Drive: Ford to give Falcon a heart start

[vztrt]

According to this.

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...2575D600156A5F

[Gobes32]

That article says the I6 will stay until euro 5 but does not say that ford will try to make the I6 euro 5 compliant. I dare say that is what product development is working on at this moment, making the I6 euro 5 compliant at minimal cost.

[vztrt]

It says they'll make a decision on what they will use. So until Ford makes the announcement people can speculate all they want.

[Road_Warrior]

oh hai



(no credit taken, express or implied)

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Gobes32

So the decision at the end of July is whether Ford go ahead with making the I6 euro 5 compliant?

They have to make the decision on what engine they want to power the Falcon and Territory for roughly 2014/5. It will most likely come down to the I6 or V6, and maybe the option of a turbo 4 to go with it.

I'm sure they will have done studies to see wether the I6 can be made Euro 5 compliant, and how much it will cost. I'd say it will need an alloy or CGI block and direct injection at a minimum, and that would require close to a blank page redesign, which would cost an absolute bomb.

I'd put money on it that the V6 will replace it, the cost of making the I6 Euro 5 compliant would be obscene for such low volumes.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

I'd put money on it that the V6 will replace it, the cost of making the I6 Euro 5 compliant would be obscene for such low volumes.

Pretty much, unless they can make the engine in much higher volumes (uning it in O/S Fords or another company buy it) it wont last past euro 4.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

I'd put money on it that the V6 will replace it, the cost of making the I6 Euro 5 compliant would be obscene for such low volumes.

Agreed, especially considering how close we came for the 2010 Falcon. With a few more years to plan and design, it's easy to see how it will pan out.

Unless another application is found for the I6 in an automobile to justify the costs to make it E5 compliant...

[JPFS1]

Guys - Euro 5 shouldn't be too difficult for petrol based passenger cars. It will likely come purely from fuel quality improvements by the time they decide to bring it in. The EU have agreed to extend the date for E5 to 2011 (all new cars), although being introduced in 'just released cars' later this year.

Euro 3 to Euro 4 was the massive change. From euro3 to euro4, HC's had to be reduced by 50%, CO by 57% and NOx by 47%.

Euro 5 will see NOx reduce by a further 12.5%. All other values remain the same.... although there is a kicker, D.I petrol engines will attract a Particulate Matter requirement, 5mg/km. First time for this on a petrol engine, but that's because of the nature of DI engines, they are essentially operating 'like' diesels and certain emissions are affected differently from the port injected type.

Euro 5 & 6 are basically designed to get Diesel emissions down. Particulate matter and NOx. DI Petrol will get caught up in this though, but shouldn't be as hard to clean.

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by JPFS1

Guys - Euro 5 shouldn't be too difficult for petrol based passenger cars. It will likely come purely from fuel quality improvements by the time they decide to bring it in. The EU have agreed to extend the date for E5 to 2011 (all new cars), although being introduced in 'just released cars' later this year.

Euro 3 to Euro 4 was the massive change. From euro3 to euro4, HC's had to be reduced by 50%, CO by 57% and NOx by 47%.

Euro 5 will see NOx reduce by a further 12.5%. All other values remain the same.... although there is a kicker, D.I petrol engines will attract a Particulate Matter requirement, 5mg/km. First time for this on a petrol engine, but that's because of the nature of DI engines, they are essentially operating 'like' diesels and certain emissions are affected differently from the port injected type.

Euro 5 & 6 are basically designed to get Diesel emissions down. Particulate matter and NOx. DI Petrol will get caught up in this though, but shouldn't be as hard to clean.

You'll be getting more rep points coming your way courtesy of this thorough post. Thanks for explaining it so well.

[JPFS1]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

You'll be getting more rep points coming your way courtesy of this thorough post. Thanks for explaining it so well.

haha, thank you Falc.

...and, no worries.

I had looked at the numbers a while ago and have done the analysis saved in a spreadsheet. Easy to recite. ;)

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by JPFS1

Guys - Euro 5 shouldn't be too difficult for petrol based passenger cars. It will likely come purely from fuel quality improvements by the time they decide to bring it in. The EU have agreed to extend the date for E5 to 2011 (all new cars), although being introduced in 'just released cars' later this year.

Euro 3 to Euro 4 was the massive change. From euro3 to euro4, HC's had to be reduced by 50%, CO by 57% and NOx by 47%.

