Has the I6 got anything left?

[Road_Warrior]

Reading about the coming Direct Injection update for the Commodore (3.0L at first, who knows for the 3.6) of course made me think about the Falcon's trusty I6. If the Commodore gets a DI 3.6 litre V6 then the I6 will be out-powered (but not out-grunted) for the first time in years. Probably bring fuel economy improvements with it as well.

So where does that leave the I6? Not really knowing what Ford's long-term plan is for the engine (for argument's sake, let's just say it will be around until 2013) it could be anything, but I would imagine that any sort of investment in the engine of the level required to bring DI to the I6 would be out of the question I would have thought. It's an 'orphan' engine don't forget and Ford is strapped for cash.

I would have thought that the I6 in it's current guise would pretty much be at it's power ceiling (I'm talking about the n/a version here). But there could be some fuel efficiency improvements still to come. Electric waterpump and power steering? Engine block pre-heaters to cut down the warmup times? Cylinder deactivation (which it already has but as an overheating failsafe)? Stop-idle function?

Would Ford even bother trying to compete? The engine may be down on power compared to the 3.6 DI but still would have more torque. And then of course, there is the turbo motor for performance and premium applications. But being green is the thing these days and if they don't compete at least on a fuel consumption level, they'll get left behind.

Discuss.

[ltd]

No, with DI ford will have an even greater amount of power and better fuel economy. Look for a power output of about 220-225kw and fuel use down to about 8l/100klm on the combined cycle. There's still heaps of innovations available and from what I've heard, most of them will be used once the Euro4 emmissions standards come in 2010.
Things like piston design, tolerances, compression ration, dual spark, lower idle rpm, more knock sensors etc etc can add to fuel efficiency and increase power.

[PepeLePew]

You'd assume Ford has DI on the cards if the engine still has a future?

Tis unfortunate that power numbers sell, torque is still too technical for Joe Q Public to wrap their minds around.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by PepeLePew

You'd assume Ford has DI on the cards if the engine still has a future?

Tis unfortunate that power numbers sell, torque is still too technical for Joe Q Public to wrap their minds around.

I doubt Joe Q Public buy on power or "torque".

I have a friend who is a lead engineer in a notable European hi performance organisation... he forbids his engineers to reference torque, correctly deferring to power instead. If an engine develops more power than another engine at the same revs then obviously the torque calc will show a higher comparable figure. Nothing mystical about it, just juggling figures.

The one good thing about manufacturers supplying a torque figure is that it can be converted back to a power figure and thus a rough performance curve. Likewise the power figure can be converted to a torque value to get an idea of area under the curve for acceleration. Neither of which are of any interest to the average car buyer, who either likes how it feels or doesn't and has to make a decison how important that is in the scheme of things.

[Falcon Coupe]

Originally Posted by Wally

I doubt Joe Q Public buy on power or "torque".

I have a friend who is a lead engineer in a notable European hi performance organisation... he forbids his engineers to reference torque, correctly deferring to power instead. If an engine develops more power than another engine at the same revs then obviously the torque calc will show a higher comparable figure. Nothing mystical about it, just juggling figures.

The one good thing about manufacturers supplying a torque figure is that it can be converted back to a power figure and thus a rough performance curve. Likewise the power figure can be converted to a torque value to get an idea of area under the curve for acceleration. Neither of which are of any interest to the average car buyer, who either likes how it feels or doesn't and has to make a decison how important that is in the scheme of things.

Alloytec: Power 190kW @ 6500 rpm (Alloytec 190)
Torque: 340Nm @ 3200 rpm (Alloytec 190)

Barra 182: Power 182KW
Torque 380Nm

You didn't takes cubes into account, cubes give free torque, also the fact a V6 making the power higher in the range means more fuel consumption.

Said fuel economy is then on the sticker of all new cars that Joe Average does see, not to mention media tests and articles.

After going from an I6 to a V6 for towing (and using a heap more fuel in the process) i will never buy another.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

Alloytec: Power 190kW @ 6500 rpm (Alloytec 190)
Torque: 340Nm @ 3200 rpm (Alloytec 190)

Barra 182: Power 182KW
Torque 380Nm

You didn't takes cubes into account, cubes give free torque, also the fact a V6 making the power higher in the range means more fuel consumption.

Said fuel economy is then on the sticker of all new cars that Joe Average does see, not to mention media tests and articles.

After going from an I6 to a V6 for towing (and using a heap more fuel in the process) i will never buy another.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with that post, but torque values increase as power increases relative to rpm. Alll things being equal a larger displacement engine does tend to inherently have a lower rpm peak BMEP and thus VE In combination with increased displacement it will produce a higher torque figure.

