2011 mustang possible Twin turbo V6

[Speed74SS]

I listened to Motortrend radio today and they had a guy from Ford on who must be part of the engine division. They just opened up the Cleveland plant to produce the Ecoboost engines and he said they would be in 25% of their cars right away and 90% by 2011 I believe. Mustangs should obviously be getting these engines. He mentioned it is a direct injected TT 6 that runs off of 87 gas and gets full torque from 1500 rpms to 5500 rpms. It sounded like a pretty good engine. He never mentioned anything about the 5.0 engine and said the Ecoboost should be their main engine in almost 90% of their cars, whether it be 4 or 6 cylinder.

[ArcAngel]

listen guys boosting an engine especially with todays modern turbos is definately the wave of the future some purists will just have to deal...the v8 will survive but at a premium

[Muscle Master]

Originally Posted by Speed74SS

I listened to Motortrend radio today and they had a guy from Ford on who must be part of the engine division. They just opened up the Cleveland plant to produce the Ecoboost engines and he said they would be in 25% of their cars right away and 90% by 2011 I believe. Mustangs should obviously be getting these engines. He mentioned it is a direct injected TT 6 that runs off of 87 gas and gets full torque from 1500 rpms to 5500 rpms. It sounded like a pretty good engine. He never mentioned anything about the 5.0 engine and said the Ecoboost should be their main engine in almost 90% of their cars, whether it be 4 or 6 cylinder.

They did, it's on autoblog, I would post the link but I'm sleepy

[Grape Ape]

Originally Posted by syr74

So a 3.8L V8 would absolutely be heavier than a compable, in terms of design and tech, 3.8L V6? This simply isn't true as an absolute by an means, there are far too many other variables for anybody to make such a broad, sweeping statement.



All the usual suspects predicted the same thing once before, and they were wrong then too.



A greater number of cylinders doesn't inherently increase fuel consumption, displacement does. In fact, while this too is an issue far too complicated to paint with simple absolutes, there are more than a few arguments for a greater number of cylinders...within reason.....increasing fuel economy given similar displacement. Part of Ford's reasoning for the Triton V10 series of engine was that greater control over the combustion process would allow a 6.8L V10 to knock down better fuel economy and emissions than a comparable 6.8L V8.

In the end, you are still missing the point. There is absolutely no reason why a 3.8L V8 wouldn't knock down fuel economy on par with a technologically similar 3.8L V6 all else being reasonably equal. Engines are changing, and they will be getting smaller on average with a question, but the best run and ultimately most profitable companies are going to be those who figure out how to give the consumer what they both want and need in one package.

And to that end, it will likely be the companies who figure out the beneficial little incedentals, like the reality that there is no reason why a planned 3.8L GTDi V8 wouldn't work just as well as a 3.8L GTDi V6, who will win the day.

The V8 will have

• a heavier block (might be on part with a 3.8 straight six)
• a greater total piston circumference (more friction)
• two extra rod journals and one extra main journal on its crank (more friction and weight)
• longer cam(s) with four (or eight) extra lifters and maybe rocker arms(more friction and weight)
• a bigger oil pump to keep all this lubed (greater parasitic loss)
• and probably a bigger water pump to serve the bigger, more complex cooling jacket(greater parasitic loss).

And there is a fair chance that the V6 will have greater total valve area which would reduce pumping losses relative to the 3.8 V8.

Fuel efficiency aside, a V6 will always be cheaper to build (and buy) than a V8 with the same tech (GDI, DOHC, Turbos, etc).

[MerF]

Originally Posted by Grape Ape

The V8 will have

• a heavier block (might be on part with a 3.8 straight six)
• a greater total piston circumference (more friction)
• two extra rod journals and one extra main journal on its crank (more friction and weight)
• longer cam(s) with four (or eight) extra lifters and maybe rocker arms(more friction and weight)
• a bigger oil pump to keep all this lubed (greater parasitic loss)
• and probably a bigger water pump to serve the bigger, more complex cooling jacket(greater parasitic loss).

And there is a fair chance that the V6 will have greater total valve area which would reduce pumping losses relative to the 3.8 V8.

Fuel efficiency aside, a V6 will always be cheaper to build (and buy) than a V8 with the same tech (GDI, DOHC, Turbos, etc).

That last part needed bolding. To make the V6 as good of a buy, there needs to be a lot more tech put into it to make it worthwhile. So that "tech" is inherently going to make a smaller engine more expensive.

[Grape Ape]

Originally Posted by MerF

That last part needed bolding. To make the V6 as good of a buy, there needs to be a lot more tech put into it to make it worthwhile. So that "tech" is inherently going to make a smaller engine more expensive.

