Ford announces new 3.5L V6 and Six-speed Automatic

[homestarmy]

You may be right, but what I am drawing from is personal experience with people's gas mileage in older turbo DSM's and honda engines with turbos added. They tend to get excellent mileage on daily driving.

Again however, I am no expert and apologize if I am coming off as arguing about something that I don't know about.

 

[iamwiz82]

Originally posted by: homestarmy
You may be right, but what I am drawing from is personal experience with people's gas mileage in older turbo DSM's and honda engines with turbos added. They tend to get excellent mileage on daily driving.

Again however, I am no expert and apologize if I am coming off as arguing about something that I don't know about.

Tuning a car for power almost guarantees lower gas mileage. The whole point of tuning is to increase the air flow, spark, and gas into the engine.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: redgtxdi
Sheottt.............more important than all of this is.........

F-U-E-L E-C-O-N-O-M-Y!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who teh fvck gives a fvck about HP anymore?? This obviously ain't gonna beat the Saleen at your neighbor's house, so who cares??


Sh3!$@% my 1.6L / 3sp Corolla auto can do all the things I'd need something like that to do.


The people need..........MPG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I, personally, think the new Lexus IS250 and IS350 motors are MUCH more impressive in terms of HP & fuel economy.

🙁 but what will those with small peni do🙁

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: homestarmy
You may be right, but what I am drawing from is personal experience with people's gas mileage in older turbo DSM's and honda engines with turbos added. They tend to get excellent mileage on daily driving.

Again however, I am no expert and apologize if I am coming off as arguing about something that I don't know about.

the 1994 eagle talon tsi, 192 hp, 20/25, and weighed 3109 lbs.

doesn't sound so great to me.
now, they significantly improved the mileage by 1998, when a 210 hp awd turbo talon got 21/28. of course, that's about the same mileage as a toyota camry.

 

[Apex]

Strange, looks like they decided to go with a new name. It was code named the Cyclone before, but was still in the Duratec family.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duratec#Duratec_35

Heck, even autoblog called it the Duratec.

http://www.autoblog.com/entry/1234000370041026/

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: scorpmatt
still more efficent and better balanced than a v6.

Wrong. It takes the same fuel to make a fixed amount of power. My 280 hp V8 Lincoln gets 26 mpg highway. The S2000 gets 26 mpg highway, seats three fewer people, and has less than half the trunk space (the S2000 also has 40 fewer hp and 130 fewer ft-lb of torque).

At a given power level, fuel consumption will be so close to equal that it doesn't matter in the real world. To claim that the 4-cylinder is more efficient is simply ignorant.

Also, a V6 can be much better balanced than an I4. An I4 is HORRIBLY out of balance with regards to second order forces and will shake itself into oblivion without balance shafts if the displacement is much over 2.0 litres. With proper crankshaft design and a 60 degree vee, a V6 can be much better balanced than an I4, but most V6 engines have a 90 degree vee (to facilitate the use of V8 assembly lines since a balanced V8 requires a 90 degree vee) and therefore use balancer shafts, just like I4 engines.

ZV

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: scorpmatt
still more efficent and better balanced than a v6.

Wrong. It takes the same fuel to make a fixed amount of power. My 280 hp V8 Lincoln gets 26 mpg highway. The S2000 gets 26 mpg highway, seats three fewer people, and has less than half the trunk space (the S2000 also has 40 fewer hp and 130 fewer ft-lb of torque).

At a given power level, fuel consumption will be so close to equal that it doesn't matter in the real world. To claim that the 4-cylinder is more efficient is simply ignorant.

Also, a V6 can be much better balanced than an I4. An I4 is HORRIBLY out of balance with regards to second order forces and will shake itself into oblivion without balance shafts if the displacement is much over 2.0 litres. With proper crankshaft design and a 60 degree vee, a V6 can be much better balanced than an I4, but most V6 engines have a 90 degree vee (to facilitate the use of V8 assembly lines since a balanced V8 requires a 90 degree vee) and therefore use balancer shafts, just like I4 engines.

ZV

you need to stop saying that because it's wrong. There are frankenstein accord 2.4 shortblocks with RSX-S heads, deleted balance shafts, rev to 8K rpms, blown and they have been beaten around for a year without issue.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: scorpmatt
still more efficent and better balanced than a v6.

Wrong. It takes the same fuel to make a fixed amount of power. My 280 hp V8 Lincoln gets 26 mpg highway. The S2000 gets 26 mpg highway, seats three fewer people, and has less than half the trunk space (the S2000 also has 40 fewer hp and 130 fewer ft-lb of torque).

At a given power level, fuel consumption will be so close to equal that it doesn't matter in the real world. To claim that the 4-cylinder is more efficient is simply ignorant.

