Ford's local six could live on

[falconnut]

With fords current profits for Q2 i dont think the i6 can hold on for long.

I love Straight 6 bit it is limited to big cars with enough room (especially lengthwise) in the engine bay for a engine this long.

Its just a shame they dont produce a smaller 3.0l and turbo it.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by KuRT12

No because... your not comparing apples with apples... like my previous post stated.

Neither do car manufactures with their power outputs. As different fuels octane levels yield different results. So IMO its correct.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by falconnut

With fords current profits for Q2 i dont think the i6 can hold on for long.

I love Straight 6 bit it is limited to big cars with enough room (especially lengthwise) in the engine bay for a engine this long.

Its just a shame they dont produce a smaller 3.0l and turbo it.

Why, what good would a 3.0 turbo I-6 be?
The Ecoboost 2.0 in Explorer puts out 179 KW and 365 nm, that's plenty of power.
Ecoboost Falcon will run rings around its I-6 brother for fuel economy.

[Jim5_0]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Ecoboost Falcon will run rings around its I-6 brother for fuel economy.

Maybe and then again maybe not in the real world as it will have to work pretty hard to get an FG moving.

Then there is the issue of how long will it last. 1/2 a million trouble free KM I doubt it very much.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Jim5_0

Maybe and then again maybe not in the real world as it will have to work pretty hard to get an FG moving.

Then there is the issue of how long will it last. 1/2 a million trouble free KM I doubt it very much.

Doubt all you like, the engine is has been tough tested like it big brother Ecoboost V6
it's going into lots of vehicles around the world, it will be reliable, you can take that to the bank.
Ford are gambling big time on Ecoboost giving them the edge over other manufacturers,
the software allows lean boost on normal fuel where other DI Turbos would detonate and fail,
people will be amazed at the higher end units going in the Falcon, thoroughly reliable and fuss free.

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by Jim5_0

Maybe and then again maybe not in the real world as it will have to work pretty hard to get an FG moving.

Don't forget that the VEs have a 3.0L that has nowhere near as much torque as this four cyl. It's torque peaks quite early as well. As someone pointed out earlier it's got more torque than the EF/AU 6s, and they moved, but MORE power than them. Economy could be in the 7s.

[boris]

Originally Posted by falconnut

With fords current profits for Q2 i dont think the i6 can hold on for long.

I love Straight 6 bit it is limited to big cars with enough room (especially lengthwise) in the engine bay for a engine this long.

Its just a shame they dont produce a smaller 3.0l and turbo it.

Volvo managed to built the shortest 3.2l i6 in the world and it could fit across the engine bay of their cars. I'm sure that the 4.0l could be shortened up using the same methods, I wouldn't drop it down to 3.0l you'd loose all that torque.

[SteveJH]

Originally Posted by boris

Volvo managed to built the shortest 3.2l i6 in the world and it could fit across the engine bay of their cars. I'm sure that the 4.0l could be shortened up using the same methods, I wouldn't drop it down to 3.0l you'd loose all that torque.

It wouldn't be the same engine/block though. It would be a completely new design. And the money required would be enormous.

[2011G6E]

When we were car hunting before buying the G6E, the guy at Holden (where we were eyeing off an SV6) asked if we'd driven other models of Commodore, and said that they tried not to point out the "small" 3 liter size of the SIDI engine, rather they let people drive a demo and then tell them.
It's a little like an old friend of mine and the restaurant she owns where she's the chef...last visit, she was cooking all sorts of weird stuff and bringing it over to me to try, not telling me what it was until it was down my gullet. If she'd told me what some of it was, I wouldn't have tried it.

Same with the Commodore...people would hear "3 liter" and think "Oh that's small, it's going to be crap to drive", but if you've ever driven one, you'd be pleasantly surprised.

We used to say "there's no substitute for cubic inches", but that just isn't so anymore, and hasn't been for some time.

[KuRT12]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

We used to say "there's no substitute for cubic inches", but that just isn't so anymore, and hasn't been for some time.

I think you mean "no replacement for displacement"

[boris]

Originally Posted by SteveJH

It wouldn't be the same engine/block though. It would be a completely new design. And the money required would be enormous.

yeah of course, but thats the only way you could get an i6 to last now it needs to be able to used in other front drive cars plus it needs to be shorter for less front overhang etc. Volvo did it but moving a lot of the ancillary stuff to the side of the engine

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Jim5_0

Maybe and then again maybe not in the real world as it will have to work pretty hard to get an FG moving.

Then there is the issue of how long will it last. 1/2 a million trouble free KM I doubt it very much.

