New Ecoboost 3.5L Twin Turbo Engines, Future of Falcon

[XR6Naranja]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

How can an engine be “not designed for transverse applications”? Are you telling me that If I want to drive a GT from Perth to Sydney, I’ll have to drift it sideways because the engine will only run in the North-South orientation?
The Coyote is practically the same exterior dimensions as it’s predecessor, and surely size and weight are the limiting factors?

Who could possibly complain about that? actually drifting that car could probably cause loss of tyres and concentration.

[Luke Plaizier]

I actually can't see Ecoboost V6 in Falcon myself. It's been attempted and aborted, maybe that's where the dodgy ;mate's advice' from the OP came from. Every Falcon would need a Bonnet Bulge just to fit the thing in.


Lukeyson

[FPV GTHO]

If they did it for 2016 though they could design the front end around the engine as opposed to simply making it fit.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

If they did it for 2016 though they could design the front end around the engine as opposed to simply making it fit.

Or codevelop the front end framing and suspension with next gen Mustang.
Forward of the B-Pillar, Mustang and Falcon could share power train, electrical and switch gear,
maybe front suspension, definitely frame and frontal crash protection design for LHD and RHD...
That's a huge part of the design and development costs and what's meant by "One Ford".

what about to the rear of the B-pillar?
- Maybe tack on the Falcon E8 floor pan for a powered rear end
- Perhaps Mondeo sedan, Hatchback and Station wagon top hats?


A plan like that would catch the eye of Dearborn because it uses One Ford
and allows other Ford regions to colaborate and access the vehicle and defray costs..
and that's before we even consider what China's big car needs will be in the future..

[FPV GTHO]

Originally Posted by jpd80

what about to the rear of the B-pillar?
- Maybe tack on the Falcon E8 floor pan for a powered rear end

I would be concerned that option would not fix any of the current IRS issues which should be pretty high on the list of things they need to fix if they want to keep proclaiming to have build and designed a world class vehicle.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

I would be concerned that option would not fix any of the current IRS issues which should be pretty high on the list of things they need to fix if they want to keep proclaiming to have build and designed a world class vehicle.

Let's not forget that FoA did a magnificent job with limited resources and funding, open the door and
perhaps "One Ford" assistance can sort out an effective fix, maybe reducing cost along the way.

[4.0i OHC]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Let's not forget that FoA did a magnificent job with limited resources and funding

Yes, they did. Then they replaced it in 2002 (for no real reason with the exception of cost, mind you) with a botched hack job of a rear suspension system only suitable for non-driven wheels.

Control Blade IRS and the excessive weight are the two aspects of the Falcon that are holding it back.

[FPV GTHO]

Whilst I won't argue double wishbone vs multi link, Falcon's bane is its diff location and not necessarily the geometry.

[4.0i OHC]

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

Whilst I won't argue double wishbone vs multi link, Falcon's bane is its diff location and not necessarily the geometry.

I agree with you there. Multi-link works in the Mondeo (not to mention RWD cars such as the MX-5 and 1 series).

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by 4.0i OHC

Yes, they did. Then they replaced it in 2002 (for no real reason with the exception of cost, mind you) with a botched hack job of a rear suspension system only suitable for non-driven wheels.

Control Blade IRS and the excessive weight are the two aspects of the Falcon that are holding it back.

Are you talking about the IRS at the extreme end?
Becuse i have driven many examples from BA through to FG and never had a problem with the IRS..
Unfortunately weight is part and parcel with the primary safety and structural rigidity.

I know someone who worked at Ford on the IRS or more correctly on the rear axles
that came out with the supercharged engines..
his calculations showed that the slight increase in track between BF and FG resulted
in a lot more axle wrap and provided the calculations for the upgraded axles.
The problem with the bushes was known about and lumped in with the axle changes.

[XR6Naranja]

Jeeez Luke bit rough "dodgy"

Obviously they would redesign the car, that's the idea of changing Fords/Falcons and OneFord.