Except that I was responding to syr74's post comparing a 3.8 V6 to a 3.8 V8.

[MerF]

Originally Posted by Grape Ape

Except that I was responding to syr74's post comparing a 3.8 V6 to a 3.8 V8.

Ah.

[Silver Streak]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

A lot of people on the boards have been really opposed to the possibility that a V8 is not the best possible method of attaining horsepower, torque, and efficiency. There's nothing uniquely American about a big V8. That's a major misconception that American car enthusiasts tend to have when thinking about classic cars. They forget that the big fighters on the street here may have been huge V8s when the same battles were happening on the tracks of Europe. I can't understand why Americans are so intolerant to the idea that power can be achieved with less cylinders or difference sources of fuel. Just because something has always been done a certain way doesn't make it the best.

I know that you'll tell me that the American V8 has a unique sound or bellows in a way that nothing else compares. It has tradition. I understand all of that. On the same token, there are a lot of American and international traditions that had to die for their obvious fallacies. With the V8 tradition, there comes the belief that it is superior somehow. More noise must mean more power, or more cylinders must mean more power. If either one of those were correct, the V8 owner could feel dominant on the streets until, of course, an exotic featuring 10 or more cylinders pulled up at the next stoplight.

When that happens, the game changes. Americans start talking about reliability and how exotics are harder or more expensive to maintain. They talk about how their V8 gets more miles per gallon or that theirs was made in America, as if the fact that a car being built in the land of the free makes it somehow superior than a car built in the land of delicious pasta—Italy, of course.

These are arguments that import buyers use to justify racing their little 4-bangers against larger displacement beasts. Who are we to say that they're wrong? The Chevy Cobalt SS turbocharged gets an astounding 260 hp from the LNF (2.0L) EcoTec and boasts to be the fastest 4-banger in the world, making it more of a competitor with cars that have 6 or 8 cylinders. What happened to the tradition of a 4-banger never keeping up with a V8? Now you've got 2008 Cobalts beating 1968 Camaros at the track. Maybe that shows us something.

We need to play with the idea of having aggressive V6s. GM should be building V6 blocks with forged internals for the sake of forced induction replacements for V8s. They are more efficient and as powerful as any V8 that boasts more displacement. They may not be quite as easy to bring to 1,000 horsepower, but the vast majority of enthusiasts won't break the 700-hp mark. When we can make 8-cylinder engines with the efficiency of 6-cylinder or 4-cylinder engines, then we can talk about reverting to the tradition of only V8s in muscle cars. I'd love to see it happen, and it is possible with the proper management of the fuel going into the engine. It just hasn't been a priority to make efficient V8s, which is sad because that idea alone could have saved the American auto industry a lot of trouble.

Basically, the only things that should be sacred to a car enthusiast are style and speed. If you can achieve both of these pillars of the automotive community with anything less than a V8, then I think it should be encouraged.

Well said. Would like to point out just one little thing though. The V8 n/a compared to the 2.0L turbo or anything that is turbo'd, the V8 lives longer. Otherwise I agree with everything you say. I personally ordered the V8, but the V6 has its place for sure, and the trend will go that way. I think the V8 will be around for awhile longer, but American automobile manufacturers do need to change their mindset, and I think they are, well at least 2 of em lol. Anyways I think you are right on for the most part, but as far as enthusiast goes it is, to each his own.

[Z/28orSs]

a wise man once told me "There is no replacement for displacement"

[Beamer]

Originally Posted by The_Blur

"Originally Posted by The_Blur
A lot of people on the boards have been really opposed to the possibility that a V8 is not the best possible method of attaining horsepower, torque, and efficiency. There's nothing uniquely American about a big V8. That's a major misconception that American car enthusiasts tend to have when thinking about classic cars. They forget that the big fighters on the street here may have been huge V8s when the same battles were happening on the tracks of Europe. I can't understand why Americans are so intolerant to the idea that power can be achieved with less cylinders or difference sources of fuel. Just because something has always been done a certain way doesn't make it the best.

I know that you'll tell me that the American V8 has a unique sound or bellows in a way that nothing else compares. It has tradition. I understand all of that. On the same token, there are a lot of American and international traditions that had to die for their obvious fallacies. With the V8 tradition, there comes the belief that it is superior somehow. More noise must mean more power, or more cylinders must mean more power. If either one of those were correct, the V8 owner could feel dominant on the streets until, of course, an exotic featuring 10 or more cylinders pulled up at the next stoplight.