Euro 5 will see NOx reduce by a further 12.5%. All other values remain the same.... although there is a kicker, D.I petrol engines will attract a Particulate Matter requirement, 5mg/km. First time for this on a petrol engine, but that's because of the nature of DI engines, they are essentially operating 'like' diesels and certain emissions are affected differently from the port injected type.

Euro 5 & 6 are basically designed to get Diesel emissions down. Particulate matter and NOx. DI Petrol will get caught up in this though, but shouldn't be as hard to clean.

This being the case it gives the I6 a fighting chance for Euro 5 (4 would be getting durability tested by now). I seriously don't see why this engine isn't used o/s. Torque a plenty, has a great performance record n/a and T and coupled with a good transmission delivers good fuel economy. Even a reduced capacity DI would do well.

As for Diesel I thought Tier 4 was the big one bring the NOx and particulate levels down close to the zero mark?

[JPFS1]

Originally Posted by vztrt

This being the case it gives the I6 a fighting chance for Euro 5 (4 would be getting durability tested by now). I seriously don't see why this engine isn't used o/s. Torque a plenty, has a great performance record n/a and T and coupled with a good transmission delivers good fuel economy. Even a reduced capacity DI would do well.

As for Diesel I thought Tier 4 was the big one bring the NOx and particulate levels down close to the zero mark?

Actually I have checked some data and there are some discrepancies between figures for Euro5. Some suggest .07g/km and another .06g/km. This being the case, the reduction from Euro4 to 5 for NOx, could be as high as 25% reduction.

The Diesel requirements have been significant at all Tiers for NOx and PM.

For Diesel passenger (in g/km)

Tier Date CO HC HC+NOx NOx PM

Euro 3 2000.01 0.64 - 0.56 0.50 0.05
Euro 4 2005.01 0.50 - 0.30 0.25 0.025
Euro 5 2009.09b 0.50 - 0.23 0.18 0.005e
Euro 6 2014.09 0.50 - 0.17 0.08 0.005e

Let's not forget that these are the EU standards and have not been accepted as the standards that Australia will adopt.

[Paxton]

Originally Posted by vztrt

This being the case it gives the I6 a fighting chance for Euro 5 (4 would be getting durability tested by now). I seriously don't see why this engine isn't used o/s. Torque a plenty, has a great performance record n/a and T and coupled with a good transmission delivers good fuel economy. Even a reduced capacity DI would do well.

As for Diesel I thought Tier 4 was the big one bring the NOx and particulate levels down close to the zero mark?

Yes, the I6 just needs a business case now. I still maintain that Ford are going the wrong way about their performance 'trucks' in the States. Throw a low volume I6T F150 through the mix and see what happens. I'd guess that, as the I6T has more Power/Torque than the 4.6 V8, Ford might be surprised as to how well this car would sell.

Kuzak and Mulally know all about the I6, and how it drives. It can be used in LHD applications, and Geelong has capacity to burn.

Maybe something is cooking behind the scenes.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by Paxton

Yes, the I6 just needs a business case now. I still maintain that Ford are going the wrong way about their performance 'trucks' in the States. Throw a low volume I6T F150 through the mix and see what happens. I'd guess that, as the I6T has more Power/Torque than the 4.6 V8, Ford might be surprised as to how well this car would sell.

Kuzak and Mulally know all about the I6, and how it drives. It can be used in LHD applications, and Geelong has capacity to burn.

Maybe something is cooking behind the scenes.

I'm starting to get the same impression Andrew. Marin talked about kuzak's involvement in a recent press article. Seemes strange to have him so heavilly involved if the I6 was to remain an 'orphan' engine. It has the capability to really go to anothe level again the I6. With so much achieved, its competitive nature as it is, without Di, alloy block or some of the other new tech (much of it ford developed) out there yet applied.

The question for me becomes....what of the duratec engine? It is very early in its development life, it would seem it could act as a replacement for the I6 as has been assumed. Maybe Ford Aus want's to overhaul the I6 (yet again) and make it a premium/perf engine. In effect sit above the 3.5V6. I was reading a review of the 3.5V6 TT and due to the heavy nature of the cars the journos wanted more power still. We assume a DI TT 3.5 would come along but maybe its cheaper/easier for Ford to just take the I6 and make that the high torque engine. Using it isn F150s would also be possible, rather than 3.5TT too. All comes down to cost i suppose, and that is what all the fretting/analysis is over right now. Long term predictions on currency, market needs etc. etc.

[Brendo_GSUte]

Makes for intersting reading!

