Ford plans to have a four-cylinder engine available on every car it sells by 2013.

[ehast13]

mazda 3 mps engine?

Mazda 6 2.5litre with low boost turbo or s/charge. I hear you can get a 2.3 turbo on overseas CX-9s (2 tonne plus), drop one in the falcon. 190kw with 350-369nm torque or low boost 155kw with 300+ nm of torque.

maybe a five cyl turbo from volvo/focus/modeo?

I wouldn't buy one, but it aleast it wouldn't be too embarassing if your missus or ya mum drove one..... (as opposed to starfire commies)

[Gobes32]

Originally Posted by Burnedout

This is true, however when FoA brought the F-100 series back to Aus under 10 years ago they were $80,000 retail.
Just out of the average mans reach by about $40,000.......

My info is from a DP that the Falcon is gone 2013, it will be replaced with a Turdus from the US.

I cant just see the value in a FWD Turdus Ute......*perhaps the demolition derby at the Beaudesart Show*

The Taurus will never replace Falcon..........Mondeo will. It's common knowledge.

[Tles]

Originally Posted by Gobes32

The Taurus will never replace Falcon..........Mondeo will. It's common knowledge.

Maybe both are true - Taurus is currently built on a extended Mazda6 platform, but will move to Mondeo platform around then. Makes sense with Ford having sold down their holdingin Mazda. Global large car with localised top hats, turbos, V6, 4/5cyls and diesels - FWD, & guessing US would want AWD too (snow).

Doesn't necessarily mean the demise of Falcon and Territory as the platforms may move more distinctly upmarket and private purchase focus like Lincoln - less sales more profitability. With a more seperated commercial fleet offering, like ute and wagon. Seems to have worked for others like VW, and Fiesta, Focus, Mondeo regularly beat Passat etc in Euro comparison tests, whereas here they seem to get tested against Holwoos. Expansion of G series v XTs

[Froudey]

Nah i can't see it happing, as really the next big change ford falcon possible won't be a falcon at all be cause it will evolve into a front wheel drive american or english thing. a 4 cyl unless it is pushing decent power or is a diesal based motor with a decent torque out put into a 2tonne or 1 and a half tonne, other wise it would be a dog and then second hand car market will boom.

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by Tles

Taurus is currently built on a extended Mazda6 platform, but will move to Mondeo platform around then.

Taurus is a D3 platform - Volvo based.

Fusion is based on the Mazda 6.....

Fusion will move to the Mondeo Platform..............

[Tles]

The Ecoboost 4 sounds similar to the route taken by BMW with smaller, cleaner turbo'd donks replacing quality bigger engines and still blowing the old one away. 3.0TT goes great in the X6, 4.4TT V8 is insane.

I'd be happy to have a 2.5 ecoboost in my daily driver, if I could have a 5.0 supercharged Jag engine in a GT-P for play time.

[Tles]

Originally Posted by Barraxr8

Taurus is a D3 platform - Volvo based.

Fusion is based on the Mazda 6.....

Fusion will move to the Mondeo Platform..............

Maybe, but then Fusion would get bigger, which I can't see happening. I agree otherwise. The mail I've gotten replaces GRWD with Mondeo AWD base under One Ford. Still can't track down the future of Crown Vic though it's becoming more and more important to Fords books.

[ILLaViTaR]

Originally Posted by mrbaxr6t

Guys I havn't read the entire thread so please forgive me - In my experience the 6 cylinder engine in falcons today is a marvel of modern engineering and borders on science fiction, when they are at speed and you got the cruise control on they don't fire all 6 cylinders (hello small engine economy) whilst being torquey enough to run at 2krpm how the hell else can an I6 deliver 700 kms to a tank of fuel (highway) yes they have a bit of a thirst round town (because it is firing more cylinders to accelerate all the time and is in lower gears). I do not see why what we have now needs to change and I think that a 4 cylinder car couldn't match the highway figures of the I6 we got. This is Australia we have a large barren landscape we NEED cars that are good on the highway. Falcon/c'dore has always suited this way of driving. Can't say I would enjoy sitting behind a 4 cylinder revving at 3,500 to hold 100 km/h for 2 hours.

