A V6 Engine Like no Other Ford Motor Company

[csv8]

A V6 Engine Like no Other
Ford Motor Company
posted: 6 HOURS 19 MINUTES AGO
comments: 0
PRINT|E-MAILMORE
Text SizeAAA
Eco Boost While it seems like only hybrid and full-electric powertrain get attention these days, Ford is making waves with V6 gasoline engine. Sure, Ford offers hybrid vehicles and electric cars. In fact, Ford hybrid sales may outnumber Honda by the end of the year according to autopsies.com. Celebrities in the U.S. are driving Ford’s battery electric Focus on “The Jay Leno Show” and residents of a U.K. borough will soon get a chance to drive electric Ford Focus cars for three months.

But for this article, we’re going to focus on the attention that the Ford EcoboostTM is attracting. The engine was recently the topic of a comparison presented by Automobile Magazine and Motor Trend that pitted the V6 Lincoln MKS against V8-powered competitors. The 6versus8 Challenge took place at Loveland Pass in Colorado, a winding mountain road at nearly 12,000 feet of elevation. Click here to go to 6versus8.com and watch the exciting videos that tell this story.

As if being a twin-turbo, direct-injection gasoline engine isn’t unique enough, Ecoboost contributed 125 new patents and patent applications. The additions build on Ford Motor Company’s current roster of 4,618 active U.S. patents, with thousands more patent applications pending.

EcoBoost uses turbocharging and direct gasoline injection to boost engine output and reduce emissions without sacrificing fuel economy. The engine marks a major milestone in the Ford strategy to deliver technologically advanced, high-output, smaller-displacement powertrains.

The Ford powertrain management strategy uses hundreds of thousands of lines of computer code and related parameters that are adjusted to optimize the engine and transmission operation. It’s these processes that largely make up the EcoBoost patent contribution and make Ford’s use of direct injection and turbocharging of its engines like no other automaker in the world.

“The secret to Ford’s EcoBoost system isn’t just the hardware - the key is in the Ford control system,” said Brett Hinds, Ford Advanced Engine Design and Development manager. “Our engineers have the right ‘recipes’ to integrate the various systems like engine, transmission and fuel management, resulting in a seamless, exhilarating driving experience.”

To extract the level of power and efficiency achieved in an engine like the EcoBoost V-6, a remarkable level of precision is required. One example is the amount of control engineers maintain over the fuel injection system:

* The powertrain management strategy uses 10,066 adjustable parameters
* At idle, each injector releases 10.4 milligrams of fuel per injection; put in household terms, that’s 1/25,000 the volume of a can of soda, or 0.2 drops of fuel
* Fuel injection pressure is continuously controlled to between 220 psi and 2150 psi
* Injection timing is adjusted up to 300 times a second



Patenting is a global activity at Ford, with experts in the United States, Europe, India and China sharing common processes and reporting through Ford Global Technologies.

To wrap up this article, we’ll show our pride in the EcoBoost engine by bragging about winning an award. The Popular Mechanics Breakthrough Awards, now in their fifth year, recognize products and celebrate innovations poised to change the world, and the passionate, smart creators behind them. Ford is the only automaker this year to receive a Breakthrough Award.

“From flying cars to robots to wind turbines for homes, the innovations honored by the 2009 Popular Mechanics Breakthrough Awards not only capture the imagination, they hold the potential to improve and even save lives,” said James B. Meigs, editor-in-chief, Popular Mechanics. “We are pleased to honor this year’s diverse list of visionaries, Dean Kamen among them, and applaud their efforts to address such concerns as climate change, pollution, energy shortages and medical care in the developing world.”

By 2013, more than 90 percent of Ford’s North American lineup will be available with EcoBoost technology.

In selecting the candidates and winners of the 2009 Breakthrough Awards program, the editors of Popular Mechanics canvassed a large range of experts and academics to come up with a list of worthy nominees. Members of PM’s Board of Advisers reviewed the nominations to help the editors of Popular Mechanics choose the winners.

A complete report of the Breakthrough Awards will be published in the November issue of Popular Mechanics (on newsstands October 13, 2009).

Visit thefordstory.com to learn more.

[S3SR]

not sure if that article mentioned the race against other euro models like BMW and Merc but they did a time trial race on a road (cant remember) and the Lincoln came 2nd out of cars that are twice the price

6versus8 website has the video footage, actually really suprising

[just_pazz]

I think the elevation Ford tested @ is a distinct advantage to the forced induction engine. The air gets less dense as you go higher in elevation... therefore the N/A eights were at a disadvantage really. Correct me if I'm wrong though...

