Ford Australia Invests $230 Million in New Fuel-Efficient Engines for Local Vehicles

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by chevypower

So Ford has said the 2.0 EcoBoost will put out 205kw/380Nm. Ford Australia say 170kw/320Nm... I am thinking detuned in the Falcon, to not jeopardize sales of the 4.0 I-6. Pity if it is detuned.

The 205/380 would probably need 98ron. If Ford want to push this motor its about saving money. So they will want to run the fuel on the lowest ron fuel they can. Run the current I6 at 98 ron and it will better the EcoBoost power figures.

I still wanna see what the new e-gas will produce.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by chevypower

So Ford has said the 2.0 EcoBoost will put out 205kw/380Nm. Ford Australia say 170kw/320Nm... I am thinking detuned in the Falcon, to not jeopardize sales of the 4.0 I-6. Pity if it is detuned.

I think that the lower of the outputs is fine anyway. It will have that level of torque from 1500rpm up to 5500rpm. Add the DSG Powershift transmission. It will be a nice car to drive. Add the expected 8L economy too.

Would I buy it over the i6 or i6T no. But there will be people that will consider it at the least. Some of which will buy it. Fleets will look closely too.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by phillyc

I think that the lower of the outputs is fine anyway. It will have that level of torque from 1500rpm up to 5500rpm. Add the DSG Powershift transmission. It will be a nice car to drive. Add the expected 8L economy too.

Would I buy it over the i6 or i6T no. But there will be people that will consider it at the least. Some of which will buy it. Fleets will look closely too.

I think you have it about right. You'd gestimate 91 RON it would do somewhere between 170-180kw. Probably 330-340nm, but from a low 1500 rpm or so. YOu don't have to match the I6 (in fact you dont' really want too) you just have to be competitive with other large cars in base form and not be so slow you are slower than medium cars. This engine should have no problem beating holdens 3.0 V6 and it will burn less doing so. Which is the most important bit....it must deliver savings as a 'eco' engine or there is no point.... As long as it doesn't drive like a total dog then Ford has a competitive product i say.

[naddis01]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

I think you have it about right. You'd gestimate 91 RON it would do somewhere between 170-180kw. Probably 330-340nm, but from a low 1500 rpm or so. YOu don't have to match the I6 (in fact you dont' really want too) you just have to be competitive with other large cars in base form and not be so slow you are slower than medium cars. This engine should have no problem beating holdens 3.0 V6 and it will burn less doing so. Which is the most important bit....it must deliver savings as a 'eco' engine or there is no point.... As long as it doesn't drive like a total dog then Ford has a competitive product i say.

Well in theory it should be a better performer than the Mondeo. It will probably weigh 100-150kg more but have atleast 40 or 50 more kW and an extra ~100Nm.

I think I calculated that even if it doesnt lose any weight it only needs 155kW and 288Nm to equal a Mazda 3 SP25 (which I guess is considered a warm hatch) on power and torque to weight ratios. It should be in excess of that.

[kpcart]

Originally Posted by Thankfull

Who really cares about the difference in performance between European and Japanese diesels, or petrol for that matter?

Those countries do not have their own fuel reserves within their own territorys, like Australia does with LPG.

Look at the price of LPG in comparison to Petrol and Diesel now, now add a dollar to each price 5 years from now.

No Aussie is going to buy a petrol or diesel powered vehicle, with LPG on tap within Australias own territorial boundries......that is why Ford is building direct injection LPG Engines in Geelong from 2010.....

We are so lucky here......

yeh, lucky that we are paying more for our own gas then peeple in other countries paying for our gas. good one.
lpg should cost 20c a litre. look at middle eastern countries, they sell their oil to their own people for cheap, in australia its the other way around. we pay more then people overseas... for our own gas! if more cars run on lpg, the price will go up, because the whole system is being run by mongrels.
you are right, we have an abundance of gas, but dont expect to get it cheap.
Current LPG prices are extremely over inflated, but the companies get away with it, because its still cheaper then petrol. my local caltex recently put up the lpg price overnight by 15c, which equalled over 20% increase, overnight! and nothing is said about it in media, so they get away with it. ITS ALL RIGGED, and if we all convert our cars to gas, dont expect our government and our companies to give us any special treatment, they are all corupt and for profit only.