I can see what ford is trying to do, but the buyers they are targetting already have a car aimed at them - the mondeo. Please leave the Falcon as it is.

Welcome to Americanisation mate.

[Ohio XB]

Originally Posted by Tles

Maybe, but then Fusion would get bigger, which I can't see happening. I agree otherwise. The mail I've gotten replaces GRWD with Mondeo AWD base under One Ford. Still can't track down the future of Crown Vic though it's becoming more and more important to Fords books.

The Fusion and Mondeo are nearly identical in length already. Ford has already announced the next gen Fusion and Mondeo will be designed together. It is hard to say which chassis platform will be used since the Fusion is already providing accomodations for the new gen Hybrid system. Both platforms handle and ride very well.

The Crown Vic is going away. It's about time. Currently it is only used for Police vehicles and it has got bad press in recent years because of it's prevalence and a concern for rear collisions at 75 MPH. The only retail sales are when specifically ordered by a customer and those people are about all died off/very old.



Steve


Steve

[mrbaxr6t]

ok guys I'm back and I been reading - the power figures are impressive to the ecoboost 4 cylinder, but how will it go towing a caravan or a boat? us aussies do this alot, towing with a 4 cylinder engine in the present and past has not been a viable option as even with a big power 4 cylinder turbo engine, the load drastically reduces the life of the engine. If they want to try this slice and dice the mondeo and put an ecoboost 4 in that, and maybe if it goes well a turbo version in a few years, run the falcon in parallel, when mondeos start stomping falcons and we see them towing caravans and boats and things and not dying a horrible horrible death in a puff of smoke/steam they are then to be taken as a viable engine alternative to the I6 we have. Imagine a brickie with a ute/trailer driving an ecoboost 4 cylinder carrying all the gear (cement mixer, bricks etc) the I6 does it. Will the ecoboost 4 cyl?

YES the falcon can deactivate cylinders - you cant cook an AU because it "selectively fires" cylinders even with no water in it! Look it up I am not joking here the AU does it and so does entire B series as why would they go backward and its a safe bet to assume that the g series does too. I won't be trying it but Fords' marketing said they can't be overheated, so burst a radiator hose in the middle of the country you will get to the nearest service station for a hose.

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by mrbaxr6t

ok guys I'm back and I been reading - the power figures are impressive to the ecoboost 4 cylinder, but how will it go towing a caravan or a boat? us aussies do this alot, towing with a 4 cylinder engine in the present and past has not been a viable option as even with a big power 4 cylinder turbo engine, the load drastically reduces the life of the engine. .........

Americans tow a lot also, and I might say, larger trailers than Australians do. Having said that, the EcoBoost 2L 4 cyl and 3.5L V6 EcoBoost are supposed to be going in the F150 and Explorer. The 2.0 EcoBoost to replace the 4.2 N/A V6 for the F150 (XL 4x2 single cab) and 4.0 V6 in the Explorer. 3.5 is meant to be a substitute for the 5.4 V8, even though there is word that V8s will continue along side (5.0 Coyote and 6.2L V8), if priced right, the EcoBoost looks like it could be mainstream and not a niche product. If it doesn't tow well, the whole EcoBoost technology will fail, and Ford cannot afford to let that happen - that sounds kinda funny doesn't it? Because right now Ford is pushing how much it feels like a larger engine, and these days you can't fool people on power specs alone. Also, this technology isn't exclusive to Ford, even though they seem to be the only ones who have a name for it. Bob Lutz has been talking about this stuff for quite some time also.

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by ILLaViTaR

Welcome to Americanisation mate.

