Has the I6 got anything left?

[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.

[Dr Smith]

IIRC, the FG I6 puts out more then 195 kW if fed premium (95ron) and more again if run on 98ron.

[vztrt]

The I6 has plenty of life in it. It will all depend what Ford are willing to spend on the engine and if it is feasible to keep it alive. Euro 4 is easy....Euro 5...well I think the I6 will be put to bed...mind you it survived in recent times so who knows.

[Bossxr8]

Thats about it, Euro 4 isn't too much of a step, the engines will just have detail changes to get it, but Euro 5 is a much bigger step. Emmisions are required to nearly halve for Euro 5.

It will kill the I6, make no mistake about that. The government hasn't set the date for Euro 5 yet, but it would explain why Marin said the I6 is good until at least 2015/2016, because that will probably be about when Euro 5 will be intoduced here.

[Daymoe]

Originally Posted by vztrt

The I6 has plenty of life in it. It will all depend what Ford are willing to spend on the engine and if it is feasible to keep it alive. Euro 4 is easy....Euro 5...well I think the I6 will be put to bed...mind you it survived in recent times so who knows.

The rules can always change, you never know what can happen, maybe the I6 will stay on for the next 40 years? Who knows, we'll find out when we get to the next stage.

Lets just enjoy what we have now and think about what to do when we come to it.

[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.

[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.

[malazn mafia]

Hmm.. somebody enlighten me, but if i'm not mistaken, weren't the 4.2 Litre Hemi Straight-6's (e.g. Hemi 265) able to push upwards of 225Kw naturally aspirated using old-school dizzy/carburettors/etc. How come after over 30 years we are only barely starting to see these figures again on Na 6 engines : ...

[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.

[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.

[Road_Warrior]

A camless valvetrain would be kinda cool.

[naddis01]

Originally Posted by malazn mafia

Hmm.. somebody enlighten me, but if i'm not mistaken, weren't the 4.2 Litre Hemi Straight-6's (e.g. Hemi 265) able to push upwards of 225Kw naturally aspirated using old-school dizzy/carburettors/etc. How come after over 30 years we are only barely starting to see these figures again on Na 6 engines : ...

Emissions control

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by montyv8

Lies!!!


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

[PepeLePew]

Originally Posted by naddis01

Emissions control

And it'd be interesting to see those same vehicles measured on a modern dyno with all the accessories intact

Correct me if Im wrong (and Im happy to be), but werent those numbers measured under different regimes and a bit more generous than todays?

[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*

[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.

[Wally]

Originally Posted by montyv8

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*

I know, I was just one upping the LOL.

[robertjp]

With Euro 5 what is the big sticking point for the I6? Could this be the reason for FORD's push for LPI, replacing all petrol engines with this one to reach this emmisions target.

What happens if there are EURO 6, everyone will have to have a pedal car like the Flinstones.

As has been stated I would love to see some for of VVL (Variable Valve Lift) and DI, with a reduced stroke to let the sucker rev higher.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by robertjp

With Euro 5 what is the big sticking point for the I6? Could this be the reason for FORD's push for LPI, replacing all petrol engines with this one to reach this emmisions target.

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

Thats about it, Euro 4 isn't too much of a step, the engines will just have detail changes to get it, but Euro 5 is a much bigger step. Emmisions are required to nearly halve for Euro 5.

With the money that would need to be invested to make the I6 Euro 5 compliant, it would probably cause the price of every Falcon variant to be upped a few grand just to cover the R&D costs. This is where the new global V6 comes in. Eventually. In a galaxy far, far away.

[imugli]

From GoAuto

LINK

[Road_Warrior]

Bumping this thread

A moot discussion topic now that Holden's V6 engine plans are public knowledge, with the following figures:

Omega / Berlina
3.0L SIDI V6 (LF1)
190 @ 6700
290 @ 2900
91 RON
6L50E 6sp Auto
9.3L/100

SV6/Calais/Statesmen/Caprice
3.6L SIDI V6 (LLT)
VE, WM MY10
210 @ 6400
350 @ 2900
91 RON
6L50E 6sp Auto
10.1 - 10.3L/100

So...back to the original question...where does this leave the I6?

[NC1183]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Bumping this thread

A moot discussion topic now that Holden's V6 engine plans are public knowledge, with the following figures:

Omega / Berlina
3.0L SIDI V6 (LF1)
190 @ 6700
290 @ 2900
91 RON
6L50E 6sp Auto
9.3L/100

SV6/Calais/Statesmen/Caprice
3.6L SIDI V6 (LLT)
VE, WM MY10
210 @ 6400
350 @ 2900
91 RON
6L50E 6sp Auto
10.1 - 10.3L/100

So...back to the original question...where does this leave the I6?

With a bucket load of torque from lower in the rev range.

Hopefully the upgraded I6 will improve this and things for Ford greatly

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

With the money that would need to be invested to make the I6 Euro 5 compliant, it would probably cause the price of every Falcon variant to be upped a few grand just to cover the R&D costs. This is where the new global V6 comes in. Eventually. In a galaxy far, far away.

Actually it was discussed and if you look the change from Euro 4 to 5 isn't that big of a jump.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Actually it was discussed and if you look the change from Euro 4 to 5 isn't that big of a jump.

It's still fundage that needs to be found and allocated from somewhere.

There will be the Euro 4 update next year come July and I would expect that this would coincide with the FGII update. Then 12 months after that we may see a 'new' model with revised sheetmetal (as has been referred to) but what changes will the I6 get to remain competitive? This engine will have to last until 2013-ish as FoA made the decision to can the V6 program, and there's no turning back now, not with the current platform anyway.

[Paxton]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

It's still fundage that needs to be found and allocated from somewhere.

There will be the Euro 4 update next year come July and I would expect that this would coincide with the FGII update. Then 12 months after that we may see a 'new' model with revised sheetmetal (as has been referred to) but what changes will the I6 get to remain competitive? This engine will have to last until 2013-ish as FoA made the decision to can the V6 program, and there's no turning back now, not with the current platform anyway.

Who is to say this hasn't already been looked into. My information says that there is plenty left in the I6. With Australia not even cemented into ratifying Euro V, Ford have some breathing space.

There was a slightly hidden message in the information released with the I4T. Let's say that the I6 has a rosy future, and this leads to something else very dear to Falcon Fans' hearts.

[PepeLePew]

Having driven most iterations of the L6, who'd have thought we'd be sitting here today with a low revving boat anchor perceived as a good tow engine and not much else transformed into what it is, possibly one of the worlds finest L6's?

I'd love Ford Aus to pursue this engine to its ultimate conclusion.

PS Looks like Holden think that killer wasp number is pretty important to Joe Q....ah power games