[kpcart]

Originally Posted by phillyc

I think that the lower of the outputs is fine anyway. It will have that level of torque from 1500rpm up to 5500rpm. Add the DSG Powershift transmission. It will be a nice car to drive. Add the expected 8L economy too.

Would I buy it over the i6 or i6T no. But there will be people that will consider it at the least. Some of which will buy it. Fleets will look closely too.

i can not believ the 8l economy claim. look at any 4cyl car that makes around 200kw, and the real world economy figure is around 14L, and thats in a car that weighs a few hundred kilos less then a falcon.

A 4 cyl in a Falcon would take a beating, as you would need to rev it harder then in a small car just to move it.

I bet the I6 would use less fuel then a highly strung turbo 4 in a falcon.

Who would actually consider buying one?? it would be a flop. would fleet buyers even consider it?? would it cost more? its a performance engine (in relative terms), so it would cost more and require more regular service.

If Ford is serious it has a mountain to climb, it has serious work to do to convince people to buy a 4cyl falcon, even to sell 20% of total falcon sales, i see that as an inprobably number to sell of 4cyl falcons, so surely its not viable.

Ford must be talking crap, it all sounds a bit too fishy,

Id go for a Turbo Diesel V6 falcon but. why arent they considering that??
they really are bad at their strategies, and thats why their sales are so bad, even with the good new Orion falcon/\

[chevypower]

Ohhh for crying out loud.... how many times do we have to prove that this engine will not "need" to rev?
Here is the EcoBoost 3.5L V6 torque curve
http://jalopnik.com/5151498/2010-for...s-torque-curve
The 2.0 will be just as flat, just with lower numbers, than the 3.5EB engine

And this link proves that
http://www.allfordmustangs.com/artic...t_engine.shtml
Some myths that need to be dispelled:
The EB 2.0 is NOT a GTi engine
it is NOT a regular 2L 4cyl engine
it is NOT a Mazda 3 MPS engine
It does NOT require premium fuel (this was one of the main objectives behind the whole technology).

It is designed to compete with diesel, but have a lower production cost, lower maintenance cost, cleaner emissions, with even more power and torque than the equivalent sized turbo-diesel engine.

I just wish people would realize you will have to judge it when you drive it. There isn't anything currently on the market you can compare it to.

PLUS, there will be the performance and economical advantages of a DSG transmission. I just hope it is a lot smoother than VW DSGs.

[kpcart]

Originally Posted by chevypower

Ohhh for crying out loud.... how many times do we have to prove that this engine will not "need" to rev?
Here is the EcoBoost 3.5L V6 torque curve
http://jalopnik.com/5151498/2010-for...s-torque-curve
The 2.0 will be just as flat, just with lower numbers, than the 3.5EB engine

And this link proves that
http://www.allfordmustangs.com/artic...t_engine.shtml
Some myths that need to be dispelled:
The EB 2.0 is NOT a GTi engine
it is NOT a regular 2L 4cyl engine
it is NOT a Mazda 3 MPS engine
It does NOT require premium fuel (this was one of the main objectives behind the whole technology).

It is designed to compete with diesel, but have a lower production cost, lower maintenance cost, cleaner emissions, with even more power and torque than the equivalent sized turbo-diesel engine.

I just wish people would realize you will have to judge it when you drive it. There isn't anything currently on the market you can compare it to.

PLUS, there will be the performance and economical advantages of a DSG transmission. I just hope it is a lot smoother than VW DSGs.

so its a miracle engine??
You honestly think Ford can pull of such a miracle and get 200kw from a 4 cyl and at the same time get 8L per 100km in a 1700kg car?
you wish people would judge it when they drive it. have you driven it??