[Fev]

ford just released photos of the V6 2011 Mustang powered by a 3.7L 305hp V6 280lb-ft of torque. Thats 227kw i think it works out to be.. Amazing numbers

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Fev

ford just released photos of the V6 2011 Mustang powered by a 3.7L 305hp V6 280lb-ft of torque. Thats 227kw i think it works out to be.. Amazing numbers

Yeh nearly as much power as a 350Z....

[Whitey-AMG]

Originally Posted by flappist

Yeh nearly as much power as a 350Z....

Yeh , and probably at half the price it cost Nissan to build their unit......

[Fev]

With the practicality of a huge heavy coupe! hehe

[flappist]

Originally Posted by ESP

Yeh , and probably at half the price it cost Nissan to build their unit......

Yeh, bloody expensive cars those 350Zs, cost nearly as much as a GT, F6 or Clubsport......

[davocol]

which have 315kw, 310kw and 317kw respectively, oh and somewhere for rear passengers to rest their legs.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by ESP

Yeh , and probably at half the price it cost Nissan to build their unit......

Good point. Nothing wrong with nissan v6 engines (best in the world) but what Ford has achieved with the duratec lineup shouldn't be ignored. I know its not exactly fashionable round these parts to say it, but had we lost the I6, as good as it is, and got the Duratec V6s i wouldn't have been too woried. The Ford Aus guys working with the US chaps could of got us damn near the same level of performance no worries i'd say. Probably not the same driveability but close.

In another thread people referred to the absence of Dual VVT on some of th engines (and no DIVCT unless you get the 2.0 ecoboost) but fact is that duratecs deliver. Read the reviews that are out there and the raw numbers back it up. A SIDI 3.6 caddy alloytec gets ripped a new one by non DI 3.7 Duratecs no prob. The 227kw Mustang engine is pretty good when you consider its the first generation of the engine. How many generations of the I6 did ford aus go for to get where we are now?? This engine lineup will just get better with future development - the GM V6s haven't been very impressive but it doesn't mean all american V6s are crap.....

[Ohio XB]

I just read something today about the 3.7L Mustang V6, and that is normal aspirated, NO BOOST.

That floored me.

http://media.ford.com/article_displa...ticle_id=31280

TWIN INDEPENDENT VARIABLE CAMSHAFT TIMING (TI-VCT) HELPS MAKE 2011 FORD MUSTANG V-6 A TRUE THOROUGHBRED

Ti-VCT technology key to Mustang’s new 3.7-liter V-6 engine’s flexibility, delivering 305 horsepower and a projected 30 mpg highway with six-speed automatic transmission – no other vehicle in the industry can beat that combination

Variable camshaft timing uses oil pressure to adjust valve opening and closing events, providing improved off-the-line acceleration over non-VCT equipped engines

Variable valve overlap from Ti-VCT provides better fuel economy and emissions, along with optimized cold-start operation vs. conventional engines

DEARBORN, Mich., Nov. 30, 2009 – The heart of every Mustang is its engine, and beneath the hood of the new 2011 Ford Mustang V-6 beats a technological tour de force. Displacing 3.7 liters, the dual-overhead-camshaft (DOHC) 24-valve V-6 uses Ford’s Twin Independent Variable Camshaft Timing (Ti-VCT) to produce 305 horsepower and 280 ft.-lb. of torque and is projected to deliver up to 30 mpg highway – a combination unbeaten by any other vehicle in the industry.

Customer benefits of Ti-VCT include extremely precise variable control of “valve overlap,” or the window of time in which both the intake and exhaust valves in the engine are open simultaneously.

“This overlap control via Ti-VCT helps us eliminate compromises in the induction and exhaust systems,” said Jim Mazuchowski, Ford manager of V-6 powertrain operations. “Drivers are going to notice improved low-speed torque and increased fuel economy and peak horsepower. Plus, there are benefits they won’t notice, too, such as reduced emissions overall, especially at part-throttle.”

The flexibility allowed by Ti-VCT means Mustang V-6 customers will experience:

Better off-the-line launch feel, with plenty of the low-end “grunt” for which Mustang is famous. Ti-VCT can deliver up to a 5 percent improvement in low-end torque and a 7 percent improvement in peak power versus non-Ti-VCT-equipped engines.

