ECO-BOOST ENDANGERS THE FALCON V8?
[GET THE LATEST "TRUTH WITH SPEEDZZTER" HERE]
Australia’s “Drive” website is reporting that “With sales of Falcon dipping and emissions rules getting tougher, Ford Australia’s recently appointed president Bill Osborne is offering no guarantees a V8 engine is part of the Falcon’s future.”
Ford’s only V8 in the new 2008 FG Falcon is a 5.4 liter “Boss” modular V8 in the “XR8" model.
Apparently due to the developmental malaise which has enveloped the “Glass House” during the past decade or so, the tasty 5.4 liter “Boss” reportedly takes a back seat in maximum power output to an Australian-only inline six cylinder turbo.
[None of that should be big news to those savvy "Truth With Speedzzter" readers who understand the profound power production and efficiency advantages of forced induction over natural aspiration]
Of course “Yanks” who want a new Ford have to make do with much, much fewer than 32 valves and 331 cubic-inches of V8 hotness (save the virtually unobtainable Eaton supercharged 5.4 Shelby GT500).
Even so, a number of jaded Australian motorheads fail to realize how blessed-by-Dearborn they still are and whine obnoxiously about the whole FG Falcon concept. (see Julian Edgar's satrical "The Ideal Car for the Times" at Autospeed)
Maybe if they’d had a drought of Blue Oval sports sedans as long as the one still raging in the U.S.A., they’d be a tad more appreciative of the “Boss” V8 and a modern car which will accept such mills.
The problem going forward for the “land down under” apparently is Dearborn’s new commitment to “Eco-Boost” fours and sixes.
Meanwhile, General Motors (GM) brilliantly rolls along a multiple path strategy, including large-cube LS-style V8s, V8-electric hybrids (e.g. Chevrolet Tahoe) and turbocharged, direct-injected Ecotecs (e.g. Chevrolet Cobalt SS, HSR SS, Pontiac Solstice GXP, and Saturn Sky Red Line).
Such stories about FoMoCo's gross mismanagement of its V8 heritage lead Speedzzter to conclude that FoMoCo is in a virtual “give up” mode around the world. Apparently nobody in Alan Mulally’s regime understands that V8 power is a fundamental part of Ford’s heritage.
Nothing inherent in the storied V8 arrangement prohibits application of high performance efficiency technologies -- such as downsizing, forced induction, cylinder deactivation, variable intake manifolding, variable cam phasing and timing, direct injection, on-demand supplemental alcohol fueling, multiple electronic engine management programs with increased R.P.M. range, or even electric hybrid assist! Yet Ford continues to seriously lag behind numerous other OEMs in bringing these technologies to market.
Certainly, and long before the current fiscal crisis at FoMoCo, Ford has basically conceded whole segments of the performance market to others. In Australia, Ford gave up the V8 market to GM’s Holden from 1982 through 1991. In the U.S.A., Ford began falling behind GM in maximum power output in 1993 and has never caught up in several segments. Times only became worse (with the notable exception of a few limited production efforts by Team Mustang and SVT) during the failed tenure of William Clay Ford, Jr.
Undoubtedly, this “phone-it-in” mentality that seemingly pervades the Ford bureaucracy has lead to the faulty thinking (that would have been abhorred by notorious six-cylinder hater Henry Ford) that a forced-induction six will be “good enough.”
Ford’s apparently growing lack of competitiveness is augmented by the rampant “bean counter” fixation of Ford’s penny-pinching management. This directly lead to the unjustifiable delay in the “Hurricane/Boss” engine project and is seemingly at the root of Ford’s withholding of “Eco-Boost” from V8s.
The bottom line is that Ford won’t survive by imitating Lee Iacocca’s failed 1980s “new Chrysler” plan of reliance upon FWD turbos.
Ford’s enthusiast customer base relies upon FoMoCo to develop the next generation of V8s and a range of useful cars and trucks to install them in. Ford's enthusiastic V8 customers cannot do it alone. Without V8s, Ford is simply another boring “me-too” company that will fail dismally in competition with cheaper Asian imports.
To be sure, in the current environment, future V8s will need to be “assisted” with a whole plethora of high technology to balance performance with economy. However, as GM’s large V8 hybrid SUVs prove, such technologies can preserve much of the aural, sensory and psychological impact of traditional V8 motoring.