It would be better if they used a turbo diesel 4cyl. European makes do it well, my friends C-class merc. It weighs over 1500kg and has a 1.9 diesel. It does about 8L per 100km, has 125kw, but most importantly 400nm torque. But this is a merc, a few years ahead of the likes of Ford, an equivalent Ford car (Mondeo diesel perhaps?) has less power, less torque and not as good fuel economy, and in a lighter car. Still for a car as big as a Falcon, you need torque, and 8L per 100km might be achievable in this new turbo petrol motor, but only if your accelerating at about 10% throttel. in this C class i mentioned, you can give drive it quite hard and it still has the low economy.

Or better still, they should nick Jaguars new v6 turbo diesel, 200kw, 600nm torque and under 10l per hundred km in a heavy car. But that would cost...

[chevypower]

Did I say it was a miracle engine? Did I say I have driven it? Or did I simply say people shouldn't judge it until they drive it? The facts of its torque characteristics have been proven.
We have established the FACT that it can do 205kw/380Nm, but for whatever reason Ford Oz will run it at a lower tune. Hmmm 120kw/400Nm on an engine that costs a fortune, requires diesel and has turbo lag? Or 170-205kw and 320-380Nm with a much flatter torque curve on a much cheaper to build engine that runs on regular?
Now the idea of trying to convince me about diesels...
Here's a little trip down memory lane on my advocacy of diesel engines.
http://fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=18710 (2005)
http://fordforums.com.au/showthread....4&page=2&pp=25 (2005) and note how I mention diesel electric
http://fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=21369 (2005)
http://fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=35459 (2006) Ok I have changed my mind on biodiesel and 100% ethanol, as I don't think we have the resources to sustain it now.
But you get the idea. You don't have to teach me about diesels.
This is 2009 now, and I think this EcoBoost thing is looking pretty good. Long term I think more electric power is needed. But this is a good idea for right now.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by kpcart

so its a miracle engine??
You honestly think Ford can pull of such a miracle and get 200kw from a 4 cyl and at the same time get 8L per 100km in a 1700kg car?
you wish people would judge it when they drive it. have you driven it??

It would be better if they used a turbo diesel 4cyl. European makes do it well, my friends C-class merc. It weighs over 1500kg and has a 1.9 diesel. It does about 8L per 100km, has 125kw, but most importantly 400nm torque. But this is a merc, a few years ahead of the likes of Ford, an equivalent Ford car (Mondeo diesel perhaps?) has less power, less torque and not as good fuel economy, and in a lighter car. Still for a car as big as a Falcon, you need torque, and 8L per 100km might be achievable in this new turbo petrol motor, but only if your accelerating at about 10% throttel. in this C class i mentioned, you can give drive it quite hard and it still has the low economy.

Or better still, they should nick Jaguars new v6 turbo diesel, 200kw, 600nm torque and under 10l per hundred km in a heavy car. But that would cost...

Mate, there is so much behind this 'little' engine tech wise it would make your head spin. i like your dig about 'mercedes' being a few years ahead of Ford. On this issue i think you will find Ford is just as up to date, in fact moreso then merc.

For starters, this engine uses DI, DIVCT and Turbocharging to achieve its power, torque, driveability and fuel economy. This is on top of all the usual stuff these modern engines have (4valves, variable intake etc.)

Fact is that Ford has worked very hard, in fact pioneered to a large extent, the use of Direct Injection in Turbocharged vehicles in this form. i.e. making the turbo work as a power/torque booster for low capacity engines to make them competitive with larger engines, but using DI and DIVCT to produce the torque down low (no lag....in fact low down torque like a diesel) with a big mid range. This is what people want...in fact engines like thsi perform better in the real world than larger atmo engines that usually require a bit of 'winding up' to get moving.