Also, a V6 can be much better balanced than an I4. An I4 is HORRIBLY out of balance with regards to second order forces and will shake itself into oblivion without balance shafts if the displacement is much over 2.0 litres. With proper crankshaft design and a 60 degree vee, a V6 can be much better balanced than an I4, but most V6 engines have a 90 degree vee (to facilitate the use of V8 assembly lines since a balanced V8 requires a 90 degree vee) and therefore use balancer shafts, just like I4 engines.

ZV

My 240sx's engine is 2.4L and has no balance shafts! I4s don't shake themselves apart.

 

[thedarkwolf]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: scorpmatt
still more efficent and better balanced than a v6.

Wrong. It takes the same fuel to make a fixed amount of power. My 280 hp V8 Lincoln gets 26 mpg highway. The S2000 gets 26 mpg highway, seats three fewer people, and has less than half the trunk space (the S2000 also has 40 fewer hp and 130 fewer ft-lb of torque).

At a given power level, fuel consumption will be so close to equal that it doesn't matter in the real world. To claim that the 4-cylinder is more efficient is simply ignorant.

Also, a V6 can be much better balanced than an I4. An I4 is HORRIBLY out of balance with regards to second order forces and will shake itself into oblivion without balance shafts if the displacement is much over 2.0 litres. With proper crankshaft design and a 60 degree vee, a V6 can be much better balanced than an I4, but most V6 engines have a 90 degree vee (to facilitate the use of V8 assembly lines since a balanced V8 requires a 90 degree vee) and therefore use balancer shafts, just like I4 engines.

ZV

My 240sx's engine is 2.4L and has no balance shafts! I4s don't shake themselves apart.

No but they aren't smooth either. Pulled the balance shafts out of my 2.5l 4 banger turbo van and you can definitely tell at idle with its nearly solid motor mounts.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: scorpmatt
still more efficent and better balanced than a v6.

Wrong. It takes the same fuel to make a fixed amount of power. My 280 hp V8 Lincoln gets 26 mpg highway. The S2000 gets 26 mpg highway, seats three fewer people, and has less than half the trunk space (the S2000 also has 40 fewer hp and 130 fewer ft-lb of torque).

At a given power level, fuel consumption will be so close to equal that it doesn't matter in the real world. To claim that the 4-cylinder is more efficient is simply ignorant.

Also, a V6 can be much better balanced than an I4. An I4 is HORRIBLY out of balance with regards to second order forces and will shake itself into oblivion without balance shafts if the displacement is much over 2.0 litres. With proper crankshaft design and a 60 degree vee, a V6 can be much better balanced than an I4, but most V6 engines have a 90 degree vee (to facilitate the use of V8 assembly lines since a balanced V8 requires a 90 degree vee) and therefore use balancer shafts, just like I4 engines.

ZV

you need to stop saying that because it's wrong. There are frankenstein accord 2.4 shortblocks with RSX-S heads, deleted balance shafts, rev to 8K rpms, blown and they have been beaten around for a year without issue.

Delete the balance shafts on a 2.5 litre 944 I4 or a 3.0 litre 944/968 I4, rev it to 4,000 RPM, and see how long before it kills the engine mounts. Disconnecting the balance shafts on a large diaplacement I4 is an excellent way to ensure that the engine will never hit 300,000 miles (expected life of an un-molested 944 engine). A custom-built engine with special low-mass pieces that isn't really expected to run even 100,000 plus miles can't be compared to a production engine designed to last well beyond 200,000 miles.

I4s are horribly balanced. Large ones need balance shafts. A properly engineered V6 won't need balance shafts if it's a 60 degree vee.

Tutorial on engine balance characteristics: http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/engine/smooth1.htm

ZV

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: OS

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: scorpmatt
still more efficent and better balanced than a v6.

Wrong. It takes the same fuel to make a fixed amount of power. My 280 hp V8 Lincoln gets 26 mpg highway. The S2000 gets 26 mpg highway, seats three fewer people, and has less than half the trunk space (the S2000 also has 40 fewer hp and 130 fewer ft-lb of torque).

At a given power level, fuel consumption will be so close to equal that it doesn't matter in the real world. To claim that the 4-cylinder is more efficient is simply ignorant.

Also, a V6 can be much better balanced than an I4. An I4 is HORRIBLY out of balance with regards to second order forces and will shake itself into oblivion without balance shafts if the displacement is much over 2.0 litres. With proper crankshaft design and a 60 degree vee, a V6 can be much better balanced than an I4, but most V6 engines have a 90 degree vee (to facilitate the use of V8 assembly lines since a balanced V8 requires a 90 degree vee) and therefore use balancer shafts, just like I4 engines.

ZV

you need to stop saying that because it's wrong. There are frankenstein accord 2.4 shortblocks with RSX-S heads, deleted balance shafts, rev to 8K rpms, blown and they have been beaten around for a year without issue.