Hopefully this is the future of Fords cars, I wouldn't mind something that drove like an F6 and looked like a Mustang.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

How can an engine be “not designed for transverse applications”? Are you telling me that If I want to drive a GT from Perth to Sydney, I’ll have to drift it sideways because the engine will only run in the North-South orientation?
The Coyote is practically the same exterior dimensions as it’s predecessor, and surely size and weight are the limiting factors?

Ford specifically stated that when they designed the Coyote it was not designed to fit a FWD application, they designed it solely for RWD vehicles or AWD F series that use north/south engines.

It was never designed for a FWD/AWD transverse application, solely because Ford no longer offers these with V8's, the ecoboost V6 took that over.

It would come down to size and packaging and the location of things like the exhaust manifolds, intake plumbing, hoses, wiring, sump location etc. They were all designed to fit a RWD application.

The previous 4.6 could be used for FWD applications because it was designed that way from the start, they made the bores very small for that reason and had a much longer stroke, and they only ever used the smaller SOHC heads for FWD so it would all fit.

Coyote is nearly square in terms of bore/stroke and only has a DOHC head, so size wise its bigger than the old 4.6. It turned out to be a much better engine without having to compromise on the design so that it would fit FWD.

[Crazy Dazz]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Ford specifically stated that when they designed the Coyote it was not designed to fit a FWD application, they designed it solely for RWD vehicles or AWD F series that use north/south engines.

It was never designed for a FWD/AWD transverse application, solely because Ford no longer offers these with V8's, the ecoboost V6 took that over.

It would come down to size and packaging and the location of things like the exhaust manifolds, intake plumbing, hoses, wiring, sump location etc. They were all designed to fit a RWD application.

The previous 4.6 could be used for FWD applications because it was designed that way from the start, they made the bores very small for that reason and had a much longer stroke, and they only ever used the smaller SOHC heads for FWD so it would all fit.

Coyote is nearly square in terms of bore/stroke and only has a DOHC head, so size wise its bigger than the old 4.6. It turned out to be a much better engine without having to compromise on the design so that it would fit FWD.

nope, and nope
As I said, the Coyote is externally the same size as the 4.6. With the new block they were able to get away with thinner walls.
and for the record, the 4.6 quad cam was fitted to FWD Lincolns

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

nope, and nope
As I said, the Coyote is externally the same size as the 4.6. With the new block they were able to get away with thinner walls.
and for the record, the 4.6 quad cam was fitted to FWD Lincolns

Bingo!

[XR6Naranja]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Bingo!


image

Nice picture, got one of an 3.5L Twin Turbo Ecoboost in a Falcon, I'd be interested to see that =P

If they do end up offering the choice of a conversion kit, I sure wouldn't mind a Falcon running that sort of engine.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by TheOrangeSpider

Nice picture, got one of an 3.5L Twin Turbo Ecoboost in a Falcon, I'd be interested to see that =P

If they do end up offering the choice of a conversion kit, I sure wouldn't mind a Falcon running that sort of engine.

Ecoboost V6 was never part of the plan, I think it's quite obvious from this image that width was always going to be against that.

[dimka100]

So apart for the I6 that the market clearly does not want any more, and the soon to be introduced I4T, what else could Ford stick into the Falcon based on the USA parts bin?

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by dimka100

So apart for the I6 that the market clearly does not want any more, and the soon to be introduced I4T, what else could Ford stick into the Falcon based on the USA parts bin?