The key here is how Ford has used DI to avoid the 'low compression ratio', high fuel burn problem with turbo. THey have also managed to avoid a high octane diet by teh same technique. This is a unique application of DI in conjueciton with turbos.

You need to get a handl on what you are on about before you come in here and blatatly bash Ford and its technology. Yes the engine/car has not been tested in anger, no the car is not yet out. BUT, if you think Ford is stupid enough to come out and make claims it doesn't think it can realisticly achiee you have another thing coming.

Put it this way. If a large 4.0 I6 in a 1.7 tonne car can get 9.9 (maybe lower in the near future) L/100 km, what makes you think a DI 2.0 4 in a lighter version of the same car can't get into the 8s??? FFS its HALF THE SIZE. Yes i realise it might rev a little higher BUT the whole point of the turbo IS TO AVOID THIS. In effect the turbo provides power/torque whe you need it, then when you are cruising along it goes off boost, and you have a DI 2.0 with reasonable compression ratio to motor you along.

I think your continual anti ford trolling could be done without thanks.

Oh and for the record Holden is attempting a similar idea with their 3.0 DI V6...except they will be lucky to better low 9s and its got a wopping 300nm of torque or so the rumours go. Oh and that is at 4500-5000rpm or somethign stupid. so yeah....talking about having to rev smaller engines and not saving any fuel.....ah best go ask Holden about that...Ford are'nt that stupid.

[Fordman1]

Nice post Swordsman.

I smell a Troll...... :evil3:

[ivorya]

Lets hope Ford Aus (europe) put that Hybrid system that the Fusion has. Surely if a company is spoorking about Fuel Efficiency, this would surely be a better solution.
OK.. it may cost more but people and fleet are buying these things, you know, save the world people..

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by ivorya

Lets hope Ford Aus (europe) put that Hybrid system that the Fusion has. Surely if a company is spoorking about Fuel Efficiency, this would surely be a better solution.
OK.. it may cost more but people and fleet are buying these things, you know, save the world people..

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...2576030013E2FF

Well you can buy a modular EV drivetrain.

[z80]

I'll just say again what i think.

Falcon will be front wheel drive in the long term.
Ecoboost engine will require 98 Ron to get quoted performance.

V8's will be no more, I6 will only be available for taxis.

[Chilliman]

Originally Posted by z80

I'll just say again what i think.

Falcon will be front wheel drive in the long term.
Ecoboost engine will require 98 Ron to get quoted performance.

V8's will be no more, I6 will only be available for taxis.

As we're saying things again, I'll say it again - Ecoboost happily runs on US 87Octane fuel!!!

http://www.autolinedetroit.tv/daily/?p=4083

" Icing on the cake is that the whole shebang runs on 87 octane regular gasoline."

If you're looking for a downside to the Ecoboost engines, here it is: "The only real downside to EcoBoost is the sound. It has a nice snarl to it, but it’s no substitute for a V8’s rumble."

[chevypower]

In Utah and Idaho you can buy 85 octane. I buy it all the time! I would be surprised if EcoBoost can't handle that.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by z80

I'll just say again what i think.

Falcon will be front wheel drive in the long term.
Ecoboost engine will require 98 Ron to get quoted performance.

V8's will be no more, I6 will only be available for taxis.

The I6 won't work with FWD.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

The I6 won't work with FWD.

I sugest what z80 has said so far be deleted. It's just so wrong.

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by phillyc

I sugest what z80 has said so far be deleted. It's just so wrong.

He's a troll....

Maybe he'll go away :togo:

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Barraxr8

He's a troll....

Maybe he'll go away :togo:

He didn't learn after his little 'holiday'.

[Swordsman88]

talking of trolls...i wonder where kpcart is after his earlier comments? I was expecting a vitriolic retort after my post.

After all, its not like i inserted that little attack on the 3.0 DI commodore for no reason LOL!

