Info on future V6 engine

[Sean`03///Zed4]

Wow, that was the biggest trying-to-sound-smart post I've ever read.

It's all cost and marketing. Nothing to do with technology. There's no market for a high-output V6, without cannibalising V8 sales. If you want performance, buy a V8. If you just want to look good in a Mustang, get a V6. That's been Ford's recipe for decades, and they're smart to stick with it.

I don't know if you are being defensive here or you are trying to say you don't know about new car technology viz.Bi-VANOS or VTEC/VVTI. It's over the internet so if you prefer you can get educated from some other source.

Michael has a good point. If Ford/GM can afford to offer thousands of dollars in incentives or rebate programs , why not divert these funds into putting more content into their cars.

 

[Michael Yount]

Guys - the point is, if Ford and GM can't start to compete on the other segment lines - THEY WON'T BE AROUND to build cars like the Stang.

And notwithstanding the other points raised - even the Mustang's future lies in Ford's ability to integrate forward-thinking design and technology. If it were just about V-8 and rwd with 'Stang' body panels hung on it - their market would literally 'die' out from under them. They'll have to do more than that to keep attracting our kids to them. Camaro/Firebird are great examples of what happens to fabulous brands when a company fails to bring them into the future while hanging on to what made them pony-cars in the first place.

 

[sparky_SIUE]

Many of you are pointing out that Ford and GM are always behind when it comes to technology. I do agree with this when it comes to the impala/taurus/grand prix/etc. But the V8 segment from Ford is shaping up(and i believe the V6 segment will as well). Case in point, the new 5.4 3-valve is available in the Expedition and F-150 in 2005. I know i didn't mention diesel but the 6.0L is available in the superduty and excursion. The 3-valve 4.6 is obviously offered in the mustang, and by 2006 should be in the explorer. That handles the V8 department. As far as sixes go, we have an entire line of duratec, with the 3.5 coming late next year making 250+ hp and more torque. The only V6 Ford needs is one for the ranger(and mustang it seems). The 4.0L is underpowered in comparison with imports. So i would give the Mustang the new Duratec 35 and the Ranger a 4.2 thats found in the base F-150. So available Ford would have...

Focus ST                      -- duratec 23 = 151hp, 153tq

500/freestyle/escape/mustang  -- duratec 35 = 250hp, 250+tq

Crown Vic/Explorer/mustang GT -- 3-valve 4.6 = 290hp(crown vic/explorer) 
                                 300hp(mustangGT) 320tq.

Ranger                        -- 4.2L OHV V6 210hp, 260tq

F-150/Expedition              -- 3-valve 5.4 = 300hp, 365tq

Superduty/Excursion           -- 6.0L Powerstroke 325hp 570tq

 

[SVTdriver]

A couple of things about this discussion. Would you buy a higher powered V6. It would likely be more expensive than the current V6. So that would close the price gap between both models. Which is an important factor to consider. If you had to chose between a 250hp V6 and a 300 hp V8 and the difference was only $2500. Would you REALLY want the V6? A high powered V6 also may not enjoy the cheaper insurance.

Now as for the whole Ford falling behind thing. I may be wrong (And it is quite possible). But I thought we learned the whole fallacy behind marketshare when the dot com bust happened. They were all thinking about marketshare not profitability. If Ford is profitable it will continue to exist. It would seem to be that simple. Obviously other car companies are surviving while having less marketshare.

And as for the import companies gaining ground. Personally I think it is because they have more car (Not truck) models than Ford. The Civic and accord come in more variations than the Ford models do. If the fusion or 500 came in as many versions as the accord does. Accord has 9 different levels/Styles. The 500 has at best case 6 but really only lists 3 on edmunds. The base Accord is around $16k the 500 $22k. I however don't think that anytime soon Ford or GM is going to be getting aquired.

 

[Rootus]

People who compare engines based on peak numbers deserve to be burned by the results. The 3V 4.6L may be an underachiever by these measurements, but how many of these other cars at the same price point are capable of a mid-13 quarter mile? That's right, I didn't think so ... . Go buy yourself a super fast 240 hp 2.0L S2000, 'kay?

 

[jasonlee0704]

Michael has a good point. If Ford/GM can afford to offer thousands of dollars in incentives or rebate programs , why not divert these funds into putting more content into their cars.

The problem is, as a stand-alone car business Ford, GM and Chrysler really CAN'T afford to be giving away thousands of dollars in incentives or rebates. But they have to move their inventory, and if they also finance the car through the in-house credit agency, they can make the money back through another business arm.