IF I-6 was no more, my three corporate engines would be:
1)I-4 ecoboost for best petrol fuel economy in sedan and Ute.
2)V6 TDCI for great fuel economy and torque in sedan and Ute
3)5.0 V8 for good differentiation to XR8, G8E and XR8 S/C

Heck I would even have the same line up in Territory..go out guns a blazin'

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by dimka100

So apart for the I6 that the market clearly does not want any more, and the soon to be introduced I4T, what else could Ford stick into the Falcon based on the USA parts bin?

take your pick.
3.5 V6
3.7 V6
3.5 EcoBoost
5.0 V8
5.8 SC
6.2 V8
6.8 V10
3.0 V6 diesel
4.4 V8 diesel
6.7 V8 diesel

[Dr Smith]

Originally Posted by jpd80

IF I-6 was no more, my three corporate engines would be:
1)I-4 ecoboost for best petrol fuel economy in sedan and Ute.
2)V6 TDCI for great fuel economy and torque in sedan and Ute
3)5.0 V8 for good differentiation to XR8, G8E and XR8 S/C

Heck I would even have the same line up in Territory..go out guns a blazin'

What would you put into an XR6 and I take it you would drop the XR6T/G6ET altogether? Plus do you think there is any market in the US for a n/a V8 sedan or would they prefer to sell the V6 ecoboost instead?

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Dr Smith

What would you put into an XR6 and I take it you would drop the XR6T/G6ET altogether? Plus do you think there is any market in the US for a n/a V8 sedan or would they prefer to sell the V6 ecoboost instead?

No XR6 for now, deliberately left vacant for Nano 2.7 Ecoboost V6 with 250 Kw and 480 nm.

In my the Utopia of realistic pricing:
Ecoboost XR4/G4 Series - $36,990 drive away
Ecoboost G4E - $42,990 drive away
5.0 V8 XR and G series - $42,990 drive away
5.0 G8E - $ 47,990 drive away
5.0 XR8 S/C - $52,990 drive away
50. G8 E S/C - $58,990 drive away.

[Luke Plaizier]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Or codevelop the front end framing and suspension with next gen Mustang.
Forward of the B-Pillar, Mustang and Falcon could share power train, electrical and switch gear,
maybe front suspension, definitely frame and frontal crash protection design for LHD and RHD...
That's a huge part of the design and development costs and what's meant by "One Ford".

Interesting. We know that the Mustang has the live axles compared to the IRS on Falcon. But as for the front - I don't suppose the Mustang has Virtual Pivot yet does it?

Virtual Pivot's main claim to exist seems to be the ability to relocate the power steering rack in front of the engine so you can push the engine closer to the firewall. The trailing arms on a normal car that the tie rod ends of the steering rack hook to are angled inwards to provide toe in on turns. You couldn't get that on leading arms for steering - and I know, I had an old Mazda E2200 van with forward arms and a front mounted rack, and it chewed the outside edges of the tyres like there was no tomorrow. And the reason was that the tie rod ends needed to be outside of the wheels to get the right toe in on turns.

So with virtual pivot, you can have leading arms on steering AND get toe in on turns. It's pure genius.

So how many vehicles in the Ford Empire other than Falcon and Territory actually have Virtual Pivot front suspension? As a sports car, Mustang would benefit from being able to position the engine and transmission a little further rearward. As well as being the birth place of TiVCT + Turbo and hence help give birth to Ecoboost, are Ford Oz the leaders within the Ford world in the application of Virtual Pivot too?


Lukeyson

[FPV GTHO]

Mustang currently has a strut front end adapted from C1/C170 Focus

[Luke Plaizier]

Originally Posted by jpd80

IF I-6 was no more, my three corporate engines would be:
1)I-4 ecoboost for best petrol fuel economy in sedan and Ute.
2)V6 TDCI for great fuel economy and torque in sedan and Ute
3)5.0 V8 for good differentiation to XR8, G8E and XR8 S/C

Heck I would even have the same line up in Territory..go out guns a blazin'

I pretty much agree with those choices.

But if it's possible, I'd still be inclined to keep a V6T Petrol variant in there, perhaps the 2.7 for bulk sales and exports, as much as I like the idea of slotting in the 3.5. Then again, if the car is codeveloped with the US, the US will want the 3.5, then you can see the opportunity for Ford to sell the 2.7 and for FPV to run with the 3.5.