[vztrt]

Holden boss surprised at Ford small-car decision

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...257609000C0B90

GM Holden can make money on its locally-made small car, says Reuss

By JAMES STANFORD 5 August 2009

GM Holden chairman and managing director Mark Reuss says he is surprised by Ford Australia’s move to abandon plans to build a small car in Australia because it is not financially viable.

Speaking after this week’s announcement of Holden’s new direct-injection V6 engine in Melbourne, Mr Reuss said the Holden plan to build its own small sedan and hatch at its Elizabeth plant in South Australia from the third quarter of next year was on track and that it should be profitable.

Mr Reuss, who will leave his current position to take up his new role of General Motors global engineering vice president in Detroit at the end of this month, said: “I can’t comment on why it was (canned) because I don’t know, but I was surprised.”

He said the Ford and General Motors internal systems were quite different, which might explain why the Holden business case worked and the Focus business case failed.

“There are two completely different product development organisations and two completely different organisations that source product, and I don’t know theirs at all,” he said.

“All I know is that we have got a product development system that will deliver that car and make a little bit of money on it – a lot of money, I’d like to make a lot of money on it.”

Ford Australia insiders have told GoAuto they cannot understand how Holden will make a profit producing the Cruze in Australia when it felt it would lose money on every Focus it made if its own plan for local production went ahead.

GoAuto understands the fact that Holden is on target to receive far more government funding for its small car plan – $189 million compared with about $20 million – was not a factor in the Ford decision.

“This was a decision on the long-term profitability, not the start-up costs, which really aren’t that big,” said a Ford Australia source.

One of the crucial factors that may have knocked over Ford Australia’s small-car plan was its ability to source its car from what company president Marin Burela described as a low-cost source in Asia, most likely Thailand.

Holden is making changes at its Elizabeth plant in preparation for Cruze production.

Mr Reuss visited the plant to examine the work three weeks ago and says he was immensely satisfied with what he saw.

“It was probably one of the best days that I have had in a while,” he said. “It was really exciting and it is really neat to see the birth of a car in Elizabeth.”

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Holden boss surprised at Ford small-car decision

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...257609000C0B90

There is very little profit in small cars, thats why Ford and Holden resisted doing it for so long. Large cars don't cost much more to build but sell for nearly double. Ruess said it right when he expected to make a small profit, which he then tried to correct. The cruze will probably be lucky to break even.

It could be that the Cruze will be cheaper to make due to all the cheap Korean parts it will be filled with, versus the pricier Euro sourced parts the Focus would have got.

Ford never expected to make much of a profit from Focus, but it would keep the place running by contributing towards the cost of overheads, which would have taken some of the cost strains off Falcon and Territory.

[Paxton]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

There is very little profit in small cars, thats why Ford and Holden resisted doing it for so long. Large cars don't cost much more to build but sell for nearly double. Ruess said it right when he expected to make a small profit, which he then tried to correct. The cruze will probably be lucky to break even.

It could be that the Cruze will be cheaper to make due to all the cheap Korean parts it will be filled with, versus the pricier Euro sourced parts the Focus would have got.

Ford never expected to make much of a profit from Focus, but it would keep the place running by contributing towards the cost of overheads, which would have taken some of the cost strains off Falcon and Territory.

When Gorman initially announced Focus, he made mention of a high percentage of Australian content (like Fuel Tanks, seats, dash boards, tyres), but did say that the Engine and transmission would be imported.

Don't forget that when Ford built Laser here in the 80's and early 90's, it was CKD, and was lucky to have Australian air in the tyres. Everything came from Japan, and was welded together here. It makes much more sense to have Focus built in Thailand, and import them over. The Thais can actually build a decent car.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Paxton

Don't forget that when Ford built Laser here in the 80's and early 90's, it was CKD, and was lucky to have Australian air in the tyres. Everything came from Japan, and was welded together here. It makes much more sense to have Focus built in Thailand, and import them over. The Thais can actually build a decent car.