Delete the balance shafts on a 2.5 litre 944 I4 or a 3.0 litre 944/968 I4, rev it to 4,000 RPM, and see how long before it kills the engine mounts. Disconnecting the balance shafts on a large diaplacement I4 is an excellent way to ensure that the engine will never hit 300,000 miles (expected life of an un-molested 944 engine). A custom-built engine with special low-mass pieces that isn't really expected to run even 100,000 plus miles can't be compared to a production engine designed to last well beyond 200,000 miles.

I4s are horribly balanced. Large ones need balance shafts. A properly engineered V6 won't need balance shafts if it's a 60 degree vee.

Tutorial on engine balance characteristics: http://www.autozine.org/technical_school/engine/smooth1.htm

ZV

Killing motor mounts is hardly the same thing as the engine shaking itself to apart.

Obviously a built race engine is going to have a shorter lifespan than a stock one. Duh. This is hardly a scientific experiment on the effects of balance shafts alone.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: OS
Killing motor mounts is hardly the same thing as the engine shaking itself to apart.

It's not a step in the right direction towards engine longevity. And to be clear, I didn't mean "shake itself apart" as in violently going to pieces, but rather suffer from many minor (and in time not-so-minor) reliability issues caused by excessive vibration.

Deleting balance shafts is good for 10 HP or so on a 944, and people have done it. But those engines sacrifice some longevity. My point about the custom-built engine you described was that it's not dealing with the same sorts of trade-offs that a production engine deals with. Saying that the custom engine is OK without balance shafts is misleading because it doesn't have nearly the same longevity and useability demands on it as a production engine.

ZV

 

[hans007]

its a pretty impressive engine. its variable valve, 4 valves per cylinder, and runs on unleaded.

for 2006 model cars

nissan 3.5 L v6 in the altima produces 250hp or so, premium is 280-298 hp (but not adjusted for new SAE ratings)
3.5 L toyota in avalon is 268 hp on unleaded, 306 in the is350 with premium and direct injection
3.5 L honda gets anywhere from 245 to 290 hp , in applications from the honda pilot to the RL with premium or unleaded.
3.5 L v6 on the mercedes c350 gets 268hp on premium

it might be slightly behind, but it could be a conservative estimate.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: hans007
its a pretty impressive engine. its variable valve, 4 valves per cylinder, and runs on unleaded.

for 2006 model cars

nissan 3.5 L v6 in the altima produces 250hp or so, premium is 280-298 hp (but not adjusted for new SAE ratings)
3.5 L toyota in avalon is 268 hp on unleaded, 306 in the is350 with premium and direct injection
3.5 L honda gets anywhere from 245 to 290 hp , in applications from the honda pilot to the RL with premium or unleaded.
3.5 L v6 on the mercedes c350 gets 268hp on premium

it might be slightly behind, but it could be a conservative estimate.

Uh, premium is unleaded... You cannot buy leaded gasoline in the US.

You're thinking of 87 octane versus 93 octane.

ZV

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: hans007
its a pretty impressive engine. its variable valve, 4 valves per cylinder, and runs on unleaded.

for 2006 model cars

nissan 3.5 L v6 in the altima produces 250hp or so, premium is 280-298 hp (but not adjusted for new SAE ratings)
3.5 L toyota in avalon is 268 hp on unleaded, 306 in the is350 with premium and direct injection
3.5 L honda gets anywhere from 245 to 290 hp , in applications from the honda pilot to the RL with premium or unleaded.
3.5 L v6 on the mercedes c350 gets 268hp on premium

it might be slightly behind, but it could be a conservative estimate.

Uh, premium is unleaded... You cannot buy leaded gasoline in the US.

You're thinking of 87 octane versus 93 octane.

ZV

for most people, unleaded = 87 octane, premium = the expensive stuff. 😉

 

[Linux23]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: hans007
its a pretty impressive engine. its variable valve, 4 valves per cylinder, and runs on unleaded.

for 2006 model cars

nissan 3.5 L v6 in the altima produces 250hp or so, premium is 280-298 hp (but not adjusted for new SAE ratings)
3.5 L toyota in avalon is 268 hp on unleaded, 306 in the is350 with premium and direct injection
3.5 L honda gets anywhere from 245 to 290 hp , in applications from the honda pilot to the RL with premium or unleaded.
3.5 L v6 on the mercedes c350 gets 268hp on premium

it might be slightly behind, but it could be a conservative estimate.

Uh, premium is unleaded... You cannot buy leaded gasoline in the US.

You're thinking of 87 octane versus 93 octane.