Improved fuel economy at all engine speeds resulting in projected 19 mpg city/30 highway with six-speed automatic transmission; 18 mpg city/29 highway with six-speed manual transmission. Ti-VCT alone can account for up to a 4.5 percent fuel economy improvement over non-VCT-equipped engines.

Lower emissions, with better control of NOx and HC throughout the range of engine operating speeds, reducing atmospheric pollution.

How the technology works

As a DOHC design, the 3.7-liter V-6 uses two camshafts per cylinder bank – one to open the intake valves and one to open the exhaust valves. Traditionally, camshafts only have been able to open the valves at a fixed point defined during engine design and manufacturing. But with modern variable cam timing systems, the camshafts can be rotated slightly relative to their initial position, allowing the cam timing to be “advanced” or “retarded.”

Ti-VCT takes this technology and applies it to both the intake and exhaust camshafts of its DOHC design, using electronic solenoid valves to direct high-pressure oil to control vanes in each of the camshaft sprocket housings. By using one valve per camshaft, controlled by the Electronic Control Module (ECM), each intake and exhaust cam can be advanced or retarded independently of the other as engine operating conditions change, providing an exceptional degree of valve timing control.

The new 3.7-liter engine for the 2011 Mustang V-6 will be built at Ford’s recently retooled Cleveland Engine Plant No. 1.

That's more good news. Plant 1 is part of the Ford complex my wife works at. :hihi:



Steve

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

Good point. Nothing wrong with nissan v6 engines (best in the world) but what Ford has achieved with the duratec lineup shouldn't be ignored. I know its not exactly fashionable round these parts to say it, but had we lost the I6, as good as it is, and got the Duratec V6s i wouldn't have been too woried. The Ford Aus guys working with the US chaps could of got us damn near the same level of performance no worries i'd say. Probably not the same driveability but close.

In another thread people referred to the absence of Dual VVT on some of th engines (and no DIVCT unless you get the 2.0 ecoboost) but fact is that duratecs deliver. Read the reviews that are out there and the raw numbers back it up. A SIDI 3.6 caddy alloytec gets ripped a new one by non DI 3.7 Duratecs no prob. The 227kw Mustang engine is pretty good when you consider its the first generation of the engine. How many generations of the I6 did ford aus go for to get where we are now?? This engine lineup will just get better with future development - the GM V6s haven't been very impressive but it doesn't mean all american V6s are crap.....

Yes that is exactly the point I was trying to make.

The worldwide V6 technology has been far ahead of what is usually looked at in this forum, that is, the alloytec and ecotec holden offerings.

350Zs were in the mid $20k in USA as were the V6 Mustangs of the same specs.

The direct injection technology is a leap forward but the output from the first generation is not that amazing.
After all the EA and FG share the same basic engine with a fuel injection system which is a huge technological leap over carburetors. At the time the MPi EA was state of the art and hugely powerful (although not THAT much better than the 4.1)

The fuel injected I6 has come a long way since then hasn't it?

As far as price goes, is it really that important? LSx engine appear to cost much less than BOSS for larger capacity and higher output.

Would this make anyone here lust for a holden......

[Ohio XB]

Here's MUCH more, too much to copy and paste...

http://media.ford.com/article_displa...ticle_id=31278


The article I read at work today stated that peak torque was reached around 4,700 RPM. At least I think it was peak.

Compare to the 370Z at Nissan's website.....

HP 332 @ 7,000
TQ 270 @ 5,200

Ford 3.7 V6

HP 305 @ 6,000 (from my memory. I will have to confirm tomorrow)
TQ 280 @ 4,700

If you ask me, the Ford engine has more "street friendly" torque in the range I will be driving. Also, with the Ford engine, fuel mileage is a concern during the design.


Steve

[Swordsman88]

Good info Steve. This 'mustang spec' engine is most likely what we would have got here for the falcon (retuned). With a tune for torque with a bit less power (205-210kw) it would have done quite nicely i reckon. Great to see DI-VCT (or Ti-VCT) getting an applicaiton on us engines. We have had it on I6 since 2005 BF and it really did improve the engine in terms of fuel burn esp while still maintaining/improving I6 driveabiliy/performance. I think the I6 was the first use of the tech on a mainstream Ford at that time. So i think the Duratec 3.7 is getting the benefit of Australian tested ford tech there. I know Ford made a couple of improvements on the tech since then via tuning mostly (in late 06/07 there was a fuel burn improvement) so it all about the engineers sharing info/learning throughout the ford world. The same setup is on the little fiesta 1.6 (i think that is independent dual) and it delivers one of the lowest fuel burn (as an manual) and yet has the most power/torque i believe.

