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

[BAMKIISR]

hey guys,

is it just me or is no one concerned with the fate of the v8's?

read through didn't see much discussion used:

[PoweredByCNG]

G'day all,

I can't give away too many details at this stage, but I inspected a BF XR6 with the new Orbital / Vialle LPi system today and all I can say is that was blown away at how neat and simple the system is. You can barely see the LPG gear under the bonnet (as opposed to the parts of the icom JTG system which stand out like a dog's hind leg) the fuel gauge/switch (for aftermarket dual-fuel installation) isn't as tacky as some expected it to be.

As some of you may know, this system will be installed on our BA XT this Friday. Photos will be up as soon as we collect the car.

Regards,
Dave

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by PoweredByCNG

G'day all,

I can't give away too many details at this stage, but I inspected a BF XR6 with the new Orbital / Vialle LPi system today and all I can say is that was blown away at how neat and simple the system is. You can barely see the LPG gear under the bonnet (as opposed to the parts of the icom JTG system which stand out like a dog's hind leg) the fuel gauge/switch (for aftermarket dual-fuel installation) isn't as tacky as some expected it to be.

As some of you may know, this system will be installed on our BA XT this Friday. Photos will be up as soon as we collect the car.

Regards,
Dave

You know it would be just super if someone could invent a way to wire the LPG fuel gauge into the factory unit (so there is only one gauge) so that when you flick the switch to change fuels, the needle on the gauge adjusts to the different fuel tank.

[PoweredByCNG]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

You know it would be just super if someone could invent a way to wire the LPG fuel gauge into the factory unit (so there is only one gauge) so that when you flick the switch to change fuels, the needle on the gauge adjusts to the different fuel tank.

Some European cars fitted with LPG from the factory have this feature.

Regards,
Dave

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by PoweredByCNG

G'day all,

I can't give away too many details at this stage, but I inspected a BF XR6 with the new Orbital / Vialle LPi system today and all I can say is that was blown away at how neat and simple the system is. You can barely see the LPG gear under the bonnet (as opposed to the parts of the icom JTG system which stand out like a dog's hind leg) the fuel gauge/switch (for aftermarket dual-fuel installation) isn't as tacky as some expected it to be.

As some of you may know, this system will be installed on our BA XT this Friday. Photos will be up as soon as we collect the car.

Regards,
Dave

Thanks for the info dave. I'm atcually quite interested in how this new LI LPG system will go for Ford. I dont'know diddly about LPG really but from what i do understand this LI system will be not only a total shift improvement in what ford use now but will also be quite a bit better than what others have out there. Is this sytem you are talking about exactly the same as the one ford is going to use? I heard ford will be the first dedicated system in the world of this type....

I take it orbital are making available this system as a duel fuel kit for I6 vehicles already...before ford uses it as a factory lpg??

[PoweredByCNG]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

I take it orbital are making available this system as a duel fuel kit for I6 vehicles already...before ford uses it as a factory lpg??

The system is EXACTLY the same as what Ford will used as of July next year and in fact the kit that we will be receiving was co-developed by Orbital / Vialle and Ford of Australia. The only difference is the inclusion of a fuel selection switch and gauge.

The system will be available as an aftermarket dual-fuel product for existing owners of all Ford B and F-series Falcons.

Have a read of this for more information: http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...2575DA0022F0A6

Regards,
Dave

[kpcart]

Originally Posted by 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!

i dont have internet access all the time, havnt checked this thread since i posted.
I can believe the engine, but not the fuel economy in a 1700kg. I bet i wont be proved wrong.
As for the Commodore engine, i think its the best NA 6 cylinder australia has ever had, based on the specs and reports from american cars that use the engine, we are talking realistic specs that compare to european makes, not fords guesswork without factoring in how the 4 cyl will work in a hugearse falcon
When the 3.ODI holden comes out and sells well, ford may well have to reavalute their future again, as they stuffed up again and let holden get the jump on them yet again, same old story with ford australia
A few years ago, ford should have planned on downsizing the i6 and include DI, as we knew for years GM had such an engine and that it would make its way into the commodore.