In general, the car business has been dreadful profit-wise for domestics over the last couple of decades. The high-profit margin truck sales and the incredible profitability of Ford and GM's credit divisions are what keep the domestics in the black.

Ford made big news by just BREAKING EVEN last year on its car business, after years of swimming in red.

 

[SVTdriver]

The problem is, as a stand-alone car business Ford, GM and Chrysler really CAN'T afford to be giving away thousands of dollars in incentives or rebates. But they have to move their inventory, and if they also finance the car through the in-house credit agency, they can make the money back through another business arm.

In general, the car business has been dreadful profit-wise for domestics over the last couple of decades. The high-profit margin truck sales and the incredible profitability of Ford and GM's credit divisions are what keep the domestics in the black.

Ford made big news by just BREAKING EVEN last year on its car business, after years of swimming in red.

However that shows a positive change from the past. And shows that they could very well make a profit soon.

 

[Mach460]

Tom - I know your comment wasn't aimed at me, but I'd like to respond anyway. Your mindset - that Ford can come out ahead by winning on price alone - is what is killing domestic manufacturers. The way Ford/GM need to think about it if they're gonna win in the long run is that they have to produce a competitive powerplant AND win on price. That's breakthrough thinking. The reason they've been on the decline as long as they have is that they've insisted on selling less content for less money. The general public ain't buying that. Literally.

Exactly. It's that cheaping out on details for the sake of lower prices that keep plaguing the manufacturers. It comes down to value, or perceived value. Peopl would be willing to pay a little extra if they saw value in it. So I think Ford could have gone the extra mile with things such as IRS, and an extra 50 ponies.

Hey, the 3 valve 4.6 makes 300 hp for 25 grand. Great, but Nissan's able to get 285 from a 3.5L V-6 for a couple of grand more. From an engineering standpoint, that's awesome

 

[SVTdriver]

Exactly. It's that cheaping out on details for the sake of lower prices that keep plaguing the manufacturers. It comes down to value, or perceived value. Peopl would be willing to pay a little extra if they saw value in it. So I think Ford could have gone the extra mile with things such as IRS, and an extra 50 ponies.

Hey, the 3 valve 4.6 makes 300 hp for 25 grand. Great, but Nissan's able to get 285 from a 3.5L V-6 for a couple of grand more. From an engineering standpoint, that's awesome

And yet tune the gt motor to run on premium like the 350z. And see how many ponies you gain.

As for the IRS and an extra 50 hp. IRS probably should have been made an option. But there have been topics dealing with extra hp on this and other forums. And many people feel that 300hp is just fine. Sure people would like to have more. But 300 is a great increase from the last version.

 

[TomServo92]

Exactly. It's that cheaping out on details for the sake of lower prices that keep plaguing the manufacturers. It comes down to value, or perceived value. Peopl would be willing to pay a little extra if they saw value in it. So I think Ford could have gone the extra mile with things such as IRS, and an extra 50 ponies.

Hey, the 3 valve 4.6 makes 300 hp for 25 grand. Great, but Nissan's able to get 285 from a 3.5L V-6 for a couple of grand more. From an engineering standpoint, that's awesome

There's no doubt Nissan (as well as Honda) have done a great job of pushing the envelope of V6 power. But you have to ask yourself, how much is left? Short of forced induction how much can they get out of them in the future? My guess is they're pretty much maxed out or long term durability becomes an issue. BMW gets well over 300 out of the M3 3.0L engine but look at the minute attention to detail they had to go to and the resultant price tag. IMO, getting 325HP (based on early dyno results) and a broad flat torque curve out of 4.6L running on 87 octane is pretty damn impressive in itself. Not long ago I looked at some Nissans and one of my reasons for moving on was the premium fuel requirement.

 

[GT-03]

The reason most of the imports are able to extract more hp from relatively smaller sized engines is because they deploy variances in cam timing and lift using different techniques. For instances all BMW engines induce variation in intake and exhaust valve timing to overlap or underlap each other in relation to engine speed. The valve lift does not change but creates a seamless overlap or underlap by the Double VANOS (VAriable NOckenWellen Steureng) system.

...

Honda/Acura achieves the same a bit differently by deploying V-TEC or Variable Valve Timing with Electronic Lift Control and what it does is, it actuates, by the means of a electromagnetic/hydraulic system to engage a different set of lobes to vary the lift and timing of the valves.