When that happens, the game changes. Americans start talking about reliability and how exotics are harder or more expensive to maintain. They talk about how their V8 gets more miles per gallon or that theirs was made in America, as if the fact that a car being built in the land of the free makes it somehow superior than a car built in the land of delicious pasta—Italy, of course.

These are arguments that import buyers use to justify racing their little 4-bangers against larger displacement beasts. Who are we to say that they're wrong? The Chevy Cobalt SS turbocharged gets an astounding 260 hp from the LNF (2.0L) EcoTec and boasts to be the fastest 4-banger in the world, making it more of a competitor with cars that have 6 or 8 cylinders. What happened to the tradition of a 4-banger never keeping up with a V8? Now you've got 2008 Cobalts beating 1968 Camaros at the track. Maybe that shows us something.

We need to play with the idea of having aggressive V6s. GM should be building V6 blocks with forged internals for the sake of forced induction replacements for V8s. They are more efficient and as powerful as any V8 that boasts more displacement. They may not be quite as easy to bring to 1,000 horsepower, but the vast majority of enthusiasts won't break the 700-hp mark. When we can make 8-cylinder engines with the efficiency of 6-cylinder or 4-cylinder engines, then we can talk about reverting to the tradition of only V8s in muscle cars. I'd love to see it happen, and it is possible with the proper management of the fuel going into the engine. It just hasn't been a priority to make efficient V8s, which is sad because that idea alone could have saved the American auto industry a lot of trouble.

Basically, the only things that should be sacred to a car enthusiast are style and speed. If you can achieve both of these pillars of the automotive community with anything less than a V8, then I think it should be encouraged."

Well said

V8 well remain for awhile but as said, it'll be a rarity. Cannot really argue with the efficient 4's and 6's with a tamed snail attached. The Balt SS/TC is a great example along with the Soltice GXP and Sky RL, 260, maybe more out of the manufacturer than a good tune and your over 300 easy. I am in a club for the SS Supercharged(LSJ) and some of the guys moved onto the LNF(Turbo) models and just with a couple mods and a tune and its amazing the power they are putting down and still going over 30mpg. My SC is sitting around 270(off the bottle) and I still get an easy 37mpg on the hwy and around 32 in your stop and go. I would hate to see the v8 go away but eventually, be it 10 yrs or 20+ it well happen besides the specialty cars like the Rolls and other high end cars.

As for a small v8 being just as good as a v6, it can be done with some more tech. All I know is when I had my 3.9L v8 in my Lincoln LS I rarely saw 20mpg unless getting onto the hwy than it would go to 24 or so. I mostly saw 17-18.2 mpg in that, filled up every other day it felt.

[syr74]

Originally Posted by Grape Ape

The V8 will have

• a heavier block (might be on part with a 3.8 straight six)
• a greater total piston circumference (more friction)
• two extra rod journals and one extra main journal on its crank (more friction and weight)
• longer cam(s) with four (or eight) extra lifters and maybe rocker arms(more friction and weight)
• a bigger oil pump to keep all this lubed (greater parasitic loss)
• and probably a bigger water pump to serve the bigger, more complex cooling jacket(greater parasitic loss).

And there is a fair chance that the V6 will have greater total valve area which would reduce pumping losses relative to the 3.8 V8.

Fuel efficiency aside, a V6 will always be cheaper to build (and buy) than a V8 with the same tech (GDI, DOHC, Turbos, etc).

Points of contention.

1: Assuming the V6 and V8 have a similar bore/stroke relationship, and identical displacement, then there is no reason to assume that a V6 engine of comparable displacement will be any lighter, particularly not when you take into consideration the fact that the increase in stroke the V6 will have to undergo in order to maintain a similar bore-stroke relationship will be relatively large. That means a significantly increased deck height which adds weight to any engine in a hurry.

2:Adding insult to injury, a V6 will absolutely be both taller and wider than a V8 of similar displacement, all else being equal. That means a higher cowl height for any cars using the same, making the car itself heavier, and positoning more of that weight higher up in the car precisely where you don't want it. Not good.

3:As for greater friction losses. More cylinders do mean more surface to surface contact, but they likewise mean a smoother firing order and, in the case of the cross plane V8, more torque down low and a better overall torque curve due to the nature of the design and the counterweights used to balance the same. Also worth mentioning, assuming identical displacement and bore-stroke relationship a V8 will always rev to a higher rpm than a V6 since the mass of the pistons and piston speed itself limit potential rpm, which in turn leads to greater power potential.