If you load an engine at rpms lower than or higher than peak torque the VE is going to refelect the loss of efficeincy. In the case of your V6. I would suggest the average rpm was not within the best VE band, probably by necessity.

[montyv8]

Originally Posted by Wally

I doubt Joe Q Public buy on power or "torque".

I have a friend who is a lead engineer in a notable European hi performance organisation... he forbids his engineers to reference torque, correctly deferring to power instead. If an engine develops more power than another engine at the same revs then obviously the torque calc will show a higher comparable figure. Nothing mystical about it, just juggling figures.

The one good thing about manufacturers supplying a torque figure is that it can be converted back to a power figure and thus a rough performance curve. Likewise the power figure can be converted to a torque value to get an idea of area under the curve for acceleration. Neither of which are of any interest to the average car buyer, who either likes how it feels or doesn't and has to make a decison how important that is in the scheme of things.

Lies!!!















people called Wally don't have friends who are lead engineers in notable European hi performance organisations.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by montyv8

Lies!!!


people called Wally don't have friends who are lead engineers in notable European hi performance organisations.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by montyv8

Lies!!!















people called Wally don't have friends who are lead engineers in notable European hi performance organisations.

My name isn't really Wally you know and I trust calling me a liar was tongue in cheek, because that would be breaking the rules wouldn't it?

[montyv8]

Originally Posted by Wally

My name isn't really Wally you know and I trust calling me a liar was tongue in cheek, because that would be breaking the rules wouldn't it?

yes it was tongue in cheek. No its not breaking the rules if it's warranted. But in this case, purely in jest.

back in the day, when i walked to school in 5ft of snow in 40deg cel. heat, uphill both ways no less, the reply from the person would have been something along the lines of ' : '

*sigh*

[futura97]

I thought ford was dumping the I6 in favour of a V6... And this was meant to be happening in the next couple of years?!

Edit - Article here...

Seems like holden are only going DI because ford where going to beat them to it anyway...

[Falc'man]

The I6 as it is now would still out-torque the DI 3.6L V6. Come 2010 the standard I6 available in the base model Falcon will still be favoured as the best 6 cylinder on the market: in this range, of course.

There is one thing you cannot take away from the Alloytec, no matter what you throw at it; coarseness!

Originally Posted by futura97

I thought ford was dumping the I6 in favour of a V6... And this was meant to be happening in the next couple of years?!

Edit - Article here...

Seems like holden are only going DI because ford where going to beat them to it anyway...

No, I6 will stay on. That's a very old article.

[futura97]

learn something every day Have you got a link to an article about the changes they are making to the I6?

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by futura97

learn something every day Have you got a link to an article about the changes they are making to the I6?

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11241338

[Kieron]

Holden are releasing a 3L DI/6 speed auto later this year, fuel economy is reported to be in the 9.5/100 range so i'd say 8/100 for a 4.0/6 speed auto Falc is a bit optimistic

futura, they reversed that decision and the I6 stays. Not sure what thay says about the unique Falcon but it wouldn't be surprised if it's a sign of the demise of the Aussie Falc.

Not sure Holden are going DI due to Ford, that V6 is GM's world donk so the decision would have been more to do with whats needed worldwide in the battered GM bunker.

As for the I6, DI and cylinder deactivation are the obvious next step as already mentioned.
IIRC the reversal decision was based on the Aus govt. throwing some money Fords way which will be used for the I6's upcoming Euro 4 compliance so i'm thinking a few software tweaks + peripheral components such as exhaust/cat con's and thats about it.

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Reading about the coming Direct Injection update for the Commodore (3.0L at first, who knows for the 3.6) of course made me think about the Falcon's trusty I6. If the Commodore gets a DI 3.6 litre V6 then the I6 will be out-powered (but not out-grunted) for the first time in years. Probably bring fuel economy improvements with it as well.

When the Alloytech came in 2004 it had 190kw, and the Barra had 182kw. When the Barra jumped to 190kw, the Alloytech had 195kw.
Now they are on equal footing with the 195kw FG.

So your comment on the Falcon being out powered for the first time in years isnt exactly accurate.

[Mr Hardware]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

When the Alloytech came in 2004 it had 190kw, and the Barra had 182kw. When the Barra jumped to 190kw, the Alloytech had 195kw.
Now they are on equal footing with the 195kw FG.

So your comment on the Falcon being out powered for the first time in years isnt exactly accurate.