What baffles me is that they havnt even concidered electric hybrids or even dedicated electric. i know thats far off but seriously R&D is the most expensive thing for a company like ford it seems their wringing a damp cloth for a bucket of water with the inevitably doomed combustion engine... I dont know how the platform of the falcon nor the acceptance from the public would go but it would be the best time to start doing it given holden plan to have hybrid in by 2012.

Electric motors have me interested too filling up at home (yes i know the power staion emissions are about equal to combustion motors but why not handball the emission problems to the govt and power stations) and the torque from an electric motor keeping in mind the technology will improve for batteries and motors the fact that they havnt even bought it up shows that they are not thinking THAT far into the future...

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Brendo_AUXR8

Makes for intersting reading!

What baffles me is that they havnt even concidered electric hybrids or even dedicated electric. i know thats far off but seriously R&D is the most expensive thing for a company like ford it seems their wringing a damp cloth for a bucket of water with the inevitably doomed combustion engine... I dont know how the platform of the falcon nor the acceptance from the public would go but it would be the best time to start doing it given holden plan to have hybrid in by 2012.

Electric motors have me interested too filling up at home (yes i know the power staion emissions are about equal to combustion motors but why not handball the emission problems to the govt and power stations) and the torque from an electric motor keeping in mind the technology will improve for batteries and motors the fact that they havnt even bought it up shows that they are not thinking THAT far into the future...

You speaking of Ford Oz or Ford US??

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Paxton

Yes, the I6 just needs a business case now. I still maintain that Ford are going the wrong way about their performance 'trucks' in the States. Throw a low volume I6T F150 through the mix and see what happens. I'd guess that, as the I6T has more Power/Torque than the 4.6 V8, Ford might be surprised as to how well this car would sell.

Kuzak and Mulally know all about the I6, and how it drives. It can be used in LHD applications, and Geelong has capacity to burn.

Maybe something is cooking behind the scenes.

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

I'm starting to get the same impression Andrew. Marin talked about kuzak's involvement in a recent press article. Seemes strange to have him so heavilly involved if the I6 was to remain an 'orphan' engine. It has the capability to really go to anothe level again the I6. With so much achieved, its competitive nature as it is, without Di, alloy block or some of the other new tech (much of it ford developed) out there yet applied.

Verrrry interesting. I would have thought the F150 would have been a goer considering it's power and torque delivery. And I note the seppos are going to be without the E series vans soon, they will need a commercial load lugger over there that is both capable and cheap to run, and the Transit Connect isn't going to cut it for the big stuff.

But surely FoA would need another engine plant to satisfy demand? And of course the other thing is, aside from the airport tug rumour, where else can this engine physically go?

[JPFS1]

Sell them our intellectual property, pay us royalties etc etc. It's possible.

They can tool up a plant and manufacture where they choose. Ideally in the US.

mmmm.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by JPFS1

Sell them our intellectual property, pay us royalties etc etc. It's possible.

They can tool up a plant and manufacture where they choose. Ideally in the US.

mmmm.

But then, because we make I6's in such small volumes, they would just shut us down and make the engines over there to send to us, spread the costs across bigger numbers, the same reason they wanted to switch to the V6 in the first place.

Anyway, isn't the whole point of One Ford to illiminate duplication, the V6 and I6 can perform the same job, just that one does it better, the apparently low tech one.

[Paxton]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

But then, because we make I6's in such small volumes, they would just shut us down and make the engines over there to send to us, spread the costs across bigger numbers, the same reason they wanted to switch to the V6 in the first place.

Anyway, isn't the whole point of One Ford to illiminate duplication, the V6 and I6 can perform the same job, just that one does it better, the apparently low tech one.

How are the Euro IV Engines going? Any insight you can share?

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Paxton

How are the Euro IV Engines going? Any insight you can share?

Have a look under the bonnet of a 9.9L per 100 6 speed auto XT and thats basically it.

As Ford said before its the exhaust and calibration that they needed to change for Euro 4, and thats exactly what they did to the XT, a new cat and calibration, so its probably just about at Euro 4 already.

The new type of cats they are using must work extremely well.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

But then, because we make I6's in such small volumes, they would just shut us down and make the engines over there to send to us, spread the costs across bigger numbers, the same reason they wanted to switch to the V6 in the first place.

Anyway, isn't the whole point of One Ford to illiminate duplication, the V6 and I6 can perform the same job, just that one does it better, the apparently low tech one.

So, we build another plant in Australia instead, in Adelaide perhaps or even in Perth here. In fact, I know of a new industrial estate that would be suited to this sort of thing.