[kpcart]

[QUOTE=Chilliman]Another interesting Ecoboost article:

For the 2.0 liter EcoBoost inline-4 powerplant, Ford has promised at least 230 horsepower and 240lb/ft of torque.


This shows 230 hp, which does not equal 200kw as some were saying. i can believe the fuel economy if its 230hp, but i dont believe many people will buy a 230hp (170kw) falcon with heaps less torque then a i6. people will be temtped to gas the car to move the 1700kg brick, and the economy will jump up to 10l/100lm instantly which the i6 does with effortless driving.

[Chilliman]

[QUOTE=kpcart]

Originally Posted by Chilliman

Another interesting Ecoboost article:

For the 2.0 liter EcoBoost inline-4 powerplant, Ford has promised at least 230 horsepower and 240lb/ft of torque.


This shows 230 hp, which does not equal 200kw as some were saying. i can believe the fuel economy if its 230hp, but i dont believe many people will buy a 230hp (170kw) falcon with heaps less torque then a i6. people will be temtped to gas the car to move the 1700kg brick, and the economy will jump up to 10l/100lm instantly which the i6 does with effortless driving.

Its not kilowatts that move the car but torque, and this Ecoboost has a whole heap more than the 3.0SIDI.......and more impotantly the torque curve of the Ecoboost does a fair impression of Ayres Rock!

[PoweredByCNG]

Originally Posted by Chilliman

Its not kilowatts that move the car but torque, and this Ecoboost has a whole heap more than the 3.0SIDI.......and more impotantly the torque curve of the Ecoboost does a fair impression of Ayres Rock!

Yup, torque curves that are as flat as a tabletop is what we want to see. A wide torque band aids driveability - you don't need to change gears as often, which is why turbodiesel engines are so popular. I still believe that a little bit of extra displacement (on top of 2.0L) is needed to maintain low-end (off-boost) torque though. A larger engine with a lower boost pressure will offer a better driving experience than a smaller engine with a higher boost pressure.

Regards,
Dave

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by PoweredByCNG

Yup, torque curves that are as flat as a tabletop is what we want to see. A wide torque band aids driveability - you don't need to change gears as often, which is why turbodiesel engines are so popular. I still believe that a little bit of extra displacement (on top of 2.0L) is needed to maintain low-end (off-boost) torque though. A larger engine with a lower boost pressure will offer a better driving experience than a smaller engine with a higher boost pressure.

Regards,
Dave

Thats where the gearing will help. This car is to run 6 gears. A short first gear will put the engine into boost so as the gears get longer it'll have the pull.

This engine will do well in more stop start applications, where the bigger sixes fail in terms of fuel consumption. But will do the job on the occasional country rd while having the extra space in the boot that the e-gas model doesn't, unfortunately.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by kpcart

i dont have internet access all the time, havnt checked this thread since i posted.
I can believe the engine, but not the fuel economy in a 1700kg. I bet i wont be proved wrong.
As for the Commodore engine, i think its the best NA 6 cylinder australia has ever had, based on the specs and reports from american cars that use the engine, we are talking realistic specs that compare to european makes, not fords guesswork without factoring in how the 4 cyl will work in a hugearse falcon
When the 3.ODI holden comes out and sells well, ford may well have to reavalute their future again, as they stuffed up again and let holden get the jump on them yet again, same old story with ford australia
A few years ago, ford should have planned on downsizing the i6 and include DI, as we knew for years GM had such an engine and that it would make its way into the commodore.

At last....a response!!! Seriously i was just having a bit of fun kpcart...till i saw your post. Good lord i dont' think i have to make any more points since chilliman and others have/will do it for me.

Just to take on a few issues:
As for the Commodore engine, i think its the best NA 6 cylinder australia has ever had, based on the specs and reports from american cars that use the engine,

Best NA 6 cylinder.....LMFAO!!! you can argue that the DI makes it the 'most advanced' engine (though Ford and others have got tech that is also very impressive and was a first at the time) on paper, but BEST. Well based on the specs you espouse....it isn't. The 3.6 (which the is the only engine in teh same class as the 4.0 I6) doesnt burn any less fuel. Its best is 9.9l/100km which is the best the 4.0 DOES NOW (it is almost certain to have small improvements in the near future). The wopping 210kw is not worth diddly because everyone knows torque is what matters in these heavy cars. Besides the GM engine makes 8% more power but 11% less torque then the Ford, so at best it would be a tie. In addition go for the 95 or 98 RON fuel Holden uses for its power tests and the FG I6 makes up to 210kw and 415nm...... I dont' know what 'US reports' you have read but those i have were far from glowing. Particulalry the 3.0 DI engine which was described by one poster on a GM forum as 'very disapointing'.