When you have such high tariffs on anything imported it makes it much easier. ie. the 80's.

And you also have to remember Ford knew how to advertise, market and sell cars in the 80's, they dominated the market. Don't know where it all went wrong. Holden was on its knees. It truely was a golden era for Ford Australia, except for dropping the V8. :togo:

[galaxy xr8]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

When you have such high tariffs on anything imported it makes it much easier. ie. the 80's.

And you also have to remember Ford knew how to advertise, market and sell cars in the 80's, they dominated the market. Don't know where it all went wrong. Holden was on its knees. It truely was a golden era for Ford Australia, except for dropping the V8. :togo:

Thing's run in cycles I suspose. it was Ford's time to shine then, now it's Holden's.

[JPFS1]

Originally Posted by Paxton

When Gorman initially announced Focus, he made mention of a high percentage of Australian content (like Fuel Tanks, seats, dash boards, tyres), but did say that the Engine and transmission would be imported.

Don't forget that when Ford built Laser here in the 80's and early 90's, it was CKD, and was lucky to have Australian air in the tyres. Everything came from Japan, and was welded together here. It makes much more sense to have Focus built in Thailand, and import them over. The Thais can actually build a decent car.

The Australian sourced parts and testing requirements is what made the local Focus program $$$ prohibitive. Australian suppliers are not globally competitive, especially considering the ball is their court at the moment. But they are playing with a double edged sword... on one hand they are complaining that they're collapsing, yet they are playing hard ball when it comes to negotiations because of the much lower local volumes.

[Chilliman]

Another interesting Ecoboost article:

Ford Officially Confirms Four Cylinder EcoBoost Engine
by George Delozier

Ford's EcoBoost engine has gained quite a bit of popularity since first being introduced. Offering performance comparable to that of a V8 while also returning fuel economy more akin to an inline four engine, what's not to love? Now, Ford has decided to expand on the EcoBoost line by including a four cylinder version that will not only provide outstanding fuel economy, but also offer a sport oriented powerplant for many small vehicles.




The current 3.5 liter EcoBoost engine is nothing short of an engineering masterpiece. Thanks to direct injection and z pair of quick spooling turbochargers, the 3.5 liter V6 is able to crank out 365 horsepower and 350lb/ft of torque. While these numbers are impressive, what makes the engine even more appealing is the latter of these two figures being available between 1500rpm and 6000rpm. All this is available while returning 25 miles per gallon on the highway and 18 in the city.

For the 2.0 liter EcoBoost inline-4 powerplant, Ford has promised at least 230 horsepower and 240lb/ft of torque. Once again, the engine will be designed to provide the maximum amount of torque over a broad range without sacrificing fuel economy. Ford engineers have also outfitted the engine with a Twin Independent Variable Cam Timing (Ti-VCT).




Unlike some current cam timing adjustment systems that will change both the intake and exhaust sides at the same time, the Ti-VCT system will allow for independent changes to occur. When combined, the EcoBoost system and Ti-VCT equate to a 10%-20% improvement in fuel economy when put side-by-side with similarly performing V6 engines. The 2.0 liter EcoBoost engine will be the first in the EcoBoost family to feature the Ti-VCT system and will likely act as a test bed for the technology.

Ford is planning on using the new 2.0 liter EcoBoost engine to replace many of their current V6 drivetrains, such as the 3.0 liter being used in several models. While there was no official word as to what would get the new EcoBoost, there are definitely many candidates for the powerful little turbo-4.


Full article with output curve graphs:
http://inventorspot.com/articles/for...t_engine_30576

[Nikked]

I think 2011 is a bit to far off for the 4cyl falcon...

What upgrades are happening to the Barra?

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Nikked

I think 2011 is a bit to far off for the 4cyl falcon...

What upgrades are happening to the Barra?

Euro 4 compliance. Basically just a small tickle up.