It will move the Falcon just as easily as the I6 does. It makes bulk torque at extremely low revs, I think it around 1500 rpm for peak torque which it holds past 4500rpm.

As has been said it will make more torque than the AU I6, and it will be over 50kg lighter than the I6.

Durability will be top notch. It has been taken to hell and back in testing, all Ford engines do.

[drew`SEVNT5]

Originally Posted by Joe5619

Mate, I own an FG XR6T & if you are telling me your XR6T as stock was dead boring, your just asking for too much!! You're just being silly now, to prove a point!!

Read my post again. I said FG turbos are a different kettle of fish. My best mate has a G6ET, and its bloody quick. Falling apart at 30,000kms, but bloody quick.

Stock BA-BF XR6T do feel slow and are boring, in my opinion.

[drew`SEVNT5]

Originally Posted by Jim5_0

Then there is the issue of how long will it last. 1/2 a million trouble free KM I doubt it very much.

And you are suggesting that the EcoBoost will fare any worse than a 4.0 I6? I bloody doubt it... there would be more I6's that have had plenty of trouble before 200,000kms than ones that have had a trouble free 500,000kms.

[Jim5_0]

Originally Posted by drew`SEVNT5

Stock BA-BF XR6T do feel slow and are boring, in my opinion.

That's because they are so smoooootthhh 8-)

[janddbone]

Do these new engines 4 & possibly 6 have timing chains or belts?

[kpcart]

Originally Posted by boris

yeah of course, but thats the only way you could get an i6 to last now it needs to be able to used in other front drive cars plus it needs to be shorter for less front overhang etc. Volvo did it but moving a lot of the ancillary stuff to the side of the engine

it also turned out to be one of the worst engines ever built. the 2.8/2.9 Litre found in the S80s since 1999, can now be found at auctions, in low km examples of say 100,000km, and yet the engines are loud, and they burn heaps of oil. usually at 100,000km they are in worse state then fords i6s at 350,000km. the piston rings go easily, and the turbo engines are possibly the least reliable model ever built by any car manufacturer, read the s80 foums, most people spend $2000 at each service.

i used to own a 1973 volvo, with a 3 litre straight 6 with mechanical injection. now that was a great motor, 30 years later it was still on the same first head gasket. the new age volvo straight 6s are worse then even the terrible v6s of the 80s. volvos best engines have always been the 4 cylinder - and 5 cylinder engines.

i remember ford had a 3.2litre straight 6 and it was the same length as the 3.9when the ea came out. (the 1973 volvo 3 litre had about 1.5 times the power of the 3.2 ford of 1988 and revved to 6000rpm redline and was smaller and used less fuel - and it also sounded good)

[kpcart]

Originally Posted by drew`SEVNT5

Read my post again. I said FG turbos are a different kettle of fish. My best mate has a G6ET, and its bloody quick. Falling apart at 30,000kms, but bloody quick.

Stock BA-BF XR6T do feel slow and are boring, in my opinion.

when relative to the newer falcon, slower, but not by much. funny you can feel such a difference in the 2 to state the the older falcon turbo feels "slow and boring", thats such a big call for so little performance difference.

get yourself on a $15,000 sportsbike that does 0 to 100 in 3 seconds, then both falcons will seem boring to you, and then you might notice that infact there isnt much speed difference between the older and new falcon turbos.

i guess its all relative.

[boris]

Originally Posted by kpcart

it also turned out to be one of the worst engines ever built. the 2.8/2.9 Litre found in the S80s since 1999, can now be found at auctions, in low km examples of say 100,000km, and yet the engines are loud, and they burn heaps of oil. usually at 100,000km they are in worse state then fords i6s at 350,000km. the piston rings go easily, and the turbo engines are possibly the least reliable model ever built by any car manufacturer, read the s80 foums, most people spend $2000 at each service.

i used to own a 1973 volvo, with a 3 litre straight 6 with mechanical injection. now that was a great motor, 30 years later it was still on the same first head gasket. the new age volvo straight 6s are worse then even the terrible v6s of the 80s. volvos best engines have always been the 4 cylinder - and 5 cylinder engines.

i remember ford had a 3.2litre straight 6 and it was the same length as the 3.9when the ea came out. (the 1973 volvo 3 litre had about 1.5 times the power of the 3.2 ford of 1988 and revved to 6000rpm redline and was smaller and used less fuel - and it also sounded good)

Point being is that an i6 can be made shorter. If the 3.2 i6 you're talking about is the one used in the ea falcon it was just a de-stroked 3.9 so yes it uses the same block so its the same length. The smaller capacity of an engine doesn't mean its going to be short/smaller, it's got more to do with packaging i.e. bore spacing, heads where bits and bobs are located etc. Torque is what gives you fuel economy, a high revving engine with more power isn't always the best answer, case and point the 4.0 i6!