The 3.0 engine is a medium car figther if its lucky. I mean it has over 100nm less (25-30% less) than Fords I6. Surely any comparisons with that engine are a joke. Holden engineers admit it will be 'competitive' WITH THE CURRENT BASE ALLOYTEC. Which saddled with useless 4sp auto does 0-100 SOME FULL SECOND SLOWER than an FG base model. Besides, it only saves 0.6L/100km over a 3.6 so why did holden bother?? You get the same size saving by optioning a ZF in an XT FG FFS, funny that Ford didn't have to 'downsize' their engine they just changed the transmission LOL!

When the 3.ODI holden comes out and sells well, ford may well have to reavalute their future again, as they stuffed up again and let holden get the jump on them yet again,

Its too early to talk sales (it ain't even on sale) but i reckon a 5 minute test drive in a base commodore will lead to most private buyers (even holden fanboys) going for the upspec car. They may be brand loyal but they can tell a slug when they drive one. Fleets might get in on the act, but only if they can get around the '4 cylinder only' mantra that most gov/business departments have. Funny, a Falcon would get around that....hmm whose got the best future plans now.

In short, kudos for Holden getting their 'new' GM crate engines out before Ford. I predict that just like the adventra and all those other things Holden rushes out to beat ford with it will be nothing more thana stop gap....a desperate attempt that wil be promptly rolled right over by most other manufacturers rendering them sadly outdated.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by PoweredByCNG

The system is EXACTLY the same as what Ford will used as of July next year and in fact the kit that we will be receiving was co-developed by Orbital / Vialle and Ford of Australia. The only difference is the inclusion of a fuel selection switch and gauge.

The system will be available as an aftermarket dual-fuel product for existing owners of all Ford B and F-series Falcons.

Have a read of this for more information: http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...2575DA0022F0A6

Regards,
Dave

Thanks for the info Dave. Do you have any knowledge of its expected performance/consumptoin. I assume it would allow the I6 to produce full power/torque on both petrol/LPG?

[Joe5619]

Silly question, how can Holden get a new engine in so quickly, yet Ford have to do 18 months of development first? How does Holden get around doing that?

[z80]

Originally Posted by Chilliman

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

*yawn*


Sorry...we use RON octane standards in au not US octane.

why not quote fuel economy in US gallons as well...sounds wonderful.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Joe5619

Silly question, how can Holden get a new engine in so quickly, yet Ford have to do 18 months of development first? How does Holden get around doing that?

Holden would have been playing with it early. Also it would have been easier to get the V6 in the engine bay then Ford getting a 4cyl into the Falcon engine bay.

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by z80

*yawn*


Sorry...we use RON octane standards in au not US octane.

why not quote fuel economy in US gallons as well...sounds wonderful.

So what's US 85/87/89/91 octane in Aus Octane?
And what's AUS 91/95/98 in US?
Chilliman's point is, EcoBoost will run on the crappiest, lowest octane, cheapest, most basic, regular unleaded you can get.

[Chilliman]

Originally Posted by z80

*yawn*


Sorry...we use RON octane standards in au not US octane.

why not quote fuel economy in US gallons as well...sounds wonderful.

A rough conversion for our octane standards (RON) to US standards (AKI) is RON x 0.95

So our RON91 would be 91x0.95=86.45 or roughly 87AKI in the US.

Happy now? Forget I asked that.

[Paxton]

Originally Posted by z80

*yawn*


Sorry...we use RON octane standards in au not US octane.

why not quote fuel economy in US gallons as well...sounds wonderful.

What, like this:

Originally Posted by z80

22 Miles per gallon in an XR6T around town?

Maybe...if you are driving on the flat, with a tailwind and less than 2000rpm constant...and never using the boost.

