Ford Inside News banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Mercury C557
Joined
·
22,734 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
via Mike Levine @ facebook
so not a chat ...yet... sue me

Engine of the Month: Ford 2.7-Liter Twin Turbo EcoBoost V-6 - PopularMechanics
By Ben Wojdyla
April 22, 2014

The 2015 Ford F-150's aluminum body is a big deal, but there might be even more innovation under the hood. The twin-turbocharged EcoBoost 2.7-liter V-6 is full of tricks, such as reducing overall mass by using iron and aluminum only where each metal's properties are most beneficial. The result is more than 300 hp in an extremely compact and lightweight design.

The most novel element of this engine is the two-piece block
A. Upper Block iron

B. Lower Block aluminum

C. Integrated Front Cover structural member

D. Piston Rods

E. Piston-Ring Seats steel insert in each aluminum piston

Stop/Start...

More...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,961 Posts
A new family of engines with several displacements, applications (efficiency, baseline, performance) and one of the first Ford motors designed from the word go optimized as GTDI only. No compromises for NA makes everything easier and removes a ton of complexity. Don’t let displacements fool you, this little motor will be able to do it all, beginning with a stout structure and finished off with premium levels of thoroughly engineered technology.

I expect great things for this family of engines.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
620 Posts
I think I just found my new favorite motor for an XR4Ti...!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
96 Posts
Are these posts reliable sources or just wishful thinking?:thumb:
 

·
Mercury C557
Joined
·
22,734 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
^ F.L., afaik just the 2.7 and 2.9
&... I haven't seen anything to firmly indicate a non-EB version yet

some the features talked about in the article in the fisr post, like the 2-piece engineblock, might be used in other new engines (like the rumored small v8) but I have no idea if Ford will call those part of a Nano Family?

&
BluntSage,
I'm not an insider so anything I write as opposed to quote, is just my opinion/speculation
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,401 Posts
^ F.L., afaik just the 2.7 and 2.9
&... I haven't seen anything to firmly indicate a non-EB version yet
Wings has commented before (in this thread?) saying the Nano is all new an engineered specifically for turbocharged direct injection only and therefor not limited by the need to also work naturally aspirated.

Edit: D'uh, read the second post in this thread by Wings!! LOL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,961 Posts
Ford was smart to optimize for GTDI. They already have a few NA engines, and little development work going on as just NA. And lessons learned here are that you can’t optimize for both. You always make engineering concessions that will compromise something.

What is amazing to me is that even as they are launching one variant of Nano (2.7L), preparing several variants, after years of dyno development work that continues today…..they also have a ton of new future Nano upgrade work keeping teams busy as well. the amount of work is astounding actually. Basically they have rethought several critical aspects (major architectures), and implementing them throughout, including other families of engines.

No rest for the weary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,270 Posts
Ford was smart to optimize for GTDI. They already have a few NA engines, and little development work going on as just NA. And lessons learned here are that you can’t optimize for both. You always make engineering concessions that will compromise something.

What is amazing to me is that even as they are launching one variant of Nano (2.7L), preparing several variants, after years of dyno development work that continues today…..they also have a ton of new future Nano upgrade work keeping teams busy as well. the amount of work is astounding actually. Basically they have rethought several critical aspects (major architectures), and implementing them throughout, including other families of engines.

No rest for the weary.
This question revolves around the MKS thread as well. Since we know the Nano will get better HP per liter than the 3.5EB, will there be several levels of performance with the same engine, in the same vehicle, similar to this quote from the F650 article?


"The three diesel power levels available for the 2016 Ford F-650/F-750 are:

270 horsepower/675 lb.-ft. torque (best-in-class standard)
300 horsepower /700 lb.-ft. torque
330 horsepower/725 lb.-ft. torque

Multiple ratings provide customers with the flexibility to scale engine power to work applications and operations."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,401 Posts
This question revolves around the MKS thread as well. Since we know the Nano will get better HP per liter than the 3.5EB, will there be several levels of performance with the same engine, in the same vehicle, similar to this quote from the F650 article?


"The three diesel power levels available for the 2016 Ford F-650/F-750 are:

270 horsepower/675 lb.-ft. torque (best-in-class standard)
300 horsepower /700 lb.-ft. torque
330 horsepower/725 lb.-ft. torque

Multiple ratings provide customers with the flexibility to scale engine power to work applications and operations."
You would hope the could crank it up to eleven for duty in the LincStang!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,961 Posts
This question revolves around the MKS thread as well. Since we know the Nano will get better HP per liter than the 3.5EB, will there be several levels of performance with the same engine, in the same vehicle, similar to this quote from the F650 article?


"The three diesel power levels available for the 2016 Ford F-650/F-750 are:

270 horsepower/675 lb.-ft. torque (best-in-class standard)
300 horsepower /700 lb.-ft. torque
330 horsepower/725 lb.-ft. torque

Multiple ratings provide customers with the flexibility to scale engine power to work applications and operations."
Same engine denotes nothing changes, so of course it is not the same if output is different.
In the case of the Diesel applications, I don't know of any major changes, other than new cams, timing and possible turbo sizing.....specific to the needs and objectives of that class truck, vs an F250 with entirely different speed ranges, gearing, etc.

Obviously it would make zero sense to go through the entire process of component changes, just for slight power changes. And when I mean slight, I am referring to it's scaled proportions. When you start with 800tq and drop to 700tq, that is what, a 12.5% delta. For reference, a similar drop with 300tq, takes you to like 270 or so.

As for the Nano, there is in fact different upper end components (heads, cams, intakes, covers, etc. There is no reason to change a short block, other than bore/stroke. The tooling cost alone is major to shuttle a major component through a factory with different bore spacing or pitch, for example. Heck, just the shipping pallets along is a major cost.

Nothing new. Ford has been doing this for years.
I know that some here would not be satisfied until every single component is unique, but they need to get real. Ford's misison is to deliver great product and.....AND increase shareholder value.

Hard to do if you quadruple complexity and cost and reduce profit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,270 Posts
Same engine denotes nothing changes, so of course it is not the same if output is different.
In the case of the Diesel applications, I don't know of any major changes, other than new cams, timing and possible turbo sizing.....specific to the needs and objectives of that class truck, vs an F250 with entirely different speed ranges, gearing, etc....
I was thinking same parts, but different software tunes and or exhaust modification. One standard, one for the best MPG, and one for greater HP/Torque.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,961 Posts
^

yup. That too.
Optimization is not just squeezing out a peak power metric. So many factors come into play. An F250 is obviously not optimized for a range anything close to these bigger rigs, that may never even exceed 90mph, with much different work priorities. So with a simple cam swap and boost adjust, you bias that efficiency where it is needed. And not just for power, but efficiency, emissions reduction, haul/tow drivability, longevity, etc.

I think what we are seeing here, clearly, is that F250(as well as the competition) is biasing their big Diesels to create a brochure metric for bragging rights.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top