Its funny because whether ford us has decided or not it appears as though Falcon/Mustang are going to converge sooner or later. If in 4, 5 or even 10 years time the I6 is retired then its a no brainer to put in these mustang engines no? They will already share the coyote V8.....

[Deco28]

Something tells me this engine will find its way into the Falcon eventually, which isn't a bad thing.

Why should Ford Aus continue to use millions improving the I6 whe they have an outstanding V6 alreayd developed in USA.

Just my thoughts, though it will be interesting to see what Ford Aus has done with the Euro IV spec I6.

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by Deco28

Something tells me this engine will find its way into the Falcon eventually, which isn't a bad thing.

Why should Ford Aus continue to use millions improving the I6 whe they have an outstanding V6 alreayd developed in USA.

People's jobs is one thing.

[Franco Cozzo]

I'm pretty sure companies only care about profit, not peoples jobs. If I was the CEO of Ford, I'd decomission the Geelong engine plant and ship in the V6 from USA. Maybe thats why I'm not CEO of Ford? haha.

[Deco28]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

People's jobs is one thing.

Point, I forgot about that :P.

Anyway like I said, I will wait until the Euro IV spec I6 before I form a solid opinion.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by XCPWSF

I'm pretty sure companies only care about profit, not peoples jobs. If I was the CEO of Ford, I'd decomission the Geelong engine plant and ship in the V6 from USA. Maybe thats why I'm not CEO of Ford? haha.

If you create a bad market sentiment will you sell any V6's?

[EDManual]

our inline 6 compares to that v6.

Glad we still have it! And still has the low torque nothing else can match without turbos!

[Ohio XB]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

Good info Steve. This 'mustang spec' engine is most likely what we would have got here for the falcon (retuned). With a tune for torque with a bit less power (205-210kw) it would have done quite nicely i reckon. Great to see DI-VCT (or Ti-VCT) getting an applicaiton on us engines. We have had it on I6 since 2005 BF and it really did improve the engine in terms of fuel burn esp while still maintaining/improving I6 driveabiliy/performance. I think the I6 was the first use of the tech on a mainstream Ford at that time. So i think the Duratec 3.7 is getting the benefit of Australian tested ford tech there. I know Ford made a couple of improvements on the tech since then via tuning mostly (in late 06/07 there was a fuel burn improvement) so it all about the engineers sharing info/learning throughout the ford world. The same setup is on the little fiesta 1.6 (i think that is independent dual) and it delivers one of the lowest fuel burn (as an manual) and yet has the most power/torque i believe.

Its funny because whether ford us has decided or not it appears as though Falcon/Mustang are going to converge sooner or later. If in 4, 5 or even 10 years time the I6 is retired then its a no brainer to put in these mustang engines no? They will already share the coyote V8.....

First, I just want to state that I CANNOT confirm the numbers (RPM) in my post above that I said I would check on. The info I had was basically the article in my post where I only posted a link to the article, but the one I read had the RPM at which torque was significant. That specific info seems to be gone now. I should have taken careful note while I had access.

Swordsman88, thank you for all that info!! Today while speaking with a couple co-workers there was a unanimous concern about the reliability of the technology. We are concerned about too many high tech gadgets on the engine that increase the chance for failures or worse. It's relieving to know that it has been in use in Oz since 2005 and has been improved. Now we know it has plenty of real world experience and should have the bugs worked out of it.

If you create a bad market sentiment will you sell any V6's?

I agree that Ford is not real concerned about jobs. Hey, they are just "over-paid Union workers" anyways, and who cares about them? People complain about them all the time. Ford will be doing them a favor.

Yeah, that is said with sarcasm, but that's not far from the truth as Ford sees it.


Steve

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Deco28

Something tells me this engine will find its way into the Falcon eventually, which isn't a bad thing.

Why should Ford Aus continue to use millions improving the I6 whe they have an outstanding V6 alreayd developed in USA.

Just my thoughts, though it will be interesting to see what Ford Aus has done with the Euro IV spec I6.