Taken from the Gas Thread.

[mafiastafcar]

I'll wait until I see this in the flesh before believing it- the benefits, that is.

A 2L turbo is going to be revving higher, running hotter and wearing sooner. It would be fairly impractical if you do any big towing. This reminds me of the short lived 3.2L six in the EA, the one that disappeared fairly quickly. Oh, and the 2.6L in the P76, and all the Jap utes that always seem to be getting bigger engines with better economy... I can see this thing getting bored, stroked or turfed as Ford scrambles to undo yet another stupid decision.

[JPFS1]

Originally Posted by mafiastafcar

I'll wait until I see this in the flesh before believing it- the benefits, that is.

You should have just stopped there. It would have been more reasonable, but you continued on and showed that you've basically made up your mind without sticking to your own advise.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by mafiastafcar

I'll wait until I see this in the flesh before believing it- the benefits, that is.

A 2L turbo is going to be revving higher, running hotter and wearing sooner. It would be fairly impractical if you do any big towing. This reminds me of the short lived 3.2L six in the EA, the one that disappeared fairly quickly. Oh, and the 2.6L in the P76, and all the Jap utes that always seem to be getting bigger engines with better economy... I can see this thing getting bored, stroked or turfed as Ford scrambles to undo yet another stupid decision.

Comparing the 3.2 or even star fire to the ecoboost is pointless. There is so much difference between the EcoB engine and the other two. Also the EcoBoost isn't hooked up to crummy long geared auto's.

[mafiastafcar]

Originally Posted by JPFS1

You should have just stopped there. It would have been more reasonable, but you continued on and showed that you've basically made up your mind without sticking to your own advise.

No, I stuck to my advice from the start. I don't believe it'll cut in the market and I've got my thoughts on what will happen, but I could be proven totally wrong. We'll see- just like I said the first time.

[mafiastafcar]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Comparing the 3.2 or even star fire to the ecoboost is pointless. There is so much difference between the EcoB engine and the other two. Also the EcoBoost isn't hooked up to crummy long geared auto's.

Haha, the starfire! Forgot about that one...

What Ford is doing is great in principle: turbo a small engine for six-ish performance, give it lots of gears so it can get off the mark real easy, keep a steady rev range under power and drop to a fast idle on cruise. It looks great on paper. I just think the engine is far too small, even hooked up to the six speed. We're talking what, 1600 odd kilos, unloaded? Pile in a load of shopping and three kids and you're getting to around 1700. That's a fair bit for a 2L especially in bad traffic.

This is why 4cyls have been getting bigger, it's not just about cars getting heavier, it's also the fact that a larger engine needs to draw less fuel to produce the same power and has less air to compress and shift, relative to it's capacity. Ford is trying to work a tradeoff between lower capacity vs performance and it works to a point, then the small piston surface area starts to become an issue and all that force fed mixture starts generating more heat than anything and fuel economy gets pretty bad. You're right that it can't be compared to the others, in the sense that it's engineered for turbo applications so it can cope with the stress- better. It's still going to be pushed pretty hard though and I wouldn't expect to get the same lifespan or reliability as the i6.

The theory also works on another big assumption: the owner's driving patterns. If you live in the country and cruise on the highway a lot, you'll be laughing. Not so for us who have to crawl through Brisbane for work in the morning :( Bad traffic and heavy loads are where the 2T will have to perform like a six, and if so, it will drink like a six- that's typical of turbo'd petrol engines. Ford would have been better off with something over 2.5L, that would be a better match to the weight of the car and would return as good if not better economy.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by mafiastafcar

Haha, the starfire! Forgot about that one...

What Ford is doing is great in principle: turbo a small engine for six-ish performance, give it lots of gears so it can get off the mark real easy, keep a steady rev range under power and drop to a fast idle on cruise. It looks great on paper. I just think the engine is far too small, even hooked up to the six speed. We're talking what, 1600 odd kilos, unloaded? Pile in a load of shopping and three kids and you're getting to around 1700. That's a fair bit for a 2L especially in bad traffic.