I have a hard time letting go of LPi though. If the fleet markets do eventually turn the big ship back towards Falcon LPi you'd want to make sure that it was available in either the V6T or I4T - preferrably both. In fact, I've even been asking local dealers to consider selling me a fully warranted V8SC with aftermarket LPi. I just wish I could do it with an XR8 badge on.


Lukeyson

[Dr Smith]

Originally Posted by jpd80

No XR6 for now, deliberately left vacant for Nano 2.7 Ecoboost V6 with 250 Kw and 480 nm.

In my the Utopia of realistic pricing:
Ecoboost XR4/G4 Series - $36,990 drive away
Ecoboost G4E - $42,990 drive away
5.0 V8 XR and G series - $42,990 drive away
5.0 G8E - $ 47,990 drive away
5.0 XR8 S/C - $52,990 drive away
50. G8 E S/C - $58,990 drive away.

I'm more then happy with that, and will order the G8E S/C now thank you, I'm sick of all those C63 AMG's hanging around Brighton, lol.

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

nope, and nope
As I said, the Coyote is externally the same size as the 4.6. With the new block they were able to get away with thinner walls.
and for the record, the 4.6 quad cam was fitted to FWD Lincolns

Ok, you got me with the 4V FWD version, never knew they did that, but it doesn't change the fact the Coyote was never designed for FWD applications. And it also doesn't change the fact that Ford no longer do FWD V8's anymore, the Ecoboost V6 has replaced them, hence Ford had no reason to make the Coyote FWD compatible.

You can see from the pic that packaging a FWD V8 looks like a nightmare compared to a north/south application.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Dr Smith

I'm more then happy with that, and will order the G8E S/C now thank you, I'm sick of all those C63 AMG's hanging around Brighton, lol.

Oh, the only modifier, Geelong gets to build a 4.0 litre Iron block DI version of the Coyote V8, making 250 Kw and 420 nm
you know, something for the econo freaks that want better fuel economy and an EcoLPI version..

[4.0i OHC]

I'm personally a fan of the I4 and V8 only idea (I detailed the reasons why a few months ago on this forum). My ideal model mix would be:

Falcon 500 (Mondeo LX spec level):
* Standard I4T manual, live axle, no cost auto (column shift available)
* Optional 'GS'/'XR' pack with firmer suspension, bodykit, 6 gauges (something I really miss!), sports steering wheel, double wishbone IRS
* Optional 5.0 315 V8, manual/auto
Futura (Mondeo LX with a few extras, such as climate control)
* I4T manual/auto
Fairmont (Mondeo Zetec spec)
* I4T manual/auto
* Optional GS package (as described above)
* Optional 315 V8 manual/auto
Fairmont GXL (spec above G6E, with tech found in Mondeo Titanium)
* Standard Tickford suspension and double wishbone IRS
* I4T manual/auto- perhaps an optional higher-boost (think Focus ST) version?
* Optional GS package (as described above)
* Optional 335 V8 manual/auto
Falcon GT (not FPV GT, Fairmont GXL spec)
* Manual V8, go crazy here (maybe an auto can be offered to increase sales but it would go against the spirit of the car)

Forget about FPV and bring back Tickford. Stick some Ticky wings on the GS/V8 variants.

The V8 can be the V8 found in the GS/GT. This allows for a 4 tier engine line up, like in the good old days.
As for a diesel, forget the 2.7 V6. I don't want a V6 anywhere near a Falcon. How about the Ranger's 5 cyl? It seems to deliver much better figures. It could be made optional across the range.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Bingo!


image

So who is the lucky guy who gets to change the rear bank of spark plugs and check the valve clearances?

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

So who is the lucky guy who gets to change the rear bank of spark plugs and check the valve clearances?

Spark plugs are easier than you think because they're in between cams and the valves have hydraulic lash adjusters.

IIRC, Spark plugs have direct coils and are 160,000 km life rated..