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.
4.11 rear versus 3.23.
Like, how much to replace the turbocharger when it cokes it’s bearings due to too many quick shutdowns? For those that don’t know, a turbo spins insanely fast and therefore requires(should be all caps!) an uninterrupted flow of cooling lubricant, ie. motor oil. Guess what happens to that flow when one arrives at one’s destination, especially after some ‘spirited’ driving, and then shuts off the engine to dash off to...whatever? That’s right, it stops. Things are better than they used to be what with improved oil, synthetics, etc. but still-when one is late to work, a wedding, school, how many people will sit there with the engine idling while the turbo winds down enough to safely shut down?
Then there’s the problem of headgaskets. With forced induction, which means higher cylinder pressures which comes with a higher rate of failure of headgaskets. Ford has already had a MAJOR problem with these things in the past with the Taurus and it is normally aspirated, IOW no turbo.
Now then, direct injection. Sounds good-on paper. Probably works very well too. Lots of time went into designing it and all. But I have to wonder how much that fancy electric fuel pump costs? Something that’s needed to provide the high pressure needed to make it work isn’t going to be cheap. Todays fuel injection pumps are already expensive(ask me how I know), these may be astronomical. Then one must add in the cost of having someone remove and install the parts. A mechanic friend informed me recently that the shop he works for just raised their hourly rate to $80 per. Always remember, with technology comes complexity. And that means more time needed to repair.
I figure that just about the time one of these things starts to recoup its initial expense in gas savings(and just how long will that take at $4, maybe $5 a gal?) the maintenance and/or repair cost will shoot ownership cost through the roof. JMHO.
Would a VTEC sticker add 5HP?
No, stickerpower is lame.
Thing is, by fitting the JLT Cold Air intake and the Magnaflow manifold-back replacment (and getting a tune), my buddy’s 03 Cobra went from 373hp at the rear wheels to 410 at the rear wheels as proven on a dyno. Others have reported greater gains.
Just joking
I heard a big Mopar sticker gives cars a 15hp boost.
=)
I think the government’s agenda to reduce fuel consumption is pass legislation that will price cars beyond many people’s reach.
At stock boost levels, most turbos will last about 100-200,000 miles. Turbos are now water-, air- AND oil-cooled and unless you’ve cranked the boost way up, they don’t actually need a cool-down period any more.
Headgaskets aren’t a problem, either. Ford’s problems with Taurus headgaskets are because they were stupidly cheap. Meanwhile, Nissan and Toyota never had headgasket problems with any of their turbo cars.
Direct Injection engines do not use an electric pump but a mechanical one for primary pressure generation.
Also, modern cars NOT MADE BY THE UAW don’t have high maintenance costs down the road. I drive the wheels off my cars, and even the super-complex Japanese cars from the 80s and 90s hold together pretty well and have few failures.
Never say never....
Belts fail... its a fact of life. Whether it be from manufacturing defect, being compromised by something else happening to the engine, etc.
A belt is a belt, it can be reinforced all it wants, but it still can and does fail prematurely from time to time. If the belt doesn’t snap completely it can still split and have the timing teeth portion sheer off.
There is a reason domestic automakers left the interference engine in the history books a long time ago, even with drive chains. Leave it to japs and koreans to put them back on american roads.. and not only do it, but do it with an even weaker part that’s reponsible for keeping the parts from crashing together... sigh.
An engineer friend of mine had a neighbor down in SoCal (also an engineer) who had an old Ford with the 300 inline 6 in it... Running on propane with 2 aircraft superchargers on it and a hand carved wooden throttle body/carbureator thingamabob. It was crazy fast, he said the guy would just tromp muscle cars with it just to see the look on the owners faces when they saw what it was running.
'68 Eldorado with a 472 ci V-8
I can almost do that on my bicycle with no use of gas at all.
I’ve been in the Nissan forums for various models for years and I’ve *never* heard of a Nissan belt snapping prematurely. That’s because Nissan usually tells you to change them well before the MTBF rating *and* has excellent QC on their belts.
And, by the way, the American makers do and did make I4 and V6 engines that were belt-drive and interference.
I also hear that a new pulley system for the blower can add about 100 HP. But then I’d be starting the car in second gear!
Sorry, but the current crop of Cadillacs is *awesome*.
They’re appealing to the younger set and that’s why Cadillac is now the only one of GM’s brands making a clear profit for the past few years.
My parents had a gold ‘68 Eldo with the 472. That was a great car !!!
No, first gear is still useful with even a 600+hp configuration.
The Hybrid also puts limits on availability of certain electronic accessory add-ons and pretty much eliminates any consideration for towing. I had outfitted the Escape with a class II hitch before we traded it.
Actually yes it is, when we drove it sanely it would get about 21-23, better on the highway of course. We had it for 5 years and put about 50K on it, never had a single solitary breakdown besides the usual maintenance. As far a commuter car it would be just as good as any two seater is, and the front trunk had enough space for some luggage if you needed it. The only problem with it is the tires in snow, you don’t dare try and drive it in bad weather.
Ya wanna bet? I drive a standard and can juggle a phone or a hamburger with the best of them. Other than that, I agree with your post.
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.