...

Toyota deploys VVTI or Variable Valve Timing with Intelligence and it's just another way of achieving change in valve lift & timing.

The question is really, can you do anything like that, and not increase the development and production costs of a V6 engine? Both of those, do get rolled into the sticker.

The V6 Mustang, is the low cost entry Mustang. IMHO, any request which changes or threatens that, would not be reasonable.

If you want HP, Ford does offer that too, in the form of the other models in the Mustang line-up (GT for now, others coming).

Besides, if you look at how actual buyers "vote" with their dollars, the existing V6 seems to be the popular choice. While a high-power engine is surely real nice, Ford does understand that it is the lowest price which wins the wallet of most Mustang buyers.

And remember, it is the sales volume of those "lowest cost" V6 Mustangs which keep the others coming down the assembly line too.

 

[Mach460]

The question is really, can you do anything like that, and not increase the development and production costs of a V6 engine? Both of those, do get rolled into the sticker.

The V6 Mustang, is the low cost entry Mustang. IMHO, any request which changes or threatens that, would not be reasonable.

If you want HP, Ford does offer that too, in the form of the other models in the Mustang line-up (GT for now, others coming).

Besides, if you look at how actual buyers "vote" with their dollars, the existing V6 seems to be the popular choice. While a high-power engine is surely real nice, Ford does understand that it is the lowest price which wins the wallet of most Mustang buyers.

And remember, it is the sales volume of those "lowest cost" V6 Mustangs which keep the others coming down the assembly line too.

The thing is, those companies embraced those technologies a long time ago, and now it's run of the mill for them so the impact on overall cost is minimal. Even their most pedestrian offerings from Honda, Toyota, and Nissan have things like VVT.

While they were busy pushing the performance envelope and creating new technologies, the American car companies were too busy trying to build cheap cars, hoping that that alone would be able to help them keep market share.

Eventually, Ford is going to have to start embracing some things that made the imprts so successful.

 

[jasonlee0704]

Another thing about the 350Z is, how well will it translate into longevity and profitability for Nissan at that price point?

IIRC, both previous iterations of the Z were cancelled due to sluggish sales and lack of profitability on the model.

 

[TomServo92]

Eventually, Ford is going to have to start embracing some things that made the imprts so successful.

Since they're introducing cars with AWD, CVTs, VVT/VCT, and hybrid powerplants, I would say Ford is embracing those technologies.

 

[Michael Yount]

The irony is that Ford has the technology already in many of it's 'foreign' brands. They just announced they're using one of Volvo's turbo I-5 cylinder engines in the new Euro-only (at this point) Focus.

I don't think there's any doubt that Ford/GM know what they have to do. I simply don't think they have the will or the ability to do it quickly enough. Before the vehicles change quickly, their culture and mindset has to change - their people/thinking has to change. Therein lies the root of the problem.

Let's use hybrids as an example - it was Toyota and Honda who led the charge there with hybrid vehicles in the market place (get on a long waiting list to buy a Prius) 3-4 years before Ford. You can't bring the same technology to the market 4 years after others and be considered a leader. That's not embracing hybrid technology - that's being forced into the technology by the market. My wife's Toyota MR2 had 4 valves/cylinder and variable intake manifold runner length in 1985. My 78 Rabbit had IRS when GM was hanging a beam axle (staight axle) under the back of their then-new Citations. Straight axles in 1980 - I want to put that in perspective. Straight axles are what Connestoga covered wagons had. Unfortunately most of the domestic technology breakthroughs seem to come in figuring out how to get multiple cup holders in SUV's and minivans.

 

[SVTdriver]

The irony is that Ford has the technology already in many of it's 'foreign' brands. They just announced they're using one of Volvo's turbo I-5 cylinder engines in the new Euro-only (at this point) Focus.

I don't think there's any doubt that Ford/GM know what they have to do. I simply don't think they have the will or the ability to do it quickly enough. Before the vehicles change quickly, their culture and mindset has to change - their people/thinking has to change. Therein lies the root of the problem.

Let's use hybrids as an example - it was Toyota and Honda who led the charge there with hybrid vehicles in the market place (get on a long waiting list to buy a Prius) 3-4 years before Ford. You can't bring the same technology to the market 4 years after others and be considered a leader. That's not embracing hybrid technology - that's being forced into the technology by the market. My wife's Toyota MR2 had 4 valves/cylinder and variable intake manifold runner length in 1985. My 78 Rabbit had IRS when GM was hanging a beam axle (staight axle) under the back of their then-new Citations. Straight axles in 1980 - I want to put that in perspective. Straight axles are what Connestoga covered wagons had. Unfortunately most of the domestic technology breakthroughs seem to come in figuring out how to get multiple cup holders in SUV's and minivans.