This is why 4cyls have been getting bigger, it's not just about cars getting heavier, it's also the fact that a larger engine needs to draw less fuel to produce the same power and has less air to compress and shift, relative to it's capacity. Ford is trying to work a tradeoff between lower capacity vs performance and it works to a point, then the small piston surface area starts to become an issue and all that force fed mixture starts generating more heat than anything and fuel economy gets pretty bad. You're right that it can't be compared to the others, in the sense that it's engineered for turbo applications so it can cope with the stress- better. It's still going to be pushed pretty hard though and I wouldn't expect to get the same lifespan or reliability as the i6.

The theory also works on another big assumption: the owner's driving patterns. If you live in the country and cruise on the highway a lot, you'll be laughing. Not so for us who have to crawl through Brisbane for work in the morning :( Bad traffic and heavy loads are where the 2T will have to perform like a six, and if so, it will drink like a six- that's typical of turbo'd petrol engines. Ford would have been better off with something over 2.5L, that would be a better match to the weight of the car and would return as good if not better economy.

I think you have made some valid points there...but you are ignoring the tech involved in this application. The 'larger' 4 cylinder engines you are referring too i assume are engines like the 2.5 mazda 6 donk (up from 2.3) and so on. These engines are released with increased grunt and yet still burn less. So yes, if it revs a bit less you can save fuel. BUT, you have to look at why manufacturers are doing this.

Firstly, taking the mazda example, the larger engine gained more in torque than it did power. That is, it has more pulling power from down low. Mazda could then alter the gearing in teh heavier car to burn less...because they used the torque down low without revving the motor. However, IN ADDITION, they also improved the intake, exahust, cam timing, and optimised the calibration to save fuel throughout the rev range, particularly when crusising. The larger capacity resulted in a less 'stressed' engine as you put it.

The technique Ford are using here is quite a bit different. They are using the turbo to generate the high torque down low...this avoids revving. Different technology...same outcome as the larger engine method. In addition, they are using DI to save fuel, and to allow the use of lower octane fuels as well. The compression ratio is 10.1....not too many turbo petrol cars out there that high.... THis means the engine runs more efficiently and develops more torque OFF BOOST than a standard small capacity turbo 4. This avoids constant gear changing for slight inclines and ensures the engine has good natural torque to avoid any torque holes e.g. turbo lag.

The torque produced by a quality DI NA 4 cylinder of 2 litre capcity would be 125 kw and 230-240 nm, easy. Funny that because it aint' far from the numbers for a Mazda 6 2.5...and it burns high 8s with not much less weight. You made the point about crawling thorugh traffic, well i doubt it would burn more than a 4.0 given that when its idling its got to be burnign alot less, and when accelerating at low speed it would get good response from 1500 rpm...no more than the I6 either. In fact in these circumstances is when i woudl say it has the biggest advantge over those 'large 4 cylinder' competitors you mention, who routinely rev to 4000rpm to reach their greatly reduced torque peaks.

I'm not going to get into the whole 'reliability' mantra. This drivetrain will hav to meet the same Ford reliability/durability standards as all other engines in the lineup and you can't say with any reall confidence that the engien will have markedly worse longevity than the I6.

As you pointed out we will have to wait to be sure.

[R-Design]

Burela on the I4T decision, also a cryptic quote on the new V8:

Originally Posted by Wheels

The upbeat Geelong-raised trump proclaimed that Ford now “has got it right” and that the right business path has “not happened by accident”.

He’s backing his hunch that Australians will continue to buy the Falcon, especially if Ford can offer tantalising fuel economy without a trade-off in performance.

In a $230 million spend, the existing in-line six will be tweaked to meet new fuel efficiency and emissions targets, but the big news is the introduction of the new 2.0-litre turbo four which he insists will hit the spot with consumers and help give the Falcon longevity.

Originally Posted by Wheels

And what of the V8 engine? “The V8 determines its own future. Right now, there are no plans to change it although more private buyers are choosing the turbo six.”

http://www.wheelsmag.com.au/News/For...ullarticle=yes

[Road_Warrior]

"Right now, there are no plans to change it"

Yet we know that they will HAVE to change the V8 before July 1 2010 and it will be the Coyote.