No.
Welcome to Rationalisation .......... or survivalisation.



| [/url] |

[RPO83]

Originally Posted by Tles

Maybe, but then Fusion would get bigger, which I can't see happening. I agree otherwise. The mail I've gotten replaces GRWD with Mondeo AWD base under One Ford. Still can't track down the future of Crown Vic though it's becoming more and more important to Fords books.

Expect big news on the CV this year.

[Ohio XB]

Originally Posted by chevypower

Americans tow a lot also, and I might say, larger trailers than Australians do. Having said that, the EcoBoost 2L 4 cyl and 3.5L V6 EcoBoost are supposed to be going in the F150 and Explorer. The 2.0 EcoBoost to replace the 4.2 N/A V6 for the F150 (XL 4x2 single cab) and 4.0 V6 in the Explorer. 3.5 is meant to be a substitute for the 5.4 V8, even though there is word that V8s will continue along side (5.0 Coyote and 6.2L V8), if priced right, the EcoBoost looks like it could be mainstream and not a niche product. If it doesn't tow well, the whole EcoBoost technology will fail, and Ford cannot afford to let that happen - that sounds kinda funny doesn't it? Because right now Ford is pushing how much it feels like a larger engine, and these days you can't fool people on power specs alone. Also, this technology isn't exclusive to Ford, even though they seem to be the only ones who have a name for it. Bob Lutz has been talking about this stuff for quite some time also.

You are right. GM has a direct injected, turbo 4 cylinder making 240 HP. What is different is how Ford is marketing it. Instead of marketing a 240 HP turbo engine they are marketing V6 power with 4 cylinder fuel economy, and likewise for the V6, V8 power with V6 fuel economy.

I don't know if the GM system is as high tech as the Ford system though. Have you seen the piston tops in the EcoBoost engine? It has a funny little pocket in the center and a channel going out to one side. This enables a localization of the fuel at the spark plug to be richer when cold so that though the engine gets the same amount of fuel cold as when warm, the mixture around the plug is still rich to get things going. Half the fuel is shot in as the piston draws down on the intake stroke and then the second half of the fuel gets shot in as the piston comes back up on compression stroke, shooting gas through that channel and into the pocket in the center so that the plug is surrounded by a rich mixture. This removes the need to shoot in extra gas during cold starts and running until warm.

How's that for squeezing every drop of fuel mileage out of an engine? There are also some other techniques used on the engine that are similar in innovation to conserve fuel.


Steve

[atec77]

Originally Posted by nugget378

We seem to forget sometimes that 90% of our population live on the coast in urban areas, hardly the large barren landscape scenario is it.
I for one think these eco boost engines look very promsing, if our I6 borders on science fiction these things sound like they come from outer space.

I really like the turbo 6 I have, but around town it is a thirsty pig, doing mid 17'skm/100, 450km out of 80 litres is not that good, and that is just driving with the traffic, I can get nearly as good in my roller cammed 7 litre clevor believe it or not.
If the ecoboost 6 has the consumption figures they say, and 260kw, I say bring it on..hell I'd even look at the eco 4 if the car was substantially lighter, whether I would buy one does depend on what the final product would look like in a ute..

I doubt the 4 pot motor will be a hit here , I have driven several so called fuel efficient engines of late looking for a replacement for the surf , we bought another sports wagon as nothing on the market atm comes close to the ease of cruising and fuel efficiency (on gas) and being on gas IS important to many of us in the real world , Ford make what we like or fail in AU.

[Nikked]

Originally Posted by RPO83

Expect big news on the CV this year.

Well that could only mean that they are keeping it.