ZV

for most people, unleaded = 87 octane, premium = the expensive stuff. 😉

not for me. i just say low, mid or high test.😕

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
for most people, unleaded = 87 octane, premium = the expensive stuff. 😉

wtf? i've never heard that reasoning before. unleaded is unleaded.. it's all that's sold for consumer vehicles.. or diesel. i always go by octane number.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: lnguyen

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
for most people, unleaded = 87 octane, premium = the expensive stuff. 😉

wtf? i've never heard that reasoning before. unleaded is unleaded.. it's all that's sold for consumer vehicles.. or diesel. i always go by octane number.

mb you are too young. some of us still remember when there was regular, unleaded and premium. then premium would of course be high octane leaded.

now for oldies like me, we refer to unleaded as "regular" and the high octane stuff as premium as there are no more leaded fuels.

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: lnguyen

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
for most people, unleaded = 87 octane, premium = the expensive stuff. 😉

wtf? i've never heard that reasoning before. unleaded is unleaded.. it's all that's sold for consumer vehicles.. or diesel. i always go by octane number.

mb you are too young. some of us still remember when there was regular, unleaded and premium. then premium would of course be high octane leaded.

now for oldies like me, we refer to unleaded as "regular" and the high octane stuff as premium as there are no more leaded fuels.

get w/ the times oldie 😛

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: lnguyen

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: lnguyen

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
for most people, unleaded = 87 octane, premium = the expensive stuff. 😉

wtf? i've never heard that reasoning before. unleaded is unleaded.. it's all that's sold for consumer vehicles.. or diesel. i always go by octane number.

mb you are too young. some of us still remember when there was regular, unleaded and premium. then premium would of course be high octane leaded.

now for oldies like me, we refer to unleaded as "regular" and the high octane stuff as premium as there are no more leaded fuels.

get w/ the times oldie 😛

when I was a young un, it was "quit being ignorant". now the ignorant get to call me oldie. hmmmm.

no wonder they talk about the good ole days. 😉

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: scarpent
Sounds great. Just one major problem, it's a Ford.
Fix Or Repair Daily

Never had a problem with my Crown Victorias.

 

[Twista]

=) more hp than the fookn 96-98 GT mustangs. That shows ford really slipped during that time year lol.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: Soccerman06

Originally posted by: iamwiz82

Originally posted by: scorpmatt

Originally posted by: Hyudra

Originally posted by: scorpmatt
they can get a 4cyl up to 300hp and 300ft-lb so why do you need a v6?

That's with turbo tho. This is N/A.

so it is with a turbo, or even a twin turbo. so what? still more efficent and better balanced than a v6. I'd bring up the straight 6 but not to many cars can hold a straight 6 yet they can hold a v6.

Turbocharged engines are less reliable, more costly, and create screwy torque curves.

I have no idea WhyTF you brought up I6 engines 😕

This is kind of like compairing a v4 (dont exist) and a v6. All 4 cylinders are inline, so you would have to compare a i4 to a i6. One thing about turbos is that they make lots of power at the higher rpm but little at everyday rpms, superchargers on the other hand boost torque just as much as its hp. And another thing, Porsche has been making F6 for years now making 300-350hp, turbos push it to 400-450 depending on models.

V4's have been made in the past. None now, it's true.

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: Soccerman06

Originally posted by: homestarmy

Originally posted by: OrganizedChaos

Originally posted by: scorpmatt
they can get a 4cyl up to 300hp and 300ft-lb so why do you need a v6?

uh-oh, the HP/L people are coming out of the woodwork again.....

That's HP per cylinder, moron.

Also, why would anyone want a larger, heavier v6 engine, when you can have a lighter 4 cylinder? Think please.

Because the only way a 4 cylinder can match a decently made i6 (Porsche F6) is by using turbos. How many 4 cylinders out there can make 250hp and 250lb torque without turbos/sc and without reving above 7k rpm? Not many. And I for one like my car to sound like a car, not a leaf blower. A i6 with the same hp and torque is still faster than a 4 cylinder with a turbo simple because of the power curve, progressively bigger vs little power until 5k rpm

No. I do not agree with the bolded statement. Firstly in a real world test, the difference in delivery would make little difference if the peak HP and TQ values were equal.

Secondly, look at the torque curve on a tubo car these days youll find that the torque is in fact often flatter than a NA motor. In the case of the VW 1.8T and the new 2.0T, for example, there is NO curve after peak torque is acheived, from 1750-5000 rpm or so.

 

[Sureshot324]

Originally posted by: scorpmatt

Originally posted by: Hyudra

Originally posted by: scorpmatt
they can get a 4cyl up to 300hp and 300ft-lb so why do you need a v6?

That's with turbo tho. This is N/A.

so it is with a turbo, or even a twin turbo. so what? still more efficent and better balanced than a v6. I'd bring up the straight 6 but not to many cars can hold a straight 6 yet they can hold a v6.

It's also less reliable and a more expensive than a v6, not to mention the power lag.