of owning it at all.
I have a GMC Sonoma (baby pickup) with a tiny 4 in it that buzzes like a hive of angry bees as it leisurely accelerates to 40 MPH. I made a mistake buying that one.
I'd just be content with the passenger.
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 . . .
I met a guy last year who used to run with his wife one of those races out in Nevada year after year. He was going 150 or so and blew his tires out - factory rated to go very fast, but still not race tires.
The crash mangled him to the point it took years to walk again, and smeared his wife all across the Nevada desert.
I like races, but I don't think that style is my cup of tea....
Other than the lifter chatter, motor-wise, my 304 is pretty solid. My motorhead days kinded of faded away over the past 12 - 15 years. Power is not a problem, oil pressure (line gauge) is steady at temp, and is pretty good about oil. I don't think it was ever really gotten into. I got in back in the mid 90's from a guy who did nothing with it.
The transmission has about had it but I have another one in very good condition. A few seals have broken down so it leaks pretty well. The seal on the rear output of the transfer case is the one that has gone almost completely. I drive it around the block every so often just to drive it. Then park it and throw out some oil dry.
When the budget can tolerate it, I want to get that bit of major surgery out of the way. Here in the burbs with me as the only source of labor, it wouldn't be a lot of fun. I would like to have it as a once in a while driver. The rest of the little stuff I can handle.
I wished it had a tailgate like my 77 CJ5 did. That was so handy. Maybe if I ever do any real body work and win the lottery as to buy a replacement tub, that would happen.
The “expensive alloys” you’re referring to are “steel” and “aluminum”. As opposed to the “iron” and “tin” the domestic makers all seem to like to use because they’re cheap.
In 1990 Nissan produced a turbocharged V6 engine that with one tweak to the boost, would produce in excess of 350 horsepower and would continue to do so for 250,000 miles plus. That engine was the VG30DETT in the Nissan 300ZX.
“Exotic” is relative. That very same engine, sans turbos (VG30DE) was used in just about everything Nissan made from trucks to sedans. And, as at least one other here can attest, they have no problems making it to 250K or more. What’s it made out of? A good grade of aluminum, good high-carbon *steel* liners that are not recycled truck springs, and a recognition that a good car starts with the engine and goes from there.
Toyota also has an inline six that can pull off the same feat. So it’s not “exotic” metallurgy, it’s just the willingness to actually spend a couple of bucks more on the metals you use.
If Ford offered you that truck with a 400hp Nissan VQ40DE in it, take it. It’ll still be running when you get too old to drive it.
Assuming the timing chain doesn’t go, which *is* a problem with the earlier LS400s.
Were I you, I’d dump the AMC driveline and swap in a 4.0L HO I6 (and trans) from a later Jeep. It’s a direct swap, and you will get a *massive* increase in mileage, power, and relibility. You will also gain an overdrive and a shorter first gear. And your Jeep will lose a few pounds.
In addition, you are aware that Chrysler has discontinued all parts for the AMC V8s (304-401) and that all you can get is what’s left in the warehouse, right?
"towing" - look at the new Tahoe "2 mode" hybrid.
I’m on my second F-150. My first was a white 2001 standard short bed XL with a 6 and a rubber carpet. After a bad accident that snapped the front driver’s wheel off and twisted the frame and deployed both air bags- truck was totalled-and I walked away with just a sore chest I became a BIG fan of the truck. I found a Black 99 with 85K miles automatic, long bed with a nicer interior. I love these trucks. Added a aluminum tool box behind the cab. Need to get step rails so my girlfriend can climb in easier and maybe some fender trim. The only thing I would change is that it has the paddle type mirrors and not the fuller round ones that are more common.
I think this boils down to how one would define "regular basis" and "ready to install." Superchargers appeared on cars as early as 1937, so on that "technicality", we are both wrong. What I have been referring to is the explosion in availability of ready to bolt on kits and wide spread usage that emerged primarily as part of the street car craze in the late 90's. The small electronically controlled 4 cylinder engines are streetable and economical, but when you add a charge air system of some type, can really lay down the HP. However, if your only intent in the dialog is to be right, pat yourself on the back and have a nice day.
I figure it will be 5 to 8 years before I'm in the market for another vehicle. The hybrid issues should be figured out or eclipsed by something better by then.
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.