Certainly a electric hybrid V8 Shelby Mustang could not only serve as a “proof-of-concept” vehicle for more efficient high performance V8s, it would help justify the obscene price markups that Ford is forcing onto its loyal enthusiast customers. And it would preserve Ford’s V8 tradition into another generation.
Ford’s product planners should note that many performance enthusiasts will tolerate a more active motoring experience than the general public. Thus, the initial forays into hybridized V8s can be more “driver dependant” than a Toyota Prius. In fact, many enthusiasts would relish manually managing the balance of electric assist, regenerative braking, cylinder deactivation and manual gear selection as part of an active motoring experience. To offer enthusiasts a de-automated, high-performance V8-electric hybrid would be an instant segment buster. It would also allow FoMoCo to spread out mainstream development efforts over a longer time frame.
Ford will have abjectly failed in their leadership responsibility to their millions of enthusiast customers if it fails to adapt modern technology to V8s. On the other hand, a “right-sized” DOHC 32-valve V8 with turbocharging or “twincharging,” hybrid electric assist/ “high/low hybrid” capability, and the other aforementioned efficiency technologies would be a legendary power plant that would be adaptable to a number of sporting machines.
Ford is better situated than most to create such a V8 legend.
Unlike Toyota, Ford has a strong heritage of V8 power and motorsports, as well as a handful of appropriate RWD platforms. Unlike GM and Chrysler, FoMoCo has abandoned antediluvian 2-valve pushrod engine technology in favor of modern multivalve OHC engines. Unlike BMW, Porsche, Audi and Mercedes – all of which offer some modern V8 technologies in lands of high fuel costs – Ford has a strong moderate-price, mass market customer base.
Ford’s performance customers are searching for a way to integrate the advantages of smooth, responsive and satisfying V8 power in the 3-10 percent of “performance” motoring experiences with the 90-97 percent of “economy” modes of vehicle operation. A hybridized, Eco-Boost V8 of appropriate displacement would be the most flexible and operationally-satisfactory way to address this need.
And it would likely guarantee that our “mates” down in Australia will have the choice of modern V8 Falcons for years to come.
[GET THE LATEST "TRUTH WITH SPEEDZZTER" HERE]
Australia’s “Drive” website is reporting that “With sales of Falcon dipping and emissions rules getting tougher, Ford Australia’s recently appointed president Bill Osborne is offering no guarantees a V8 engine is part of the Falcon’s future.”
Ford’s only V8 in the new 2008 FG Falcon is a 5.4 liter “Boss” modular V8 in the “XR8" model.
Apparently due to the developmental malaise which has enveloped the “Glass House” during the past decade or so, the tasty 5.4 liter “Boss” reportedly takes a back seat in maximum power output to an Australian-only inline six cylinder turbo.
[None of that should be big news to those savvy "Truth With Speedzzter" readers who understand the profound power production and efficiency advantages of forced induction over natural aspiration]
Of course “Yanks” who want a new Ford have to make do with much, much fewer than 32 valves and 331 cubic-inches of V8 hotness (save the virtually unobtainable Eaton supercharged 5.4 Shelby GT500).
Even so, a number of jaded Australian motorheads fail to realize how blessed-by-Dearborn they still are and whine obnoxiously about the whole FG Falcon concept. (see Julian Edgar's satrical "The Ideal Car for the Times" at Autospeed)
Maybe if they’d had a drought of Blue Oval sports sedans as long as the one still raging in the U.S.A., they’d be a tad more appreciative of the “Boss” V8 and a modern car which will accept such mills.
The problem going forward for the “land down under” apparently is Dearborn’s new commitment to “Eco-Boost” fours and sixes.
Meanwhile, General Motors (GM) brilliantly rolls along a multiple path strategy, including large-cube LS-style V8s, V8-electric hybrids (e.g. Chevrolet Tahoe) and turbocharged, direct-injected Ecotecs (e.g. Chevrolet Cobalt SS, HSR SS, Pontiac Solstice GXP, and Saturn Sky Red Line).
Such stories about FoMoCo's gross mismanagement of its V8 heritage lead Speedzzter to conclude that FoMoCo is in a virtual “give up” mode around the world. Apparently nobody in Alan Mulally’s regime understands that V8 power is a fundamental part of Ford’s heritage.