The main reason comes down to the cost effectiveness of switching to the V6. Getting it to pass a crash test alone was supposed to cost something like $20 million, and add to that the supposed $50 million + for the redundancies and its not hard to work out that saving some money per unit on a V6 Vs the I6 and you can see it would have taken a long time to see the savings, and add to that the oz dollar which had sunk at the time of the decision and the potential cost savings would have basically dissapeared.

That and the V6 was apparently considered inferior to the I6 in terms of NVH and the economy benefits would have probably been minimal. And they had no access to the Ecoboost V6 either, apparently they could not get supplies so no turbo XR's, G6E's or F6's.

[Swordsman88]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

The main reason comes down to the cost effectiveness of switching to the V6. Getting it to pass a crash test alone was supposed to cost something like $20 million, and add to that the supposed $50 million + for the redundancies and its not hard to work out that saving some money per unit on a V6 Vs the I6 and you can see it would have taken a long time to see the savings, and add to that the oz dollar which had sunk at the time of the decision and the potential cost savings would have basically dissapeared.

That and the V6 was apparently considered inferior to the I6 in terms of NVH and the economy benefits would have probably been minimal. And they had no access to the Ecoboost V6 either, apparently they could not get supplies so no turbo XR's, G6E's or F6's.

That is pretty much correct bossxr8. Except the NVH bit was not so clear as the engine probably never really got the stage of final spec so nvh would have been a work in progress. Its also worth noting further work was still ongoing on the engine itself. The few V6 falcon mules werent running the final spec motor, and to my knowledge most of them were 3.5L engines anyway (don't quote me on that though...). The 'mustang spec' engine Ohio is referring to is much more likely to be the version Ford Aus would have gone for, at the very least for the top spec models anyway (g6e/xr6 etc). we will never know for sure.

I think the thing to be learnt here is that it is through the tech developed by Ford and its partners globally that BOTH the v6 and i6 has benefited. Don't discount the retention of the I6 niether. Sure the economics and engineering were critical (the i6 was never really dead.....and the V6 at least in turbo form was not read niether (3.7TT would have been needed)...) but why is everyone so sure that I6 was retained just because Ford Aus wanted it? Nothing hapens without Dearborn's overwatch and it may of survived in part because of other plans ;)

[redman]

Originally Posted by Swordsman88

....
Nothing hapens without Dearborn's overwatch and it may of survived in part because of other plans ;)

Does that mean other plans for the Geelong I6 (export?) or other plans to use the skills of the folk who designed, engineered and tested the I6?

I note that OHIO was re-assured that the Ford Aus implementation of Dual Independent VCT in a production engine provided confidence to the folk in the US who were un-sure of the technology.

[Bossxr8]

They must have some plans for it, the rumours just won't go away, I just don't know what though, I can only guess.

Export, bought and used by the Chinese, airport tugs and ground equipment, take your pick.

[ebxr8240]

Here is the engine..
http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11279308

[Stoney!]

Must be a pair of extremely low boost turbo's to only extract 227kw and 380 nm from a Twin Turbo Direct injection 3.7 V6..... The Holden TT36 (Torana) Concept car had a twin turbo 3.6 HFV6 with 280kw and 480nm.

I would have thought the point of ecoboost was to replace V8's with forced V6's for efficiency, hardly V8 power outputs, actually It's still got less torque than the falcon 4.0.

Stoney!

[Chilliman]

Originally Posted by Stoney!

Must be a pair of extremely low boost turbo's to only extract 227kw and 380 nm from a Twin Turbo Direct injection 3.7 V6..... The Holden TT36 (Torana) Concept car had a twin turbo 3.6 HFV6 with 280kw and 480nm.

I would have thought the point of ecoboost was to replace V8's with forced V6's for efficiency, hardly V8 power outputs, actually It's still got less torque than the falcon 4.0.

Stoney!

227Kw/380Nm is for the 2011 Mustang V6 - a 3.7Litre naturally aspirated V6!

The 3.5Litre EcoBoost V6 pumps out something like 272Kw/475Nm - it is a replacement for '6.0Litre class' V8's

[Stoney!]

Ah now that sounds more like it, thanks for that, I was going to say it wasn't far off the 3.6 sidi V6 in the cadilac CTS, now I see why lol...... *red faced*

Stoney!

[Ohio XB]

The thing that really impresses me about the 3.7L Mustang engine is where that means we are now with V6 engines.

The 302 (US) only ever put out 215-225 HP in Police trim. That is the most the 5.0L V8 made. Now we are making 305 HP with a 3.7L V6. Holy crap!!!


What a day we live in.


Steve