Dude, your figures are for the hi-po commodore six, not the normal one
the VZ of 2004 had 172kw where as the BA had 182kw
The VE of 2006 had 180kw where as the BF has 190kw
now the FG has 195kw

about the only time the commodore outpowered the falcon was in 1986/1987 with the 114kw VL vs the 104?kw XF.

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by Mr Hardware

Dude, your figures are for the hi-po commodore six, not the normal one
the VZ of 2004 had 172kw where as the BA had 182kw
The VE of 2006 had 180kw where as the BF has 190kw
now the FG has 195kw

about the only time the commodore outpowered the falcon was in 1986/1987 with the 114kw VL vs the 104?kw XF.

I knew someone would bring that up..

Well the same could apply to the EA-EB1 then, and also the XFs

Base model 3.9L EA-EBIs had 120kw, VN/VP Commodore had 125kw
And im glad you brought up the XF, base model XF had 90kw (and 3.2L EAs) , VL had 114kw

[ltd]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

I knew someone would bring that up..

Well the same could apply to the EA-EB1 then, and also the XFs

Base model 3.9L EA-EBIs had 120kw, VN/VP Commodore had 125kw
And im glad you brought up the XF, base model XF had 90kw (and 3.2L EAs) , VL had 114kw

I had a DA LTD back in the day with a 3.9 and a 3 speed. I think you'll find it was 139kw for the mpefi engine. Was that 120kw for the CFI 3.9?

[Kenaz]

Originally Posted by ltd

Was that 120kw for the CFI 3.9?

Correct The less said about these, the better.

[mik]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

When the Alloytech came in 2004 it had 190kw, and the Barra had 182kw. When the Barra jumped to 190kw, the Alloytech had 195kw.
Now they are on equal footing with the 195kw FG.

So your comment on the Falcon being out powered for the first time in years isnt exactly accurate.

i really don`think they were/are on equal footing, the alloy tech has to go out to 6500 rpm to get 195 kw, none the less its probably no slouch once wound up, torque figure is also less than the henry .... ve commodore 6/High Output Alloytec: 340Nm @ 2600rpm

bf falcon figures: Max Power: 190kW @ 5250rpm. Max Torque: 383Nm @ 2500rpm

FG Falcon NA peak power for the six-cylinder rise to 198kW at 6,000rpm and torque increase to 409Nm at 3,250rpm.

[Bluehoon]

Potential and life is of the I6 is proportionate to costs of development which is driven by consumer demand. Demand is driven by the facts / perception behind the product.

Many owners wouldn't even know what's under the bonnet except for when they boot it, it goes.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by Bluehoon

Potential and life is of the I6 is proportionate to costs of development which is driven by consumer demand. Demand is driven by the facts / perception behind the product.

Many owners wouldn't even know what's under the bonnet except for when they boot it, it goes.

Too true. I don't know how many Falcon I6s are sold per annum, but I would hazzard a guess that 90- 95% of local car purchases don't have one under the bonnet.

[Road_Warrior]

Given the cost involved with developing DI for the I6, I can't see it happening. Would be good, but...not tonight, Josephine.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Given the cost involved with developing DI for the I6, I can't see it happening. Would be good, but...not tonight, Josephine.

Mate, it is happening. The I6 can't make Euro4 without it. Further, the I6 plant is going beyond the previous 2010 close down.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by ltd

Mate, it is happening. The I6 can't make Euro4 without it. Further, the I6 plant is going beyond the previous 2010 close down.

lol, all the I6 will be getting to pass Euro 4 is a revised catalyser and ECU calibration. It's not much. The Euro 4 changes were already drawn up when the decision was made to switch to the V6.

Don't forget, Euro 4 is all about tailpipe emissions. Fuel economy is a market driven thing.

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by ltd

Mate, it is happening. The I6 can't make Euro4 without it. Further, the I6 plant is going beyond the previous 2010 close down.

No DI for the forseeable future unfortunately.

It's all about calibration, electronics and the exhaust system next year...

[ltd]

Originally Posted by Barraxr8

No DI for the forseeable future unfortunately.

It's all about calibration, electronics and the exhaust system next year...

Yeah you're right, I was getting confused with the announcement I heard of the direct gas injection. Sorry.

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by ltd

Yeah you're right, I was getting confused with the announcement I heard of the direct gas injection. Sorry.

That Gas engine will be a ripper I'm sure .... :

[R-Design]

"GoAuto understands the upgrade will focus on injection, calibration and exhaust, and company sources have confirmed the work will not involve moving to a direct injection system."

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...257507000C2D46