Nothing inherent in the storied V8 arrangement prohibits application of high performance efficiency technologies -- such as downsizing, forced induction, cylinder deactivation, variable intake manifolding, variable cam phasing and timing, direct injection, on-demand supplemental alcohol fueling, multiple electronic engine management programs with increased R.P.M. range, or even electric hybrid assist! Yet Ford continues to seriously lag behind numerous other OEMs in bringing these technologies to market.
Certainly, and long before the current fiscal crisis at FoMoCo, Ford has basically conceded whole segments of the performance market to others. In Australia, Ford gave up the V8 market to GM’s Holden from 1982 through 1991. In the U.S.A., Ford began falling behind GM in maximum power output in 1993 and has never caught up in several segments. Times only became worse (with the notable exception of a few limited production efforts by Team Mustang and SVT) during the failed tenure of William Clay Ford, Jr.
Undoubtedly, this “phone-it-in” mentality that seemingly pervades the Ford bureaucracy has lead to the faulty thinking (that would have been abhorred by notorious six-cylinder hater Henry Ford) that a forced-induction six will be “good enough.”
Ford’s apparently growing lack of competitiveness is augmented by the rampant “bean counter” fixation of Ford’s penny-pinching management. This directly lead to the unjustifiable delay in the “Hurricane/Boss” engine project and is seemingly at the root of Ford’s withholding of “Eco-Boost” from V8s.
The bottom line is that Ford won’t survive by imitating Lee Iacocca’s failed 1980s “new Chrysler” plan of reliance upon FWD turbos.
Ford’s enthusiast customer base relies upon FoMoCo to develop the next generation of V8s and a range of useful cars and trucks to install them in. Ford's enthusiastic V8 customers cannot do it alone. Without V8s, Ford is simply another boring “me-too” company that will fail dismally in competition with cheaper Asian imports.
To be sure, in the current environment, future V8s will need to be “assisted” with a whole plethora of high technology to balance performance with economy. However, as GM’s large V8 hybrid SUVs prove, such technologies can preserve much of the aural, sensory and psychological impact of traditional V8 motoring.
Certainly a electric hybrid V8 Shelby Mustang could not only serve as a “proof-of-concept” vehicle for more efficient high performance V8s, it would help justify the obscene price markups that Ford is forcing onto its loyal enthusiast customers. And it would preserve Ford’s V8 tradition into another generation.
Ford’s product planners should note that many performance enthusiasts will tolerate a more active motoring experience than the general public. Thus, the initial forays into hybridized V8s can be more “driver dependant” than a Toyota Prius. In fact, many enthusiasts would relish manually managing the balance of electric assist, regenerative braking, cylinder deactivation and manual gear selection as part of an active motoring experience. To offer enthusiasts a de-automated, high-performance V8-electric hybrid would be an instant segment buster. It would also allow FoMoCo to spread out mainstream development efforts over a longer time frame.
Ford will have abjectly failed in their leadership responsibility to their millions of enthusiast customers if it fails to adapt modern technology to V8s. On the other hand, a “right-sized” DOHC 32-valve V8 with turbocharging or “twincharging,” hybrid electric assist/ “high/low hybrid” capability, and the other aforementioned efficiency technologies would be a legendary power plant that would be adaptable to a number of sporting machines.
Ford is better situated than most to create such a V8 legend.
Unlike Toyota, Ford has a strong heritage of V8 power and motorsports, as well as a handful of appropriate RWD platforms. Unlike GM and Chrysler, FoMoCo has abandoned antediluvian 2-valve pushrod engine technology in favor of modern multivalve OHC engines. Unlike BMW, Porsche, Audi and Mercedes – all of which offer some modern V8 technologies in lands of high fuel costs – Ford has a strong moderate-price, mass market customer base.
Ford’s performance customers are searching for a way to integrate the advantages of smooth, responsive and satisfying V8 power in the 3-10 percent of “performance” motoring experiences with the 90-97 percent of “economy” modes of vehicle operation. A hybridized, Eco-Boost V8 of appropriate displacement would be the most flexible and operationally-satisfactory way to address this need.
And it would likely guarantee that our “mates” down in Australia will have the choice of modern V8 Falcons for years to come.
Labels: Boss V8, Eco-Boost, Falcon, Mustang, Shelby GT500
posted by Editor at 09:18
0 comments