Also, I think Wheels are way off the mark in saying that the I6 is included in that $230M spend with emissions upgrades, because the money has already been spent on the Euro 4 changes and the changes are well and truly locked in - unless they're referring to a higher, not yet mandated emissions standard.

[mafiastafcar]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

The torque produced by a quality DI NA 4 cylinder of 2 litre capcity would be 125 kw and 230-240 nm, easy. Funny that because it aint' far from the numbers for a Mazda 6 2.5...and it burns high 8s with not much less weight. You made the point about crawling thorugh traffic, well i doubt it would burn more than a 4.0 given that when its idling its got to be burnign alot less, and when accelerating at low speed it would get good response from 1500 rpm...no more than the I6 either. In fact in these circumstances is when i woudl say it has the biggest advantge over those 'large 4 cylinder' competitors you mention, who routinely rev to 4000rpm to reach their greatly reduced torque peaks.

I'm not going to get into the whole 'reliability' mantra. This drivetrain will hav to meet the same Ford reliability/durability standards as all other engines in the lineup and you can't say with any reall confidence that the engien will have markedly worse longevity than the I6.

As you pointed out we will have to wait to be sure.

I'm with you on the point about the 2T being more economical in heavier traffic, I'm just thinking it won't be as significant under trying conditions.

What got me thinking about the reliability question was the problem some turbo diesels had (Nissan, IIRC- sombody correct me?) with pistons disintegrating under heavy boost. That was quite a few years ago now, I doubt such a problem would surface in this engine after all the advances in turbo technology. Ford hasn't actually tested it in the Falcon yet, they're betting on their software simulations to tell them if it is viable or not. That's a bit dicey, I wouldn't get away with it in electronics I know that much- I'd have to produce working and tested prototypes. In effect, the first buyers will be guinea pigs for long term issues. Now there's a cheery thought!

[JPFS1]

Originally Posted by mafiastafcar

Ford hasn't actually tested it in the Falcon yet, they're betting on their software simulations to tell them if it is viable or not. That's a bit dicey, I wouldn't get away with it in electronics I know that much- I'd have to produce working and tested prototypes. In effect, the first buyers will be guinea pigs for long term issues. Now there's a cheery thought!

You shouldn't always believe what's written in the media...

[atec77]

Originally Posted by mafiastafcar

Haha, the starfire! Forgot about that one...

What Ford is doing is great in principle: turbo a small engine for six-ish performance, give it lots of gears so it can get off the mark real easy, keep a steady rev range under power and drop to a fast idle on cruise. It looks great on paper. I just think the engine is far too small, even hooked up to the six speed. We're talking what, 1600 odd kilos, unloaded? Pile in a load of shopping and three kids and you're getting to around 1700. That's a fair bit for a 2L especially in bad traffic.

This is why 4cyls have been getting bigger, it's not just about cars getting heavier, it's also the fact that a larger engine needs to draw less fuel to produce the same power and has less air to compress and shift, relative to it's capacity. Ford is trying to work a tradeoff between lower capacity vs performance and it works to a point, then the small piston surface area starts to become an issue and all that force fed mixture starts generating more heat than anything and fuel economy gets pretty bad. You're right that it can't be compared to the others, in the sense that it's engineered for turbo applications so it can cope with the stress- better. It's still going to be pushed pretty hard though and I wouldn't expect to get the same lifespan or reliability as the i6.

The theory also works on another big assumption: the owner's driving patterns. If you live in the country and cruise on the highway a lot, you'll be laughing. Not so for us who have to crawl through Brisbane for work in the morning :( Bad traffic and heavy loads are where the 2T will have to perform like a six, and if so, it will drink like a six- that's typical of turbo'd petrol engines. Ford would have been better off with something over 2.5L, that would be a better match to the weight of the car and would return as good if not better economy.

classic exampl eof to small a turbo and motor is the baby toyota 4wd , mine was a 2.4 turbo and was gutless , a change to a 3 litre turbo was much more like it , returned better economy but was still destroed performance and drivability wise by an i6 , economy was very similar both returning on distance of around $10.00 / 100k long trips , once on gas the I6 won by a mile..
you cant beat the right fuel and a lazy motor