[mrbaxr6t]

OK heres another angle - I can get 700kms highway travel to a tank of petrol in my AU it even did this with the boot so full I had to practically sit on it to shut it, back seat between the kids also full, and the parcel shelf so heaps of additional weight in the car with practically zero increase in fuel consumption. I struggle with the idea that the ecoboost I4 will behave in the same way load it up and fuel consumption may very well go up (like most other 4 cylinder petrol vehicles)

Also the I6 we have now was born and bred here, built to withstand the way many neglect their cars, the heat and the distances travelled. Time and evolution has hardened the I6 into a brilliant machine. If ford wants to reduce carbon footprint etc etc then why not drop the v8 and go I6 and I4 making the I6 the new largest cylinder engine. Back in the dark ages (40's) cars running v10s and v12 engines were the norm, the number of cylinders has decreased over time to a maximum of 8 I struggle with them dropping the I6 for "green reasons" while still building a v8 :

[chevypower]

with 380Nm at 1600rpm, i don't think the 2.0 EcoBoost is going to "struggle" on the highway. I had an LS1 Berlina when I lived in Melbourne. Yeah i could cruise on the freeway and reset the trip computer and watch it show avg 7.9L/100km. But after I 50km stretch? i would get to Geelong and stop at the lights, and accelerate from the first set of lights, then it would creep up to 9.5, then the next set it might hit 10L/100, then it would just keep going up and up from there. So if you did live in a perfectly flat world and were cruising at 100km/h and not accelerating or slowing down, then you probably don't need a V8 anyway.
The EcoBoost is not going to struggle with cruising, going up hills, powering a large vehicle, towing, accelerating....

http://www.motortrend.com/features/a...ine/index.html

By the way, this article has misquoted the torque of the 5.4L V8 3 valve, which is actually 365 ft-lbs. (390 would be if the 5.4 were running on E85). So only slightly more torque than the 3.5 EcoBoost. What it doesn't tell you is the 5.4's max torque is about 3500rpm, whereas the 3.5 EcoBoost is flat from 1600-4000? Like on the Taurus SHO.

On top of all that, do Australians really think they have more extremes in weather, tougher terrain, higher speed limits, and bigger trailers to tow than Americans? That heat wave that Melbourne had was an average summer in Phoenix, then on the other extreme, i think a few weeks ago it got down to -20deg F? (-35deg C) people here pull a large fifth wheel RV with a boat behind that or a trailer with ATVs, going along the interstate up mountains at 75-85mph. (120-130km/h). Australia is more tow a single axle 14' camper with a Falcon, and sit at 90-100km/h on relatively flat terrain, and pretty much never below freezing. In Western Australia it seems like they go 70-80!!! So, i will say it again, if it's good enough for an F150, it will probably make a Falcon in to a monster.

[mrbaxr6t]

Originally Posted by chevypower

with 380Nm at 1600rpm, i don't think the 2.0 EcoBoost is going to "struggle" on the highway. I had an LS1 Berlina when I lived in Melbourne. Yeah i could cruise on the freeway and reset the trip computer and watch it show avg 7.9L/100km. But after I 50km stretch? i would get to Geelong and stop at the lights, and accelerate from the first set of lights, then it would creep up to 9.5, then the next set it might hit 10L/100, then it would just keep going up and up from there.

Doesn't this confirm my statement, I said stop starting and under load economy will go south real quick..

Originally Posted by chevypower

The EcoBoost is not going to struggle with cruising, going up hills, powering a large vehicle, towing, accelerating....

No it isn't going to struggle but the economy is going to go out the window which as far as I can tell, is the whole point to ditching the I6

Also I never said we tow more or do more or that the conditions are more harsh, what I was alluding to is it is alot more likely to get stuck in the middle of nothing hundreds of kms from any sign of civilization with a broken car, I hope to god it is as reliable as the I6.

If we compare the power figures of this engine to that of a naturally aspirated I6 it compares, but this is silly, if we compare it to a I6T the 6 kills it. Only way this will work is if the vehicle it was planted into was substantially lighter to deliver the same driver experience with the reduced power.

[Matt47569]

Think of the insurance as well if it's going to be turbo, not to mention extra costs of servicing and maintaining, and a turbo rebuild at 100,000km's isnt cheap

[Rev28K]

Does this mean the return of the Mustang SVO?
(the young uns can google it)

[XR_Strider_GuY]

Originally Posted by Ohio XB

If everything in this industry is cyclical, and it is, here we go again. However, this time they've got experience and technology under their belts. These cars are not going to be slouches.