And of course there have been no changes to that same conestoga covered wagon at all. It's still leaf springs too. As a matter of fact I believe the same manufacturer has been making them for the last 100 or so years. And while yes toyota has been leading the hybrid market. In the SUV market which everyone is trying to get into now. Where is the Toyota? I mean Ford now has the hybrid escape.

 

[SVTdriver]

double post

 

[TomServo92]

The irony is that Ford has the technology already in many of it's 'foreign' brands. They just announced they're using one of Volvo's turbo I-5 cylinder engines in the new Euro-only (at this point) Focus.

I don't think there's any doubt that Ford/GM know what they have to do. I simply don't think they have the will or the ability to do it quickly enough. Before the vehicles change quickly, their culture and mindset has to change - their people/thinking has to change. Therein lies the root of the problem.

Let's use hybrids as an example - it was Toyota and Honda who led the charge there with hybrid vehicles in the market place (get on a long waiting list to buy a Prius) 3-4 years before Ford. You can't bring the same technology to the market 4 years after others and be considered a leader. That's not embracing hybrid technology - that's being forced into the technology by the market. My wife's Toyota MR2 had 4 valves/cylinder and variable intake manifold runner length in 1985. My 78 Rabbit had IRS when GM was hanging a beam axle (staight axle) under the back of their then-new Citations. Straight axles in 1980 - I want to put that in perspective. Straight axles are what Connestoga covered wagons had. Unfortunately most of the domestic technology breakthroughs seem to come in figuring out how to get multiple cup holders in SUV's and minivans.

The Nissan Maxima had a solid rear beam-type axle up until 2003. What's Japanese for "conestoga"?

The Taurus had IRS for 17 years in 2003.

 

[SVTdriver]

The Nissan Maxima had a solid rear beam-type axle up until 2003. What's Japanese for "conestoga"?

They were probably buying it from the same manufacturer.

 

[Sean`03///Zed4]

Regarding the cost of new technology I would agree it could come down to the consumer in terms of unit price per vehicle. But this would be if R&D costs , assembly line costs will dramatically increase.
So I also watch Formula 1 racing. F1 racing has been there for decades and Ford's participation in Formula1 along with the niche players like Ferrari, BMW, Renault, McLaren, Mercedes, Toyota, Honda and a host of European and Japanese engine manufacturers has not been a game of catch the leader.

As a matter of fact until this year Ford topped them all far as enjoying a niche engine supplier status goes. Only this year Ferrari eclipsed Ford for the most number of succesful wins and starts as engine manufacturers. In other words Ford had dominated the F1 world by supplying engines to a host of teams including Benetton; Ford's dominance in 80's & 90's when it's torquey v8's were known to "overpower" the more powerful french Renault, German Benz's or the Ferrari v-10's is legendary. Yet the domestic market never saw a hint of this awesome technology.

So Ford competes in F1 via Jaguar racing, it's Cosworth division is an exclusive engine supplier to other F1 teams like Jordan/Minardi or the Indy teams. Lots of people were surprised when Ford pulled out of F1 at the end of this year simply deciding to dissolve all it's technological assets, in other words they are up for sale. Would'nt it have been nice, say if a neatly designed IRS suspension geometry or advanced variable valve tech was to have transdescended into the Mustang.

Mind us, all other manufacturers have done it. Toyota, Honda, BMW, Mercedes Benz , Renault have all "played" with advanced suspension , chassis, electronic stability program, engine configuration in F1 and have introduced such technology in their domestic market. Such advanced tech keeps showing up in their newer models in different leagues such as the power deprtment, (power button in M5), advanced chassis (new slk from Mercedes Benz), suspension or transmision. Some are available options worth couple of hundreds or some neatly integrated with the exisiting tech without any substantial increase in price.

Ford arguably spends at least $500m dollars each year as part of it's F1 budget for Jaguar. This is not even considering it's other arm Cosworth engine supplier (both of these divisions are being sold by the end of this year & most possibly Red Bull from Austria or Renault will end up buying it).

At this price one would have expected some osmosis of technology into the domestics, thereby resulting in reduced costs.