[Joe5619]

Originally Posted by drew`SEVNT5

Read my post again. I said FG turbos are a different kettle of fish. My best mate has a G6ET, and its bloody quick. Falling apart at 30,000kms, but bloody quick.

Stock BA-BF XR6T do feel slow and are boring, in my opinion.

Now you're being even more silly suggusting the is such a big difference between BA & FG XR6T, to a point where one is "boring" & the other is "bloody quick"!!

[drew`SEVNT5]

Originally Posted by Joe5619

Now you're being even more silly suggusting the is such a big difference between BA & FG XR6T, to a point where one is "boring" & the other is "bloody quick"!!

Mr Joe5619, what is it you drive?

I can tell you now, when flashed back to standard, my car bores the **** out of me. My best mates (and co-worker) G6ET is bloody quick, quicker than my tuned/flashed BA.

My car, when flashed, feels about the same as the stock G6ET, but is at its rear doors and losing ground whenever we wander up the road at the same time. When mine has been flashed back to stock, its 2 car lengths..

I can't remember the exact figures, but thinking back to when the BA was new, they were a mid-14's car... Whereas, G6ET's are a mid-13 car... That is a hell of a difference

As a poster above said, it is all about perspective... My track bike makes them both feel slow.

You may well think I am being silly, but until you have the expeirences I have day to day with my XR6T my mates G6ET, I think you are naive and silly.

Fact still remains, I find my car boring with stock, and on the odd occasion when I have the misfortune of driving a NA I6 Falcon, an overwhelming urge to punch out ZZZ's comes over me...

[stang65]

But you forget to mention it still a **** load better than Holdens offering at the time. Which is the reason you bought the BA in the first place.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by boris

Point being is that an i6 can be made shorter. If the 3.2 i6 you're talking about is the one used in the ea falcon it was just a de-stroked 3.9 so yes it uses the same block so its the same length. The smaller capacity of an engine doesn't mean its going to be short/smaller, it's got more to do with packaging i.e. bore spacing, heads where bits and bobs are located etc. Torque is what gives you fuel economy, a high revving engine with more power isn't always the best answer, case and point the 4.0 i6!

No he's talking about the Volvo designed Ford SI6, the engine is slightly
shorter than the I-5 Turbo previously used in Focus and Mondeo..

Used remote gear drive to run cam drive and phasers off the rear of the engine
and yes you read right, that engine is 8" shorter than the Falcon I-6.

[boris]

Originally Posted by jpd80

No he's talking about the Volvo designed Ford SI6, the engine is slightly
shorter than the I-5 Turbo previously used in Focus and Mondeo..

Used remote gear drive to run cam drive and phasers off the rear of the engine
and yes you read right, that engine is 8" shorter than the Falcon I-6.

Well he did say that ford had a 3.2 that was no shorter than the 3.9, which ford did as I said. Cheers for the info thats exactly what we've been talking about.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by boris

Well he did say that ford had a 3.2 that was no shorter than the 3.9, which ford did as I said. Cheers for the info thats exactly what we've been talking about.

It's a very expensive engine, the relocation of cam drive to the "rear" of the engine
necessitated offset gear drive to run accessories and then a chain drive to the cam phasers.

Amazingly, that engine will fit where the I-5 does so would have fitted into Focus and Mondeo.

[Joe5619]

Originally Posted by drew`SEVNT5

Mr Joe5619, what is it you drive?

I can tell you now, when flashed back to standard, my car bores the **** out of me. My best mates (and co-worker) G6ET is bloody quick, quicker than my tuned/flashed BA.

I drove an FG XR6T!!

And of course, if you do up a car, you get use to what is can do, so naturally when you return it to stock it is boring!!! It does not mean it started as boring..

Did you ever consider there was something wrong with your BA??

Can anyone else who has driven both BA & FG stock XR6T comfirm there is a dig difference between the 2??

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by Joe5619

I drove an FG XR6T!!

And of course, if you do up a car, you get use to what is can do, so naturally when you return it to stock it is boring!!! It does not mean it started as boring..

Did you ever consider there was something wrong with your BA??

Can anyone else who has driven both BA & FG stock XR6T comfirm there is a dig difference between the 2??

For it's time the BA was very quick, not boring. If you're used to a BA turbo then hop in an FG Turbo, then yes, the BA does feel slow. But I see your point, it's not fair to say that about the BA, especially 10 years after it's release. It's like saying the HO is slow. Well, by today's standards yes it is.