When you think of a 4 banger being a prominent engine in the coming Fords don't think of the usual "Oh crap" engines. This is a new day, and Ford has some really cool 4 cylinder engines hitting the market today, coming out next year, and you would not believe what it is development. In an email from "The man" in the engine department, he hinted to me what Ford has in the works. I can't say anything right now but let me say that they have some pretty amazing rubber bands they are working on! Toyota and Honda are going to s&#t themselves. Mercedes is going to say WTF!!??


BTW, if anyone is not familiar with the yank "rubber band" expression just let me know and I will elaborate.


You would not believe what they want to put a four banger into.......something you and I would never do, but they can get the power needed to do it now.


The EcoBoost 4 cylinder has a powerband that comes in around 1,600 RPM so you get real power soon, without the usual turbo lag which kicks in about 2,200, and a real flat curve that goes to about 5,500. With more power in at a lower RPM, and then being able to sustain it, this thing can move a car pretty well.




For those of us that are performance purists, yeah, sucks for us.........at least until we fill up the tank a few times, check our wallets, and feel the unexpected pull of a 4 banger.........and then think "Hhhhmmm, maybe this ain't so bad after all?"



........I'm still keeping my Clevo though.


Steve

Hi mate,
You sound like you know your stuff and have some credible resources. I guess with the credit crunch people are focusing on fuel economy just like the early 80's.

However thinking realistically and more forecasting here just like 1986 when Ford introduced the 5.0L Windsor HO, when the economy pics up and people want real luxury and more power there is no reason why they cannot apply the eco-boost technology to a V8 if petroleum combustion still rules the roost. And also if people are prepared to pay for the petrol.

[colossus]

I like the idea of these low boost turbo 4's - but I also think the cars weight is a more predominant factor. That being said wouldn't a turbo diesel 4 be a better solution if all they are chasing is fuel consumption.

The problem as I see it is that the Falcon is a very big car that was once bought by the masses for family duties but has been made irrelavent by SUV's (like it or not). Ford should downsize the Falcon and bring in these new fours with a 3.5L 6 option and along with a turbo6 and V8 for performance. It should still be able to seat 5 (i.e Mazda 6 or Camry size) but it dosn't have to be so heavy/big. Yes yes we have Mondeo, its a great car but its not selling. Axe it from the line up down here and the Falcon could replace it - still made in Australia, RWD with 4T, 6, 6T, V8 and diesal options. You want a family hauler you buy a Territory, you want a mid size sedan you buy a Falcon - large car market should not be catered for as it no longer exists (sad but true).

[chevypower]

Yes they could use the new jag/LR 3.0 v6 diesel with 200kw/600Nm. Ford even developed it in to a
4.4 V8. The thing is it is very expensive, and as you approach the Tier 2 Bin 5 emission standards, which is tougher than Euro 5, the costs go up a lot higher
Again, and the fuel consumpion goes up on those diesel engines. Add that to the higher price of diesel fuel, and you see why Ford is now holding back in releasing the 4.4 diesel F150. With the EcoBoost, Ford says it's a $700 premium for the engine, gets comparable economy and low end torque to a diesel, and runs on cheaper unleaded fuel. I also expect naturally cleaner emissions without the need for a DPF.
This has to work for Ford, F150 is their best selling vehicle. After the drama with the Navistar diesels in the SuperDuty, you can see why Ford will release the EcoBoost F150 about a year after the Flex, Lincoln Mks and MKT. We can all have our doubts, but rest
Assured this HAS to work for Ford, or they won't even bring it out to market

[Quicksand]

Originally Posted by auslandau

No.
Welcome to Rationalisation .......... or survivalisation.

I think the word people are looking for here is Globalisation

Economies of Scale always wins....

[qwiksix]

Originally Posted by colossus

I like the idea of these low boost turbo 4's - but I also think the cars weight is a more predominant factor. That being said wouldn't a turbo diesel 4 be a better solution if all they are chasing is fuel consumption.

