Ford's future engine lineup to focus on fuel economy
Over the next decade, Ford will be putting the focus (no pun intended) on fuel efficiency for all of its powertrains as fuel prices continue to climb. The EcoBoost engines that debut next spring with a 3.5L V6 are expected to become the workhorses of the fleet, but virtually all of Ford's engines will be downsized. When the new F-150 pickups arrive later this fall, they will feature gas V8 engines only. However, sometime in 2010 the 3.5L EcoBoost will likely become the standard engine in place of the 4.6L V8 that's been around since the early '90s. A 4.4L V8 diesel will also join the lineup, giving a 20 percent mileage boost over the current 5.4L V-8. Much like the long-gone 302 cu. in. V8 was once the staple of Ford's engine lineup, the 3.5 will power most of the company's larger cars and CUVs . Many of these will even feature a 2.0L EcoBoost four-cylinder in place of the existing normally-aspirated 3.0L and 3.5L V6es.
Among the smaller cars like the Focus, Fiesta, and Fusion (and the Mondeo when it arrives) even smaller four-cylinder engines will provide motivation. The new Fiesta has 1.25L and 1.4L gas engines in Europe and the 1.4L will probably be the base US engine at launch, though the 1.25L is possible as well. Ford product development chief Derrick Kuzak has said that a 1.0L EcoBoost is possible for the Focus in 2012. To help get the most of the engines, Ford is expanding 6 speed automatic transmission availability. A new 6F35 mid-sized unit is debuting now in the Escape and will be added to the refreshed Fusion at the end of this year. Another smaller 6-speed automatic will debut in the Focus next year, followed by a dual-clutch transmission in 2011.
Ford will also add an upgraded version of its hybrid system to the Fusion and Milan sedans when the refreshed versions debut at the end of this year, and Ford also has a field test program with Southern California Edison for plug-in hybrid Escapes.
[Source: Automotive News - sub. req'd]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
stevefazek 9:01PM (7/14/2008)
ford and GM can be saved but i dont think Chrysler can be
Reply
Robert 10:09PM (7/14/2008)
Well... lots of guesses or connected dots here that are likely wrong. The 4.6 is going away, but it is being replaced by the 5.0. The 3.5 is a more direct replacement for the 5.4. Ford isn't dropping all V8s - just giving alternatives.
In the Fiesta, the base engine will likely be the 1.6L. The 1.0L Ecoboost will likely be in the Focus in Europe, but it won't be in the Focus stateside unless something has changed. It could appear in the Fiesta here. The Focus will get a DI engine. Maybe of the 1.6, but the displacement is not known yet. There is a 1.6L turbo in the works for mid-size vehicles. The displacement that is supposed to slide in between the 1.0 and 1.6 (if one is in fact in the works) has not been mentioned anywhere as far as I know.
What is correct is that the 2.0 ecoboost will replace the 3.5 or be an alternate in many applications - the next-gen Taurus, Edge, Flex and some Lincoln vehicles. It will be phased in starting as early as 2010 (MY2011). The smaller ecoboost engines should arrive around 2012. Ford should have an ecoboost option for every vehicle by 2013 or 2014. At least, this is what I've gleaned from various places.
Reply
Phil 2:24AM (7/15/2008)
Is there any hope for a country that considers a 3.5 litre turbo V6 an economical alternative?
Reply
armmat 2:56AM (7/15/2008)
Impressive thinking by Ford.....NOT.
Their continuous offerings of ludicrously large engines is like a lung cancer patient smoke 5 cigarettes a day instead 10. Big FKING WHOOP.
We're in deep sh8t....and they are still wanting to sell 4.4L V8's with "ECOBOOST"...
Pathetic...absolutely pathetic.
Reply
brn 8:52AM (7/15/2008)
armmat, they want to sell what they think people will buy. They're downsizing, yet being cautious. They want to produce engines from 1.0L to 4.4L, depending on usage. It's a good long term methodology, if they can survive the short term.
Reply
T2 9:38AM (7/15/2008)
I agree, it's time they phased out V8's and V6 turbo's. A standard V6 should be plenty for a luxo-barge where customers seem to prefer their power from a low revving engine. Other than that why be paying a premium for these engines with the twin head covers which probably cost at least $1000 extra to manufacture over a similar power turbo I4 giving better fuel economy?
An interesting idea I thought could be copied from a certain motorcycle manufacturer is to standardise on one particular bore and stroke. I noticed that for two of their motorcycles, their 250cc single and 1000cc quad racebikes, their machines happen to share the same piston and conrod dimensions. By setting a similar standard for these parts in automobiles, manufacturers could outsource them as commodity components like they do with many other parts, which are not product differentiators from the customer point of view, and thereby derive the benefit in economy of scale.
As a philosophy for engine design I would suggest that since power is proportional to the area of the piston head a 100mm bore should be made standard which is close to the largest they are making now for road transport. Then different torques could be obtained by I2,I3,I4 and I5 variants. Of course I realize only pickups would have the width for I5's in FWD applications utilising this bore size. If this isn't enough for you then for sport sedans and full size pickups turbo-boosting could become the norm.
Finally a 'high feature' I1 with a short 60mm stroke for 10k rpm capability should be in development for series hybrid applications right now - it's time we stopped playing with engines and invested in electronic transmissions so that we can break away from all those problems with clutches, pumps, oilcoolers and other fault prone miscellaneous items surrounding those 20th century stepped ratio transmissions that continue to haunt us to this day.
The current range of automobile engines are designed for 6000 rpm for input to a gearbox which makes them unsuitable. Series hybrid cars require low torque at a much higher rpm in order to downsize the electrical generator in both cost and mass.
To recap it's not the engine we should be taking a serious look at, it's the transmission. This attention to engine design at this late stage of its maturity is akin to further developing the transistor radio in the hope that eventually you'll end up with an IPOD. I've got news. It's never going to happen !
T2
Reply
MikeW 12:28AM (7/16/2008)
Power is proportional to cylinder count, displacement/revs, and volumetric displacement.
http://www.epi-eng.com/piston_engine_technology/torsional_excitation_from_piston_engines.htm
If you have a large bore, you have more pressure*area, but a shorter stroke (less leverage)
With a small bore, you have a larger stroke.
So undersquare is biased to low speed operation (that didn't stop the M3 inline6 though)
and oversquare is biased to high speed