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Have a look under the bonnet of a 9.9L per 100 6 speed auto XT and thats basically it.

As Ford said before its the exhaust and calibration that they needed to change for Euro 4, and thats exactly what they did to the XT, a new cat and calibration, so its probably just about at Euro 4 already.

The new type of cats they are using must work extremely well.

I figured as much. Makes me wonder what all that fuss was for a year or so ago.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

I figured as much. Makes me wonder what all that fuss was for a year or so ago.

Tom Gorman.

[eb2fairmont]

Maybe this F150 thing has legs. A replacement for the 4.0 OHV v6 used in mustang and F150????

Its low tech, simple, cheap, lots of torque.....turbo option (ecoboost).

[Road_Warrior]

The F150 thing is just us speculating. Don't read into it too much.

[EgoFG]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

The F150 thing is just us speculating. Don't read into it too much.

But just to play this further .....

Why didn't Fod Au Do what they did before, and drop the I6 in the Fseries just for Australian consumption.

Now there is a car F150 with the XR6T engine, and maybe a 'tricked up' FPV equivalent with the F6 engine.

Apparently here in AU we can sell virtually anf F series for whatever price is put on it.

[JPFS1]

Originally Posted by EgoFG

But just to play this further .....

Why didn't Fod Au Do what they did before, and drop the I6 in the Fseries just for Australian consumption.

Now there is a car F150 with the XR6T engine, and maybe a 'tricked up' FPV equivalent with the F6 engine.

Apparently here in AU we can sell virtually anf F series for whatever price is put on it.

It's a nice thought, but financially unviable on such a small scale.

The costs to homologate such an idea is astronomical when you consider the cost of each prototype and the amount of cars at that price to be slammed into a barrier...

[HSE2]

To achieve the targets perhaps so but to make the engine last under those conditions not so or at least potentially not so with our cast iron block.

For example to get the AJV8 3 to ULEV2 standards involves some pretty trick engineering to its core design.

Emissions compliancy is about getting heat quickly into the engine and while I have no doubt it can be done with our IN6 with its cast iron block I also have concerns with the engines longevity.

While exhaust and cat alterations coupled with aggressive fuel cycle capabilities during the initial warm phase are reasonably doable the management of thermal shock is something just about every Euro 4 engine supplier has to overcome. I have lost count of the global recalls for coolant / warm up cycle issues with my Euro 4 engine due to plastic issues not withstanding these additional stresses and that is with an all alloy block.

As these regs go up and the extreme start up conditions become more stringent we are seeing innovation in reverse flow cooling and the introduction of heat exchangers for the lubrication oil. Oil and the correct type of oil in these engines are critical.

I very much look forward to reading the depth of engineering involved in our case.

[JPFS1]

Originally Posted by HSE2

To achieve the targets perhaps so but to make the engine last under those conditions not so or at least potentially not so with our cast iron block.

For example to get the AJV8 3 to ULEV2 standards involves some pretty trick engineering to its core design.

Emissions compliancy is about getting heat quickly into the engine and while I have no doubt it can be done with our IN6 with its cast iron block I also have concerns with the engines longevity.

While exhaust and cat alterations coupled with aggressive fuel cycle capabilities during the initial warm phase are reasonably doable the management of thermal shock is something just about every Euro 4 engine supplier has to overcome. I have lost count of the global recalls for coolant / warm up cycle issues with my Euro 4 engine due to plastic issues not withstanding these additional stresses and that is with an all alloy block.

As these regs go up and the extreme start up conditions become more stringent we are seeing innovation in reverse flow cooling and the introduction of heat exchangers for the lubrication oil. Oil and the correct type of oil in these engines are critical.

I very much look forward to reading the depth of engineering involved in our case.

Very good post HSE2.

heat exchanges... mmmm. Bobcat has a couple. Will likely become the norm.

Plastic intakes heading back to AL. Beginning to happen.

The other issue apart from the Iron block of the IL6, is its length and the implications this has on start up temps.

The other requirements for the future emission standards are not only about the target numbers, but the increase in number of km's that the engines must comply.

[HSE2]

Originally Posted by JPFS1

Very good post HSE2.



The other issue apart from the Iron block of the IL6, is its length and the implications this has on start up temps.

I agree. Some are completely stopping coolant flow through the block, but they are alloy engines. Was fortunate enough to sit in on a brief from a Prodrive engineer last year and this topic did raise its head. From an engineering perspective it’s hugely challenging and there is no let up going forward. It’s especially tough when consumers can’t actually feel an advantage in this enormous expense and endeavour.