4: Also, assuming similar bore-stroke relationships and overall displacement a V8 will always possess more valve area than a comparably sized V6. (This relates indirectly to the nature of how bore and stroke relate and the reality that displacement increases faster when bore is increased than when stroke is increased, meaning that this is linked to why the V6 will be considerably taller as well) Even more, in the case of the V8 port velocity will be higher on both the intake and exhaust sides as well since, while overall valve area is larger, each individul valve and the port design leading to it will be smaller.

5:I also don't buy into the notion that a V8 will always cost more. First, the split throw cranks mandated by any V6 intended to be relatively smooth running are far more costly and complex to manufacture, even moreso if you intend to garner comparable strength when comapred to a crank from a crossplane V8. And of course, the fact that the V6 crank runs on fewer bearings doesn't help here either. Ford uses a forged crank in the new 3.5L EB V6, but given the compromises inherent in the split throw design it is unlikely that this is significantly stronger, or any stronger, than a good cast crank would be for the typical V8. As the crank is easily the most expensive part of the engine next to the engine block itself this is no small issue.

Yes, the V8 has more individual parts, but given the increased valve area, greater inherent smoothness, greater ability to rev, and better potential for torque there can be little doubt a V6 will have to possess more tech to match a V8 quality for quality, adding yet more costs to the equation.

IMO V8 versus V6 is no comparison at all. Frankly, I'm not sure why manufacturers even bother with the V6 design at all.

[fdjizm]

Originally Posted by syr74

Points of contention.

1: Assuming the V6 and V8 have a similar bore/stroke relationship, and identical displacement, then there is no reason to assume that a V6 engine of comparable displacement will be any lighter, particularly not when you take into consideration the fact that the increase in stroke the V6 will have to undergo in order to maintain a similar bore-stroke relationship will be relatively large. That means a significantly increased deck height which adds weight to any engine in a hurry.

2:Adding insult to injury, a V6 will absolutely be both taller and wider than a V8 of similar displacement, all else being equal. That means a higher cowl height for any cars using the same, making the car itself heavier, and positoning more of that weight higher up in the car precisely where you don't want it. Not good.

3:As for greater friction losses. More cylinders do mean more surface to surface contact, but they likewise mean a smoother firing order and, in the case of the cross plane V8, more torque down low and a better overall torque curve due to the nature of the design and the counterweights used to balance the same. Also worth mentioning, assuming identical displacement and bore-stroke relationship a V8 will always rev to a higher rpm than a V6 since the mass of the pistons and piston speed itself limit potential rpm, which in turn leads to greater power potential.

4: Also, assuming similar bore-stroke relationships and overall displacement a V8 will always possess more valve area than a comparably sized V6. (This relates indirectly to the nature of how bore and stroke relate and the reality that displacement increases faster when bore is increased than when stroke is increased, meaning that this is linked to why the V6 will be considerably taller as well) Even more, in the case of the V8 port velocity will be higher on both the intake and exhaust sides as well since, while overall valve area is larger, each individul valve and the port design leading to it will be smaller.

5:I also don't buy into the notion that a V8 will always cost more. First, the split throw cranks mandated by any V6 intended to be relatively smooth running are far more costly and complex to manufacture, even moreso if you intend to garner comparable strength when comapred to a crank from a crossplane V8. And of course, the fact that the V6 crank runs on fewer bearings doesn't help here either. Ford uses a forged crank in the new 3.5L EB V6, but given the compromises inherent in the split throw design it is unlikely that this is significantly stronger, or any stronger, than a good cast crank would be for the typical V8. As the crank is easily the most expensive part of the engine next to the engine block itself this is no small issue.

Yes, the V8 has more individual parts, but given the increased valve area, greater inherent smoothness, greater ability to rev, and better potential for torque there can be little doubt a V6 will have to possess more tech to match a V8 quality for quality, adding yet more costs to the equation.

IMO V8 versus V6 is no comparison at all. Frankly, I'm not sure why manufacturers even bother with the V6 design at all.

according to your logic there shouldnt be any v6's made for any car?

[syr74]

Originally Posted by fdjizm

according to your logic there shouldnt be any v6's made for any car?

I can see a place in the world for V6 engines which don't greatly exceed 3.0 liters in displacement, but anything much larger than 3.2L in a V6 design is a balancing nightmare and makes for a very poor argument when compared to a comparably sized V8 for reasons stated above. And even in applications below 3.0L I see little to no advantage over the budding crop of GTDi four cylinders now hitting the market. I wont throw rocks at a company for building a V6 engine, particularly anything in the 3.2L or lower displacement range, but I do think the wisest company would be the one that figures out.....if any indeed do....that the V6 engine really brings very little worth mentioning to the table that other alternatives don't accomplish more convincingly. The only common piston engine design currently in production that I know of which has less going for it is the V10.