The problem as I see it is that the Falcon is a very big car that was once bought by the masses for family duties but has been made irrelavent by SUV's (like it or not). Ford should downsize the Falcon and bring in these new fours with a 3.5L 6 option and along with a turbo6 and V8 for performance. It should still be able to seat 5 (i.e Mazda 6 or Camry size) but it dosn't have to be so heavy/big. Yes yes we have Mondeo, its a great car but its not selling. Axe it from the line up down here and the Falcon could replace it - still made in Australia, RWD with 4T, 6, 6T, V8 and diesal options. You want a family hauler you buy a Territory, you want a mid size sedan you buy a Falcon - large car market should not be catered for as it no longer exists (sad but true).

Largely agree with this. One thing is that I can't really see why you would have a 4T and an NA6 if they're both ~ same power/torque. And then maybe you'd have to question whether you could justify a 6T without a NA6.

I also think it's an interesting exercise to consider what cars you would choose from the available ford worldwide range if you were starting from scratch in Oz and the Falc/Terri didn't exist. I'd probably go Taurus (because it has an AWD option), Edge and Mustang.

Interesting times ahead...

qs

[mrbaxr6t]

Originally Posted by colossus

The problem as I see it is that the Falcon is a very big car that was once bought by the masses for family duties but has been made irrelavent by SUV's (like it or not).

I can say it most definetely isn't irrelevant, and SUVs are crap, I am so tired of people buying SUV's because they want to look like they from the country when they live in Toorak (I am looking at you X5) These vehicles are stupid by design, heavier than a Falcon with less power (generally) and also use far more fuel because they are geared lower to give them some form of soft road ability I WILL NEVER OWN ONE also the stopping distances are crap and the bodyroll is disgusting. I will never own one period. And lets not mention how inconsiderate most people are that drive these things to other road users.

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by mrbaxr6t

I can say it most definetely isn't irrelevant, and SUVs are crap, I am so tired of people buying SUV's because they want to look like they from the country when they live in Toorak (I am looking at you X5) These vehicles are stupid by design, heavier than a Falcon with less power (generally) and also use far more fuel because they are geared lower to give them some form of soft road ability I WILL NEVER OWN ONE also the stopping distances are crap and the bodyroll is disgusting. I will never own one period. And lets not mention how inconsiderate most people are that drive these things to other road users.

That is ridiculous, people should be allowed to drive whatever the hell they like. You could be a nuisance to a Smart ForTwo. I drive a Silverado, it stops quickly, accelerates quickly, has very little body roll because the suspension is set up for payload. SUVs can be made the same way, doesn't stop quickly enough? Beef up the brakes. The reality is, none of these are the real reasons you don't like SUVs - it's the whole image thing, like you said at the start. Sorry, but I hate people dictating what everyone else should and shouldn't drive.

[JPFS1]

Originally Posted by chevypower

That is ridiculous, people should be allowed to drive whatever the hell they like. You could be a nuisance to a Smart ForTwo. I drive a Silverado, it stops quickly, accelerates quickly, has very little body roll because the suspension is set up for payload. SUVs can be made the same way, doesn't stop quickly enough? Beef up the brakes. The reality is, none of these are the real reasons you don't like SUVs - it's the whole image thing, like you said at the start. Sorry, but I hate people dictating what everyone else should and shouldn't drive.

agreed!

The needs and requirements for all of us can change at some point to accommodate a change in lifestyle.

My requirements before having a family was for a sporty sedan etc, now I would look at the SUV style car for the family.

It amazes me to see such a lack of understanding.

[bd737]

I can't understand it - full sized sedans and station wagons did a great job as family vehicles before SUV's came about, yet everyone now claims anything less than an SUV won't do. What's more demanding about a 21st century family lifestyle than one from the 60s/70s/80s/most of 90s?

Women only love SUV's because they're fashionable.