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 knew you ment 30 MPG, but couldn't resist jerking you around a little.
I don't even have a bicycle. I can look like a dork without it. :')
Right — that makes sense. I don’t use the truck for heavy-duty towing or even for carrying heavy loads . . . it’s mainly a personal/work truck where the volume of the bed is more important than the weight capacity. And I do mostly highway driving in it, so the loss of high-RPM power isn’t that big a deal for me.
I upsized the tires to max out clearances on my truck. Partly for the farm during hunting season, partly for the fuel mileage and parlty because it looks cooler and sits higher.
I discovered a funny thing (besides the speedo being off by 8%). At 75mph the RPMs ran at about 2,200 prior to upsizing the tires. After? 1,900 RPMs at the same speed. Fuel mileage gain was about 2-3 mpg. The ride is not as tight, it bounces a little and doesn’t handle near as well. Also the ABS system now hesitates before engaging and there is a slight tire skid before it engages.
Other than that, I love it. :o)
Just FYI.
True, Nissan put a lot more thought, development time, and research into what has been called “The Japanese Equivalent Of The Chevy Smallblock” than many other makers - but Toyota turboed their 22R engine with similar results (and no problems). Honda turboed a V-twin motorcycle in the 80s, again with no problems.
It *can* be done. Companies just have to not be cheap b******s when it comes to their engine design to get the job done.
I recently bought a 1990 Pathfinder as a knock-about vehicle; it has the same VG30 engine sans turbo, and it has 231K on the clock as we speak today. No issues with it that I’ve been able to discover, and it has a pretty complete service history - just entries of scheduled services over and over. Meanwhile, my neighbor with a 2000 S-10 with the 4.3 has at least five problems a year with that thing.
This isn’t the case any more. Variable Valve Timing more or less solves this problem.
If you check the recycler site car-part.com you will find you can find a bunch of 4.6L ford engines with less than 100,000 miles for around $500.
They run for over 300,000 so they are almost never overhauled. (That is $3000)
Your Volvo had a non interference design, if it hadn’t every time that belt broke, you’d be at the very least be replacing your valves, most likely your valves and your pistons.
Its not about trade offs in this instance, its about known facts. Timing belts fail, and they fail without warning. Chains can fail too, but generally there is pleanty of warning that your chain is not keeping time properly and this won’t result in your engine heading for the scrap yard.
Inteference engine design is generally chosen to get more HP out of a smaller engine. Because the piston travels farther up the chamber, non interference engine the piston will never collide with a valve even if the piston is at its max top position. This extra space not being compressed does lowever your fuel economy, and having a chain too is less smooth and more weight for the engine in terms of performance over a belt.
Selection of a belt on an interference engine is to save money and improve fuel economy of smaller engines. If you wish to design an interference engine, you use a chain, pure and simple. Belts are fine for a non interference engine, because if they fail the engine is not totalled.
Many of the manufactureres of interference engines with belt designs have finally began to move away from them, now that they are forced to give long term warantees on their powertrains. They aren’t moving back to chains by accident, its because when those belts now fail they are having to replace engines under warrantee... Its not an accident these manufacturers are moving away from belts in interference designs.
Its a decision made to be cheap, not for engineering compromise, but cheap manufacturing. Now that its bit enough of them on the bottom line, they are moving away from it.
Feh. I simultaneously shift (right hand), steer (left hand), talk on the phone (blue tooth in the ear), turn down the radio volume (button on the steering wheel), and chew a french fry or three (hanging out of my mouth while talking on the phone... I'm very classy that way).
Lexus LS430 = Best car on the road
It was the Straight-6 that we think was one of Ford’s finest motors.
I left that out of the post in response to someone else. Sorry for the confusion.
Not trying to start an argument-I’ve agreed with most every post of yours I’ve ever read. But I do have a question...
..you’ve never dabbled much in the Audi/VW world, have you?
Union-made means about as much to me as it does to you. But as long as the prez(or whatever he is) of Ford continues to cater to homosexuals, they can’t pay me enough to own one.
I had a F150 with a straight 6. It is indeed a fine motor.
Spktyr,
Why do you go with an inteference design in the first place?
Simple, better fuel economy and HP out of a smaller engine. This is why this design is chosen. The piston moves further up the chamber than it does in a non-inteference design, so a smaller piston path can deliver the same or higher HP, not to mention futher compression equals more power transfer. The down side is that is the piston can and does collide with the valves if the part responsible for the timing breaks or slips, even a bit.. just one tooth slippage is all it takes to total an engine.
Belts give a smoother feel to the engine, and have less weight than chains, but they also give ZERO warning of failure. A chain will slowly stretch, and you will notice timing issues.. a chain is binary.. its working one second, and stripped or snapped the next.
Your performance engine likely uses a belt for the smoother feel, and the weight reduction that the belt provides vs a chain. However a belt is NOT A CHAIN.
Your continued claims that belts don’t fail is like claiming boats don’t sink. Belts are belts they fail, chains fail too, but chains are far far less likely to fail and generally give you pleanty of warning they are stretching long before they fail.
And you want to see a belt really fail, let any sort of oil or fluid leak end up making contact with that belt. I don’t care how high your QC is on your parts manufacturer, that belt will not remotely last its recommended life.
The Old Milwaukee beer can should fall on your head. This is car talk.
Think about this with respect to motorcycles.
There are two schools of motorcycle engines.
1) Harley Davidson and the clones. V-twin, 1600cc, 5500 rpm red-line. Lots of torque at low rpm’s. Want to go faster at highway speed...twist the throttle and go.
2) Japanese sport bikes. Inline 4, DOHC, 13,000 RPM redline. No torque to speak of at low rpms. Want to go faster at highway speed...downshift 1 or 2 gears twist the throttle, upshift as appropriate.
The sport bike engine will eat the low RPM V-twin in every measure except, casual driving satisfaction.
It was fun when you wanted to drive it hard, and a pain in the butt when you didn’t.
“SOLUTION: PUT DIESELS IN ‘EM!!”
The latest issue of Road and Track shows a big Mercedes hybrid, with a turbo-diesel and small electric motor.
They said it would do 40 mpg highway!
Um... I’m not saying that belts do not fail. I am saying that Nissan’s belts do not fail between the intervals specified for replacement.
By the way, you are claiming that GM and the other American makers haven’t made a belt-driven interference engine in over a decade, yes? Care to put some money on it?
I have played in that world a bit when I was younger, and I pretty much avoid them now. US market ones are poorly built and fall apart quickly.
enlighten yourself:
(sorry, I don’t know how to hyperlink)
Cheap beer will give you a headache. Among other things. Avoid it if at all possible.
With the big displacement Honda Fours, you don’t have to downshift. And some of those “high revving” fours now put the Harley V-Twin to shame at low RPM torque.
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.